The Pro-Diversity in Trek Lit thread

[Christopher]

People have been pushing for some sort of tie-in featuring the adventures of Captain Robau aboard the USS Kelvin, which I fully support because I loved that the first captain we see onscreen in the Abramsverse is played by a Pakistani-American. That casting goes right to the heart of the diversity we're celebrating as part of the Star Trek franchise, taking "enemies" and showing them as heroes in an inclusive future.

He is the Chekov of our time.

Good point, but one could make a similar case for Alexander Siddig of DS9. Even before 9/11/01, Arabs were routinely stereotyped as terrorists in American TV and film, and DS9 came along just a couple of years after the first Gulf War. So for a Trek series to have an Arab character (played by an Anglo-Arab actor) as one of its primary heroes was a very progressive step, and one that I think doesn't get the recognition it deserves. In a way, it's a shame DS9 ended before 2001, because having a strong positive Arab role model on weekly television after 9/11 might've helped counter the xenophobia that erupted in its wake.

 

[Sjaddix]

I doubt it. It would be nice to think that but I just don't see it. 9/11 was just too big.

 

[Christopher]

I doubt it. It would be nice to think that but I just don't see it. 9/11 was just too big.

For some people, maybe, but it would be wrong to think the entire nation became racist overnight. True, a lot of irrational hatred and violence did result, but there were plenty of people who stood up against it and condemned the bigotry as an inappropriate and un-American response to the actions of a particular militant group. Indeed, then-President Bush himself took a very powerful stand against such bigotry in the days following 9/11, which was one of the few things he ever did that I genuinely respected (though he totally squandered that goodwill later on and made things far worse for US/Mideast relations by invading Iraq).

Besides, 9/11 didn't hurt the careers of prominent Arab-American actors like Tony Shalhoub, Kathy Najimy, or Salma Hayek. Although, granted, plenty of Arab-American actors tend to play Caucasian characters. But Bashir as a character was really more British than Arab, so I don't think things would've been that much different in his case, especially given that he would've been a well-established character by that point. I really don't think they would've been suddenly required to drop the character or something. Sure, some viewers would've reacted negatively to his presence, but no doubt there were viewers who reacted negatively to DS9 having a black lead, and I know there were some viciously misogynistic complaints about VGR having a female captain. So it wouldn't have been a dealbreaker.

 

[RPJOB]

I doubt it. It would be nice to think that but I just don't see it. 9/11 was just too big.

Indeed, then-President Bush himself took a very powerful stand against such bigotry in the days following 9/11, which was one of the few things he ever did that I genuinely respected (though he totally squandered that goodwill later on and made things far worse for US/Mideast relations by invading Iraq).

I can tell you the exact moment when I realized that the goodwill was about to go down the drain. President Bush was giving a speech and he referred to the nation being on a crusade. As soon as he said that word I knew that things were about to get a lot harder to claim the high ground. Either he or his speechwriters were either ignorant, culturally tone deaf or simply didn't care about how the Arab world reacted. Words are important. Words have meaning. Actions may speak louder than words but words can also colour your actions in the eyes of others.

 

[captcalhoun]

Salma Hayak's Mexican-American, not Arab...

 

[Brikar99]

Salma Hayak's Mexican-American, not Arab...

Truth, though according to wikipedia: Hayek's father is of Lebanese descent, while her mother is of Spanish descent. Her first given name, Salma, is Arabic for "safe"

 

[TheAlmanac]

People have been pushing for some sort of tie-in featuring the adventures of Captain Robau aboard the USS Kelvin, which I fully support because I loved that the first captain we see onscreen in the Abramsverse is played by a Pakistani-American. That casting goes right to the heart of the diversity we're celebrating as part of the Star Trek franchise, taking "enemies" and showing them as heroes in an inclusive future.

He is the Chekov of our time.

