posted
"I challenge the assertion that Star Trek has ever been at the forefront of any cultural reform. Involved with, sure, but mostly I think peripherally."
Do you really think non-caucasions would be as accepted in positions of authority today (within Western society) - or mixed marriages would be as accepted today, if television shows like TOS hadn't dared to be at the forefront of cultural reform? The fact that you can even state that says that: a) you're too young to remember when such things were unheard of. Hell, I think there was a special name for the 'sin'. b) Gene did his job well in opening a crack in the established attitudes of the times.
You have seen "Guess Coming to Dinner?" - right? Did you notice what a big deal the whole thing was? Ever wonder why it isn't today? Trek didn't cause the changes, but it paved the way for such things to be discussed in the living room - which did cause the change.
ps: Apparently Dr. M.L. King did indeed find Trek at the forefront of cultural change. His pleading with M. Nichols to remain on TOS when the actress wanted to quit out of frustration was so that she could help Trek remain at the forefront of cultural change (by being a role model). And I'll take Dr. King's word for it...
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Frankly, I find the claim that Star Trek was anything other than a minor hanger-on in the civil rights movement to be, at best, incredibly naive. I think you'll find that social change in this country had a bit more to do with the hundreds of thousands of people marching in places like Washington D.C.
Look, I get the power of narrative when it comes to reshaping culture. I've read the Republic. But come on, be honest with yourself here. Star Trek was a nice reflection of the more progressive elements of U.S. society. To claim that it was crafting those elements is, in my opinion, at least a little insulting to the people who were actually doing it.
Anyway, everybody have a nice Juneteenth.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, exactly, it was a nice reflection, I don't think we're claiming that if it weren't for Star Trek we'd still have segregated water fountains. But I do think that it did play a role in changing the way that a lot of people looked at the issue. And I mean it's not like we saw a huge number of colorful (or female or even non-human) captains, admirals, commodores, amigas, generals or whatehaveyou, but they did make the extra effort and take a chance. And as such I think it (and Gene) deserve some kudos.
And so if a Star Trek series were to feature an openly gay and unpersecuted character it might be a fitting tribute to the original. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
"For a lot of people, it's a religious conviction, not a prejudice.
I really dislike the "people who don't like homosexuality are repressed/prejudiced/evil" attitude. If people are free to do what they want, then other people should be free to disapprove of it, without being insulted and ostracised."
Phoenix - similar opinions were voiced in Alabama and Mississippi when 'Plato's Stepchildren' was aired. Nice to see some traditions of thought continue...
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I honestly am indifferent to a gay character now on Star Trek. Sure, it would have been nice to see one onboad the Enterprise-D or on DS9 or even Voyager. But TPTB just kept on saying the same thing over and over and I'm just sick and tired of it. It would have been something big to me if the other series did introduce one, even a lesbian because I have been growing up with Trek since 1987. But hell, Will and Grace and Queer as Folk came along to represent me somewhat in TV land, but I still waited for my representation in the Trek universe. Everyone else was basically represented in Trek, whether in the TV or movies, in detail or in the background. But where the hell am I being shown? Not on Trek that's for sure.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, as to Star Trek being progressive on social issues, as the book Inside Star Trek discusses, the multi-ethnic cast wasn't just Gene's idea (alebit he later took credit for it), NBC was encouraging it. A 1966 memo from NBC V.P. Mort Werner is reprinted where he specifically requests non-white cast members. So it wasn't just Star Trek being progressive, it was Star Trek reflecting a progressive trend being promoted by the network.
Notable is the passage "Our efforts in the past to assure the fact that the programs broadcast on our facilities are a natural reflection of the role of minorities in American life have met with substantial success."
That was 1966, and Star Trek was on the leading edge of TV programming in at least that regard, or at the very least contemporary with other shows at the time.
Not any more!
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
there was that one novel that finally revealed that LT. Hawk was gay. And then he died. with the borg and the deflector dish and stuff. as a gay man.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Why does star trek need a gay character? Wheres the gay character on stargate? how about many other shows you can think of...
Im sorry. i just dont buy the fact that since there isnt a gay character on star trek, that the trek universe is anti-gay. We dont need a token gay character.
Frankly, i dont think its ground that needs to be covered. Personally, i dont think theres a need for a gay rights movement. People choose to be gay, people dont choose to be black when they are born.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
People choose to be gay about as much as they choose to be straight.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Looky, me and Cartmaniac agree on something.
Proteus, you were right, up until that last statement, which was totally, completely, and utterly devoid of any connection with reality.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd hate to be seen to be agreeing with Twateus in any way, but the main problem I have with the gay rights movement is the same I have with any special interest group - that no matter what they achieve, they never go away. Homosexuality at this point has about as much recognition and acceptance as it's had at any time, since, I dunno, the Sacred Band of Thebes, yet, do they give it a rest? Nooo, all of a sudden they're complaining that some Paul Verhoeven film isn't very nice about them, or something like that. I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Yes it/he was simply awful but I can't remember the last time kids in Colorado tied anyone to their bumper and dragged them to death for being of the Brittish orientation.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I might as well complain about the poor representation John Lithgow made of British people in Cliffhanger. . . 8)
Yes it/he was simply awful but I can't remember the last time kids in Colorado tied anyone to their bumper and dragged them to death for being of the Brittish orientation.
Maybe in Northern Ireland?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Why does star trek need a gay character? Wheres the gay character on stargate? how about many other shows you can think of...
Replace "gay" with "black" and it's an argument right out of (and fit for) 1962. Where were the black cast members on I Love Lucy? Where were they on Our Show of Shows?
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Im sorry. i just dont buy the fact that since there isnt a gay character on star trek, that the trek universe is anti-gay. We dont need a token gay character.
And we didn't need those token minority characters on TOS neither!
quote:Originally posted by Proteus: Frankly, i dont think its ground that needs to be covered. Personally, i dont think theres a need for a gay rights movement. People choose to be gay, people dont choose to be black when they are born.
People don't choose to be male, female, blue eyed or hairy chested, either, but they are.
And, if it were a choice, why on Earth (or any other planet) would someone make that decision, especially given how commonly it's persecuted? "Gosh I think I'll adopt a lifestyle that will make a lot of people hate me." What's the appeal? Why would and one choose it? Easy answer: they don't.
People don't choose what they're attracted to any more than what smells entice or offend them. Do straight people choose to find the opposite sex attractive? Do some men just decide "I choose to like big breasts"? That's just as ridiculous as thinking another man is going to consciously decide, "I choose to be attracted to other men".
You don't make decisions about what gives you wood (or the female equivalent).
quote:Originally posted by Lee: ...no matter what they achieve, they never go away. Homosexuality at this point has about as much recognition and acceptance as it's had at any time, since, I dunno, the Sacred Band of Thebes, yet, do they give it a rest?
Wasn't it only last week that the Supreme Court ruling meant that gays in Texas won't have to worry about being thrown in jail for doing something that was perfectly legal for straights? In most places in the US you can have a same sex partner for 20 years and have less rights than a bride on her wedding night. Fer instance:
--Your partner ends up in the hospital and you probably may not have any say in regards to their medical treatment. --Inheritance...forget it, the law doesn't recognize your relationship, and family can contest any Will your partner left. --Medical benfits from your employer extending to your spouse? Forget that too. --And in a lot of the country if you walk down the street holding hands you'll probably get dirty looks, hurled epithets, maybe plenty or worse.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Seems like plenty of reason to keep yelling and screaming for equality.
As to the subject, "Homosexuality in Star Trek - where is it?" still in the same closet it was in 1966.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic