History of Star Trek having no "money"

[Tallguy]

Which generalisation was that?

Let me guess, you're someone who approves of the SJW label?

Nazis. Vikings. Americans to their slaves. Basically all humans of pre-history. You right now saying Kirk's "Let them die" mentality was ok. Barbarism is not an excuse for racism.

You're painting all Nazi's with a broad brush. Racist.

I can't imagine Kirk having any problem with Klingons as a species. I can and do see him having a terrible time with their culture.

Was the Empire allowed to keep its enslaved planets after Khitomer?

When the Federation offered aid was any of that in the form of MONEY?

Star Trek V used the same uniforms (and deeper ridges) used previously in ST:III and afterward in TNG-era. ST:VI created all new uniforms that were created as a bizarre in-between and not reused in later movies/series.

ST:III made changes from TMP. I don't believe that John Shuck's clothes in IV were seen previously. Why would the Chancellor of the High Council wear the same clothes as the navy? Chang had a different look because Plummer demanded it. Otherwise he wouldn't have taken their MONEY.

The whole point of the movie was that Federation and Klingon individuals were similar in their villainy. Kirk was framed for a crime (that's never happened in a human court!) with the help of Valeris, Cartwright, and others. His change happened (to his credit) after he'd been tried, convicted, and laying in his prison bunk talking to McCoy about if he'd become rigid and bigoted in his old age. When the Klingon Chancellor asked what was going on here, he didn't say, Ask Chang, he said, "People can be afraid of change."

Ok, Kirk was right not to trust The Klingons. He was wrong to trust Starfleet.

Given the confusion caused by the Voyage Home exchanges, despite TOS stories both before and after it making apparent mentions of economy, then unfortunately not. It's as contradictory as the rest.

No, TOS is perfectly consistent. It's one TOS movie that gets it wrong. Of course "no money" is mentioned less than "Vulcanian" or "UESPA".

 

[Smoked Salmon]

@Tallguy

Please explain how "Let me guess, you're someone who approves of the SJW label?" is a generalisation. It advances no stereotype or characterisation.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

It is ironic that the Klingon Azetbur was less prejudiced than the enlightened hero Kirk. Either that or she was just a pragmatic, sensible politician.

See here's the problem with how one views a character. Kirk is enlightened on a great many things, but it doesn't mean he is flawless or enlightened on everything. His experiences with the Klingons, and the death of his son (as we are reminded of in the picture) has meant that he has become more forgiving to the stereotype. I actually think that's pretty realistic given the many people in real life who have overcome prejudice and turned back on their former views.

 

[Tallguy]

It is ironic that the Klingon Azetbur was less prejudiced than the enlightened hero Kirk. Either that or she was just a pragmatic, sensible politician.

She was ready to believe that Kirk and McCoy were guilty as sin. She was on board because of her father. Her behavior at the dinner party didn't seem particularly unprejudiced.

 

[Tracy Trek]

She was ready to believe that Kirk and McCoy were guilty as sin. She was on board because of her father. Her behavior at the dinner party didn't seem particularly unprejudiced.

I seemed to me like all of the Klingon party came to the dinner with a chip on their shoulder (except maybe Gorkon). The same could be said about the Enterprise crew. Witness their comments before the Klingons beamed aboard and after they left.

 

[Nyotarules]

She was ready to believe that Kirk and McCoy were guilty as sin. She was on board because of her father. Her behavior at the dinner party didn't seem particularly unprejudiced.

Under the circumstances her attitude was correct, as far as she knew the Enterprise fired on her ship, two Starfleet crew sabotaged and killed Klingons, McCoy was too incompetent to save her father. If she had Kirk's 'Let them die' genocidal mindset she would have declared war on the spot.

 

[Nyotarules]

Nope, prime universe.How was Kirk any more (or less) of a racist than he was in Errand of Mercy? Kirk had decades of experience with the Klingons and their barbaric ways. The later TNG era did nothing to make Kirk's comment of "they're animals" untrue. Kirk was being honest and un-PC, two things always to be admired.Spock and crewman Dax don't understand.That happen in the previous movie, TUC just carried that theme forward.Inspite of events in the movie, Kirk likely still didn't have a high opinion of Klingon intelligence.While that might have been the "intent," it certainly didn't come across as that in the scene.

Kirk had experience with the Klingon military, unless you believe it is just fine to judge a whole nation by its military's actions or it's politicians then in that case the USA and GB are.....

 

[Tenacity]

If she had Kirk's 'Let them die' genocidal mindset she would have declared war on the spot.

Kirk never advocated killing the Klingons, or engaging them in warfare. His comment was basically just don't help them.

No genocide.

How many people would subsequently die, suffer, be injured, be enslaved in the galaxy stemming from the Federation not letting the Klingon society "die?"

USA and GB

Name two other world powers in the moden era who have done as much to protect freedom.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

"Name two other world powers in the moden era who have done as much to protect freedom.

I don't mean to be an arse, but what do you consider to be the definition of "freedom"? I ask, because I am a Brit and the concept of freedom is relevant to my profession.

 

[The Old Mixer]

@Tallguy

Please explain how "Let me guess, you're someone who approves of the SJW label?" is a generalisation. It advances no stereotype or characterisation.

This thread has already veered off-topic enough. Discussions of the "SJW label" belong in Miscellaneous or The Neutral Zone. Discussions of STVI:TUC belong in the Trek Movies forum. @1001001 has already attempted to steer the thread back on course. If it continues to be about these tangents, I'll put it out of its misery.

 

[eyeresist]

See here's the problem with how one views a character. Kirk is enlightened on a great many things, but it doesn't mean he is flawless or enlightened on everything. His experiences with the Klingons, and the death of his son (as we are reminded of in the picture) has meant that he has become more forgiving to the stereotype. I actually think that's pretty realistic given the many people in real life who have overcome prejudice and turned back on their former views.

Yes, we see this in the real world - right now in Colombia, but previously in places like Rwanda and Northern Ireland. People nurse quite legitimate grievances, but come to realise that the only way to create peace in the future is to leave the past in the past. For the purpose of the narrative, it was the revelation of Federation skullduggery that was Kirk's turning point, but I think we'd all like to believe he would have come around anyway.

 

[Arpy]

You're painting all Nazi's with a broad brush. Racist.

Nazis weren’t born Nazis; they chose it. Yes, they were either racists or racist allies. Don’t throw the word around because you think it sounds like a slur.

When the Federation offered aid was any of that in the form of MONEY?

If the Klingons used it, why not? I think in Shatner’s The Ashes of Eden, their currency were called “talons.”

ST:III made changes from TMP. I don't believe that John Shuck's clothes in IV were seen previously. Why would the Chancellor of the High Council wear the same clothes as the navy? Chang had a different look because Plummer demanded it. Otherwise he wouldn't have taken their MONEY.

Shuck was an ambassador and so his uniform wouldn’t have been seen earlier. The chancellor too could have worn a different uniform. ST:III included some small variations on the the same ST:I uniform. The issue is that the chancellor and all the military personnel were wearing entirely new uniforms of a new esthetic designed for just that movie.

Ok, Kirk was right not to trust The Klingons. He was wrong to trust Starfleet.

One shouldn’t blindly trust anyone. Nobody's perfect. The issue is that he let his distrust of the leadership malign his soul, for every innocent he'd let die. To his credit, Shatner played the scene with near immediate remorse that Meyer cut away from…people are so thrilled with his involvement in Discovery like it’s the second (or third) coming…I’m cautiously optimistic.

EDIT: Re money, this is supposed to be science-fiction. I'd love them to do more on vastly different economic systems used in different cultures, and the ways in which interstellar relations cross-influence different systems. China is less communistic economically today than decades ago, post relations with the West. Brutal third-world nations can be influenced by more Liberal ones to treat their workers better. The Klingons after Praxis/Khitomer?

Cardassians use the lek; Bajorans, the lita.

 

[eyeresist]

The idea of a modern (or future) society with no money is interesting, but we can't really imagine it, no more than someone in Medieval Europe could imagine a society not built on serfdom.

 

[Tallguy]

The idea of a modern (or future) society with no money is interesting, but we can't really imagine it, no more than someone in Medieval Europe could imagine a society not built on serfdom.

Sure they could. There had been societies without serfs before.

This thread has already veered off-topic enough. Discussions of the "SJW label" belong in Miscellaneous or The Neutral Zone. Discussions of STVI:TUC belong in the Trek Movies forum. @1001001 has already attempted to steer the thread back on course. If it continues to be about these tangents, I'll put it out of its misery.

Fair enough. Even though it has (inevitably I suppose) ranged off to no money being good / bad / possible, my original question was if there was any wiggle room about money in TOS or even artistic intent that was ever mentioned by any of the team at the time or after. There isn't.

There was money in TOS. There are stories that depend on it. A moneyless culture is a post TOS thing. Introduced in The Voyage Home and solidified in TNG. Anything earlier is a retcon.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

... which doesn't change that Uhura specifically talks about buying the Tribble ("How much are you selling them for?"). And the Barman gives her a price. No mention of "But we're with Starfleet, we don't have money...."

They probably also keep some money on hand for the same reason; occasionally, Starfleet people will encounter those who do use money and it's the only thing they'll deal in. Maybe that's common enough practice among merchants that Uhura is aware of it, having bought, say, her green earrings from someone who also sold goods for money.

Having said that, I don't know where she got her money from, though; whether she sold something of hers, or perhaps performed a song on some non-Federation planet and was remunerated for doing so. Or perhaps Starfleet provides the crew in general with an allowance that wouldn't be considered an individual's pay, but rather a common purse crew members can dip into for just such an occurrence.

 

[Tenacity]

Having said that, I don't know where she got her money from

Her Starfleet pay.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Her Starfleet pay.

I meant, assuming they didn't pay them. (what if)

 

[Tenacity]

Trust fund?

 

[FormerLurker]

Each crewmember has an account just for such occasions, like the one Doctor Crusher mentioned.

 

[Tenacity]

Sure they have an account, that's where their Starfleet pay goes.