I think John Eaves stated it was Chang during his younger "mullet" phase........OK I made up the mullet part but I think John said it was Chang.
Why is there a statue of Chang in the Klingon hall of warriors?
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
It sounds delightfully Klingon that they'd respect Chang's gall even if they disapproved of his policies.
...Yet far more Klingon that they'd actually be fine with the whole concept of Chang trying to kill his bosses and grab power, especially if he could insert "Empire" and "Glory" somewhere in his machinations. (Getting assassinated should be every Chancellor's dream - it shows the politician that they still care.)
...And pretty likely that if they ended up making a statue of him, it would not look too much like him, nor tell a story too much like the real one. Klingons certainly aren't uptight about truth like that.
Timo Saloniemi
...Yet far more Klingon that they'd actually be fine with the whole concept of Chang trying to kill his bosses and grab power, especially if he could insert "Empire" and "Glory" somewhere in his machinations. (Getting assassinated should be every Chancellor's dream - it shows the politician that they still care.)
...And pretty likely that if they ended up making a statue of him, it would not look too much like him, nor tell a story too much like the real one. Klingons certainly aren't uptight about truth like that.
Timo Saloniemi
Gowron was sneaky, too, and got worse as he went. He might've thought Chang was just great. Maybe the statue was his idea.
I read all the responses on this thread. I don't think Chang's treachery against Gorkon was covered up or anything, and I think all Klingons knew the truth about what he did. I'm surprised that the most obvious explanation for the Chang statue wasn't mentioned so far that I could tell: that the General Chang statue was a recent addition to the Hall of Warriors in Ty'Gokor, added by Chancellor Gowron himself. EDIT: Never mind, just saw @Silvercrest post, but even that post didn't go into the reasons I'll detail below.
Think about it. In the DS9 episode the statue appeared, 'Apocalypse Rising', the Klingon Empire had been at war with the Federation for some time. Gowron had just thrown the Khitomer accords that Chang fought to prevent out an airlock and went to war with the Federation. Gowron dissolved the House of Mogh and threw Kurn out of the High Council and took all the lands of the House of Mogh. Colonel Worf, Worf's grandfather, was Chang's opponent at Kirk's trial.
So it makes full sense that Gowron, in hatred of Worf and his family, and in hatred of the Federation, "rehabilitated" Chang's image as part of his propaganda campaign in his push to war with the Federation. There were probably slogans created saying "Chang was right!" and downplaying the dishonorable nature of Chang's actions, saying that they were done for the greater good to protect the Klingon Empire. We know Gowron already has a track record of rewriting history in TNG, where he was shown to have rewritten his ascent to Chancellorship by removing Picard and the Federation's involvement.
Therefore I suggest that Chang's statue in the Hall of Warriors was a recent addition by Gowron as part of his anti-Federation propaganda campaign.
Think about it. In the DS9 episode the statue appeared, 'Apocalypse Rising', the Klingon Empire had been at war with the Federation for some time. Gowron had just thrown the Khitomer accords that Chang fought to prevent out an airlock and went to war with the Federation. Gowron dissolved the House of Mogh and threw Kurn out of the High Council and took all the lands of the House of Mogh. Colonel Worf, Worf's grandfather, was Chang's opponent at Kirk's trial.
So it makes full sense that Gowron, in hatred of Worf and his family, and in hatred of the Federation, "rehabilitated" Chang's image as part of his propaganda campaign in his push to war with the Federation. There were probably slogans created saying "Chang was right!" and downplaying the dishonorable nature of Chang's actions, saying that they were done for the greater good to protect the Klingon Empire. We know Gowron already has a track record of rewriting history in TNG, where he was shown to have rewritten his ascent to Chancellorship by removing Picard and the Federation's involvement.
Therefore I suggest that Chang's statue in the Hall of Warriors was a recent addition by Gowron as part of his anti-Federation propaganda campaign.
Last edited:
...Really, the Hall only has, like, half a dozen statues, tops. These absolutely have to be rotating spots, then, save perhaps for Kahless' likeness. And even that one might get constantly revamped to suit the Zeitgeist of the Zeit in question.
If the Hall of Heroes is the same thing, and both Kang and Koloth got their statues there after "Blood Oath", then these spots must be rotating every three weeks or so. Although probably mere Heroes are one rung down, and only the top ones ever get promoted to Warriors and moved upstairs.
Timo Saloniemi
If the Hall of Heroes is the same thing, and both Kang and Koloth got their statues there after "Blood Oath", then these spots must be rotating every three weeks or so. Although probably mere Heroes are one rung down, and only the top ones ever get promoted to Warriors and moved upstairs.
Timo Saloniemi
Quantum storage. Tons of statues in data stream storage but only a few materialized depending on the occasion that the hall is being attended. Considering in the DS9 episode it was for awards (Order of the Bat'leth) for what wasn't outright said but implied to be for who killed the most Starfleet officers in the Klingon war against the Federation, a Chang statue being materialized for the occasion was appropriate.
We know Gowron offered K'ehleyr a seat on the Council, and she seemed to think this was a genuine bribe that Gowron could realistcally follow through on if he got what he wanted. While no mention of women not being allowed on the Council was mentioned at the time (as this was before the writers decided to invent that), I think in-universe we can assume that who gets to be on the Council is entirely due to the sitting Chancellor's whim, with a rubber stamping by the other Councilors because they want to stay in power. Probably the only "rule" the Chancellor would be answerable to is that all Great Houses are represented in some way, and as seen below even that might be broken.
Note how Kurn was thrown out of the Council despite not doing anything wrong or even dishonorable solely because Worf spoke out against the Klingons' government actions in DS9. We even see that Kor for example actually agrees with Worf (Any enemy of Gowron is a friend of mine) and I think it's fair to say a lot of other Klingons do too but don't say it because they want their "honorable" status (how ironic). More evidence of this is given immediately after Worf kills Gowron when all the present Klingons start shouting "Worf!" in support of him becoming chancellor, without any indication of irony or mockery.
Not sure what the post I'm responding to on this has to do with Chang and his statue though.
Note how Kurn was thrown out of the Council despite not doing anything wrong or even dishonorable solely because Worf spoke out against the Klingons' government actions in DS9. We even see that Kor for example actually agrees with Worf (Any enemy of Gowron is a friend of mine) and I think it's fair to say a lot of other Klingons do too but don't say it because they want their "honorable" status (how ironic). More evidence of this is given immediately after Worf kills Gowron when all the present Klingons start shouting "Worf!" in support of him becoming chancellor, without any indication of irony or mockery.
Not sure what the post I'm responding to on this has to do with Chang and his statue though.
Last edited:
An equally valid interpretation of that scene might be that Gowron's "What do you want? A Council seat, a ship of your own?" is intended to be a preamble to "As long as you stay realistic, I can give you what you want", by listing a few things that are not realistic. That is, "As long as you don't ask for a Seat or something equally daft, I'm your man".
No disagreement with the idea that the rules regarding this could change overnight, of course.
Timo Saloniemi
This somehow changed from the Chang thread to the Gowron thread, but I'll play along for now.
What you say is possible, but it doesn't strike me as Gowron's style. He's flexing his muscle to show his power, he wants to be Chancellor and top targ in the Klingon Empire. So at this point in time, I really think he meant to follow through on giving K'ehleyr a ship or a council seat or any place she wants in the Klingon Empire if she supports him, and I think that's what the writers intended at the time too.
If Gowron talks big but can't/won't follow through on the big talk, that's not going to impress K'ehleyr (from his point of view anyway) much is it? (Gowron doesn't seem to yet understand that implied bribes, which may pass in the corrupt Klingon Empire, don't go over very well with K'ehleyr's Federation background).
Last edited:
On the other hand, if Gowron promises the impossible, all the more glory to him. After all, it would in theory be possible for somebody like him to turn the impossible into possible - but it would take guts, if tradition (that is, a million tradition-minded warriors led by a hundred influential arch-conservatives) were the thing holding him back. And I could see Gowron reading K'Ehleyr right there, and seeing how she could appreciate a fresh breath, especially one that smelled particularly un-Klingon.
"I can give you a Council Seat" might well rank up there with "I can make the Empire and the UFP allies"... And the latter was his platform, more or less, even if it wasn't really his agenda.
Timo Saloniemi
"I can give you a Council Seat" might well rank up there with "I can make the Empire and the UFP allies"... And the latter was his platform, more or less, even if it wasn't really his agenda.
Timo Saloniemi
I have an answer that will explain everything and also make you sad. I will also phrase this answer as a question.
"Why is there is a statue of General Lee in my city park?"
To actually explain my point:
Gorkon is a figure who the Klingons probably don't revere that much, especially as he's a Gorbachev analog. To the right among Russians, Gorbachev ended the Soviet Empire and dissolved something glorious. That it was necessary and moral given the abuses of the Soviet Union as well as economic realities doesn't matter.
Chang, by contrast, is a Klingon war hero BEFORE his treason [see Klingon Academy] and died in an epic battle against Captain Kirk. He is a figure with panache and the sort of guy who fits in with the Klingon sense of superiority. "Yes, he betrayed his country but only because he LOVED his country!" apologist bullshit.
The fact he opposed the Khitomer Accords, something we KNOW were greatly unpopular and even would have been gone back against if not for the sacrifice of "Yesterday's Enterprise" is a point in his favor rather than the opposite.
And it helps to remember Chang is a TOS Klingon not a TNG Klingon. Things like stealth, treachery, cunning, and intrigue are things they celebrate rather than condemn.
Just to put icing on the cake, Klingons don't necessarily "hate" their enemies either. Chang wasn't discommandated, he died in battle. Remember that Kurn and the Followers of Duras threw a party (much to Worf's disapproval) during their Civil War. This despite "officially" both were traitors.
Gorkon is a figure who the Klingons probably don't revere that much, especially as he's a Gorbachev analog. To the right among Russians, Gorbachev ended the Soviet Empire and dissolved something glorious. That it was necessary and moral given the abuses of the Soviet Union as well as economic realities doesn't matter.
Chang, by contrast, is a Klingon war hero BEFORE his treason [see Klingon Academy] and died in an epic battle against Captain Kirk. He is a figure with panache and the sort of guy who fits in with the Klingon sense of superiority. "Yes, he betrayed his country but only because he LOVED his country!" apologist bullshit.
The fact he opposed the Khitomer Accords, something we KNOW were greatly unpopular and even would have been gone back against if not for the sacrifice of "Yesterday's Enterprise" is a point in his favor rather than the opposite.
And it helps to remember Chang is a TOS Klingon not a TNG Klingon. Things like stealth, treachery, cunning, and intrigue are things they celebrate rather than condemn.
Just to put icing on the cake, Klingons don't necessarily "hate" their enemies either. Chang wasn't discommandated, he died in battle. Remember that Kurn and the Followers of Duras threw a party (much to Worf's disapproval) during their Civil War. This despite "officially" both were traitors.
That party was in a neutral city or port on the Klingon homeworld. By that time, Worf got his family's honor restored, so they were not 'traitors' anymore.
Similar threads
