Why did they turn Gowron into a dick?

[SilentP]

I think the Klingons are crass, shallow, and bloodthirsty, for the most part, and that their so-called "honor" is a sham. The one major exception is Worf, who lives the ideal and not the reality.

Understand I think MY favorite race has its flaws. Major ones. But I think they are much more fascinating than the Klingons, myself.

Problem with the characterisation of the Klingons is that for the vast majority of the time, we only get to see their soldiers and their military (something that's also a problem with the portrayal of the Romulans, who got far less screen time), so we only know the mindset of that caste of their society, and very little else. The only other snippets we know are that they make coffee that's quite popular, that their opera is somewhat cross-culturally famous, enough that Jake has to study it in high school (perhaps a Shakespeare equivalent of the 24th Century).

As for their bloodthirsty nature and their 'honour', I have a feeling that their aggression is something that's overridingly instinctive, to the point that as a civilization, is much closer to destroying them than the Vulcans were in their pre-Sarek days. Kahless, I believe, knew this, and used his teachings of honour as a way of trying to rein in and channel this natural bloodlust. Note, that he is stated to forge the first Klingon Empire (this was the days before Klingons hit space, so presumably, it was a nation state on Qo'Nos), which would be a good way of ensuring his teachings spread through a good number of his race.

As for crass, I looked at this on dictionary.com

1. without refinement, delicacy or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts

2. Archaic. thick; coarse

Well, not everyone in the galaxy can be as refined and eloquent as others

As for shallow, you'll have to elaborate on that one.

And yes, I accept there are flaws in the Klingons, they are certainly not a perfect race, woe betide you if they take out their aggression on you, they can be difficult to get along with, but then again, so are some other races.

Another point about bloodthirsty, is it better to be conquerors for resources, national glory or bloodlust? Does it really matter, since you are, after all, still invading others?

EDIT: If you want a real Klingon, look at Martok. After they found the real one minus his eye of course, since then we know it is him and not some filthy Dominion imposter

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

What the Cardassian government has done isn't good either--believe me, I am one of those who feels like smacking Occupation apologists.

The difference is, we saw Cardassians who recognized this and were actually willing to work for a REAL change. I can't recall ever seeing serious Klingon dissidents working to fix what was wrong with the Empire. Cardassia has a chance to stop, to change substantively. With the Klingon Empire, I have never seen any signs of that.

Interesting point about instincts...I've always worked under the assumption that with Cardassians, obedience is instinctive to a greater degree than with humans, making their group structures more canid than primate. Obedience to age, higher-ranked people, authority, deference and ritual...these are things I see as very important to the Cardassian makeup. This makes rebellion very, VERY hard because when you rebel, you basically cut away all of the group ties that you need to feel "oriented" in the world. Yet we've seen Cardassians go against these instincts.

Other than B'Elanna and K'Ehlyr, have we ever seen anyone attempt to override Klingon instincts??

As for "shallow" with Klingons, other than the obvious cultural achievements of song and sculpture that we've seen--have we seen any signs of major intellectual/philosophical/literary achievements, medical, scientific, or mathematical advances, or anything from the Klingons?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Gowron is best in the original Klingon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVo2kVVChU0

BY THE BLOOD OF KAHLESS! YOU! ARE! WROOONG!

General Chang is and always will be the best original Klingon

Here is an example of why

**Warning massive spoiler for the game Klingon Academy**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq4O8jDAJ7w&feature=related

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I liked Chang as an adversary--now that you mention him, he's the exception to the "lack of sophistication" rule as far as Klingons are concerned.

Then again, some of the TOS Klingons I would've suspected might have a little more depth than the TNG/DS9 ones...well, at least until DS9 got hold of Kor, Koloth, and Kang.

 

[SilentP]

What the Cardassian government has done isn't good either--believe me, I am one of those who feels like smacking Occupation apologists.

The difference is, we saw Cardassians who recognized this and were actually willing to work for a REAL change. I can't recall ever seeing serious Klingon dissidents working to fix what was wrong with the Empire. Cardassia has a chance to stop, to change substantively. With the Klingon Empire, I have never seen any signs of that.

Interesting point about instincts...I've always worked under the assumption that with Cardassians, obedience is instinctive to a greater degree than with humans, making their group structures more canid than primate. Obedience to age, higher-ranked people, authority, deference and ritual...these are things I see as very important to the Cardassian makeup. This makes rebellion very, VERY hard because when you rebel, you basically cut away all of the group ties that you need to feel "oriented" in the world. Yet we've seen Cardassians go against these instincts.

Other than B'Elanna and K'Ehlyr, have we ever seen anyone attempt to override Klingon instincts??

As for "shallow" with Klingons, other than the obvious cultural achievements of song and sculpture that we've seen--have we seen any signs of major intellectual/philosophical/literary achievements, medical, scientific, or mathematical advances, or anything from the Klingons?

You reckon that Cardassians are biased towards obedience by instinct? This isn't a mocking of your opinion, it's just not one that would have occured to me. It seems more a socially driven behaviour, since we know that that authortarian regime has only existed for the past 500 years, and that before the great famines and resource scares that the Cardassians were a 'spiritual' people, though since we have no ideas as to the nature of their spirituality and philosophy in that era, it may of been similar to what is now.

A minor tidbit about philosophical achievements, Worf does mention he goes to a Klingon monastary, discussing many issues with the clerics there. Considering that it's unlikely you can talk about that many ways to stab someone or the merits of a mek'leth, it wouldn't be hard to say that the Klingons have some kind of philosphical or spiritual leanings, even if the nature of them are somewhat opaque to non-Klingons.

As to your comment about fighting their instincts, it made me think about something. Be warned now, this theory enters Wild Mass Guessing territory, so either skip it, or prepared to take it with a few truckloads of salt

My theory is...*drumroll*, that Klingons aren't a naturally evolved species.

What set me off on this one was you saying that the only Klingons we see fighting their instincts are B'Ellana and K'Ehlyr. What do these two have in common? They're both hybrids. Perhaps the instinctive need to fight is something that's specifically written into their geonome.

You're thinking by this point, where the hell are you getting this idea from, just on those two points, but I'll go further.

Look at the Klingon physiology, one that stated to be incredibly resilient to damage, with many redundant organs, something that allows them to fight continuously, or far longer when injured than any other species would probably falter. Unless the Klingons wiped out every single species on their planet that could threaten them to such a degree to have that biology (admittedly more likely), what would be the evolutionary need to develop so many redundant organs?

Next, look at the mythology of the Klingons. After the first female Klingon is bred, the Klingons wiped out their gods. Could this be the Klingons wiping out their creators, who intended to use Klingons as soldiers/cannon fodder instead of their own race, and either killing their creator race, or their creators leaving, and deciding it would just be easier to leave them on Qo'Nos and let them wipe themselves out, admittedly something that wouldn't surprise anyone.

With the events barely understood by the primitive Klingons, and their knowledge now buried with the passage of millenia, these alien creators are now the 'gods', who the Klingons got rid of for being too much trouble.

Now, we have a race of primitive warriors fighting and killing each other, because they know nothing else, with wanton abandon, with little to no structure. Now along comes Kahless, bringing with him the concept of honour, providing a structure to the Klingons, leading to the first nation state/Klingon Empire, and things led on from there.

Kahless seems to think far more than most Klingons, providing wisdom besides when you shouldn't stab someone, such as his lesson about the man who faced the wind etc.. We don't know if he was actually that great a fighter, since his clone was somewhat easily beaten by Gowron (thoguh a clone isn't a fair measure of the original's prowess) and who knows how many legends were built up after Kahless' passing?

Thank you to those who bothered trying to read this Feel free to grill me to expand on it, or challenges to the concept and see how well the theory can stand up to other ideas. I want to see where this can go.

 

[Thor Damar]

^Now that's an interesting theory.
It's not the most insane as I once insisted that the Cardassians where the creation of the Sith
(plus there is the 'alien inbreeding with the natives' theory that AJR has Garak's 'father' posit...)

 

[mirandafave]

I think the charge of the Klingons being simplistic, aggressive and even having double standards by their supposed honour, is in and of itself simplistic. I never get the arguments that credit one race over another as being more culturally rich, diverse in political thinking and socially and morally more scrupulous than other races. Huh? Please. We only ever see a narrow margin of any of the alien species and that includes many of the Federation members - including humans. So we never get a full picture of any species, so it really is defunct to charge one race as being crass and ignorant and vaulting the laurels of another. Obviously, people will have their personal favourites and their own reasons for why. But as another poster stated why bash the Klingons? They helped to define much of trek lore and popularity before TNG came round and others took up the universe created with the Klingons firmly established within it.

And as the OP asks about one particular Klingon being a dick I thinkthat shows there is a variety to the Klingons. Heck some of them are dicks in different ways. But no different to what we have seen of other species. We've seen Vulcans be dicks, Bajorans be dicks, Romulans be dicks, Cardassians be dicks and oh definitely Humans be dicks.

In response to the OP, I think Gowron was always a slippery character motivated by personal ambition rather than any honour and played fast and loose with Honour. Just as many Admirals and Captains within Starfleet played fast and loose with the principles and ideals of the Prime Directive. SO I think his cahracter just continued to display his being a dick but as the war came to an end and surrounded by yes men and the impending honour of presiding over a glorious Klingon Empire his 'dickness' went up a notch or two. And why he was ever fearful of the growing popularity of Martok, who is one very wily, honourable but complicated enough Klingon.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Another point about bloodthirsty, is it better to be conquerors for resources, national glory or bloodlust? Does it really matter, since you are, after all, still invading others?

Yes, it matters. Resource needs can be met. Nationalism can fade. Bloodlust may be more instinctual. You can't make a leopard change its spots, and there's the old scorpion and the frog tale.

Even with their needs met and Imperial glory tempered, some Klingons still craved violence. ("Heart of Glory")

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

You reckon that Cardassians are biased towards obedience by instinct? This isn't a mocking of your opinion, it's just not one that would have occured to me. It seems more a socially driven behaviour, since we know that that authortarian regime has only existed for the past 500 years, and that before the great famines and resource scares that the Cardassians were a 'spiritual' people, though since we have no ideas as to the nature of their spirituality and philosophy in that era, it may of been similar to what is now.

I think it's quite possible, though I have no real way to prove it other than an offhanded remark by Jellico in "Chain of Command," which may or may not have been fully accurate given what an a-hole the guy was.

Personally, I see the previous regime as not having been so strict, possibly benevolent, but there may still be that "wolfpack" structuring in their society. Having that instinct for obedience does not necessarily mean aggresson. What it does mean is that a bad ruler can get away with it for longer unless you have a VERY bold leader to lead the charge. I imagine that what discontent there was with the previous regime boiled for a LONG time before it finally exploded.

A minor tidbit about philosophical achievements, Worf does mention he goes to a Klingon monastary, discussing many issues with the clerics there. Considering that it's unlikely you can talk about that many ways to stab someone or the merits of a mek'leth, it wouldn't be hard to say that the Klingons have some kind of philosphical or spiritual leanings, even if the nature of them are somewhat opaque to non-Klingons.

You'll have to forgive me--it's been a long time since I saw TNG. What episode was that? I might look it up to see more...

As to your comment about fighting their instincts, it made me think about something. Be warned now, this theory enters Wild Mass Guessing territory, so either skip it, or prepared to take it with a few truckloads of salt

My theory is...*drumroll*, that Klingons aren't a naturally evolved species.

What set me off on this one was you saying that the only Klingons we see fighting their instincts are B'Ellana and K'Ehlyr. What do these two have in common? They're both hybrids. Perhaps the instinctive need to fight is something that's specifically written into their geonome.

You're thinking by this point, where the hell are you getting this idea from, just on those two points, but I'll go further.

Look at the Klingon physiology, one that stated to be incredibly resilient to damage, with many redundant organs, something that allows them to fight continuously, or far longer when injured than any other species would probably falter. Unless the Klingons wiped out every single species on their planet that could threaten them to such a degree to have that biology (admittedly more likely), what would be the evolutionary need to develop so many redundant organs?

Next, look at the mythology of the Klingons. After the first female Klingon is bred, the Klingons wiped out their gods. Could this be the Klingons wiping out their creators, who intended to use Klingons as soldiers/cannon fodder instead of their own race, and either killing their creator race, or their creators leaving, and deciding it would just be easier to leave them on Qo'Nos and let them wipe themselves out, admittedly something that wouldn't surprise anyone.

With the events barely understood by the primitive Klingons, and their knowledge now buried with the passage of millenia, these alien creators are now the 'gods', who the Klingons got rid of for being too much trouble.

Now, we have a race of primitive warriors fighting and killing each other, because they know nothing else, with wanton abandon, with little to no structure. Now along comes Kahless, bringing with him the concept of honour, providing a structure to the Klingons, leading to the first nation state/Klingon Empire, and things led on from there.

