Opinions on "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"

[Mr.AtoZ]

Yeah, one of the many reasons to dislike the show is its superficiality in that regard; as an artifact of the time, it's reflective of a certain kind of discomfort at the end of the 1960s amongst traditional liberals and isn't dissimilar from TOS's slightly schizoid take on American militarism.

What's so bad about that? Granted the late Sixties was turbulent and not the best of times for the whole world, but still, Star Trek was an intelligent science fiction series.

Unlike Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea and Lost In Space, TOS was a show that addressed the political, social, and religious issues of that certain time. Even beyond that with the first six films(the Seventies, the Eighties, the Nineties, and today).

I don't see a problem with a morality play being displayed under the creative tracking/guise of science fiction. In 1968, the original Planet Of The Apes did the same thing, with equal and successful results.

And the commentaries of those times are still relevant to this day. Social Commentaries that humanity need to start paying more attention to.

We do not want to forget that discomfort. If not remembered then it is doomed to repeat itself. The concentration camps of the Nazis were horrifically appalling, so there are many people who wish to forget or even deny they existed. And yet today such camps still exist in other places such as Africa.

So yes this episode is really best understood in the context of the day. It aired in January of 1969. In the year prior, both Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King were assassinated, two men who were strong proponents of equal rights for all people.

Although I do not particularly enjoy this episode, it does speak volumes about the tumultuous nature of the times. That racism left to its own devices will undoubtedly lead to much destruction. How sad that humanity must continually fight so hard to keep it from tearing itself apart. Those of us fortunate to live in the 1st world are mostly clouded by an illusion of technology. We do not see the real ugliness of humanity that is still so prevalent throughout the world. We cannot afford to leave it unchecked. We must be charitable with our wealth and help others to build themselves up out of poverty and oppression. If we had done so with the poor civilians left over in Afghanistan after the USSR was forced out, it would not have become a breeding ground of hatred that lead to this overt assault on our way of life.


I am a Caucasian man of European descent.

 

[Ssosmcin]

This episode is pretty obvious, but I wonder how much choice they had back then? Sure, they could have made it subtle and had people "get it" or not get it. But I don't think racism could have been so blatantly criticized on network TV during a "regular" hour of TV. By putting the black and white guys on there, they could come right out and not mince words or risk the message being diluted. It was a different world and straightforward discussion of topics on TV was still a few years away.

As obvious and cheesy at is now seems, it's memorable and stuck with audiences even before home video made it available to people 24/7. And were the multiple episodes of "war is bad" or "man mustn't let machines do the work" any less obvious? Instead of having Kirk give an impassioned speech in the last 3 minutes as he normally did, they let it unfold through incident and dialog throughout. The episode had its faults, but I think the message benefited by being "sledgehammer obvious."

I am of the Caucasian persuasion.

Science fiction, when living up to its full potential, is always social commentary. Otherwise, it's just a silly space opera.

Nah, not necessarily. You can create a quality drama without making a "social commentary" and have it take place in a sci-fi setting without it being space opera in the slightest. It's a fallacy to think all good writing has to have "something to say". If the plot makes sense, retains interest, and the characters are well defined, you can have a great piece of science fiction that doesn't once comment on society. Sci-Fi can be a forum for commentary, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[JimZipCode]

The "almost self-destruct sequence" was a bad writer's cheap way of padding out an already-thin story and attempting to create artificial suspense. Yeah, like the captain's really going to blow up the ship.

Shoulda been a cheap faux-drama trick. But in the middle of a fairly humdrum, not-that-well-written episode, it's the most vibrant scene. Crackles with energy. Maybe the idea of a self-destruct sequence is a bad writer's cheap trick, but the execution of this one was superb – so superb, I am honestly not sure I've ever seen it done better, or even as well.

The relentless protocol of it is the part I keep coming back to. Scotty with sweat dripping off his face, backing his captain's play by entering his confirmation.

The other scenes in that episode that also feel natural and that really show us a part of that world we hadn't seen before, were the scenes in the lounge(s), that I mentioned before.

* * *

It is interesting to contrast the treatment of the self-destruct option here, with its treatment in By Any Other Name, also a 3rd-season episode. One of the (many) weaknesses of the 3rd season was the inconsistency between episodes. I don't mean in terms of continuity (which was never stressed), but in terms of character. In this episode, Kirk is resolute in his threat to blow up the ship if control is not returned to him. In the other episode, Scotty comes up with a plan to blow up the ship as it crosses the galactic barrier, rather than let the Kelvans retain control, but Kirk hesitates and then nixes the plan.

The difference in approaches does not make sense, when you look at the two side-by-side. If anything the Kelvans were a much graver threat to the Federation than Lokai and the Riddler were, because of their plans of conquest. That's when the self destruct option was really needed. But Kirk goes thru with it with Lokai & the Riddler, but does not against the Kelvans.

The story editors should have thought that one thru a little more.

 

[Mr_Homn]

I never thought about this, but does anyone else think it's rather unsettling that the word to describe different ethnicities (race) is the same word that literally embodies the idea of a competition?

Why do we call race, race? It's not a race afterall..... We're all people... nobody needs to win..

anyway, sorry for the weird post, but I've always disliked the word "Race" when talking about ethnicity. (not that I judge anyone for using that word that I myself use all the time, of course, I just am disturbed by that lingual coincidence, and it really never occured to me before now)

 

[Joel_Kirk]

^^
I haven't read the entire thread, but (just to piggy-back on this post) when I was in Singapore...I found it interesting that there were certain incident that were considered "racist" between those who were Malaysian-Singaporeans and Chinese-Singaporeans. And, the reason I found it interesting was: They, Malaysian and Chinese-Singaporeans are the same "race"....but different ethnicity.

Of course, some do use race and ethnicity interchangeably....which can get kind of confusing.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I've always assumed that it implied that the Cheronians had previously attempted to solve their racial problems by genetic manipulation, only to have it backfire?

I suppose that could work. I certainly can't even think of how a species like this could ever arise in "real life". Absolutely split down the middle, opposite sides of white and black? How does something like that happen in nature? There's no conceivable reason or method it could happen, that I could ever imagine. The only reason the writers did that was to hammer home The Message. A species like this could never actually occur, could it? Can any kind of biology even lead to such a species as we saw here?

 

[Maurice]

There are animals with all kinds of strange markings. Plenty of domestic animals have markings that are non-symmetrical. Remenber, a trait doesn't have to have an survival advantage, merely not confer a disadvantage that would affect the species survival.

 

[Kail]

I thought the movie "Crash" handled the race/prejudice issue very cleverly, showing a balance of both sides.

 

[Kail]

I once posted a thread wondering what mixed race Cheronians would look like. (Polka dots, pinstripes, let it all out.) I figured it probably wouldn't work like it does on earth, or else the Cheronians would mostly be varying shades of light and dark gray. Instead, I imagined that there would be a genetic coin flip involved, with the offspring taking entirely after one parent's color scheme or the other. However, the offspring would carry the genetic possibilty of producing a child that had the non-expressed color scheme even if mated with another Cheronian with the same expressed phenotype. This possibility of having a child with the "wrong" colors if a Cheronian of mixed race was passing would do a lot to make the racism and taboos on the planet that much more severe and entrenched.

I think a mixed race offspring would start looking grey all over.

 

[scotpens]

. . . It is interesting to contrast the treatment of the self-destruct option here, with its treatment in By Any Other Name, also a 3rd-season episode.

"By Any Other Name" was a second-season episode.

. . .Why do we call race, race? It's not a race afterall..... We're all people... nobody needs to win..

Different etymologies. Race, in the sense of "a group of people distinguished from others on the basis of a common heritage or common physical characteristics," derives from the Middle French race, from Italian razza, of uncertain origin.

Race, in the sense of "a contest the goal of which is to be first to reach an objective," is a Germanic word, from Old Norse by way of Middle English.

That's probably more than you wanted to know . . .