Star Trek as Liberal; Star Wars as Conservative

by John Hood

In the future world of Star Trek, money and capitalism are treated in a negative light. At several points in both the television series and the films, an addled Gene Roddenberry tried to insert in the story that money itself had been disinvented, but this ludicrous premise didn’t even work in fiction and was discarded. Instead, those engaged in free enterprise are portrayed as evil, ruthless, and physically revolting — the stooping, big-eared, and sniveling Ferengi race of The Next Generation being a kind of psychological projection of how Roddenberry and other Star Trek creators see the world of business.

In Star Wars, on the other hand, two of the main heroes — Han Solo and Lando Calrissian — are present or former smugglers and businessmen. In “The Empire Strikes Back,” Lando is employed as the administrator of a mining colony that thrives by being outside the taxing and regulatory authority of the evil Empire. Later, in “The Phantom Menace,” an attempt by the Trade Federation to tax and monopolize interplanetary commerce turns out to be part of a nefarious conspiracy to overthrow the Galactic Republic.

Interestingly, despite their intentions, the Star Trek creative team couldn’t keep up the anti-capitalist bias on a consistent basis. Several of the most entertaining and interesting scripts involved the hated Ferengi. Later stories in The Next Generation involve commercial bidding for wormhole rights and technological advances. And in the movie “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” some of the best jokes come at the expense of the Enterprise crew as they plop down, cluelessly, in the middle of late-20th century California and try to interact with average folks in daily commerce.

In Star Trek, storylines and characters make a fetish out of diversity, dwelling on differences and sometimes questioning whether a universal morality can truly be asserted across racial lines. In Star Wars, which is a fictional world of mind-boggling diversity, alien species work together and fight together with little self-conscious sermonizing or pontificating. It’s obvious, at least visually, that the freedom-seeking rebellion against the Empire is a multicultural one. But the rebels aren’t seeking to defeat the Emperor simply because he won’t hire enough Toydarian storm troopers, or because he prefers officers with proper English accents, or because he is Trent Lott with a (black) hood. They want to defeat him because he is an evil tyrant, period.

In Star Trek, the Federation appears to exercise significant power and control over interplanetary issues and commerce. Its governmental agencies are usually seen as benign. In Star Wars, everyone in the earlier time period (comprising “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones”) complains that the Galactic Republic is sinking into a morass of bureaucracy and corruption. The risk that these problems will give rise to a tyrannical dictator is explicit discussed, and reminds one of a number of cogent explanations for the rise of centralized, oppressive government in various real-world countries over the past two centuries.

In Star Trek, law enforcement is armed with phasers. Officers stun people, then lock them up, then subject them to intensive psychiatry until they are “cured” of their criminal impulses. In Star Wars, law enforcement under the Galactic Republic appears to be the job of Jedi Knights who try to avoid violence but, if pressed, will cut you in half with a light saber.

In Star Trek, evil characters are frequently considered to be the product of a poor environment, a bad childhood, misunderstanding, or miscommunication. It turns out that Captain Kirk and the other original cast members just didn’t understand the Klingons, for example, or the Romulans. The Gorn, a lizard-like race that does a Pearl Harbor on the Federation and kills many innocent people, are later excused from culpability because they say that they saw peaceful Federation colonists as “invaders” in their territory. Killer clouds of space gas or giant space amebas threatening the lives of billions turn out to be lost children or mindless things just trying to survive. Even the Borg, a great source of villainy from The Next Generation, are humanized in subsequent stories.

In Star Wars, evil characters have been seduced by the dark side of the Force. They have given into temptation, and are held accountable for their actions. The Star Wars movies are really morality tales, and have a strong religious component in spite of themselves. No one argues that Sith Lords might have turned out differently if they had just been enrolled in a quality preschool program.

In Star Trek, Starfleet has apparently by the time of The Next Generation decided to post “counselors” on their starships to tend to the psychological needs of their crews, and generally to muck up the works with weepy sentimentality. In Star Wars, you go to a Jedi Master for advice and counsel — and if you get any, he makes you work hard for it. He has mental powers, just like Counselor Troi does in Star Trek, but uses them when needed to protect the weak and enforce justice rather than just to “understand” you.

Now don’t get me wrong. I like both Star Trek and Star Wars. In fact, I know way too much Trek trivia and own more Star Trek novels that I care to admit (some of them are excellent, others just escapism). But I just thought I’d set the record straight: Star Trek is liberal, Star Wars is conservative. Feel free to agree or disagree, or to suggest other popular culture that needs political dissecting. It’s fun, but it’s also offers some quasi-serious insights into changes in public moods and mores over time.

*original article posted here.

Comments

Communism and Star Trek - Is the Federation the Ultimate Communist State?

The 'Official American Metaphor'. Star Trek, in it's many incarnations.

Clearly, the Federation are the metaphoric U.S. of A. - after all, they're the 'good guys', right? The enlightened ones. The ones who spend their time bouncing around the universe solving everyone's problems for them, while all the while spreading some galactic good will.

So what do I mean by this whole 'Communist State' thing?

In 'The New Trek Programme Guide' [1], The authors describe the metaphor as follows:
[1]

Star Trek: The Next Generation reacted to Star Trek's adoption as the Official
American Metaphor by taking it's first hesitant steps into plot lines that
explored the mechanisms of America, especially American foreign policy. The
Klingons, who had been the Soviets, got more alien and became Islamic, albeit a
very Lawrence of Arabia-Islamic. Like black separatists, they had to be
encountered in the heart of America, as part of the Federation. The Federation
also contrasted with the Borg (the Japanese), the Cardassians (a canny mixture
of Israeli and the new Russians), the Bajorans (the Palestinians), and, in a
move which suggested that Roddenberry wasn't averse to pushing his metaphor to
its logical end, the Ferengi (the evils of capitalism).

Fair enough. They're entitled to their opinion, which happens to be more or less received wisdom. But let's take a long, hard look...

On several occasions, the fact that the Federation uses no money is mentioned. Either, in the 24th century, humankind, and in fact most of the galaxy, has regressed to a barter system, or, or. . . You begin to see what I'm getting at?

You often come across references to 'replicator credits'. 'To Each According To His Needs?' And, since no one ever gets paid, presumably we're also running 'From Each According To His Abilities'. Sounding more and more familiar?

The highly evolved residents of the Federation have given up on Religion as yet another superstition. Who was it said 'Religion is the Opium of the Masses'? [2] The episode 'The Neutral Zone' [3] suggests a slightly worrying situation when Deanna is able to trace all of the descendants of a re-animated 20th century cryogenically preserved woman on the Enterprise computer. It seems as though starships are equipped with data files (including addresses and photos?!?) for every citizen on Earth. Worried? You should be...
[2] [3]

The same episode yields and interesting (though, if memory serves, appallingly delivered) quote from Picard:

'A lot has changed in the last 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the
acquisition of 'things'. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for
possessions. We've grown out of our infancy.'

'THE NEED FOR POSSESSIONS'!?!

Where's all this coming from? When Gene Roddenberry designed the Ferengi, they were thoroughly unpleasant individuals. Money grabbing, exploiting, chauvinistic, insular and xenophobic, hung up on the profit motive, their metaphor is fairly clear. They're the ultimate capitalists. And all the time Roddenbery was there, they stayed that way. Well, he died, Rick Berman took over, and Quark happened. But that's another story.

The fact is, Roddenberry was an ardent anti-Capitalist, which leaves him without many options vis-a-vis political persuasions. And Utopias. The Federation has been confused with America because it confronts the same issues. The Federation has America's problems, but not her solutions. The Prime Directive basically says 'leave other worlds to get on with developing in their own way'. Does this sound to you like that nice little euphemism, 'Globalisation'?No, me neither...

