The fact that a political pejorative is introduced when someone points out the lack of objective or empirical support for human racial categorization, well, that pretty much says it all.
Khan and Marla First Interracial Kiss on Star Trek
- Thread starter Flork
- Start date
The fact that a political pejorative is introduced when someone points out the lack of objective or empirical support for human racial categorization, well, that pretty much says it all.
There's also a lot of equivocation going on in this thread. Whether one personally believes in race or defines it a particular way doesn't negate how Hollywood or the U.S. Census defines it, nor its importance throughout American history. People were so entrenched in their views on race in the 1960s that we not only had the modern Civil Rights movement, but sponsors threatened to retaliate against shows that did not offer a racial formula they supported. In the case of Star Trek, part of its fame has been the oft-noted "first interracial kiss." Perhaps they should say "first Black-White" kiss instead of conflating all races to just those two.
Star Trek did not have the first black-white kiss on TV. That’s an oft-repeated myth.
http://www.agonybooth.com/tvs-first-interracial-kiss-star-trek-27382
http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2014/11/tvs-first-interracial-kiss.html
In the case of Star Trek and its contemporaries, the sponsors were the ones who encouraged diversity, asking the networks and the studios to include people of color in the casts. Mostly because of the color green.
Too obvious.
I don't even see Kirk and Uhura kiss in that scene. They kind of get their faces close and talk, but I don't see a kiss. Is there an actual kiss there that gets cut out in syndication or something?
There's an implied kiss, but shot in such a way that you don't see their lips touching.
Shouldn't count then.
I've heard the thing before about how scientists have decided that there is no such thing as race. I haven't read why they say so, but clearly people from different parts of the world have different facial and body features, and I think we do need a word to describe that, so race seems to work. Eliminating racism is not about pretending differences don't exist, it's about accepting the differences that clearly do exist.
^Race is just like units of time: an artificially imposed human construct. Wherever you draw the lines, there's always something in between. In reality, it's all a continuum.
Modern concepts of race are a social construct, largely based on a flawed reading of Darwin and a misinterpretation of Spencer’s dictum “survival of the fittest”. In the minds of many people in the 19th century (and well into the 20th, but on a diminishing scale, thankfully), the implication of “race” was tied with hierarchical separations that, in more extreme forms, led to explicit characterizations of non-whites as “sub-human” or even “non-human”. When scientists say (quite correctly) there is no biological category of “race”, it is, in part, an affirmation of the unity of humanity as one species (today—many tens of thousands of years ago, it was murkier). “Race” exists as a concept and, as such, continues to influence social behaviour, government policy and host of other things. But “race” is “imagined” in the same way “nations” are “imagined”—they are human concepts that do not exist independently, unlike species, for example. “Racial differences” are all too often rigidly interpreted, leading to all sorts of unfortunate (to be mild) consequences.
Eliminating racism is not about pretending there are no differences among people—it is about ensuring people are not categorized and judged primarily (if not solely) on what amount to superficial physical characteristics entirely unrelated to their ability to do, well, just about anything they would like.
I still don't get it. I'm Caucasian. In my mind that means I share certain genetic traits with others who are also called Caucasian but are different from those we call African or Asian. That was not arbitrarily created by anyone. It is what it is. Doesn't mean anyone's better than anyone else, but we are genetically different.
Not so much that you're a different race though.
I think you're confusing race with species. Race is just a more polite term than "breed", to spare us from making people sound like dogs and horses.
It's arbitrary and expands and contracts with the views/needs of the user.
The chasm between Anthropology and Eugenics used to be almost nothing at all.
Do people really use science to define race? I just assumed that racism was just a human instinct to fear anything that is different from them. So instead of embracing that fear by trying to find things in common they try to use power to gain control over them. Then as time passes it becomes personal and things like revenge or the ability to exploit people you control starts to takeover.
Jason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology
Racism is making blanket generalisations about a race that can't be true unilaterally of half a billion people.
Race is about where your family spent a couple thousand years interbreeding with their 5th and 6th cousins, before the invention of mass transit.
Can I link to the post I just made a minute ago?!!
And based on how many on Earth act...
I can only imagine how many streams of consciousness Charles Darwin might have...
Similar threads
