Why do all the characters against the Star Fleet philosophy...

[John Vasiliou]

Seem to be portrayed as racist ,psychotic ,megalomaniac thugs?

Maybe people can just have legitimate concerns without there being something wrong with them.

 

[Maxillius]

I dunno, history is written by the winners?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Seem to be portrayed as racist ,psychotic ,megalomaniac thugs?

Maybe people can just have legitimate concerns without there being something wrong with them.

I completely agree with this observation. Perhaps the absolute worst, most offensive "straw man" was in "Let He Who Is Without Sin..."

Now, I do think there are such thugs out there, so it makes sense to see them on occasion--because there is no way that even in the future, there won't be crackpots. So I don't begrudge the writers for doing something like Terra Prime once in awhile.

But I do think that a credible opposition is nice for once.

The one time where I think this was done well, that stands out in my mind, is Odo. Sure, he could be rather misanthropic sometimes, but he was likable. And he wasn't bigoted the way Quark was. Quark was likable--but I think it's not a bad comparison to say that he is basically Archie Bunker in Ferengi costume, and definitely had some bad attitudes.

 

[T'Girl]

I don't know, Quark (that charming rogue) is the antithesis of the basic Federation mind lock mentality, nor does he and his race get seduced over to the dark side during the course of the show. Quark in the pilot and Quark in the finale is the same capitalist, money grubbing, misogynist that we can continue to hold up as an example to all American children.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

But because of those things, he is not what I would consider credible opposition. Again, he's the show's Archie Bunker. A caricature, really.

 

[Misfit Toy]

It's a television shortcut. The thinking is "this is the bad guy, so we have to make him BAD".

They didn't always do this, giving certain characters a sense of nobility, honor, etc, but shortcuts often ruled the day.

 

[Stoek]

Seem to be portrayed as racist ,psychotic ,megalomaniac thugs?

Maybe people can just have legitimate concerns without there being something wrong with them.

It's a television shortcut. The thinking is "this is the bad guy, so we have to make him BAD".

They didn't always do this, giving certain characters a sense of nobility, honor, etc, but shortcuts often ruled the day.

Personally I think what we usually saw were characters that just didn't understand that Starfleet was only here to help (by Starfleet's lights at least). So many characters (especially on TNG, and VOY) were not portrayed as evil etc but rather misguided.

There were noteable exceptions even to that such as the ones mentioned but also Martok who as played by JG Hertzler always came across as if he fancied himself the adult and had a good natured scorn for Starfleet as if he were watching the antics of well meaning but slightly naive children. On VOY there was Seven of Nine who often voiced strong disagreement with Janeway's strict adherence (when it suited her) to Starfleet principles.

Plus of course who can forget Garak, who probably only really tolerated Starfleet because he knew that at least they probably wouldn't push his scaly ass out an airlock. *L*

Quark was likable--but I think it's not a bad comparison to say that he is basically Archie Bunker in Ferengi costume, and definitely had some bad attitudes.

That is brilliant. It's dead on too. Quark and Archie both shared this attitude that things worked a certain way and had a hard time handling the fact that things were changing.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Because it's easier to be dramatic when the characters are extreme?

Quark... is basically Archie Bunker in Ferengi costume

I love it!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The major Trek villains are written so that they're doing what comes natural to them, and are megalomaniac or racist only if Fed values are applied to them.

Klingons love to fight. They are just pursuing their innate nature. It's impressive that they manage to stay at peace with the Feds as much as they do.

The Borg assimillate. It's not like they have an option.

The Founders are justifiably paranoid because of their history. Also, the Alpha Quadrant powers stepped all over each other and blundered into that war. Who knows whether the Founders would have acted aggressively if everyone had just stayed out of the GQ like they told them to.

Cardassians are very complex and you can't just call them simplistically megalomaniac or racist.

As for the Romulans, they still haven't been defined closely enough for me to say what they're all about. But they'd be subject to the same extreme emotions that Vulcans are, and that Vulcans use logic to suppress. But what do the Romulans use? Not logic, so there must be something else. Extreme loyalty to each other, extreme xenophobia to outsiders? That would explain their behavior.

 

[Anwar]

The Founders are justifiably paranoid because of their history. Also, the Alpha Quadrant powers stepped all over each other and blundered into that war. Who knows whether the Founders would have acted aggressively if everyone had just stayed out of the GQ like they told them to.

They'd have attacked and invaded anyways, no matter how gracefully or peacefully the Alpha Quadrant folks acted. And frankly they probably white-washed their own history when they talked about how they were persecuted and formed the Dominion to "Protect themselves".

 

[The Wormhole]

Because Starfleet is The Hero, therefore anyone who doesn't agree 100% with The Hero is by extension Evil.

 

[Silver Roc]

What about the Maqui?

 

[T'Girl]

^^^ Bunch of cry babies.

 

[Tiberius]

But because of those things, he is not what I would consider credible opposition. Again, he's the show's Archie Bunker. A caricature, really.

Isn't this circular logic? Discounting the Ferengi as examples of people who go against Starfleet philosophy simply because they aren't credible is ultimately self defeating, I'd say.

After all, this means that any species that is against the starfleet philosophy and not a bad guy thug is eliminated, and so of course you are going to be left with a list of people who are against starfleet philosophy and also bad guy thugs. Kinda silly then to wonder why the list is filled with thugs.

 

[Smellincoffee]

The Maquis were among the most failed villains for me. They could've been stronger -- and were, at first -- being 'hostiles' to Starfleet out of principle. Watching those first Maquis episodes made me realize, for the first time, that politics wasn't a black and white issue. I could understand both Starfleet and the settlers' point of view. By the time of Voyager, though, every malcontent and rebel is wandering into the Badlands to play pirate.

 

[The Wormhole]

What about the Maqui?

Most Maquis were villains. Chakotay and his gang turned out to be noble only because they were main characters.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

But because of those things, he is not what I would consider credible opposition. Again, he's the show's Archie Bunker. A caricature, really.

Isn't this circular logic? Discounting the Ferengi as examples of people who go against Starfleet philosophy simply because they aren't credible is ultimately self defeating, I'd say.

After all, this means that any species that is against the starfleet philosophy and not a bad guy thug is eliminated, and so of course you are going to be left with a list of people who are against starfleet philosophy and also bad guy thugs. Kinda silly then to wonder why the list is filled with thugs.

No, you're not reading what I am saying.

The problem is that the Ferengi are written as caricatures and NOT as a serious challenge. Being a caricature is what makes them not credible, not simply that they disagree. It would be possible to write a more serious challenge to the Federation philosophy--an opponent that was actually convincing some Federation citizens that the way they were going was wrong. One that was not a strawman or comic relief.

 

[Anwar]

But what exactly ARE they doing wrong?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Playing the opposition for comic relief or intellectual strawmen. If someone could give a coherent opposing argument (and not look like an idiot)--one that took more thought before dismissing it, where you could actually understand why someone could legitimately disagree--that would be better. The closest we got to that was the Maquis, but that was never really pushed anywhere near as far as it could have been.

 

[Arpy]

When was "the opposition" in the right? Trek can be simplistic but it's rarely outright wrong. ...That'd be an interesting thread: "When has Trek be flat-out wrong?"