All of which makes me think, if the Federation represents America neither in her present incarnation nor in any she is likely to occupy in the future, but rather seems to be something of a Marxist Utopia, then because of Trek's heavily metaphorical existence, someone else must 'be' America. And I'm wracking my brain trying to find a bit-part species which has been around since the beginning and has exerted a continuing, if not continuous, presence, which might just fit the bill.

And then I think, no, surely not. They're the Russians, aren't they? And then the Islamic fundamentalists.

The Klingons can't possibly be the metaphor for the US. They're the ultimate bad guy!

Yup. They also spend their time exploiting people and starting wars for their own political or economic benefit. Remember, they were created in the Original Series. Korea and Vietnam sound vaguely familiar?

Peace with the Federation, when it comes, comes at virtually no cost to the Federation, the Klingons having been weakened by poor government following the assassination of their emperor - JFK ring any bells? Effectively, we're talking the ultimate Communist World Domination fantasy.

Can you imagine how pissed off Roddenberry must have been when NOBODY GOT IT! Well, maybe not. If the Networks had, he would have been off the air like a shot...

So, what happened with Next Gen? Seems like Roddenberry wanted to make things just that little bit more obvious, and ditched the Klingons as the American metaphor in favour of the Ferengi, giving them many of the same characteristics - belligerence, a disregard for the rights of others, pathological dishonesty, and an all consuming need for money. The Klingons did become religious extremists, although whether we're talking Bible Belt Christians rather than Islamic ones here is debatable. The Federation retained it's position as the ultimate Marxist utopia.

Then Roddenberry died, Berman took over, and we phase-shifted into a parallel universe. So to speak. The Federation DID become the US, leaving it in a rather uncomfortable limbo having to reconcile this with the structures and the society put in place by Roddenberry. Some of the hints have gone, but the intrinsic contradiction remains.

The Federation is now thoroughly OK, and is populated by a lot of attractive thin brunettes wearing catsuits (both sexes, just to be fair...). There seems to be a distinct shortage of blondes, but that's another argument. . .

*Original article posted here.

Comments

A Short History of Star Trek Conventions

Support the history of Star Trek by purchasing the documentary Trekkies (1997)

Comments

Celebrating Insane Trekkies: Barbara Adams

Celebrating Insane Trekkies:



Comments

The Real McCoy: Exclusive Interview with Terry Lee Rioux, author of From Sawdust to Stardust: The Biography of DeForest Kelley

Terry Lee Rioux, author of From Sawdust to Stardust: The Biography of DeForest Kelley took time to speak with Trekdom. As we prepare to see a new McCoy on the big screen in 2008, let us spend a few moments remembering and celebrating the life and work of DeForest Kelley.

Trekdom: Your biography of DeForest Kelley, From Sawdust to Stardust, is a wonderful and charming book. Can you tell us what motivated you to write it? Why did you choose DeForest Kelley?

Terry Lee Rioux: Thank you for the kind words about the book. I think I was as stunned as anyone to learn of his death back in 1999 - I don't think we as fans could know what that would mean to us. I was in touch with a friend of his (who has since written her account of her experiences with Kelley - see - Kris Smith's works as listed on Amazon.com -) and within 90 days I was talking with Mrs. Kelley - and the rest is - biography. I don't know how to explain my connection with him - but I do know that his friends became my friends and their stories became the biography. It will always be a cosmic mystery how everything worked out.

TD: Was it difficult to research Kelley’s life, considering he was such a private man?

Rioux: It was emotionally difficult, since I began the research only 90 days after his death - everyone was in mourning and there I was asking people to tell me about him. Hard times. Yes he was a very private man - but one who had so much to say! When he knew his time was short he put his papers, scrapbooks, photos and item into suitcases, and those suitcases went into a cabinet in the garage. He meant to be remembered, he meant to be understood.

TD: Based on your extensive research with friends and family, would you say that Kelley viewed Star Trek as a privilege, a mixed blessing, or a curse? Did he struggle, as Nimoy and Shatner did, to escape the Trek typecast? Would he have ever written I Am Not McCoy or told fans to Get a Life?

Rioux: Kelley loved Star Trek, he loved Gene Roddenberry. He loved what it meant. The best times of his life were Trek, the worst was living without it. He hated the cancellation, the wheeling and dealing, the in-fighting and the typecasting. When he learned that Nimoy had written 'I am not Spock' he said that he had better write 'I am McCoy'. He knew his fans had lives, great ones, challenging ones, ones full of kindness and healing - that is what he loved the most about the whole thing - the good people he knew that deep in his heart that he had inspired.

TD: You mention that, at one time, Kelley lived across the street from Rick Berman, yet they were not close friends. It seems bizarre that a legendary Trek actor wouldn’t have a closer relationship with his neighbor, a man essentially in charge of the Star Trek franchise. Any thoughts here?

Rioux: Yes Kelley lived across the street from where the Bermans lived for a few years. Even then Kelley had a well established 'wall of privacy' that few people were allowed to climb over. Kelley would put out Berman's trash cans when the family was gone and he was a good neighbor all the way around. I suppose on a professional level Berman and Kelley were in very different places in their lives.

TD: Lastly, a fun question. Any thoughts about the next Star Trek film, which will be a “re-imagining” of the original Enterprise crew? How can the writers give us a new McCoy that pays homage to the real McCoy?

Rioux: I think Kelley would caution anyone trying to create a vision of Trek without those who know it inside and out. Without Roddenberry - Without Nimoy, Shatner, Bennett, Meyer, he would strongly doubt it could be done at all. I know that because he has said as much - he would also ask 'Why?'

If McCoy was to be reincarnated in some way - the key that so many miss (the fans don't) is transcending Kindness. Kelley/McCoy were all about kindness, in danger, in adversity, in everyday life, Kindness was his power and it was the only thing he really had that put him in the 'superhero' role. It is why we remember - - and why we still miss him.

TLR

*To purchase a copy of From Sawdust to Stardust, click here. Trekdom highly recommends this book to our readers.
*Read TrekNation's review and StarTrek.com's review.

Comments

The Ethics of Star Trek: Exclusive Interview with Judith Barad

The Ethics of Star Trek, by Judith Barad, Ph.D (with Ed Robertson) is by far the most readable and well-argued scholarly work on philosophy and Star Trek. Readers will come away from this text with a deeper understanding of classical and Western philosophy, as well as a deeper appreciation of how the "messages" of Trek remain relevant today. The book demonstrates, quite forcefully, how Trek has risen above the mainstream of television entertainment by seriously exploring the ethical, moral, and philosophical dilemmas of our world.

The author, Professor Judith Barad, graced us with an exclusive interview about her work and her perspective on the Trekverse. Enjoy!

---------

Trekdom: Your book, The Ethics of Star Trek, is a wonderful text, because, while delving into the complex teachings of many philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.) the chapters are very readable and accessible, especially for those of us lacking a strong background in intellectual history. Was it challenging to present these complex philosophies in a way that a general audience would understand, or did Star Trek make it easy, considering that so many episodes explore philosophical issues, ethical dilemmas, and existential choices?

Judith Barad: Since I started teaching these philosophies in 1982, I have tried to explain them in a way that a college freshman would understand. Star Trek made it easier to explain the philosophies because it illustrated the concepts and theories in a concrete yet entertaining way. The first time students are exposed to philosophy, many find it quite daunting. Like others who don’t have a background in intellectual history, beginning students won’t always “see” the importance of philosophical reasoning because it deals with issues from an abstract perspective. But Star Trek enables people to “see” for themselves the importance these issues have in the lives of characters they grow to care about. In contrast to the abstract concepts of philosophy, the Star Trek episodes are much easier to follow since they have a plot and characters that engage the viewer’s emotions. These episodes are designed to be interesting, designed to be entertaining. Moreover, Star Trek dramatizes ethical dilemmas in almost every episode, a fact I became aware of in 1966 when it first aired. It was and still is, to the best of my knowledge, the only prime-time popular series designed to motivate people to think about ethical decision-making. Roddenberry, who considered himself an amateur philosopher, said that underneath all the action and special effects, he was creating moral fables. As a result of his influence, Star Trek has continued to reflect the ethical issues current during each of its five series.

