• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

'White genocide in space': Racist "fans" seething at racial diversity in Discovery...

Status
Not open for further replies.
JD said:
Oh yeah there was a lot of studio interference, but there were also a lot more progressive shows on the networks, so it can't have been all them.
Click to expand...

The folks who run the studios are not the folks that run the networks - if their aims and interests were not different, shows wouldn't be cancelled.
 
Sci said:
Star Trek is a product of American culture, and like almost all narratives produced by that culture, some of its subtext reflects racist ideologies that pervade America even if subconsciously -- such as the assumption of monocultural hegemony throughout entire species, or the idea that genetics really can equal destiny in terms of personality and abilities. The resemblance some alien species and their cultural practices have to common white supremacist stereotypes of non-whites, in particular, is a fair criticism. (The original design for the Klingons on TOS is particularly noteworthy -- they come dangerously close to a Fu Manchu-esque "Yellow Peril" stereotype of Chinese culture; the use of dark skin, wide noses, and association of Klingons with seemingly irrational violence later prompted some critics to wonder if the TNG-era Klingon design reflect subconscious white stereotypes of African Americans. And don't get me started on the Kazon -- originally developed as the "Bloods and the Crips in Space," the entire creative conceit behind the Kazon as a fictional culture is troubling in its racial attitudes towards the role of street gangs in the inner city.)

On the other hand, Star Trek was consciously designed to argue against overt forms of racism, as understood from a mainstream Kennedy Democratic perspective at the time. That perspective is often lacking from a contemporary point of view -- it's all well and good to say that everyone's equal, but Star Trek still only ever shows the white guy as the Hero In Charge and the non-white guys as his fawning subordinates -- but it also ain't nothin'. Sulu may have been the driver and Uhura the receptionist IN SPAAACE, but by the same token, there were no Stepin Fetchits on Star Trek. We saw Kirk answer to admirals who were black and Latino, and overt racist ideology was condemned in numerous episodes. (Really, the pervasive sexism of TOS is, I think, far more pernicious than its unconscious racism.)

Star Trek has also gotten better at this over the years. Deep Space Nine, in particular, did a lot both to develop female characters that were complex and had agency, and to both demonstrate egalitarian cultural diversity among humans and to deconstruct the "Planet of Hats" monoculture practice for its aliens -- Ferenginar was full of low-level conflicts between the patriarchal capitalist establishment and a feminist social democratic movement; Cardassia was divided between military imperialists and democratic reformers; Bajor had numerous different factions with conflicting religious beliefs about the Prophets and the Pagh-wraiths; the Klingon Empire was divided by true believers in Kahless's teachings and others who were more opportunistic in their beliefs; even the Dominion was divided in some ways between some Jem'Hadar who believed in genuine selfless devotion to the Founders, and some Vorta with a more cynical attitude. Deep Space Nine didn't take any of this as far as it could go, but it added a layer of depth and complexity to the alien cultures of Star Trek which earlier (and later) shows often lacked. Star Trek: Enterprise's later depiction of Vulcan cultural diversity -- melders vs. mainstream Vulcan society, Vulcans who rejected emotion suppression, Syrannites vs. the High Command, Vulcan democrats vs. Vulcan authoritarians like V'Las -- owes a lot to the work Deep Space Nine did to develop alien cultures as heterogeneous entities.

I am looking forward to Star Trek: Discovery. I'm glad Fuller and the subsequent team took the idea of having a genuinely diverse cast to heart, and I hope DSC continues the work of overtly fighting racism and of deconstructing subconsciously racist subtext, and the same work for patriarchy and heterosexism.

Oh, and those knuckle-draggers complaining about "SJWs are ruining Star Trek" and saying that not making white guys the center of the universe = white genocide? Fuck that noise and fuck those guys. (Hell, those alt-right Trumpists probably would hate the original Star Trek if it had premiered today -- after all, it starred a Jewish Canadian immigrant and a Jewish American son of Ukrainian immigrants.)
Click to expand...
Perhaps they would be happier with Star Wars and the Galactic Empire.

Other than that, nice write up :techman:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Serveaux said:
if their aims and interests were not different, shows wouldn't be cancelled.
Click to expand...
The folks who run the studios and the networks are not the audience, that's why shows are cancelled.

Good ratings and good advertising revenues are what keeps the majority of shows in production.
 
Way to miss the point.

There are people whose jobs are to renew or to cancel TV shows. If the show is not being directly distributed by the producing studio, executives at the producing studio are not the folks making that decision.
 
Sci said:
There is literally a contingent of Star Wars "fans" who think the Empire was justified and that the Rebels were in the wrong. Not surprisingly, there's a lot of of overlap between pro-Empire SW "fans" and Trumpists.



