Racism in Star Trek

[heslopian]

Just read a fascinating essay about supposed racism in Star Wars and Star Trek. If you want the whole thing, then here it is: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Racism.html but what I really want to discuss is this bit on Star Trek, because whereas the writer claims that Wars isn't racist, he claims that Trek most definitely is, going so far as to state that it encourages genetic determinism:

"It is a source of constant amazement to me that Star Trek is seemingly immune to charges of racism. With critics rabidly attacking the ridiculously ephemeral suggestions of racial stereotyping in The Phantom Menace, Star Trek's "state of grace" is even more jarring to behold. Is the entire series supposed to be given a karmic "get out of jail free" card for its progressive efforts in the 1960's? The Original Series was progressive in its time, but The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, and Voyager all promote racial separatism at every turn. Even if we ignore the white-supremacist messages buried in Star Trek Insurrection, we can still find far more evidence for racism in Star Trek than there has ever been in Star Wars. So why the critical silence?

I suppose that Star Trek fans might take offence at my casual declaration that Star Trek has been promoting racial separatism ever since the inception of The Next Generation. Fair enough- I haven't provided any evidence yet. But I can rectify that omission quite easily, and I will do so now. First, I must ask the question: what is racism? Narrow-minded definitions of racism abound, often carefully designed for the purpose of excoriating others while exonerating the author.

A common definition of racism is "attempts to discriminate against members of other races." Well, that sounds great (and indeed, it's the definition found in many dictionaries). But it only covers actions, not statements or beliefs. According to that definition, it's perfectly acceptable to loudly proclaim that "black people are violent" or "Asians are dishonest." I think that anyone with a smidgen of intelligence can recognize that no matter what Webster's Dictionary may say, someone who makes either of those statements is definitely a racist!

So if the dictionary's definition of racism stupidly covers behaviour but not words or beliefs, then what is racism? Well, I think the answer should be obvious: if you think that you can make assumptions about someone's personality based on nothing other than his or her race, then you are a racist. For example, if you look at a black person and assume that he's prone to criminal behaviour, then you're a racist. If you look at an Asian and assume that he's obsessed with money, then you're a racist. Any actions based on such assumptions are therefore racist, which takes us back to the overly narrow dictionary definition. Racial slurs, which categorize human beings as nameless members of their respective races rather than individuals, are also racist. The underlying problem is the belief that cultural values are inherited, rather than taught.

Does Trek suffer from this problem? Yes, in spades! For example:

The Ferengi: In Deep Space 9, Captain Sisko once chastised his son Jake, for failing to respect Nog's cultural values. "Ferengi cultural values aren't better or worse than ours, just different", he explained. Classic example of racism- assuming that all Ferengi (including one that grew up on a Cardassian space station) are somehow compelled to act a certain way, and that our values and ideals are therefore inapplicable to them. If a white man cautioned his son not to expect black people to respect the law because "they have different cultural values than we do", would you be offended? I hope so.

The Klingons: In The Next Generation, Worf once suffered a severe back injury and it was thought that he would be paralyzed for life. He asked Riker to kill him, and Riker refused. Picard then chastised Riker for not being sensitive to Worf's Klingon cultural values. When the doctor insisted that Worf learn to live with his disability just as any human would be expected to, Picard chastised her as well, for expecting Worf to make a cultural leap that was "too far, dammit, too far!". Classic example of racism- assuming that all Klingons (even one that was raised by adoptive human parents, on a Federation colony) are compelled to hold Klingon cultural values, and are incapable of understanding human cultural values. Very similar to the previous example.

Worf: Worf himself is a never-ending source of racist statements. How many times do we have to hear his tiresome "heart of a warrior" or "Klingon blood" or "Klingon warrior's courage" speeches? Isn't anyone else tired of hearing him compliment anyone with fighting skills by saying that he has the "heart of a Klingon?" Doesn't anyone get annoyed when he congratulates Roga Danar for his tactical skills by saying "you must have some Klingon blood?" Suppose a white schoolteacher saw a black student who excelled in math, and congratulated him by saying "your math skills are excellent- you must have some white blood in you." Wouldn't you be outraged?

