|
|||||
|
Like most of the Samizdatistas, I have my critiques of the Star Trek universe. I particularly like Lagwolf’s comment about it containing a lot of the 1960’s without the good bits, eg Sex, Drugs, Rock&Roll and Revolution for the Hell of It. But all that aside – I suspect the lot of us watch and enjoy them. Critique is not a dismissal. And for myself, if faced upon a winter’s night with the choice between BBC News and an old episode of Star Trek… January 31st, 2002 | Comments are closed
Star Trek is an odd combination of secular multi-culturalism and happy-clappy-ism. The overwhelming belief is that the Federation can solve all the universe’s problems. Its “let’s all be friends” mentality even when sometimes confronted with naked aggression is political correctness at its worst. Of course they have some temperance elements as well as there is no booze, drugs or tobacco around. Trek represents everything bad about the 60s and “boomer” generation without the fun bits. Babylon 5 however makes a point of establishing that humans and earth are not the centre of the universe. In fact, truth be told, humans are the equivalent of a pimple on a knat’s bum. We are so insignificant that there are species in the universe who can even be bothered to acknowledge our existence. Bab 5 was more a “space-opera,” having plots that went over several episodes and series. There is none of the “we can right it all in a hour” ethos as there is in Star Trek. So threatened were the producers of Star Trek that they pinched several of Bab 5’s writers to work on DS9. Of course, Bab 5 makes use of Cthulhu themes in its plot lines. The vitriol that one gets from trekkies upon criticising the show is a sign of religious-like fervor that surrounds Star Trek and its followers. No doubt a bunch of trekkies will try and launch an attack on Samizdata for blaspheming their blessed show. Lagwolf [Editor: with one exception the e-mails have been fairly temperate so far] January 31st, 2002 | Comments are closed
Perry left out the best bit of Ken Layne’s comments, namely:
I find that so inspiring. January 31st, 2002 | Comments are closed
I had forgotten how popular critiques of science fiction are, but reader responses via e-mail have just reminded me of that fact following my less than flattering remarks about the politics of Star Trek! Here are some earlier articles on the same subject that produced much the same response: The trouble with the Federation Star Trek: the Post-Christian Generation! January 31st, 2002 | Comments are closed
I am a great fan of both pugnacious blogger Ken Layne and Sci-Fi afficionado King Abdullah of Jordan, as both are anti-idiotarians who have excellent taste in women by all accounts. However both the worthy King and Ken seem to have a misplaced affection for Star Trek.
Roddenbery’s ‘utopian’ United Federation of Planets is a vision of the future in which society is starkly homogenised, with para-military governance and a total state allocated command economy the likes of which have thankfully never yet come to pass (even the Soviet Union did not completely abolish money as a medium for low level allocation of resources). How many gay characters crop up in Star Trek’s Federation? How many non-conformist extroverts? Any sign of a counter-culture? How often is an internal voice of political dissent heard in the Federation? The only dissidents shown, the Maquis, were forced into armed conflict with the Federation when it betrays them to the fascist Cardassians. The only attempts at political change shown were a couple failed attempts at a coup d’état by elements of the Federation’s own military, neither of which had liberty as their objectives. The Star Trek Federation is a dystopian nightmare: smiley face totalitarianism with a California “liberal” vibe, complete with attractive telepathic political officers (‘councellors’). A similar vision of a fascist future existed in Babylon 5, but unlike Star Trek, they were the bad guys (and had much cooler uniforms)! Oh, and Ken is also totally wrong about Spanish food. January 31st, 2002 | Comments are closed
Prankster Samizdata reader James Bennett wrote in with a suggestion that was alarming and amuzing in equal measure:
Now that is funny. Pulling that off would be a superb cultural ‘hack’ of the highest order. Just the other day I saw a Next Generation episode and already in my mind I am seeing cringing, hand wringing Ferengi runts (Nazi ‘Jew’ image) contrasted with tall lithe Tasha Yar (Denise Crosby: Nazi Aryan ‘superwoman’ image) along with broad shouldered small brained Will Riker (Johnathen Frakes: Nazi Aryan ‘superman’ image) declaiming about the Federation’s cultural superiority (kulturkampf) to the capitalist Ferengi (Jew). Appalling. Damn you, Bennett, I will never be able to see that show again without feeling rather uncomfortable. December 17th, 2001 | Comments are closed
Natalie is quite right that there is a noticeable lack of real religions in Star Trek. The only two sets of religious beliefs seem to feature prominently: First there are the Bajoran in Deep Space 9, who follow an (invented) organised national religion that, it must be said, is presented extremely plausibly and without either sentimental support or anti-religious bias: some of their religious leaders are shown to be wise and honourable, yet others (Kai Winn) are portrayed as venal and corrupt. Significantly, the Bajorans are not, however, part of the Federation. Then there is Chakotay (Robert Beltran), whose ultra-PC North American Indian spiritualism must appeal to the California ‘liberal’ (meaning socialist) sensibilities of the script writers. It is useful to note, however, that Chakotey is not in fact a member of Star Fleet even though he has been co-opted by it. Quite the contrary: he is an anti-Star Fleet Maquis rebel! There is an interesting subtext there for sure. I would not include the Zen-like Vulcan philosophy shown in the shows as ‘religion’ as it is little more than a sophisticated and somewhat ritualised form of self-control