That careless person, Happy Fun Pundit, was so inattentive to the proper order of things as to post a lovely mini-rant on Star Trek & Socialism on his own blog rather than here on Samizdata where everyone knows such posts belong.
|
|||||
|
March 14th, 2002 | Comments are closed
 I do not know why I do it to myself. I watch Enterprise, the latest and by far the lamest of the Star Trek series and have to restrain myself from throwing things at the television. In the latest idiotic episode, the crew of a freighter starship which has been repeatedly attacked by non-human pirates finally captures one and tries to strong arm information out of the prisoner to gain a tactical advantage in order to retaliate effectively against their tormentors. However we are shown that the virtuous Star Fleet crew of Enterprise do not approve of this. Not just the fact the freighter crew are trying to beat information out of the captive but the very fact they are holding him at all, we are lead to believe, is bad. I wonder what Captain Archer of the Enterprise would have to say about Guantanamo Bay? Many TV shows have fantastical settings and an implausible premise underlying them, but this is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is fiction after all. The socialist future for humanity posited by Star Trek is implausible but sadly by no means impossible. The technology theorised for the future is likewise as good a guess as any other. All that is okay. What is not okay is the fact that the human characters simply do not act like humans. They are utterly implausible as future examples of homo sapiens: people simply do not act that way when in life threatening situations. We are shown that tracking down and attacking the people who have been repeatedly attacking you is bad. I wonder what Star Fleet would do if some alien species hijacked a starship and flew it into the 23rd Century equivalent of the World Trade Centre? Well they certainly would not a George Bush style “smash the Taliban” on them, that is for sure! Any culture that demanded such behaviour would simply not survive contact with less squeamish cultures or more rational disaffected members of its own culture. Star Trek is truly TV with rocks in its head. Then look at Alias, the new spy-drama with the superb Jennifer Garner. It too has fantastical settings and a highly implausible underlying premise (a college girl/spy-commando). And yet whereas the dismal Enterprise fails miserably to convincingly portray human interaction within its given premises, Alias does so triumphantly. Quite apart from the fact Jennifer Garner can act the socks off any of the current Star Trek cast, the show is superbly written and the characters plausibly drawn. Within the extraordinary fictional settings in which the show occurs, the people act like humans. They act the way you or I might act is suddenly plunged into the scripted situations. Jennifer Garner’s character, Sydney, was shown being tortured (none of the namby pamby crap of many shows… we actually see her being electrocuted and Garner makes it look very unpleasant indeed). Later in the episode, she escapes and in doing so takes an electro-prod from a guard. We see her standing over the man who had earlier presided over her torture and, if this had been Star Trek, we would have been treated to a brief sermon on the importance of non-violence or some disdainful grimace as she asserts her moral superiority as ‘New Socialist Woman’ over her ex-captor. But fortunately it was not Star Trek. Sydney steps over to the prone helpless man, jabs him with the electro-prod and as he screams says words to the effect, “Yeah, it hurts, don’t it?” So which do you think makes for a more engaging story? Alias rocks! 
Jennifer Garner as ‘Sydney Bristow’ in Alias March 7th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Now, it’s hard to defend the namby-pamby neo-liberal Federation of Star Trek:TNG, (though there’s a good case to be made from DS9 that the Feds aren’t as bad as TNG makes them appear to be), but I’m not concerned with them. Let’s talk about real Star Trek. I’m talking about the NCC-1701, which cruised around the cosmos not only exploring new worlds, but finding new tyrannies – and crushing them. Is your world controlled by an over-intelligent super-computer? No problem–Kirk and co. will destroy it. Been trapped in a never-ending cycle of war because you fight by computer instead of the real way? Kirk and co. takes care of it. Are Klingon’s arming your rival clan’s? Not to worry–Kirk will give you guns, too, so you can protect your families. Benign interventionism, favoring democracy. But hey, the original Trek wasn’t just about freeing enslaved peoples. It was about mutual tolerance–so you can make a few bucks. Case in point: “Devil in the Dark.” A strange creature is killing miners? Klingons would’ve just killed. Not the Federation. Kirk and Spock learn to talk to the creature, which ends up contracting with the miners–enabling them to make a greater profit. And the 23rd century Federation wasn’t cashless, either. It’s clear that Kirk and co. were paid for their work, and they spent their money in very non-PC ways. (My, I do love the green-skinned dancers…) But in addition to bringing democracy to Third Galaxy worlds and making the universe safe for capitalism, the 23rd century Federation had a tough-minded foreign policy. When the Romulans developed a new cloaking device, did the Feds beg for a non-proliferation treaty? Did they impose economic sanctions? Hell no! They had the Enterprise go in and just steal the damn thing with a beautiful deception. Somewhere between the 23rd and 24th centuries, maybe the Federation lost its way. But don’t forget that at the beginning, the Federation was composed of tough-minded freedom fighters who enjoyed the finer things in life (like alien babes) and appreciated money. But they weren’t just decadent–they were devoted to liberty. Don’t forget that Kirk gave up his one great love in order to prevent the Nazis from winning World War II. And, as the movies showed, they recognized the great truth of individualism–“The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” Because only by focusing on the individual do you prevent him from being trampled by the demands of the mob. Alex Knapp February 1st, 2002 | Comments are closed
Continuing in the same spirit of the last few posts, a tip of the space helmet to Samizdata reader Neil Eden for providing us with two excellent essays located on The Proceedings of the Friesian School website: The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism Star Wars: Episode I, The Phantom Menace, A Response to Critics January 31st, 2002 | Comments are closed
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
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||