Is Star Trek Racist

[Arpy]

No actual aliens were discriminated against in the making of this television series.

The message comes across that there are hierarchies of people. Humans First. Then others, who are versions of blacks, Jews, Asians, etc. Culture matters in influencing populations themselves diverse in opinion on race.

You'd think this would have gotten by in the 60's or even 80's, but ENT left the airwaves in 2005.

And frankly, there were those who knew better in 1865. Or earlier. For a sci-fi show supposedly trying to blow your mind with high concepts, this one is as anachronistic as they get. "[Mine] is superior."

What's DSC to bring us? There's a lot of television out there more intelligent, progressive, or cutting edge than anything Treks' done in a while. The world has outpaced Trek.

 

[suarezguy]

Enterprise basically had Federation starship design be exclusively human. "We don't know what's underneath the hull" apologetics aside, it doesn't present well the idea of a Federation melting pot.

The theme is often raised about what it is to be "human" specifically - not intelligent, or sentient. Humanity is always the uber-race in Trek, all others being foils or pepper to their main course.

Starfleet, from what we've seen, is definitely predominantly human though it seems to not discriminate (it could be doing so unintentionally, and that could be more explored) and to try to increase its diversity. I don't see how the characters valorize humanness, though they may be a bit species-centric; Data and the Doctor were designed to emulate humans and Seven is human but there's no animosity or disrespect toward Worf or Kira.

What's DSC to bring us? There's a lot of television out there more intelligent, progressive, or cutting edge than anything Treks' done in a while. The world has outpaced Trek.

I'm not sure how much television is more progressive than Trek or what you define as cutting-edge but I think most Trek is more intelligent than most television, then or now.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Sometimes the portrayals of humans was more a narcissistic thing.

There was an episode where Q said of all the species, humans were the only ones who could not be stagnant, so they (Riker) were the only ones worthy of receiving the Q's gift.

They're the only ones who are going to really evolve, even beyond Q.

That just seems really silly. Off all the trillions of life forms out there, they're the only ones eh?

It's a human centric show for sure, and there are reasons for it, but that was an arrogant assertion.

 

[cultcross]

I must say, I don't really care if Star Trek is human centric. There are far more pressing diversity issues than the treatment of made up aliens.

In terms of racism, Star Trek pushed some boundaries in the 60s, and has trundled along with white majority casts, tokenism and occasional racial stereotypes ever since. Uhura, Worf, Geordi, Tuvok and Sisko remain the only black cast members of significant note across five series worth of casts. That's woeful. Sexism has almost done the opposite, getting better as time went on with less saving THE WOMEN! and more women in non caregiveing roles, but then even the female led cast was predominantly male and brought in a sexy female in a skintight catsuit for eye candy. So there's a good long way to go there, too. And we've covered thoroughly the lack of LGBT+ representation.

Star Trek has some mountains to climb to recover an actually earned reputation for being progressive, but I'm hopeful Discovery will take us at least some of the way.

 

[locutus101]

Well, let's hope I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Well, it might not be racist per se, but something about the "evolved" humans of the 24th century rubs me the wrong way. So humanity has evolved past petty differences and conflicts (and war, poverty, greed etc.) which, as numerous writers and producers of the various Trek shows have mentioned, doesn't make for good drama. Then they're saved by bringing in different aliens to create the needed drama. And by extension these aliens will be deemed as not as evolved as the humans are.

In fact, I often find a kind of condescending attitude from "our" guys towards those backward aliens. Even the application of the hallowed prime directive bears this hallmark - "let them fight it out/kill each other/suffer a pandemic/stray asteroid/whatever - we just can't be bothered."

 

[Arpy]

I must say, I don't really care if Star Trek is human centric. There are far more pressing diversity issues than the treatment of made up aliens.

In terms of racism, Star Trek pushed some boundaries in the 60s, and has trundled along with white majority casts, tokenism and occasional racial stereotypes ever since. Uhura, Worf, Geordi, Tuvok and Sisko remain the only black cast members of significant note across five series worth of casts. That's woeful. Sexism has almost done the opposite, getting better as time went on with less saving THE WOMEN! and more women in non caregiveing roles, but then even the female led cast was predominantly male and brought in a sexy female in a skintight catsuit for eye candy. So there's a good long way to go there, too. And we've covered thoroughly the lack of LGBT+ representation.

