• 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!

Who invented Khan?

Is it? I can't imagine if this comment was said about any other race that it would be acceptable, but since it is about the white race; it is ok; I find that truly bizarre no matter your race. I am glad I don't have a mindset that I generalize people on account of their race but rather the individual personalities. Seems the future is further out than I imaged it would be when I thought about it as a kid.

I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about the history of the concept of "whiteness" as a demographic category. The first time the concept of race was legally codified, it was in support of slavery. Originally, the law was that only non-Christians could be enslaved for life, but when a lot of African slaves converted to Christianity, the plantation owners whose fortunes depended on brutal, inescapable slavery changed the law to say that only non-whites could be enslaved for life. Before then, people defined their identity more by religion or nationality.

And as I said, historically, whiteness has been defined in terms of which groups it excludes, which is why, as Nerys Myk said, there have been times in history when society has defined groups such as Jews, Irish, Italians, and Poles as "non-white." So I find it an arbitrary, artificial category whose fundamental intent has historically been to discriminate, and that is why I don't like to define myself that way. Like I said, I'm talking about the category, not about people, because people can choose whether or not they identify with that mindset. I'm not critiquing a "race" of people, because that "race" doesn't exist except as a manufactured cultural construct, one whose impact on society has historically been negative.
 
historically, whiteness has been defined in terms of which groups it excludes, which is why, as Nerys Myk said, there have been times in history when society has defined groups such as Jews, Irish, Italians, and Poles as "non-white."

The reason why my personal definition of white is so broad is that I take the exact opposite approach. Is this person clearly Black, Asian, Pacific Islander or Native American? No? Then they are white. That makes Middle Easterners white and if it was up to me Subcontinental Indians would be considered darker skinned white people.
 
The reason why my personal definition of white is so broad is that I take the exact opposite approach. Is this person clearly Black, Asian, Pacific Islander or Native American? No? Then they are white. That makes Middle Easterners white and if it was up to me Subcontinental Indians would be considered darker skinned white people.

I think a lot of people would object strenuously to the idea that white is the automatic default setting in which a white observer would choose to include them unless they're visibly something else. What if they don't choose to identify themselves that way? Shouldn't we ask people how they identify themselves rather than deciding for them?
 
The reason why my personal definition of white is so broad is that I take the exact opposite approach. Is this person clearly Black, Asian, Pacific Islander or Native American? No? Then they are white. That makes Middle Easterners white and if it was up to me Subcontinental Indians would be considered darker skinned white people.
Aryan literally comes from India. :lol:
 
The reason why my personal definition of white is so broad is that I take the exact opposite approach. Is this person clearly Black, Asian, Pacific Islander or Native American? No? Then they are white. That makes Middle Easterners white and if it was up to me Subcontinental Indians would be considered darker skinned white people.
It's not just you. In the science of anthropology, the Caucasian group includes most of India, Pakistan, the Arab world, Persia... it's a big tent.

They generally wouldn't want to be called white nowadays when they are in North America or Western Europe, because of the social and career disadvantages there, but physically they are Caucasians.
 
What if they don't choose to identify themselves that way? Shouldn't we ask people how they identify themselves rather than deciding for them?

If that was how it worked no one would have had a problem with Rachel Dolezal. Race is a social construct. That means society gets to decide, not you.
 
If that was how it worked no one would have had a problem with Rachel Dolezal. Race is a social construct. That means society gets to decide, not you.

It means that since it is just an imaginary social construct, the members of society can collectively choose to change it, rather than doubling down on the systemic inequality that defines whiteness as the default and everyone else as an exception. The modern concept of race is only a few centuries old, so obviously it isn't an eternal verity, and society can choose to change it.

It's not about "how it works." It's about whether we have the imagination to conceive a better way than the current status quo and the will to strive to achieve it. Shouldn't that be a given for all of us here on this Star Trek fan forum?
 
Are racial discussions even allowed on TrekBBS? (A music forum I belong to forbids them and would have closed a thread like this a long time ago.)
 
Maybe Khan's ego had him ditch the turban and beard?

Of course, now we know that he probably wasn't raised in a familial religious environment, thanks to SNW - unless that alternate timeline changed those details, too, we know he grew up at a facility with other augments of varied backgrounds - so something more akin to boarding school than a family.
 
Maybe Khan's ego had him ditch the turban and beard?
Ignoring SNW (which I do): He didn't wear the turban to bed. Which is pretty much what they all wound up doing in a sleeper ship. He packed it away. When he revived his followers, they didn't go around unpacking, they had to hurry up and take over the Enterprise. By the time they "discarded their own worthless vessel" he wasn't running back over to get his turban. He had a ship to win and an empire to build. Probably figured he's buy another one somewhere. Or make one. It was the future. He probably had a few other things on his mind. When he was reading the tech manuals, he probably said "ah, I can make a turban when I'm settled."

He was concealing his identity for a time also.

Everyone was clean shaven on the ship (none of that suspended animation shadow for these guys). Could be all sorts of reasons for that. Hell, he was "absolute ruler" of a lot of Earth. He made some changes. "No beards!" :rommie:
 
What almost works—and certainly works better for me than her being that wrong—is the idea that she recognized exactly who he was from the get go. It's why she's so gobsmacked during the landing party.
And the comment about being a Sikh is a spur-of-the-moment red herring to delay Kirk from doing what he does once Khan's identified—lock him up, thereby removing any access to him.
My head canon anyway.
 
Are racial discussions even allowed on TrekBBS? (A music forum I belong to forbids them and would have closed a thread like this a long time ago.)

Are people getting abusive, or is it a well-considered discussion?

As already mentioned, the problem isn't why Khan didn't look like a Sikh -- the problem is how Marla could've thought he was a Sikh at first glance when he didn't look like one.

She secretly Googled him.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top