PICARD Chancellor, no starship mission is more dangerous than first contact. We never know what we face when we open the door to a new world. How will we be greeted? What are the dangers? Centuries ago, a disastrous first contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war. It was decided then that we must do surveillance before making contact. It was a controversial decision. But I believe it prevents more problems than it creates.
Unless the script is wrong, note the word "led", indicating a causal relationship. This also suggests Starfleet contacted the Klingons, not Klingons Starfleet. The first contact protocols are a result of this incident -- all this is hardly consistent with "Broken Bow".
Of course, there's nothing here that says Federation was the party that had a disasterous first contact with the Klingons. Maybe someone else with close ties to Starfleet contacted them after Archer, and Starfleet simply learned a few things from those incidents.
[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, and Hitler becoming dictator of Germany led to World War II. It didn't happen for a few years after he became dictator, but it happened.
What is your point?
Speaking of which, the writer of that line -- Dennis Bailey -- freely admits two things. The first is that he just put it in there for lack of anything better.
Also, he has no problems with how Enterprise has portrayed the first contact.
As I've just shown, something does not immediatly have to lead to something else. Look at whats going on in the modern day. U.S. funding of the Mujhardeen led to Bin Laden's goonies crashing planes into buildings.
::rolls eyes::
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
*agrees*
I mean, not that it's not a good point, but with that being the only line that sheds any light on the Klingon first contact, there are so many ways that what Picard said could be absolutely right, or at least, right from what he knows, or how he remembers it, or how he sees things.
I'm perfectly happy to accept the fact that the meeting in "Broken Bow" will have further ramifications as we go along. It's not like TPTB are going to forget that the Klingons were bad guys before they were good guys.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
In the case of Hitler and Bin Laden, the causal link was there, it just wasn't apparent until this time. So what you're saying is that there's something disasterous about "Broken Bow" that we haven't seen yet, but will be revealed in the centuries to come.
I know! Klaang contracted a rare livestock disease while running around the farmer's crops, and secretly transmitted the virus to the other Klingons. In the 2220s, their foreheads started to flatten! Hence the war with the Federation.
Of course, this doesn't explain why Starfleet would change its first contact protocols as a result of this incident, because they'd have nothing to do with "Broken Bow". Picard's words rather suggest that Starfleet contacted them openly, and created an Earth/Minbari style misunderstanding.
And I've no problem with Bailey accepting the events as they now are, but that would be admitting to a lack of continuity, and nobody wants that, right?
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:all this is hardly consistent with "Broken Bow".
The Suliban changed this part of history.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Technically, the first contact between Terrans and Klingons was when Farmer Moore shot Klaang. So, yes, that has nothing to do w/ first contact protocols.
But, the more important "first contact" between Terrans and Klingons was Archer's visit to Qo'noS. If there had been better protocols in place, SF would have found out all it could about the Klingons before initiating first/further contact. But they wanted to stick it to the Vulcans, so they didn't bother. And now the Klingons are pissed off at the Terrans. Which is going to lead to war.
Sounds totally consistent to me.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
But everything went well -- they brought the Klingon home so he could complete a mission that helped stop a Klingon civil war. Nobody stepped on the holy foot of Kahless as far as we could see or swear in the Great Hall. A textbook first contact as far as I'm concerned. Any war would be a result of later incidents or reinterpretations of this first contact (maybe someone did step on the foot of Kahless and the historians noticed fifty years later).
Unless you're saying that Starfleet's later opinion was that regardless of how well you contact the Klingons, they'll still make war on you, so it would've been better for them to have studied them and decided not to go to Kronos in 2151. That pretty much says Starfleet had no idea why the Klingons started war on them, and decided that the only way they could've stopped it is by avoiding any first contact in the first place. I'm sure there are intelligent people in Starfleet who could pinpoint the things that led to war, rather than blame it on Klingons' very knowledge of human existence (kinda ridiculous, since the planet is only four days away, and they were bound to meet one way or another).
