Please don't give up, your perspective is one of the most enlightening ones in this forum. I think too many people are blinded by their shining St. Katherine to see the problems with Chakotay.
Chakotay as the Noble Savage
- Thread starter Zameaze
- Start date
Please don't give up, your perspective is one of the most enlightening ones in this forum. I think too many people are blinded by their shining St. Katherine to see the problems with Chakotay.
The problem is, as exodus has noted, that when all opinions and perspectives are judged to be equal, then it doesn't really matter *what* the Native perspective is, since it's no more enlightened nor enlightening than the perspective that thinks Chakotay is absolutely fine and dandy and accurate as is. Or the perspective that doesn't care if he's accurate, because it really doesn't matter. Or the perspective that thinks I should shut up and quit my bitchin' because TPTB didn't really mean to be stereotypical and I should be happy that they put an Indian in there.
Of course, it *is* different with Kathryn. In that case, the woman's perspective is absolutely a more valid one than the man's--because we women have *lived* it, therefore we know more about how a woman should be portrayed.
That some of us have lived the perspective of a minority character apparently is different somehow--although I'm not certain how...
^ Forgive me if I've missed something, but I don't recall many people saying Chakotay's portrayal is "accurate." I don't remember any, actually, but I'm hedging, just in case.
Edit: I mean, how can it be accurate when it isn't based on anything but the whims of the writers?
Edit: I mean, how can it be accurate when it isn't based on anything but the whims of the writers?
Maybe not. Many have argued that it's acceptable.
I have had folks in the past insist that it's accurate--largely based on what they've been exposed to, which is romantic fiction and other lovely examples such as "Dr Quinn Medicine Woman."
^ Thing is, it's been argued here that this romantic view of Indians is just as valid as the Indian's view of Indians.
And frankly, if folks can just claim authority on the basis of their opinions, then it's kind of pointless for me to say anything.
Indians become just whatever they want us to be.
Which is pretty much all we've ever been to the majority culture.
And frankly, if folks can just claim authority on the basis of their opinions, then it's kind of pointless for me to say anything.
Indians become just whatever they want us to be.
Which is pretty much all we've ever been to the majority culture.
Almost like there's different standards or something where one character's inaccuracies an unimportant if drawing attention to them distracts from another character... surely not?
Also, temporarily derailing, but I remember Doctor Quinn from when I was a little kid and watching it with the family. On balance, how did you find its portrayal of Natives - it looks like negatively, but anything in particular? (I recall being impressed as a kid that Custer was played as the rapacious villain he is and wasn't made into a hero)
I'm sorry but you are very wrong on this point. Lets review the first officers in Trek....
Spock - scientist generally not interested in command but usually won the day simply by offering Kirk logical ideas. Kirk was the one in charge, but Spock was clearly the brains of the outfit.
Riker - There is no way that one could call him passive. Hell, in the pilot, he laid down the law that HE was the person going on away missions. Picard largely capitulated. more importantly, Picard was depicted as a diplomat who knew how the marshal the ideas of his people into workable plans without steamrolling over his crew. RARELY did he dismiss the concerns of his senior staff and simply do what he wanted.
Kira - She is the exact opposit of passive. She will get in anyone's face if the thinks she is right...be it Sisko, an Admiral, or a political leader. Come what may, she spoke her mind. It sometimes got her into trouble but she was not some passive wilting flower. Sisko was clearly in command (and occasionally had to remind her of that) but he never ignored her suggestions.
Chakotay - Passive was his middle name. No other series had the XO flatly claim that the captain is always right. He rarely spoke up and even when he did, Janeway just steam rolled over him. The reason equality should have been more important on Voyager than any other Trek series was that Chakotay was actually a captain. He was a leader in his own right. So it always looked damn peculiar that he always deferred to her. It did not help that Janeway was always shown to be right no matter how dumb the idea.
T'Pol - For all the effort that went into making her look like a sex kitten, T'Pol, like Spock was usually shown to be the brains of the outfit. More often than not, she was the one with the sound advice. Archer, like Janeway, frequently dismissed her ideas. However, unlike Janeway, Archer was usually depicted as a wet behind the ears buffoon who would not recognize soud advice if it fell into his lap. You don't need an asertive XO when the captain is clearly an idiot.
When dealing with issues of race and culture, the opinion of the person who is of that culture is the only one who's opinion should really matter. To suggest otherwise is to arrogantly assume that an outsider knows more about what it means to live and breathe a culture than someone who deals with it on a daily basis.
I mean really, if a Native American telling you that a depiction is not only stereo typical but offensive...who are you to tell them that they are wrong. After all the depiction has more impact on them than it does on you.
