Chakotay as the Noble Savage

[kimc]

Well, then, look at it this way, Lynx. You are a better human and writer than I am.

Teya, don't encourage him.
Only kidding, Lynx.

Why are you always so downright nasty and ironic?

You know, it's amazing that this topic lasted as long as it has since it's such a sensitive one. It's also interesting as long as we don't take things so personally. Do you guys need to ruin it with the personal comments? Put each other on Ignore if you need to or pm if you want clarification of intent.

Now, back to topic...

 

[exodus]

Well, then, look at it this way, Lynx. You are a better human and writer than I am.

Teya, don't encourage him.
Only kidding, Lynx.

Why are you always so downright nasty and ironic?

You know, it's amazing that this topic lasted as long as it has since it's such a sensitive one. It's also interesting as long as we don't take things so personally. Do you guys need to ruin it with the personal comments? Put each other on Ignore if you need to or pm if you want clarification of intent.

Now, back to topic...

Really?

Aren't these to express joking->
I think the "only kidding, lynx" backs this up.
You're impling animosity where there is none.
Lynx himself can also verifiy this as we speak via PM's on a regular basis.

 

[Lynx]

^^
Confirmed!

 

[freak]

I find the "Angry Warrior Speech" degrading--because he quite clearly states that he is subjugating himself to her needs. His only function from that point on is to support her.

However when you view the "Angry Warrior Speech" thru a European lense where there's a traditional concept of chivalry that same speech can be seen as romantic.

I guess it all depends on which lense you're using and which one you think the writers were going with and their intent.

I agree, kimc. I think it has to do with what lense you are looking through at the given point of time. I happen to have thought that Chakotay's "Angry Warrior" speech was really sweet and romantic. And he was telling Janeway that before he met her(in his own Angry Warrior words mind you), he didn't care about anybody but himself..and then when he met Janeway, he decided to hell with himself and to care about someone else's needs before his own. If someone said something like that to me, I'd grab them and whisk them away on a romantic cruiseship for a weekend. But that's just my view on it!

 

[Triskelion]

With respect to all the posters here....

Chakotay was underutilized in the series, in my opinion, and I believe in the actor's opinion as well. I think that's a safe assumption.

Question is, was he underutilized because of his race? See, I don't think that's it. And castigating the people of a majority culture all under one umbrella of attitude is equally racist, isn't it? After all, we're talking about diverse Star Trek, not the Village of the Happy Conformists. Star Trek at least attempts diversification. It's unfair to castigate it as willfully promoting its antithesis - racism. If there is racism, my opinion is that it is unintentional and a result of ignorance, rather than intent.

Chakotay's subordinate role could just as easily be interpreted as a preference to showcase the female captain and female power. A sexual liberation from fictional tropes. I can't say that watching the series I ever saw a "Tonto", or a character that should be thought less of because of his race. Sure, they wasted many artistic opportunities with his character and it's a damned shame. But he was portrayed as a good character, a hero, a man worthy of emulation.

However Teya brings up an important issue, which is very true - that majority cultures tend to make other cultures peripheral in their stories. And in extreme cases, caricature them as villains and fools, which still goes on in this day, believe me, I see it every day.

But cultural self-absorption, and active racism are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[exodus]

^^
Confirmed!

Thanks, dude.

 

[teya]

Chakotay's subordinate role could just as easily be interpreted as a preference to showcase the female captain and female power. A sexual liberation from fictional tropes. I can't say that watching the series I ever saw a "Tonto", or a character that should be thought less of because of his race. Sure, they wasted many artistic opportunities with his character and it's a damned shame. But he was portrayed as a good character, a hero, a man worthy of emulation.

However, he's only worthy of emulation because he capitulates. Would he be so worthy of emulation if he'd been the captain's equal?

BTW, Tonto wasn't really a fool--he was simply the sidekick. And that's what Chakotay is--Janeway's sidekick.

However Teya brings up an important issue, which is very true - that majority cultures tend to make other cultures peripheral in their stories. And in extreme cases, caricature them as villains and fools, which still goes on in this day, believe me, I see it every day.

But cultural self-absorption, and active racism are not necessarily the same thing.

Actually, I don't think the writing of the character was "racist"--in the strict definition of the term. And I've never used the word to describe Voyager's writing.

It was, however, culturally insensitive. And that could have been remedied easily--by simply utilizing sources available to them.

Now, yes, I view this through the lens of an indigenous woman. So did the writer of the essay that was linked to. exodus views it through the lens of a man of color.

Others, as has been said, view it through different lenses.

Perhaps my lens is wrong. Perhaps I should get rid of that huge chip on my shoulder and accept that a passive servant is the best representative of my people I can expect out of Hollywood. After all, he's not a villain and he's not a fool. That's better than it used to be--why complain? Maybe it's the best we can get.

Maybe I'm being foolish to want to see Indians played as human beings, rather than cartoons.

And, well, if that means that other people think that's who we really are, well what's the problem? After all, the victors write the history, so who the hell cares who we really are?

 

[Lynx]

^^
No, you're not foolish when you want Indians to be played as human beings instead of cartoons.

And I do support and sympathize with your cause here even if I don't agree on everything. As I see it, despite some serious flaws, Chakotay was at least a step in the right direction. Believe me, I've seen worse and I'm not only talking about Indians or other US minorities here.

"The victors write the history." That's the truth but not always in the long run. Just remember how the Soviet regime tried to opress the people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, more and less denying that those countries had oonce been independent states. That did change and things will change as long as people stand up for their rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do think that your people have achieved a lot in recent years when it comes to be accepted and when it comes to re-write history as well.

Never surrender!

 

[exodus]

Chakotay's subordinate role could just as easily be interpreted as a preference to showcase the female captain and female power. A sexual liberation from fictional tropes. I can't say that watching the series I ever saw a "Tonto", or a character that should be thought less of because of his race. Sure, they wasted many artistic opportunities with his character and it's a damned shame. But he was portrayed as a good character, a hero, a man worthy of emulation.

However, he's only worthy of emulation because he capitulates. Would he be so worthy of emulation if he'd been the captain's equal?

BTW, Tonto wasn't really a fool--he was simply the sidekick. And that's what Chakotay is--Janeway's sidekick.

However Teya brings up an important issue, which is very true - that majority cultures tend to make other cultures peripheral in their stories. And in extreme cases, caricature them as villains and fools, which still goes on in this day, believe me, I see it every day.

But cultural self-absorption, and active racism are not necessarily the same thing.

Actually, I don't think the writing of the character was "racist"--in the strict definition of the term. And I've never used the word to describe Voyager's writing.

It was, however, culturally insensitive. And that could have been remedied easily--by simply utilizing sources available to them.

Now, yes, I view this through the lens of an indigenous woman. So did the writer of the essay that was linked to. exodus views it through the lens of a man of color.

Others, as has been said, view it through different lenses.

Perhaps my lens is wrong. Perhaps I should get rid of that huge chip on my shoulder and accept that a passive servant is the best representative of my people I can expect out of Hollywood. After all, he's not a villain and he's not a fool. That's better than it used to be--why complain? Maybe it's the best we can get.

Maybe I'm being foolish to want to see Indians played as human beings, rather than cartoons.

And, well, if that means that other people think that's who we really are, well what's the problem? After all, the victors write the history, so who the hell cares who we really are?

I'm also part Blackfoot Indian as well, thanks to my Great Grandmother.

 

[Gotham Central]

I find the "Angry Warrior Speech" degrading--because he quite clearly states that he is subjugating himself to her needs. His only function from that point on is to support her.

However when you view the "Angry Warrior Speech" thru a European lense where there's a traditional concept of chivalry that same speech can be seen as romantic.

I guess it all depends on which lense you're using and which one you think the writers were going with and their intent.

I agree, kimc. I think it has to do with what lense you are looking through at the given point of time. I happen to have thought that Chakotay's "Angry Warrior" speech was really sweet and romantic. And he was telling Janeway that before he met her(in his own Angry Warrior words mind you), he didn't care about anybody but himself..and then when he met Janeway, he decided to hell with himself and to care about someone else's needs before his own. If someone said something like that to me, I'd grab them and whisk them away on a romantic cruiseship for a weekend. But that's just my view on it!

If that was there point then it was even more offensive.

Chuckles was a Starfleet officer whos conscience moved him to leave Starfleet and fight the good fight with the Maquis. He was pretty protective of his crew. So the idea that Janeway made him a more noble man was absurd. The man was perfectly noble without her.

As a person of color, I also find it offensive that people some people seem to be casually brushing teya's assesment aside. Saying that they wrote from a European perspective is totally no excuse.

Look at it this way, you damn well better believe that they consulted with someone about the portrayal of Sisko & family. After that racist abomination that graced season one of TNG, and the fact that they took heat for it, you know they were going to be careful how they portrayed any of the black characters.

The same was true with Janeway. They apparently agonized over the appropriate way to portray the first female captain. However, the same cannot be said about Chakotay.

What's surprising is that people seem to freely acknowledge that "Fair Haven" was a gross Irish stereotype. Yet they toss aside the fact that Chakotay was a neutered noble savage right from the start. He was NEVER depicted as being equal to Janeway. He was always in a subservient position and the situation only got worse as time went on.

Please remember that native people do not exist to fullful some European romantic fantasy (which is another typical role that men of color in particular are forced to endure).

Personally, I think that if they are unwilling to do the necessary research to make the diverse characters true to life, then they should not do it at all.

 

[Gotham Central]

Chakotay's subordinate role could just as easily be interpreted as a preference to showcase the female captain and female power. A sexual liberation from fictional tropes. I can't say that watching the series I ever saw a "Tonto", or a character that should be thought less of because of his race. Sure, they wasted many artistic opportunities with his character and it's a damned shame. But he was portrayed as a good character, a hero, a man worthy of emulation.

However, he's only worthy of emulation because he capitulates. Would he be so worthy of emulation if he'd been the captain's equal?

BTW, Tonto wasn't really a fool--he was simply the sidekick. And that's what Chakotay is--Janeway's sidekick.

However Teya brings up an important issue, which is very true - that majority cultures tend to make other cultures peripheral in their stories. And in extreme cases, caricature them as villains and fools, which still goes on in this day, believe me, I see it every day.

But cultural self-absorption, and active racism are not necessarily the same thing.

Actually, I don't think the writing of the character was "racist"--in the strict definition of the term. And I've never used the word to describe Voyager's writing.

It was, however, culturally insensitive. And that could have been remedied easily--by simply utilizing sources available to them.

Now, yes, I view this through the lens of an indigenous woman. So did the writer of the essay that was linked to. exodus views it through the lens of a man of color.

Others, as has been said, view it through different lenses.

Perhaps my lens is wrong. Perhaps I should get rid of that huge chip on my shoulder and accept that a passive servant is the best representative of my people I can expect out of Hollywood. After all, he's not a villain and he's not a fool. That's better than it used to be--why complain? Maybe it's the best we can get.

Maybe I'm being foolish to want to see Indians played as human beings, rather than cartoons.

And, well, if that means that other people think that's who we really are, well what's the problem? After all, the victors write the history, so who the hell cares who we really are?

I'm also part Blackfoot Indian as well, thanks to my Great Grandmother.

Heh...I've got Cherokee courtesy of my great grandmother. But of course, most of the black folks that have had family in the US prior to the 20th century tend to be an ethinc blend of African, European and Native.

 

[Thestral]

Look at it this way, you damn well better believe that they consulted with someone about the portrayal of Sisko & family. After that racist abomination that graced season one of TNG, and the fact that they took heat for it, you know they were going to be careful how they portrayed any of the black characters.

Wait, what?

ETA: Ok, never mind, stupid me. I was trying to figure out what was wrong with Geordi and didn't even think about "Code of Honor" (which I assume you're referring to.

 

[Guy Gardener]

What about his missing siblings?

Some say they were sold into the Orion Slave Trade.

