Chakotay as the Noble Savage

[teya]

^ Never said they didn't have meals together regularly. I don't however accept that means a weekly date, nor do I accept that to mean romance.

No one brought up romance until now. We were discussing Janeway "not being able to cook" and I mentioned she may not like it but that doesn't mean she can't - as evidence her cooking for Chakotay on a regular basis. Things kind of went on from there...

Does that mean we're done talking about Chakotay?

Um, Ms. Moderator, the thread is about Chakotay and how stereotyping informed his character. Now, I still see conversation going on about this.

I simply fail to see how Janeway's ability or inability to cook has any relevance to the topic.

If you can, perhaps you'll enlighten me.

 

[teya]

[SPOILER ALERT]

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

I haven't read "Full Circle," but I understand that when Janeway "dies," Chakotay goes on some sort of alcoholic binge (at least I read that he did this in a different thread) and becomes such a basket case that he is denied command of Voyager and resigns from Starfleet. Talk about writing him as a weak character. Yes, his family is gone and he has FINALLY connected with Janeway in the book, but having a NA character go bonkers on alcohol was just too "stereotypical" for me. Frankly, I was surprised that Beyer chose that reaction for him. However, it does confirm, for those of us who saw an attraction between J/C on the series, how deep and binding their relationship could be. I'm looking forward to reading this timeline once Janeway is back . . . and I believe it will happen.

I noticed that myself, but turning to booze in times of stress isn't necessarily abnormal for anyone of any race. I felt it was mitigated by the sessions with Cambridge wherein he tells Chakotay, point blank, that he's "been living in the shadow of Janeway's hopes and dreams for so long that he's lost the ability to decide anything outside of that context." In short, Beyer has Chakotay on his way to becoming a character in his own right as opposed to Janeway's sidekick. I even liked him in FULL CIRCLE, and I've hated his guts from the word "go." In a way, I was relieved to see him behaving in a realistic manner rather than "Star Trek perfect" mode.

Maybe I'll stop at the bookstore and pick this up today. I'm truly curious now.

But, since I haven't read it and neither has AuntKate, I suppose our gut reactions are equivalent in value...

The problem I have with the "positive" stereotyping of ethnic characters is that writers go too far in that direction--they end up so wonderful, they become cardboard cutouts.

I don't like it, but the fact of the matter is that alcoholism is a huge problem in the Native community. Many Indians can't hold their liquor--and this may be genetic. Many tribes are attempting to curb alcoholism with some really drastic measures--like incarcerating pregnant women so they can't pickle their babies in utero. A measure like that would never go in the majority community with its focus on individual rights vs the well-being of the collective.

The stereotype of the Indian drunk is very much based in reality. Pretending it isn't there is just another way of whitewashing history.

Would AuntKate say that "The Broken Cord" was a bad book and film because it dealt with the effects of FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome) in the Indian community?

And, as Kestrel notes, this comes from his character and is used for character development.

I think what happens is that people become so afraid of causing offense, they go in the opposite direction. Thus, we get that Indians are spiritual, the original ecologists (ignoring such historical facts as California Indians fishing some species to extinction long before the white man arrived), peace-loving, flute-playing* wonderful people. We get blanket opinions like "the use of ethnic mascots is wrong," which sound so great on paper but don't really stand up to examination.

It's easy to go to the positive stereotypes, because then you don't have to really look at the issues clearly and see the complexities that might be harder to deal with.

 

[Lynx]

Chakotay a hopeless alcoholic who gets booted out of Starfleet!

Over my dead body!

What the **** is Kirsten Beyer doing? How many Voyager characters are going to be destroyed and ruined before they close down this pathetic "relaunch"?

Holy geez Lynx, way to go off without getting the full story. As I recall (since FC is on my own list of catch-up for TrekLit), Chakotay falls into depression and binge drinking, yes. Then he pulls himself out of it, slowly and painfully working through most of his problems, to the point that he's once again fit to take command of Voyager. Then he chooses to take an extended leave to work through the rest of his problems, and to be close to Seven who is nearly as traumatized by Janeway's death as he is (not to mention the Caeliar... problem). And remember, in the midst of this depression and binge drinking, he was capable enough to command a Starfleet Armada at the Azure Nebula (not his fault that 7K cubes came through and wiped out the fleet).

Yeah right! Chakotay, the brave Maquis who actually survived the annihilation of his parents, relatives and friends without hitting the bottle all of a sudden falls into that destructive 20th century habit. Hasn't 24th century technology and medical progress found a cure to that "disease", I mean they can restore people who have been split into two personalities, not to mention reverse aging (Troi in "Man Of The People" among others) but no cure for alcoholism.

And of course he seeks comfort with Seven. Now do I see C/7 rising its head from the grave? This is getting worse and worse.

I do think I have all rights to "go off", in fact the more I read and learn about "Full Circle" and what's coming after that, the more I hate it.

It's "Fury" all over again but with other characters this time.

 

[teya]

Chakotay a hopeless alcoholic who gets booted out of Starfleet!

Over my dead body!

What the **** is Kirsten Beyer doing? How many Voyager characters are going to be destroyed and ruined before they close down this pathetic "relaunch"?

Holy geez Lynx, way to go off without getting the full story. As I recall (since FC is on my own list of catch-up for TrekLit), Chakotay falls into depression and binge drinking, yes. Then he pulls himself out of it, slowly and painfully working through most of his problems, to the point that he's once again fit to take command of Voyager. Then he chooses to take an extended leave to work through the rest of his problems, and to be close to Seven who is nearly as traumatized by Janeway's death as he is (not to mention the Caeliar... problem). And remember, in the midst of this depression and binge drinking, he was capable enough to command a Starfleet Armada at the Azure Nebula (not his fault that 7K cubes came through and wiped out the fleet).

Yeah right! Chakotay, the brave Maquis who actually survived the annihilation of his parents, relatives and friends without hitting the bottle all of a sudden falls into that destructive 20th century habit. Hasn't 24th century technology and medical progress found a cure to that "disease", I mean they can restore people who have been split into two personalities, not to mention reverse aging (Troi in "Man Of The People" among others) but no cure for alcoholism.

And of course he seeks comfort with Seven. Now do I see C/7 rising its head from the grave? This is getting worse and worse.

I do think I have all rights to "go off", in fact the more I read and learn about "Full Circle" and what's coming after that, the more I hate it.

It's "Fury" all over again but with other characters this time.

So, by this am I to assume that you would say a book like "The Broken Cord"--about fetal alcohol syndrome in indigenous communities--is a bad book because it highlights a *problem* in the native community?

 

[Lynx]

^^
No!

The book "The Broken Chord" obviously deals with a real problem in the 20th-21th century.

The character destruction in the Voyager relaunch books is another story and it's that problem I'm criticizing here.

 

[Thestral]

Yeah right! Chakotay, the brave Maquis who actually survived the annihilation of his parents, relatives and friends without hitting the bottle all of a sudden falls into that destructive 20th century habit. Hasn't 24th century technology and medical progress found a cure to that "disease", I mean they can restore people who have been split into two personalities, not to mention reverse aging (Troi in "Man Of The People" among others) but no cure for alcoholism.

You're overreacting and taking things out of context. The whole point was that losing Kathy J was the worst loss he'd ever gone through, especially after finally committing to being with her. We don't know how Chakotay dealt with serious grief before - we know losing the Maquis didn't push him off the edge like it did B'Elanna, but by that point he'd already re-established "family" ties with Voyager.

Tell me, why did you put "disease" in quotes - are you trying to imply that alcoholism isn't really a disease somehow? Also, people correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've gathered from reviews and discussion of FC isn't that he had sunk into actual alcoholism but was binge-drinking to ease the pain - once he worked through that in large degree he was able to put down the bottle.

And of course he seeks comfort with Seven. Now do I see C/7 rising its head from the grave? This is getting worse and worse.

Again, way to take things out of context. I didn't say he seeks comfort with Seven, I said he goes to comfort Seven in her great difficulty. As the two people closest to Kathy the J, it makes some sense that Chakotay and Seven would watch out for each other, and considering what Seven's going through on top of losing Janeway...

So why jump to the conclusion that of course they're resurrecting the eeevil C/7 pairing? Are you saying that the only pairing of characters Star Trek writers can do is romantic? Janeway and Tuvok might object, as might Chakotay and B'Elanna, Sisko and Kira, Sisko and Dax, Picard and Troi, La Forge and Crusher, etc., etc....

 

[Lynx]

^^
Putting the word disease in quotes came out wrong. I tried to state that the character wasn't killed off (I thought of the word "decease" and mixed all that up, another reminder that I should not write posts late in the evening or when I've only got minutes before being sceduled for something else which I was yesterday). I consider alcoholism as a serious disease and I've seen the effect of it among relatives and friends.

Otherwise I see no reason to change anything I wrote before and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the purpose with this scenario is to bring back C/7 too.

Nothing surprises me any longer when it comes to the Voyager "Relaunch".

 

[AuntKate]

I would hope that in four hundred years, some of today's problems, like alcoholism, would be solved, and I think in Roddenberry's "ideal" Trek world, they would be. Alcohol was used to undermine the NA culture back in the day, and I believe its abuse now often stems from societal issues and economic hopelessness--although some would argue that there is a "racial" propensity toward it. To have Chakotay resort to drink is just as stereotypical for a NA character as it would have been if Janeway, an Irish woman, had resorted to alcohol during "Night." The writers didn't stoop to that, thank God.

Michael Dorris (rest his soul) and his former wife Louise Erdrich are light years away from anything Trek. To compare their writing to a ST novel is like comparing a Jello Pudding Cup to creme brulee at a five-star restaurant. However, Dorris based his novel on a real-life experience in raising a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The child had nothing to do with his problems, having been "set up" by his mother's choices. Chakotay, in this case, can decide how to deal with his grief and could do so in a more mature and exemplary manner IMHO. I see it as an emotional ploy commonly used in stereotypical romance novels.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I have only watched the first few episodes of VOY. So my only perspective is simply that it was, after all, Janeway's ship. And an XO is not a "sidekick".

Is he really that stereotyped, or are some people going to be offended no matter what?

What is O'Brien? The Noble Celt? How incredibly offensive it was to have him sing "The Minstrel Boy"! And to stop for a drink at Quark's seemingly every night!

I'll have to watch more of VOY some time. No time for TV now.

 

[Lynx]

^^
I agree that Chakotay is not a sidekick. He was never Janeway's "servant", they had different opinions in some cases but solved them like grown-ups. As a matter of fact, I regard him more independent than Riker was in his relation to Picard. I find Chakotay a good character. However, he could have been used better. If he had, he would have been even better than Riker, he had the potential for that.

There were some horrible stereotypical things in his background story. However, Chakotay is not alone when it comes to stereotypes and not the worst character either. There have been some other stereotypes in Trek, not to mention other series as well.

 

[exodus]

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.

Yes, it is.

This boards very own Robert Maxwell did so recently in his post in TNZ's "Affirmitive Action" thread. I have to say, I was trying amazed at his ability to step outside himself and see things from another perspective. A truly amazimg piece of reading. However, I do understand such things sometimes are a gift.

Why do any Native American based stories for Chakotay anyway. hey didn't do any pro Black histroy stories for Geordi or honor of the Asians story for Harry. Why do hertiage based stories for this character when they've never done that ever before, for any other character besides the alien ones?

 

[CaptainStoner]

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.

Yes, it is.

This boards very own Robert Maxwell did so recently in his post in TNZ's "Affirmitive Action" thread. I have to say, I was trying amazed at his ability to step outside himself and see things from another perspective. A truly amazimg piece of reading. However, I do understand such things sometimes are a gift.

Why do any Native American based stories for Chakotay anyway. hey didn't do any pro Black histroy stories for Geordi or honor of the Asians story for Harry. Why do hertiage based stories for this character when they've never done that ever before, for any other character besides the alien ones?

Good points there. Though Picard, supposedly French, had quite a lot of background, and even mockery from Q. Sisko's background was used a lot, but not so much the African side.
I haven't gotten into VOY much. In the first episodes though, they have Chakotay doing shamanic practices with the crew.
I have an interest in such subjects and don't mind seeing it in Star Trek. It's a tightrope walk with cultural things. I like seeing various cultural references and textures in Star Trek. I think the best was Sisko's restaurant. But even that was a cliche. We start getting into cliches, and the argument pops up: "Oh sure, the (insert ethnicity) character HAS to be (insert corresponding activity). Nevermind it's the 23rd Century, etc."
I'm getting the impression that Chakotay's heritage eventually ends up overblown and cliche to the point of being offensive to some.
Perhaps its also a matter of frequency. If they're harping on his being NA nearly every episode, that is annoying. Even Picard's French background only comes up every so often.

 

[teya]

In the first episodes though, they have Chakotay doing shamanic practices with the crew.

There's a problem right there...

Chakotay's back story is that he didn't believe in his tribal religion, didn't want to stay with tradition. He fought it for his entire childhood before managing to get himself accepted into the Academy without his father's consent or knowledge.

In Jeri Taylor's bible (written out in "Pathways"), he didn't develop any interest while he was in Starfleet. Then his colony was destroyed and his family killed and suddenly he's a Born Again Mystic. Now, there's nothing strange about turning to religion in times of grief, but a mystic's path is a long and challenging one. You don't go from being an apostate to a teacher just like that.

I'm getting the impression that Chakotay's heritage eventually ends up overblown and cliche to the point of being offensive to some.