One of the main problems with how Janeway was written IMHO is that she was portrayed as an "anti-stereotype," meaning that they took several female stereotypes and made Janeway the polar opposite:
1. Janeway was excellent at physics and engineering.
2. Janeway was highly competitive and good at sports.
3. Janeway was absolutely not promiscuous (because women can be colored as "sluts" very easily).
4. Janeway was single-minded and always sure of every decision (women are supposed to be weak and indecisive).
5. Janeway couldn't cook.
I could probably go on, but those are the ones that stand out. In regards to #4, I think that's where much of the idea that "Janeway was always right" comes from. The writers were so concerned about her looking weak and/or "flighty," they made it where she was always correct about everything, or, at least, no one ever called her on her more questionable actions. It's a shame because they probably could've greatly increased her "likability factor" with fans if they simply showed her apologizing or defering to the judgement of others once and awhile. Personally, I love Janeway, but I do understand why she rubs some Trekkies the wrong way. Chakotay was a stereotype of a Native American; Janeway was an anti-stereotype of a woman. They both came across looking like cartoons.
I'm not telling them they're wrong, nor am I saying that what they label as offensive is not offensive. For example, I think every ethnic team mascot should be changed TODAY because ethnic mascots are offensive; I don't have to be NA to understand that. All I said was that one individual's personal experience is not necessarily the same experience that every other person of their race and culture has lived.
Alrighty....
I'm just a white chick with a bad haircut, but I'd like to take the time to throw my lot in with Teya.
I hail from the Northeastern corner of the U.S., and I don't know if there's something in the water, but I've met a disturbing amount of white folks who suddenly decide they're Native Americans (at least "spiritually") after reading or watching a bunch of New Agey garbage. Their idea of "Native American culture" is derived from television, where they glean it has something to do with animals, nature, and The Great Spirit, and from a trip to the local dollar store where they purchase a plastic dream-catcher. I'm not kidding. These people exist, and they're not all that rare. I can't count the number of times I've heard some white person, usually while describing their "spiritual beliefs," start a sentence with the phrase, "I'm like the Native Americans in that I believe..." without having the slightest clue about what any Native American of any tribe believes about anything.
Apparently, judging from characters like Chakotay, this problem is country-wide. Ugh.
As for myself, I have a dilentante interest in folklore of all sorts, and I currently have a minor in anthropology, and while this doesn't qualify me as an expert, I was more than able to see, after only a few episodes of VOY, that "Chakotay" was based on the same weird New Agey white people perceptions as the ones I encountered from the goofballs back home. Double ugh. To the people in this thread: Teya's concerns are legitimate. For those of you who have never encountered a wanna-be Indian, good for you, but they're everywhere, and some of them are in Hollywood writing "Star Trek" scripts. This needs to end.
Personally, I hate Chakotay, I have an abiding interest in native peoples that has nothing to do with "animal guides," and I would not be caught dead buying a plastic dream-catcher.
Peace.
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts here. Is a woman more sensitive to female stereotyping because of her own experience, or can a thoughtful male be just as sensitive to it? Is a member of a particular race more conscious of stereotyping than a non-member of the race can be? It is a topic argued ad nauseum in literary circles--can a woman write from a male's point of view, can a white person write from a black person's or a NA person's perspective? Does the fact that I'm a woman make my observations of female stereotyping somehow more believable or significant than a male's observations? Just curious.
You know what struck me about the white people in Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman? They were assholes. Every week, Dr Quinn would be talking about the brave and wise people of Colorado Springs and then they're do something thuggishly racist and/or sexist and/or evil, which she'd forget about by next week after they'd forgotten their moral lesson of the moment about why they're assholes, but unfortunately by the time the cameras started rolling for the next script, they'd just start up with the moral evils all over a-damn-gain where upon Doctor Quinn once more taught them how to be good again as long as they were in her line of sight, but that bullshit where she always talks about their general decency and good natured (Christian?) ways?
&^% that!
Girl was in denial about how she was drowning in assholes.
A simply awful show hammering on about white liberal guilt a hundred years before they actually knew they had the reason to calculate that they were doing anything wrong. I know obliviousness isn't righteousness, but they didn't know that in the 1880s and it's ridiculous to think that someone as preachy as Michaela Quinn wasn't drowned in the river for witchcraft because of even half of her opinions.
Of course if they weren't utter utter immoral bastard monsters, then Quinn's obvious blazing enlightenment would have no where useful to shine... Predestined reformation? I wonder how Michaela Quinn's story would have panned out if she had decided instead to settle in Deadwood?
Hmmm. I'm wondering if I'm the only one questioning this "anti-stereotype" list.