Kahless seems to think far more than most Klingons, providing wisdom besides when you shouldn't stab someone, such as his lesson about the man who faced the wind etc.. We don't know if he was actually that great a fighter, since his clone was somewhat easily beaten by Gowron (thoguh a clone isn't a fair measure of the original's prowess) and who knows how many legends were built up after Kahless' passing?

Thank you to those who bothered trying to read this Feel free to grill me to expand on it, or challenges to the concept and see how well the theory can stand up to other ideas. I want to see where this can go.

Are you thinking the Klingons are an early attempt at Jem'Hadar, basically?

The organ redundancies could be, however, because their natural ecology is REALLY tough--even more tougher, more powerful species than what we have here on Earth. This would've made it more difficult for the Klingons' ancestors to survive, and survival may have necessitated extreme redundancy until they developed tools.

I had also thought--though I can't remember where I heard it, whether it's canon or fanon--that the Klingons weren't as bloodthirsty until the coming of the Hurq, and that the invasion caused an upheaval in their society.

 

[SilentP]

You reckon that Cardassians are biased towards obedience by instinct? This isn't a mocking of your opinion, it's just not one that would have occured to me. It seems more a socially driven behaviour, since we know that that authortarian regime has only existed for the past 500 years, and that before the great famines and resource scares that the Cardassians were a 'spiritual' people, though since we have no ideas as to the nature of their spirituality and philosophy in that era, it may of been similar to what is now.

I think it's quite possible, though I have no real way to prove it other than an offhanded remark by Jellico in "Chain of Command," which may or may not have been fully accurate given what an a-hole the guy was.

Personally, I see the previous regime as not having been so strict, possibly benevolent, but there may still be that "wolfpack" structuring in their society. Having that instinct for obedience does not necessarily mean aggresson. What it does mean is that a bad ruler can get away with it for longer unless you have a VERY bold leader to lead the charge. I imagine that what discontent there was with the previous regime boiled for a LONG time before it finally exploded.

True.

A minor tidbit about philosophical achievements, Worf does mention he goes to a Klingon monastary, discussing many issues with the clerics there. Considering that it's unlikely you can talk about that many ways to stab someone or the merits of a mek'leth, it wouldn't be hard to say that the Klingons have some kind of philosphical or spiritual leanings, even if the nature of them are somewhat opaque to non-Klingons.

You'll have to forgive me--it's been a long time since I saw TNG. What episode was that? I might look it up to see more...[/quote]

Actually, it's a DS9 episode, 'Way of the Warrior' when he first meets Sisko in his office, explaining what he's been up to since the events of Star Trek: Generations.

He does go to a monastary to in a TNG episode, where he encounters the Kahless clone. Can't remember the episode name, but it was one of the later seasons.

*snip*

Are you thinking the Klingons are an early attempt at Jem'Hadar, basically?[/quote]

Essentially yes.

The organ redundancies could be, however, because their natural ecology is REALLY tough--even more tougher, more powerful species than what we have here on Earth. This would've made it more difficult for the Klingons' ancestors to survive, and survival may have necessitated extreme redundancy until they developed tools.

True, that had occured to me, so I decided to briefly mention it as a possibility. Hate to see what they were up against to evolve something like that (I'm thinking Warhammer 40,000 style death world)

I had also thought--though I can't remember where I heard it, whether it's canon or fanon--that the Klingons weren't as bloodthirsty until the coming of the Hurq, and that the invasion caused an upheaval in their society.

I don't know much about the H'urq, the only reference in canon I can remember is the episode where Dax, Worf and Kor go on a quest for the Sword of Kahless, and mention that the H'urq raided the Klingons 1000 years ago. Apart from that, I don't know. But they had stolen the Sword, so by that point, the Klingons must have had some kind of warrior culture, unless it was just one of many nations/cultures amongst the Klingons at that point, and only the warrior culture survived it.

I know there's a bit of fanon saying that Klingons got their interstellar level technology from the H'urq, hence their slow technological progress, since they're essentially reverse-engineering everything they have. Some people have even stated that the Vor'cha was probably the first class of ship designed with purely Klingon (at least for the most part) technologies.

