I think you've nailed the problem with the portrayal of Romulans in Trek.
I don't think that's a
problem. I think that's a realistic depiction of a fictional culture.
Real cultures are remarkably consistent.
Really? Tell me, then, is American culture characterized by a strong, government-endorsed devotion to the Christian religion, the centrality of the family, a belief that every pregnancy should proceed naturally, the dominance of private industry, heteronominativity, a division in power between men and women, and a deserved division of wealth between those who are high-achievers and those who are low achievers? Or is American culture characterized by religious neutrality in the public sphere, the centrality of the individual over the family, a belief in the right of women to choose to terminate their pregnancies, a large role for government in regulating markets, sexual freedom, egalitarian relations between men and women, and a belief in an equitable distribution of wealth?
And that's just the most obvious example. Cultures are
not remarkably consistent, and if you don't believe me, just look at how much European cultures have changed since 1900. Cultures are always in flux, and they're always comprised of factions seeking to influence the culture. Continuity of culture is an illusion.
Look at it this way. Imagine Romulans are lions. And you go to the movies to see this pack of Romulan lions hunt antelope because that's what they do. But instead, you find a story about a A Romulan lion that's stalking a potato. And this is a serious movie, not a comedy.
But Lions are carnivores.
So do you:
a. celebrate the realistic depiction of a complex lion culture.
b. shout from the rooftops - that's not a freakin' lion! That's not how lions act!
False analogy. Romulans are a sentient species, not animals driven by blind instinct.
And, frankly,
all Romulans are not going to be alike. It's really that simple.
People are
different. I promise you, if you go to England, you'll find that not every Englishman drinks tea and keeps a stiff upper lip to do his duty for the Queen. If you go to France, you'll discover that not every Frechman is a romantic artist who smokes, wears a beret, and hates Americans. If you go to Canada, you'll find that not every Canadian likes hockey and says "aboot" and "eh." If you go to Ireland, you'll see that not every Irishman is an alcoholic Catholic who hates the English. Etc.
That's why you might notice, if you study international relations, that the behaviors of a state towards other states can change
drastically depending on who's in charge. Just look at the United States -- under George W. Bush, it followed the ideology of Neo-Conservatism, disdaining international institutions like the United Nations and preferring to act unilaterally when possible and through
ad hoc coalitions otherwise, believing that it could bully other countries into following its will and launching invasions and occupations of countries it deemed "evil" as part of a social engineering project to forcibly alter other cultures into liberal democracies. Under Bill Clinton before that, however, the United States was characterized by a belief in a hybridization of liberal and realist schools of thought regarding foreign relations, making regular use of international institutions and permanent alliances such as the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization, preferring to use economic sanctions and enticements to alter the behavior of rogue states and to use limited missile attacks when it felt violence was unavoidable, all the while avoiding full-scale wars. And now we've seen a
third major version of U.S. foreign policy, with the open declaration from the sitting President that the State of Israel's policies will not receive its unqualified support and that the State of Palestine needs to exist and that many Palestinians are suffering from Israeli actions -- a move well away from the traditionally uncritical nature of the U.S.-Israeli alliance.
Now, do you look at the United States and say, when one faction or the other takes over from the other, "That's wrong, that's not how Americans actually behave!" Or do you look at the U.S. and recognize that different factions exist within its culture and have very different ideas about how to run the place?
And bear in mind that
Star Trek: Nemesis did establish, quite clearly, that Romulus changes governments fairly frequently.
