Because a certain misguided actress seems to be confused about how being a fan of something works, allow me to copy-paste something I wrote the last time someone tried to claim that right-leaning Trekkies obviously misunderstand Roddenbury's legacy:
"Roddenberry was indeed a mid-century progressive and a secular humanist, and that worldview did influence the entire Star Trek franchise. That's why I happily conceded recently that Trek is not a conservative 'text'; any show that presupposes a utopian Earth that has united under a one-world, socialist government is certainly not animated by the thought of, say, Edmund Burke.
But the reality of Star Trek is more complicated than the vision of one man. Even if we concede Gene Roddenberry's likely affinity for the causes of today's social justice warriors... that does not mean the left owns Trek. Sorry, but I categorically refuse to accept such a proposition. Trek was the product of many minds working in concert -- and some of these minds inserted things that didn't exactly cleave to Roddenberry's idea of 'how things should be.'
Consider, for example, Bread and Circuses, whose script arose out of the joint efforts of Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon. For those who are bad at titles, this is the episode in which the Enterprise comes upon a planet on which a society modeled on Ancient Rome has survived long enough to develop the media tools of 20th-century Earth. Said episode mocks both the Roman Empire and the television studio culture of the 1960's -- but it also has this odd moment at the very end in which the slaves in the featured society are revealed to be following a faith analogous to Christianity. If Trek is all about Roddenberry's fiercely secular, progressive politics, how did that get in there?
Actually, while we're on the subject of Bread and Circuses, let me bring up something else -- something that, I believe, no one has yet mentioned. The aforementioned episode is not generally considered to be one of the original Trek's best, but it happens to be one that I personally enjoy for a reason that is neither technological nor political: Spock and McCoy.
Is there room in Star Trek's legacy for scenes like this -- scenes devoted to the characters and their relationships with one another? In my opinion, this is the most under-appreciated reason why the original Star Trek series endures: Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, et. al. never forgot the importance of writing people the viewer could care about. We didn't lament the passing of Leonard Nimoy days ago because of Trek's 'social commentary' or its gadgets. We lamented his passing because Nimoy portrayed a fictional alien whose rich history, deep relationships, and fascinating internal conflicts resonated with the audience..."
Jesus God, stop treating conservative Trekkies like we're imbeciles. We know. But as I note above, we're willing to roll with it because 1) a bunch of us are fundamentally liberal on the social issues at least (take a gander at my political compass, guys!), 2) the characters (as I mentioned above) are truly iconic, and 3) the very best of Trek never sacrifices the story for the message. Indeed, the very best of Trek often allows the "other" side a fair hearing. DS9 conceded that religious faith was rational, for goodness' sake!
What a sad life you must lead if you think you must embrace every single background ideological assumption in a work to enjoy it.
In addition to the Bread and Circuses episode that post cites, don't forget in the Apollo episode, the God tells Kirk that humans will worship the old gods and Kirk responds, "We find THE ONE to be quite sufficient." Woah! How did that get in there?
ReplyDeleteI come to your blog from time to time, and I have to say, this particular post was totally in phase with my thinking. Good to know I'm not an outlier :-).
ReplyDeleteWhile the SJW's are doing their best to own Trek, classic fandom came from a wide variety of places politically speaking. The people watching the original show supported the Apollo program which was run by a lot of right wing folks with buzz cuts. They also supported the civil rights movement (Dr. Martin Luther King was a fan) and other causes that would be considered "liberal". Roddenberry himself was a mixture of liberal secular humanist and sterotypical 1950's male.
ReplyDeleteStar Trek, while moving in a general secular humanist direction, is open to lots of different points of view. The Klingons, Feringi, and the Romulans do not march to the beat of the Federation drum. Yet they are all treated (eventually) with respect. In the end, this tolerance thing means more than using the "correct" pronoun. It means actually respecting other people's point of view.