Although I found it easy to apply the philosophies to the episodes, Ed Robertson helped to make the book even more entertaining to a popular audience.

Trekdom: While reading your book, I was surprised by how different the ethics or “messages” of each series are in your analysis. Can you tell our readers more about the changing ethics of Trek, from the original Star Trek to Star Trek: Voyager?

Judith Barad: One very striking change from series to series has to do with the issues that were addressed. In the late sixties, Star Trek confronted racism, war, genetic engineering, and drug usage. Later, The Next Generation dealt with euthanasia, assisted suicide, and terrorism. In the nineties, Deep Space Nine and Voyager tackled sexual harassment, homosexuality, homelessness, animal rights, the injustice of HMOs, dumping toxic waste, and other environmental issues.

Another dramatic change involved the way women have been depicted in the various series, which is itself an ethical issue. In The Original Series, sexism was rampant, expressed in everything from some of the story lines (“Turnabout Intruder”) to the way actresses were clothed. In The Next Generation, women were clothed, generally, more in keeping with their professions. However, Doctor Crusher and Deanna Troi weren’t in the top tier of leadership positions. By the time of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek gave us a female first officer and the evolution was completed by Voyager’s Captain Janeway.

As I argue in The Ethics of Star Trek, The Original Series emphasized virtue ethics in a way that values the free choices of individuals over the dictates of machines or other kinds of more powerful beings. The Next Generation, while not abandoning virtue ethics, highlighted the ethics of duty. At the same time, it continued The Original Series concern that the free choices of individuals should triumph over that of machine cultures, like the Borg, or more powerful beings, like Q. Deep Space Nine wasn’t as concerned with virtue ethics or with affirming the choice of the individual over machines or more powerful beings. While it continued The Next Generation’s interest in the ethics of duty, its primary ethical principles are drawn from existentialism. Although The Next Generation did feature some existentialist principles, Deep Space Nine applied them far more regularly. Voyager, in contrast with the two earliest series, is more comfortable with the collective good and the Platonic notion of a philosopher queen.

TD: Were those differences a reflection of the broader cultural context? Would you say that Cold War beliefs in moral certainty gave way to existential doubts in the 1990s and that Star Trek reflected those changing perceptions?

Barad: Certainly, the changing issues were a reflection of the broader cultural context. This was also true of the changing role of women in Star Trek, although the positions of Kira and Janeway may still be a little ahead of the time.

If I were to grant that the early series expressed moral certainty, I must stipulate that this moral certainty wasn’t that of the traditional values found in the culture. For example, The Original Series was opposed to racism and war, unlike the traditional, conservative culture of the time. Yet it’s true that Kirk wouldn’t have violated his personal ethics, the way Sisko did in The Pale Moonlight. Kirk doesn’t feel such existential doubts about his actions as Picard does (Conundrum), and Picard isn’t as extreme in his existential doubts as Sisko. Janeway, on the other had, doesn’t seem to go through any more existential doubt than her two earliest counterparts. Since Deep Space Nine and Voyager were very contemporary with each other, I don’t see a clear progression from moral certainty to existential doubt.

TD: Despite the different outlooks of each series, you write about a “moral tapestry” of Star Trek, which unites seemingly contradictory philosophies into a coherent ethical system. Can you please say a few words about that?

Barad: The Ethics of Star Trek contains a list of principles, drawn from the great ethicists, which are used in most episodes in each of the series. These principles include the following:
1. Choose to do that action that you could rationally will everyone else to do.
This principle helps us to determine which actions are our moral duties. In deciding what to do, we should always ask ourselves as honestly as possible: (1) What’s the principle behind our actions? and (2) Is this a principle everyone should follow? Would we rationally want everyone to do what we intend to do? What we think is right (or wrong) for one person to do in certain circumstances must be right (or wrong) for any other person to do in relevantly similar circumstances.
2. Act so that you treat sentient individuals as an end and never as a means only.
A sentient individual is one who is capable of perceiving and feeling. The principle means that we should never use the services or skills of sentient individuals simply as a means for our own purposes. We must always recognize them as individuals with intrinsic value over and above our needs.
3. The intention motivating an action is more important than the consequences of an action. It’s not just what we do that matters, but also why we do it. In “The Measure of a Man,” Louvois ordered Riker to prosecute the case against Data for Starfleet. She warns Riker that unless he gives it his best effort, she will automatically decide that Data is a “toaster” and should be turned over to commander Maddox. Caught between a rock and a hard place, Riker does his best in the courtroom. Doing the right thing doesn’t always guarantee a good outcome. At the end of the story, Riker is devastated by his part in the trial. Yet the long-term outcome was that there won’t be a race of android slaves and Data was saved. Recognizing Riker’s intentions, Data tells him, “That action injured you, and saved me. I will not forget.”
4. The goodness of an action is assessed in terms of both its means and its end.
A bad means can’t justify a good end. The term ‘end’ refers to someone’s goal or purpose. If there’s something morally objectionable about either the end or the means to accomplish it, the action isn’t a good one. If alternative means are necessary, we must choose among them rather than an ethically objectionable means. For instance, in Insurrection, the Federation discovered a virtual fountain of youth, but to utilize it, an entire population would have to be displaced. There’s no other means available to achieve this benefit. While the end of prolonging people’s lives is a good one, the means necessary to accomplish it, in this case, is unethical. Seemingly conscious of this principle, Picard strongly opposes the Federation’s attempt to use the “fountain of youth.”
5. Freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. We should exert control over our inner life and our outer life, accepting authority and accountability for making decisions affecting ourselves and others. We’re personally responsible to set rules and limits for ourselves. No matter how tempting it is to shirk our responsibility, we can’t blame anyone else for the choices we’ve made—not our parents, not our bosses, not our friends, not television, not our economic system, nor any other aspect of society. If we say “I was just following orders,” we’re just as responsible as the person who gave the orders, even though we’re trying to fool ourselves into thinking that we had no choice in the matter.
6. Moral decisions are made by reason—not emotion or tradition. Reasoning, rather than emotion or tradition, gives us the tool we need to review, evaluate, and revise our ethical decisions. Good ethical reasoning requires us to recognize and go beyond self-deception, uncritical conformity, and ethical intolerance. Only by reasoning can we question our assumptions and objectively consider alternative ways to address problems.
7. Altruism has priority over egoistic concerns. When faced with a situation where we must choose between doing the unselfish thing or acting selfishly (all things being equal), we must act unselfishly.
8. We must not injure or harm others.
9. We must deal justly with others. The formal principle of justice states that no one should be treated differently from someone else unless it has been shown that there’s a difference between them morally relevant to the treatment at issue. This is why the question of Data’s sentience in “The Measure of a Man” is important. If he’s sentient, then the formal principle of justice requires us to treat him as equal to everyone else. If he isn’t sentient, then that fact would count as a relevant difference, justifying unequal treatment. Sentience, is this instance, is a relevant difference for whether someone should be treated as a disposable item.

TD: Fascinating! Lastly, do you have any advice for graduate students and colleagues who, while trying to write dissertations on Trek or use Trek in the classroom, have faced resistance from advisors or committees?

Barad: Not only had my Star Trek and Philosophy course been approved as a standard course within philosophy at Indiana State University, but I also had it approved by committees for general education credit. At first, there was some resistance because the notion of the course seemed to have nothing to do with philosophy. However, committees are required to look at a proposal more deeply and not abide by their first superficial impression. My syllabus and rationale for the course made it clear that students would be required to read standard primary sources. Then I argued that the value of philosophical material (or any academic material) is in its application. Star Trek shows students how the principles enunciated by the greatest philosophical minds can both be illustrated and used in interesting situations. Although I didn’t appeal to the increasingly recognized field of philosophy and popular culture, I also recommend that this be part of someone’s argument arsenal. There are several popular book series by publishers like Open Court that appreciate the marriage of popular culture and academic subjects. Finally, the best way for an academic work to receive attention is to appeal to people beyond the halls of academia. If the work is capable of receiving this attention while simultaneously edifying people who wouldn’t otherwise read such material, the work is far more successful than a work that only has other Ph.D.s for its audience.

------

*Purchase The Ethics of Star Trek here. Visit Ed Robertson's site here. Trekdom highly recommends this book for all Trek fans and students of philosophy. We also encourage Indiana State University students to take her Star Trek and Philosophy course when offered.

Also read TrekWeb's review.

Comments at Trekdom

Comments at Trekbbs

TNG's "The Outcast": Star Trek on Homosexuality and Gay Rights

by Jared B.

"In more than four decades, Star Trek... has broken through many barriers, such as being the first to have an interracial kiss (between William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols) on broadcast television, as well as touting the values of peace and tolerance for all. Yet the series has refused to address forthrightly the topic of homosexuality where it would most matter—on television or film."
- AfterElton, "Star Trek's Forbidden Gay Frontier," April 20, 2006.

For many years, progressive fans of Star Trek have cried foul at the franchise's refusal to adequately address the subject of homosexuality. Trek has been accused of depicting a future where gays simply don't exist. Every 24th-century relationship is heterosexual, while every character is presumed or proven to be straight. Again and again, as many fans pleaded for a more representative future, the producers and writers failed to deliver.

How is it, fans asked, that Star Trek, with its reputation as progressive, open-minded, and tolerant, shuns away from the topic of homosexuality? How can the series that challenged racial prejudices of the 1960s now ignore the gay civil rights movement?

While it is true that years after other shows, such as Roseanne and Will and Grace, included homosexual characters, Star Trek refused to do so. There have been many excuses given. Producers Rick Berman and Brannon Braga said they didn't want to highlight a character's alternative sexuality as something that defined the person as unique or different in an age of equality and social tolerance.

Yet, many fans see homophobic prejudice and studio spinelessness as the culprits. Whereas Gene Roddenberry used deragatory words to describe gays during the 1970s, he indicated a willingness to breach the subject in 1987. This willingness inspired David Gerrold's "Blood and Fire" script, an AIDS allegory containing homosexual characters. Unfortunately, studio executives (including Rick Berman) resisted. According to Andy Mangels:

"Berman was ultimately responsible for killing almost every pitch for gay
characters, and in interviews, was mealy-mouthed and waffling about the need for
GLBT representation. At the very least, he was gutless and didn't care about
GLBT representation. From the information and evidence I've seen, heard, and
read, I believe that Berman is the reason we never saw gays on Star
Trek. I shed no tears that he's gone, except that he did his best to ruin
the franchise on his way out.” (AfterElton, 3)

Advocates of gay inclusion view the few episodes of Trek which contain homosexual themes as inadequate and insulting. TNG's "The Host," for example, rejected the normalcy of same-sex love, because Beverly Crusher could not continue loving a man when he suddenly became a woman. DS9's "Rejoined" showed two women kissing, but their love stemmed from a "normal" heterosexual relationship. Another DS9 episode, "Profit and Lace" failed to deliver because "the context of male homosexuality and transgenderism are set up as comedic and insulting instruments." (AfterElton, 2) Lastly, Enterprise's "Stigma" is sometimes viewed as a copout AIDS metaphor because T'pol was presented as a victim, rather than as a consenting adult who deserved equal treatment.

These critics make many great points, and it is regrettable that Star Trek hasn't done more to live up to its claims of tolerance, equality, and "infinite diversity in infinite combinations." Yet, perhaps these critics overlook one episode which did forthrightly address the topic of homosexuality: Next Gen's "The Outcast."

In this season 5 episode (written by Jeri Taylor), Cmdr. William Riker falls in love with Soren, a member of the androgynous J'naii, a species which rejects gender distinctions and stigmatizes any individual who displays male or female preferences. "The idea of gender," Soren explains to Riker, "[is] offensive to my people. You see, long ago we had two sexes, as you do. But we evolved into a higher form... I don't mean to sound insulting, but on my planet we've been taught that gender is... primitive."

Later, when Soren discovers an attraction to Riker while coming to terms with her gender identity as a female, she confesses, "I'd like... to tell you something. Something that's not easy to say. I... find you attractive." Riker looks at her adoringly, while anticipating a possible future together. The following dialogue takes place [with this author's inserts]:

Soren: "I'm taking a terrible risk, telling you that. It means revealing something to you... Something that, if it were known on my planet, would be very dangerous for me. Occasionally, among my people, a few are born who are -- different. Who are throwbacks to the era when we all had gender. Some are born with strong inclinations toward maleness... and some have urges to be female. I am one of the latter. [read: I am not straight, like everyone else]"

Riker: "I have to admit... I got the feeling you were different."

Soren: "I was hoping you would. But in front of Krite and the others, I must be careful not to reveal myself... On our world these feelings are forbidden. Those who are discovered are shamed and ridiculed. Only by undergoing psychotectic therapy and having all elements of gender [read: homosexuality] eliminated can they become accepted into society again... Those of us who have these urges live secret, guarded lives. We seek each other out... always hiding, always terrified of being discovered... I've known I was different all my life. But I didn't understand how or why until I was older.

"I remember when I was very young... before I understood what I was... there was a rumor in my school that one of the students preferred a gender... in that case, male. The children started making fun of him... every day, they got more cruel... They could tell he was afraid... and that seemed to encourage them.

"He appeared in class one morning, bleeding... his clothes ripped. He said he'd fallen down. Of course the school authorities heard about it... They took him away and gave him psychotectic treatments. When he came back, he stood in front of the whole school and told us how happy he was now that he had been cured... After that, I knew how dangerous it was to be different. And as I got older, and realized what I was, I was terrified. I've lived with that fear ever since."

Riker: "Do you have relationships with others?"

Soren: "Yes -- with those who have discovered they are male [read: also Gay]. I've had to live a life of pretense and lies. With you... I can be honest."

When Riker starts to speak, Soren pleads, "Don't say anything. Just... think about it."

This episode does not end on a happy note. J'naii officials discover the forbidden affair, and Soren's "deviant sexuality" is put on trial. There, she makes an impassioned speech on the behalf of all J'naii who are like her:

"I am female [read: Gay]. I was born that way. I have had those feelings... those longings... all my life. It is not unnatural. I am not sick because I feel this way. I do not need to be helped, and I do not need to be cured. What I do need -- what all of those like me need -- is your understanding and your compassion.

"We do not injure you in any way. And yet we are scorned and attacked. And all because we are different!

"What we do is no different from what you do. We talk and laugh... we complain about work and we wonder about growing old... we talk about our families, and we worry about the future... We cry with each other when things seem hopeless. All the loving things that you do with each other... that's what we do.

"And for that, we are called misfits, and deviants... and criminals. What right do you have to punish us? What right do you have to change us? What makes you think you can dictate how people love each other?"

Clearly, Star Trek hit the mark with this episode, and critics should see it as an exception to Trek's broader discomfort with alternative lifestyles. It was subtle, in that it didn't openly show a same-sex kiss (because Soren was clearly played by a female actor). Yet, the message was powerful and provocative: J'naii society shouldn't dictate the rules of love. Likewise, neither should we.

Just as Riker expressed his disgust at the intolerance and bigotry of a supposedly enlightened people, so should we. And, in at least one episode, so did Star Trek.

*Thanks to TrekCore for the script to this episode. Original AfterElton critique can be read here.

Comments

"All the Galaxy's a Stage": Shakespeare in the Star Trek Universe

"ALL THE GALAXY'S A STAGE": SHAKESPEARE IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE

by Sean Hall

In the classic Star Trek episode "Catspaw," the intrepid crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise beams down to the surface of the planet Pyris VII. Once on the ground, they investigate and are confronted by three witches who chant: "Winds shall rise / and fog descend / So leave here all / or meet your end." At this point, the logical character Commander Spock (Leonard Nimoy) replies, "Very bad poetry, Captain." Thus, we have not only a reference to Shakespeare's Macbeth, but also a rather wry comment on the immortal bard's rhyming ability.

Shakespeare and the science fiction series Star Trek have always been linked together in an almost symbiotic bond. Characters in the series quote the bard, episodes are titled after his works, and stories are adapted to fit the outer space locales. Captain Jean-Luc Picard (played by the noted Shakespearean actor Patrick Stewart in the series Star Trek: The Next Generation) has a worn copy of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare handy. Alien species such as the race known as the Klingons, created for the show, quote Hamlet, both in English and in their own fictional language. If Shakespeare is the foundation for modern theater, it is only fitting that he becomes the basis for drama in the future.

With all the gratuitous use of Shakespeare language and imagery in the series (including its four spin-offs, a successful franchise of feature films and a short lived animated series), is there an underlying reason to the use of the Bard's works? Does the combination of classic literature and pop-culture sci-fi result in something greater than the sum of its parts? According to Stephen M. Buhler, the use of Shakespeare in the Star Trek universe, specifically the film Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, serves to define which characters are the villains (Buhler 18). In general, he says the contemporary popular film use of characters who have the ability to quote Shakespeare is used as a device to establish moral ambiguity and to symbolize personal viciousness (Buhler 18). Here he relies on the many quotes of the villain of the film, General Chang (Christopher Plummer) and the chameleon shape-shifter Marta (supermodel Iman) (Buhler 22).

However, not every Shakespeare-spewing character is evil, and Mary Buhl Dutta argues that, instead, the use of Shakespeare in the original Star Trek series served as endorsement for the male-centric, Americanized ideal of a typical Shakespeare hero (Dutta 38). Within the progress of the series, the lead character of Captain James Kirk (William Shatner) "becomes" Macbeth, Hamlet, Ferdinand, and Petruchio. Always the hero, he has the ability to defeat the villain, even when his Shakespearean counterpart could not. For example, Dutta points out that in the episode "Catspaw," Kirk is essentially Macbeth (Dutta 40), yet here he has the ability to resist the evil pressure of the Lady Macbeth figure of Sylvia, unlike the original Macbeth.

Marc Houlahan furthers this theory by arguing that the use of Shakespeare in Star Trek is not only an endorsement but rather a continuation of America's attempts to Americanize Shakespeare (Houlahan 29). As the financing of BBC's official versions of Shakespeare, by four major American corporations (Time-Life, Exxon, Metropolitan Life Insurance and the Morgan Guarantee Trust Company) and the creation of the Folger's Shakespeare Library (located between the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.) serve to show America's attempt to claim Shakespeare as their own, so does Star Trek's use of the Bard's materials (Houlahan 29). Thus he uses again the film Star Trek VI to illustrate the assumption the Captain Kirk and the system of government that he works for, The United Federation of Planets, is a representation of America. Thus, Kirk's use of Shakespeare, as well as General Chang's serve as an attempt to mainstream Shakespeare for a primarily American audience (Houlahan 30).

Going in a totally different direction, Emily Hegarty argues that the use of Shakespeare in The Next Generation serves as a symbol of high-culture (Hegarty 55). She writes, "It [the series] uses Shakespearean allusion to underwrite repressive and elitist ideological gestures within its populist format." (Hegarty 55) She uses the example of a Next Generation episode "The Perfect Mate," in which Captain Picard uses Shakespeare sonnets to express desire, confirming the ideology that Shakespeare is the quintessential symbol of love poetry in our culture (Hegarty 56).

With all the use of Shakespeare in Star Trek, you would think that the symbolism would be lost and eventually become stale, and in fact, it has. Fewer references to Shakespeare are found in the last three series spin-offs, Deep Space Nine,Voyager and Enterprise. However, within the framework of the original series, The Next Generation series and the films, Shakespeare has become an integral part of the universe that the show inhabits. It uses Shakespeare as a springboard to discuss new ideas and to maintain a connection with the future and the past.

*This student essay was orignally published here.

Comments

Militarism and Peace in the Star Trek Universe

Part 3 of J. William Snyder Jr.'s article, "Star Trek: A Phenomenon and Social Statement on the 1960s."

-----------

Of all the social issues that Star Trek alludes to or addresses, the one it seems to spend the most time on is the ethics of war and peace. Star Trek ran during the escalation period of the Vietnam war, a time when relations among the superpowers were tense. It takes numerous opportunities to make comments and address war and peace issues, overall criticising use of force or the threat of it to achieve policy. Star Trek sets up and develops throughout the series striking parallels between the United Federation of Planets and the "West", and the Klingon Empire and the Romulan Star Empire as the "East". The series also have episodes that do not involve either of the Federation's enemies, but still make forceful comments on the evils of militarism.

The United Federation of Planets, the governing body in Star Trek with the Enterprise belonging to its military service Starfleet, is a product of the second season of Star Trek - prior to this the governing body of Star Trek is a united Earth government. Terry Worland in his article "Captain Kirk: Cold Warrior" offers and enlightening discussion of the relationship between the Federation and its adversaries. During the first season, the Enterprise has a few isolated skirmishes with both enemies, but as soon as the Federation is introduced, conflict between them takes on an ideological flavor in the episodes (Wortland 110). "It became clear that the Federation controlled a definite sphere of influence and a vital interest [that was being] continually challenged and threatened" (110). Moreover, Wortland believes that the Federation is not another United Nations, a rather weak organization with limited tools for achieving policy, but rather resembles the "free world" being defended by Starfleet, representative of NATO and the United States (110). "If the Federation represents America and the Western alliance, consider that during the time of Star Trek's production the U.S. government was seeking to challenge two principal adversaries in the Third World, especially in Vietnam" (112). According to David Gerrold, just as America was supposed to be the policeman for the world, Star Trek is the policeman for the galaxy, all at a time when it was being questioned whether or not America should play that role (Gerrold 156). Starfleet's originally scientific mission becomes one to "spread truth, justice, and the American Way to the far corners of the universe" (156) as well as to defend the Federation against its cancerous adversaries.

Just as the Federation comes to represent the "West" of 20th century earth, The Klingons seemingly come to represent America's staunchest adversary- the Soviet Union. William Blake Tyrell in his essay "Star Trek as Myth and Television as Mythmaker" compares the Klingons and the Romulans to the Indian tribes the U.S. fought in the western part of the country. The Klingons are the "Magua- sly, perfidious, and fallen" while the Romulans are the "Chingachgook, the noble warrior ever outside the white man's world" (Tyrell 712). However, I believe that given the time period in which Star Trek ran on NBC that examination of both the Klingons and the Romulans in terms of 1960's superpower relations provides a better interpretation of these two forces.) The Klingons are a race of warriors from a part of the galaxy contiguous to Federation territory. They are thoroughly rotten creatures capable of such brutality and violent conquest as to make Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union seem like a mere street corner bully. "Think of the Mongol Hordes with spaceships and ray guns. To the Klingons, Genghis Khan was a phony and Attila the Hun was a fairy. And Hitler was only a beginner" (Gerrold 22). They seem to live by the maxim that "rules are made to be broken by shrewdness, deceit, or power" (qtd in Tyrell 712). The Klingons are ruthless, planet-conquerers who use violent means to colonize "third- worlds". Kor, the Klingon commander "Errand of Mercy" (airdate 3/23/67), establishes Klingon rule on Organia with an iron-hand, issuing orders banning public gatherings of more than two people and a whole host of other repressive measures. Klingons are also creatures of duty and fatality- the hope of every Klingon is to die in battle. During the episode "Day of the Dove (airdate 11/1/68), Kang, the Klingon commander of a small force holding part of the Enterprise, responds to Kirk's threat to kill his wife with a fatalistic statement that she knows the costs of final victory and is willing to pay with her life in order to further the greater glory of the empire. According to Worland, the Federation is locked in a "Cold War" with the Klingon Empire over the colonization of "third worlds", and moreover, the Federation is committed to stopping the spread of "Klingonism" at all costs (Worland 110). Indeed, the Federation does conflict with the Federation over developing planets in the episodes "The Trouble with Tribles" (airdate 12/29/67) and "Friday's Child" (airdate 12/1/67).

However, one episode of Star Trek including a battle with the Klingons over a developing planet that makes a seemingly direct comment on the Vietnam War is "A Private Little War" (airdate 2/22/68). In this episode, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to a planet in the Organian-imposed neutral zone where Kirk was once stationed. They find the Hillpeople and the Villagers engaged in a war, and oddly enough, the Villagers have flintlock rifles- weapons they could not have possibly developed in Kirk's absence. Kirk suspects the Klingons of supplying the Villagers with their relatively advanced weaponry, but he needs absolute proof. After obtaining that proof, and a few flintlocks to boot, Kirk returns to the Hillpeople's camp to arm them with the exact same weaponry. He justifies his action to Dr. McCoy by referring to the "20th century brush wars on the Asian continent" and noting that the only way to deal with the situation then was to maintain the balance of power between the two opposing sides. Kirk feels that he must do the same thing now as was done them in order to fight the Klingons. But by the end of the story, Kirk realizes that he has opened a Pandora's box by arming the Hillpeople and does not arm them anymore than he has. Oddly enough, this episode was broadcast during the Tet offensive, the bloody two month long attack by the Viet Cong on every major city in the Republic of Vietnam, including Saigon. This is widely acknowledged as the turing point of the Vietnam War as far as American public opinion. In this episode, "[Kirk] adopts the rhetoric of five presidential administrations in describing the causes of a civil war and the rationale for American/Federation involvement" (Wortand 114). Here, the Hillpeople come to represent the South Vietnamese as the U.S. government would have liked the public to view them- peaceful, unaggressive, and good-natured. Likewise, the Villagers come to represent the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong who readily take aid from the Klingons/Soviet Union. However, Wortland believes that Star Trek stopped just short of making a strong comment on the war. Instead, he feels the episode is ambivalent, wavering between a pro and anti war stance (Wortland 113). Because of this, both sides probably labeled it as either "treasonous" or "sharp criticism [of the war]" (Wortland 114). Either way, it seems that this episode was lucky to make it on the air given this very touchy subject.

The Klingons are not the only adversaries the Federation face. On the other side of Federation space lay the Romulan Star Empire. The Romulans are not seen very much during the course of the series. Apparently, the humans and the Romulans fought a major interplanetary war to a stand-off, then negociated a treaty calling for the establishment of a neutral zone that entrance into by either side constituted an act of war. The Romulans are creatures of pure duty, more so than the Klingons. In "Balance of Terror" (airdate 12/15/66), an episode during which the Enterprise and a Romulan warship engage in a battle, the commander's final act is to destroy his disabled ship to avoid the disgrace of capture. Comparatively, the Romulans are a regional power, but also one not to be taken lightly; allied with the Klingon Empire, they copy Klingon warship design in "The Enterprise Incident" (airdate 9/27/68) (Wortland 112). The Romulans were not as repulsive as the Klingons were, but they were much smarter than their Klingon counterparts (Gerrold 23). They are also not completely despised as the Klingons are, principally because they and Mr. Spock have the same distant ancestors (Wortland 111).

The episode "The Enterprise Incident" involves an act of blatant espionage by the Federation on the Romulan Star Empire. The episode opens by Captain Kirk, in a seemingly insane state of mind, orders the Enterprise across the neutral zone and into Romulan space only to be captured. While aboard one of the Romulan ships, Spock "kills" Captain Kirk with the Vulcan Death Grip (there is no such thing, but the Romulans do not know that!) after Kirk accuses him of selling him and the rest of the ship out. Back on the Enterprise, Kirk is given plastic surgery so that he looks like a Romulan. Then the true nature of the mission is revealed: the Enterprise is to obtain the Romulan cloaking device, a device the Federation considers a major threat to its security. They steal one of the devices and escape safely back to Federation space. It is widely known that Dorothy (D.C.) Fontana wrote this episode in response to the capture of the U.S. spy ship Pueblo in 1968. The vessel was allegedly spying for the U.S. in North Korean waters when it was captured. The captain was then told to sign a confession of spying or risk losing his crew. According to Wortland, the original plot was an exact parallel of the Pueblo incident, putting Captain Kirk in the same position as the captain of the Pueblo. But, intense pressure demanded that the episode be rewritten as to remove and doubt that the spying was justified (Wortland 113). "In fact, the way Star Trek told it, we were justified because our side was right and theirs wasn't" (Gerrold 159). Indeed, the episode could have served as a dramatic stage for television to make an argument about whether the U.S. was right in spying in this manner (it was widely believed that the government was lying about the position of the Pueblo when it was captured, but like other aspects of the show, Star Trek neglected this opportunity as well.

Finally, one episode that does not include either the Klingons or the Romulans makes a comment on the Vietnam War and on war in general. "A Taste of Armageddon", the Enterprise encounters a planet that is at war with one of its neighbors, but seems to be a thriving civilization not affected by the carnage of war. Kirk discovers that many generations before, the two planets agreed to continue their war, but to reduce it to computer simulated attacks and requiring the "casualties" to report for disintegration. Kirk destroys their computer (an abrogation of the treaty signed between the two planets) so that they will finally realize that the carnage, brutality, and horrific death of war makes it something to be avoided. David Gerrold compares the counting of casualties and requiring those people to submit to disintegration to the statistics coming out of Vietnam on troop strenth and body counts of the enemy (often believed to be greately underestimated) (Gerrold 156). War, when reduced to mere numbers, becomes painless and unobjectionable. Star Trek's moral here is to object to that reformulation of war. Indeed, the leaders of the planet finally agree and open talks with their enemy to put an end to their war once and for all.

Plainly, Star Trek does attempt to address war and peace issues, largely along the lines of present day earth's East/West conflict. However, it could have made much stronger statements, but it chose not to for various reasons. Americans themselves were beginning to be unsure about the morality of their country's actions. It is quite possible that this is why Star Trek refuses to take a stronger stance regarding warfare.

*Original article published here. Permission granted for academic purposes. Please visit J. William Synder's website here.

Comments

Comments at the TrekBBS

Remembering Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force

Now, for something completely different...

Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force was one of the best Trek games of the last decade, especially in terms of multiplayer FPS action. It is telling that, while Bethesda's Star Trek: Legacy multiplayer community is now dead after 6 months of release, you can still find loyal EF players on servers, and the game is 7 years old!


We invite all Trekkies to join us for the nostalgic rebirth of this older game. Although the graphics show their age, the original Elite Force is still a wild romp, and it is well worth re-installing, if you have it on a shelf somewhere. Trekdom, with its emphasis on Trek history and nostalgia may soon host a server. For the meantime, we'll see you in "gladiator."


It's dirt cheap to buy. Or, if you'd like to download the multiplayer side of the game for free, it's now available at beer garden. We recommend re-installing or grabbing a used copy off Ebay.

So join us as we relaunch our LCARS Holomatch, set phasers to frag, and kick Tribble-ass. You'll have a great time.





Comments

Clip of the Day

Enjoy!



Comments

Trekdom's Star Trek Chat Room

We now have a Star Trek chat room. Please check it out by clicking the picture or bookmarking it here.

Trekdom's Star Trek Message Board and Star Trek Forums

From time to time, we use the blog to highlight other features of the website. If you haven't already, please visit our Star Trek message board and chat with other fans, review our articles, talk about politics, or whatever.

Click the picture and cyber with Trekkies! Or, click here.

Racism and Improving Race Relations in the Star Trek Universe

Part 2 of "Star Trek: A Phenomenon and Social Statement on the 1960s," by J. William Synder, Jr.

One area where Star Trek made considerable progress and incorporation into its substance was its regard towards minorities. Of course, by the late 1960's. the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was in full swing and much progress had been made in that area. By the time the first episode of the series aired in 1966, Congress had passed numerous Civil Rights Acts, the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and constitutional amendments outlawing the poll tax and extending the right to vote in Presidential elections to the residents of the District of Columbia, where the majority of the population is Black. Thus, Star Trek was ripe for emphasis on the equality of all people regardless of race. Still, because of the population in the South that watched the show, and other factors, elements of racism and racial inequality still appear in the series. Lastly, Star Trek has one episode that appears to make a clear statement regarding America's Civil Rights Movement.

To begin with, the crew of the Enterprise was racially mixed. "The ship had to be interracial because it represented all of mankind. How can the human race ever hope to achieve friendship with alien races if it can't even make friends with itself?" (Gerrold 152). The series has two regular characters that represent American minorities rapidly gaining status in American society, Lt. Sulu and Lt. Uhura (previously discussed in her role as a woman).

Mr. Sulu, played by George Takei, is the helmsman of the USS Enterprise. He first appeared in the second pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as "physicist" Sulu where the character had very few lines that were not indicative of the "adventure-loving, vital individual into which he would develop" (Compendium 18). He is described in the episode "Errand of Mercy" (airdate 3/23/67) as a "capable combat officer" by Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock as Sulu is left commanding the Enterprise in battle against a formidable Klingon attack force. He is also a bit of an adventurist and a swashbuckler as is evident by his chivalrous swordplay in "The Naked Time" (airdate 9/29/66). To have a Japanese-American in such an authority position was indeed a big step forward. Though hostile feelings in America towards Japanese-Americans due to World War II had cooled off significantly, some concern existed as to whether a Japanese-American character would cost the series viewers in Indonesia (Stine 160). Still, George Takei, like the other minority actors for Star Trek, fought and lobbied hard for his character. He was never happy with the lines and actions the writers had for his character and Takei pushed so hard for his character that producers and writers learned to watch out when he came around (Interview 63). Gene Roddenberry never viewed Sulu as a "token Asian", even at a time when it seemed everyone was against him for insisting on a major role for his minority character (72). Lt. Sulu thus became an indispensible member of the Enterprise crew. It is difficult to imagine anyone else at the helm of the USS Enterprise that could perform the duties of helmsman as well as Sulu.

The other minority regular on Star Trek was, of course, Lt. Uhura, communications officer of the Enterprise. Again, it must be stressed that it was a bold step on the part of Star Trek to have a Black character in such an important position on a television show during the 1960's. Uhura, whose name means "freedom" (Compendium 28) was a Black-African princess from East Africa who was fluent in Swahili, not an American Black woman, and this added a certain mystique to her character. Just as Sulu was never intended to be a "token-Asian" for the benefit of certain viewers in the audience, Uhura never intended to be a "token Black", and both Ms. Nichols and Gene Roddenberry sought to make sure of that (Interview 72). Unfortunately, pressure from network censors and writers often reduced her to simple lines like, "Hailing frequencies open, Captain" or "Captain, what is it?" However, of the major groundbreaking steps involving Lt. Uhura that Star Trek made in television history was television's first interracial kiss (widely acknowledged as such in the literature). The controversial kiss occurred during the episode "Plato's Stepchildren" (airdate 11/22/68) where Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Nurse Chapel, and Lt. Uhura are held captive by admirers of Earth's ancient Greek society who are also endowed with telekinetic powers. The script called for either Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock, under control of his alien captors, to kiss Lt. Uhura. According to Fred Freiberger, producer of the episode, the show was caught in a bind- if they had Spock kiss her, the critics would say the show was too scared to have a White man kiss a Black woman, and if they had Kirk with Uhura in the scene with no kiss, then they would have gotten the same reaction. He and his colleagues made the decision to "...have Kirk do it, and go as far as [they could] in terms of censorship and all the rest of it" (Interview 164). The kiss between Uhura and Kirk did make it on the air, and it apparently turned a lot of heads, but Ms. Nichols felt that the kiss was not all it was cracked up to be. She remarked once that Kirk was forced to kiss Uhura and, moreover, he was trying to fight against the pressure. Fan male after the episode was critical of the kiss, saying basically that if Captain Kirk had a beautiful woman in his arms, he would not be reluctant to kiss her (Gerrold 80). As is apparent, Star Trek did attempt to make bold steps with its minority regulars, but the steps fell far short of their intended effect.

Star Trek does have a strong vein of racism running through it, but this racism is not directed towards the minority regulars (that would have caused major problems). Instead, this racism was directed towards Mr. Spock (portrayed by Leonard Nimoy), the half-Human half-Vulcan first officer and science officer of the Enterprise. Spock is the only one of his people aboard the Enterprise. His pointed ears, green blood and devotion to pure logic set him apart from the rest of the crew. As a Vulcan, a fictional race of beings, scathing comments regarding his ethnicity (and especially his pointed ears) could have been made with virtual impunity while similar comments directed toward recognised minority groups would have been greatly frowned upon. The relationship between Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy makes this point clear. During practically every episode, McCoy badgers Spock about everything from his pointed ears to his green blood. During the episode "Bread and Circuses" (airdate 3/15/68), Spock saved McCoy's life during a gladiator battle. McCoy later tries to humbly thank Spock for saving him, but he was put off by Spock's concentration on finding a way out of their jail cell and resorts to going back to his typical scathing remarks regarding Spock's physical characteristics (I forget the actual line, but it goes something like this: "I'm trying to thank you for saving my life, you pointy-eared Vulcan!!"). McCoy is not the only one to attack Spock's ethnicity. During the episode "The Omega Glory" (airdate 3/1/68), Captain Ronald Tracey of the USS Exeter points to Spock's pointed ears and tries to convince his captors the Yangs that Spock is Satan, an endeavour that fails. And finally, in "Balance of Terror" (airdate 12/15/66), "Lieutenant Stiles, a barely-concealed racist and reactionary who lost several ancestors in [the human's first war with the Romulan Star Empire], accuses Spock of being a Romulan sympathiser simply because Vulcans and Romulans have pointed ears. (In the end, Spock risks his life to save Stiles and the bigot is instantly chastened and reformed.)" (Worland 112). Attitudes like this towards Spock were tolerated because Nimoy was a White and his character a Vulcan, not a Black or a Hispanic or an Asian. Roddenberry had originally wanted to cast a Black man in Spock's role (Interview 8), but it seems rather doubtful if the same remarks could have been made about Spock were he played by a Black.

