Chakotay as the Noble Savage

[exodus]

Teya and exodus, I can't believe anyone would call either of you a racist.

I can be forgiving towards TOS since that was so many years ago and since Chekov was primarily created as a double-answer to Soviet criticism of the lack of a Russian character and to attract a young demographic. At least Sulu and Uhura didn't have fake accents.

However, modern Trek productions should have learned more than to simply "insert token here."

I'll also echo what Lynx said above about wanting to be sensitive and often not feeling like I know the "right" term to use. I grew up with "white," "black," and "Indian" in common use, but as I got older "Caucasian," "African-American," and "Native American" came to the forefront, so I often have to catch myself. Bottom line, I don't want to accidentally offend anyone. Personal attacks are very distasteful; accidental ones are almost worse.

Simple solution: just ask.

I prefer "African-American", others prefer "Black", some "People of Color".
I will say this, most will answer to anything just as long as it isn't the "N" word. Better to ask and play it safe than say something you can't take back.

 

[Sci]

I'm thinking Thomas & Victor from "Smoke Signals."

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch a good movie.

 

[Zameaze]

I'm thinking Thomas & Victor from "Smoke Signals."

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch a good movie.

OK, now I'm going to have to pick it up at Blockbuster.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Even the word "Indian" is offensive but it takes so damn long to type native American, and I really dislike using the same pronouns over and over again.

"Indian" isn't offensive, just inaccurate. But we were called Indians for hundreds of years, so most of us have no problem with the word.

I live with a couple people from Bangladesh.

They really don't like being called Indians.

On Thirty 30 I saw this conversation between Alec Baldwin and Salma Hayak.

"What do I call you?"

"Peuto Rican."

"Yes, I know that's what you call yourself, but what can I call you?"

"Peuto Rican."

"Really? No. That sounds wrong, and I still think it might be a trap."

 

[kimc]

Sounds like you're indulging in your own racist view of Native Americans written as protagonists.

For those wondering why this wasn't noticed sooner we mods have lives, jobs, etc. Up to 24 hours is seen as a reasonable response time.

Fish1941, you've used the term racist twice so far in this thread but so far you're the one appearing the most intolerant. Flaming is against the board rules so if you continue to insult folks you will get a formal warning.

Now carry on...

 

[Triskelion]

Here's an interesting take from a PhD thesis regarding Chakotay's background. It's written from a native American viewpoint.

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/chakotay.htm

I agree with much of what the author says, save the institutionalized racism of an American show. I don't think Voyager or Trek actively promote racism, I think they are just inefficient at exploring the issues very deeply. Being a TV show on a tight budget and schedule.

There also should be some creative license here; the writers were also trying to avoid stepping on toes by inadvertantly politicizing their characterizations. Or so I presume.

Certainly opportunities were lost.

The author here claims that in the episode "Resolutions", when Chakotay and the Captain were marooned on the planet, and had to establish parameters for their relationship, that Chakotay's decision to remain firmly at the Captain's side in the role of service, rather than equals, merely reinforces the racism. While I respect the author's opinion and interpretation, I would also offer an alternative explanation, that the "resolution" was not set in terms of racial status, but possibly sexual, or romantic. When I saw this episode I heard a man promising to be a faithful husband, not a sidekick. However, I can certainly understand the sensitivity of this issue.

It does seem like a shame to go so far to diversify the characters and then stop just short of giving them cultural identities. I can forgive this with the Alien-of-the-Week. But the regular cast?

And still, maybe the fault is our own, unable to see beyond our own racial delineations and political baggage to enjoy a story on its own merits.

 

[Lynx]

^^
I've read the comments about Chakotay on tha website. I agree with some of the statements but I have to disagree on some statements too.

Berman, Braga and the others can be criticized for a lot of things and maybe accused for a lot of things too but I don't think that we can accuse them for being racists in any way. On the contrary, I get the impression that they were trying to bring in as many different races and nationalities as possible in Star Trek. Besides that, the impression I get is that in the future society which Star Trek shows up, the American Indians seem to have regained some sort of independence.

What we do have in Star trek is actually the same stereotypes which unfortunately are common in many American series which in some cases seem to be the result of a lack of knowledge of the culture and daily life of minorities in the US as well as people outside the US.

We have Chekov who loks like a parody of a Soviet citizen from the 60:s, we have Harry Kim, a guy with a Korean name who comes up with Chinese expressions. Is he of Korean or Chinese origin? We have Picard. Of course his family are wine producers. We have Scotty who likes whiskey. I also know that Colm Meaney fought hard not to let O'Brien become a Irish stereotype. So Chakotay is not alone in this case.

What is sad with Chakotay is that they could have avoided he worst stereotypes with just a little research. They could have come up with a real tribe, let's say the Maya. They could have scrapped the whole insulting "Sky Spirits" thing which was really insulting to the American Indians. They could also have avoided some of the worst exagerations when it came to his tribe, such as the way they totally abandoned modern technology.

But otherwise I don't see Chakotay as nothing but the "white man's sidekick" (or in this case, the white woman's sidekick). I see a proud, independent character with a sense for justice, a very sympathetic character.

As for Chakotay's relation to Janeway, I think that Chakotay was smart enough to realize that the only way to go back to the Alpha Quadrant was to cooperate with Starfleet. Chakotay had about 30 Maquis on Voyager while the Starfleet crew were about 150. So what could he do? Try to take over the ship with only 30 people or refuse to cooperate with Janeway and be thrown in the brig or left behind at Ocampa? No, he realized that cooperation was the best for all of them.