[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by MIB: Now with more chunks of meat (Member # 426) on :
I agree with what Phelps said. Before I saw Broken Bow, what Picard had said led me to believe that there was an Earth/Minbari-kind of misunderstanding. However, I hardly would call the first contact depicted in Broken Bow, "disastrous." However, this can be easily attributed to the Suliban's alterations of the time line.
By saying that, I am assured a flaming from Bernd, but it is the truth.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, because we all know the Klingons wouldn't at all be embarassed because they couldn't complete a simple mission like delivering a message without help from some nosy Earthers. I'd say a lot of feathers got ruffled, and the Klingons don't care a whole lot for humans.
Phelps, there you go. That's why the first contact led to hostilities. The Klingons' honor was deeply mortified, and that resentment just grew.
Actually, nothing of what Picard said makes sense. Earth's level of technology at the time wouldn't allow them to keep surveilance on an empire with roughly their tech level. It would only make sense if the Klingons had been, say, 20th century industrial capability, and Captain Archer had beamed down and started handing out blueprints to build warships.
Frankly, I suspect Picard 'misled' the Chancellor to save having to explain himself in more detail.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:But everything went well -- they brought the Klingon home so he could complete a mission that helped stop a Klingon civil war.
Aha! Therefore, if they hadn't brought him back, we now present you with the unedited transript of Picard's chat with the Chancellor. . .
quote:Centuries ago, a disastrous first contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war. Won't bore you with details, old boy, suffice it to say some hick farmer shot the first Klingon he saw, who was a courier of some kind, and since he never got home the Klingons had a lonmg civil war.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
So the best line Federation historians & Picard can come up with is that a "disastrous" first contact, in which Archer hurt the Klingons' honor by helping them, was a significant cause of the later Klingon hostillities (else Picard wouldn't have used the phrase "led to").
This sounds better, but I doubt that a better first contact would've made a difference. In "Errand of Mercy", Kor is quite explicit about his reasons behind hostilities -- he says the Federation is expanding and blocking trade routes. Such things are usually the cause of war, a very bloody and practical undertaking that takes a lot of effort. Even if the first contact was the official reason of the Klingons, it sounds too ridiculous even for them ("you hurt our honor, now we have to destroy all of you"). I'd rather imagine Klaang asking Archer for a combat to restore his honor right there and then. If there was a problem, the honor-alert High Council should've realized it immediately. Instead, they took the information and let everybody go.
The problem is in the phrase "led to". While Klingon historians and more conservative factions within the Empire can use the first contact as their official reason, it doesn't sound good for Picard. If that's what the Federation historians believe "led to" war, then they're being rather picky and negative towards Archer and early Starfleet. Interestingly enough, that's consistent with the way nobody ever mentioned him or his ship, or cared to include it in any of the displays that showed just about every other Enterprise.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Except, even with all of your objections, the events as portrayed in "Broken Bow" are consistent with what has been mentioned in the previous four series.
Let's look at this from the Klingon's perspective, shall we? An all-out civil war is about to happen because the houses believe each other is attacking them. The situation is tense, and the only way out is to get the evidence of Suliban tampering from Klaang. But Klaang is shot down over a primitive planet (Earth) and then shot by a farmer. The Vulcans talk to the Klingons and agree to transport Klaang's corpse back to Qo'nos. However, the upstart humans decide to take a gamble and return a very-much alive Klaang back to Qo'nos. In the process, Klaang gets kidnapped and then rescued by the humans.
Thanks to the humans, the information that Klaang was carrying was almost lost. The Suliban were able to retreive him and, given time, might have found the information in his blood cells. The humans were also, for all intents and purposes, slamming Klingon culture. Klingon culture dictated that Klaang die. Instead, they insist on defying that and returning him to the Empire. The humans also weren't invited to do the transporting, by the way. The deal was between the Klingons and Vulcans. But those pesky humans had to butt into the Empire's problems and learn how unstable the Klingon government was. Furthermore, the humans were using Klaang as a simple excuse to try and prove themselves to be "ready" to go "out there." All of that is on top of a farmer with a primitive weapon almost killing Klaang.
