10-15-2010, 09:48 AM
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?
"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?