Why is there a statue of Chang in the Klingon hall of warriors?

In "Apocalypse Rising" there is a statue of General Chang (from ST VI) in the Hall of Warriors.

Why the fresh hell would they actually do that? Chang conspired to assassinate Chancellor Gorkon. I'd think this would be a grossly dishonorable act.

 

Might be a different Chang. Doesn't quite look like him.

 

But why would any Klingon consider Chang a hero?

Everything he did was in direct violation of Klingon custom and honor. He conspired, behind the scenes, to have Gorkon assassinated. Klingons just don't do that.

If Chang had killed Gorkon in open, hand-to-hand combat, that would be one thing. That's acceptable. Hell, we've even SEEN it. But sneaking around, conspiring with enemy nations (i.e. the Federation) to have Gorkon taken out? That's beyond the pale.

Chang's actions would be more suited to a Romulan than a Klingon.

 

Maybe the Gorkon-Azetbur regime has fallen into disfavor?

 

I suppose that's possible, but the fact remains that Chang's plotting and scheming simply aren't compatible with Klingon customs. Klingons kill each other in the open, where everyone can see it. Chang didn't have the guts to do that.

 

Except when they don't.

 

It's very possible Chang's actions in that incident were never made public in the Klingon general masses. He was a General, and Chief of the staff there, so it's stands to reason he got to that point through a LOT of great victories and honors. His House might also have had a great deal of power, too.

Look at what the Council did to hide the dishonorable actions of the Duras family. Until some pretty extreme things happened that finally purged the Empire of that bit of treachery. I think a similar thing happened with Chang, and since the general public of the Empire would be unaware of what Chang did at the end, all his prior deeds were remembered and likely was voted, for lack of a better term, to be made into a statue for the Hall of Warriors.

 

Well, here's something to think about:

In the 2250s, L'Rell becomes Chancellor without issue. In 2293, Azetbur also becomes Chancellor without issue. Both are women.

By the 2360s, however, the Duras Sisters are forced to use Toral as a puppet to claim the Chancellorship, because women are not allowed to serve on the High Council.

Perhaps sometime between 2293 and 2367, a reactionary political movement gained power on the High Council that was hostile to the Gorkonite faction Azetbur represented; they may have gotten women banned from the High Council and tried to redeem the memory of Chang (in the same way that reactionary movements in the U.S. today try to redeem the memories of traitors like Jefferson Davis), and succeeded in getting him a statue in the Hall of Warriors? Maybe by the time we see the Hall of Warriors in 2373, it's the equivalent of Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol today -- a symbolic thing that different factions support or oppose, but which the opposing side doesn't think is important enough to actually act on?

 

The same reason Americans have statues of Robert E Lee: to preserve the values that were supposedly destroyed in the war he lost.

 

I think this is the real explaination. Like Ezri says the Empire is a bastion of corruption, cover-ups, and hypocrisy. Not like it's some utopia for data, either. Whatever the council and the army says happened, happened. If Chang was just some war hero, then that's what he was. Even the battle over Khitomer could be spun, if it's ever revealed, as Chang guarding the new Chancellor against an internal Federation plot.

 

Just look at the current debates in the real world...

 

As the Empire's leading Shakespearean scholar, he deserves a spot.

 

This is my thought too. It's potentially worth noting that the statue has long flowing hair, depicting Chang at an earlier age.

 

That's a good point - barring official discommendation, Klingons are likely to take into account the whole of the warrior's life rather than a mishap. As for subterfuge, Kor and Koloth might not seem "honorable" if judged by their actions against Kirk.

 

Really like Farscape One's take on it. And Sci's take reminds me of what Trek Lit. did when it came to Azetbur's legacy.

I look at Chang as a nice blend between the TOS Klingons and the TNG Klingons. A lot of official Klingon culture came during TNG and later DS9, etc. From a TOS perspective, Chang's actions didn't seem that out of bounds. Even looking at it through a TNG lens, one could argue that he was fighting to save the empire from Gorkon and the Federation. And despite all the boasting, from mostly TNG era, and TNG era influenced Klingons, we still saw sly Klingons like the Duras family, D'Ghor, and Gowron, and their political machinations or slippery ethics weren't that far off from Chang's scheming. So I can see it as that discrepancy between what a person professes versus how they actually act, and Klingons-in the know- can understand and accept those nuances when it comes to Chang.

 

Historical figures, and the way cultures perceive them, is complex and can be hard to understand from the outside.

It may be hard for Westerners to understand why the Chinese would have statues of Mao for example.

Countries all over the world have statues of people that have done some pretty disreputable things.

 

3:46 - 5:07



The end is cut off: "Today, when I'm asked what became of him, I gladly sit upon the ground... and tell sad tales... of the death of kings."

 

Why? Because it's fan service.

Frankly, the statute in question doesn't look much like Chang, especially with all the hair in the back. (image) How does anyone know it's supposed to be Chang anyway?

 

Ah man, why did you post that video?
Now I am missing that game again!