Yeah, this is a matter of honor, but the humans acted so wrecklessly and, had they fouled up further, would have been one of the causes of an early Klingon civil war. We have the humans sticking their noses into a foreign culture, forcing their morality onto the situation, and using the event as an excuse for personal gain. The final straw was that these primitive humans were able to pull off the rescue and deliver Klaang in spite of screwing everything up in the first place. And, yeah, the Klingons are royally ticked at the humans because of all of this. A Klingon battlecruiser almost blew Enterprise out of the stars in "Unexpected." No matter which side is writing about Earth-Klingon first contact, there is no doubt that it was disastrous and had the potential to be even worse had luck not been on the humans' side.
Now, let's talk about "Errand of Mercy." Here, Kor is citing the cause of hostilities as being the Federation blocking trade routes. You know, it's quite possible that the history of relations between Earth/Federation and the Klingon Empire is a series of armed conflicts with cold war tensions and a sprinkle of reclusion. Look at the Romulans. They went into reclusion for a good sixty years by "The Neutral Zone." Not to mention the long gap between the Earth-Romulan Wars and then "Balance of Terror." The dealings with the Klingons probably went from tense to relaxed and so on a few times. And the hostilities that Kor speaks of (as well as McCoy's remarks in "Day of the Dove") are focused on the most recent period of tension.
And, finally, addressing the Federation historians downplaying Archer and the Earth Starfleet, I highly doubt that. They were the pioneers and will always be reveered to an extent for that. But, once the history and analyzed for decades, the events may be judged for what they were. After all, Christopher Columbus used to be such a ancient hero in the United States. Now, he's being downplayed to a good extent because that opened the door to the mistreatment of the Native Americans and the exploitation of the New World by Europe. US history never used to make much mention of the interment of Japanese and German people living in the United States during World War II. Now, we do teach that and recognize it. Things change over time. The historians honor Archer, but they may also realize how foolhardy a move the entire "Broken Bow" incident was.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
To use the analogy presented earlier, do you think anyone in 1933 considered Hitler's becoming chancellor of Germany to be "disastrous"? I doubt it. But, today, we can say that it was, and that it led to years of war.
So far, all the arguements that say BB was inconsistent seem to boil down to "it wasn't what I had imagined, so I don't like it, so it must be wrong".
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Going back to "First Contact" the TNG episode, one can't help but notice that this is the most halting, tentative, uncertain speech Picard has delivered so far. Stewart never pauses that much between words when he gives his usual speeches.
Picard is on the defensive here, and groping for excuses and justifications to what he and the Federation are doing. There are many reasons why the Feds should have a policy of spying before contact, but Picard is probably mentally going through that list and abandoning excuse after excuse, realizing they would simply make things worse. Finally, he comes up with something the Malcorian leader might accept as a rationale, something that doesn't necessarily portray the Feds as "morally superior" or devious or just plain arrogant.
Still, the example he comes up with is a poor one if he's referring to the "Broken Bow" events, for all the reasons mentioned in previous replies. So one is left to wonder: did the Prime Directive really come to be because of the Klingon contact? Or was that a deliberate lie by Picard, a convoluted way to tie together three unrelated things: a nicely disastrous example of an episode of UFP history, the concept of First Contact and Prime Directive, and the current spying debacle?
I'd rather have it be a lie than say that Picard's history was different from the history shown in ENT.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I doubt the Suliban created a civil war out of whole cloth. Far more likely that they exploiting existing political tensions.
Archer gave the truth about the Suliban plot to a select group of Klingons. Apparently the High Council, but even so, in the only other Klingon civil war we've seen, the instigators on one side weren't even represented on the council when the war begain. So, assuming similar conditions, how are all the Houses not represented or not represented to an equal extent going to react when the elite HC Houses are granted exclusive access to important information that carries large political benefits? It seems to me that the Klingons running the empire when their conflict with Earth/UFP begins need not be the ones in "Broken Bow."
Careful study of Klingon culture and politics beforehand would have revealed the necessity (or at least the advantages) of distributing this information to every House, major or minor.
Incidently, all this goes a long way towards explaining why exactly the Klingons invaded the Cardassian Union. They seem to have a unique appreciation for the trouble meddling outsiders cause.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Klingon culture dictated that Klaang die.