Mixed-race children: Every single mixed-race child in the history of Star Trek "entertains" us with the same endless, repetitive, oh-so emotional speeches about how "I am torn between my Klingon half and my human half", or "I am torn between my Vulcan half and my human half". Torn between two worlds, two cultures at war with one another, yadda yadda yadda. What's the message? Mixed-race children are culturally confused. Hidden message? Don't have mixed-race children. Well, I have a pair of mixed-race children. Does this mean that my sons will someday complain that "I am torn between my Asian half and my european half?" Will they be maladjusted? Will their lives be full of hardship and inner turmoil? Was I wrong to have mixed-race children? Was my interracial marriage a mistake? I don't think so. And I think that Star Trek is sending some pretty damned offensive messages about mixed-race children.

The Star Trek definition of "species": The evolutionary definition of species is simply that species are considered truly different if they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring. But in Star Trek, Klingons and humans are described as different "species" even though they can breed to produce fertile offspring. In "Emissary", K'ehleyr (a daughter of a mixed marriage) fooled around with Worf, and became pregnant by accident, thus proving that she is quite fertile. There are many other "cross-species" characters in Star Trek (starting with Spock), and it doesn't seem that difficult, since it can happen by accident (eg. K'ehleyr and Worf) or in primitive conditions (eg. Worf's brother Nikolai and a Boraalan woman in "Homeward"). So, what does this mean? It means that the various humanoid races of the Star Trek galaxy are not different species, even though the Federation claims that they are. The historical parallels are quite disturbing; during the height of African slavery, the slave traders' apologists claimed that blacks were a sub-human "species", so there was no need to treat them as humans (read: whites). Biologically and genetically, this position was pure nonsense; they were taking a few superficial differences and exaggerating them into a biological wall of separation where none existed. They even ignored the fact that blacks and whites could easily produce children. Does this sound familiar to you? Captain Picard was stunned when Beverly said that the DNA of the various "species" might be "chemically compatible" in "The Chase", even though there is a long and distinguished list of "cross-species" matings in Federation history.

Race and culture are treated as synonymous and interchangeable concepts in Star Trek. The above examples are merely a smattering, and you could compile many pages of examples by watching enough Star Trek episodes. In fact, you could take each and every occurrence of the word "culture" in Trek dialogue, replace it with "race," and it would still be completely appropriate in context (it's an interesting experiment- try it!).

It's the worst sort of racism- while the PC thought police are rabidly attacking The Phantom Menace for superficial nonsense such as verbal nuances and Jar-Jar's floppy ears, Star Trek is promoting genetic determinism (the philosophy that genetics control your destiny) for all the world to see, and none of the politically-correct thought police notice or care. But of course they don't notice or care- all of the politically correct thought police share this brand of racism! Every time they blather about being "sensitive" to "black culture" or "Asian culture" or "Latino culture", they demonstrate their racism for the world to see.

Unfortunately, since "they" are the media, they have an enormous mouthpiece with which to sell their value system, and the lemming like public seems all too eager to go along with it. So the public gets used to hearing about how we must "respect" the cultural values of blacks, or Asians, or Latinos, and doesn't even question the underlying assumption that blacks all have the same cultural values, Asians all have the same cultural values, etc. It may be politically correct, but it's still totally racist."

So what are your thoughts on this? Are the Star Trek writers a load of crucifix burning Klansmen in disguise? Is the author of the essay making a mountain out of a mole hill? Am I?

