Was Dukat really evil?

[Ragitsu]

Ah, gotcha.

I dunno, sometimes I think that....and this is crazy....fans might not remember details from shows from 30 years ago.

You mean shows that are still available today? Shows that most of us here have probably watched more than once (from start to finish)?

.

 

[Captain Jerk]

I see no reason to believe that Jake chose to be the Wraiths’ vessel.

I’m not sure that Kira had a choice either. Odo states, probably correctly, that if she’d been given a choice, she would have chosen to let the Prophets have their way with her. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she was actually given that choice.

You're right that the Pah-wraith, being "evil" and all, most likely "forced himself" upon poor Jake (lol), but see below from the episode -- the Prophet (being a force for "good") took Kira only because she was willing (implying consent was given, indirectly or directly):

KIRA: You are the Sisko.
SISKO: Keep your hands off your weapons. It's a Prophet. Why have you taken this woman's body?
KIRA: This vessel is willing. The reckoning. It is time.

(Later on.)
KIRA: I heard that you told the Captain that I was willing to give my life to serve the Prophets. I appreciate that you respect my beliefs.
ODO: Just the same, I wouldn't have minded if the Prophets had chosen someone else.

 

[fireproof78]

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Assignment_(episode)

Yes.

Back in their quarters, Keiko reveals that she was conscious the entire time, but the Pah-wraith was in complete control of her body. Her mind was a helpless observer, "like being stuck in sand and squeezed" whenever she tried to move, hearing and feeling herself speak and unable to affect any of it. She was, however, able to feel its emotions sometimes, but there was only a cold rage. Keiko tells Miles that she doubts the Pah-wraith would have spared either of them.

Sounds like O'Brien's experience in TNG.

 

[at Quark's]

You're right that the Pah-wraith, being "evil" and all, most likely "forced himself" upon poor Jake (lol), but see below from the episode -- the Prophet (being a force for "good") took Kira only because she was willing (implying consent was given, indirectly or directly):

Nah, I think the Pah Wraith convinced him with arguments that sounded reasonable enough.

Pah-Wraith: 'Excuse me, boy, I need your body for a while. May I borrow it?'
Jake: 'Who are you and what do you want?'
Pah-Wraith: I am a Pah Wraith. My goal is to destroy the prophets, the so-called Gods of Bajor. Also, I would like to torture the hated Emissary, your father, for a bit before I bring him down to his demise, as I'd like to do to all of those that believe in those prophets. Your body will first be damaged and then completely burned out as a result of my possessing and inhabiting it. Not that it matters, because I wish to plunge the entire Alpha Quadrant into flames for all eternity so you're not going to survive anyway. In short, I wish to use your body to manifest those evil desires.
Jake: 'Ok, sounds like a really cool idea. Let's go!'

 

[Captain Jerk]

^ nice, it's skit time again I see. I like skits.

(Jake is in bed asleep.)

DEMON: Psst. Jake. Jaaaaaaaaakeeeeeee.....
JAKE (stirs awake): Mommy? Is that you?
DEMON: No, Jake, it's not "Mommy".
JAKE: Santa??
DEMON: No, stupid!
JAKE: Then I'm not interested. I'm busy right now. I was in the middle of the most wonderful dream... Angry Klingons were killing a bunch of innocent civilians and Starfleet personnel alike, and I ran for it! I ran like hell and didn't look back, son! It was AWESOME.
DEMON: That....really happened. That's why I've chosen you to be my vessel. Because you're such a little piece of shit, dude.
JAKE: Oh come on now. Was I a complete coward? Yes. But I did what ANYONE would have done in the same situation: Put my own life ahead of everyone else's, and use crying babies as human shields while lasers were being fired at me.
DEMON: Jesus, you did that? I thought I was bad. Maybe you should be the one possessing ME, not the other way around!
JAKE: Listen, unless you have some crying babies or toddlers lying around you want me to point in the direction of incoming gunfire right now, I'm not interested. This is lame, I'm going back to bed...

 

[Ragitsu]

If Dukat had worn facial hair, more people would have cottoned on to his diabolical nature.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

He looks weird with such rosy skin color.

 

[Watersluis]

I'm not sure I would call someone that tries to kill her mother because she finds out she has been collaborating with the enemy, and finds at the critical moment she can't do it even though she's killed random strangers before a hypocrite - just someone who finds herself in a situation where principled and personal motives clash.

I would only call Kira a hypocrite if she would afterwards have glossed over or rationalized it to justify her behavior ('My mother wasn't really helping the enemy, she only provided relief service, so she was innocent; no reason to kill her'). Kira never did that, she openly admitted that she had a very hard time finding out her mother collaborated and then about her conflict whether to kill her or not.

And had he succeeded, should he be tried for murder?
One would instinctively say yes, yet, Kira was given some kind of general pardon already for all such murders during the occupation of mere suspected collaborators.

I did like the characterization of the character as well as many other resistance fighters in portraying them as outright xenophobic. One forgets quite often that it often takes a xenophobe to become a resistance hero in a time of war, who would probably have simply hated foreigners in a time of peace. I truly enjoyed how D.S.9. outlined many a grim reality far removed from idealized portrayals of such things.

 

[Ragitsu]

The more I think on the subject, the more I realize that Dukat's perspective makes perfect sense...if you - an individual he's interacting with - are a victim of abuse that has transferred culpability from the abuser to yourself. "You made me do it.", in a nutshell. That's the way he fosters (superficially pleasant) relationships: ingratiating himself with others until he can start incrementally leveraging misplaced guilt.

 

[Snowdrop82]

Dukat is a complex character for sure. He is definitely not a saint, but I also believe that he had many redeeming traits within his inner personality complex. He was highly intelligent, motivated, and cunning. In the right circumstances one would have called him Heroic, and he did help Sisko several times.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

And had he succeeded, should he be tried for murder?
One would instinctively say yes, yet, Kira was given some kind of general pardon already for all such murders during the occupation of mere suspected collaborators.

I did like the characterization of the character as well as many other resistance fighters in portraying them as outright xenophobic. One forgets quite often that it often takes a xenophobe to become a resistance hero in a time of war, who would probably have simply hated foreigners in a time of peace. I truly enjoyed how D.S.9. outlined many a grim reality far removed from idealized portrayals of such things.

Anyone who grows up where all the outsiders are ruthlessly exploiting and torturing them is going to grow up xenophobic.

The thing about Dukat's redeeming traits, other than the subject of Ziyal arguably, is that they were all a show to try to get credit and aggrandize himself.

 

[Shawn Clement]

So, I have a different take on the topic. This might get a little long winded so hold onto your stirups.
1. Who is the 'judge' and what set of morals are we judging a Cardassian on?

2. One problem I had with the writers of DS9 in reference to Cardassians is that they failed to provide any consistency on their presentation of Cardassians. What I mean is, they began the series reflecting the post WW I Germans, but instead of keeping that image, transitioned the Cardassians to post Soviet collapsing Russia. They set the people up for failure by removing all of the benefits Russia enjoyed (high inventory of resources, but severe winters) and placed them in a generic desert environment.

3. So, let us look at the similarities between Russia and Cardassian politics with the inclusion of the Federation/U.S. first, there was 70 years of animosity and two wars that were stalemates before the Dominion War. (Bad blood so one side will always view the other as being evil), the two Klingon Wars were KDF invasions that failed, and human colonization long before Bajor was occupied (Chakotai claimed his ancestors had been on the planet for hundreds of years). So, continuous wars may portray one side being 'evil'.

4. Cardassians have been taught that to prevent others from deceiving or attacking you; you must portray an image of strength. This is a Russian trait and explains the aggressive threatening attitudes. Dukat believing that every advantage obtained is an advantage over his enemy. I would also point out that he had a mental breakdown when his daughter died and was probably mentally unfit to make sane choices. Also, it wasn't long after her death that Dukat was possessed by a Pah Wraith

So. That adds to the judgement.

 

[Watersluis]

Anyone who grows up where all the outsiders are ruthlessly exploiting and torturing them is going to grow up xenophobic.

I disagree. Even outside of such times, why did almost all revolutionaries eventually become dictators? Lenin, Castro, Robespierre, even Gandhi all started with what originally seemed noble intentions but soon revealed their autocratic and dogmatic nature.

For a man to pick up the sword against such odds, against a more powerful foe, he must truly from the bottom of his heart believe in what he fights for, and that is very dogmatic mentality. — Even someone such as Richard Stallman is known to be uncompromising and dogmatic in his dealings and constantly believing that his way is the one right way and that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, yet, it seems that such qualities are necessary for a man to start a movement.

All great Davids of history who rose against goliath, successfully or not, were highly dogmatic and autocratic in nature, even if one can argue they believed in a nobel cause they showed no qualms of even murder of those who ideologically opposed them. Richard Stallman even said that Steve's Job death was a blessing because it moved the world closer to his envisioned free software utopia; such are the thought of a man who would murder his opposition when given the power to do so.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I disagree. Even outside of such times, why did almost all revolutionaries eventually become dictators? Lenin, Castro, Robespierre, even Gandhi all started with what originally seemed noble intentions but soon revealed their autocratic and dogmatic nature.

First, George Washington says hi.

I'm not familiar enough with the history of various European revolutions. But in general, it's not the same qualities that make someone revolutionary that makes them a dictator. It's because in most cases, revolutions create a power void that only dictators can step into. Like the way in Animal Farm, Snowball led the revolution. Snowball wasn't a dictator, but Napoleon is the one who claimed the power void.