with a set of attendant logic based ethics. Yet I must disagree with Natalie that Star Trek’s lack of religion in the Federation will cause “less sympathy with the Samizdata crowd”. Libertarian views are in no way antithetical to religious ones and I find the complete absence of overt Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu influences (let alone obvious adherents) indicative of a society that must surely be suppressing them. Even an atheist such as myself must accept that the religious impulse will not completely disappear quietly into the night unless forced there at the point of a loaded phaser…hardly something calculated to bring the smile of reason to libertarian lips. As evidence of it is completely absent in what is posited as mankind’s sole military service, the implications are clear. Even if Star Fleet is aggressively secular ‘at work’, in many episodes we are shown the private quarters of crew members…can anyone recall an episode in which a crucifix is seen on someone’s table or a mezuzah by the door? You do not have to be religious yourself to find seeing religion completely edited out of the human experience more than a little sinister. As Natalie points out, Babylon 5 had a great deal of fun with real world religion, even to the extent of showing peevish squabbling between the leader of the resident Catholic monks and a prominent Jewish scholar. Likewise, Commander Susan Ivanova (Claudia Christian) on several occasions referred to her Jewish identity in various episodes. Although religion was not central to the show, it did not deny its very existence. Next time I see a Star Trek show, I will scrutinize the credits for any references to Leon Trotsky. December 17th, 2001 | Comments are closed
Lots of high octane posts on Samizdata today, covering many issues of topical importance. That’s why I’d like to talk about a thirty year old TV show. According to Phil Farrand’s Nitpicker’s Guide, these top 10 reasons for violations of the Prime Directive include No. 10 “The Stupid Machine that ran the planet didn’t allow any touching and kissing”, No. 6 “The inhabitants were using a bunch of stupid computers to fight their wars like pantywaists”, culminating in No. 10 – Kirk’s personal No.1 – I noticed my hairline receding that day.” I knew I had become a real hard-core libertarian when I started getting genuinely outraged on behalf of the right of the inhabitants of gangster-obsessed Sigma Iotia II not to pay protection money to the Feds in “A Piece of the Action.” I reckon that episode indicated subliminal acceptance by Rodenberry of the Federation’s real nature, that of a protection racket that breaks its own rules whenever convenient. Farrand also takes Star Trek (both Classic and Next Gen) to task in a way that will find, perhaps, less sympathy with the Samizdata crowd: their attitude towards religion, which is that it will have no place in their nice clean universe (unless it’s PC American Indian religion, that is. There are no Christians, Moslems, or Hindus to be seen – and nearly all the alien religions turn out to be covers for a ruling elite of some sort *. Babylon 5, though written by an agnostic, treats the subject far more plausibly.) * = That’ll get the comments coming about present day religions. December 17th, 2001 | Comments are closed
You may be wondering ‘which Federation is that?’ Russia? Mexico? No. Star Trek’s Federation. What is more, my problem is more with the Star Trek shows than their fictional interstellar political entity. It is not the stories I object to, which are adequate though often highly derivative. It is not the acting, which is generally satisfactory and occasionally quite good. It is not the dialogue, which is adequate for the most part with only intermittent trips into the creative quicksand. It is not the special effects, which are seamless and superior (no, not the first series). All these things are okay for the various Star Trek shows such as Next Generation, DS-9, Voyager (I have not seen Enterprise yet), which are collectively the Sci-Fi ‘franchise’ that more or less defines the qualitative median line through the genre. Like any long running series, the Star Trek shows have had their ups and downs: The first few Next Generation were embarrassingly badly acted but they eventually pulled together as a company of actors. Voyager was for quite a while the ‘lemon’ of the franchise (Trek Fan One: “You wanna hear a Star Trek joke?” Trek Fan Two: “Sure” Trek Fan One: “Voyager”). Yet once they added the sublime Jeri Ryan and gave their script writers a firm kick up the arse, it belatedly became quite a good show (yes, I admit it: Jeri Ryan’s unusually named ‘7 of 9’ pushed pretty much all my buttons in all the right ways). Other shows do the genre better for sure (Stargate absolutely, Babylon 5 for the most part, Farscape & Earth: Final Conflict intermittently) whilst still others do it worse (Andromeda) or far worse (SeaQuest DSV)…and of course there is the demented Lexx (imagine Voyager, but while stoned on peyote) which is in a class all its own that transcends mere notions of ‘good’ or ‘bad’. So what do I have against the Federation? Well simply put, it is an authoritarian collectivist quasi-communist society (the government is clearly paramilitary) with a totally non-monetary command economy. That they have invented a state like that is not my grouse. I do not doubt there will be authoritarian states in the future just as there are now and so why not posit them? Fine… my problem is that somehow the Federation are held up to be the good guys! There is little sign of any counter-culture within the Federation and what there is are mostly shown as being violent unreasonable terrorists (the Maquis, who in reality are just fighting to prevent their land being occupied as a result of a Federation sell-out). Also, aspects of their military culture are frankly beyond belief (particularly when compared to shows like Stargate or Babylon 5, which actually understand the essential logic underpinning the military