[billy]

of course star trek exemplified racism. that what sold,

some cut little black bitch with a name that sounds a lot like whore,
and a klingon that looked like a piece of shit.

it was all about slavery and macho, and subservience lmao.
it was red racist at its worst, you wore a red shirt and you were one of the walking dead.

all the bad bastards had a major deformity. the big ears on qwark and co. lumpy skin on klingon. antenna on andorians and the lis is endless.

the most racist thing was that humans never lost. not eveb against so called gods "the Q"

[heslopian]

Apparently the original cast were uncomfortable with some of the supposedly racist dialogue they had to read; like Nichelle Nichols refused to say "guess who's coming to dinner," in reference to the Sidney Poitier film of the same name, so the line was given to Walter Koenig instead. And in the 1991 film The Undiscovered Country, Shatner was allegedly annoyed with the scene where he coldly tells Spock to let the Klingons die: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swvf3w6hcY4

[addy]

This is a very hard subject... you're right, different aliens species became code for different ethnic races, and what could have been a sophisticated take on multiculturalism became reduced to stereotypes and outmoded concepts about "blood-mixing". But the implication was ignored because science fiction is a genre that has always naturally treated races as "other", some interesting bizarre thing far removed from humans to be regarded from an intellectual perspective; nothing more than a mental exercise, just part of world-building and texturing . But when you begin to tackle social themes, like Star Trek did, then the conversation must be handled with more sensitivity.

In the case of Star Trek, they fell into the trap of using race/culture as a character shorthand because hey, its "sci-fi". The same problems arise in fantasy as well, with the argument that since it represents a reality removed from ours, even escapist, then its not problematic at all when all the heroes are caucasian-looking, while shadier characters are dark skinned. See it's thematic, not racist! *Sigh*

One of the problems with star trek is that it was trying to use progressive themes (and sometimes even failing)... but these were themes that were progressive for the time. Having a black woman on TV was already an incredible statement. But if you continue to recycle those same themes (racial distrust and eventual cooperation, as supposed to it not even being an issue anymore) then in modern eyes it just looks clunky and horribly racist by comparison to the progress we've supposedly made since the 60's.

[billy]

yes, yes, but at the end of the day it was escapism.
did people who watched it actually give a toss that the communications officer with the big tits and long legs was black. as a kid it never stopped me throwing one over my aching wrist.
to me it was just entertainment. i never questioned it on a socio logic level, never will.
it's okay looking back in hindsight and spotting the darkie with big tits as being a first but who really cares about anything but the tits, white, black yellow, as long as they have tits on em and as long as they're sticking out they could be fuckin green, oops, that right, some of them were.

[heslopian]

In the case of Star Trek, they fell into the trap of using race/culture as a character shorthand because hey, its "sci-fi". The same problems arise in fantasy as well, with the argument that since it represents a reality removed from ours, even escapist, then its not problematic at all when all the heroes are caucasian-looking, while shadier characters are dark skinned. See it's thematic, not racist! *Sigh*

Yeah, that aspect of some fantasy stories has always annoyed me, the catch all argument being that it's okay because it doesn't reflect the real world, even though it quite obviously does, as the story was written by people from the real world, and in order for a piece of art to be enjoyed, it must have some relevance to the audience. The Lord of the Rings, the Narnia chronicles; they're popular because the characters journeys, motivations and personalities hold resonance with us; if they didn't, we wouldn't be interested.

@billy - If I remember rightly, the essay doesn't make much mention of the original series, and actually mentions it's progressive efforts, so yeah, I doubt anyone would see the character of Uhurua as racist. The biggest bone of contention for the author seems to be The Next Generation, and I can see his point. Though I should point out that I still love the show

[billy]

okay. here goes.
i never saw star trek as rasist, in fact to me, and i lived in a time of racial upheaval, it was in fact the anti thesis of racism. the black woman was at the height of an important career. as were gays and aliens. woman were smart and on many levels equal. the had a chain of command but that has nothing to do with racism. in the main i stick by what i said previously, it was a bit of fluff tv with a few aspirations.

[Touchstone]

I agree, I think this is mischief making. The point of the original crew was that it was inclusive. There was a Russian, and a Chinese, an alien, a black (and a female), a Scotsman, and a never-ending supply of white male ensigns for when someone had to die. It pit "humanity as a whole" against the universe, instead of having man beat up on man.