I use a fictional example because I'm more familiar with it than I am the history of the real world examples it satirizes.

Also in a lot of those historical examples, the people being exploited were a more powerful caste of their own people, not outsiders. In the case of Bajor, it's outsiders. It's more a comparison to the British occupation of India than any of those examples.

I would also point out that he had a mental breakdown when his daughter died and was probably mentally unfit to make sane choices. Also, it wasn't long after her death that Dukat was possessed by a Pah Wraith

So. That adds to the judgement.

You don't need the post-Waltz era to see that Dukat is irredeemably evil. Dukat didn't change his values after Waltz. All he did was admit to them, and drop the need to be loved.

 

[Shawn Clement]

and drop the need to be loved.

There was no need because love is overrated. Facts are facts, Dukat was possessed by a Pah Wraith after the death of his daughter. Dukat also was able to justify his actions in a way other Cardassians would agree. So, I say stop thinking like a Federation fan and start thinking like members of most other factions.

 

[Watersluis]

First, George Washington says hi.

Ahh, yes, the man who fought long and hard to keep his slaves and fashioned his own false teeth from teeth pulled from them. I say hi back to him.

George Washington was in no way a man who rose for the plight of the little man. He was a wealthy slave owner who sent men to their death to fight a war so he could keep his own wealth and slaves and then decided to create a new nation and draft a constitution specifically designed to create elitocracy rather than to share power with the poor and that is what his country remains to this day. — Various comments of him, and his fellow “founding fathers” make it clear they were sceptical of giving the little man power, as he could surely not be trusted with it.

I'm not familiar enough with the history of various European revolutions. But in general, it's not the same qualities that make someone revolutionary that makes them a dictator. It's because in most cases, revolutions create a power void that only dictators can step into. Like the way in Animal Farm, Snowball led the revolution. Snowball wasn't a dictator, but Napoleon is the one who claimed the power void.

Napoléon was not the revolutionary Robespierre was and was nobility before it started and merely sided with it because he was a master strategist who realized revolutionary victory was inevitable.
Robespierre was one of the founders of the French revolution who risked his own life to ignite it, championed the cause for the third estate passionately at the start, but met his end at the hands of his fellow revolutionaries as he became far too autocratic at the end and executed anyone who slowed the slightest dissent from his opinions. — And that is the path many who originally championed the little man have walked.

Also in a lot of those historical examples, the people being exploited were a more powerful caste of their own people, not outsiders. In the case of Bajor, it's outsiders. It's more a comparison to the British occupation of India than any of those examples.

And I listed Gandhi as an example.
But you do not really believe a commoner in times of the French revolution would see nobility as one of his own would you? They lived in the same country but they did not mingle and the situation was close to the slaves at the time of European colonialism. — One's right were decided by birth alone and much of the nobility did in fact come from outside of France due to all the royal intermarriage. In many cases, the nobility did not even speak the same language as the people.

You don't need the post-Waltz era to see that Dukat is irredeemably evil. Dukat didn't change his values after Waltz. All he did was admit to them, and drop the need to be loved.

Yes, but so was, say, Churchil, or Sisko.

The biggest difference with Dukat was that he was given the power to show himself.

 

[Sci]

I disagree. Even outside of such times, why did almost all revolutionaries eventually become dictators? Lenin, Castro, Robespierre, even Gandhi all started with what originally seemed noble intentions but soon revealed their autocratic and dogmatic nature.

On the other hand, there are revolutionary leaders like Nelson Mandela, who waged a violent campaign of asymmetric warfare against the South African apartheid regime before forcing the regime to agree to a democratic constitution, then was elected President and led the country through its transition to democracy.

Or the leaders of the 1989 Revolutions. Or the Euro Maidan revolution. Or the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. Or the people who led the Black Lives Matter uprisings in 2020. Or the Arab Spring. Or the color revolutions. Or the 1936 Spanish Revolution. Or the overthrow of the military juntas in Argentina and Chile. Or the establishment of Kosovar independence. Or the Zapatista communities in Mexico. Or the Nepali Maoists (of all groups!) who overthrew the king and established democracy in Nepal. Or the 2019 unrest in Chile that's leading to the establishment of a new, more democratic constitution. Or the Rojava rebels in Syria.

Even someone such as Richard Stallman is known to be uncompromising and dogmatic in his dealings and constantly believing that his way is the one right way and that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, yet, it seems that such qualities are necessary for a man to start a movement.

Richard Stallman is also a sexual predator and an apologize for pedophilia (though I suppose that reinforces your argument!).

First, George Washington says hi.

I mean, I agree that Washington did not become a dictator, but he was his own form of oppressor:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies