Vanguard controversy

[Christopher]

The continent of Asia is currently home to over 60 percent of the human species. Europe holds 12 percent, Africa 13 percent, Latin America 9 percent, North America only 5 percent. A truly realistic portrayal of a united, egalitarian humanity of the future would have a whole lot more Asians than it had Caucasians.

 

[captcalhoun]

unless their populations were devastated by a combination of the Eugenics Wars and WWIII and possibly the so-called War on Terror in between - given that 9/11 was visible in the 'corrected' timestream in Storm Fornt II, it seems to have happened in the TU as well.

 

[David cgc]

Or, less horrific events could've led to various ethnicities becoming less disparate in proportion, as well. I imagine that there'd be a lessening of population in the poorer agricultural areas once the Trek Future happens, once you don't need a large amount of children to help you work the farm to live. That could change demographics after a few generations.

 

[JD]

captcalhoun said:
unless their populations were devastated by a combination of the Eugenics Wars and WWIII and possibly the so-called War on Terror in between - given that 9/11 was visible in the 'corrected' timestream in Storm Fornt II, it seems to have happened in the TU as well.

TU?

 

[KRAD]

^ I assume that stands for "Trek Universe."

 

[Christopher]

Et TU, Brute?

David cgc said:
Or, less horrific events could've led to various ethnicities becoming less disparate in proportion, as well. I imagine that there'd be a lessening of population in the poorer agricultural areas once the Trek Future happens, once you don't need a large amount of children to help you work the farm to live. That could change demographics after a few generations.

Yeah, but sixty percent of the human race today dwindling to a few tokens 400 years from now? I don't think so. The problem with Trek's version of the future is that the ethnicities are very disparate in proportion, with Anglo-Saxons overwhelmingly dominant. It doesn't even accurately reflect America's ethnic diversity, let alone the world's. I mean, compared to most American TV shows, Trek has always been admirably inclusive, but there's no way its portrayal of future demographics can be rationalized away. The best solution is to assume there are still plenty of Asians around, just mainly in places we haven't seen on television. Such as the Vanguard station, say.

 

[David Mack]

^ Or maybe, in the Earth of Star Trek's future, the Asian and Hispanic populations represent the elite echelons of society, and consider themselves "above" service in something as dangerous as Starfleet. They leave that kind of high-risk work to the low-class, expendable minority --- white people.

 

[Trent Roman]

Some kind of phenotype-mutating virus bioengineered by white supremacist eugenicists during the Third World War, perhaps?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

I think I prefer Christopher's explanation.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ Yeah, does seem like letting the bad guys win, doesn't it? Scratch that idea.

Personally, I'm plenty happy to write this off as one of those outside-the-box consequences of TV making that doesn't necessitate, or can't well accomodate, an in-universe explanation, like shooting sounds in space. Just pretend that the Trek future is 'truly' diverse and we're just viewing it through a distorted lens... pre-revisionist history, if you will.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Maestro]

David Mack said:
Glad you like the name; Marco Palmieri and I had fun coming up with it. In my imaginary movie of the saga, I see the role being played by Billy Bob Thornton, but I encourage my readers to visualize the characters in whatever way works best for them.

Geez, I think you spoiled it for me.

 

[foravalon]

You might as well as why all the old Doctor Who aliens had english accents... 'course you can always blame the TARDIS for that.

 

[Christopher]

David Mack said:
^ Or maybe, in the Earth of Star Trek's future, the Asian and Hispanic populations represent the elite echelons of society, and consider themselves "above" service in something as dangerous as Starfleet. They leave that kind of high-risk work to the low-class, expendable minority --- white people.

On the other hand, China has historically been a culture that's been rather inner-directed and self-sufficient, not too interested in expansion or exploration. If that continues into future centuries, it could help explain the low percentage of Asians in Starfleet. 24th-century Earth may be a united world politically, but that doesn't necessarily mean its culture is totally monolithic.

 

[Sci]

Christopher said:

David Mack said:
^ Or maybe, in the Earth of Star Trek's future, the Asian and Hispanic populations represent the elite echelons of society, and consider themselves "above" service in something as dangerous as Starfleet. They leave that kind of high-risk work to the low-class, expendable minority --- white people.

On the other hand, China has historically been a culture that's been rather inner-directed and self-sufficient, not too interested in expansion or exploration. If that continues into future centuries, it could help explain the low percentage of Asians in Starfleet. 24th-century Earth may be a united world politically, but that doesn't necessarily mean its culture is totally monolithic.

On the other hand, China is also a dynamic culture whose policies are in a state of flux, with its government forging relations across the globe with a wide variety of peoples in what many view as an attempt to establish itself as a new superpower by the mid-21st Century. So that traditional insulurism may not hold true at all by the time of United Earth and, later, the Federation.

 

[Christopher]

^^Yeah, but that's the pattern of the past few decades and I'm talking about the pattern of millennia. That pattern has often undergone fluctuations and modifications, but the underlying principles have endured.

China is certainly a dynamic culture -- I never for a minute suggested otherwise -- but it's Eurocentric to assume that any dynamic culture must embrace expansionism and exploration, or conversely that any society that doesn't must be stagnant or isolationist. It's possible to experience dynamism and progress while still being content to remain where you are. You can focus on exploring history and nature, developing your culture and art and literature and politics. You can make yourself a society so prosperous and admired that everyone comes to you, bringing the knowledge and riches of the rest of the known universe to you so you don't have to go elsewhere to increase your store of knowledge. That's what China has historically done. It's not insularity, it's not stagnation, it's not wrong. It's just not the Western way.