 

[Bluesteel]

There is an anti-Klingon faction here, SilentP. I always likeD the Klingons. For the most part, they're refreshingly direct. As others have said, Duras was a dick from the beginning, just not as big a dick as Duras. -- RR

I'm not sure you meant to use Duras twice, but since there was an Enterprise one and a TNG one, the statement may still be valid.

Dick Durases...not to be confused with Dick Durock.

Thanks for mentioning the horrible ENT Duras. I can see why that show failed. The writers needed a bad guy Klingon and instead of coming up with a new character with a new background and story that they could tell to the audience. They got a 2-D character and gave him the same name has other villians in the franchise to cop out. Dickheads.

 

[Red Ranger]

There is an anti-Klingon faction here, SilentP. I always likeD the Klingons. For the most part, they're refreshingly direct. As others have said, Duras was a dick from the beginning, just not as big a dick as Duras. -- RR

I'm not sure you meant to use Duras twice, but since there was an Enterprise one and a TNG one, the statement may still be valid.

Dick Durases...not to be confused with Dick Durock.

OOPPSS! Lost my mind. My first Duras was Gowron, or is that Gowron is as Gowron does, or is it, Istanbul was Constantinople, or is it, who's on first, what's on second, and I don't know is on third? -- RR

 

[StarryEyed]

Interesting theory about Klingon origins. If it's true though, someone really screwed up. Unlike the Jem'Hadar, the Klingons are nobody's fool. They have a similar lust for battle but also fierce pride and passion. There's no controlling them.

 

[SilentP]

Interesting theory about Klingon origins. If it's true though, someone really screwed up. Unlike the Jem'Hadar, the Klingons are nobody's fool. They have a similar lust for battle but also fierce pride and passion. There's no controlling them.

That's the problem when you create warriors instead of soldiers (which is more like what Jem'Hadar are) it seems. And considering the amount of artificial warrior races that exist in sci-fi, isn't it surprsing that at least some of them drop the ball in terms of controlling their creations, and some will probably end up thriving after destroying their creators

 

[Xerxes1979]

Not only a dick but a military idiot. The idea thousands of warriors would be sacrificed for politics is farsical. Didn't Sisko say that if Cardassia was not taken soon it would devolve in a unwinnable stalemate? Any outcome other than victory is anathema to very core of what it is to be Klingon. Seeing that as head of state he is personally liable for crimes against the Dominion defeating them would seem to be the best course of action for both his career and personal safety.


Martok could easily be sidelined or assassinated in more clever ways, the route taken by Gowron makes his character shallow.


Gowron seemed to take the outcome of the Klingon Civil War very seriously, providing support and material to Kurn who was just as big a political threat as Martok ever was. What made the Dominion War different?

Gowron's actions at the tale end of DS9 are not consistent with his character.

 

[Red Ranger]

Just wanted to add I love how Worf killed Gowron. He's so badass, he only needs part of a broken bat'leth to finish off an opponent! -- RR

 

[StarryEyed]

Just wanted to add I love how Worf killed Gowron. He's so badass, he only needs part of a broken bat'leth to finish off an opponent! -- RR

And Duras. He dominated him completely. Worf is da man!

 

[Dusty Ayres]

What the Cardassian government has done isn't good either--believe me, I am one of those who feels like smacking Occupation apologists.

The difference is, we saw Cardassians who recognized this and were actually willing to work for a REAL change. I can't recall ever seeing serious Klingon dissidents working to fix what was wrong with the Empire. Cardassia has a chance to stop, to change substantively. With the Klingon Empire, I have never seen any signs of that.

Interesting point about instincts...I've always worked under the assumption that with Cardassians, obedience is instinctive to a greater degree than with humans, making their group structures more canid than primate. Obedience to age, higher-ranked people, authority, deference and ritual...these are things I see as very important to the Cardassian makeup. This makes rebellion very, VERY hard because when you rebel, you basically cut away all of the group ties that you need to feel "oriented" in the world. Yet we've seen Cardassians go against these instincts.

Other than B'Elanna and K'Ehlyr, have we ever seen anyone attempt to override Klingon instincts??

As for "shallow" with Klingons, other than the obvious cultural achievements of song and sculpture that we've seen--have we seen any signs of major intellectual/philosophical/literary achievements, medical, scientific, or mathematical advances, or anything from the Klingons?

Sorry, I call bullshit on your love for the Cardies.

