RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,567
Posts: 5,402,528
Members: 24,865
Currently online: 661
Newest member: shyrim

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 2 2012, 06:46 PM   #61
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Christopher wrote: View Post
^The number of people involved is irrelevant. Given how brutal and sociopathic even just Mirror Kirk was, there's no way he could've avoided tipping off his crewmates that there was something wrong with him.
This. Mirror Spock was already picking up that something wasn't right with Kirk, almost immediately.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 07:36 PM   #62
Mars
Captain
 
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
^The number of people involved is irrelevant. Given how brutal and sociopathic even just Mirror Kirk was, there's no way he could've avoided tipping off his crewmates that there was something wrong with him.
This. Mirror Spock was already picking up that something wasn't right with Kirk, almost immediately.
He had three other characters that also weren't behaving right, if it was just Kirk, then he might assume he was just having a bad day.
Mars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 08:07 PM   #63
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

^"Just having a bad day?" Wanting to exterminate the Halkans? Asking where his personal guard was? Treating Spock like a rival rather than a friend? Spock's not an idiot. It would be obvious that Mirror Kirk wasn't who he seemed, or had suffered some profound alteration in his mental state.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 08:32 PM   #64
Kegg
Rear Admiral
 
Kegg's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland.
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Knight Templar wrote: View Post
We hear lots of talk about a Star Trek series needing a "diverse cast".

"Diverse" in this sense seems to always mean different races for the human members of the crew and for different alien species for the nonhuman crew members.

Isn't this a pretty narrow minded view of diversity?
No.

It's the other thing - a pretty broad sense of diversity that makes sense given the character of what Starfleet is. It doesn't matter what your background is, you too can join up to Starfleet's mission and the UFP's basically idealistic goals. It is, indeed, part and parcel of those goals, emblematic of the idea that the Fed's objectives are in some senses universal, or sufficiently broad as to appeal to an incredibly disparate group of people.

As a consequence:
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Junk Star Trek's "modern secular liberalism" as a standard. Because our characters are a diverse group, only a few of our heroes will embrace this particular philosophy.
Why buy into Starfleet if you don't buy into Starfleet's goals?

Over the years Star Trek's shown many outsider characters with perspectives on Starfleet's ideals with varying degrees of cynicism or from other cultural perspectives (Kira Nerys, Quark, Seven of Nine, etc.) - and also citizens of the Federation who don't really buy into the whole 'message' thing, like Picard's cantankerous brother. We've also seen characters - like Nog, Worf and Chakotay - who do not find a contradiction between their religious beliefs and their service in Starfleet.

But if you don't buy into it - why would you apply to join?

Not everyone in the Federation is Human, why would Federation society (and Starfleet's selection process) be determined by Human viewpoints?
Is it, though? I mean obviously humans are a founding race and the capital is Earth and they have an enormously important role in the Federation, but IDIC is, of course, Vulcan. The Federation's utopian ideals don't seem to have been entirely shaped by humans.
__________________
'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.'
- Philip K. Dick

Last edited by Kegg; September 3 2012 at 08:47 PM.
Kegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 09:39 PM   #65
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

^Also, as we know from Enterprise, the Prime Directive is based on Vulcan principles.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 11:06 PM   #66
commanderkai
Lieutenant
 
commanderkai's Avatar
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Knight Templar wrote: View Post
Or someone who has after 30 years in the service or so has decided that he "really does not like the damned aliens much"
We actually did see a bit of this with O'Brien in "Cardassians", if I remember correctly. It was the episode with the young Cardassian boy adopted by Bajorans, who then bit Garak.

I do agree with you that a cast of the likes of DS9 would probably make Star Trek more interesting. They don't have to be too extreme, but fitting with the back stories of their character.
commanderkai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2012, 11:54 PM   #67
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

commanderkai wrote: View Post
Knight Templar wrote: View Post
Or someone who has after 30 years in the service or so has decided that he "really does not like the damned aliens much"
We actually did see a bit of this with O'Brien in "Cardassians", if I remember correctly. It was the episode with the young Cardassian boy adopted by Bajorans, who then bit Garak.