To quote a friend of mine... "Oh yeah? Then why was he running through a cornfield screaming like a little girl?"
The situation doesn't add up. Despite the Human interference, it seems that the Klingons were still pleased to have their information intact. They were just generally surly, or else the Humans were skittish, and that's why they made their quick retreat.
Besides, if the Klingons had been truly angry at the Humans for violating Klingon cultural expectations by rescuing Klaang and bringing him back alive, they would have shown it right then and there, and Archer and Co. would not have escaped the Great Hall alive.
Later on, they encountered a Klingon battle cruiser. It seems to me that the Klingon captain was not hostile towards Earth in particular (if he considered the Enterprise his enemy, he would have blown them out of the sky). Instead he was rude and demanding, like any superior warrior addressing a puny, soft, undeveloped Human. That's just your typical Klingon attitude, anyway.
Picard may have been on the defensive during his speech, and sounded uncomfortable justifying the Federation spying on an alien culture, but he was still confident in his reasons for doing so. He was merely trying to present the facts in a way that wouldn't ruffle any more feathers. And I seriously doubt that Picard would lie, or even try to fudge the truth a bit.
Besides, there are hundreds or even thousands of first contacts that Humans and the Federation would have made over the past 300 years; why choose the Klingons specifically unless he was telling the truth, directly?
That means that there should be a direct causal relationship between first contact with the Klingons and the "70 years of unremitting hostility" (according to Spock in TUC).
The interesting thing, though, is that Picard said the first contact with the Klingons was "centuries ago," when the previously assumed first contact was around 2218. That's only 150 years, compared with 200+. (Damn, am I actually defending "Broken Bow" with this paragraph??)
The real problem I see with the first contact as established in "Broken Bow," is that there is absolutely no connection to any justification for warfare between Earth/the Federation and the Klingons, whether it be immediately, or a decade later, or 70 years later. The "Broken Bow" incident wasn't much more than a simple skirmish, one that may have had lasting repercussions for the Klingon Empire internally, but shouldn't have much effect on interstellar relations.
Furthermore, I really don't see how having any first contact protocols would have helped the situation. True, Archer violated Klingon cultural expectations, but that didn't really "spoil" the first contact as it was. And it certainly wasn't enough to lead to warfare between the Klingons and Earth.
There are certainly some gaps in what we know here, especially about Picard's perspecive on Klingon first contact, but I still say that the information from pre-ENT and what we saw in "Broken Bow" doesn't add up.
I'd just write it off as tampering with the timeline... Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:To quote a friend of mine... "Oh yeah? Then why was he running through a cornfield screaming like a little girl?"
Because he hadn't failed at that time. And, er, he might've been screaming like a little girl, but he was still shooting up the Suliban who'd shot him down, remember?
quote:Later on, they encountered a Klingon battle cruiser. It seems to me that the Klingon captain was not hostile towards Earth in particular
He sure didn't show any great love for Archer & Co., trying to blow the ship up and all, or did you forget that part? Surely if the Klingons were as grateful to Archer & Co. as you believe (I mean, hey, they *did* leave the great hall alive!) the Klingon captain would've at least offered tea and crumpets.
quote:That's just your typical Klingon attitude, anyway.
Uh ... does your brain work? I simply ask because its not fair to look at 'future' Klingons and say 'they always treat underveloped humans that way.' Well, maybe so ... but why did they start? See, its not typical at this point in 'Star Trek' history, because, wow, this is only the second time we've met the Klingons. Probably because the Klingon High Council is spreading word about 'meddlesome humans sticking their noses in our business.'
quote:Besides, there are hundreds or even thousands of first contacts that Humans and the Federation would have made over the past 300 years; why choose the Klingons specifically unless he was telling the truth, directly?
Easy. Because there is a big hulking Klingon on the bridge. "See? We fucked up with the Klingons, fought a lot of wars with them, and now we're allies and trust a Klingon to serve as our chief of security!"
quote:That means that there should be a direct causal relationship between first contact with the Klingons and the "70 years of unremitting hostility" (according to Spock in TUC).
In the same way that there is a direct causal relationship between Hitler becoming chancellor of Germany in 1933 and World War II many years later. The 70 years of unremitting hostility seems to speak more to a cold war with a series of skirmishes then to occasional rubbing shoulders or what not.
Honestly, one would assume that you and Phelps in history class are screaming 'No! We can only have met the Germans in 1941!' if your history professor explained to you that Hitler became chancellor in 1933, started off the war in 1938, but the U.S. didn't get involved until 1941.
quote:The interesting thing, though, is that Picard said the first contact with the Klingons was "centuries ago," when the previously assumed first contact was around 2218. That's only 150 years, compared with 200+.
Well, there you go. It had been '150' years since the 'continuing hostility' with the Klingons had begun, even though the two had known of each other for years before hand. Again, Hitler - 1933, 1938, 1941.
quote:The "Broken Bow" incident wasn't much more than a simple skirmish, one that may have had lasting repercussions for the Klingon Empire internally, but shouldn't have much effect on interstellar relations.
::sigh:: Let me re-write that above. 'Hitler becoming chancellor may have had lasting repercussions for Germany internally, but shouldn't have much effect on international relations.' That should illustrate it for you nicely.
quote:Furthermore, I really don't see how having any first contact protocols would have helped the situation. True, Archer violated Klingon cultural expectations, but that didn't really "spoil" the first contact as it was. And it certainly wasn't enough to lead to warfare between the Klingons and Earth.
Personally, I think Picard 'muddled' the truth a bit. I think he was referring to first-contact procedures with less developed worlds, and just used the Klingons as a not-so precise example.
quote:There are certainly some gaps in what we know here, especially about Picard's perspecive on Klingon first contact, but I still say that the information from pre-ENT and what we saw in "Broken Bow" doesn't add up.
Yes, it does.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
Your Hitler example is a poor one. Had we watched a series called "World War II" all these years, and were now given a "1933" series, it would've been quite clear how the first episode called "Hitler Becomes Chancellor" is tied to the later events.
However, this is more like having a prequel called "The Aftermath of World War I" showing the Germans paying reparations and growing poorer, while a character in "World War II" is saying "decades ago, a disastrous need to have the Germans pay just reparations after World War I caused World War II".
This, while closer to our situation, still does not jibe with the Klingons. Was the "Broken Bow" incident as bad as the Germans paying reparations? The Germans grew poor and discontent, which is why Hitler was eventually able to capitalize on the situation. Here, the Klingons are still superior and happy. If they hadn't been, would they have let the humans go? At least Klaang should've slapped Archer like Kargan did Riker in "A Matter of Honor", after Riker chose not to kill him before taking over his command.
I thought they would understand the human point of view at least, in which the humans are trying not to be babies, but rather acting exactly like the Klingons would in their situation.
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
You know, it doesn't take much to piss off Klingons. It is perfectly possible that Archer simply helping Klaang, and the primitive Klingons of this era, is the cause of all the fuss in the next two centuries. They think humans don't respect them from the beginning, setting the stage for other minor incidents to make them mad until the 2220s when all hell breaks loose. The "disaster" is simply applying human values to an unknown alien culture before recognizing how that culture would respond.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:The "disaster" is simply applying human values to an unknown alien culture before recognizing how that culture would respond
I think I love you, Ryan. Very well said!
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
But why didn't the Klingons kill Archer?
[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I don't think Klingons will neccessary kill someone who has offended their honor but completed their goals. Doesn't mean they're not pissed ... okay, look at 'Harry Potter.'
$$$
Harry's dad saved the life of Snape once. Snape hates Harry, yet repays the debt in 'The Sorcerer's Stone.' Similar deal.
[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
I haven't seen Harry Potter, but am I to assume this Snape character was generally "evil" as opposed to hating Potter for a reason, and that the Klingons can be similarily excused for being generally "evil", even though they repay their debt sometimes?
Why didn't they slap Archer at the very least? Klaang should've been way concerned about his honor. Nothing happened. What kind of Klingons are these?
[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
No, Snape is a good guy, he just really hates Harry.
Minor $$$$ (be warned ...)
