The First Interracial Kiss on (American) Television

[Nerys Myk]

You said no eyelid as something different than the double eyelid, yes?

Skin, hair, and eye color isn't where the traits end. Hair type, body type, little features in terms of nose, hands, hands, feet, jaw line, double eyelid, no eyelid, etc. There are traits that are only found in those regions that sets them apart.

I've lived in Japan. I've seen a lot of Asian faces. But I've never heard the term "no eyelid" as a trait before.

Stereotyping is " All white people have blonde hair, blue eyes and are tall. Asians are short. Black people can run really fast. Mexicans are all short people with black hair and brown eyes. "

But thats exactly what you're doing when you say Germans all look like this and Russians all look like that.

 

[Merky]

Maybe I'm finding it hard to come up with the "right" words to use here. But that's how me and my family and friends call it when we discuss eyelids and all that jazz. Hopefully you'd at least figure out what I was trying to say instead of taking it so literally.

Anyway, that's not what I'm saying. I did not say all Germans look alike nor did I say all Russians look alike as it is impossible for that to even happen. I said regions on a map. Large regions and locations where common distinctive traits of that region can be found amongst the natives to that particular region, place, sub-continent, etc as these traits are what developed to accommodate the living conditions of said area. There are always exceptions as this is human genetics, of course.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Maybe I'm finding it hard to come up with the "right" words to use here. But that's how me and my family and friends call it when we discuss eyelids and all that jazz. Hopefully you'd at least figure out what I was trying to say instead of taking it so literally.

Anyway, that's not what I'm saying. I did not say all Germans look alike nor did I say all Russians look alike as it is impossible for that to even happen. I said regions on a map. Large regions and locations where common distinctive traits of that region can be found amongst the natives to that particular region, place, sub-continent, etc as these traits are what developed to accommodate the living conditions of said area. There are always exceptions as this is human genetics, of course.

Well I asked for clarification on the term "no eye lids" and you gave one for double eyelids. So I hope you understand my confusion.

As I've said, I understand how certain traits become common in a geographic region, especially if that region is isolated. But there is a variety of ethnic types in Northern Europe, in Southern Europe, in Central Europe and in Western Europe. So its a little more complicated than siting a country X or a region Y as exclusive to trait Z.

 

[Maurice]

^^^The term you two are looking for is an "epicanthal fold", as Googling "asian eyelid term" would have told you.

 

[Harvey]

I think it deserves some praise, but that praise must be pretty measured. The integrated cast is commendable, but it must also be noted that Sulu and Uhura had the thinnest characters of the principal or supporting cast (to the point where both could be replaced with other characters with little change to the script). It's curious that they're the only major recurring characters without first names (Spock's first name, of course, being "unpronounceable").

The show gets a nod for doing what it did in terms of displaying a future where people can work together to obtain a common goal but it is not ground breaking in what it did because it never once tackled the crucial issues head on within the own cast to avoid problems with the censors and general public.

Revolutionary? No. Ground breaking? No. Breaking the barriers? No.

A pat on the back? Yes.

You'll have to remind me where I claimed that the series was "revolutionary," "ground breaking" or "breaking the barriers." Those are the claims of Gene Roddenberry and the CBS/Paramount marketing departments, and they're exaggerated for obvious financial reasons. I think the assertion that all Star Trek provided was a "pat on the back" is a little harsh, though. Certainly I don't hold the series in saintly regard in terms of its presentation of race (and on gender, it doesn't even approach offering a pat on the back, in my opinion), but I think it should be commended for integrating the cast.

I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at when you're going on about the series avoiding problems with "the censors and general public." Judging from what I've read, the censors in NBC's standards and practices department most often had problem with sexuality on the series. Care to speak more on that subject?

And speaking of gender, this passage from Inside Star Trek: The Real Story is a good example as to how frank the book is when it comes to viewing the series with a critical eye:

HERB: Gene continually tended to “his” women: regulars, guest stars, and extras. Obsessively involved with their costumes, their hairstyles, their makeup—and even their footwear—he created a look best described as “available sexuality.” Their costumes were as scant as possible, designed for the maximum display of breasts and legs. Yes, actresses were chosen for their acting talent, but voluptuous lips and seductive eyes were very important to him. And in most instances, the characters they portrayed were emotionally subordinate to the men of Star Trek. Women were, essentially, sex objects always ready for action. And they were the antithesis of the actresses starring in the other dramatic television series of the era: Barbara Bain (Mission: Impossible), Amanda Blake (Gunsmoke), Barbara Anderson (Ironsides), Stephanie Powers (The Girl form U.N.C.L.E.), and of course Barbara Stanwyck (Big Valley), all playing characters of substantial independence and distinction.

Everyone had a role in Gene’s future world. And for Gene, a woman’s role was primarily as a decorative tool in a man’s workshop.

 

[Merky]

You'll have to remind me where I claimed that the series was "revolutionary," "ground breaking" or "breaking the barriers." Those are the claims of Gene Roddenberry and the CBS/Paramount marketing departments, and they're exaggerated for obvious financial reasons. I think the assertion that all Star Trek provided was a "pat on the back" is a little harsh, though. Certainly I don't hold the series in saintly regard in terms of its presentation of race (and on gender, it doesn't even approach offering a pat on the back, in my opinion), but I think it should be commended for integrating the cast.

I did not say that you specifically made those claims. I am speaking in general as to what hype the show has recieved in the years following doing what it did in which I feel was really nothing.

I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at when you're going on about the series avoiding problems with "the censors and general public." Judging from what I've read, the censors in NBC's standards and practices department most often had problem with sexuality on the series. Care to speak more on that subject?

Think of 1960s America. Think of what was going on during the time then apply that mindset to Star Trek. Putting a bunch of minorities on a television show to window dress is does not speak to me " revolutionary attempts in displaying a future where everyone of different race, creed, and sex will be productive members of society on equal standing ground ". Having Uhura be the least productive person on the show tells me that as a woman of color, there was no attempts with the studios to utilize her in fear of whatever backlash that could received.

You can say one thing but do another. I see one thing but the show speaks another. I don't see them landing on alien planets with diversified extras. I don't see women being embraced as scientists and officers. I don't see minorities taking positions of power on a regular basis where it can stick in your mind and not be a one or two episode moment.

Everyone can tell me till their fingers cramp up that NBC embraced this and did that but I look at Star Trek and I don't see it. If they really wanted to do something great with the show, they would have pushed the effort. If they really wanted to show diversity and embrace the ideal of no such thing as black or white, there would have never been a big deal about the kiss of Plato's Stepchildren with the suits.

I maybe considered an "angry blasian woman" with this but that's how I personally feel about it. Whatever is on film highly reflects whatever went on behind the scenes. There was never a true attempt.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Montalban is from Mexico but his parents were from Spain. So unless "Spanish" is a different "race" than other Europeans, I dont think that counts. If it did, then Shatner (or Nimoy) kissing any non Jewish woman does.

They should just stick to kissing each other.

Having Uhura be the least productive person on the show tells me that as a woman of color, there was no attempts with the studios to utilize her in fear of whatever backlash that could received.

That was because she was a woman and therefore had to be helpless and tell Kirk how scared she was all the time. Thank gort for nuUhura.

 

[scotpens]

Think of 1960s America. Think of what was going on during the time then apply that mindset to Star Trek. Putting a bunch of minorities on a television show to window dress is does not speak to me " revolutionary attempts in displaying a future where everyone of different race, creed, and sex will be productive members of society on equal standing ground ". Having Uhura be the least productive person on the show tells me that as a woman of color, there was no attempts with the studios to utilize her in fear of whatever backlash that could received.

You can say one thing but do another. I see one thing but the show speaks another. I don't see them landing on alien planets with diversified extras. I don't see women being embraced as scientists and officers. I don't see minorities taking positions of power on a regular basis where it can stick in your mind and not be a one or two episode moment.

