However, this is not the first time Trek has made an episode that turned out to be racist or stereotypically insulting. TNG has two: "Code of Honor" and "Up the Long Ladder".
"Up the Long Ladder" was written *by* an Irish person, so how racist could it be?
That's a bit like saying that Stepin Fetchit wasn't a racist character because he was played by a black man.
they said that Irish terrorism led to reunification...
Which just struck me as a typical American reaction (no offence) - America can't comprehend the Anglo-Irish relationship because after you slaughtered the Native Americans, they didn't start car-bombing you, never tried to assassinate your leaders, never fired mortars at the White House and frankly as a nation, you're far too young to grasp the complexities.
You know, I'm always happy to concede that the majority of members of one culture will never fully understand other cultures. That's just life.
But to say that Americans can't understand the British-Irish conflict because we're too "young" is just bullshit. There's no such thing as genetic memory. You don't learn about something by your
culture being young or old, you learn about it by living and learning about history. Britons and Irish don't have a better understanding of the situation because they're old cultures; they have a better understanding because they live in it and it's a part of their history.
You might as well try to say that Britons will never understand the relationship between African Americans and white Americans because Brits are too "old" of a culture. It's just nonsense.
Correct, without the IRA, the current compromise for Northern Ireland would not have been achieved. Because it wouldn't have been necessary.
This wasn't a case of Trek being controversial. This was a case of Trek saying something stupid! Imagine if there were a minority of Alaskans who wanted to be part of Canada. And they tried to assassinate your presidents and they set bombs in Alaska and in Washington DC and other major cities. Then imagine if Trek had said that those terrorists were right to do what they were doing, because it's the only way?
"The High Ground" did not say that terrorism was "right because it's the only way."
Data explores that question, but the episode itself presents many different viewpoints about what terrorism is and when it may or may not be justified.
The
relevant line, for the record:
DATA: Sir, I am finding it difficult to understand many aspects of Ansata conduct. Much of their behavioral norm would be defined by my programme as unnecessary and unacceptable.
PICARD: By my programme as well, Data.
DATA: But if that is so, Captain, why are their methods so often successful? I have been reviewing the history of armed rebellion and it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.
PICARD: Yes, it can be, but I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
DATA: Yet there are numerous examples where it was successful. The independence of the Mexican State from Spain, the Irish Unification of 2024, and the Kensey Rebellion.
PICARD: Yes, I am aware of them.
DATA: Then would it be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?
PICARD: Data, these are questions that mankind has been struggling with throughout history. Your confusion is only human.
And your point is precisely what, that the British colonies should have remained British? I am not idolizing the American Revolution as it did not create democracy out of nowhere like the French Revolution but worked with the British democratic framework.
Yet as a mere colony it could not have become the great country which it is now. As a superpower it is also a controversial country but your constitution is inspiring people worldwide. Gee, it even inspired one of your enemies, Ho Chi Min.
Why shouldn't British Colonies have remained British?
I'm going to hold my tongue on my preferred response, since this is not TNG.
But suffice it to say that the British government went back on its previous arrangement of "salutory neglect." It started trying to micromanage the colonists and denied millions of people the right to be governed by their own elected legislatures and executives, and denied them representation in Parliament.
And, ultimately -- the colonists just didn't really think of themselves as Britons anymore.
That's why the Thirteen Colonies shouldn't have remained British: Because they didn't want to, and they had a natural right to self-determination.
What practical value has there been to the world by America becoming independent?
You mean besides the numerous American innovations in science, technology, and governance?
Democracy is the only system of government that ensures that those who rule have the consent of majority of those whom they govern. Some form of democracy is, in other words, the only legitimate system of government.