And he didn't become Janeway's "message boy" either (at least not in seasons 1-3). There were times when he strongly opposed Janeway's orders. As for the scenes in "Resolutions", I have a feeling that he actually respected Janeway very much (and maybe had more affection as well) and therefore he made his little speech about standing up for her. That was not the words of a servant but of a strong, independent personality who knew what he wanted.

So I must admit that I do find the criticizm to Chakotay in the article somewhat unfair.

OK, I can agree that he became something of a "message boy" in seasons 4-7 but in those seasons, ALL characters except for Seven, The Doctor and Janeway became reduced to moving images in the background so the policy from those in charge didn't affect only Chakotay.

 

[iguana_tonante]

He's perfectly identifiable as an Indian to white people--he's noble and proud and ecological and spiritual and there's flute music whenever he's on screen.

You made me lol. So succinct and accurate.

 

[teya]

But otherwise I don't see Chakotay as nothing but the "white man's sidekick" (or in this case, the white woman's sidekick). I see a proud, independent character with a sense for justice, a very sympathetic character.

I hope that it's permitted for this Native American to disagree with you.

Janeway was the Lone Ranger, Chakotay was Tonto.

Try to consider that the criticism in the article that you find so unfair came from Native Americans. Do we not have the right to be heard without being dismissed as "too sensitive"?

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.

He becomes a servant, not a strong independent personality.

 

[exodus]

But otherwise I don't see Chakotay as nothing but the "white man's sidekick" (or in this case, the white woman's sidekick). I see a proud, independent character with a sense for justice, a very sympathetic character.

I hope that it's permitted for this Native American to disagree with you.

Janeway was the Lone Ranger, Chakotay was Tonto.

Try to consider that the criticism in the article that you find so unfair came from Native Americans. Do we not have the right to be heard without being dismissed as "too sensitive"?

........and we all know what "tonto" means in Spanish.

 

[Lynx]

But otherwise I don't see Chakotay as nothing but the "white man's sidekick" (or in this case, the white woman's sidekick). I see a proud, independent character with a sense for justice, a very sympathetic character.

I hope that it's permitted for this Native American to disagree with you.

Janeway was the Lone Ranger, Chakotay was Tonto.

Try to consider that the criticism in the article that you find so unfair came from Native Americans. Do we not have the right to be heard without being dismissed as "too sensitive"?

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.

He becomes a servant, not a strong independent personality.

No objections, since we do disagree on almost everything else.

And if you read my previous post, you'll see that I do agree with some points but disagree with some others.

personally I think that there is an episode where Chakotay really did make a fool of himself and that episode is not "Resolutions".

But I won't go into that now.

 

[teya]

But otherwise I don't see Chakotay as nothing but the "white man's sidekick" (or in this case, the white woman's sidekick). I see a proud, independent character with a sense for justice, a very sympathetic character.

I hope that it's permitted for this Native American to disagree with you.

Janeway was the Lone Ranger, Chakotay was Tonto.

Try to consider that the criticism in the article that you find so unfair came from Native Americans. Do we not have the right to be heard without being dismissed as "too sensitive"?

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.

He becomes a servant, not a strong independent personality.

No objections, since we do disagree on almost everything else.

And if you read my previous post, you'll see that I do agree with some points but disagree with some others.

Yes, I note that you agree with the Native American writer on some points and disagree on others.

Since I am Native American, and have experienced 50-plus years of watching American entertainment featuring my culture, I believe that I, like the author, have a different perspective on how we're portrayed in entertainment than you do.

 

[kimc]

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.

 

[teya]

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.

Actually, that concept of chivalry makes me cringe, too. I find it demeaning to the man. It's not a partnership of equals.

Once again... I don't think the writers *intended* to be racist. I think they simply went with the prevailing romantic notions of Native Americans and didn't *think* about how what they wrote would be perceived by Indians. So, from the Native perspective, Chakotay does just become another sidekick, another Tonto.

 

[Lynx]

^^
And still you're writing stories about "Tonto".

 

[exodus]

^^
And still you're writing stories about "Tonto".

Was that a joke?

 

[JustKate]

^ I think Lynx is referring to Teya's fanfic.

 

[kimc]

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.

Actually, that concept of chivalry makes me cringe, too. I find it demeaning to the man. It's not a partnership of equals.

Once again... I don't think the writers *intended* to be racist. I think they simply went with the prevailing romantic notions of Native Americans and didn't *think* about how what they wrote would be perceived by Indians. So, from the Native perspective, Chakotay does just become another sidekick, another Tonto.

Well the whole concept of chivalry was started up in medieval times which isn't exactly known for placing any value on the concept of "equality". Also, it was a practice of knights who were regarded as the strongest and most noble (that word again!) of men.

Like you said the writers weren't intending to be racist - they were simply taking a Native American character and defining him as strong according to European terms - not the terms of the Native American culture as it exists today.

 

[teya]

^^
And still you're writing stories about "Tonto".

Well, you hate what they did to Kes and write stories about her.

Am I not allowed to fix their Chakotay blunders as best as I can?

 

[Lynx]

^^
And still you're writing stories about "Tonto".

Was that a joke?

No, more a question.

If I regarded a fictional character as something of a stereotype of my people and I would find that somewhat annoying, I don't think I would write stories about that character.