Star Trek is not, and never was, particularly progressive

Dude, most of the time I've no idea what you're on about. I'm not even sure you do.

My links we're a direct response to your statement "Remember that in many of those countries racial slavery was abolished later than in the U.S.A.; they simply did not replace it with de jūre racial apartheid."

 

I'm more lost than the Voyager in the Delta Quadrant. Only problem is the Caretaker blew itself up with illogic.

 

And none of them speak of de j̄ūre racial apartheid. There is no country in the wold that still has it; South-Africa was the last to abolish it.

More so how Janeway elected to destroy the array and the crew's only chance home to violate the Prime Directive.

Surely this was a clear violation of the Prime Directive? They took part in an external conflict based on whom they personally liked more it seems.

If the Prime Directive stops the U.F.P. from interfering with Cardassia's occupation of Bajor, it certainly would stop Voyager from siding with the Ocampans lest they be overrun by the Kazons.

 

Also, of course, because we have no idea how people will talk in 300 years (and certainly not 1100+, to bring this in line with current Discovery).

 

Also, in “Mirror Mirror” she almost says it.

 

I am not sure if America at that time would call those with known Arabic parentage as non-white. Meanwhile if it was known he had a Black African in his DNA mix he would have been single drop ruled as Black.
Now America has changed so that many who were white ethnics, at least not "colored" are now not considered white.
The name change from Siddig El Fadil to Alexander does make you question why.

 

Well “Arabic” is a native language, or rather a family of languages, spoken by people of many colors, some of them being white. It is simply quite clear looking at him that he probably had some recent foreign ancestry to the U.K..

Such is not always the case: Ralph Nader had two Arabic-speaking parents and grew up speaking the language, yet looks plausibly indigenously European. — Sudan is quite a bit further south than Lebanon and has a darker-skinned population.

Yes, I know it well. I was recently called “black” on a forum by someone from the U.S.A.; we call this “light creole” where I live.

His claim is simply that he found people had troubles pronouncing it, but perhaps he was trying to avoid the controversy.

 

You are spectacularly missing the point. This is not a "men would ask the captain to cuddle them too if there weren't homophobia" thing. This is a "it was the 60s and the creators intentionally depicted women as being emotionally weaker than men and in need of men to comfort them in professional settings" thing. This is a "the creators of TOS were institutionally misogynistic" thing.

 

I'm incredibly proud of what TOS actually did to push progressive thought on network television but anyone who believes TOS was going to give us a female starship Captain or show women officers on the same level of achievement and professional behavior as Kirk or Pike is just fooling themselves. NBC and Desilu put out a fantastic product but it was still a commercial product filmed between 1964 and 1969 and TV in those days was still about white male hegemony and female characters at best being backseat passengers with a brain and gravitas.

 

I'm reminded of the grief Disco is getting from some quarters for ITS open displays of emotion.

 

How many times did the DS9 officers hug, smile and laugh together as a group? Trek isn't immune to crews enjoying time together as friends and co-workers and either laughing a lot or being somber. DSC is just the most conspicuous because it's on the air right now and social media can focus on it in real time.

 

There is a big difference between an open display of emotion, and freezing in the middle of a crisis and asking your commanding officer to cuddle you in a professional setting.

 

On Disco, they show fear. They show panic. They show NEGATIVE emotions.

To these people, crews can hug and kiss (so long as it isn't anything sexual -- at least, sexual in LGBTQ+ terms).

 

How progressive was TOS? A 33-year-old starship Captain was trying to make it with a barely legal teenage girl in one of the most cringe things possible in an episode with a pretty effective and creepy story otherwise.

Damn, Captain. She's 19. Even in the late 23rd century there must be people who look at that with a little cringe.

 

They were of their time.

I don't think so. It shows how damaging the entire incident was on Kirk and how would do anything to get to the truth.

 

Maybe so and he does eventually realize how unhinged Lenore is and displays the heebie-jeebies to go along with it, but one of the most common critiques of the episode is his romancing of a girl that young. It's not quite his awkward relationship with Miri in terms of age difference cringe but it's a pretty widespread opinion about the episode.

 

Unfortunately, yes, that would probably would have been considered progressive: pushing against social boundaries that prohibited people of all ages to express their erotic interests. The sexual revolution made sex between adults and minors to be more or less natural, ignoring the ability of younger partners to consent. Media was very willing to erotize younger women and show them as being available to older men. To be fair, the sexual revolution also empowered women to speak out against sexual assault rather than silenced them in shame, but it still objectivized the young.

 

IDK about progressive—they were giving out Oscar noms and Golden Globes to films like Sabrina a decade earlier. More like cultural norm, maybe. (The age difference between Humphrey Bogart and Audrey Hepburn, 30 years, and between William Holden and Hepburn, 22 years.)

 

I brought this up on the TOS forum and was told by the middle aged fanbase that it's fine and legal and not to question it.