khaosworks | Star Trek: Imperialist

Entry tags:

Star Trek: Imperialist

Let's State The Really Obvious For A Change

By Mr. Terence Chua, who really should be reading about the Hatfield-McCoy feud right now

I'm sure it's nothing you've never heard before, and I'm probably going to look like a total goof for not thinking about this in detail earlier.

It goes back to Frederick Jackson Turner, whose 1893 treatise, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" formed the basic historical myth of the populating of the American West. Turner's frontier thesis - that the driving force behind the expansion to the West was this free land that was constantly beckoning as the settlers moved ever westward, and that the frontier mentality gave the purest context to such "American" virtues as individualism, democracy, self-reliance, the belief in progress, that "can-do" attitude. Turner is largely responsible for the romantic image of the Old West in the popular consciousness and its association with the values mentioned earlier. So what we have is this largely empty space and Americans moving into it and shaping it to their will, and for the better. Cowboys with their codes of honor, hardy settlers working the land and bringing life to it, wagon trains seeking a new life beyond the next hill.

Let's look at wagon trains.

Fans of Star Trek will know that Gene Roddenberry's initial pitch was a "Wagon Train To The Stars". Most kids today, even if they know this, probably don't remember that Wagon Train was actually a TV show, set in the Old West. So when we look at Star Trek, and all the liberal baggage that has built up around the show, how it was so progressive in showing an integrated crew, in dealing with social issues of prejudice and racism head on, and of course that infamous "not-a-kiss" between Kirk and Uhura, we've got to remember that, at its core, Star Trek is simply a transplanted Western.

In that light, several things become apparent, especially the Turnerian view of the universe. The galaxy is the new frontier, beckoning the brave explorers on. We have colonists on far flung worlds, facing new dangers, and new life forms to deal with. We have Kirk and crew as the new marshalls, bringing law to the lawless, and imparting lessons of tolerance, and peace and goodwill to the natives, and welcoming them into the brotherhood of a galactic Federation of Planets.

But let's look closer at what the Federation really is all about. It's not about diversity, it's not about tolerance, it's not a celebration of the things that make us unique or individual. It's about assimilation, about homogeneity, about forcing everyone to a particular political or social culture - even if it is, in their view, a "good" one. The comparison is so much clearer when it comes to The Original Series, of course.

Sulu, Uhura, Spock, the three examples touted as being part of Trek's multicultural nature. We don't get many hints of their individual cultures affecting who and what they are. Sulu is culturally indistinguishable from any other crewman. Aside from a couple of words of Swahili in "The Man Trap" (and aside from a couple of "Nubian princess" references), Uhura's ethnic identity is never mentioned.

The silence about their identity is deafening. Obviously, there is a defense - what kind of stories can you tell with Sulu's Japanese heritage, or Uhura's African one, say. But you don't really have to make it all apparent. If they really wanted to celebrate multicultralism, there are all sorts of subtle ways to do it. Make Sulu's passion one for samurai culture, not fencing, for example. Or have Uhura dress in traditional African dress off-duty.

The counter argument to this is, well, why should Sulu and Uhura be identified by their ethno-racial ancestry? Aren't they free to form their own identities outside of what their ancestors did? That's a fair question, and my examples are a little simplistic in what the show could have shown. But the disturbing vision of this 23rd century future is one where everybody's the same - and while there may be nothing wrong with that vision from some points of view, that is not the same as being multicultural, or pluralistic. Don't get me started on Scotty, who's a racial stereotype.

Spock is a more subtle example of this kind of assimilation. Yes, he's a character with a very strong cultural identity - he's Vulcan. But at the same time, he's also half-human. In a way, Spock is a perfect example of the second or third generation immigrant or the mixed-race individual trying desperately to bridge both worlds he feels he belongs in. And his popularity, and his prominence in the series would make lots of things possible with the character that aren't with supporting characters like Sulu and Uhura.

Showing a synthesis of Human and Vulcan would be great, but that's not what the show does. Vulcan values of logic and control of emotion are constantly being ridiculed and shown to be wrong in TOS. McCoy and Kirk keep exhorting Spock to be more human, and we cheer when he does so, not quite getting that at the same time Spock is being asked to give up a vital part of his own makeup and identity.

What is celebrated about Spock? Mainly, his physical abilities and his loyalty to Kirk. It's so similar to early colonial ideas of the Native Americans, who were seen as physically stronger (at first) but intellectually weak. Spock isn't shown as dumb, but his intellectual values are shown to be "inferior" to human ones. This smacks of the ethnic sidekick in media portrayals - Tonto to Kirk's Lone Ranger, say. Tonto provides the native savvy while the Lone Ranger the brain power and the mastery to direct this native savvy.

It's the big strong negro manservant and the white master. After all, as Edith Keeler observed in "City On The Edge of Forever", "You (Spock) belong at his side - as if you were always have been there, and as if you always will." Sure, Kirk treats Spock as a brother, an equal, and will do anything for him. But in the end, Spock is still a subordinate in the show, Kirk in his attitude towards Spock's judgment is always promoting the human over the Vulcan, and we still can't run away from the fact that Vulcans are, like many of the other aliens, shown up as being flawed from the human point of view, and held up as examples of how much better we humans are.

How does this factor into American Imperialist attitudes? Americans went out into the world, and still do, to civilize it, to bring democracy to the poor, unenlightened masses, a peculiar mix of the zealotry of Manifest Destiny and the desire to make a quick buck by providing new markets. A sidebar I won't go into here: Iraq.

Assimilation doesn't stop at expansion. It stays at home in the schizophrenic attitude that arises from, on one hand, presenting a face to the world that says, "We welcome all! We want diversity! We want your huddled masses!" and at the same time once these masses get here the only way to truly belong is to buy American cars, eat American food, speak American English, swear allegiance to American democracy. And by American, I mean white, Anglo-Saxon and male. So it's - sure, we want you, but on our own terms.

Back to the Federation, it's that alien cultures - i.e., other races - are okay, but you have to conform to certain things before we let you into the Federation. It's that, yeah, we have a Prime Directive of non-interference, but the moment you screw with us or we decide that your values are warped, we will interfere ("A Taste of Armageddon", "The Apple", "Return of the Archons", et al.). This air of smug superiority permeates TOS.

Put another way, we will recognize your cultures and your right to be individuals, but we don't want to give up our own values (which we feel are superior), and we want you to give up the values of your culture we find threatening. The Klingons aren't part of the Federation - they are merely allies. That's because they still aren't "Federation" enough. The Bajorans will eventually be part of the Federation, but that's because what makes them unique - their religion, mainly - is non threatening to the rest of the Federation because they don't proselytize or launch jihads, and anyway, the Federation (including Sisko) knows that their religion really has a scientific explanation anyway snicker snicker.

There's an article by Gary Gerstle ("Liberty, Coercion, and the Making of Americans", The Journal of American History, Vol. 84, No. 2, Sep. 1997, 524-588.) which suggests that the Progressive movement of the 1930s which touted multiculturalism and liberal values was only made possible because of the repressive immigration policies and the whacking down of non-conformity during the 1910s-1920s. In other words, liberal nationalism is only possible after an illiberal crackdown to make sure there's a common base to start from.

So it's not that once you enter America/The Federation that you are free to do what you want, but it's that you're free within certain delineated constraints, and those parts that don't fit, well, the cultural structure that you're importing into will subtly coerce you to fit (Spock! Remember you're also half human!) else you won't truly "belong."

The writers of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine are actually better at the diversity angle than TOS, but the idea of the Federation still remains, and the fact that the Federation is still touted as infallible - at least in its ideals, even if you or I might agree with those ideals - is just as disturbing as it was in TOS. It's all about the hegemon, folks. He's invisible, and he's everywhere.

I won't go into an analysis of how TNG and DS9 are a bit different, except to point out two telling points which make me believe that what I have here isn't really anything new and that the next generation of writers dealing with Trek are at least aware of the imperialistic problems.

First, the line in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country where Azetbur sneers, to Chekov's remark that the Federation is interested in promoting human rights: "Human rights - even the very name is racist." The other one, as pointed out by

djfanboy is Eddington's speech to Sisko from "For the Cause". It's a good one, and I'll close this little ramble by quoting it here:

"Why is the Federation so obsessed with the Maquis? We've never harmed you and yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism. Starships chase us through the Badlands and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why? Because we've left the Federation and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join! You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways, you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it."

I knew I always liked the Maquis more. Thank you and good night.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yep. So true. And not just in the ST universe, I should say.

Actually, it was George Takei who wanted Sulu to be a fencer. Rodenberry wanted him running around the ship like a crazed, drunken samurai, but George didn't want to be a stereotype. There is a fine line between portraying stereotypes and portraying individuals.

I acknowledged that my example was simplistic, and hopefully you also read the paragraph about the validity of not being limited to ethno-racial ancestry. While Sulu was not a stereotype, my point is that Sulu was pretty the same as everybody else - aside from the fencing quirk, which was present only in one episode and forgotten about thereafter. Sulu's love of plants? Surfaced once ("The Man Trap"), alluded to very subtly in another ("This Side of Paradise") and forgotten thereafter. His expertise in physics? Only in "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

What distinguished him from any other faceless crewman? There was no multiculturalism or pluralism there. I do acknowledge the difficulty in alloting time to a secondary character as well, and that's why I concentrate the analysis on Spock.

Star Trek always was like that to me. "Hey, join us, we're better. We're right. We have no identity and thus no conflict!" Deep Space Nine dealt with diversity a lot better.

I still say Babylon 5 was the best depiction of our future - we're still angry and violent and all the other nations/worlds have beef with us because we're arrogant. That's a simplistic view, but you know...

Yeah. As I said, the problem with Trek is really the entire concept of the Federation, which is basically a human hegemony. While DS9 still has that to contend with - re: my remarks about the Bajorans - the writers still managed to sneak in, to their credit, the idea that all not not right with the Federation, and on occasion confronts the Federation with its own racism and hypocrisy.

In addition to the Eddington speech, I'm also thinking of, in specific, Quark's complaint to Sisko in "The Jem'hadar" about how the Federation discriminates and ridicules the Ferengi, and also how Sisko has to deal with his own not-to-subtle misgivings about Jake being friends with Nog.

As an added note, B5 was a more realistic political and cultural portrayal of the future. The alien races were shown to be flawed, but the flaw was not in their inherent natures, but the flaw in all of the races was the fact that they were monolithic. Humanity's greatest strength, as JMS pointed out, was the ability to build communities, and the ultimate lesson of the Interstellar Alliance is that in diversity there is strength - and the Alliance was no namby pamby single galactic government Federation but a real confederation of allies. My favorite moment in the first season had to be the end of "Parliament of Dreams" when Sinclair introduces the ambassadors to Earth's "dominant belief system". A wonderful, wonderful moment.

I also loved the fact that Ivanova was a Jew, and that later on there were meetings of various religious leaders, including a Muslim and a Baptist in addition to Brother Theo's Catholic monks.

The other show I like because it was so rich was Farscape. The aliens were so alien and so individualistic, that it felt real, and the universe in consequence felt so much bigger and expansive.

Ah, see, Farscape is what we could be like if we went to space and met aliens now. We'd shoot at the ones who looked "weird" and didn't seem to be valuable to us. And then, the PKs would come and blow us up.

I think I follow your argument. I'd like to make three comments, each with less specificity to your essay:

1. Your thesis is strongest when matched against the original Star Trek series. I have to look fairly hard to find something that will test this assertion:

The silence about their identity is deafening. Obviously, there is a defense - what kind of stories can you tell with Sulu's Japanese heritage, or Uhura's African one, say. But you don't really have to make it all apparent. If they really wanted to celebrate multicultralism, there are all sorts of subtle ways to do it. Make Sulu's passion one for samurai culture, not fencing, for example. Or have Uhura dress in traditional African dress off-duty.

I think "Shore Leave" might also be an episode to test this idea. There you get at least a psychological background for some of the main characters, although the differences are subdued and rather inchoate.

2. Star Trek has been an evolving fairy tale. And as fantasy does, Star Trek forms a mirror to culture as well as being a part of it.

One theme of this fairy tale draws a metaphor of the tension between cultural imperialism and military imperialism. The whole idea and interaction of "The Prime Directive" has a parallel with the tension between imperialist culture vs. a military imperialism: The upshot of the concept through its explication in several episodes of the original Star Trek seems to me to be: "It is okay for Hollywood to mount a cultural assault (in fact, it may be difficult for other cultures to refuse the cultural 'Trojan Horse'); but it is quite another thing to obvertly change or destroy a culture through military conquest."

The image in this Star Trek mirror changes as American culture changes, yet I suspect that original image has stuck around for nearly two generations. The ramifications of "The Prime Directive" concept currently projects as disquiet among many of my generation of Americans who grew up at the time of the original Star Trek with regards to military intervention.

3. And finally, a digressive point: The cultural imperialism of what you call "American culture," the "McDonald's" of culture that is sometimes called "Hollywood," has also done a great job of impacting and assimilating indigenous (folk) American culture as well, although the job was done earlier, much as Rome conquered the Italian peninsula before conquering the rest. American folk culture flourished in the localities of this northern hemisphere before the advent of recordings and commercial broadcasting. Alan Lomax, the late celebrated pioneer ethnomusicologist and recorder of folk of North America, pointed this out a number of years ago, in his campaign to keep Americans from "throwing away the best of our culture."

These culture wars are quite evident, and I think it's probably a good reason why you relate to the filk community.

Nicely presented. Thank you.

By Mr. Terence Chua, who really should be reading about the Hatfield-McCoy feud right now

Okay, so how much did the cultural background/milieu of south-central Appalachia contribute to the feud?

Did this originate from the clan tradition of the families' Scots-Irish forebearers? Or from the greed of outsiders wanting to stir up trouble? Or a combination of both? Or is all that bushwah?

Answers on a postcard, drawn from a very impressive book on the subject on which I am still reading, namely, FEUD: Hatfields, McCoys, and Social Change in Appalachia, 1860-1900, by Altina L. Walker. I recommend it.

Did you watch Joss Whedon's Firefly when it was briefly airing? I love Joss, but I think that he does a poor job integrating cultural identity (witness that poorly written quasi-Jamacian-accented second slayer in the second season of Buffy) into his series. I was interested to see how the show would expand on the theme that all cultures had been assimilated into one "Alliance," with particular emphasis on traditional Western culture coexisting with traditional Far Eastern culture. I suppose the idea is that if you don't wish to be assimilated (eg, marginalized and homogonized) you push out and become a settler on the rim of the galaxy.

Also, re: the Hatfields and McCoys, I'll save you some time: started in the Civil War, blah blah, stolen pig, blah blah, dead Hatfield, blah blah, vigilanteeism, blah blah, star-crossed lovers, blah blah, more murders, and eventually they make it up and become a tourist attraction, because there isn't a whole lot of drawing power in Appalachia.

Oh, I loved Firefly. I really wish that I could have seen more of the culture behind the Alliance, too. There were hints of it, but too little to really judge what was going on.

Actually, one of the first thing that Waller tries to debunk in her book is the Civil War origins of the feud. While Asa Harmon McCoy did fight on the Union side, and was subsequently killed by guerrilas led by Devil Anse Hatfield after the former returned to Tug River, there was no retaliation from the McCoys.

And really, why should there be? Tug River was firmly on the Confederate side, and the community feelings weren't divided. It may be that even the McCoys tacitly approved of Asa's demise. The hog incident took place in 1878, some 13 years later - a long time if Asa's death was any where near a motivating factor.

[corrected because 1878 is later than 1865]

Is the Civil War traditionally cited as the start of the hositilites as a way to capitalize on America's romanticism of the war? I have to admit, it would play better in Hollywood if you could draw parallels between the Hatfield-McCoy war and the US' own "family feud."

I'm not sure that there was an conscious attempt to romanticize it by linking it to the Civil War. It's probably just the general obsession that America has over the Civil War that makes it such a lovely starting point for the story.

Since it was the first recorded fatality of a McCoy involving the Hatfields, it's easy in the mind to try and use that as a causal link to the feud that followed. But the parallels aren't there, as I mentioned, because the community was not at all divided over the war. Not that facts ever got in the way of a good legend.

Precisely, and beautifully laid out.

A.

Nice picture of Jimmy Boy, by the way...

I remember on scene in DS9.

Quark serves a "new" drink to a customer.

The customer makes a face, but takes another sip, then another...

Quark explains it's a 'uman drink "Root Beer and just like the Federation. Astringent at first, then overly sweet, but then you begin to like it. Damn them."

Quark: What do you think?
Elim Garak: It's vile!
Quark: I know. It's so bubbly and cloying and happy.
Elim Garak: Just like the Federation.
Quark: And you know what's really frightening? If you drink enough of it, you begin to like it.
Elim Garak: It's insidious.
Quark: Just like the Federation.

-- "The Way of the Warrior", DS9 Season 4

That's what I get for doing it from memory.

(additional:)
Elim Garak: Do you think they'll be able to save us?
Quark: I hope so.

(just me being a fanboy...)

From what I recall from one of the early "Making of Star Trek" books, the original idea for Sulu was that he had the attention span of a gnat with regards to hobbies. One month he'd be obsessed over fencing, the next month plants, etc. Didn't really get made as explicit as it probably should, particularly as the non-KirkSpockMcCoy characters faded into the background as the show continued.

Tom Galloway

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Star Trek: Imperialist

Let's State The Really Obvious For A Change

no subject

Re; Sulu

Re: Re; Sulu

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

Go West, Young Man (and Subjugate the Natives)!

Re: Go West, Young Man (and Subjugate the Natives)!

Re: Go West, Young Man (and Subjugate the Natives)!

Re: Go West, Young Man (and Subjugate the Natives)!

Re: Go West, Young Man (and Subjugate the Natives)!

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject