Star Trek: All of Em

[Jokerz79]

Wait. Are you trying to say that things that are widely seen as racist/sexist now but were seen as ok in the past weren't actually racist then, too? Because that's just plain wrong.

Not really it depends if it was socially seen that way at the time.

Take slavery antiquity slavery was seen at the time akin to modern day pet ownership or having servants. In ancient times one wasn't judge for having slaves but how they treated them. Famously Augustus once got angry at a man who home he was at for a banquet because the man wanted to kill a slave over accidently breaking a glass. Many in antiquity also knew for the graces of the gods go I when it came to slavery if on the bad end of conquest who would likely end up a slave.

Now vs this to American Slavery from its inception slavery was already going by the wayside in Western Culture and was being replaced with Serfdom or also known as Slavery Lite. So how do you justify American Slavery back then? Well, you claim the slaves are "Godless Savages" and thus you're "civilizing" them and bringing them closer to God. This is why some American Slave owners took a "Parental" view to owning slaves while others went into the opposite direction. Once you label someone "Godless Savages" it dehumanizes them and allows you to treat them as you see fit this is a reason American Slave owners were usually far more brutal than slave owners of Antiquity outside of slaves used for gladiatorial games or hard labor. But as I mentioned slavery was going out of vogue even at the inception of American Slavery and thus there was always a vocal Anti-Slavery coalition. Meaning even then American Slavery was seen as wrong and thus we view rightfully view it much more harshly than Antiquity Slavery.

Honestly up until the Baby Boom generation most white held some beliefs of white supremacy even the great generation who fought the Nazis would mostly casually use the N Word. It wasn't right but it wasn't always done in hate sometimes it was just because that was what they were taught to call African Americans. Until 1973 the APA listed Homosexuality a mental illness in that environment, I'd be more understanding of someone being homophobic then vs today they were literally being taught it was a sickness. TOS was woke for its time doesn't stop it from having problematic episodes by our standards. Does everything deserve a pass? No but we also shouldn't just judge past generations strictly by our modern morality and sensibilities. Because no matter how liberal someone is today, I guarantee their grandchildren or great-grandchildren will find some of their views from today embarrassing if not full out ignorant. Because we evolve as we grow as a species and should remember that when looking at those from our past.

[80sbaby]

Not really it depends if it was socially seen that way at the time.

Take slavery antiquity slavery was seen at the time akin to modern day pet ownership or having servants. In ancient times one wasn't judge for having slaves but how they treated them. Famously Augustus once got angry at a man who home he was at for a banquet because the man wanted to kill a slave over accidently breaking a glass. Many in antiquity also knew for the graces of the gods go I when it came to slavery if on the bad end of conquest who would likely end up a slave.

Now vs this to American Slavery from its inception slavery was already going by the wayside in Western Culture and was being replaced with Serfdom or also known as Slavery Lite. So how do you justify American Slavery back then? Well, you claim the slaves are "Godless Savages" and thus you're "civilizing" them and bringing them closer to God. This is why some American Slave owners took a "Parental" view to owning slaves while others went into the opposite direction. Once you label someone "Godless Savages" it dehumanizes them and allows you to treat them as you see fit this is a reason American Slave owners were usually far more brutal than slave owners of Antiquity outside of slaves used for gladiatorial games or hard labor. But as I mentioned slavery was going out of vogue even at the inception of American Slavery and thus there was always a vocal Anti-Slavery coalition. Meaning even then American Slavery was seen as wrong and thus we view rightfully view it much more harshly than Antiquity Slavery.

Honestly up until the Baby Boom generation most white held some beliefs of white supremacy even the great generation who fought the Nazis would mostly casually use the N Word. It wasn't right but it wasn't always done in hate sometimes it was just because that was what they were taught to call African Americans. Until 1973 the APA listed Homosexuality a mental illness in that environment, I'd be more understanding of someone being homophobic then vs today they were literally being taught it was a sickness. TOS was woke for its time doesn't stop it from having problematic episodes by our standards. Does everything deserve a pass? No but we also shouldn't just judge past generations strictly by our modern morality and sensibilities. Because no matter how liberal someone is today, I guarantee their grandchildren or great-grandchildren will find some of their views from today embarrassing if not full out ignorant. Because we evolve as we grow as a species and should remember that when looking at those from our past.

Yes and what I'm saying is that is all wrong. I don't care if they said the "N-word" with a smile on their face, it was still racists and wrong, period. Now I can understand why they got to thinking that way but it doesn't make it ok in any way.

[BeastieRunner]

Yes and what I'm saying is that is all wrong. I don't care if they said the "N-word" with a smile on their face, it was still racists and wrong, period. Now I can understand why they got to thinking that way but it doesn't make it ok in any way.

Did not see the double down coming, did you?

[80sbaby]

Did not see the double down coming, did you?

If it was the same poster I originally responded to, I'd expect. So yeah, this was a surprise to me as well. Although I guess it shouldn't have been.

[Scott Taylor]

Racial feelings in this country have evolved though. The stronger racists are finding it harder and harder to simply hide within average societal convention and norms. They are becoming more marginalized. At least that's what I hope.

I mean you couldn't do movies like Holiday Inn or White Christmas today.

Going back to Star Trek, I don't think it was intended nor did it appeal to the generation of people who regularly used terms like "colored"

[Powerboy]

Wait. Are you trying to say that things that are widely seen as racist/sexist now but were seen as ok in the past weren't actually racist then, too? Because that's just plain wrong.

In 1000 BC, tribes enslaving other tribes was almost universal. Was everyone on Earth a racist bigot in 1000 BC? Or are we just applying modern standards?

Do I think such things were always wrong? Of course I do because I'm a product of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I am basically a product of the society I live in, conditioned by it.

That's reality no matter how much we try to pretend it isn't.

Had I or you been born a thousand years ago, right and wrong would be a totally different thing *because right and wrong are social concepts, not concrete facts*.

Yes. I am saying that things seen as bigoted now were not bigoted when they were not seen by anybody as bigoted because that's what social concepts are, that's what bigotry is. Bigotry is a social concept, not a rock you can hold in your hand. That's what social concepts are. They change over time. They are not some objective reality.

Study after study has shown that it is almost impossible to get people to accept the clinical reality that social concepts we hold near and dear are nothing more than social conditioning. They feel so real to us that we sometimes cannot and will not accept that they are not facts of reality like the Laws of Physics.

Just to get it out of the way, of course I despise bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia (I am bi and once thought I was purely gay), trans bigotry, etc. I simply have the awareness that these things I hold so dear are not written into human or pre-human genetics but are social concepts driven into me by social conditioning from very recent social concepts in the overall scheme of things.

As an atheist, I say that there is no such thing as objective morality. There are things that are more compassionate, better for most people, etc. But you can't really say there's no such thing as objective morality and then say that morality is whatever it is now. That's just "my" so-called objective morality over what somebody else thinks is objective morality.

[DrNewGod]

Racial feelings in this country have evolved though. The stronger racists are finding it harder and harder to simply hide within average societal convention and norms. They are becoming more marginalized. At least that's what I hope...

I wouldn't say they're marginalized, but segregated, concentrated, and militarizing. I doubt we're going to have the luxury of ignoring them.

Going back to Star Trek, I don't think it was intended nor did it appeal to the generation of people who regularly used terms like "colored"

Yeah, from its origins, Trek was never a show for the prejudiced, or even the conservative. Some of TOS may look conservative today, but (riffing on Powerboy's point), that's because where we draw those lines has changed.

One of the things that took this thread in this direction was an opinion that mini-dresses weren't seen as sexist in the 1960s. It's probably more complex than that. There were people looking at liberalized fashion as an empowerment tool, but I strongly suspect there was more than a bit of exploitative - even downright misogynistic -ogling-factor in the TOS producers' costume choice.

[Powerboy]

I wouldn't say they're marginalized, but segregated, concentrated, and militarizing. I doubt we're going to have the luxury of ignoring them.

Yeah, from its origins, Trek was never a show for the prejudiced, or even the conservative. Some of TOS may look conservative today, but (riffing on Powerboy's point), that's because where we draw those lines has changed.

One of the things that took this thread in this direction was an opinion that mini-dresses weren't seen as sexist in the 1960s. It's probably more complex than that. There were people looking at liberalized fashion as an empowerment tool, but I strongly suspect there was more than a bit of exploitative - even downright misogynistic -ogling-factor in the TOS producers' costume choice.

Absolutely. In fact, it's been pointed out that every female guest star who ever appeared on TOS was there to be the love interest of a male character. Likewise, Janice Rand was there to be a love interest for Kirk and was written out of the show so they could have Kirk involved with other women without it's feeling like he was a cheater. In the first 13 episodes, they didn't do "Kirk and the women of the week". He had no love interest in those episodes because of Rand. Then there was Chapel who was basically there to feel unrequited love for Spock. Maybe, maybe, Uhura escapes that fate but not really and she was the one that got the jokes about the mini-skirts.

Yet, as sexist as it was by later standards, there were factors we overlook. There was a woman on the bridge of an active duty military ship being the biggest one.

But, in the 1960s, I don't think most people thought of it as sexist but exactly the opposite.

In the early 1970s, on "All in the Family", there was an episode where a guest character gives a riddle early in the episode, leaving the characters and the audience about twenty minutes to figure it out.

A man is driving with his young son and they get into a horrible accident. The man is killed. His son is rushed to the hospital and prepped for surgery. The doctor walks in, sees him, and says, "Someone else has to do it. I cannot perform surgery on my own son." What's the answer to the riddle?

Today, we would say, "What riddle? There is no riddle. It's his mother. Duh!"

But, in the early 1970s, the majority of people, even given twenty minutes, couldn't figure out the answer, defaulting to things like it's his god-father, or his mother remarried and this is his step-father. There were women who were doctors in the 1970s but, as a social norm, people didn't think in terms of women being doctors. I still remember constantly hearing the term, "Woman Doctor".

I was shocked at myself because I considered myself a "hip, modern kid who was all in favor of "Women's Lib". Yet, even given 20 minutes, I didn't figure it out. I identified with Mike Stivic, the young character who felt the same way and commented on how this made him realize how much we get locked into the assumptions and social norms of our time and place and it's very hard to break out of them, especially when you don't even realize that you are locked into them.

Here we are, decades later. I'm 100% for trans rights and I see people of my generation (and a lot of much younger people) making the same mistake of being locked into the mentality of the social norms they were indoctrinated into during their formative years.

[ChrisIII]

Think Rand was originally meant to be a larger part of the show; as sort of a 'reboot' of the Colt character that was originally planned.



There seem to be a few conflicting stories as to why Grace Lee Whitney left.

It's kind of interesting that Kirk's womanizing (Shatner Kirk, that is, not Pine) was toned down in the movies, apart from the results of a former relationship (Carol/David) some light flirtation with Gillian at best and Martia (Who mostly kissed him).


James Bond's womanizing was toned down in the 80s too (Dalton films).

[Powerboy]

Think Rand was originally meant to be a larger part of the show; as sort of a 'reboot' of the Colt character that was originally planned.



There seem to be a few conflicting stories as to why Grace Lee Whitney left.

It's kind of interesting that Kirk's womanizing (Shatner Kirk, that is, not Pine) was toned down in the movies, apart from the results of a former relationship (Carol/David) some light flirtation with Gillian at best and Martia (Who mostly kissed him).


James Bond's womanizing was toned down in the 80s too (Dalton films).

I suspect time constraints and the character being a lot older contributed to cutting down the womanizing for Kirk.

[ChrisIII]

True. To use another Bond example, in the 80's films Moore turned down one younger Bond girl, and Maud Adams, although still much younger (38 to his 55) than Moore at the time in OCTOPUSSY, still was cast closer to his age.


Riker of course also did his share, although I think one or two of his came close to messing things up for everyone else. Think half of his romances turned out to be massive security breaches or prime directive violations.

[babyblob]

True. To use another Bond example, in the 80's films Moore turned down one younger Bond girl, and Maud Adams, although still much younger (38 to his 55) than Moore at the time in OCTOPUSSY, still was cast closer to his age.


Riker of course also did his share, although I think one or two of his came close to messing things up for everyone else. Think half of his romances turned out to be massive security breaches or prime directive violations.

I think the most ridiculous sexual encounter Riker had was the one where he was in that hospital while in disguise on a first contact Mission. And the nurse played by Bebe Neuwirth would help him but only if she could have sex with him first.

They could have written it as she wanted to help because she did not want to see her government kill an alien or torture one. But they had to go the route that gave Riker an excuse to knock space boots with a female.

Seemed too much like a Fetish dream by a nerd boy then a writer on a major show.

[Jokerz79]

If it was the same poster I originally responded to, I'd expect. So yeah, this was a surprise to me as well. Although I guess it shouldn't have been.

Because you're taking a simplistic view towards judging the past. Was it malice or ignorance when the person did what they did also was it moral or immoral at the time that the person did whatever they did should be taken into account when examining people from history. Marrying young teens and close family members was once considered ok today we see those things as sickening. Edgar Allen Poe at 27 married his 13-year-old cousin. In his day no one batted an eye today we'd place him on a registry.

I'll throw myself under the bus. I was born in 1979 growing up the two men who lived directly across the street from me were gay and the old lady who lived next door who walk I use to shovel had a female 'Roommate", but we all knew the score, and no one cared about either in my family or neighborhood. Growing I believed what I do to this day hey if you're consenting adults, it's no one's business but your own and thus do whatever makes you happy because life's too short. Yet I was a teenager in the 90's meaning me and my friends said gay slurs and made homophobic jokes never to anyone gay but to each other and other straight people. We never saw anything wrong with it. Why? because everyone talked like that back then look at movies from then hell even the Hangover films still had some homophobic material in them and they weren't that long ago, so we didn't think it was wrong back then.

Am I embarrassed by that? Yes. Would I do that kind of stuff again? No. Do I think I deserved to be judged for it now? Also No.

[80sbaby]

Because you're taking a simplistic view towards judging the past. Was it malice or ignorance when the person did what they did also was it moral or immoral at the time that the person did whatever they did should be taken into account when examining people from history. Marrying young teens and close family members was once considered ok today we see those things as sickening. Edgar Allen Poe at 27 married his 13-year-old cousin. In his day no one batted an eye today we'd place him on a registry.

I'll throw myself under the bus. I was born in 1979 growing up the two men who lived directly across the street from me were gay and the old lady who lived next door who walk I use to shovel had a female 'Roommate", but we all knew the score, and no one cared about either in my family or neighborhood. Growing I believed what I do to this day hey if you're consenting adults, it's no one's business but your own and thus do whatever makes you happy because life's too short. Yet I was a teenager in the 90's meaning me and my friends said gay slurs and made homophobic jokes never to anyone gay but to each other and other straight people. We never saw anything wrong with it. Why? because everyone talked like that back then look at movies from then hell even the Hangover films still had some homophobic material in them and they weren't that long ago, so we didn't think it was wrong back then.

Am I embarrassed by that? Yes. Would I do that kind of stuff again? No. Do I think I deserved to be judged for it now? Also No.

I was born in 1976. So your anecdote works for me as well. The difference is I can look back on how I acted then and admit it was definitely coming from a place of homophobia. I may not have thought of it that way but that's exactly what it was and it was completely wrong. When you know better, you do better. But that doesn't negate the fact that previously you were in the wrong. I'm not being naive. I'm being honest and looking at things as they actually are. Not giving them a pass.

[Scott Taylor]

I wouldn't say they're marginalized, but segregated, concentrated, and militarizing. I doubt we're going to have the luxury of ignoring them.

Yes, I agree. But I also think we have to tolerate them, even if their views are repugnant. Then again, I strongly believe that there has been a cadre of strong racists in this nation for well over 150 years, trying to do that same thing, and they have failed over and over. I see no reason to fear them now.

Yeah, from its origins, Trek was never a show for the prejudiced, or even the conservative. Some of TOS may look conservative today, but (riffing on Powerboy's point), that's because where we draw those lines has changed.

One of the things that took this thread in this direction was an opinion that mini-dresses weren't seen as sexist in the 1960s. It's probably more complex than that. There were people looking at liberalized fashion as an empowerment tool, but I strongly suspect there was more than a bit of exploitative - even downright misogynistic -ogling-factor in the TOS producers' costume choice.

Well it is noticeable that the original Star Trek had lots of sex, period. Scantily clad women mostly, but also a fair share of shirtless men. And the men and women all happened to be in good shape. Whether that was Roddenberry's idea of a utopian society where everyone was healthy, or just the studio picking actors the studio thought would look good in tight clothes, I don't know. As to the producer's choice, wasn't Star Trek owned and produced by a woman? I thought it was Lucille Ball.