I do agree with you that a cast of the likes of DS9 would probably make Star Trek more interesting. They don't have to be too extreme, but fitting with the back stories of their character.
We first see that O'Brien has trouble with Cardassians in TNG's The Wounded.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2012, 12:49 AM   #68
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Also, as we know from Enterprise, the Prime Directive is based on Vulcan principles.
Would that be the PD of the TOS time period, or the PD of TNG? They would seem to be two entirely different directives, different philosophies, that carry the same label. Did both separate philosophies come from Vulcans. Or maybe from two different groups of Vulcans?

commanderkai wrote: View Post
They don't have to be too extreme
Just this. It's too easy to say more diversity than what we've seen mean letting in a mass murderer. But having a wide assortment of Starfleet personnel, who sport an equally wide range of beliefs on various subjects, does not mean traveling to the farthest end of the scale with the first step.

Kegg wrote: View Post
Over the years Star Trek's shown many outsider characters with perspectives on Starfleet's ideals with varying degrees of cynicism or from other cultural perspectives (Kira Nerys ... )
Kira would definitely not fall into the "cynic" category. If Kira were to attempt to join Starfleet, would her different cultural perspectives prevent her entry. Or at the academy, would there be a steady pressure for her to not just conform, but to alter her beliefs at a personal philosophical level to embrace "the one way?"

Kegg wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Junk Star Trek's "modern secular liberalism" as a standard. Because our characters are a diverse group, only a few of our heroes will embrace this particular philosophy.Their beliefs on economics, religion, politics, government, capitalism, socialism are very different from each other..
Why buy into Starfleet if you don't buy into Starfleet's goals?
Why would "MSL" be Starfleet's goal, or the Federation's? I personally place the Federation's total population in the 800 billion to 1 trillion range. They're all going to just happen to have "MSL" as their goal? Realistically they're going to be across the spectrum. Different species, cultures and home worlds are going to bring different ideas into the Federation when they join.

The Federation's composite ideals isn't going to be the same after gradually admitting 150 new members over the course of two centuries, as it was when there were only a half dozen members. And that's assuming that all the original half dozen wanted "MSL" in the Federation in the first place. These species were forming the Federation, who was going to keep them out? If Earth were the only one of the founding worlds to want "MSL," the other Founders might have said "Sure your representative can bring "MSL" to the Council, just don't try to force it on us."

Despite talk on other threads on the board, I do think the Federation Council is a democracy, but not automatically a liberal democracy.

But if you don't buy into it - why would you apply to join?
If Earth were to (somehow) join the Federation today, our entry would alter the Federation, because of the multi-cultural beliefs we would bring to the existing Federation vast multi-culture society. Would the Federation first say 'This is how you must change your planetary society to get in."

Lovely.

The Federation in the 24th century has 150 (round figure) members. Many of those member would have colonies. So how many cultures would that be? One? More likely many thousands, just look at how many cultures we have just here on Earth today. How many religions, life-styles, motivations, political parties (world wide), belief systems, etc.. Now multiple all those that by say a few hundred..

Everyone in Starfleet embraces "MSL," really? Would Starfleet even be allowed (by law) to practice such a restrictive entry requirement? Again, I not suggesting letting in mass murderers.

__________________
.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares shall farm for those who retained their swords
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2012, 01:09 AM   #69
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
^Also, as we know from Enterprise, the Prime Directive is based on Vulcan principles.
Would that be the PD of the TOS time period, or the PD of TNG? They would seem to be two entirely different directives, different philosophies, that carry the same label. Did both separate philosophies come from Vulcans. Or maybe from two different groups of Vulcans?
Of course, an idea can change over time and diverge from how it was originally taught. Just because it changes, that doesn't mean it no longer came from the same origin. It just means people reinterpreted it or lost sight of its original intent.


Kira would definitely not fall into the "cynic" category. If Kira were to attempt to join Starfleet, would her different cultural perspectives prevent her entry. Or at the academy, would there be a steady pressure for her to not just conform, but to alter her beliefs at a personal philosophical level to embrace "the one way?"
Of course not. Where do you get the bizarre idea that Starfleet has only "one way"? The whole core philosophy of the Federation is respect for diversity. A believer in the Bajoran religion wouldn't be persecuted or banned by Starfleet any more than, say, a Buddhist would be kicked out of an American university or a federal government post. Because the Federation, like the United States, is a society built around secular institutions -- which does not mean it's hostile to religion, simply that it's neutral on the subject. It means it doesn't hold up one religion as right or treat any others as wrong. It embraces plurality of thought as one of its premier values.

I should also point out that in the Pocket Books novel continuity, Kira became a Starfleet captain when Bajor joined the Federation in 2376 and the Bajoran Militia was incorporated into Starfleet. No Bajorans were pressured to change their religious beliefs in any way.



The Federation's composite ideals isn't going to be the same after gradually admitting 150 new members over the course of two centuries, as it was when there were only a half dozen members.
I think you've answered your own question about the Prime Directive.


Everyone in Starfleet embraces "MSL," really? Would Starfleet even be allowed (by law) to practice such a restrictive entry requirement?
Oh, come on, that's a contradiction in terms. The whole point of secular liberalism is that it's inclusive, not restrictive. If a society is liberal (in the philosophical sense, not the partisan sense) in the aggregate, that means it respects a variety of points of view on the individual level. If it's secular in the aggregate, that means there is no state religion and individuals can choose their own. The only thing that isn't tolerated is intolerance, or the attempt to compromise others' rights in pursuit of your own.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2012, 01:02 AM   #70
Kegg
Rear Admiral
 
Kegg's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland.
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Kira would definitely not fall into the "cynic" category.
Which is why I said 'varying degrees of cynicism or from other cultural perspectives', Kira is very much from column two.

If Kira were to attempt to join Starfleet, would her different cultural perspectives prevent her entry.
Kira was originally supposed to be Ro Laren, before Michelle Forbes turned down DS9. Ro Laren was a Starfleet officer who believed in her Bajoran faith and made a point of wearing a Bajoran earring. I didn't mention her when listing religious members of Starfleet because she was a recurring character who only featured eight episodes (which is less than Nog).

So, no, Kira's religious perspective would not have been in conflict with serving as a Starfleet officer. This is kind of what secularism is about - your personal beliefs are your own, you have the freedom to do what you want to the extent it's not harming others... but you're not going to have society mandate that you must stick to your assigned caste role, as the false Emissary insisted Kira return to in DS9's "Accession." Your identity is a choice, not an obligation.

Why would "MSL" be Starfleet's goal, or the Federation's?
Because that's what Starfleet and the Federation are all about. THe Federation is not just humans and aliens who are all together because... uh, why not, inertia. It's not a society where on some planets aliens tyrannically enslave others and murder them for public sport while on other planets saying the word Belgium is an offense punishable by decapitation. There are basic moral principles that the Federation holds as universal, including, you know, treating other sapient life forms with dignity and respect, and if you'd rather mutilate Bajorans well that's part of why the Cardassian Union is an enemy of the Federation and not card-carrying members.

What the Federation can have in spades is cultural diversity. Nude Betazoid weddings. Weirdly ritualistic Vulcan weddings. Organizations of humanoid aliens who volunteer for the honor of sharing their lives and their bodies with sapient slugs. There can be different perspectives on many moral questions, as Worf was so often a counterpoint to his colleagues. But if you don't have the basics - you know, the integrity of individuals, the inclusivity of people from multiple walks of life and perspectives - then this may not be working out for ya.

It's quite true that not everyone in the Federation may agree to these ideas. But if you don't find them valuable, why sign up to the Federation's all purpose arm?

Despite talk on other threads on the board, I do think the Federation Council is a democracy, but not automatically a liberal democracy.
It's something like a liberal democracy with a basically post-scarcity economy.

If Earth were to (somehow) join the Federation today, our entry would alter the Federation, because of the multi-cultural beliefs we would bring to the existing Federation vast multi-culture society. Would the Federation first say 'This is how you must change your planetary society to get in."
Earth's basically ineligible, because we don't have a single planetary government. And, yeah, there's a lot that would need to be changed if we were joining the Federation even beyond just having 'a one world government.' Take any few dozen countries with notable institutionalized human rights violations and you'd have a good idea of what kinds of things need to go.

Everyone in Starfleet embraces "MSL," really? Would Starfleet even be allowed (by law) to practice such a restrictive entry requirement?
I'm not even sure what you mean by MSL, to be honest with you. But again - short of allowing in planets who kill you for saying Belgium - I can't see the Federation being much more inclusive than it is.
__________________
'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.'
- Philip K. Dick
Kegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2012, 04:09 AM   #71
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Kegg wrote: View Post
Ro Laren was a Starfleet officer who believed in her Bajoran faith and made a point of wearing a Bajoran earring. I didn't mention her when listing religious members of Starfleet because she was a recurring character who only featured eight episodes (which is less than Nog).
As I recall, Ro wasn't really a big believer. In "The Next Phase," the only episode that touched on her spirituality, she was aware of her people's supernatural beliefs about spirits but had always dismissed them as superstition. She also wore her earring on the "wrong" ear compared to DS9's Bajorans; only the Pah-wraith cultists wore it on the left ear as Ro did. The post-series DS9 novels assert that she's a nonbeliever who wears the earring as a symbol of her cultural heritage. I think they said she wore it on the left ear to block vedeks from pinching it to sense her pagh. (And I wish they'd gotten around to explaining how they do that, if it actually works at all. Are Bajorans telepathic?)


So, no, Kira's religious perspective would not have been in conflict with serving as a Starfleet officer. This is kind of what secularism is about - your personal beliefs are your own, you have the freedom to do what you want to the extent it's not harming others... but you're not going to have society mandate that you must stick to your assigned caste role, as the false Emissary insisted Kira return to in DS9's "Accession." Your identity is a choice, not an obligation.
Now, that is exactly right. "Secular" just means "not concerned with religion." That means neither compelling religion nor forbidding it.


...and if you'd rather mutilate Bajorans well that's part of why the Cardassian Union is an enemy of the Federation and not card-carrying members.
Actually, in the current book continuity, the Cardassians and Federation are solid allies. That whole almost-being-wiped-out-by-the-Dominion-and-then-helped-to-rebuild-by-the-Federation thing forced the Cardassians to rethink some things.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2012, 04:29 AM   #72
Star Wolf
Rear Admiral
 
Star Wolf's Avatar
 
Location: ciudad de Los Angeles
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Knight Templar wrote: View Post

What about diversity of values, morals, character, personalities?
Life in the Federation and aboard its Starfleet is to easy. With replicators and halo-decks taking care of every need and dream there is no real inner conflict to drive the differing values among the crew we see. That nail which sticks up out of place was hammered down in Starfleet Academy long before the characters we see were commissioned and posted to The Enterprise.

They didn't even have to draft troops for the Dominion war
__________________
I'm not crazy! All I Really Need to Know I learned by Watching The Wire
Star Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2012, 04:34 AM   #73
Kegg
Rear Admiral
 
Kegg's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland.
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Christopher wrote: View Post
As I recall, Ro wasn't really a big believer. In "The Next Phase," the only episode that touched on her spirituality, she was aware of her people's supernatural beliefs about spirits but had always dismissed them as superstition.
Fair point.
Actually, in the current book continuity, the Cardassians
I can stop you there, as the context is the Cardassians as portrayed on TNG and DS9. It's a good example of a society which hasn't bought into the Federation project or their ideals, in contrast to alien societies within the Federation - like Vulcans and Betazoids - who have. The Cardassian legal system where people are considered guilty by default is exactly the sort of 'diversity' that would have no place in the Federation.

Another less hostile example are Klingons, while they have been allies to the Federation it's also clear they don't just have a different culture, they have a different legal system and overall ideology to the Federation. This is why, for example, when Riker wants to get information out of a Yridian who is distinctly not threatened at the idea of a Federation prison he raises the spectre of a Klingon one.
__________________
'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.'
- Philip K. Dick
Kegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.