History, it seems has rendered a rather negative verdict against James T. Kirk. He's a womanizer, a cowboy, a colonialist. It's interesting to note how often later shows often referred to their higher ethics in contradistinction to Kirk's alleged excesses. Problem is, I don't really see this as being a fair or accurate assesment of Kirk or the TOS Federation. His flaws and exploits tend to be exaggerated and when compared to the exploits of later Federation heroes, he hardly seems to be an extremist. Compared with Commander Riker, for example, he can hardly be counted as a womanizer. He kisses far fewer women than people imagine and had relations on one maybe two occasions in the whole series run. He very rarely disobeyed orders and was very serious about doing things by the book. If you agree with me, let me know. If not, make your case against Kirk.
First off, I come from a part of the country where being called a cowboy is a compliment (cowboy up), a individual deserving considerable respect. so yes, I would describe James Kirk as a cowboy. As far as being a womanizer, his relationship with Edith Keeler was very romantic and chased. His time (and sex) with Miramanee was while he was basically out of his head, bedding Kelinda was more of a exception than a norm for Kirk. Kirk is much more of a flirt than a womanizer. Picard would seem to have been more of a colonialist than Kirk. In the 24th century the Federation/Starfleet were much more expansionist, fighting a major boarder war with the Cardassians.
If I had to choose a Captain to trust with my life and be honored to serve with it would be Kirk. He gets a bad rap by some but it is over inflated.
Case study in incompetence and sheer malice: "Space Seed." Engaging in space piracy by boarding a civilian ship and interning its crew? Check. Almost willfully inept security arrangements? You bet. Unaware of betrayal in his ranks? Yep. Using a military court to try civilians? Awful, right? Running the most egregiously procedurally unfair legal proceeding in the history of time, with a panel of judges comprising parties who were involved in the controversy? Amen! Unilaterally imposing an extralegal banishment? Aye. Zero follow-up on his experiment? One huge check. Failure to follow regulations in approaching an incommunicado starship, causing the death of several dozen... oh, wait, that's Wrath of Khan. But, you know, there's that too.
Well they all can't be as competent as Picard... oh wait... go watch Heart of Glory. Or Datalore. Or Q, Who. The characters do what the story requires them to do to move forward. Nothing more... nothing less.
Well, I never liked "Cowboy Cop" type heroes so naturally I gravitate more towards characters like Picard and (sometimes) Sisko. But Kirk was okay for his day. Would've been nicer if they had some stories of him being chewed out by Command for screwing up societies and just leaving afterwards.
People say that like it’s a bad thing. That's because something happened between the end of Trek TOS and the start of Trek TNG. It was called “political correctness.” Excuse me, but you've got that exactly backwards. The Botany Bay had been launched from Earth two centuries earlier. In boarding the ship and reviving Khan from hibernation, Kirk was duly carrying out his mission of investigating and exploring unusual phenomena. It was also thought that valuable historic information could be gained about a tumultuous period in Earth history. It was Khan, not Kirk, who revived the rest of the surviving crew -- and engaged in space piracy by trying to take over the Enterprise!
Please, anytime anyone bothers to call out anyone from the past on indiscretions they always get labeled with being too "politically correct" or "not knowing how hard it was", BS like that. The old-timers just can't stand that legitimate change happened and stuff that happened back then (which probably wasn't acceptable for their own time) isn't so well-liked nowadays.
Except that for every excess we find in Kirk, we can also find similar excesses in TNG era captains. There are plenty of dubious calls that we pin on other captains. Also, if Kirk really was from a different time, it seems unfair to judge him, as a captain, for being a man of his times. I might judge Horatio Honrblower negatively for betraying chauvinism or racial prejudice, but this is more of a judgment of his time than of the man himself. Regardless, such judgment has little to do with whether or no we should judge him to be a good captain. Kirk played by the rules, but I don't think we can fault him too much for having been issued an older rule-book. If anything, it seems that we might judge later captains more harshly for failing to live up to their espoused ethics.
How so? The only "colony" I can think of that he established is Sigma Iotia II ("A Piece Of The Action"). He changed a lot of planets, despite the Prime Directive, but I can't think of any other Federation colonies he established. Perhaps the planet in "Miri" with Federation advisors/educators? What other planets did he convert to Federation colonies? Not arguing; just curious.
But that's what I mean. Anytime anyone says anything bad about Kirk the main response is "You're too PC" or "You don't know what it was like back then", which is all BS.
I've always found Kirk easier and more fun to write than the other captains, because he rushes right into danger without holding a meeting in a conference room first!
nuKirk in ST XI was indeed a jackass. He was a drunk, a horndog and a brat, who didn't earn the captaincy but rather had it dropped in his lap like a care package from Grandma. Kirk in TOS and the films, however, was none of these things. At least he had class and leadership ability.
It kind of helps that in TOS TV he wasn't so much a character as he was an archetype that just was lucky enough to be played by a good actor. Him, Spock and McCoy were archetypal characters which is why it was so easy for freelance sci-fi writers to do scripts for the show. By the movies, they had begun to become real characters in their own rights beyond the archetypes they started as. This DID start in TMP, with Kirk coming to terms with him not being a Captain anymore and Spock finally realizing his human side's worth.
At that age, I was too. To be frank, I was cocky bastard with a death wish. But with a little time and temperance I have matured into someone with a level head and the ability to look before I leap. But we all go through a refinement period once we reach adulthood and Kirk, old and new, is no different.
Look at it from the prospective of a US Coast Guard ship. If a ship, regardless of it flag, is in US territorial waters the Coast Guard can board it, perfectly legal. If a ship is in international waters, and it's US flagged, the Coast Guard can still board it, again perfectly legal. They don't have to ask permission of the ship's master. Historically civilians were tried in admiralty courts and maritime courts every day, and don't forget Harry Mudd. Starfleet commanders could very easily have legal jurisdiction in these matters.