• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Lower Decks 1x10 - "No Small Parts"

Rate the episode...

  • 10 - An excellent finale.

    Votes: 172 75.8%
  • 9

    Votes: 36 15.9%
  • 8

    Votes: 9 4.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 4 1.8%
  • 6

    Votes: 3 1.3%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1 - A poor finale.

    Votes: 3 1.3%

  • Total voters
    227
When Kirk tells the lieutenant that bigotry has no place on his bridge in Balance of Terror, he's not just talking about anti-Romulan sentiment.

Obviously. I like this scene, partly because it's not an "attack by analogy" or some blessed Trek allegory but just a straight-out statement by Kirk about his stand on bigotry under his command. That the instance involves Romulans rather than a Japanese crew member isn't germane to the principle being stated.

Which touches on the second reason I like the exchange: it momentarily treats bigotry as a shortcoming familiar to the Trek characters. Stiles isn't regarded by the others as some outlying throwback to the late Neolithic, just a dude with a personality flaw that needs to be addressed. Bigotry remains an issue among humans in their time, just one that they've apparently made a world of progress in dealing with on a societal level.

That strikes me as a truly hopeful vision, as distinct from the "we sprinkled magic dust on everyone and racism disappeared" level of portrayal Trek would later fall back on. In fact you can contrast it with the scene several years later, in "Day of The Dove," when the creators had grown more self conscious of the Importance of Trek and Kirk finds himself apparently nearly unable to conceive of himself or his people experiencing "race hatred."
 
Last edited:
Anyone else listened to the September 28 episode of The Pod Directive? It's the official Trek podcast hosted by Tawny Newsome
and Paul F. Tompkins. Anyway that episode was a roundtable discussion of only black women, and a recurring theme was that, as children, Star Trek was the only "Adult show" their parents would only let them watch because it was the only show in which the black characters weren't having to deal with racism. Basically it's important to have at least one place where race isn't an issue as a counterpoint to literally everywhere else.
 
That's a good point, and it suggests that the creative minds behind Trek, particularly the various revivals, have never been engaged in thinking through what is the substance of racism and bigotry. They don't really recognize bigotry when they see it, except in the most conventionally defined forms.

Roddenberry certainly had a liberal social consciousness for a man of his background in his day. There's no question of that. But in conception and design Star Trek drew much of its format and storytelling approach from previous popular cultural representations of historical eras and movements that were steeped in racism: 19th century European colonialism and the westward expansion of European settlements in North America. Spock himself was, conceptually, an avatar familiar from American western movies, pulp stories and TV; the "half-breed" adopted into the dominant group. Consequentially he and his culture were portrayed with the exoticism and stereotyping that were accepted in those kinds of stories. Both the broad-brush assignment of peculiar psychological quirks as intrinsic to his people and civilization and the casual mockery and disrespect of both, notably on the part of one of the show's most sympathetic and supposedly humane characters, McCoy, set the pattern for the treatment of "non-human" people in the franchise ever since. Far from being progressive, present-day
Trek is atavistic with respect to these elements.

So, to use a specific example from the current run: characters identified as human and identified as members of groups that moral people now recognize as marginalized and suppressed, like Burnham or Stamets, are well and respectfully portrayed, as everyone should be. But when it's necessary for the writers to find a shorthand way to make the antagonistic aliens unsympathetic and deserving of emotionally motivated, violent deaths? Why, they're cannibals.* No one creating this feels the need to even think that through.**

When created, Star Trek was an admirable, well-motivated effort to take a moral stand in support of equality and human rights. I doubt that anyone - around here, anyway - questions the high-minded intentions of the producers and writers. But it embodied the myopia of its time then and has just not evolved very much in this regard over the decades and as a result is glaringly narrowminded and backward in important respects now. It falls back on lazy storytelling cliches and tropes without much self-examination.


*Klingons eating humans and humans eating Kelpians are ethically cannibals, sorry. Deal with it.

**This was GR's first take on the Ferengi when he invented them with the intention that they would be the new "big bad" on TNG, as well. Not consciously racist I'm sure, but not by happenstance either IMO. The assignment of this defined-as-repulsive characteristic to the Other comes most directly out of colonialism.

While I know it's not your favorite show, I'd argue Deep Space Nine was an exception to this rule. For the most part, DS9 attempted to eschew the "planet of hats" element TNG brought to the fore and fleshed out one-note alien species as being something other than broad racial stereotypes. What they did with the Ferengi in particular - turning a species considered one of the biggest missteps of TNG into one of the most complicated, fleshed out cultures - was remarkable. But it was seen elsewhere as well. Cardassians might have a brutal authoritarian government, but plenty of them were mild-mannered civil servants, scientists, or dissented in private from the government line. Klingons might be a warrior culture, but they can also be afraid or be harmless chefs. Even the races of the Dominion were given some variety, with Odo breaking from the Founders, the one "rebel" Weyoun, and occasional Jem'Haddar which interpret their loyalty differently.
 
While I know it's not your favorite show, I'd argue Deep Space Nine was an exception to this rule.

There's some truth to this. DS9 eschewed some of Trek's latter-day superficial utopianism in general. And of course there's "Far Beyond The Stars." Let me ask you something - I haven't seen "Past Tense" in decades. In that near-future setting, fraught as it was with portrayals of inequality and injustice, did the writers delve at some point into racism where the portrayal of Gabriel Bell's circumstances were concerned?
 
I haven't seen "Past Tense" in decades. In that near-future setting, fraught as it was with portrayals of inequality and injustice, did the writers delve at some point into racism where the portrayal of Gabriel Bell's circumstances were concerned?

I saw it a couple of years ago, and I don't remember racism being brought up at all.
 
While I know it's not your favorite show, I'd argue Deep Space Nine was an exception to this rule. For the most part, DS9 attempted to eschew the "planet of hats" element TNG brought to the fore and fleshed out one-note alien species as being something other than broad racial stereotypes. What they did with the Ferengi in particular - turning a species considered one of the biggest missteps of TNG into one of the most complicated, fleshed out cultures - was remarkable. But it was seen elsewhere as well. Cardassians might have a brutal authoritarian government, but plenty of them were mild-mannered civil servants, scientists, or dissented in private from the government line. Klingons might be a warrior culture, but they can also be afraid or be harmless chefs. Even the races of the Dominion were given some variety, with Odo breaking from the Founders, the one "rebel" Weyoun, and occasional Jem'Haddar which interpret their loyalty differently.
But DS9 still perpetuated the following:

The Klingons were a 100% race of "Warriors". (And double down on that once the character of "Worf" joined the cast.)

The Cardassians were all "Space Nazis".

Every Bajoran was also deeply religious and a follower of "the Prophets".

And for the first two seasons while it wasn't a planet of the hats show; It was a hat visits the station this week. It also occasionally devolved to planet of hats when the once the Defiant was added to the show; but I will give you that from the third season on they at least started to develop a backstory that led to the Dominion war from the mid 5th season on. The Klingon invasion of Cardassian at the start of season 4 was interesting too. But someone obviously felt there was an issue as season 4 was designed to "bring back" The original Federation/Klingon Empire dynamic of the TOS era.

still DS9 was a nice departure because it focused more on the characters in the cast and their personalities and internal struggles with themselves than any other Star Trek show before or since.
 
But DS9 still perpetuated the following:

The Klingons were a 100% race of "Warriors". (And double down on that once the character of "Worf" joined the cast.)

The Cardassians were all "Space Nazis".

Every Bajoran was also deeply religious and a follower of "the Prophets".

That is absolutely not the case, and the poster you quoted gave some non specfic examples of outliers.
 
The Klingons were a 100% race of "Warriors". (And double down on that once the character of "Worf" joined the cast.)

Wrong: Off the top of my head:
  • There was that fat, singing Klingon who ran a restaurant on the promenade. He did not look like much of a warrior.
  • Worf's son, Alexander, was clearly shown to be not cut out to be a warrior
  • In the episode where Quark marries Grilka, the antagonist dude is discovered to be using finance ("like a Ferengi") to get his way,
  • The variety of different characterizations in Soldiers of the Empire - from superstitious, to depressed, to suffering from post-traumatic stress.

