Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

[GeekUSACarl]

I like ST: D quite a bit; but that said, there are MANY words I could use to describe Lorca and "Hero" would NOT be one of them - nor do I feel the character is being portrayed as a Hero in any sense.

Star Fleet Command has given him Command of a vessel using wildly unproven and dangerous technology because the war is going very badly for the Federation, and they want to end it ASAP without having to surrender. Captain Gabriel Lorca is:

1) Definitely considered expendable. (Again Starfleet's attempt to get this Spore Drive tech is a 'hail mary'.)
2) His unorthodox actions and decisions are still being tolerated because so far they have yielded gains in the war effort.

And if anything sleeping with an Admiral produced a situation that (if said Admiral survives to report to Command) will lead to loss of his Command and further psychiatric evaluation.

I'd almost call him a hero to those who's lives he's saved, but his actions? don't seem heroic, his motivations don't seem heroic, he seems like an asshole.

I dunno the circumstances surrounding the death of his former crew, but I have a feeling I won't find those heroic either.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

TNG, as much as I love it, did not really portray a progressive future. White men still ran everything, the only women on board were in caregiving roles, except one who became phaser fodder (and even that woman had to have her toughness explained by where she grew up; she couldn't have just been a smart, confident, badass woman), LGBTQ issues could only be explored by allegory and good old western values always saved the day.

It actually doesn't surprise me that until DSC there were Trek fans who were homophobic and racist. After all, to them, Geordi was just fine as long as he stuck to his place down below, and let the white men do all the real work, and no one was gay, ever, at all.

There is nothing un-progressive about a gender or a skin color in charge of anything. There is something un-progressive about a society that PREVENTS people from attaining goal or position based on things like gender or skin color.

I've no idea what the mix of skin colors are in the future, I have no idea what the typical sensibilities of women were and how they differ from men, but men and women typical do have different natural traits and do naturally gravitate towards different things. In a progressive forward thinking universe, it would simply be those who chose to go one route do, those who qualify continue, and no one pays attention to gender or skin color because it doesn't matter.

VGR also was just fine for alt-righters to watch. .

 

[GeekUSACarl]

In the real world, if a military commander gave a plum position to an untrained 15 year old child, especially in peacetime, and therefore demoted or held back other people who had actually gone to the Academy and spent years training for the position, they would quite possibly face criminal charges over that.

In the "progressive utopia" of TNG, giving the children of your pals high profile jobs was treated as something sweet and wonderful.

Yes I understand what you mean, and I agree.

Nepotism WHAAAA?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Production wise putting Wes at the helm was a way to justify the character's existence. Like Troi, he was an ill-conceived character.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Production wise putting Wes at the helm was a way to justify the character's existence. Like Troi, he was an ill-conceived character.

I call cool people Wes. To me, he is, forever and in perpetuity, to be called Wesley.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

There is nothing un-progressive about a gender or a skin color in charge of anything. There is something un-progressive about a society that PREVENTS people from attaining goal or position based on things like gender or skin color.

I'm not hung up on identity politics, but here's where someone would say "this assumes then that white people will always rise to the top, even in a totally fair society."

The weirdest part of this conversation is that I'm pretty right-leaning. Maybe libertarian on a good day. I just think that the further we go into the future, the more mixing of races there will be and thus fewer purely white people. It strikes me as odd that in the 24th century, most humans are still born on Earth, anglo people always have anglo names, et al. Picard's roots all go back to France. Riker's roots all go back to Alaska. He's not Julio Riker or William Kinoshita, etc.

 

[Tesophius]

By the 24th century humanity is going to be so genetically and synthetically augmented that they probably wouldn't even be seen as humans in our times. Discussions around skin colors centuries from now are mostly worthless because they assume transhumanism never happened. At the very least phenotypes are going to be largely determined by choices, not by genetic background. Same goes for sexuality. It's ludicrous to presume that by the 24th century we still haven't figured out how to augment one's sexuality. That would actually be an interesting subject to explore in Star Trek. While exploring modern 21st century issues of races and sexuality in a futuristic future doesn't do these challenges of today any credit.

 

[Feron]

I'm not hung up on identity politics, but here's where someone would say "this assumes then that white people will always rise to the top, even in a totally fair society."

The weirdest part of this conversation is that I'm pretty right-leaning. Maybe libertarian on a good day. I just think that the further we go into the future, the more mixing of races there will be and thus fewer purely white people. It strikes me as odd that in the 24th century, most humans are still born on Earth, anglo people always have anglo names, et al. Picard's roots all go back to France. Riker's roots all go back to Alaska. He's not Julio Riker or William Kinoshita, etc.

Indeed. That is one of the key areas where Star Trek's globalism falls completely apart.

If socialist globalism had truly created a utopian future where there was no more racism, etc. then why are almost all of the crew members of TOS and its' spinoffs literal ethnic stereotypes -- Scotty, Chekov, Uhura, Sulu, Picard, Crusher, Archer, etc. and as you stated the folks in charge are most often white males with females usually in caretaker roles?

If globalism had truly worked, then how would it be that a guy from Aberdeen would still be pasty white, with a thick Scottish accent, be fond of stereotypically Scottish drink and cuisine, and work at a stereotypically Scottish job?

If socialist globalism had done such wonderful things, then most if not all of the characters would be mixed race and adherence to a single stereotypical culture would be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[cultcross]

Star Trek is a show about, and for, modern humans. The further we get from that the less relatable it is - it's meant to be TV with a bit of a moral, not an essay on future humans.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Indeed. That is one of the key areas where Star Trek's globalism falls completely apart.

If socialist globalism had truly created a utopian future where there was no more racism, etc. then why are almost all of the crew members of TOS and its' spinoffs literal ethnic stereotypes -- Scotty, Chekov, Uhura, Sulu, Picard, Crusher, Archer, etc. and as you stated the folks in charge are most often white males with females usually in caretaker roles?

If globalism had truly worked, then how would it be that a guy from Aberdeen would still be pasty white, with a thick Scottish accent, be fond of stereotypically Scottish drink and cuisine, and work at a stereotypically Scottish job?

If socialist globalism had done such wonderful things, then most if not all of the characters would be mixed race and adherence to a single stereotypical culture would be the exception rather than the rule.

True social equality won't = everyone look the same and be equally represented in all facets of things, but to answer your question why a guy from Aberdeen would still be very Scottish,

ancestry will simply always fascinate people. A globalist culture would still be a people of very different ancestries.

 

[Feron]

Star Trek is a show about, and for, modern humans. The further we get from that the less relatable it is - it's meant to be TV with a bit of a moral, not an essay on future humans.

Indeed so, and IMHO that is precisely why Trek has kept the ethnic stereotypes.

If they had portrayed the future as one in which present day cultures are largely eliminated, then it would hardly be effective in presenting a "hopeful" future for many of its' intended audience. Someone watching and realizing that the future the show presents would include the eradication of their own cultural identity would be far less likely to view it as a positive, IMHO.

 

[UssGlenn]

Indeed the looming prospect of losing their culture to globalism may have led to people embracing their heritage that much harder in the Star trek universe, hence the over the top Scotsman and Russian

then why are almost all of the crew members of TOS and its' spinoffs literal ethnic stereotypes -- Scotty, Chekov, Uhura, Sulu, Picard, Crusher, Archer, etc. and as you stated the folks in charge are most often white males with females usually in caretaker roles?

I can't see your reasoning behind thinking Uhura, Sulu, Picard, Crusher, and Archer are ethnic stereotypes.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Indeed the looming prospect of losing their culture to globalism may have led to people embracing their heritage that much harder in the Star trek universe, hence the over the top Scotsman and Russian



I can't see your reasoning behind thinking Uhura, Sulu, Picard, Crusher, and Archer are ethnic stereotypes.

Well the white ones look white, the black ones look black, and the Asian ones look Asian so...
pretty stereotypical.

/srcsm

 

[Feron]

Indeed the looming prospect of losing their culture to globalism may have led to people embracing their heritage that much harder in the Star trek universe, hence the over the top Scotsman and Russian



I can't see your reasoning behind thinking Uhura, Sulu, Picard, Crusher, and Archer are ethnic stereotypes.

Uhura still speaks Swahili and has tribal art in her quarters. Like most of the other female characters, she is still in a caretaker role, communication.

Sulu -- first episode shown as loving botany, a stereotypical Japanese pastime, and he is also big on martial arts -- what a surprise.

Picard, it is less so, just because they gave him a French name. But his accent and preferences are literally British stereotypes, plus the most Anglo of the Anglo ensemble is of course the one in charge.

Crusher, more Scottish stereotypes, just revisit the episode where she has the magic lamp with the Scottish Space Ghost that bangs her.

And Archer, wow another Midwestern White guy like Kirk who is in charge. He might not stand out simply because his culture is one which predominates.