[billy]

and that was part of why it became iconic i think. it created an us against them
"but that's racist" many will say. personally i again think it's the opposite.
it had the type of "if you're a nice person you can join us, if you're bad you can't" attitude.
in fact it portrayed humans as dumber and weaker than most races. though it did gives a bit more in the thinking department than what we deserved.

we can put any spin we want on it but to say it was racist. almost every single adversarial program has to portray someone as the baddy and someone as the good. i think star trek did a good job of showing there was good and bad in all cultures. and that if you wore a red shirt, the chances of being fucked over were great.

[heslopian]

Again, the author's problem doesn't seem to be with Gene Roddenberry's original vision - the first series was quite progressive, with its multi-racial crew and so forth - but The Next Generation, and to a lesser degree Deep Space 9. I personally disagree, and think none of the different incarnations were deliberately racist - as you said, Touchstone, they were more about humanity united against the universe - but I think he raises some interesting points, such as the show's definition of "species." If a human can breed with a klingon, then why are they considered so different?
If you click on the link in my original post and read the segment on Star Wars, he discusses how people project their own prejudices onto film characters, and that when they see someone as a negative conveyance of a certain race, that actually says more about them than it does the material.

[billy]

but I think he raises some interesting points, such as the show's definition of "species." If a human can breed with a klingon, then why are they considered so different?

i take it their ugliness doesn't count then. most of the bipedal races can interbreed with humans (aren't we lucky bastards) but as far as different species go, many have completely sociological differences, some greater than any genetic divide could be. which separates them from us.

imagine asking a klingon woman to do the shopping, she'd cut your balls off.
have you see the courting ritual they go through as well. it's fuckin vicious.

we also have to ask this, be cause we can interbreed with a race does it make it the same race. from what i can make out. worlds were populated. they all evolved to a state where physically and sociologically they were different in race, we (the humans) were just lucky that the sex gene is a constant throughout the universe for us

[heslopian]

but I think he raises some interesting points, such as the show's definition of "species." If a human can breed with a klingon, then why are they considered so different?

i take it their ugliness doesn't count then. most of the bipedal races can interbreed with humans (aren't we lucky bastards) but as far as different species go, many have completely sociological differences, some greater than any genetic divide could be. which separates them from us.

imagine asking a klingon woman to do the shopping, she'd cut your balls off.
have you see the courting ritual they go through as well. it's fuckin vicious.

we also have to ask this, be cause we can interbreed with a race does it make it the same race. from what i can make out. worlds were populated. they all evolved to a state where physically and sociologically they were different in race, we (the humans) were just lucky that the sex gene is a constant throughout the universe for us

But are sociological/physical differences really that important? Black people are better runners on account of their Achilles' tendons, but we don't (or at least shouldn't) see them as somehow "other." Would all Klingon women emasculate you if you asked them to do the shopping? On a similar note, would all black women respond with a finger snap and an "mmhmmmm!" noise if you made an observation?
(Can't believe I'm actually standing up for what I've now designated the Klingon Civil Rights Movement...)
Also, species is different from race. I'm a different race to black people, but I'm not a different species.

[billy]

(Can't believe I'm actually standing up for what I've now designated the Klingon Civil Rights Movement...)

well you have and now the KCLM is a designated civil rights group

Also, species is different from race. I'm a different race to black people, but I'm not a different species.

doesn't that sort of answer your own question/misgiving.
as a different species we may be able to (unbelievable i know) make out with them but they're as alien to us as a cow or a carrot is. don't we class intelligence above species. for instance;
if cows could talk would we eat it, if it could talk dirty we may even try getting head off it.

blacks, jews and latinos are on the other hand us. racism even between the aliens of star trek is still nominal. and runs on the premise of good we like you, bad we don't.

sensibly they have to be different than us in looks or there wouldn't be a show, they has to be an antagonist or there wouldn't be a show. there has to be good and bad or we'd just turn off. better to add a pair of tits or a big black cock and make it interesting don't you think than do a H.G.Wells. on them and make everyone a utopian stepford wife,

[Touchstone]

The trouble with trying to analyze the fictional creation of a group of people is that nothing can be "proven" as a cold hard fact (in the way that you could dissect a real person and see whether they had a brain tumour), and that it is inherently schizophrenic--one week, Worf's dialogue would be written by one person and the next week it would be written by someone else. So to say what Worf "signified" is basically impossible.