 

[Square]

However when you view the "Angry Warrior Speech" thru a European lense where there's a traditional concept of chivalry that same speech can be seen as romantic.

I guess it all depends on which lense you're using and which one you think the writers were going with and their intent.

I agree, kimc. I think it has to do with what lense you are looking through at the given point of time. I happen to have thought that Chakotay's "Angry Warrior" speech was really sweet and romantic. And he was telling Janeway that before he met her(in his own Angry Warrior words mind you), he didn't care about anybody but himself..and then when he met Janeway, he decided to hell with himself and to care about someone else's needs before his own. If someone said something like that to me, I'd grab them and whisk them away on a romantic cruiseship for a weekend. But that's just my view on it!

If that was there point then it was even more offensive.

Chuckles was a Starfleet officer whos conscience moved him to leave Starfleet and fight the good fight with the Maquis. He was pretty protective of his crew. So the idea that Janeway made him a more noble man was absurd. The man was perfectly noble without her.

As a person of color, I also find it offensive that people some people seem to be casually brushing teya's assesment aside. Saying that they wrote from a European perspective is totally no excuse.

Look at it this way, you damn well better believe that they consulted with someone about the portrayal of Sisko & family. After that racist abomination that graced season one of TNG, and the fact that they took heat for it, you know they were going to be careful how they portrayed any of the black characters.

The same was true with Janeway. They apparently agonized over the appropriate way to portray the first female captain. However, the same cannot be said about Chakotay.

What's surprising is that people seem to freely acknowledge that "Fair Haven" was a gross Irish stereotype. Yet they toss aside the fact that Chakotay was a neutered noble savage right from the start. He was NEVER depicted as being equal to Janeway. He was always in a subservient position and the situation only got worse as time went on.

Please remember that native people do not exist to fullful some European romantic fantasy (which is another typical role that men of color in particular are forced to endure).

Personally, I think that if they are unwilling to do the necessary research to make the diverse characters true to life, then they should not do it at all.

Oh, I don't disagree. Chakotard was a weenie, but my question is, was he supposed to be a weenie because he was a Native American, or was he just a weenie for the sake of being a weenie?

Chakotard was indeed subervient to Janeway. Chakotay was subservient to just about every authority figure he encountered, and he was eternally being written in a passive "victim" role. Somebody always made him their b!tch, whether it was Seska, an adolescent Kazon, those aliens that looked like Predator, ect. The list goes on. Heck, in "The Fight," Chakotay's entire purpose is to stand there and get punched in the face, which pretty much sums up his role on the show.

And he got some of the dumbest lines on the show. From "Threshold:"

Chakotay: Which one is the captain?
Tuvok (glaring): The female.

Ugh. As for that "angry warrior" speech, if he actually got together with Janeway at some point, it might've made sense in that it could be seen as him simply declaring romantic intentions towards a woman. But, since J/C never came to fruition, it just made him look like a putz. In a way, I think the writers wanted a weak male character as a first officer because, ironically, they were worried about offending white women if Janeway had a male equal ("But she shouldn't have to have a male equal. She's the captain!" says the feminazi).

I agree he was a stereotype. I'm just curious where "Noble Savage" ends and "Chakotard" begins.

 

[kimc]

In a way, I think the writers wanted a weak male character as a first officer because, ironically, they were worried about offending white women if Janeway had a male equal ("But she shouldn't have to have a male equal. She's the captain!" says the feminazi).

I agree he was a stereotype. I'm just curious where "Noble Savage" ends and "Chakotard" begins.

Feminazi?

Although you do bring up a point. You have to wonder if the concern over Chakotay being "equal" to the captain would apply if he was serving under Kirk or Picard. At least, I never hear that complaint about Riker or Spock.

As for angering white women that's a group that was SO not on the show's radar as a desired demographic.