Good point, but one could make a similar case for Alexander Siddig of DS9. Even before 9/11/01, Arabs were routinely stereotyped as terrorists in American TV and film, and DS9 came along just a couple of years after the first Gulf War. So for a Trek series to have an Arab character (played by an Anglo-Arab actor) as one of its primary heroes was a very progressive step, and one that I think doesn't get the recognition it deserves. In a way, it's a shame DS9 ended before 2001, because having a strong positive Arab role model on weekly television after 9/11 might've helped counter the xenophobia that erupted in its wake.

Although I think that's true of DS9 in general (there aren't many characters on television like Sisko, either), and I appreciate that a hero character shared a name with a Sudanese dictator, I still think Robau is the more direct Chekov analogy, since the political situation in 2009 (simmering hostilities and xenophobia towards a particular ethnicity combined with an ongoing conflict "over there") is more analogous to the political situation with the USSR in 1967.

 

[Christopher]

I can tell you the exact moment when I realized that the goodwill was about to go down the drain. President Bush was giving a speech and he referred to the nation being on a crusade. As soon as he said that word I knew that things were about to get a lot harder to claim the high ground. Either he or his speechwriters were either ignorant, culturally tone deaf or simply didn't care about how the Arab world reacted. Words are important. Words have meaning. Actions may speak louder than words but words can also colour your actions in the eyes of others.

Ohh, yes, I remember that now, and I had the same "Oh no, he didn't actually use that word, did he?" reaction. The Crusades were basically the 9/11 of their day. A millennium ago, the Muslim world was the pinnacle of civilization, science, prosperity, culture, and peaceful coexistence in the Western hemisphere, and Europe was the impoverished, wartorn backwater full of violent religious fanatics. The Crusades were basically a bunch of barbarians using religion as an excuse to invade the prosperous, civilized world and plunder its wealth and territory for their own, and it created the perception in the Mideastern mind that Europeans were rapacious savages out to conquer and steal and destroy the Muslim way of life. Which has colored the Mideast's perception of the European West ever since. So for Bush to use the word "crusade" was absolutely the worst, most tone-deaf thing he could've done. To their ears, it was basically saying "Yes, we're still the same savage invaders you've always feared we are."

So points for meaning well, but many points off for failing to do the research.

 

[Yevetha]

I doubt it. It would be nice to think that but I just don't see it. 9/11 was just too big.

It was not such a huge tragedy compared to many others in history.

 

[Sci]

I doubt it. It would be nice to think that but I just don't see it. 9/11 was just too big.

It was not such a huge tragedy compared to many others in history.

Obviously there have been other tragedies that killed more people than 9/11 directly killed, but there are other factors that go into whether or not 9/11 was "big" that also come into play. Amongst them:

1. That it affected United States policy and general American culture far more greatly than most historical events -- it really was a watershed event in American history;

2. That it was the first foreign attack on mainland American soil since the War of 1812, and the attacks happened in New York City and Washington, DC, the absolute heart of American territory;

3. That it was the worst terrorist attack in human history.

Now, a perfectly fair argument can be made that the United States over-reacted to the 9/11 attacks, and that we've been treating terrorism like an existential threat on par with, say, the Soviet nuclear arsenal, when obviously it is not. But that doesn't change the fact that 9/11's influence on the U.S. has been huge, making it one of the single most important historical events in U.S. history.

 

[Christopher]

Obviously there have been other tragedies that killed more people than 9/11 directly killed, but there are other factors that go into whether or not 9/11 was "big" that also come into play.

The September 11 attacks killed nearly 600 more people than the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 -- and unlike Pearl Harbor, the vast majority of fatalities were civilian. I doubt anyone would dispute the historic importance of Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 was a deadlier attack. (And could've been even worse than it was if all four planes had struck their intended targets.)

2. That it was the first foreign attack on mainland American soil since the War of 1812...

Well, not quite. In 1944-5, the Japanese sent thousands of fire balloons to the US via the Pacific jet stream, carrying bombs or incendiary devices which they hoped would start wildfires or cause random destruction and terror. All of them failed to do any significant damage, except for one; about a month after the Japanese abandoned the program, a pastor, his pregnant wife, and five Sunday school students happened across one of the bombs, not knowing what it was because the news of the bombings had been censored so the Japanese would think they'd failed (which they all had anyway up to that point). So they approached it and it blew up, killing all of them except the pastor, who was still parking their car.