And taking those two things in conjunction means that third parties can argue that any given point supports "their" viewpoint: "Ferengi cultural values aren't better or worse than ours, just different", he explained. Classic example of racism..." Is it? So if he had said, "Ferengi don't consider <whatever> to be wrong, but we're going to fry him anyway because we do and we won't accept anyone thinking or acting differently to us; and if they don't like it, they should get back to their own planet." then that wouldn't have been racist?

"Picard chastised her as well, for expecting Worf to make a cultural leap that was "too far, dammit, too far!". Classic example of racism- assuming that all Klingons (even one that was raised by adoptive human parents, on a Federation colony) are compelled to hold Klingon cultural values," He isn't assuming anything, the fact is in evidence--Worf "asked" to be killed. Had Picard not known of the request and simply said, "Klingons don't like being hurt so put him down." that would have been racist. Defending someone's explicitly stated wishes isn't.

Worf is the security officer. For him to praise someone's combat skills by basically saying "you could be on my team." is hardly racist. If everyone always responded with guffaws, that would be racist.

Mixed race children? Frankly, we can't even produce offspring with our closest living relative-species on this planet. The chances of us being genetically compatible with a species that has evolved totally independently is nil. Not even close to nil, but absolutely nil. So the issue would never arise. But, if it did, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the distance between species is greater than that between races. So a mixed-species child might very well have some personal issues. And lets remember that it's a drama--if everyone was emotionally balanced there wouldn't be any drama. So it's absolutely necessary for some characters to have problems and, from a storytelling point of view, the concept of inter-species relationships provides a plethora of opportunities for storytelling.

Definition of species? I think that's a case where the requirements of telling a story simply outweigh the necessity of plausibility. It isn't inconceivable that we could build a ship to take us to the stars. But we won't find anyone there (as I've covered elsewhere; not because there are no extraterrestrials, simply because space and time are so vast that 'needle in a haystack' doesn't even begin to cover it) and if we do, they won't be humanoids who speak English, look hot, and have genitalia that accommodates us. And if we did? Any species capable of interstellar travel would be capable of obtaining all the resources it wanted from the millions of uninhabited star systems--so there wouldn't be any wars or fighting. The whole thing would be very very boring.

The argument smacks of looking for certain trees within a forest. You can find individual examples of whatever it is you're looking for. But that doesn't mean that they fully represent the forest.

[Touchstone]

the good guys have a multi-racial crew, the bad guys do not.

If this were a boxing match, that would be a knockout.

[billy]

actually in the wrath of kaan, kaan had a multi crew. and kaan himself though played by fantasy island was supposed to be indian.

[billy]

actually in the wrath of kaan, kaan had a multi crew.

Right..

They had collect all the planet's homicidal dictators of the day, after they lost their war, and left them frozen in suspended animation on a space ship apply named "Botany Bay", on a cruise to nowhere.

Just your typical tolerant multicultural crew.

Each episode (or multi-parter) is a morality play where the good guys always win. And the good guys have a multi-racial crew, the bad guys do not.

i see no mention of tolerance? you pointed out that the multi-racial crew was always the good crew. there have been a few episodes where the bad guys comprised of not only a multi racial crew, but a multi specie crew.

[addy]

Wow, interesting point VF.

That even got me thinking of the Borg, one of Star Trek's major villains. They "assimilate" other species, but in a way that subsumes them and erases their identity, makes them uniform rather than individual. Perhaps a statement on how multi-ethnic societies should not be done?

[billy]

the borg were just an expression of communists

[billy]

what about the hawt klingon women with the large bewbies?