 

[Triskelion]

It's a common trope among "female-power" shows, in fact. To showcase the heroine against a background of subordinate males. Xena (males are evil studs or blubbering incompents), Cleopatra 2525 (yes, I'm referencing that! Cleo, Sarge & Hell vs EVIL MEN), Andromeda (yes, that too - except for the captain, the other males were pigeonholed - evil studs or incompetent, or of course, the Harper sidekick role). Tracker (Mel vs Cole), BSG (Starbuck vs Tigh), Highlander (Tessa vs Richie), Stargate (Carter vs McKay, Teyla vs Shepherd, Weir vs Woolsey); Dr Who (Rose vs Mickey); Babylon 5 (Delenn vs Molari/Lennier, Lochley vs Garibaldi, Lyta vs Byron, Ivanova vs Marcus - both Marcus and Byron being romanticized (objectified) poet-types rather than evil beefcakes); Firefly (Zoe vs Wash, River vs Simon, Inara vs Mal); Mutant X (Shalimar, Emma & Lexa vs every male encountered outside of MX HQ);

And in other places in the Trek franchise: witness Kira vs Dukat, O'Brien vs O'Brien, Yates vs Sisko, any of Jadzia's men (except maybe Worf); Moogie vs the Grand Nagus, Torres vs Paris, ANYONE vs Harry Kim, Kes vs Neelix, and even the LCARS computer vs Data!

The dynamic of the empowered female versus the incompetent/evil male were rife on shows of other genres: Still Standing, According to Jim, Veronica Mars, King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond (EXTREMELY annoying inequality there), Two and a Half Men, and the list goes on. Ally McBeal, Sex and the City, Ed....

I was just telling my wife about this post so she could help me remember some show names, in which the woman was smart and the man was stupid, and she said, "Oh, you mean like us!"

Now, if such demeaning roles can be attributed to racial discrimination, it is a very deserved accusation and righteous cause. But I wonder if, in Chakotay's case, race was a factor. Clearly it is to some. Was it to the producers? Have they ever said so? Again, I think it was neglect and the female-empowerment thing.

One final opinion: women will never appear strong so long as they need to be set against weaker men to do it. BACKFIRE, Hollywood. You go girls!

 

[kimc]

^ For every show you've named I can name several where the women were made to appear stupid or didn't have a significant role at all. It's no competition.

Moving forward however there are shows like nuBSG where the characterization is the priority and the action follows so it looks like Moore learned some lessons from his time on Voyager. Even so I still enjoy both shows for what they are.

 

[teya]

In a way, I think the writers wanted a weak male character as a first officer because, ironically, they were worried about offending white women if Janeway had a male equal ("But she shouldn't have to have a male equal. She's the captain!" says the feminazi).

I agree he was a stereotype. I'm just curious where "Noble Savage" ends and "Chakotard" begins.

Feminazi?

Although you do bring up a point. You have to wonder if the concern over Chakotay being "equal" to the captain would apply if he was serving under Kirk or Picard. At least, I never hear that complaint about Riker or Spock.

As for angering white women that's a group that was SO not on the show's radar as a desired demographic.

I think the point is an excellent one--and a lot of what Jeri Taylor talked about in the early seasons supports it.

Thing is, they *wanted* that female demographic when the show first started. They just didn't pull that demographic as high as they wanted (or as high as some female fans of the show claim).

So, yes, TPTB tried to make Janeway appear strong. But the problem was, they weakened her XO to do it--and in the end made her look weaker.

And the problem was, they misused a man of color to do so. Now, you may not see this as a problem, but judging from the responses in this thread, an awful lot of people who've spent their lives as minorities in the US, do.

 

[teya]

Now, if such demeaning roles can be attributed to racial discrimination, it is a very deserved accusation and righteous cause. But I wonder if, in Chakotay's case, race was a factor. Clearly it is to some. Was it to the producers? Have they ever said so? Again, I think it was neglect and the female-empowerment thing.

I quite agree on the probable motivations of the producers.

However, once again, I ask you:

Does ignorance make it right?

Should I just say, "oh, well, chalk it up to another Indian stereotype in entertainment" and let those who think that's what Indians are just go along blithely in their ignorance?

 

[AuntKate]

There can only be one captain. I don't see it as sexual capitulation or racial stereotyping to have Chakotay be subservient to Janeway. It was the only way to run a ship. I do think it shows a type of nobility to accept being a second banana.