4 ms·

(Belief in) cultural superiority as racism, then? OK. I'd be (genuinely) curious to see what form Klingon-hating in the show could have taken that would have b

by ashark 9y ago

(Belief in) cultural superiority as racism, then? OK. I'd be (genuinely) curious to see what form Klingon-hating in the show could have taken that would have been similar in form but different enough that the writer'd not have labeled it white and Victorian. I'd like to know what the diff looks like between the two. Is "they have always attacked us before, so better to start shooting if you see them and skip the trying-to-talk-then-being-fired-on-anyway bits" necessarily white and Victorian? [EDIT] and if it's not necessarily so, then what about the show's actual depiction was?

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
> white and Victorian Those are racist/culturalist jabs meant to signal ingroup status to other bigots. There is no deeper meaning behind why white and Victorian as opposed to Arab and working to establish the Caliphate or numerous other examples we can draw. It's simply safe to express that kind of bigotry (and even popular in some groups).
slachance 9y ago
Good question. I'd say that the ties back to imperialist days on Earth are there because (1) it's a popular idea to hate this part of history, and (2) despite having lead characters who are asian and black, the show is still implied to be "white enough" for the comparison to be justified. The claim is that Star Trek's premise is a problem because it makes the flawed assumption that one culture can be better than another, and by extension, that all cultures must be valued and respected equally. Without going into the cultures of humanity in Star Trek versus the Klingons, you can examine similar claims closer to home even where some cultures are deeply invested in medieval-level cruelty like stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, female genital mutilation, and inhumane punishment by knife and cane. But these realities don't fit the author's narrative, and therefore must be ignored for the purposes of the thesis. Like Klingons, they're a benign minority who are simply misunderstood by their would-be cultural oppressors. The article's ostensibility about science-fiction, and managed to stay on point for the first couple paragraphs, but it quickly devolved into the author's pet theories on race and gender. I really had trouble with these sorts of broad and totally unfair generalizations: > Uhuru was a service worker and Worf was a punching bag; when the show made a black captain, was it a coincidence that the show also became “darker” and less optimistic, when its characters started to be “flawed” and “ambiguous”? Voyager had a female captain, but it marooned her to the farthest reaches of the galaxy (and the less said about the garbage politics of the reboot movies, the better).
- ashark 9y ago
  Yeah, I glossed over that part with an "uh, yeah, kinda, sure" for the Uhuru and Worf things (the put-upon not-terribly-competent "service worker" in TOS is clearly Nurse Chapel, if it's any named recurring character, and Worf gets punched a helluva lot less than one might think given his role and demeanor—Picard is more often both the physical and emotional punching bag, I'd think), an "I guess..." for the Sisko bits, and a "wait, what?" for the complaint about Janeway (they gave her arguable the toughest circumstances for any captain in episode 1 of their show in a Trek thusfar, but she did fine because it's Star Trek and the good guys may have ups and downs but they do basically fine in the end, and it's sexist somehow that she did really well? That show has some deep problems, even with Janeway's character, but sexism's nowhere near the top of the list) and an "I guess I missed something?" for the reboot movies bit. That should have primed me for being confused later in the piece, I suppose. [EDIT] the Sisko thing'd have had more weight if that show hadn't spent so much screen time openly dealing with humans (=the US, mostly, for production and character reasons) racist past (mind you, I like that aspect of DS9, even if it doesn't always make much in-universe sense)
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > the put-upon not-terribly-competent "service worker" in TOS is clearly Nurse Chapel, if it's any named recurring character Surely, Yeoman Rand...
cannonedhamster 9y ago
The racism that the author sees probably comes from the fact that the Klingons are even darker skinned, not like the civilized and lighter skinned people of The Federation. This was a very common trope during much of Victorian history, leading to roles such as the "savage assistant", the "learned black apprentice", etc. While the civilized colored folks from the white civilization could be reasoned with and would even sacrifice for their master, those even darker dark folk would just attack sight as they were incapable of reason. I haven't seen the show so I'm going off of the article and what I've seen the depictions of the Klingons as, and can't really offer more insight than the translation I've given.

by ashark 9y ago

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

> white and Victorian Those are racist/culturalist jabs meant to signal ingroup status to other bigots. There is no deeper meaning behind why white and Victorian as opposed to Arab and working to establish the Caliphate or numerous other examples we can draw. It's simply safe to express that kind of bigotry (and even popular in some groups).

slachance 9y ago

Good question. I'd say that the ties back to imperialist days on Earth are there because (1) it's a popular idea to hate this part of history, and (2) despite having lead characters who are asian and black, the show is still implied to be "white enough" for the comparison to be justified. The claim is that Star Trek's premise is a problem because it makes the flawed assumption that one culture can be better than another, and by extension, that all cultures must be valued and respected equally. Without going into the cultures of humanity in Star Trek versus the Klingons, you can examine similar claims closer to home even where some cultures are deeply invested in medieval-level cruelty like stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, female genital mutilation, and inhumane punishment by knife and cane. But these realities don't fit the author's narrative, and therefore must be ignored for the purposes of the thesis. Like Klingons, they're a benign minority who are simply misunderstood by their would-be cultural oppressors. The article's ostensibility about science-fiction, and managed to stay on point for the first couple paragraphs, but it quickly devolved into the author's pet theories on race and gender. I really had trouble with these sorts of broad and totally unfair generalizations: > Uhuru was a service worker and Worf was a punching bag; when the show made a black captain, was it a coincidence that the show also became “darker” and less optimistic, when its characters started to be “flawed” and “ambiguous”? Voyager had a female captain, but it marooned her to the farthest reaches of the galaxy (and the less said about the garbage politics of the reboot movies, the better).

ashark 9y ago
Yeah, I glossed over that part with an "uh, yeah, kinda, sure" for the Uhuru and Worf things (the put-upon not-terribly-competent "service worker" in TOS is clearly Nurse Chapel, if it's any named recurring character, and Worf gets punched a helluva lot less than one might think given his role and demeanor—Picard is more often both the physical and emotional punching bag, I'd think), an "I guess..." for the Sisko bits, and a "wait, what?" for the complaint about Janeway (they gave her arguable the toughest circumstances for any captain in episode 1 of their show in a Trek thusfar, but she did fine because it's Star Trek and the good guys may have ups and downs but they do basically fine in the end, and it's sexist somehow that she did really well? That show has some deep problems, even with Janeway's character, but sexism's nowhere near the top of the list) and an "I guess I missed something?" for the reboot movies bit. That should have primed me for being confused later in the piece, I suppose. [EDIT] the Sisko thing'd have had more weight if that show hadn't spent so much screen time openly dealing with humans (=the US, mostly, for production and character reasons) racist past (mind you, I like that aspect of DS9, even if it doesn't always make much in-universe sense)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > the put-upon not-terribly-competent "service worker" in TOS is clearly Nurse Chapel, if it's any named recurring character Surely, Yeoman Rand...

cannonedhamster 9y ago

The racism that the author sees probably comes from the fact that the Klingons are even darker skinned, not like the civilized and lighter skinned people of The Federation. This was a very common trope during much of Victorian history, leading to roles such as the "savage assistant", the "learned black apprentice", etc. While the civilized colored folks from the white civilization could be reasoned with and would even sacrifice for their master, those even darker dark folk would just attack sight as they were incapable of reason. I haven't seen the show so I'm going off of the article and what I've seen the depictions of the Klingons as, and can't really offer more insight than the translation I've given.