The Pro-Diversity in Trek Lit thread

[Christopher]

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

Well, certainly not with a capital letter, which is a declaration of identity or affiliation. Atheism in that sense is just as much a "church" as any religion, and it has its own fanatics and fundamentalists who use their belief as an excuse for intolerance.

I suppose the word "atheism" describes one aspect of my worldview, but it is not a label that defines who I am and what I believe in.

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.

Kira routinely described herself as a former terrorist. Particularly since 9/11 we've adopted this idea that terrorism is an evil ideology in itself, but as I said, it's just a tactic, a tool that's independent of ideology. It's a method used by the weaker side in a fight, the side that doesn't have the resources or technology to use armies and missiles and tanks to fight its battles or the numbers to overwhelm its enemy, and thus uses more devious attacks to frighten and demoralize the enemy population until they choose on their own to cede the fight or abandon the territory they occupy.

 

[Julio Angel Ortiz]

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?

Nope, not you. It's like she gets granted +1 charisma yearly.

 

[BrentMc]

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

Well, certainly not with a capital letter, which is a declaration of identity or affiliation. Atheism in that sense is just as much a "church" as any religion, and it has its own fanatics and fundamentalists who use their belief as an excuse for intolerance.

I suppose the word "atheism" describes one aspect of my worldview, but it is not a label that defines who I am and what I believe in.

Interesting point. I went with uppercase so as not to disrespect my own thing. Also I agree with your statement about a deceleration of affiliation. I do not want someone to think I agree with everything that other atheists say. I have heard terms like Global secular humanist atheist and I haven't decided yet to describe myself by those terms for the same reason. I need to read up and make sure I am not misrepresenting myself. For now I guess the best word to describe me is Trekkie.

 

[BrentMc]

Kira routinely described herself as a former terrorist. Particularly since 9/11 we've adopted this idea that terrorism is an evil ideology in itself, but as I said, it's just a tactic, a tool that's independent of ideology. It's a method used by the weaker side in a fight, the side that doesn't have the resources or technology to use armies and missiles and tanks to fight its battles or the numbers to overwhelm its enemy, and thus uses more devious attacks to frighten and demoralize the enemy population until they choose on their own to cede the fight or abandon the territory they occupy.

I thought she called herself a freedom fighter, but I know you are an encyclopedia of this stuff. Don't you think there is a huge difference between Kira's acts under Cardassian occupation and 9-11? The way I see it The Bajorans were enslaved, but 9-11 was an act by people inspired by radicalized religion. It's not like Americans were enslaving Muslims. They didn't see us do terrible things to them everyday like Kira saw. They acted on what they were told to believe. Now that we have been over there for years it is easy for terrorist groups to point to our military and make us out to be the bad side. Thoughts?

 

[BrentMc]

Nope, not you. It's like she gets granted +1 charisma yearly.

Did you see the episode of 30 Rock where she was in central park in a red dress? I think I was technically dead for several minutes!

 

[Christopher]

I thought she called herself a freedom fighter, but I know you are an encyclopedia of this stuff.

Kira was very honest about the evils she'd had to commit, and she regretted them. She felt they were necessary, but she didn't sugar-coat them or try to deny what it was she was actually doing.

Don't you think there is a huge difference between Kira's acts under Cardassian occupation and 9-11?

Of course, but that's my whole point: terrorism is not an ideology, but a tactic. It's been used in support of many causes, some legitimate, others corrupt (though of course you'll find disagreement over which are which).

The way I see it The Bajorans were enslaved, but 9-11 was an act by people inspired by radicalized religion. It's not like Americans were enslaving Muslims. They didn't see us do terrible things to them everyday like Kira saw.

Ohh, you need to study your history. The West has been systematically subjecting the Middle East to invasion, oppression, cultural imperialism, exploitation, and the like ever since the days of Napoleon. America (and Britain before it) has a long history of tolerating and supporting brutal, murderous tyrants in the region because they were anti-Communist or because they sold oil. And that includes secularist tyrants who ruthlessly persecuted Muslims. That's why militant fundamentalism arose in the Mideast in the first place: as a reaction to generations of oppression by secular dictators that the West blithely encouraged and kept in power. Because of those dictators, the people of the Mideast came to see secularism and modernism as a basis for tyranny, and so they turned to traditional religion as an alternative.

Certainly what bin Laden did on 9/11 was unjustified. It was the action of a fanatic and a corrupt liar who didn't actually represent Islam at all. He wasn't a qualified Islamic scholar; he had no more authority to declare jihad than I do to declare war on Switzerland; and he violated the explicit instructions of the Qur'an by killing noncombatants, women, and children (including dozens of fellow Muslims). There's no question that he acted wrongly, especially by Islamic standards. But it's naive to say we did nothing to provoke hostility. We've made a lot of huge mistakes in that region of the world.

Al Qaeda is not like Kira, no. But they are a lot like the Kohn Ma, the Bajoran fanatics who used terrorism as a tool for revenge and brutality.

 

[BrentMc]

Ohh, you need to study your history. The West has been systematically subjecting the Middle East to invasion, oppression, cultural imperialism, exploitation, and the like ever since the days of Napoleon. America (and Britain before it) has a long history of tolerating and supporting brutal, murderous tyrants in the region because they were anti-Communist or because they sold oil. And that includes secularist tyrants who ruthlessly persecuted Muslims. That's why militant fundamentalism arose in the Mideast in the first place: as a reaction to generations of oppression by secular dictators that the West blithely encouraged and kept in power. Because of those dictators, the people of the Mideast came to see secularism and modernism as a basis for tyranny, and so they turned to traditional religion as an alternative.

Certainly what bin Laden did on 9/11 was unjustified. It was the action of a fanatic and a corrupt liar who didn't actually represent Islam at all. He wasn't a qualified Islamic scholar; he had no more authority to declare jihad than I do to declare war on Switzerland; and he violated the explicit instructions of the Qur'an by killing noncombatants, women, and children (including dozens of fellow Muslims). There's no question that he acted wrongly, especially by Islamic standards. But it's naive to say we did nothing to provoke hostility. We've made a lot of huge mistakes in that region of the world.

Al Qaeda is not like Kira, no. But they are a lot like the Kohn Ma, the Bajoran fanatics who used terrorism as a tool for revenge and brutality.

Well I have heard a little about this history your are talking about, but I think my point was that the two situations are very different. Did Kira target Cardassians who had nothing to do with the occupation? She saw Cardassians do horrible things with her own eyes. I would like to think she targeted military targets and not civilians. I am just re-watching DS9 for the first time in awhile. I look forward to seeing more and refresh my memory. If you do read history of what America has done like Dee Brown's "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee" it is sad that our country has done some pretty messed up things. I guess that is another reason I enjoy Star Trek and the point of this thread. I like to look to the future and hope that it will turn out like that. BTW do you recommend any books on the history you mentioned? I might read one sometime when I am not feeling majorly bummed.

 

[Christopher]

...I think my point was that the two situations are very different.

Yes, and that's part of what I'm saying -- that terrorism is a tactic that can be used in different ways to support different goals, just like any other military tactic. Terrorism is a means to an end rather than an end in itself, and so it can be a means to a variety of different ends. Just because al Qaeda are terrorists doesn't mean that all terrorists are like al Qaeda. Examples of others who've used terrorist tactics include Nelson Mandela fighting apartheid and the French resistance (the original Maquis) fighting the Nazis. Kira Nerys is closer to Mandela than to bin Laden, but the tactic she used can still correctly be called terrorism.

I mean, the Nazis used guns and tanks to try to conquer the world, but does that mean that when the Allies used guns and tanks to fight the good fight, they had to rename them something inoffensive like "freedom sticks" or "libertymobiles?" No, they called them guns and tanks because that's what they were. The tools of the conflict were independent of the ideology behind them. By the same token, the honest thing to do is to call terrorism what it is regardless of what cause it's used for, rather than insisting on cleaning it up by calling it "freedom-fighting." It may very well be freedom-fighting, but if the goal is to undermine and demoralize an enemy by striking fear into its populace, then that is terrorism by definition. That's why "terror" is in the word. Your weapon against the enemy is their own terror.

 

[Julio Angel Ortiz]

Nope, not you. It's like she gets granted +1 charisma yearly.

Did you see the episode of 30 Rock where she was in central park in a red dress? I think I was technically dead for several minutes!

Yes I did.

 

[BrentMc]

Yes, and that's part of what I'm saying -- that terrorism is a tactic that can be used in different ways to support different goals, just like any other military tactic. Terrorism is a means to an end rather than an end in itself, and so it can be a means to a variety of different ends. Just because al Qaeda are terrorists doesn't mean that all terrorists are like al Qaeda. Examples of others who've used terrorist tactics include Nelson Mandela fighting apartheid and the French resistance (the original Maquis) fighting the Nazis. Kira Nerys is closer to Mandela than to bin Laden, but the tactic she used can still correctly be called terrorism.

I mean, the Nazis used guns and tanks to try to conquer the world, but does that mean that when the Allies used guns and tanks to fight the good fight, they had to rename them something inoffensive like "freedom sticks" or "libertymobiles?" No, they called them guns and tanks because that's what they were. The tools of the conflict were independent of the ideology behind them. By the same token, the honest thing to do is to call terrorism what it is regardless of what cause it's used for, rather than insisting on cleaning it up by calling it "freedom-fighting." It may very well be freedom-fighting, but if the goal is to undermine and demoralize an enemy by striking fear into its populace, then that is terrorism by definition. That's why "terror" is in the word. Your weapon against the enemy is their own terror.

I think we are arguing something I am not trying to argue. The original point of the topic of terrorism was whether or not they would air a terrorist like Kira on TV today. My point in saying they are different was that I think they would allow Kira Post 9-11. An earlier poster said he didn't think they would.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think they'd pull the show off the air or dump the character or anything, but they probably would've been discouraged from doing episodes that focused on Kira's past.

 

[captcalhoun]

i'd love a character to say, "i'm not a terrorist, i'm fighting an assymetric guerilla war using the tactics of hit and run attacks, ambushes and randomised assassinations"

and then some one say, "so, you're a terrorist."

 

[rfmcdpei]

Did Kira target Cardassians who had nothing to do with the occupation? She saw Cardassians do horrible things with her own eyes. I would like to think she targeted military targets and not civilians.

She didn't go out of her way to target civilians, but if they were in the way of military targets Kira could live with it. See her exchange with Silaran in "The Darkness and the Light".

KIRA
So you were wounded in an attack
I carried out when I was in the
Resistance. And I'm supposed to
feel guilty? It was a war,
Silaran -- fifteen million
Bajorans died during the
Occupation and you want me to feel
sorry for you?

Silaran's own rage begins to boil to the surface.

SILARAN
No! I wasn't part of your war!
I was an innocent! I wasn't even
in the military. You know what I
did on Bajor? I was a servant!
I cleaned uniforms for Gul Pirak!

KIRA
(remembering)
Gul Pirak... Commander of the
weapons depot outside Hathon.

SILARAN
I'm glad you remember. Now do you
remember what you did? How you
put a plasma charge outside his
bedroom window in the middle of
the night?

KIRA
I remember he executed fifteen
Bajoran farmers because they
refused to display the Cardassian
banner outside their homes.

Silaran presses on, his fury taking hold of him.

SILARAN
Trentin Fala told you how to
defeat the security systems...
Latha Mabrin built the plasma
charge... Furel and Lupaza stood
lookout while you crept up to the
house.

KIRA
None of us liked killing. But we
were fighting for our freedom
against --

SILARAN
You vaporized the entire east wing
of the house! Twelve Cardassians
were killed, including Gul Pirak's
entire family. Twenty-three
others were crippled. Don't you
feel guilty? Don't you feel
ashamed of what you did?

But Kira has her own rage and fury which nearly matches
his.

KIRA
None of you should've been on
Bajor! It wasn't your world. For
fifty years you raped our planet
and killed our people. You lived
on our land and took the food from
our mouths, so I don't care if you
held a phaser in your hand or
ironed shirts for a living. You
were all guilty and you were all
legitimate targets!

 

[rfmcdpei]

I don't think they'd pull the show off the air or dump the character or anything, but they probably would've been discouraged from doing episodes that focused on Kira's past.

Would they? Battlestar Galactica featured a human resistance on New Caprica that made use of terrorist tactics, up to and including suicide bombing, during the worst of the fighting of Iraq, even.

 

[Sci]

I don't think they'd pull the show off the air or dump the character or anything, but they probably would've been discouraged from doing episodes that focused on Kira's past.

Would they? Battlestar Galactica featured a human resistance on New Caprica that made use of terrorist tactics, up to and including suicide bombing, during the worst of the fighting of Iraq, even.

I think the thing to remember is that the most intense feelings of national unity and moral disambiguity happened in the first year or so after 9/11. By about 2005, 2006, the national culture had cooled down enough where you could see things like Battlestar Galactica, which explicitly questioned whether terrorism was always a bad thing again -- even though the general cultural consensus in the United States has remained in the rather authoritarian side of, "Terrorism is when the government says Bad Evil Muslims try to kill white folk, and we must do whatever the government says when it says it's trying to fight it."

ETA:

I do think that that's something to bear in mind in trying to guess how DSN would have been pressured to handle the character of Kira and her past as a terrorist. For all that she used terrorist tactics in fighting the Cardassians, Kira, to be frank, reads as "white" to most audience members -- and there's an implicit racism involved in modern American reactions to terrorism. After all, why did the murder of Dr. George Tiller, or the attack on an IRS building by a guy in a single-person airplane not read as "acts of terrorism" in the national media, yet similar attacks by people of Arab heritage or who were Muslim have? Because the former were white.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Someone once told me the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters are principles. I think that holds true.

The TNG episode "The High Ground" made an excellent comentary on terrorism which I think is even more relevant now than when the episode first aired.

 

[captcalhoun]

the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is who they're fighting against. if they're fighting someone you don't like the freedom fighters, if they're fighting you or an ally, they're terrorists.

 

[Sci]

the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is who they're fighting against. if they're fighting someone you don't like the freedom fighters, if they're fighting you or an ally, they're terrorists.

So how come the media became so reluctant to call Anders Breivik a terrorist once they figured out he committed the 2011 Norway attacks rather than Muslim terrorist groups? It's not like we decided we liked Norway any more or less depending on who was attacking them.

Maybe we should consider the possibility that "terrorism" no longer even has as subjective a meaning as you imply; maybe the word "terrorism" has in the past few years come simply to mean "violence committed by Muslims whom white people dislike."

 

[captcalhoun]

don't ask me. in Britain he's generally just labelled 'gunman' or the man who carried out the attacks on the beeb, whilst the press are generally just calling him a nut.

 

[Sci]

don't ask me. in Britain he's generally just labelled 'gunman' or the man who carried out the attacks on the beeb, whilst the press are generally just calling him a nut.

Exactly my point. He's a terrorist by any reasonable standard, but people stopped calling him one once they found out he was a white Christian rather than a brown-skinned Muslim. He has white privilege and is therefore no longer called a terrorist.