• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek is not, and never was, particularly progressive

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I've brought it up that something seems off with the Sarek-Amanda romance, especially if (per some sources) Amanda might be under 20 around the time of her marriage, and got the obligatory "So what?" response.

I mean, I get the progressiveness here. Age is just a number. My parents were 47 and 26. I have a certain understanding towards this. But people do need to mature. A 19 year old or even a 23 year old needs time to figure out who they are and what they want. There is a power disparity in most relationships, and perhaps the age is not the main issue when you pair up Captain Kirk and Lenore or Ambassador Sarek and Amanda, but it's something that raises eyebrows because it reminds us of when we were 19 and more naïve, and suspect that manipulating naïveté might be at play here (even though it's Star Trek, and they're all idealized paragons of virtue, and "GTFO with your virtue signaling...").
 
Again, what does this have to do with whatever I said?
This is the second time now that you seem to construe by that I say that most of the population of Mexico is mixed that that is some comment on racism or class difference, which has nothing to do with any of that.
G0j114G.jpeg

in case you need this for testing
 
Just curious. who did the "math" on Amanda's age?

StarTrek.com explicitly says Amanda was born in 2210, meaning, when Spock was born in January 2230, she was probably 19 or maybe just turned 20, and Spock was conceived when she was 18 or early 19 (depending on Vulcan-Human hybrid gestation period, which might be different for every circumstance).

Canon is silent, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume she was upwards of ten years older. It would make more sense if she was a teacher when Sarek married her, and would match her appearance in the Discovery flashbacks and in the Star Trek '09 deleted scene. Non-canon usually has her a bit older (Sarek dates her birth to about 2202, the Star Trek Logs to the early-to-mid 2200s), but I think StarTrek.com's made-up date is trying to match her appearance in Journey to Babel (and Jane Wyatt's age, as she was born in 1910), but was written before Discovery was taken into account or without a full reckoning of Spock's age was finalized (Memory Alpha had him born a couple years later before Star Trek '09 solidified a date based on the Star Trek Encyclopedia's reckoning).
 
I'm pretty open-minded and even that sorta makes me a little uncomfortable. I mean...she clearly has emotional issues, is barely an adult and is the daughter of the man Kirk suspects of being a mass murderer.
I agree. However, it highlights differences in what is considered progressive in any given era or culture. Just consider how opinions about Roman Polanski have shifted or how each nation has framed it. While France honored him with a national award a few years ago, the public is less on his side, and Poles generally would like to see him extradited--this after decades of condemning US prudery and zealousness.
 
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.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Historically, it was not uncommon for older men to marry young women. In a lot of cases, the man was a widower.

My grandfather was 46 and a widower when he married my 19 year old grandmother in 1918. It's not like she was a sexpot or anything, she was rather plain and grew up in an orphanage although her father was alive. In their case, they were both extremely poor and just trying to survive together.

Ironically, although it doesn't make all that much difference, her daughter, my aunt, found my grandmother's birth certificate when she was still alive in the '70s and discovered she had been born in 1896, not 1899, she had been 22 and not 19 when she married my grandfather.

Before you bemoan my grandmother's awful fate, she had five kids and later a whole lot of grandkids and she was happy. She was married to my grandfather until his death in 1955. When I was a kid, every time we visited her, she always had Hershey's Kisses for us and that's how I remember her. I can never have a Hershey's kiss without thinking of her.

But yes, a woman's opportunities were very limited in those days. With her mother gone and abandoned by her father and very poor, my grandmother's prospects were not good at all.

In case you're wondering, my grandfather was born in 1872, four years before Custer's last stand and the invention of the telephone. He even met Sitting Bull one time. He was 55 when his youngest son, my father, was born and that's how I could have a grandfather who would be 149 years old today.

Robert
 
Yes, that is a surprise; it's very surprising and odd to begin with that alien cultures follow U.S.A. fashion standards, when other populations on Earth do not even do so. You'll find there to be population that either lack gendered fashion standards, or have them in an entirely different way than what the U.S.A. does.

Again, these were American shows made with television budgets. Also, since TNG all Vulcans have bowl cut hairstyles, which is not a particularly prominent hairstyle nowadays (if ever). So at least some effort was made to make the Vulcans seem more alien, along with the pointed ears and prominent eye brows.

They could find enough such actors for The Time Machine. Such actors walk the earth already in most of the Americas.

I'm sure Star Trek could have done the same, but as I already stated, I don't think it would been a particularly wise decision.

What does this have to do with anything I wrote? I simply said the U.S.A. is the only country in the Americas where such races still exist, rather than having merged into a homogeneous brown complexion. I never spoke of Europe, nor did I speak of any racism. I simply said that for the most part inhabitants of, say, Mexico all have a somewhat similar shade of brown skin.
You claimed that "ever other country" had homogenized into a brown skin complexion, which is not the case.

The problem is that no such “black bajoran” was seen before Jake Sisko got a love interest and the first one just happened to have to be one which is what D.S.9. constantly did with Jake and Benjamin Sisko.

Perhaps one time is a cosmological fluke, but it happened consistently.
There weren't Vulcans or Romulans portrayed by black actors until there were. I don't think there were Klingons portrayed by black actors until Michael Dorn. (I'm hoping I'm wrong about this.) Why should Bajorans be a special case? You're trying to make it seem that they cast a black actress as Jake's Bajoran girlfriend for purely racial reason, but without evidence, you're claim is just pure speculation.

Indeed it is not supposed to be, and that is the problem: it only shows Anglo-Saxon exploration achievements while Starfleet is supposedly an Earth organization and Earth is already unified under a central government.
I think you're really overthinking the intro to this show.

Discovery handles it horribly with such ridiculous things as “l.g.b.t. identities” still existing 300 years into the future? Torchwood was much better with mankind simply not caring about such matters any more. Jack Harkness isn't “bisexual”; he is simply a person from his own perspective because he never consider anything else could be. Much as the Græco-Roman civilization had no words for “sexual orientations”, because such a thing did not exist as all citizens had relations with members of either sex.
Discovery shows LGBT characters being treated no differently than heterosexual crew members, their sexual orientation or identity never being portrayed as something novel or noteworthy. Indeed, it's the least interesting thing about these characters. I don't know what is horrible about it.

Not at all, as I said, we could have alien species where both sexes were played by say human female actors, but the males had brightly colored hair, peacock-esque, and the females were bald. There is no reason to have have the sex of aliens match that of the actor.
Too bad you don't watch Voyager, the Banea are right up your alley.

Indeed, and this is the real reason; it veers into r/pointlesslygendered territory. — Why they would care for that is what one could and should wonder. Even if it be relevant to the plot it can easily be explained with a throwaway line and most of the time it isn't.

The very mentality of the people behind the scenes of the audience knowing what the sex of aliens is is what keeps Star Trek from being progressive as a franchise. The progressive man cares not for such trifles, such as for instance Jack Harkness, but yet again, he is pedigree “white”. I would have rather liked a 51th century England where everyone was of the brown color I spoke of.
Welcome to the 90s and early 00s.

No, you assume the builders are female because they were all played by human female actors. Nothing was mentioned of this sort: they could have been a single-sex species; they could have had as many as five sexes; the different eye colors they had could have actually been their sex characteristics; or maybe they had none beyond their reproductive system.

I assume nothing, I go by what was shown in the series. In the series we only see two sexes: females with very obvious breasts, and a male without breasts. According to Memory Alpha, the script for "The Council" identifies the Sphere-Builder leaders as females, but I don't own a copy of the script so I wouldn't know.
 
Again, these were American shows made with television budgets. Also, since TNG all Vulcans have bowl cut hairstyles, which is not a particularly prominent hairstyle nowadays (if ever). So at least some effort was made to make the Vulcans seem more alien, along with the pointed ears and prominent eye brows.



I'm sure Star Trek could have done the same, but as I already stated, I don't think it would been a particularly wise decision.


You claimed that "ever other country" had homogenized into a brown skin complexion, which is not the case.


There weren't Vulcans or Romulans portrayed by black actors until there were. I don't think there were Klingons portrayed by black actors until Michael Dorn. (I'm hoping I'm wrong about this.) Why should Bajorans be a special case? You're trying to make it seem that they cast a black actress as Jake's Bajoran girlfriend for purely racial reason, but without evidence, you're claim is just pure speculation.


I think you're really overthinking the intro to this show.


.
America was just beginning to show interracial relationships in its popular entertainment in the 90s. That Jake and Benjamin would have darker skin toned actresses play as their romantic interest, I would say it is more than speculation on how that just happened in a colorblind casting but deductive reasoning as to why.

While there might not be a smoking gun statement like Eric LaSalle on ER stating around 1999 that he didn't want to play the successful Black male character who left the sisters behind DS9 was mostly before that storyline. That I can distinctively remember Microsoft running an ad campaign with an interracial couple probably black male and white female in hip clothing and portraying Apple as a stuffy white couple in business suits being such a new thing. As that had not been done before in my memory my jaw dropped upon seeing it as American culture had shifted so radically by then. Where as now it is getting increasingly rare to see an other than "white" female with a a male of seemingly the same ethnic group as a partner on TV, in advertising or supporting roles on shows.
 
For the record, there was no clear effort to pair Jake or Benjamin Sisko only with African American actresses. Indeed, it was Brooks, who at the same swssion he cast Jill Sayre (not Black) to play Mardah, also auditioned Chase Masterson (not Black), who he said should be considered for a future romantic interest for Sisko.

Moreover, Sisko only had a small number of romantic interests throughout the series. The fact that his two long term relationships were with African American women is more evidence that he was less horny than some characters, not that Brooks or anyone in production was playing some sort of racial game.
 
Last edited:
. I don't think there were Klingons portrayed by black actors until Michael Dorn. (I'm hoping I'm wrong about this.)
MIchael Dorn was probably the first black actor to portray a Klingon, but he was not the first non-white. Branscombe Richmond played one of the Klingons in STIII:SFS, and one or more others may have been portrayed by indigenous actors (and one of the Klingons looked suspiciously like Captain Hook).
 
I remember that they had Sisko not coming back from the temple at the end and Avery Brooks nixed that .. Didn't want to be the gone away Dad after his daughter was born. So added the I'll be back line. He didn't want to show that.. Him leaving a daughter.. Bad role model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top