mindset). Do these guys ever fire first? And how often has Jean Luc Picard surrendered his ship in various episodes? That is the Star Fleet Flagship we are talking about! Likewise it seems that insubordination, even under fire, is almost the norm! Sorry but with a culture like that, the Klingons, the Romulans , hell, the Tellytubbies, would have smashed the Federation long ago. Yet it is clear that the Federation’s agents are the very essence of violent interaction under other conditions. Most striking was one episode of Next Generation called Unification, Part II. Commander Riker (Jonathan Frakes) enters a saloon seeking information. He encounters a female piano player whom he suspects might know what he needs to discover. She suggests he might like to ‘make it worth her while’. In a voice dripping with disdain, he says “I don’t carry money”. He then falls back on sweet talking her and eventually she reveals a Fenegi merchant nearby may actually have the information (the Ferengi are little arch-capitalist gargoyles with large ears. Good little Von Mises fans that they are, they insist on payment in ‘gold-pressed latinum’, none of this fiat money crap for them!) . As charm is not going to work on a Fenegi merchant, Riker roughs the puny unarmed merchant up and threatens him in order to extract the information. Now keep in mind that we are being told to regard Riker as the good guy. A Feregi will sell anything yet rather than even try to buy or barter for the information, Star Fleet’s armed uniformed thug just resorts to violence. This is just one of the more stark examples of why it really bugs me to hear Sci-Fi fans hold Star Trek’s Federation up as some sort of ‘better society’ in the future. And yes, I really do always cheer for the Klingons. December 16th, 2001 | Comments are closed
I love Star Trek and its’ derivatives as much as anyone else who is a part of (as opposed to accidentally existing in) the Twenty-First Century. I grew up with it. As one of the old space radicals of the L5 Society I highly respect Gene Roddenberry, Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols for their pro-space work off stage as well as their marvelous original TV series. I’ve even met some of them at ISDC’s (International Space Development Conferences), the premiere meeting place of the space community. Tonight I saw my first episode of the newest series. I admit that if I had seen it before 9-11 it would not have grated (as much) on me. I was not expecting a “huggy feely they are misunderstood and are just like us” Political Correctness lesson masquerading as a story line. I can’t be the only one who shed all semblance of tolerating these inane attitudes two months ago. I watched the story and knew pirates are bad people. You kill them. They aren’t poor misundersood sentients who would be nice if you just sent them a Christmas pudding. Pirates are nasty, brutish scumbags who go out on the spaceways and make a living by stealing. You would rob a vessel in space the same way pirates did it in the 17th Century … and still do in Southeast Asia… you kill people. Pirates don’t pull up alongside and say, “Would you be jolly good chaps and give us your cargo and valuables? We’d be ever so appreciative. Ah, now that’s a good fellow! Would you be so kind as to not tell anyone what we look like? Ta ta now!” It got worse. I nearly gagged when a black character admitted he knew what it was like being treated as “other” on Earth. This was a total farce. He grew up on a slow cargo ship that spent months and years between the stars. He probably never even saw anyone outside his ship family until he was nearly an adult. Even that is beside the point. Given another two centuries of global travel, communications and capitalism Earthmen will be a polyglot in race and culture. We’ll all be part African and part everything else as well. Visit New York City and see the future for yourself if you don’t believe me. It would require a victory of “multiculturalism” over human nature to preserve races, let alone racism, that far into the future. The lines were gratuitous and given that a black actor was forced to deliver them, real racism. Why do black professionals have to be singled out for the “victim” mantle? Isn’t the Colin Powell/Condelezza Rice image a hell of lot more positive for kids? Screw the victimhood. Teach kids that they CAN, not that they can not try and then blame someone else. The traders of the story are supposedly rugged individualists who “solve their own problems”. But the First Officer was just an unlikeable strawman for the PC story line and was certainly no Signy Mallory. The Second Officer was just a wimp who’d have been tossed out the airlock by age 10. He spent most of the episode looking like he needed a diaper. The political subtext was so blatent I couldn’t abide by it. The Free Traders are attacked by alien pirates. They beat the shield frequency codes out of one they capture. Fair enough. Pirates are pirates. I have no problems there. They should have dumped him out the airlock after they got the codes. But it was all done as a set up so the Captain of the Enterprise could pontificate about how the pirates were just misunderstood. The Enterprise arrives just in time to save the traders, negotiate a settlement and show that Law’n’Order and the Great State now Rules The Spacelanes. None of that naughty self-defense now! Then everyone gets out their teddy bears and has a hugfest. Roll Credits. I really hope the producers notice attitudes have changed. Perhaps they should invite Virginia Hienlein to advise them. If they did the Enterprise crew would just space the pirates next season instead of talk to ’em. Now… the question that might have occured to some of the more observant readers: how did I see this episode in Europe already when it won’t air here for some time? Well kiddies, that’s another bedtime story. In the next chapter Uncle Wiggly will… oops! Wrong lifetime! November 24th, 2001 | Comments are closed
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||