These people are the way they are because of a famine, ecological disaster, and the fascist regime that resulted-simple as that. They were a good, spiritual people once, but after the disaster and the famine, they cam under control of a military junta that promised them (like most dictatorships do) good food, homes, jobs, etc (the junta even had it's own superhero, The Galor, whose symbol became the symbol of the whole Cardassian Union, and the shape, as well as the name, of the battleship!) What the Cardies needed was the junta overthrown, and democratic rule reinstated, and that's what they all got-at the cost of over 40 billion lives on Cardassia Prime. At least the Klingons were oriented like that since antiquity.

 

[Red Ranger]

What the Cardassian government has done isn't good either--believe me, I am one of those who feels like smacking Occupation apologists.

The difference is, we saw Cardassians who recognized this and were actually willing to work for a REAL change. I can't recall ever seeing serious Klingon dissidents working to fix what was wrong with the Empire. Cardassia has a chance to stop, to change substantively. With the Klingon Empire, I have never seen any signs of that.

Interesting point about instincts...I've always worked under the assumption that with Cardassians, obedience is instinctive to a greater degree than with humans, making their group structures more canid than primate. Obedience to age, higher-ranked people, authority, deference and ritual...these are things I see as very important to the Cardassian makeup. This makes rebellion very, VERY hard because when you rebel, you basically cut away all of the group ties that you need to feel "oriented" in the world. Yet we've seen Cardassians go against these instincts.

Other than B'Elanna and K'Ehlyr, have we ever seen anyone attempt to override Klingon instincts??

As for "shallow" with Klingons, other than the obvious cultural achievements of song and sculpture that we've seen--have we seen any signs of major intellectual/philosophical/literary achievements, medical, scientific, or mathematical advances, or anything from the Klingons?

Well, while Worf for the most part adhered to Klingon tradition, he ocassionally broke with tradition, like when he was injured and wanted to initially commit ritual suicide. By tradition, he would've had to involve his son in his death, so he decided instead to try an unproven procedure that could have killed him.

There must be some kind of dissident movement among Klingons, but they probably have to stay underground. I had an idea of a reformist movement among the warrior class, who wanted to return to Kahless's goals in deed and fact, to transform Klingons from warriors to protectors of the weak.

Red Rum!

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Sorry, I call bullshit on your love for the Cardies.

These people are the way they are because of a famine, ecological disaster, and the fascist regime that resulted-simple as that. They were a good, spiritual people once, but after the disaster and the famine, they cam under control of a military junta that promised them (like most dictatorships do) good food, homes, jobs, etc (the junta even had it's own superhero, The Galor, whose symbol became the symbol of the whole Cardassian Union, and the shape, as well as the name, of the battleship!) What the Cardies needed was the junta overthrown, and democratic rule reinstated, and that's what they all got-at the cost of over 40 billion lives on Cardassia Prime. At least the Klingons were oriented like that since antiquity.

What is there to be "called bullshit" on? Unlike some people, I don't think what their government did was at ALL good and I am more than willing to call them on it. I see so much potential in the Cardassians, always did--but I am not at all blind to the fact that the potential was often terribly used. It is the dissidents I have admired above all among the Cardassians because they SAW the need to restore a better and possibly democratic government, and they acted.

(I'm not sure if you knew me before the Halloween names went into effect, but my true TrekBBS nickname is Nerys Ghemor, after the prominent dissident Tekeny Ghemor.)

And it is the existence and substantive actions of the dissidents that I see as the main thing that makes the Cardassians far more compelling than the Klingons: these people recognized there was something wrong. They knew they could be something better. And they stood up against what has to be one of the most oppressive governments you can imagine short of the Matrix. What is there not to admire about that sort of heroism?

I hardly ever saw Klingons stand up and demand something better of themselves, something that would represent a true break from their bloodthirsty ways--only perpetuation of those ways in different forms. I think an argument could be made for Chancellor Gorkon having the necessary vision, but sadly we never got to see him carry it out in the long term thanks to General Chang. The only other people that seem like "Klingon dissidents" in a sense do not live within the Empire (Worf, for one) and in some cases (K'Ehlyer (sp?) and B'Elanna) do not even really care for it.

Had we seen real dissent among the Klingons the way we did with the Cardassians, I might feel differently about the Klingons. As it is, I do not see much that is worthy of admiration.

(Oh, and that stuff you said about the Galor, while an interesting theory, is not onscreen canon; it came out of a book.)