Cinema Geekly wrote:
If your name is Khan you BETTER be from India and a brown man because in the future all races will be segregated by skin color, names, and birth place.
Good thing no one said anything like that. Here's something worth noting:
MARLA: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.
This was something McGivers said based on looks, not a name. I know it's not important anymore and the character is rebooted (and even so probably since TWOK), but that's what I was going off of, not anything more than that. I know it's easy to set up a straw man and pretend this has to do with racism or something like that, but that's cheap.
I don't think it has anything to do with racism.
It is just an argument I've seen alot or a complaint. His name is Khan, he is suppose to be a Sihk warrior and blah blah blah he cant be a white British guy.
I just think the whole thing is a beyond pointless argument. It's a ret-con. Hell the TOS movies ret-conned the TOS series whenever it felt like it.
I just think it is a silly argument that the role should go to an Indian actor or something like that.
My absurd comment was just there to say that Trek, if it taught me anything was that what you are called, where you come from, and what you look like are meaningless next to what kind of person you are.