Mind you, I'm not upset or bothered by the stereotypes, I'm just pointing out to people who are offended by the alleged failure to follow Gene's progressive "vision" on DSC that all of the preceding Trek shows were not exactly ideologically pure either. If someone has war / pacificism as one of their hot-button progressive issues, then of course DSC is less enjoyable than say TNG. But for a host of other issues, TNG or other Trek shows were hardly bastions of progressive thought.

I watch the shows because I enjoy sci-fi fantasy romps. For folks that are looking for some sort of ideological affirmation, they are most likely to be often very disappointed, IMHO.

 

[BillJ]

Sulu -- first episode shown as loving botany, a stereotypical Japanese pastime, and he is also big on martial arts -- what a surprise.

Though I doubt many Americans knew this about Japanese at the time. This was the world before the internet. Sulu liking botany was probably thought of as a way of introducing people to Japanese culture at the time.

No doubt the original Star Trek committed its share of gaffes, but we should look at it in context of the times it was made.

 

[UssGlenn]

I get what you are saying, I think we are drawing the line between "character is from place" and "character is stereotype of place" in very different places.

Sulu -- first episode shown as loving botany, a stereotypical Japanese pastime, and he is also big on martial arts -- what a surprise.

I do have to take issue with your analysis of Sulu. I've never heard of botany being considered a stereotypical Japanese pastime, and as further evidence there isn't a single reference to botany on the Wikipedia page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_East_Asians_in_the_United_States
Also, big on martial arts? I assume you mean Asian martial arts (so not fencing). One shoulder roll in Star Trek III hardly rises to that level (plus that's not TOS, its the movies). Are there other instance I'm not thinking of?

 

[Feron]

Though I doubt many Americans knew this about Japanese at the time. This was the world before the internet. Sulu liking botany was probably thought of as a way of introducing people to Japanese culture at the time.

No doubt the original Star Trek committed its share of gaffes, but we should look at it in context of the times it was made.

I watched it live as a child, and I was aware that botany was a stereotypical Japanese pastime. There literally was / is a "Japanese Botanical Garden" in the area where I live.

I don't think the stereotypes were gaffes in TOS, they were quite intentional. The intention was not to realistically portray a hypothetical future after centuries of globalism. The intention was to show people of different recognizable ethnicities all working together as a team. In the 1960s when TOS was made, there was still a lot of blatant overt racism in society, so the show in its own way was trying to address it.

I'm just pointing out that for those offended by DSC's alleged offenses, that for nitpickers all of the preceeding shows could be taken apart as well. I would prefer that folks just enjoy them for what they are -- entertainment that hopefully is thought-provoking as well.

 

[BillJ]

I'm just pointing out that for those offended by DSC's alleged offenses, that for nitpickers all of the preceeding shows could be taken apart as well. I would prefer that folks just enjoy them for what they are -- entertainment that hopefully is thought-provoking as well.

Discovery's biggest offense to me, is that I just find it dull. Without Jason Isaacs, I would have likely already moved onto other things.

 

[Feron]

I get what you are saying, I think we are drawing the line between "character is from place" and "character is stereotype of place" in very different places.

I do have to take issue with your analysis of Sulu. I've never heard of botany being considered a stereotypical Japanese pastime, and as further evidence there isn't a single reference to botany on the Wikipedia page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_East_Asians_in_the_United_States
Also, big on martial arts? I assume you mean Asian martial arts (so not fencing). One shoulder roll in Star Trek III hardly rises to that level (plus that's not TOS, its the movies). Are there other instance I'm not thinking of?

Here's a popular location in my neck of the woods.

http://www.fwbg.org/the-japanese-garden

Mind you, it isn't a negative stereotype. After all, creating tranquil beautiful gardens is hardly a bad thing. But there are distinctly Japanese forms of botany as opposed to many other cultures.

And for the martial arts, indeed his favorite one is fencing, but still in the 1960s having a Japanese character who also is focused on an outdated physical martial art is still stereotypical IMHO.

Edited PS -- As an example of why I would consider Sulu's focus on a physical martial art as a stereotype, consider the other shows at the time of TOS. The normal role for an Asian character was as a martial arts sidekick to the white hero. (Bruce Lee was awesome as Kato though. )

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Japanese gardener was a popular trope in fiction for a couple of decades. Though I have to say, I never connected Sulu's interest in botany to that stereotype. Perhaps because I didn't think of him as Japanese at the time.