Someone told me that a letter by me (no, not about Akiraprise, but about "American world domaination") is printed in the March issue. Anyone already have 03/2002?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
That's ridiculous.
We haven't touched Siberia at ALL.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
March issue won't be coming out until early February.
I'd like to see them print your letter. God knows I've written to them enough times with hard questions. Which they ignore, because it would actually require thought unlike letters asking "What was Picard's name when he was assimilated?"
I wrote them once saying that planes attached to the USS Enterprise CV-6 had an arrow symbol similar to that of Starfleet's insignia. Since during TOS the arrowhead was limited to the Enterprise and in WWII the arrowhead was limited to the Enterprise I wonder if it was a coincidence or intentional.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
There are often intelligent questions and answers too. Well, they are not always right, but I think there is something who gives the answers some thought or asks someone who must know. But I agree, many questions are already irrelevant.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Subscription-issues are apparently arriving in mailboxes from today onwards, with the newsstand copies presumably not going to show up for another week or so.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
There are also supposed to be Niagara and Freedom briefings in it. Perhaps some new stuff?
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
They really, really need to lower thier subscription price though. I subscibed to one year (the first one) and it was like $50-%60... just sick when I get Maxim (a very nice mens mag) for $24 a year.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Bernd, I saw the issue in the store today. Your letter IS indeed in there, along with a pansy-ass pissant reply that actually HELPED your case. (they mentioned the deleted TVH scene with Sulu's anxcestor in San Francisco)
The Freedom & Niagara articles are about as informative as usual (read: "not at all") the schematics are just as accurate. The Niagara images are just a rehash of the Fact Files ones & not at all like your accurate fix.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I don't suppose someone could post the article and the response ... (or a scan of such)? Be nice.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
--------
Dear ST Magazine staff,
As a German Star Trek fan, I feel the need to complain about the almost total absence of human cultural diversity in Enterprise. While Anglo-American customs, sports, food, places, and names were already overemphasized in the four previous series (with two thirds of all humans ever shown having British or Irish last names, for instance), the American dominance in Enterprise is literally universal. Hoshi Sato's heritage, Phlox's mention of Chinese food, the Amazon University and maybe one or two references I may have missed (as of "Fortunate Son"), that's everything foreign in a series in which "human" seems to be equivalent to "Anglo-American".
I agree that it is an American TV series (and I'm not even supposed to view it yet in Europe) in which some patriotism may seem opportune in these days. But even in present-day USA I have witnessed much more diversity than there is supposed to be on a united Earth in 150 years! And isn't Star Trek about *all humanity* exploring space? Didn't Gene Roddenberry intentionally include some characters and customs of different cultures, and shouldn't this be even rather possible and necessary in the current process of globalization? Enterprise, the way it is, explicitly demotes foreign fans to bystanders of the American adventure. Just some points to think about for the producers and writers. As a start, it wouldn't hurt to give several of the guest characters or ships foreign names.
Feel free to print this in the "Letters" section and keep up your great work!
Kind regards from the jungle,
Bernd Schneider
--------
"You make a fair point, but it seems likely that, at this point in Earth's history, the idea of the nation state is still in place. We should remember that even on Kirk's ship the majority of the crew appeared to have American origins, incuding Sulu, as a deleted scene from STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME would have shown."
--------
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Hmm, gotta get this issue and see their response.
Not only are you not suppose to get Enterprise in Germany yet, but you aren't suppose to get The Magazine either. I'm pretty sure it's not available in Europe since you guys already have the Fact Files.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Hobbes you should know better than that... Bernd is an "almost all seeing, and almost all knowing" Trekkie. He has more connections than the CIA!
Bernd probably has agents in the US and a trans-Atlantic version of one of those vacuum tube mail systems. It just takes a while for a video tape or magazine to travel that distance. ___ And no need to speak on this Bernd. All of us know that you can't confirm or deny these. And even if you did, the consequences for those you did would be quite dire. So please, just remain silent.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Damn smileys should have known better than to talk.. it was a threat to Bernd's security
[ February 01, 2002, 22:55: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
The answer as given by the magazine is lazy. Instead of attempting to address the issue direct-on, they respond with an answer that deflects the questions raised by Bernd.
If we are to understand the timeline of the franchise, there is an united Earth when the series begins. If so, this would suggest that the nations of the earth saw themselves as members of a planet state. The notion of nation states would be less important, and may perhaps not drive the selection process of who explores or trades in space. Returning to the magazine, I never did like it. I feel that it is a summary of canonical facts, no more, no less. There is no speculation, no musing, no additional information. Anyone of us can do a better job than these people. I think that Bernd is one such example of someone who has gone beyond the source material and has attempted, at least partially, to create a working database of Star Trek knowledge.
