Logline
When an existential crisis threatens to wipe out a beloved but infamous Star Trek species, a cadet is forced to confront his past and strained relationship with his family. As he pursues an unexpected method of coping, Nahla races against time to save this species from extinction.
Written by: Gaia Violo & Eric Anthony Glover
Directed by: Doug Aarniokoski
I really didn’t care for this one.
The premise of the debate was flawed from the start. The Federation has an obligation to offer help, but there’s no requirement anywhere that it must compel another race to accept that help. Indeed many, many episodes have gone out of their way to point this out. So the whole idea of a “debate” was pointless. Of course they should offer the help, but that’s the end of any moral or legal responsibility. Doing anything more would itself be unethical.
On top of that, we’re somehow supposed to pretend we didn’t all watch Esri Dax’s excellent critique of the Klingon Empire back on DS9 and instead accept that this lie of “conquest” is supposed to prop up the Klingon culture. Are we to believe that it’s been hundreds of years and the Empire is still built in lies they tell each other about honour and battle? Instead of showing any hint of evolution (and potentially stoking internal conflict at the idea of accepting charity from an enemy), we just had a 5 minute “battle” and it’s all ok now.
This wasn’t even a respectful battle. No blood was spilt by either side, no sacrifices made. Where is the honour in that? It was a mock battle to preserve a lie. Esri would not be amused.
I think that arrogant, quasi-imperialistic has always been simmering in the background of the Federation, so I wasn’t too surprised to see them arguing over this - and, to be clear, the actual debate was always amongst the students. Vance was determined to convince the Klingons to accept asylum, but “compelling” them did not seem to be seriously on the table.
That’s an interesting point. If I were to come up with a counter-argument, I suppose it would be that the Klingons’ readiness to do this ritualistic faux combat shows some growth - they’re willing to settle for performing their culture and feeling respected, rather than endure actual warfare. A smarter person than me could probably find parallels in many modern cultural practices.
That was my read of it, too. The cadets were debating the course of action with various shades of compulsion in their arguments. I thought that the debate device was great for fleshing out the overriding question of forcing help on people.
This is a great point, and I hadn’t thought of that. I could definitely see 24th century Klingons demand real bloodshed. Though, perhaps the growth is born of a certain pragmatism that must develop when a species is near extinction; they simply do not have the luxury of losing any individuals.
Just to your point about the debate being pointless, it wasn’t even meant to be in the curriculum until the students fought for it.
We could mince words about whether or not the writers forced the debate plot, but what really matters is whether they sold that it was within the characters’ motivation to hold one. And for me it did.
The short and bloodless battle could have been sold better. In a TNG episode someone (Worf) would have mentioned some ancient Klingon marital ritual of ritual combat. Even better when it’s a story from Klingon mythology. Then they could call a P‘Qouth and duke it out for a symbolic minute.
Helping people by force to save them from death is something that’s often done IRL, e.g. evacuations, suicide watch. Saving endangered species is a goal of many people and countries today. Saving an extraterrestrial sapient species and culture against their will is an easy case to make.