Although Snape was once one of Valdemort's henchmen, he turned double-agent (we learn this in 'Goblet of Fire') and played a role in Valdemort's down-fall. In 'Sorcerer's Stone', he risks his life on a couple of occasions to stop Valdemort's accomplice from obtaining the stone.
Snape's hatred for Harry seems to stem from his hated for Harry's dad, James. At Hogwarts, the two were rivals, and James and his friends once sent Snape to go meet a werewolf, only James changed his mind at the last moment and rescued Snape (nearly getting himself killed in the process).
[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Klingons didn't kill Archer et al. because they know that the humans did, in fact, help them, so they really owe the humans. But they aren't happy about it.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: He sure didn't show any great love for Archer & Co., trying to blow the ship up and all, or did you forget that part? Surely if the Klingons were as grateful to Archer & Co. as you believe (I mean, hey, they *did* leave the great hall alive!) the Klingon captain would've at least offered tea and crumpets.
No, my point is that the Klingon didn't know about Archer's actions from previously. (That's why T'Pol explained Archer's "heroic" actions later on.) So the Klingon just treated the Enterprise as any other alien ship.
The events of the first contact between Earth and Qo'noS can hardly be as important if no one knows what happened.
quote:Originally posted by me: That's just your typical Klingon attitude, anyway.
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Uh ... does your brain work? I simply ask because its not fair to look at 'future' Klingons and say 'they always treat underveloped humans that way.' Well, maybe so ... but why did they start? See, its not typical at this point in 'Star Trek' history, because, wow, this is only the second time we've met the Klingons. Probably because the Klingon High Council is spreading word about 'meddlesome humans sticking their noses in our business.'
Why wouldn't it be fair to say that since TOS/TNG era Klingons regard most humans as soft and weak, self-righteous, and meddlesome, that they would regard them in a similar way in the past? Would you rather suggest that they held Humans in higher regard in the past? That doesn't make any sense, since the Klingons of the TNG era are allies with the Federation, but some still don't entirely respect all of them. (Witness episode like "A Matter of Honor" and "Soldiers of the Empire.")
As I said, the Klingon captain didn't seem to be aware of the events of "Broken Bow" until T'Pol related the heroic tale.
And yes, my brain does indeed work. I find it quite useful.
To move on to your Hitler comparison...
Yes, Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship directly led to World War II, in that Hitler was the mastermind and leader of the attacks and other nasty stuff. History is nothing but cause and effect interelationships. (I'm going to be a history major, FYI.)
HOWEVER, my point is that there's nothing in "Broken Bow" that's going to lead to a war, whether it be cold or hot. The Klingons are not going to just stand by and be insulted for whatever reason, and sulk about it for a while before eventually deciding to get even with the troublemakers. They would have responded right then and there.
And the Klingons aren't a middle-of-the-road kind of people. If they were truly mad at Archer & Co. for saving Klaang's life, they would have done more than just snarl. Sure, it wasn't an amicable start, but I'll bet part of the Klingons' unfriendliness was a result of the divisive and surprising information that Archer brought.
Yes, the "Broken Bow" incident didn't set up the most amicable of relationships. But any relationship can deteriorate without blaming the first meeting. It depends more on the immediate acts.
Picard said that the Klingon first contact caused decades of conflict. But the "Broken Bow" version caused NOTHING.
That's all, folks.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"HOWEVER, my point is that there's nothing in 'Broken Bow' that's going to lead to a war, whether it be cold or hot."
Because of what Archer did, the Klingons don't like humans. If the Klingons liked humans, there would be no war later. But there is. And it happened because of that enmity which was started during Archer's first contact.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Had they had Yosi just answer Archer in the Council chamber when he asked what the Klingon said then maybe some of this could be cleared up. As it is we don't know if it was a real threat to Archer like " show you face here again and your whole race is dead" or just some of that Klingon posturing so he doesn't look weak in front of his friends. I always hated that she didn't answer. Here thay are in a potential life threatening situation and the comm. officer won't answer the captains question. She should have been thrown in the brig for that.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Because of what Archer did, the Klingons don't like humans. If the Klingons liked humans, there would be no war later. But there is. And it happened because of that enmity which was started during Archer's first contact.
