Archer being a jerk in Broken Bow

[T'Girl]

His daddy designed the warp five engine.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Yes, nepotism. I'm just trying to find some other explanation LOL.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Imagine a comparable situation in our modern armed forces. In the real world, a guy who shows such a lack of self-control would probably not be put in charge of a starship.

There was no lack of self-control. We're so used to people talking nice, polite, and politically correct in Trek that when someone says something that isn't, it's apparently an outrageous and unforgiveable act.

Now he did step up to the plate, his learning curve was stupidly steep but he did it. But what was it that got him in the seat to begin with?

It might have just been that he was a Starfleet command-rank officer eligible for a captaincy.

Although the Vulcans wanted Gardner to command Enterprise, in the end, though, it came down to Archer and Robinson. It's possible that it wasn't so much a case that Archer won command of Enterprise that Robinson lost it, IMO.

 

[gblews]

IMO, Archer had a 30-year grudge against the Vulcans for not helping his father with the development of the Warp Five engine. I think he also held them responsible for his father not being able to see that engine become a reality and for generally holding back Humans for decades.

It was totally a personal thing, but in that observation room at Starfleet Medical, it all came to a boil standing before a group of Vulcans recommending that Enterprise's launch should be postponed. The final straw was when some snooty Vulcan lectured him how Humans still weren't ready for deep-space...

IMO, Archer wasn't being a jerk, he was being Human. A Human that wasn't as "enlightened" or "perfect" as 24th-Century Humans, but Human all the same. Still, in the end of "Broken Bow" itself, he was able to see that he had to let that old grudge and his preconceptions about Vulcans go...

So you believe that Archer's inability to control his emotions in a very crucial situation was justified?

That sounds like something a Vulcan would ask.

No, actually it sounds like something someone with common sense would ask. The scene was there, I believe, to show the contrast between the 22nd century humans and 22nd century Vulcans. However, the hamfisted writing coupled with Scott's total lack of subtlety and charm in his delivery, combine to bring Archer off as somewhere between and out of control hothead and a plain old idiot.

It really wasn't a very crucial situation, though (that would be a red alert scenario). And Archer did control his emotions as all he did was toss an insult towards a Vulcan who had just insulted his entire species.

Again, reacting to something a Vulcan says which is perceived as an insult, by returning an inuslt or, even worse, openly threatening with physical violence is simply bad behaviour on it's face, "crucial" situatiion or not.

Threatening T'Pol with physical violence.. if I did that in any job I've had I would be fired on the spot.

So would most of us unless you're a pro wrestler or something.

Threatening T'Pol with physical violence..

It wasn't a threat because he said it was something he wasn't going to do. As such, it was an angry remark.

Splitting hairs between whether or not "I'm thinking about knocking you on your ass" (as opposed to "I'm going to knock you on your ass") is or is not a threat I guess works for argument's sake, but in reality, they're both likely to be perceived as threats.

His response was to a condescending remark from that same visiting woman. Archer's words weren't diplomatic, but then he wasn't there to be diplomatic, but to be told why the launch of his ship should be delayed so close to the end.

Whether or not he was there to be a diplomat is more splitting of hairs for argument's sake. Archer wa about to be the first human representative in deep space, a bit of natural diplomatic ability would seem appropriate.

In a fight situation with a Klingon, Archer usually responds with a phase pistol or an order to fire the ship's weapons.

So the Vulcans in the meeting got off light, is that your point?

I remember reading an early interview (don't know if it was with Berman or Braga) which described Archer as being less polished than Kirk, Picard, etc. That he had to learn the things about dealing with new alien civilizations--including mistakes--that would be taught for later Starfleet captains.

So, are you arguing that Archer's harsh words really weren't that harsh, or we should be understanding of his lack of common sense because he wasn't as "polished" as those who would follow.

Imagine a comparable situation in our modern armed forces. In the real world, a guy who shows such a lack of self-control would probably not be put in charge of a starship.

There was no lack of self-control. We're so used to people talking nice, polite, and politically correct in Trek that when someone says something that isn't, it's apparently an outrageous and unforgiveable act.

Well, I guess if one sees Archer's words as "justified", "non-threatening", the result of self control, then I guess it is easy to understand why any complaint about his behavior might be viewed as a cry for political correctness.

 

[C.E. Evans]

So you believe that Archer's inability to control his emotions in a very crucial situation was justified?

That sounds like something a Vulcan would ask.

No, actually it sounds like something someone with common sense would ask.

Not really because it was a simple matter of tit for tat.

The scene was there, I believe, to show the contrast between the 22nd century humans and 22nd century Vulcans. However, the hamfisted writing coupled with Scott's total lack of subtlety and charm in his delivery, combine to bring Archer off as somewhere between and out of control hothead and a plain old idiot.

No, objectively it was just Archer not responding nicely to a not very nice remark. Anything else is just bashing Archer for being Human and not perfect. Far worse things are said in even the most polite gatherings every minute.

 

[eyeresist]

Far worse things are said in even the most polite gatherings every minute.

Wow, where do you live? I do not want to go there.

As we obviously can't change your mind on this, I suggest we divert the conversation.

Let's talk about why the Vulcans were right.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Far worse things are said in even the most polite gatherings every minute.

Wow, where do you live? I do not want to go there.

Too late, it's the world we all live in.

People say impolite or rude things all the time, sometimes in jest, sometimes not. Depends on where you are and the formality/informality of the setting (or the persons involved). What Archer said could even be considered by some as tame as even more "colorful metaphors" could have been used. Conversely, someone more stuffy than Admiral Forrest might have chastised Archer for what he said.

As we obviously can't change your mind on this, I suggest we divert the conversation.

Let's talk about why the Vulcans were right.

Nah, the Vulcans were just afraid of how much progress Humans were making in such a very short time (by their standards). Compared to Humans, Vulcans were almost standing still by the 22nd-Century.

"We had our wars, Admiral, just as Humans did. Our planet was devastated, our civilization nearly destroyed. Logic saved us. But it took almost fifteen hundred years for us to rebuild our world and travel to the stars. You Humans did the same in less than a century. There are those on the High Command who wonder what Humans would achieve in the century to come, and they don't like the answer."
--Ambassador Soval to Admiral Forrest.