So I wonder what facet of an alien culture they would believe humanity represents?
Why are Humans so... human?
- Thread starter SG-17
- Start date
The mental ward I think. Mad technical geniuses better not left unsupervised, before you know it they open a portal to a different dimension, the future, the past, a wormhole, or whathaveyou.... you give them a spoon and a fork to play with, you leave to do the dishes and when you return 5 minutes later they've somehow converted it into an experimental type of transporter that can bridge interstellar distances, no less.
But not safe. Despite their protestations it is, there'll be a horrible transporter accident every once in a while.
Just joking of course. Though I have wondered in the past how humanity (and the Federation) would have been portrayed, had Star Trek been made by, say, the Ferengi, or the Klingons, or the Vulcans, or Cardassians, or ....
Last edited:
I mean I see it as organic in universe, as well as the outside reasons. The Federation is 200 years old, its now sure of itself, it got a bloody nose, it reevaluates. It feels 'alive'.
Maybe? But I don’t find it as interesting. Obviously, it is a YMMV situation.
This was especially unsettling when first watching the series in the '70s. We were basically conditioned to expect World War III. We just didn't know when it was coming.
Well, it's nearly 50 years later, and there are lots of wars going on, lots of governments determined to squash anyone who opposes them, either physically or economically, and I'm right back in some of that headspace. We need a Star Trek world (ie. no worries about the necessities and a decent chance for advanced education and exploring our creative side), and there are places even in North America that aren't getting that.
As much as I disliked the depressing Dominion War story arc, there's one line that came from that that's applicable to our current world: "It's easy to be a saint in paradise." (Sisko, in DS9; I don't remember the episode title)
That's something Sisko should have told Picard.
Retconning was pretty much the only thing that made sense. From the perspective of the '60s, the mid-'90s would have seemed as far off as a century, and none of the producers or writers could have guessed that we'd all still be debating this over 50 years later. When Janeway and her crew ended up on Earth of the mid-1990s and everything looked normal - not a hint of war in one of the U.S.'s major cities - it was pretty obvious that the Eugenics War/WWIII had been moved to later.
Genocide didn't stop with the Holocaust, either physical or cultural. It just wasn't as widespread, and most people weren't at risk of being the victims.
SOVAL: We don't know what to do about humans. Of all the species we've made contact with, yours is the only one we can't define. You have the arrogance of Andorians, the stubborn pride of Tellarites. One moment, you're as driven by your emotions as Klingons, and the next, you confound us by suddenly embracing logic.
FORREST: I'm sure those qualities are found in every species.
SOVAL: Not in such confusing abundance.
ENT showed that the humans became that important, and the center of the future Federation, because they were the group that all the others trusted, while not trusting each other. When the Enterprise went between the Andorian and Vulcan ships to stop the battle, they literally took the central role. That was brilliant.
FORREST: I'm sure those qualities are found in every species.
SOVAL: Not in such confusing abundance.
ENT showed that the humans became that important, and the center of the future Federation, because they were the group that all the others trusted, while not trusting each other. When the Enterprise went between the Andorian and Vulcan ships to stop the battle, they literally took the central role. That was brilliant.
The missing piece, the pinnacle of all sentient life? Without whom there cannot be a Federation? The catalyst, the sine qua non.
The Maquis, Part 2:
KIRA: Commander?
SISKO: Just because a group of people belongs to the Federation it does not mean that they are saints.
KIRA: Excuse me?
SISKO: Do you know what the trouble is?
KIRA: No.
SISKO: The trouble is Earth.
KIRA: Really?
SISKO: On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarised zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints, just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive whether it meets with Federation approval or not.
That means they could also make a distant future series where Humans (in the form of the Federation or not) are one of the established powers with centuries or millennia of historical baggage, and vested interests everywhere, and lots of ancient sympathies and grudges between species, and an entrenched mindset, having to deal with an upstart species that relegates them to second fiddle because everyone trusts them rather than us, and as a new species, they still have the flexibility we've lost over time. (After all, there's no good reason to assume humans are inherently special.)
I might watch that series.
Good trouble. Even if perfection leeches out potential for drama.
Maybe the flying leg kick.
Humans are so human because the aliens are More Human Than Human.
Physical and social awkwardness?
That....and very likely the inability to surpass a 51 percent agreement rate. If that.
Would’ve been a nice followup to B5’s “The Deconstruction of Falling Stars”.
The show is made by and for humans, so it's going to be inevitable. The few times sci-fi tried to make something completely non-human-centric, like where everyone on screen is a giant bug battling an evil caterpillar, either the makers lost touch with the proceedings or most audiences had no clue what was going on. On the plus side, that's qualifier for what is known as "cult classic". 
A workaround is to include some non-human references and as audiences get established, they'll recognize the names and smile in turn.
A workaround is to include some non-human references and as audiences get established, they'll recognize the names and smile in turn.
The show is made by and for humans, so it's going to be inevitable. The few times sci-fi tried to make something non-human-centric, like where everyone on screen is a giant bug battling an evil caterpillar, either the makers lost touch with the proceedings or most audiences had no clue what was going on. On the plus side, that's qualifier for what is known as "cult classic".
On the contrary, there are plenty of successful works of fiction where none of the characters are human -- Watership Down, DuckTales, Kung Fu Panda, quite a few Pixar movies, etc. Although in those cases, the non-human characters are anthropomorphized and act like humans.
Humanity is similar to the Vulcans in having a violent history and managing to save themselves before self-annihilation, they just did so with different methods.
As for humans being "special" for not fitting into any personality stereotype...we usually see the show from a largely Human POV. The Humans might not be as special in-universe as they think they are. I head-canon that in the "Star Trek" universe, Humanity's stereotype is its ego. Klingons are warlike, Vulcans are logical, Bajorans are religious, and Humans have their heads up their own asses. That's what Humans are known for behind our backs.
As for humans being "special" for not fitting into any personality stereotype...we usually see the show from a largely Human POV. The Humans might not be as special in-universe as they think they are. I head-canon that in the "Star Trek" universe, Humanity's stereotype is its ego. Klingons are warlike, Vulcans are logical, Bajorans are religious, and Humans have their heads up their own asses. That's what Humans are known for behind our backs.
We're the root beer people.
We're a study in contradictions, then.