Actually, he rather provided a logical argument about why this isn't the case. You did nothing but restate your premise, providing no rebuttal, new information, or counter-argument.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:The Klingons are not going to just stand by and be insulted for whatever reason, and sulk about it for a while before eventually deciding to get even with the troublemakers. They would have responded right then and there.
You forget, of course, of an old Klingon proverb. "Revenge is a dish best served cold." They've got a potentially dangerous enemy -- would it not make more sense to learn as much as possible about this new threat before striking a death blow? Klingons aren't stupid.
quote:Picard said that the Klingon first contact caused decades of conflict. But the "Broken Bow" version caused NOTHING.
Then for whatever reason, Picard lied or mangled the actuality of the events.
[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Another take on the "Why, oh why couldn't the Klingons kill the main character of the show in the pilot episode?":
Remember that it was the Vulcans who filled our heads with prejudice about how the Klingons would react to the return of Klaag. I'm sure they had studied the writings of the Kahless mythology very closely, and read through all the Klingon laws and Warrior's Manners Manuals and whatnot. And I'm sure that those writings would have dictated that the Klingons in fact kill Archer where he stands.
But Vulcans are theoreticans. They have little appreciation of the erratic manner in which humans break their own written and unwritten rules when they feel it's the Right Thing to Do. I find it eminently plausible that the Klingons in fact share this habit with us humans. The Vulcans simply could not correctly predict how the Klingons would respond, even though they were convinced that they had the Klingon culture down pat.
As for why Picard would say the first contact was disastrous, heck, it did begin with a crash, aka disaster.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Actually, he rather provided a logical argument about why this isn't the case."
I didn't see any. All I saw was an assertion that, if the Klingons were angry enough to make war, they would have done it immediately. But that has nothing to do w/ anything. The Klingons aren't mad enough to start a war. But they do dislike humans now. Even if they don't have a reason to go to war at the moment, they'll be more prone to do so in the future.
The fighting isn't over the events of BB. But, if not for the events of BB, the Klingons wouldn't be hostile toward humans, and wouldn't go to war over other matters later.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'm not saying that the Klingons aren't hostile. But I am saying that they aren't hostile enough.
If the first contact was going to result in "decades of warfare," one should expect something a that's at least "disastrous."
I would hardly call the Klingon first contact a disaster. Sure, it was a messy mission, but Archer was quite successful in returning Klaang to the Klingon Empire and providing crucial information to the High Council. His mission was accomplished, and he left Qo'noS peacefully.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: You forget, of course, of an old Klingon proverb. "Revenge is a dish best served cold." They've got a potentially dangerous enemy -- would it not make more sense to learn as much as possible about this new threat before striking a death blow? Klingons aren't stupid.
That doesn't mean they can't start with killing the puny Human who insulted their honor or violated their customs or whatever.
Klingons aren't subtle. They certainly can carry a grudge, but they don't delay vengeance.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Then for whatever reason, Picard lied or mangled the actuality of the events.
Oh, wonderful, now we're accusing one of the Federation's model captains and diplomats of lying to a planetary executive during First Contact negotiations...
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I didn't see any. All I saw was an assertion that, if the Klingons were angry enough to make war, they would have done it immediately. But that has nothing to do w/ anything. The Klingons aren't mad enough to start a war. But they do dislike humans now. Even if they don't have a reason to go to war at the moment, they'll be more prone to do so in the future.
Gee, you're not even meeting my argument head-on, you're just dismissing it by saying that there's no evidence. Of course there's no evidence! This is all a matter of interpretation of events based on what we know of established Trek history.
By your own statement quoted above, the first contact seen in "Broken Bow" didn't lead to war, but only established unfriendly relations. Therefore, the first contact incident did not cause the war.
� NO disaster at first contact � NO war between Earth and Qo'noS
Here's another aspect of the quote from Picard that no one's looked at:
quote:"It was decided then that we must do surveillance before making contact."
I see absolutely no Prime Directive issues that could be relevant to the first contact as presented in "Broken Bow." And there's no reason that surveillance would have helped the situation; Archer and the admirals already had the information they needed from the Vulcans! It's apparent that the Klingon encounter had no effect on contact protocols later on. As far as Archer's concerned, everything went just fine. (Relating to meeting the Klingons, anyway.)
Look beyond the facts presented. Speaking as a history student who's used to looking at causes and effects, I do not see the events producing the result that we're supposed to get.
Of course, I prefer to think of ENT as existing in an alternate timeline...
[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: MinutiaeMan ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Who says "then" means the time of BB? I would think that "then" would refer to the decades of war. After SF realized what sort of problems were being caused by that first contact years later, then they changed the rules.
And much as I hate to beat this Hitler analogy into the ground, it's a good one, so I'll use it again. Klingon first contact == Hitler's rise to power. In 1933, no-one could tell we were going to go to war w/ Germany. In 2151, no-one can tell the humans are going to go to war w/ the Klingons. So some event in the future will actually start the war, equivalent to the invasion of Poland in 1939. Hitler's rise to power wasn't the beginning of WW2. First contact w/ the Klingons wasn't the beginning of decades of war. But, if Hitler had never risen to power, WW2 wouldn't have happened. And, if Archer hadn't fucked up first contact w/ the Klingons, there wouldn't have been decades of war.
Not to mention that you're placing way too much importance on Picard's exact words. You assume that, because he said "disastrous", that the first contact itself must have been some sort of battle or other such immediately recognizeable fiasco. But something that doesn't look like a disaster right away can certainly seem like one two centuries later. Especially if Picard wasn't wholly versed in the specifics of the event. Maybe all he knew was that Klingon first contact didn't go completely smoothly, and, if it had, humans and Klingons wouldn't have fought for so long. So he just threw the word "disastrous" in to make his speech sound better.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
You're bypassing all of my points again.
� Picard's words. Well, if you want to twist his meaning into whatever you like, then this conversation is pointless. By your argument, Picard's definition of "disaster" could mean that some Human insulted the Klingon representative by asking, "Dude, what's wrong with your forehead?"
� The first contact. Let me go into greater detail, then. The encounter between Humans/the Fed has to lead to something. Yet the "Broken Bow" incident is effectively resolved at the end of the episode. There's no long-term relationship established between Earth and Qo'noS. There's no war declared. There's no insults, as far as we can tell. Archer just delivers Klaang and leaves. Case closed.
Or are the Klingons going to just decide a few years later, "I didn't like the way that wuss Archer looked at me. Let's go beat the crap out of their planet"?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Yet the "Broken Bow" incident is effectively resolved at the end of the episode. There's no long-term relationship established between Earth and Qo'noS.
Right. And when Gowron suceeded K'mpec as High Council leader and Worf killed Duras, the TNG Klingon arc was effectively resolved. There would be no more interaction between our valiant crews and Qo'noS again.
[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Archer just delivers Klaang and leaves. Case closed."
Erm... How about the really nasty angry thing the Chancellor(?) said to Archer that Sato refused to translate? You think he was saying "thank you, please come again"?
And if I can't interpret Picard's words, why can you? You're assuming that, just because Picard said the word "disastrous", the incident must have been a huge fiasco. "Disastrous" can mean a lot of different things to different people.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Because of what Archer did, the Klingons don't like humans. If the Klingons liked humans, there would be no war later. But there is. And it happened because of that enmity which was started during Archer's first contact.
Which is just bad drama. It's like Voyager appearing out of the sphere at the end of Endgame. Its ambigous and frustrating. It does nothing but detract from the story.
And really, do you think if what the Klingon said was something along the lines of "We declare war upon you! We shall wipe out your entire species and be at your homeworld's step within the week! Prepare yourselves for battle!" that Hoshi would've declined to translate? No, he probably just called them a bunch of Denebian Slime Devils and told them to get the hell of his property before he called the cops.
Sure, it may or may not fit Picard's speech, but regardless it is just really bad writing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Exactly. He probably said something like "fuck off, and don't show your pasty human faces on my planet again". And, later, someone showed their pasty human face on Qo'noS and a war started. Or something.