Everyone can tell me till their fingers cramp up that NBC embraced this and did that but I look at Star Trek and I don't see it. If they really wanted to do something great with the show, they would have pushed the effort.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you’re looking at a 1960s TV show throught the prism of modern sensibilities. If Trek TOS had tried to push the envelope as much as you suggest, the show would have died a quick death.

 

[Nightdiamond]

There's also Kirk and the Native American-like Miramanee.

They've kissed, married and conceived a child. No controversy, fear of backlash.

By the mainstream saying that the Uhura/Kirk kiss alone was groundbreaking without noting the other examples, was promoting a double standard, and saying African Americans in essence were simply a weird "taboo".

When you look deeper into it, you can't help but notice it. It cancels out the groundbreaking effort.

 

[Maurice]

Again, we don't actually know what the network did and didn't want. We have only second-hand accounts, some less trustworthy than others. What we do know is that networks are businesses very concerned with their bottom lines. NBC's interest in having minority characters was no doubt in part influenced by the idea of appealing to more viewers and ergo being able to get more advertising dollars. NBC didn't have to have a social agenda to feature more "minorities", just a business interest. Likewise, there was very likely some concern about HOW an"interracial" (black/white) kiss might be portrayed, given how rare they were on TV, and given some affiliates probable opinions on the matter. NBC could easily have said "Hell no" and that would have been that. That they didn't stop it says something.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I've heard her story told in several different interviews and while little details have changed, the main information has stayed consistent:

1) The trekkie that wanted to meet her was MLK
2) He said stay on the show
3) It was one of the only shows he let his children watch
4) It was a charity event for or hosted by the NAACP

Whatever drastic variations of the tale that a lot of you guys claim she has twisted into I haven't heard myself.

It was discussed in a number of threads over the years (like this one from 2007 and this one from 2010) here (a search will find them), and Kegel summed up the (then) moving target that is her story, before she's recently amended it to say MLK was a "Trekkie".

Thanks, DS9Sega, for assembling these thread links.

 

[Merky]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you’re looking at a 1960s TV show throught the prism of modern sensibilities. If Trek TOS had tried to push the envelope as much as you suggest, the show would have died a quick death.

Giving Uhura the same amount of significance as a character like M'Benga wouldn't have killed Star Trek as people are so quick to bring up other shows of the late 60s that had characters that were more groundbreaking and/or had more significance to the story.

Modern sensibilities or not, there's nothing that could have stopped the show from doing more than it is worth. The sign of the times should not curb the effects of the show. You're succumbing to the idea that they had no contorl "because" of times yet revolution was happening all around. Television does not change unless someone breaks open the doors and takes the risks.

Being conservative and yet trying to "send a message of radical ideals" is contradictory.

eta:

And as a minority, and especially as one of Asian and African descent, the characters of Uhura and Sulu were supposed to connect with me. Inspire me... show me... they are me personified on television. Maybe some of you don't understand how significant their image is to people like me on television. They did absolutely nothing ground breaking or truly inspiring other than be on that set for the show be deserving of such praises as "Groundbreaking" and "Exploring new ideals" and "Fighting racism" and all that other jazz TOS gets credited for.

Dipping your toe in the water instead of plunging in is two different things.

 

[iBender]

Another barrier broken!

 

[Scrambo]

they filmed two versions of the kiss. One was an actual kiss and the 2nd was the scene that was aired.

 

[Maurice]

^^^Or so it's claimed. What matters is what got on the air.

 

[Ninjacore]

There's also Kirk and the Native American-like Miramanee.

They've kissed, married and conceived a child. No controversy, fear of backlash.

By the mainstream saying that the Uhura/Kirk kiss alone was groundbreaking without noting the other examples, was promoting a double standard, and saying African Americans in essence were simply a weird "taboo".

When you look deeper into it, you can't help but notice it. It cancels out the groundbreaking effort.