Thanks!
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm aware. I just was finding it interesting thought experiment, given that the Empire was almost entirely white, with white armored stormtroopers.

I mean, I tend towards the more right side of the political spectrum, but no thanks to that.
 
fireproof78 said:
People will always have multiple points of view. The idea is to find the common ground in their thinking, and build those bridges, not condemn them for being "wrong" or "wrong type of Star Trek fan."
Click to expand...

You want me to accept the opinion of someone who believes I probably do not have the right to exist based on my sexual organs and melanin content as a 'multiple point of view'. Ok I'll build a bridge with such a person, and burn it when they step on it.
That's putting the Kumbaya in the KKK!
 
uniderth said:
Which only increases that validity of their cause in their minds. It enables them to rally together. Not being willing to open up and discuss issues just adds more fuel to the fire. Their rationality may be completely absurd, but for them it is valid. You can't change people by being their enemy, it only entrenches them. You can only change people by building bridges.
Click to expand...
And sometimes they have to be exterminated, ever heard of this incident called World War 2 and that German guy and his followers? Now which of their bridge you would have built?
 
Nyotarules said:
You want me to accept the opinion of someone who believes I probably do not have the right to exist based on my sexual organs and melanin content as a 'multiple point of view'. Ok I'll build a bridge with such a person, and burn it when they step on it.
That's putting the Kumbaya in the KKK!
Click to expand...

Nyotarules said:
I try not to hate people with hateful views but I have no intention of tolerating or validating their hateful views as 'just another opinion' either.
Evil triumphs cos good people are too busy tolerating their nonsense.
Click to expand...
You have the freedom to do so. But, a person is a person, and if all humans have dignity and respect (I read that somewhere) then even the most heinous of speech doesn't make that person less worthwhile, even if I disagree with their views.

At least in my view.
 
Nyotarules said:
And sometimes they have to be exterminated, ever heard of this incident called World War 2 and that German guy and his followers? Now which of their bridge you would have built?
Click to expand...

Nyotarules said:
I try not to hate people with hateful views but I have no intention of tolerating or validating their hateful views as 'just another opinion' either.
Evil triumphs cos good people are too busy tolerating their nonsense.
Click to expand...

In which case you become just as evil as they are. With all this talk of extermination you seem to have a lot in common with that German guy.
 
uniderth said:
In which case you become just as evil as they are. With all this talk of extermination you seem to have a lot in common with that German guy.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.
fireproof78 said:
You have the freedom to do so. But, a person is a person, and if all humans have dignity and respect (I read that somewhere) then even the most heinous of speech doesn't make that person less worthwhile, even if I disagree with their views.

At least in my view.
Click to expand...
But some people's "opinion" is that certain people don't deserve to live or have basic rights, that they are lesser people by default. That "opinion" does not deserve respect and should be dismissed.

Nyotarules said:
You want me to accept the opinion of someone who believes I probably do not have the right to exist based on my sexual organs and melanin content as a 'multiple point of view'. Ok I'll build a bridge with such a person, and burn it when they step on it.
That's putting the Kumbaya in the KKK!
Click to expand...
I really don't think that anyone who thinks that really understands what it's like to be hated for who they are. I've seen famous Christian leaders publicly announce that their followers should shoot and kill people like me for the crime of existing. Saying I should still respect him is dehumanizing, that his right to free speech outweighs my right to life and safety.
 
Awesome Possum said:
How? In what way is not tolerating hate as bad as the actual hate? Were the Jews who resisted the Nazis and later hunted down war criminals as bad as the Nazis?
Click to expand...

The comment wasn't about just not tolerating hate. The comment was "sometimes they have to be exterminated." In which case the platform is essentially "exterminate anyone who I think is hateful." That sounds and awful lot like Hitler to me. Although Hitlers platform was based on a specific cultural group, which make it a whole lot less arbitrary than "anyone who I think is hateful."
 
uniderth said:
The comment wasn't about just not tolerating hate. The comment was "sometimes they have to be exterminated." In which case the platform is essentially "exterminate anyone who I think is hateful." That sounds and awful lot like Hitler to me. Although Hitlers platform was based on a specific cultural group, which make it a whole lot less arbitrary than "anyone who I think is hateful."
Click to expand...
So Nazis should have been allowed to continue? A debate or exchange of ideas wasn't going to stop the Holocaust.
 
Tuskin38 said:
Exterminating someone based on their opinion is hate in itself. It isn't justified ever. No one should be put to death over their opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't know about put to death, but locked away from society should work.

No, because they actually acted on it.
Click to expand...
Once millions are allowed to die in the name of free speech, then it becomes different. I get it now. That will bring me comfort when I'm murdered for going to Wal-Mart at the wrong time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top