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
The Magazine says that a single American nation state is an explanation for traditional Anglo-Saxon American culture, which is still wrong, regardless of whether or not the nation-state was an influence in Archer's time.
Being a foreigner who had never been to the United States until a few years ago, I, too, had thought of the US as a single unified state with those same American values that tend to be exported abroad. And then I came to New York -- I literally felt like New York had been taken over by foreigners like myself, and that America is really a collection of foreigners with different cultures who just happen to live and work on the same spot.
Of course, New York is nowhere near representative of all America -- however, why should Star Trek look like it came from Iowa? Why not simply drop all the casting indications and simply take the best actor, regardless of sex or cultural background? That way, you'll get greater realism -- this way, it's kinda like affirmative action ("Ok, we need so many blacks and so many whites and so many Hispanics and we've got diversity!")
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
America is unique. I agree with the author who said that my country is a salad, and not with the fool who said that we are a melting pot. We are a nation with many cultures, many opinions, many contentions.
I understand the point of view of the Star Trek writers. They write what they know or have experienced. Many are raised in the Midwest or the upper West. In those states, there is far less diversity than in a city like New York.
For myself, I experience this often. I am white and I associate with whites more freely and comfortably than I do with colored peoples. The colored peoples associate with their kind more freely than they do with me. I see this at work.
At work, we have four 'races': the whites, the blacks, the people south and east of the border, and the people west of Hawaii. The second and the fourth are less prevalent. The people of the third they congregate amongst themselves, speaking their native languages and sharing the values that are common in their worlds. Whites do the same.
Our television programs reflect this real world trend, and attempt to homogenize every aspect of our culture. In the process, that which is foreign to the largely white owned corporations, is given lip service and is treated as a novelty. Star Trek is run by white people in a white owned corporation. If you want diversity and cultural richness, you will not find it here.
To find it, visit some of our more cosmopolitan cities, like New York. Then write a story in the Star Trek world based upon your experiences in that city. Make diversity part of your story.
[ February 04, 2002, 01:04: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
If we take the response of the ST Magazine seriously, it would mean that Enterprise is an American ship of the American Starfleet. The other nation states still exist, but they have no space technology, and America just doesn't let them go into space - their friends in Britain being the only exception. When the guy (Williams or Leonard?) in Broken Bow said "It happened on our soil", he would clearly mean the USA. On the other hand, why does everyone always talk of "humans" instead of "Americans"? There is a clear contradiction between the words and the implications the ST Magazine didn't (want to) comment on.
quote:America is unique. I agree with the author who said that my country is a salad, and not with the fool who said that we are a melting pot. We are a nation with many cultures, many opinions, many contentions.
Exactly my impression. I think cultural diversity in every-day life (at least in the cities) is chaotic. In contrast, it is a quota of diversity among the otherwise homogenous Americans in the media. "See, we respect minorities, we are multi-cultural and open-minded!" Have a black news anchorwoman here and an Asian restaurant in a movie which exclusively deals with white Americans - or one black and one Asian (American) on an American starship. There may be "Anglo-American islands" in present-day America, but as a vision of the future of the whole world (and even of America only) it just makes no sense.
Top secret: My agents are already on the way to install "Americanism filters" in Braga's computer at Paramount. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
This is far more widespread than TV. February in America is--besides sweeps month--"Black History Month." I was having a discussion yesterday & this morning with a coworker & my boss--both of whom happen to be black. I mentioned that it's a very nice idea in theory--set aside a time to explore a section of history that one might not necessarily be privy to--but one that's bound in hypocrisy: "We want to be considered equal & not have race be a factor...but we also want to use it to set ourselves apart." This is something that plays right into & is exploited by the "white power majority."
Think about it. A Hispanic character is going to be Luis, Miguel, or Maria. A black girl will be LaWanda, a guy Lamar. Asians are Kim or Nakamura. Germans are Schmidt or Wolf, Jews are some "-stein" variant. It's all how TPTB perceive the world around them. The fact of the matter is that until there's a change in the practices of this nation & this society, the status quo shall reamin standing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"On the other hand, why does everyone always talk of 'humans' instead of 'Americans'?"
Well, that wouldn't be so unusual, even if it were a US ship. After all, Armstrong didn't step out of the Eagle and say "That's one small step for an American, one giant leap for Americakind.".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: the people west of Hawaii
Who, mermen?
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Well, that wouldn't be so unusual, even if it were a US ship. After all, Armstrong didn't step out of the Eagle and say "That's one small step for an American, one giant leap for Americakind.".
Of course, as humans meet aliens or get away from Earth (and if it's only as far as to the moon), they would talk of humanity as a whole. That way, Americans would be (go on?) patronizing the rest of humanity just as they claim the Vulcans do.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Salad? I like salad. Except that I HATE tomatoes, somebody's ALWAYS putting tomatoes is my salad. Can I throw the tomatoes out, because I hate them?
I much prefer stew. Every bit of food keeps its separate identity.. but ALSO blends a bit and lends its flavor to a broth that covers everything.. and makes it tase better, IMHO. Plus, you can use the broth like gravy to make other things better.
Make stew, America!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i agree, throw out the tomatoes.
--jacob
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
I belive Star Trek has certainly kept its diversity in check, while continuing to be realistic. Jumping into space today, we see black people, asian people, british people, brazilian people, chinese people, russian people, and so on going into space - most of these people american citizens.
I dont belive it would be diffrent in 100 years.
Star Trek is known for its diversity. I know its trendy to go against the grain (ie: bashing popular movies, ideas...) but I dont think it would be correct to say Star Trek has any more of a responsibility to include the character types you have mentioned then it did 30 years ago.
I know a lot of people hate hearing it, but its an entertainment franchise -- its there to make money and to generally give people a good time. I think it does its job very well. )
PS: Ditch the tomatos, keep the artachoke hearts!
[ February 05, 2002, 12:40: Message edited by: Wes ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
The problem is when you include another culture in American TV you get what 'Not Another Teen Movie' calls the "token black guy". In other words, he's there simply to show diversity, but not taken as seriously. In the case of Enterprise you could call Phlox the token alien.
IMO it's hard to show real diversity when it's mainly as a sterotype or to do it for the sake of it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er...Phlox is a character not taken seriously who exists only as a stereotype? Your planet sounds frightening, and I must make a note never to visit it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Isn't calling Phlox the "token alien" about like calling Tucker the "token white American"? Because, of course, we all imagined T'Pol and Archer. They aren't really on the show at all.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
I can see hobbes point - why the need to further deviseify trek when the current 'minorities' are already said to be the token (insert asian/black/irish/russian... here).
Its clear that in Star Trek, the federation, warp drive, and life as we know it was founded on american soil.
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
quote:Star Trek is known for its diversity. I know its trendy to go against the grain (ie: bashing popular movies, ideas...) but I dont think it would be correct to say Star Trek has any more of a responsibility to include the character types you have mentioned then it did 30 years ago.
Hmm, yes. There should be no reason at any time to exclude a certain part of the (American or World) population from being on TV. I would rather say that, 30 years ago, it was a matter of Cold War and Red/Yellow Danger that may *explain* why Star Trek, like everything else on TV, represented a majority of white male Americans. Clearly, this excuse doesn't exist any longer today.
Actually the development in "real world TV" has long overtaken Star Trek. In the 60s it was something radical to have black people in "white roles", and it was only accepted as something that might come true in the far future. Now, 30 years later, Star Trek isn't anything like avant-garde in this respect. On the contrary, the setting (of characters and places) of Enterprise is the least progressive ever in the franchise.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm curious what solution people would suggest. If a certain group isn't represented, people claim there isn't enough diversity. If there is a member of that group, people say he/she/it is just "token". So you can't leave them out, and you can't include them; what can you do?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Burn things and turn over police cars.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bernd: [QUOTE] Actually the development in "real world TV" has long overtaken Star Trek. In the 60s it was something radical to have black people in "white roles", and it was only accepted as something that might come true in the far future. Now, 30 years later, Star Trek isn't anything like avant-garde in this respect. On the contrary, the setting (of characters and places) of Enterprise is the least progressive ever in the franchise.
But to make realistic television you don�t need 'all the colors of the rainbow'. If we had an Indian, a German, a Russian, a British, a Mexican.. on Enterprise it would look extremely cheesy. An aspect of Star Trek was that it pushed boundaries and represented was television should be - equal opportunity (both in character and actors.)
Your original post referred to all things not American as "foreign". That�s exactly what they are here. Foreign. Hoshi Sato is a foreign name to us, the producers, the staff, and so on. If we included too many foreign elements into Enterprise, the show will seem foreign to its American viewers.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
)