You're also forgetting al Qaeda's first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, a truck bombing which, like the 1945 fire balloon, killed six people and an unborn child.

3. That it was the worst terrorist attack in human history.

Depends on how you define terrorism. If it means an attack on civilian targets with the intent to frighten and demoralize an enemy and persuade them to surrender because the cost of continuing their actions is too high, then I'd say the biggest terrorist attacks in history were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've gotten into the habit of using "terrorism" as if it were an ideological label, but it's simply a tactic of war that can be used by anyone who's desperate enough.

 

[BrentMc]

I like diversity. I once posted a thread about Titan being too diverse. I really think I misrepresented my feelings when I did that. I think I just need to print out a character description list because I have a hard time remembering all the characters in the books when I haven't read one in awhile.

I would like to see more female Captains. I really like Ezri Dax and the Aventine!
How do you all feel about an Atheist character? There may already be characters who may be Atheists, but is there a character who openly says they are an Atheist?

 

[Christopher]

^Most Trek characters tend to be secular humanists, assuming the universe to be governed by knowable scientific principles rather than divine intervention; but I can't think of any who have overtly asserted disbelief in a deity as the foundation of their belief system or identity.

 

[BrentMc]

Thank you for your reply CLB. That is how I take many ST characters to be. The reason I mentioned it was because I feel the word Atheist has a very negative vibe in the USA. I appreciate people like Ricky Gervais who are openly Atheist. I hope that in time people will be more comfortable with Atheists. I accept religious people, both in the real world and the many religions of ST.

 

[Christopher]

Although I'm not a believer in deities or the supernatural, I dislike the concept of "atheism." I don't think it's a good thing to define yourself by what you don't believe. That strikes me as empty and needlessly negative. I think it's better to define yourself by what you do believe in, by what you embrace rather than merely what you reject or oppose. That's why I prefer to think of my worldview as secular humanism. There's a lot more to it than simply the absence of belief.

 

[Cybersnark]

I doubt it. It would be nice to think that but I just don't see it. 9/11 was just too big.

I think the biggest obstacle to post-9/11 DS9 would be that a lead character was an avowed terrorist (and proud of it).

If the show had still been in production then, it would've been pulled off the air instantly. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we will never see another character like Kira Nerys on TV again in our lifetimes.

 

[BrentMc]

I agree. I just don't discuss these things with a lot of people, so I haven't needed to use labels. There is a lot more to what I believe than the word Atheists describes. I have considered your term secular humanist for myself.

By not believing in deities doesn't that make you an Atheist? Not just an Atheist....

My main reason for bringing it up is to spread acceptance for people who don't believe in deities. The Star Trek fan base would probably be more accepting of it than other groups.

While I agree that you shouldn't define yourself by what you don't believe, I would like to see a future where Atheist isn't a dirty word. I don't mean see it in the Trek Future, but our own.

 

[BrentMc]

I doubt it. It would be nice to think that but I just don't see it. 9/11 was just too big.

I think the biggest obstacle to post-9/11 DS9 would be that a lead character was an avowed terrorist (and proud of it).

If the show had still been in production then, it would've been pulled off the air instantly. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that we will never see another character like Kira Nerys on TV again in our lifetimes.

I don't agree. You see some pretty crazy stuff on TV these days. Don't they allow the show in reruns? Kira was fighting to free her people. I don't see her as a terrorist. I'm sure the Cardassians did though.

 

[beamMe]

Although I'm not a believer in deities or the supernatural, I dislike the concept of "atheism." I don't think it's a good thing to define yourself by what you don't believe.

Yeah, but atheism isn't a believe of any kind; it's a lack of believe.

 

[BrentMc]

Salma Hayak's Mexican-American, not Arab...

Truth, though according to wikipedia: Hayek's father is of Lebanese descent, while her mother is of Spanish descent. Her first given name, Salma, is Arabic for "safe"

Wow. You learn something new everyday. BTW is it just me, or does she just keep getting hotter?