Yep. That's it in a nutshell.

Especially since the cliche is Tribe Hollywood.

 

[teya]

Alcohol was used to undermine the NA culture back in the day, and I believe its abuse now often stems from societal issues and economic hopelessness--although some would argue that there is a "racial" propensity toward it.

Since there's a genetic component to alcoholism, why is it so difficult to fathom that there would be a greater risk for certain ethnic groups?

I suppose, though, that it's easier to claim then that alcoholism is a *choice* rather than a *disease.

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.

I don't think one needs to be a member of a group to be sensitive to its issues.

The thing is, there are certain giveaways that indicate someone's talking out his or her ass.

"Akoochimoya" was that for me.

 

[AuntKate]

I'm getting the impression that Chakotay's heritage eventually ends up overblown and cliche to the point of being offensive to some.

I think that is the problem. I think we should remember that his NA culture that we see has undergone 400 years of influence, not to mention a departure from Earth. And I, for one, am unwilling to say that the NA population has a racial propensity toward alcoholism. I believe it is more likely a learned heritage and a result of social and economic issues, and, therefore, a disservice to Chakotay to have him turn to booze as a reaction to Janeway's death. The precedent for his character is toward anger. But that's just me.

 

[teya]

I'm getting the impression that Chakotay's heritage eventually ends up overblown and cliche to the point of being offensive to some.

I think that is the problem. I think we should remember that his NA culture that we see has undergone 400 years of influence, not to mention a departure from Earth.

Absolutely his Indian culture has undergone 400 years of changes.

But it still has to evolve from *something*. And that something was stereotypical pandering.

Thing is.... a very small effort to do some research would have gone a long way. If a writer is going to try and write a character from something outside his or her experience, research is a necessity. You can't just make it up. It then comes off as false.

And I, for one, am unwilling to say that the NA population has a racial propensity toward alcoholism. I believe it is more likely a learned heritage and a result of social and economic issues,

Are you really arguing that there are no diseases more prevalent in some ethnic groups than others?

Or are you trying to argue that alcoholism isn't a disease, but rather the result of "learned behaviors" or "socioeconomic pressures"?

 

[kimc]

And I, for one, am unwilling to say that the NA population has a racial propensity toward alcoholism. I believe it is more likely a learned heritage and a result of social and economic issues,

Are you really arguing that there are no diseases more prevalent in some ethnic groups than others?

Or are you trying to argue that alcoholism isn't a disease, but rather the result of "learned behaviors" or "socioeconomic pressures"?

Again, this strikes me as rather patronizing...

Okay guys, the issue of whether alcoholism or a preference for the color red is the result of genetics or social conditioning is not going to be resolved here. Having a difference of opinion is not patronizing so again let's keep the personal comments out of the thread. Thanks.

 

[teya]

^ It's not "having a difference of opinion" that's patronizing. It's the opinion that alcoholism is a result of learned behaviors (how stupid can the NA community be if we keep repeating the same dysfunctional behavior generation after generation) or the result of socioeconomic issues (which posits the community as unable to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps).

I'm not trying to be hostile here--I'm trying to get some folks to see it from a different POV.

Perhaps that is hopeless. After all, it seems that a prevailing opinion here is that those of us who *are* Indian have no more insight into Native American cultures than you or AuntKate or anyone else here, really.

So, on that note, I'll just drop the entire thread from my radar.

If you would like me to change my signature because it's offensive to the view of the forum as a whole, please do PM.

 

[Thestral]

Yeah, teya's right here. As somebody who has an inherited genetic predisposition to alcoholism, I'm rather disturbed that it's being brushed under the rug as "learned behavior." I don't think we need to argue about whether alcoholism is the result of genetics, because it's widely known to be one of the dominant factors.

Also, teya, what does your sig refer to, because it's always been a curiosity? Don't leave the thread!

 

[AuntKate]

I never said that there wasn't a genetic propensity toward alcholism--I said I question a "racial" propensity toward it. Alcoholism is a disease that is brought on by personal choice and behavior--just as emphysema can be brought on by smoking or drug addiction by the abuse of drugs. All are certainly diseases in the long run.

We have a branch of my family tree that seems to have a tendency to abuse alcohol. The rest of the family seems to be able to avoid that problem. I suppose there might be a gene that is handed down in that line; or there could be a subtle social conditioning at play. Or even a combination. As KimC said, we won't solve the "nature/nurture" question here.

To get back to the issue at hand--Chakotay--I just think it is a disservice to his character to have him turn to alcohol in "Full Circle" because that is such a stereotypical way to portray a Native American. No disrespect is intended to any group of people.