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...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
posted
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.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.'
$$$
Harry's dad saved the life of Snape once. Snape hates Harry, yet repays the debt in 'The Sorcerer's Stone.' Similar deal.
[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
I haven't seen Harry Potter, but am I to assume this Snape character was generally "evil" as opposed to hating Potter for a reason, and that the Klingons can be similarily excused for being generally "evil", even though they repay their debt sometimes?
Why didn't they slap Archer at the very least? Klaang should've been way concerned about his honor. Nothing happened. What kind of Klingons are these?
posted
No, Snape is a good guy, he just really hates Harry.
Minor $$$$ (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
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
"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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
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.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
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 ]
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic