TrekLit politics
- Thread starter WorseThanHitler
- Start date
Yup. Another example of why it's grossly mistaken to assume that writers' only motives are political. A writer's top priority, if he or she is any good, is to create good stories and good characters. And good characters have nuance; they aren't just idealized mouthpieces for a particular viewpoint.
That mountain is sacred to an entire culture. Show some respect, please.
I don't think Malinche is necessarily such a bad namesake. Yes, we know La Malinche as Cortez's interpreter, but we tend to make the mistake of assuming that Cortez and his men somehow overthrew the Aztec Empire all by themselves. In fact, it was mainly the work of the indigenous Nahua people who resented the Aztecs' oppression, and who took advantage of the opportunity and weaponry the conquistadores provided to form an alliance with them to overthrow the Aztecs. Although it didn't turn out too well in the long run, it could be seen as a triumph of the common people over their oppressor. Certainly La Malinche's role is ambiguous, but there are ways of interpreting it that paint her in a fairly positive light. Indeed, Hans Beimler (who named the starship Malinche) and Robert Hewitt Wolfe have been working on a biopic about La Malinche for years.
As for Marshal Zhukov, whatever his role in the Soviet conquests of the '50s, he was also pivotal in freeing the USSR and Eastern Europe from the Nazis. I think you can find positive and negative elements in the legacies of most historical figures. Honoring the best of someone's legacy by, say, naming a ship or a space station after them doesn't mean endorsing the worst.
Despite the lack of money, needs being provided for all, and total looking down on of Ferengi and 20th century corporate CEOs.
^ Now watch: "Solanco" is going to turn out to be the name of some obscure Third World dictator I've never heard of, and everybody's going to be wondering what I was thinking naming a starship after him!
Just South Lancaster County so far as I can tell. Which, as a graduate of Elizabethtown College, I must say is delightful
Though it does also bear a resemblance to Sulaco...
Actually looking at the news it still is, it's just directed at Muslims and Hispanics now.
^ Now watch: "Solanco" is going to turn out to be the name of some obscure Third World dictator I've never heard of, and everybody's going to be wondering what I was thinking naming a starship after him!
Just South Lancaster County so far as I can tell. Which, as a graduate of Elizabethtown College, I must say is delightful
Dare I admit that it took me a year to figure out what Solanco stood for? When we first moved down here, I kept wondering who was this "Solanco" that everything was named after. Solanco Utilities, Solanco Fair, Solanco Plumbing . . . .
Some distinguished local family or Indian tribe?
Then one day it hit me. "Oh. South Lancaster County."
Yeah, I'm slow sometimes.
I think TOS, especially when compared to the other Trek that followed it, was more libertarian than it was liberal. there seemed, to me at least, to be more a sense of a frontier mindset at work most of the time that is distinctly missing from most of modern (i.e. post-1987) incarnations of Trek.
Kirk was both soldier AND diplomat/explorer, and was comfortable about both aspects of his job. He might not have always wanted to have to go out shooting, but he at least seemed to accept it as part of doing business. Picard, on the other hand, is shown to be offended that he has to even participate in a mere war-game training exercise ("Peak Performance"). And there are numerous other examples from TNG, VOY, and to a lesser extent DSN of this attitude gaining sway in the Trek universe.
In TOS we see people conducting business and financial transactions. In the TNG-era, no one has any money (not even credits) and the first people we see who deal in finance and business are suppossed to be villains (Ferengi).
There's probably more. Point is, though, that there was a seismic shift in Trek philosophy/politics somewhere between the end of TOS in 1969 and the start of TNg in 1987.
Making it worse, are authors of Trek-lit who insist on trying to overlay TOS stories with later era sensibilties. I suppose I can understand the temptaion to do so, but they are two different animals.
Yeah, but Alberto Fujimori isn't exactly someone you'd want to commemorate.
Well, if that's all that matters, then sure, let's have a U.S.S. Fujimori.
Well, if that's all that matters, then sure, let's have a U.S.S. Fujimori.
Eh, I was merely trying to rebut Sci's argument that the United States is the only country in the world where a minority candidate could become president. Because reality proves otherwise.
Fujimori was still a scumbag though.
The point is that he was elected.
Well, if that's all that matters, then sure, let's have a U.S.S. Fujimori.
Eh, I was merely trying to rebut Sci's argument that the United States is the only country in the world where a minority candidate could become president. Because reality proves otherwise.
Fujimori was still a scumbag though.
So...we don't disagree then?
Complaining about politics in Star Trek (in any medium) is like complaining that the ocean is wet. And it was a liberal show that reflected its creators liberal politics. It was a "safe" vechicle to explore the social, political and cultural questions of the day. It also borrowed certain themes from westerns. In some contexts the closest parallel to setting of Star Trek. (Another being military based dramas).
To my recollection Kirk was at times set against the "entrepreneurs" and "go it alone" types. Shifty businessmen and stubborn colonists
If TNG was more "liberal" than Star Trek, its probably because Roddenberry was more liberal in 1987 than he was in 1966.
And if you think that there wasnt a political aspect to civil rights in the 1960s ( and 70s) you obviously didnt live through them.
To my recollection Kirk was at times set against the "entrepreneurs" and "go it alone" types. Shifty businessmen and stubborn colonists
If TNG was more "liberal" than Star Trek, its probably because Roddenberry was more liberal in 1987 than he was in 1966.
And if you think that there wasnt a political aspect to civil rights in the 1960s ( and 70s) you obviously didnt live through them.
Anyone who thinks the Federation is socialist doesn't understand what that word actually means. To quote myself from a General SF&F thread where this same mistake cropped up recently:
Just keep in mind that for the most part, you're not just preaching to the choir. Depending on the topic you've decided to take on, it's possible that over half of your potential audience vehemently disagrees with you.
Be prepared for the backlash.
Be prepared for the backlash.
^ I'll be prepared for the backlash if you're prepared for me to not give a damn.
Like I said, occupational hazard. You start worrying about offending people, you might as well as write Hardy Boy books.
(And I'll bet even they get hate mail!)
Some people are going to find things that offend them no matter what you write.
I've seen people complain on-line because a teenager drank a beer on VAMPIRE DIARIES, never mind that half the cast drinks human blood!
And don't get me started on the guy who wrote Tor forty-six angry letters because he thought one of our fantasy novels promoted paganism . . . .
You really can't worry about this stuff, or you'll go nuts. Or, worse, start censoring yourself.
Last edited: