Same Sex Marriage

[Knight Templar]

One former enemy, one current enemy, one black woman, a Scotsman, a devilish looking alien and two Americans. .

"former enemy" I assume you mean Chekov who was Russian of course. But he could hardly be considered a major character in the OS as he was not even introduced until the second season.

And even then, Russians had been allies of the U.S. in the past notably in World War Two.

"current enemy" ??? Not sure who you are referring to unless it is possibly Sulu. Of course during the original series we never even came close to find out where Sulu was from.

Until The Voyage Home when we find out he was from....San Francisco.

America has a very long and well established connection to Scotland.

And even in the late 1960s there were black women serving in the military.

Finally, I never found Spock particularly "demonic looking".

 

[horatio83]

I have no problem with Earth being united under U.S. dominance.

Of course you don't, you are a reactionary fellow and thus a big fan of imperialism. Yet thankfully Trek does not depict such evil right-wing fantasies but a world where nations do not exist anymore, a place where nobody dominates anybody, a society of equals.
Folks who wanna dominate somebody else are usually the enemy of the Federation. Dominion, Cardassians, Romulans, you name them.

 

[Knight Templar]

I have no problem with Earth being united under U.S. dominance.

Of course you don't, you are a reactionary fellow and thus a big fan of imperialism. Yet thankfully Trek does not depicts such evil right-wing fantasies but a world where nations do not exist anymore, a place where nobody dominates anybody.
Folks who wanna dominate somebody else are usually the enemy of the Federation. Dominion, Cardassians, Romulans, you name them.

There is nothing whatsoever mentioned in Star Trek about "nations do not exist anymore" .

Starfleet officer Eddington who joined the Maquis in DS9 actually commented that the Federation was "worse that the Borg" because of their desire for control and influence.

 

[Deckerd]

I'm not sure about it not being right wing. I've always thought it a bit sinister that the whole spectrum of Earth and foreign nations resembled armed forces. It smacks of some kind of extremism across the galaxy. Current space dudes are mostly scientists and only have servicemen and women flying them up and back.

 

[Kenbushway]

There is not a single word in the original series IIRC that says anything about

"eradicated poverty".

"United Earth" was only referenced as part of a title.

"United Federation"- what has that got to do with anything?

Well now lets look at each word and slowly break it down.
Actually its been repeated countless of times that after the world war and the Vulcan visiting Earth became peaceful, ended all wars, poverty, and money.
1st words: United -- Earth, well this clearly isn't a conservative view point(well at least today's pretend conservatives like yourself). Because we all know if your not white and christian, you don't get a party invitation.
2nd words: United -- Federation, once again united federation of planets is the actual title. In order to be truly united people you need to accept how other people are, their cultures, and any religion(or lack there of). Once again not a very conservative idea.

Also you must remember the most important thing, The Prime Directive, non interference.

The Prime Direction is not at all related to this discussion.

I have no problem with Earth being united under U.S. dominance. And Starfleet is headquartered in the United States. And the Federation presidents office is in Paris, a long time (though annoying) ally of the United States.

As for this statement of yours

Actually its been repeated countless of times that after the world war and the Vulcan visiting Earth became peaceful, ended all wars, poverty, and money.

It was specified "original series" (where Gene Roddenberry had the most influence).

Except for a Third World War that killed 37 million people, and for the "Eugenics Wars" from 1992 to 1996, none of the stuff in your flat statement was included in the original series.

Yes it does, that is one of the most liberal ideals, non interference. Gene Roddenberry didn't have any influence in TNG? You've apparently not watched any TOS or TNG. Whether you like it or not Gene Roddenberry was a very liberal progressive person. Every thought and idea of his represents that.

 

[Kenbushway]

I have no problem with Earth being united under U.S. dominance.

Of course you don't, you are a reactionary fellow and thus a big fan of imperialism. Yet thankfully Trek does not depicts such evil right-wing fantasies but a world where nations do not exist anymore, a place where nobody dominates anybody.
Folks who wanna dominate somebody else are usually the enemy of the Federation. Dominion, Cardassians, Romulans, you name them.

There is nothing whatsoever mentioned in Star Trek about "nations do not exist anymore" .

Starfleet officer Eddington who joined the Maquis in DS9 actually commented that the Federation was "worse that the Borg" because of their desire for control and influence.

The funny thing is, that the Borg are very similar to the conservative(fake) party these days. I would have no problem with something like the federation having control and influence.

 

[Knight Templar]

I'm not sure about it not being right wing. I've always thought it a bit sinister that the whole spectrum of Earth and foreign nations resembled armed forces. It smacks of some kind of extremism across the galaxy. Current space dudes are mostly scientists and only have servicemen and women flying them up and back.

It is like the old "Starfleet is not a military organization" argument.

That was stated onscreen three or four times.

But if Starfleet is NOT a military organization is IS as evidenced onscreen an organization that

1) Uses western military ranks and organizational structure.
2) Officers keep deadly personal sidearms in their quarters at all times (IIRC, not even U.S. military officers do that).
3) They travel around in extremely heavily armed ships that are more than capable of committing genocide on a planetary scale.

Even U.S. military personnel don't do that. Most American servicemen and women have nothing whatsoever to do with WMDs.

4) They have in their ranks personnel who have fought in more battles than the the most combat experienced veterans in military history.

In DS9s "Rules of Engagement" Miles O'Brien testified that he had fought in more than TWO HUNDRED military engagements.

And this was BEFORE the Dominion War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In short, Starfleet IS NOT a military organization.

Starfleet is a SUPER military organization. Which has fought more battles with deadlier weapons than any military force that we have evidence of anywhere.

 

[horatio83]

I am always surprised by this incredible skill of reactionary folks to twist reality until it matches their ideology. I guess it will always remain a key difference between the left and the right. When I watch a show like Firefly I am totally aware that it is conservative yet enjoy it nonetheless.

 

[Knight Templar]

MASH was pretty much unabashedly liberal but I enjoyed it.

In truth, all the great shows have plenty of things that people from all sides enjoy.

Supposedly, "All In the Family" was very popular with conservative audiences. Though some have suggested this was actually completely unintended and was because Carroll O'Connor played the conservative (and racist) Archie Bunker so well that he was likable and admirable regardless of his beliefs.

Series creator Norman Lear of course was liberal and openly admitted that the shows he created were intended to be.

 

[Avon]

what does anyone gain by being intolerant anyway?

 

[Maurice]

^^^An air of intolerable smugness?

 

[nightwind1]

Gee, I like Firefly but I would never claim that it isn't a conservative show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Who was also a former soldier and cop.

Which means what exactly? He was ex-cop and former soldier with a progressive, humanist, liberal viewpoint and that was reflected in his work as a TV writer/producer. Star Trek is not a show that looks backwards so "retrograde" and "dated" are not words that should be used to describe it at its "best".

Roddenberrys "liberalism & progressivism (I hate that word)" is vastly overstated.

When he made the original series, Roddenberry was basically simply a television producer and writer (very poor writer) who wanted to make money.

He then spent years trying to achieve something beyond Trek and failed utterly. It was only when he realized he was stuck with eternally being the "creator of Star Trek" that he started talking about it as though it was something more than it was.

Many Hollywood people do that. They produce something, make lots of money, then go back and think what they made meant more than it did. Look at Spielberg and his making changes to E.T. because he "didn't like police officers pointing guns at children".

Just because you want to make money and get rich it doesn't mean you can't have liberal and progressive views. Being an former member of the Armed Forces and an ex-cop doesn't mean you can't have liberal and progressive views either.

Roddenberry quit the LAPD in 1956 because he couldn't make enough money.

I find myself unable to support my family at present on anticipated police salary levels in a manner we consider necessary. Having spent slightly more than seven years on this job, during all of which fair treatment and enjoyable working conditions were received, this decision is made with considerable and genuine regret

The career he chose was TV writer. ( something he had done while still on the police force) Apparently that paid better than being a police sergeant. He seemed to be successful enough at this to shift into producing and get a few pilots considered and get one turned into a series. ( the Lieutenant) And then came Star Trek.

From my reading of the Making of Star Trek ( written during the second season, IIRC) Roddenberry's liberal/progressive views are apparent in the comments written by him. So we're talking about the Roddenberry from 1967 who helmed a marginally successful TV show, not the Roddenberry from 1987 who is "worshiped" as the creator of a cult like phenomenon.

 

[Knight Templar]

The only vaguely "liberal" comments I remember being attributed to Roddenberry at the actual time of the original series was that he was opposed to having a war on Star Trek.

But it had nothing to do with his political, cultural views.

He was against war because he said it would make the show boring. He said he hated the thought of Star Trek featuring a group of "space admirals" sitting around and talking about strategies or some such as that.

 

[Kenbushway]

The only vaguely "liberal" comments I remember being attributed to Roddenberry at the actual time of the original series was that he was opposed to having a war on Star Trek.

But it had nothing to do with his political, cultural views.

He was against war because he said it would make the show boring. He said he hated the thought of Star Trek featuring a group of "space admirals" sitting around and talking about strategies or some such as that.

That doesn't make sense, Kirk was trigger happy. Hardly an episode went by with no violence.

 

[Knight Templar]

The only vaguely "liberal" comments I remember being attributed to Roddenberry at the actual time of the original series was that he was opposed to having a war on Star Trek.

But it had nothing to do with his political, cultural views.

He was against war because he said it would make the show boring. He said he hated the thought of Star Trek featuring a group of "space admirals" sitting around and talking about strategies or some such as that.

That doesn't make sense, Kirk was trigger happy. Hardly an episode went by with no violence.

Violence yes. Even the occasional space battle. Yes.

But not an actual war.

Massive difference.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The only vaguely "liberal" comments I remember being attributed to Roddenberry at the actual time of the original series was that he was opposed to having a war on Star Trek.

But it had nothing to do with his political, cultural views.

He was against war because he said it would make the show boring. He said he hated the thought of Star Trek featuring a group of "space admirals" sitting around and talking about strategies or some such as that.

That's a comment I've never heard. Sounds more like something the TNG Roddenberry would say. TOS often showed the UFP on the brink of war or encountering civilizations that were at war. So I find that comment odd for the TOS era.

 

[Knight Templar]

The only vaguely "liberal" comments I remember being attributed to Roddenberry at the actual time of the original series was that he was opposed to having a war on Star Trek.

But it had nothing to do with his political, cultural views.

He was against war because he said it would make the show boring. He said he hated the thought of Star Trek featuring a group of "space admirals" sitting around and talking about strategies or some such as that.

That's a comment I've never heard. Sounds more like something the TNG Roddenberry would say. TOS often showed the UFP on the brink of war or encountering civilizations that were at war. So I find that comment odd for the TOS era.

Once again, in the TOS era they came close to war (well, technically they were at war for one episode "Errand of Mercy" but almost all of it was offscreen and it was back to status quo after the episode) but for the most part everything was single ship battles.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The only vaguely "liberal" comments I remember being attributed to Roddenberry at the actual time of the original series was that he was opposed to having a war on Star Trek.

But it had nothing to do with his political, cultural views.

He was against war because he said it would make the show boring. He said he hated the thought of Star Trek featuring a group of "space admirals" sitting around and talking about strategies or some such as that.

That's a comment I've never heard. Sounds more like something the TNG Roddenberry would say. TOS often showed the UFP on the brink of war or encountering civilizations that were at war. So I find that comment odd for the TOS era.

Once again, in the TOS era they came close to war (well, technically they were at war for one episode "Errand of Mercy" but almost all of it was offscreen and it was back to status quo after the episode) but for the most part everything was single ship battles.

You have links to these alleged comments about war, admirals and such?

 

[iguana_tonante]

He must have read them in a magazine somewhere.