Star Trek has some mountains to climb to recover an actually earned reputation for being progressive, but I'm hopeful Discovery will take us at least some of the way.

The point is that one feeds into the other. If you can't be bothered with the inequities against other people (and Kirk was as fictional as Quark), then it's easier for you to be unbothered by inequities against your own. Inequities that you may not have previously noticed, but others did. Ask not for whom the bell tolls. Black lives matter. Matthew 25:40.

It decreases human bigotry to recognize it against alien. We're all alien to other groups of people, sometimes to our own, sometimes to ourselves, to get poetic about it.

Trek has gotten by on lesser writing. It was easier when the world was more racist, and we were less sophisticated viewers. But I for one am an adult now, living in the world of today, and it takes more for me to be awed than it did my 15 year old self. To paraphrase Christopher Pike, I dare Trek to do better.

Or bite me.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The message comes across that there are hierarchies of people.

See this, the point that both of my posts were trying to get across:

I must say, I don't really care if Star Trek is human centric. There are far more pressing diversity issues than the treatment of made up aliens.

 

[Kor]

When it comes to imaginative alien species, literary SF has always beaten the tar out of television.

Kor

 

[locutus101]

When it comes to imaginative alien species, literary SF has always beaten the tar out of television.

Kor

I think with the new cgi they can create really cool aliens, if they really want to that is.

 

[Vandervecken]

Well, it might not be racist per se, but something about the "evolved" humans of the 24th century rubs me the wrong way. So humanity has evolved past petty differences and conflicts (and war, poverty, greed etc.) which, as numerous writers and producers of the various Trek shows have mentioned, doesn't make for good drama. Then they're saved by bringing in different aliens to create the needed drama. And by extension these aliens will be deemed as not as evolved as the humans are.

In fact, I often find a kind of condescending attitude from "our" guys towards those backward aliens. Even the application of the hallowed prime directive bears this hallmark - "let them fight it out/kill each other/suffer a pandemic/stray asteroid/whatever - we just can't be bothered."

But, to be fair, humanity does get condescended to a fair bit by plenty of "godlike" aliens. Some eps humans are the windshield, some eps the bug. Considering that the series ARE made for human beings to watch and not Q or Vulcans, it isn't strange that we are the measure of central tendency, and may at times seem the "happy" medium. But I see that happiness called into question often enough, and directly in words.

Hell, doesn't have to be the godlike types. The Borg condescend a lot and get to do plenty of speechifyin' to make their point about our pettiness and limited scopes through 7 of 9 and the Queen. Spock is constantly ripping humans compared to Vulcans and so do other Vulcans at times. Anan 7 gave Kirk a pretty good verbal knock upside the head re General Order 24. Changelings/Vorta went on about our innate tendency as solids to mistreat liquids (how they can know this, no idea, but it's part of their schtick). Hell, even the fricking Kazon got in a bash or two about the fate of those who "will not share their technology"!

 

[locutus101]

ST may not be racist but it's not very progressive either.

 

[Paradise City]

Star Trek asks questions of humanity -- to speak to contemporary human audiences, describing an optimistic future that stood in contrast to the Cold War and other iconic problems at that time- and in describing this vision for humanity the other aliens got absentmindedly relegated to being a role that's supports that underlining vision. The sin committed here is to be Humancentric just as the idea of "Discovering America" is uniquely Westerncentric.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm all for finding in-universe reasons for production decisions/limitations, but I find this line of reasoning to be a tad absurd. Most, if not all the aliens in Star Trek are us. They are a vehicle to discuss, critique and comment on humanity.

EDIT: And Captain Proton is a play on Flash Gordon. Trek is the contemporary version of the real Gordon and fictional Proton. That its bigoted racial exceptionalism seems incongruous with its ideals is its own damn problem.

No, that would be Star Wars