I think Robert Comsol's post above is very interesting, because it makes it clear that the conflict was not a one way street, and that the Klingons felt themselves to be somewhat persecuted by the Federation. It wasn't simply the case of there being stereotypical "good guys" and "bad guys", both sides have always been more like each other than either is probably willing to admit.
What I've alway taken from this is, the Federation initial response to Klingon violence was economic measures.KIRK: They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens. They're openly aggressive.
KOR: You've tried to hem us in, cut off vital supplies, strangle our trade
By the time TNG comes round it's clearly all bunny rabbits and puppy dogs between 'em (until the Dominion comes along and starts to piss in the water of course).
In the first season of TNG when we see the Klingons it's implied that the 'Old ways of the Klingon Empire' have changed and they're no longer the fierce warriors they once were.
From what we can tell from watching Trek, the Klingon Empire is an Empire of subjugated planets and civilisations.
This means the Klingons are a dictatorship and have conquered planets and took away freedoms and democracy.
To change this would result in the collapse of the Klingon Empire.
So how can the Federation morally and ethically and in all good conscience become an ally and officially sign an alliance agreement with such an entity as the Klingon Empire?
The Klingon Empire goes against everything the Federation stands for.
Soceities change over time due to a number of factors including contact with other socities, are our socities the same as they were a hundred years ago?
Both are expansionist. The Klingons by "conquest" the Federation by "invitation". Both take a previously independent planet, and cause it to conform to a new standard of behavior.
Soceities change over time due to a number of factors including contact with other socities, are our socities the same as they were a hundred years ago?
I realize that societies can change over time.
What was the impetus that caused such a dramatic transformation of Klingon society?
There was no outside force, as far as I know, that imposed change on the Klingons. Barbarism, militarism, and imperialism were deeply rooted in Klingon culture and psyche, and perhaps, in their biology as well.
To me, it just seemed too dramatic and unrealistic for such a change to have happened, especially if there was a biological imperative for the Klingons to be barbaric.
When the ST writers conceived of the Klingons back whenever, I assume they created the Klingons to be analogous to the Soviets.
If you look at Russia today, it's seems to be reverting back to what it was during the Soviet (minus the communist ideology) and czarist times; that is, it is becoming once again imperialistic, anti-democratic, and anti-Western. And it is still very corrupt. And this is happening only about a generation removed from the collapse of the USSR.
I guess there really was not a fundamental reformation that took place there after the collapse.
I think the Soviet/Russia-Klingon analogy is apt in so many ways.
I realize that the Klingons and the Feds made peace during the time of The Undiscovered Country. Is that when the transformation began? Why?
How could a piece of paper, or whatever they used for the treaty, so dramatically change a society? It's unrealistic. Just look at what's happening in today's real world with Russia.
In addition, the Klingons didn't look to the Federation for inspiration. They were fiercely proud of their own culture and history. The Klingons didn't want to be like the Federation. Why would they change?
What caused the Klingon society to so dramatically change (other than the TNG writers making the change)? Is there something in ST canon that logically explains it?
Both are expansionist. The Klingons by "conquest" the Federation by "invitation". Both take a previously independent planet, and cause it to conform to a new standard of behavior.
But the Federation doesn't force worlds to join. The Klingons do.
The Federation has every right to make its case, so to speak - to point out the benefits that a world will receive if it joins. But if that world chooses not to, the Federation will leave them alone.
The Klingons, OTOH, force worlds to join their empire whether those worlds want it or not. Conquest is completely different from invitation.
if a political power actively seeks out new members, helps them conform to the standards needed to join the political power, considers gaining new members to be an important goal, invests tremendous resources into gaining new members (all of which the Federation does) then it can be called expansionist.
if a political power actively seeks out new members, helps them conform to the standards needed to join the political power, considers gaining new members to be an important goal, invests tremendous resources into gaining new members (all of which the Federation does) then it can be called expansionist.
Sure, but it's the right kind.
The Federation has the right to expand. It does so the right way. You can't fault them for that. And like I said, it never forces anyone to join, so there's no downside to this.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.