Lastly, one episode of Star Trek is a clear statement on racism and its inherent disutility. "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (airdate 1/10/69) is about two half-white half-black beings from the planet Charon who bring their senseless racial struggle to the Enterprise. Lokai is the first to come aboard the Enterprise - he arrives in a stolen shuttlecraft asking for asylum. His pursuer, Bele, soon afterwards arrives on the Enterprise asking to take Lokai back to their home planet to stand trial for political crimes. Bele explains to Captain Kirk at one point his reason for wanting to take Lokai back to Charon. Apparently Lokai and others like him are considered inferior because they are black on the right side of their bodies while Bele's people are white on that side (the difference is not apparent to Kirk and the rest of the crew until Bele points it out, and the way it is pointed out makes it look silly and arbitrary). He attempts to justify his people's treatment of Lokai by saying they are well treated and well cared for by his people, but because of their inherent inequality, they are not able to take care of themselves and require paternal guidence from the "superior" members of their society. Later in the episode, Lokai gives a lecture to members of the bridge crew on racism and persecution - the bridge crew emphasising that racism and persecution existed at one time but was a thing of the past in their society. Bele eventually hijacks the Enterprise to Charon when his extradition request is denied by the Federation, but when the Enterprise reaches Lokai's and Bele's home planet, they find the entire population dead from a major war. Instead of putting aside their diferences, the two blame each other for the war and they end up beaming themselves back down to the planet to continue their senseless race war. The episode ends with Captain Kirk not acknowledging that either of them was right or wrong, but "all that mattered to them was their hate". The parallels between this episode and the Civil Rights struggle in America are uncanny. In the United States, in addition to people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who were advocating peaceful change and Senator Stromm Thurmond of South Carolina who was advocating the status quo, extremist groups based on hatred and anger existed on the playing field. Malcom X, a radical Black activist, advocated a violent uprising by Blacks against Whites (in essence, "Kill Whitey!). There was also the Black Panthers, a militant Black organization that was prepared to seemingly start another civil war with all the weaponry it managed to procure. On the other side of the spectrum, there were the Ku Klux Klan and other White hate groups. What all these individuals and groups have in common is a fierce, uncontrollable hatred of those opposed to them, much like Bele and Lokai in this episode. The message to them is simple: hatred and violence will bring about everyone's destruction. Indeed, it was peaceful change that eventually brought about the major reforms in civil rights in this country, not the violent uprisings or suppressions that the extremist groups advocated.

Thus, Star Trek appears to have made many contributions to the improvement in race relations in America. Minority characters in clearly important positions emphasising the equality of minorities were combined with a "safety-valve" in the form of Mr. Spock to act as an outlet for racist attitudes. And of course, one episode does get to make a direct comment on race relations in America. More than likely it is Star Trek's quality of remoteness of time and location that gives it the ability to do this without overtly appearing to be a social commentary.

*original article published here. Permission granted for academic purposes. Visit J. William Snyder's homepage

Comments

"I Never Read It": Star Trek and The Representation of African-American Women

by David Greven, Ph.D
Assistant Professor of English, Connecticut College

Lily (Alfre Woodard) in Star Trek: First Contact is an African-American woman freedom fighter in the ravaged Earth of the twenty second century, on the verge of the titular first contact meeting with the Vulcans that dramatically changes, in the Trekverse, the course of human history. Jean-Luc Picard’s Enterprise is only present at Lily’s Earth because they have followed a Borg sphere on its journey backwards in time, in an effort to retrocolonize the Earth, so resistant to Borg assimilation in the 24th century. First Contact is Picard’s Ahab film, in which, in his maddened, vengeful determination to destroy the Borg, who have infiltrated Enterprise, he resembles Melville’s tormented and terrible anti-hero in his hunt for the mythic White Whale. (The Moby Dick references are nothing new for Trek—they also saturate Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.)

At one point—after Picard has denounced the fierily masculinist (and often hysterical) Klingon Worf (Michael Dorn) as a “coward”—and ordered the Enterprise crew to fight the Borg hand-to-hand if they have to—anything to avoid blowing up the ship—Lily storms into Picard’s ready room. She lights into him, attacking him for essentially ordering the crew to commit suicide by fighting hopeless battles with the Borg, when if Picard simply blew up the ship, they could all at least survive. “I forgot,” Lily says, “Captain Ahab always has to get his whale.” “What?” Picard angrily responds. “You do have books in the 24th century?” Lily challenges him. After Picard demands she leave, Lily shrieks, “Blow up the damn ship, Jean-Luc!” Thunderously, Picard bellows, “No! Noooooo!” With that, he bashes his glass display of model ships throughout the centuries, which loudly shatters. He says,

They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we
fall back. Not this time. The line must be drawn here—this far, and no further.
And I will make them pay for what they’ve done!

Interestingly, Picard speaks in the language of postcolonial discourse, accusing the Borg of cultural invasion and colonization by assimilation—charges that have on occasion been leveled at Trek’s premise itself. But his vividly infuriated speech falls on resigned ears. “See you around, Ahab,” says Lily. At this reminder that he verges on Ahablike tyranny, Picard iterates one of the most famous passages from Moby Dick:

He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate
felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a
mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.

Picard now realizes what he has been becoming—a tyrant. He owes this revelation to Lily, the triumphant close-reader of classic literature who can—to the elation of humanists everywhere—marshal the moral power of great literature to stop wars, prevent strife, illuminate human psychology, force Picard to recognize his own potential evil. But Picard’s extraordinary revelation produces another one. About the canonical classic she liberally referenced, Lily reveals, “Actually, I never read it.” She has quoted from Moby Dick but never read it.

Trek is a mythos that staunchly prides itself—to a fault—on its intertextual and avowed connections with the Western literary/aesthetic tradition. Given Trek’s old-fashioned liberal humanist belief in the importance of great literature, it is highly ideologically suspect to have a black woman character simultaneously deploy the Western canon’s cultural power and disavow her own familiarity with it. For Lily to announce that she has never read the text is for Trek to deny the intellectual, thinking life of African-Americans and women in one fell swoop.

I don’t write this to make a pro-canonical-reading point (though that’s implicit) but to call attention to the way in which this moment strips Lily—the black woman—of an intellectual power she has claimed for herself as it bestows not only this intellectual power but also the entire Western tradition upon Picard—wrenching it loose from Lily—in the process. Picard emerges as the rational, learned white male who is the proper, reasonable custodian of Dead White Male literature—who can effectively quote from it and glean its insights. Lily becomes the conduit for Picard’s access of Western cultural power, even as she is disenfranchised from it. What could have been one of the great moments in Trek—Picard’s angry speech is pretty darned awesome—remains a pitiable instance of myopic, naively racist Trek thinking at best. The black woman facilitates white male power, a process uncritically replicated throughout Trek history. Star Trek: First Contact harkens back to the Classic Trek episode “The Changeling,” in which a crazed robot erases Uhura’s brain, leaving her a tabula rasa. Nurse Chapel has to teach her how to be a functioning adult again, from scratch, even teaching her Swahili. By taking away the power of knowledge from the black woman and entrusting it to the white woman, here, the episode is not commenting on the shared history of the oppression of women across color lines—and the shared struggle over civil rights issues—so much as it is rendering a strong, capable professional black woman an infantilized figure in need of benevolent white guidance. A similar maneuver occurs in Star Trek: First Contact—after having been challenged by Lily, Picard emerges as the knowledgeable one who has to instruct Lily in the ways of the humanist tradition. I'm much more forgiving of Classic Trek than I am of Star Trek: First Contact in terms of these representations, but Trek has yet to give us a truly strong, resilient African-American woman character whose strength and resiliency are supported by the larger series and do not emerge from the power and appeal of an actor’s portrayal.

*David Greven has authored many articles on film and television. For more, see Action Chicks and Reading Sex and the City, as well as his book, Men Beyond Desire: Manhood, Sex, and Violation

Comments

Comments at the TrekBBS