Very confused with Klingons

[7thsealord]

Indeed. Nothing says that everything about a culture has to make sense. Not even the Vulcans have managed that trick.

 

[Knight Templar]

I don't remember the DS9 episode, but I think it was the one where Worf kills Gowron. Dax tells Worf that the Klingon Empire is decaying (or dying) and that Worf's willingness to put up with all the betrayals and subterfuge is a sign of that.

and remember the earlier Klingon episode featuring Kor, Kang, and Koloth.

Kang says plainly that "Klingon honor isn't what it used to be".

 

[indolover]

The major point of the episode was to highlight how Klingons can be corrupt (and I guess show how Worf faces up to that side of his people).

I think the Duras family had too many allies, and the Council simply felt to cover it up then let it out.

Does it make sense? IMO, yes. Though Duras' family were the true traitors, he and his allies didn't care, due to them being corrupt. Also, the Council thought (understandably IMO) that Worf would not accept the challenge since they mistakenly thought he would be "unKlingon", due to living in the Federation most of his life.

Worf and Kurn, and the House of Mogh in general, got a real bum deal from it, but it was a complex scenario. The only true option, apart from civil war, was probably for Worf to accept discommendation.

 

[Timo]

...Or perhaps to slay the Council and start a new dynasty. Coups might well bring stability to the Klingon society, considering how their military and perhaps also their civil service is based on the idea of actively deposing the superior in the opposite of the "Peter Principle". Worf just didn't know his Klingon culture well enough to realize and exploit this.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

Watching Redemption right now. But you would think anyone that was his ally would desert him after finding out his father was a traitor there for taking any power he had away from him? Why support someone whos father betrayed your people?

Ronald Reagan's administration sold arms to the Iranian government, the sworn enemy of the United States, in defiance of federal law, in order to fund anti-Communist terrorists in Latin America. People still adore him.

Bottom line: Political loyalty is not always subject to logic, and treason is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Tina Lawton]

Gee, and to think I came back here to get away from politics.

 

[Sci]

Gee, and to think I came back here to get away from politics.

Politics is merely the process by which power is distributed between two or more people when they interact with one-another. You can never escape politics, because all human (or, in the world of Star Trek, sentient) interaction is inherently political.

 

[Gary7]

Watching Redemption right now. But you would think anyone that was his ally would desert him after finding out his father was a traitor there for taking any power he had away from him? Why support someone whos father betrayed your people?

Ronald Reagan's administration sold arms to the Iranian government, the sworn enemy of the United States, in defiance of federal law, in order to fund anti-Communist terrorists in Latin America. People still adore him.

Bottom line: Political loyalty is not always subject to logic, and treason is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed. Another case of "the ends justifies the means," wasn't it?

 

[Sci]

Watching Redemption right now. But you would think anyone that was his ally would desert him after finding out his father was a traitor there for taking any power he had away from him? Why support someone whos father betrayed your people?

Ronald Reagan's administration sold arms to the Iranian government, the sworn enemy of the United States, in defiance of federal law, in order to fund anti-Communist terrorists in Latin America. People still adore him.

Bottom line: Political loyalty is not always subject to logic, and treason is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed. Another case of "the ends justifies the means," wasn't it?

I'm not going to argue one way or the other on Iran-Contra -- I brought it up as a dramatic real-world illustration about how an act that seems treasonous may still not be enough for powerful political factions to abandon those who committed the act.