White men spreading his seed to the savage races...(White domination of Native Americans) was always an unspoken source of pride for white people, so seeing that on tv wasn't shocking, it was just reinforcing the superior image of the white man, so not really the same thing as kissing Uhura...

 

[cblmc1296]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you’re looking at a 1960s TV show throught the prism of modern sensibilities. If Trek TOS had tried to push the envelope as much as you suggest, the show would have died a quick death.

Giving Uhura the same amount of significance as a character like M'Benga wouldn't have killed Star Trek as people are so quick to bring up other shows of the late 60s that had characters that were more groundbreaking and/or had more significance to the story.

Modern sensibilities or not, there's nothing that could have stopped the show from doing more than it is worth. The sign of the times should not curb the effects of the show. You're succumbing to the idea that they had no contorl "because" of times yet revolution was happening all around. Television does not change unless someone breaks open the doors and takes the risks.

Being conservative and yet trying to "send a message of radical ideals" is contradictory.

eta:

And as a minority, and especially as one of Asian and African descent, the characters of Uhura and Sulu were supposed to connect with me. Inspire me... show me... they are me personified on television. Maybe some of you don't understand how significant their image is to people like me on television. They did absolutely nothing ground breaking or truly inspiring other than be on that set for the show be deserving of such praises as "Groundbreaking" and "Exploring new ideals" and "Fighting racism" and all that other jazz TOS gets credited for.

Dipping your toe in the water instead of plunging in is two different things.

Even putting all of the "first inter-racial kiss" stuff aside, TOS was groundbreaking. I don't know if you were around to witness its original network run and the after effects of its cancellation (judging from some of your comments and those posted in response, I am going to guess that you were not) but the show was revolutionary in many ways.

Characters like Uhura and Sulu were, indeed, significant. I can recall pretty vividly the very positive reaction to those characters and the show in general among people I knew at the time and people I met as I delved deeper into fandom in the early and mid '70's.

Consider that during the period between late 1967 and early 1969, over a half million people participated in two separate letter writing campaigns to try to forestall the show’s cancellation. The first time it actually worked, too! Also, as low as the Nielsen Ratings were, Star Trek consistently broke NBC’s and Desilu’s fan mail records. Countless people credit the show with literally changing their lives – Whoopi Goldberg and Mae Jemison among them.

Did Star Trek “plunge into” the deep waters of revolution? No, of course not. It was the 1960’s. Taking that kind of plunge would have meant immediate removal from NBC’s lineup. However, it most certainly did “dip its toe in” and that’s more than most other weekly one hour television dramas did at the time. People can be very resistant to change – especially network suits, many of whom had been in their positions of authority at NBC for years. Sometimes, when the water is ice cold, it’s necessary to dip your toe in first, rather than plunging in headlong, lest you die from the shock.

 

[Maurice]

Not half a million by a long shot. The first season campaign was small, and the second season (and largest) campaign apparently yielded 114,667 letters (click for an article about some myths about Star Trek's run on NBC, including discussion about demographics).

 

[Jonas Grumby]

I love TOS, but I do have a hard time taking it seriously as a "bold" and "revolutionary" blow against the status quo. As has already been noted, several other TV shows had already included minorities, and often in much more substantial roles than either Uhura or Sulu. Roddenberry, far from having to fight the network to break some kind of "all-white" barrier as he often claimed, was apparently in possession of memos from said network asking for more minorities on the show.

"I Spy," with Bill Cosby a full-fledged co-lead, seems much more "bold and revolutionary" than "Star Trek," but even there I suspect the network suits that green-lit that show had a file folder full of data and expert analysis showing that the show would likely be favorably received by a large segment of the TV-watching public.

 

[MacLeod]

If you look at 19th and early 20th Century anti-immigrant literature, you can find plenty of examples of the Irish, Italians, Greeks, and Slavs being considered non-white.

Perhaps, but you asserted Franklin wouldn't consider the Scots white. I don't think you've proven that with your quote.

Well the Scots aren't English or Saxon.

To be fair it isn't uncommon even to this day for some people to say England when they actually mean the UK as a whole.