The Cardassians were all "Space Nazis".

Again, did you even watch DS9:
  • There was Marrizita in Duet, who was a traumatized civil servant plagued by guilt who thought he should be executed for the crimes of his superiors
  • The various members of the Cardassian dissident movement, including Natima Lang, Hogue, Rekelen, and Legate Tekeny Ghemor.
  • Damar himself broke with the totalitarianism of his government and joined the resistance. Indeed, the whole resistence subplot in the final arc was emphatically showing the Cardassians were not actually "bad guys."

Every Bajoran was also deeply religious and a follower of "the Prophets".

Again, this is wrong. First there's the cult of the Pah-Wraiths. They clearly did not follow the prophets. There were also plenty of individual Bajorans - most notably Leeta - who didn't seem to be particularly religious.

And for the first two seasons while it wasn't a planet of the hats show; It was a hat visits the station this week. It also occasionally devolved to planet of hats when the once the Defiant was added to the show; but I will give you that from the third season on they at least started to develop a backstory that led to the Dominion war from the mid 5th season on. The Klingon invasion of Cardassian at the start of season 4 was interesting too. But someone obviously felt there was an issue as season 4 was designed to "bring back" The original Federation/Klingon Empire dynamic of the TOS era.

The Klingon arc in Season 4 was added only because Worf was added. The original plan was to have the Domnion War start a season earlier, and have the last season deal with the aftermath and the acceptance of Bajor into the Federation.
 
I have no idea how anyone could claim DS9 portrays the Cardassians as all being "space Nazis" when the entire point of DS9's depiction of Cardassia is that it is a deeply divided society with multiple factions competing with one-another for power and influence. I would argue that Cardassia is the least "planet of hats" of all the alien worlds of Star Trek.
 
There were also plenty of individual Bajorans - most notably Leeta - who didn't seem to be particularly religious.

Ro wears her earring on the wrong ear, The novels have that signifying she isn't a believer, but I don't think an explanation ever made it on screen.
 
Wrong: Off the top of my head:
  • There was that fat, singing Klingon who ran a restaurant on the promenade. He did not look like much of a warrior.
  • Worf's son, Alexander, was clearly shown to be not cut out to be a warrior
  • In the episode where Quark marries Grilka, the antagonist dude is discovered to be using finance ("like a Ferengi") to get his way,
  • The variety of different characterizations in Soldiers of the Empire - from superstitious, to depressed, to suffering from post-traumatic stress.



Again, did you even watch DS9:
  • There was Marrizita in Duet, who was a traumatized civil servant plagued by guilt who thought he should be executed for the crimes of his superiors
  • The various members of the Cardassian dissident movement, including Natima Lang, Hogue, Rekelen, and Legate Tekeny Ghemor.
  • Damar himself broke with the totalitarianism of his government and joined the resistance. Indeed, the whole resistence subplot in the final arc was emphatically showing the Cardassians were not actually "bad guys."



Again, this is wrong. First there's the cult of the Pah-Wraiths. They clearly did not follow the prophets. There were also plenty of individual Bajorans - most notably Leeta - who didn't seem to be particularly religious.



The Klingon arc in Season 4 was added only because Worf was added. The original plan was to have the Domnion War start a season earlier, and have the last season deal with the aftermath and the acceptance of Bajor into the Federation.

In almost every single example, those characters were notable specifically BECAUSE they bucked the trend and even their own cultures often viewed them with distastes specifically for not conforming to the standard norms.

So it doesn't exactly bolster your argument that "Alexander wasn't a warrior!" when Worf spent several episodes gnashing his teeth precisely because Alexander didn't fit in with what was expected of him.
 
Ro wears her earring on the wrong ear, The novels have that signifying she isn't a believer, but I don't think an explanation ever made it on screen.

Ro was the first Bajoran on screen. It's everyone else who wears their earrings wrong.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top