I was always good at math and science. In college, two of my female friends became pharmacists, three went to medical school, and several are math and science teachers in high school and college.
I loved sports and played competitive softball all through my school years, and recreational tennis after that. In our senior "predictions," my classmates thought I would be running a fitness center.
Women's sports have blossomed over the years, thanks to Title IX, and more and more girls are participating.As far as promiscuity goes, I'm pretty tame, too--twenty-seven years of marriage, and I'm not bored yet. Are you implying that promiscuity is a female stereotype? In my mind, it's associated more with men than women (although, of course, it takes two to tango).
My cooking has been highly criticized on many occasions; some would say I can't do it, either.
I seem to fit all those anti-stereotypes, yet, to quote Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a woman?"
As for #4, who would follow a captain who wasn't sure of herself? Can you imagine a captain who waffled when giving orders or who stopped to ask her subordinates what to do? Exuding confidence is what good leaders have to do. However, she was called on her orders at least once--remember her failed attempt to sacrifice herself in "Night"? And she accepted her subordinates' advice (with disastrous results) in "Alliances." As for never seeing apologies and deferrals to her subordinates, I'm assume that being limited to only 42 minutes in every episode might have been one reason, since such scenes would do little to advance the plot.
As for #4, who would follow a captain who wasn't sure of herself? Can you imagine a captain who waffled when giving orders or who stopped to ask her subordinates what to do? Exuding confidence is what good leaders have to do. However, she was called on her orders at least once--remember her failed attempt to sacrifice herself in "Night"? And she accepted her subordinates' advice (with disastrous results) in "Alliances." As for never seeing apologies and deferrals to her subordinates, I'm assume that being limited to only 42 minutes in every episode might have been one reason, since such scenes would do little to advance the plot.
Yes I can imagine a captain that would stop to ask questions of their subordinates. In fact we were shown one. How many times in a perplexing situation would Picard, on the bridge, simply pause and say "suggestions?"
That is the depiction of a captain that is secure enough in his command abilities that he can, at any time, ask his highly trained crew of professionals for ideas. The best leaders know how to do this and can do it without insisting that they are always right. That was NOT Janeway. She was right, everyone else was wrong and the writers would throw logic and reason out the window so that she could be proven right. That was definately a sign of insecurity on the part of the writers. Oddly enough, all of the other series managed to find time for the captain to be wrong and then apologize. But Janeway was perfect...what could she possibly have to apologize for?
The "Janeway can't cook" thing was just dumb. She never actually had to cook. How does one burn a pot roast in a replicator? This was an unnecessary trait that seemed out of place in a world where people get most of their food from glorified vending machines.
The Maquis could all cook.
That was the point supposedly.
They were fighting tooth and nail to avoid replicated food.
Innocent invitations to dinner would have been pandered to her constantly for the minor crewmen to garner political favour in her hierarchy.
Farmers conscientiously raising arms against the evil empire is cool.
The whole "but we acted as a safe harbour for psychopaths to use as living weapons for their cause" to explain Suder was Rubbis, even though Suder himself was awesome.
That was the point supposedly.
They were fighting tooth and nail to avoid replicated food.
Innocent invitations to dinner would have been pandered to her constantly for the minor crewmen to garner political favour in her hierarchy.
Farmers conscientiously raising arms against the evil empire is cool.
The whole "but we acted as a safe harbour for psychopaths to use as living weapons for their cause" to explain Suder was Rubbis, even though Suder himself was awesome.
A major problem with Star Trek from TNG on until Nu-Trek is that it tended to pidgeonhole people into stereotypes or the 'planet of hats' for various xeno races....which is a pity, as I found the intelligent, cunning and ruthless Klingons from TOS far more interesting than the Space Viking-Samurai the Klingons had been pushed into.
Robert Beltran isa good actor and unfortunately suffered from The "Hollywood Ham-Fist" Effect known as your average TV writers pool who want to "diversify" a cast with no clue about exactly what they are adding.
in hind sight a better way to have handled it would have been just to have perhaps a small token of his heritage sitting on his desk that he would look at occasionally as he worked aboard ship, and perhaps a spiritual crisis on his part as opposed to the typical trype
but that's just me
Robert Beltran isa good actor and unfortunately suffered from The "Hollywood Ham-Fist" Effect known as your average TV writers pool who want to "diversify" a cast with no clue about exactly what they are adding.
in hind sight a better way to have handled it would have been just to have perhaps a small token of his heritage sitting on his desk that he would look at occasionally as he worked aboard ship, and perhaps a spiritual crisis on his part as opposed to the typical trype
but that's just me
Similar threads
