Comments on: Star Trek: TOS … progressive and regressive

By: Karen B

Karen B — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:09:00 +0000

At last – another fan who interprets Bread and Circuses as indicating Captain Merik was homosexual! I've been all alone with that opinion for 34 years…was beginning to fear it was my overactive imagination.

By: Karen B

Karen B — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:09:00 +0000

At last – another fan who interprets Bread and Circuses as indicating Captain Merik was homosexual! I’ve been all alone with that opinion for 34 years…was beginning to fear it was my overactive imagination.

By: beammeup

beammeup — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:40:00 +0000

Depending upon your POV, "Bread and Circuses" also had the first homosexual character: R. M. Merik. After the scene with the slave girl the Proconsul explains he wanted to give Kirk one last time as a man (have sex). He then tells Merik behind him, "Would you leave us Merik? The thoughts of one man to another cannot possibly interest you."

Alternatively it could mean that Merik's a eunuch, but it's more likely that the Proconsul was referring to Merik's sexuality, especially considering how Kirk watches Merik leave, as if in curiosity.

It is annoying how TOS pandered to Christians and is almost as bad as several TNG episodes that pander to atheists. There also seems to be a lack of religious diversity among the recurring cast members; you never see a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu on the bridge.

By: beammeup

beammeup — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:40:00 +0000

Depending upon your POV, “Bread and Circuses” also had the first homosexual character: R. M. Merik. After the scene with the slave girl the Proconsul explains he wanted to give Kirk one last time as a man (have sex). He then tells Merik behind him, “Would you leave us Merik? The thoughts of one man to another cannot possibly interest you.”
Alternatively it could mean that Merik’s a eunuch, but it’s more likely that the Proconsul was referring to Merik’s sexuality, especially considering how Kirk watches Merik leave, as if in curiosity.
It is annoying how TOS pandered to Christians and is almost as bad as several TNG episodes that pander to atheists. There also seems to be a lack of religious diversity among the recurring cast members; you never see a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu on the bridge.

By: zazenist

zazenist — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:40:00 +0000

I think part of the problem here is that people are trying to judge a show made 40 years ago by current standards. TOS was so amazing to people at the time because it was so unprecedented in terms of forward-thinkingness. Roddenberry might have wanted it even more so, but how much further could he have pushed the envelope and still been able to get Star Trek on TV? It seems like the composition of the group of higher-ranking personnel on the Enterprise was quite diverse. Uhura, of course – as someone mentioned, here was a black actor (female, no less) who was for once not a stereotype. She was not a cultural punchline, she was intelligent, dignified, and regardless of whether you choose to see her as a glorified secretary or not, hers was a highly progressive and novel character for a black woman at the time. And nobody has mentioned Sulu, also an important character who did not own a laundromat or use a servile bowing to sell "flied lice." These characters were not caricatures, nor were they comic relief. Spock himself was half Vulcan, and even though he was played by a white male, the character was created at a time when being half ANYTHING other than white was often a significant social barrier. The deeper meaning behind the episodes took on issues of prejudice of all kinds: social, gender, cultural, international (or in this case intergalactic). It took on war, peace, morality, how humans might relate to each other and to our world in a more enlightened manner. And, to be fair, how many of today's mainstream hit shows achieve a truly progressive amount of diversity? Aren't the three Desperate Housewives white (and rich, I might add)? At least Cashmere Mafia managed to get an Asian in there – how enlightened. And even these still feel like tokens – OK, to be acceptable, you have to have a black character and an Asian and a Latino/a, but how many of those characters seem really to belong there as opposed to being just placeholders for our guilt? How far have we really come as a society? I don't believe that we are nearly as progressive at heart as fashion makes us feel we have to APPEAR to be. I think racism and sexism are just as entrenched today as they were 40 years ago, it has just gone a lot further underground. Laws and social pressures may have changed behaviours, but don't really seem to have made a significant dent in beliefs. Deeply ingrained attitudes toward women and minorities don't change overnight – even in forty years, TRUE significant progress is debatable in my opinion. That Roddenberry even managed to get a show that incisive on 1960s TV is pretty amazing, if you really think about it. So view it as it was viewed in its own time, and don't apply current standards in trying to appropriately judge its interstitial value.

By: zazenist

zazenist — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:40:00 +0000

I think part of the problem here is that people are trying to judge a show made 40 years ago by current standards. TOS was so amazing to people at the time because it was so unprecedented in terms of forward-thinkingness. Roddenberry might have wanted it even more so, but how much further could he have pushed the envelope and still been able to get Star Trek on TV? It seems like the composition of the group of higher-ranking personnel on the Enterprise was quite diverse. Uhura, of course – as someone mentioned, here was a black actor (female, no less) who was for once not a stereotype. She was not a cultural punchline, she was intelligent, dignified, and regardless of whether you choose to see her as a glorified secretary or not, hers was a highly progressive and novel character for a black woman at the time. And nobody has mentioned Sulu, also an important character who did not own a laundromat or use a servile bowing to sell “flied lice.” These characters were not caricatures, nor were they comic relief. Spock himself was half Vulcan, and even though he was played by a white male, the character was created at a time when being half ANYTHING other than white was often a significant social barrier. The deeper meaning behind the episodes took on issues of prejudice of all kinds: social, gender, cultural, international (or in this case intergalactic). It took on war, peace, morality, how humans might relate to each other and to our world in a more enlightened manner. And, to be fair, how many of today’s mainstream hit shows achieve a truly progressive amount of diversity? Aren’t the three Desperate Housewives white (and rich, I might add)? At least Cashmere Mafia managed to get an Asian in there – how enlightened. And even these still feel like tokens – OK, to be acceptable, you have to have a black character and an Asian and a Latino/a, but how many of those characters seem really to belong there as opposed to being just placeholders for our guilt? How far have we really come as a society? I don’t believe that we are nearly as progressive at heart as fashion makes us feel we have to APPEAR to be. I think racism and sexism are just as entrenched today as they were 40 years ago, it has just gone a lot further underground. Laws and social pressures may have changed behaviours, but don’t really seem to have made a significant dent in beliefs. Deeply ingrained attitudes toward women and minorities don’t change overnight – even in forty years, TRUE significant progress is debatable in my opinion. That Roddenberry even managed to get a show that incisive on 1960s TV is pretty amazing, if you really think about it. So view it as it was viewed in its own time, and don’t apply current standards in trying to appropriately judge its interstitial value.

By: Mark Maclean

Mark Maclean — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:37:00 +0000

"one of the other aspects of the universe that Star Trek inhabits would have to be religious tolerance"

So your religion is the religion of tolerance? Everything goes, ignoring all logic and all historical fact?

There is nothing "religious" about mentioning the historically factual person of Jesus, any more than there is something religious about mentioning the name of Martin Luther King Jr.

You cannot just ignore history and ignore truth and claim to be "enlightened" and "futuristic". Thankfully Gene knew history and didn't feel threatened by the truth.

Facts are facts, and truth is truth. Putting a label on the truth so you can ignore it may fool the ignorant, but it isn't fooling anyone else. You obviously don't understand that Jesus criticized religions even more than you do. He emphasized the fact that religion was not important. He criticized the pharisees more than anyone else.

His message freed people from the legalism of rules and regulations, and the blood sacrifices … He was the final sacrifice.

But He also said that "few would find it". And look around today … has there ever been a time where so many are so lost, and their lives devoid of purpose and meaning? Few indeed.

Those following the broad road to destruction will be uncomfortable hearing that – and they will be the ones offended by historical truth. They will even deny logic and facts to remain living in their fear.

This was my favourite TOS episode. Gene provided the one glimmer of light to acknowledge historical truth instead of being totally fictitious. Whether in another universe or another planet (it is science fiction after all) and lends to a better story line than time travel.

By: Mark Maclean

Mark Maclean — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:37:00 +0000

“one of the other aspects of the universe that Star Trek inhabits would have to be religious tolerance”

So your religion is the religion of tolerance? Everything goes, ignoring all logic and all historical fact?

There is nothing “religious” about mentioning the historically factual person of Jesus, any more than there is something religious about mentioning the name of Martin Luther King Jr.

You cannot just ignore history and ignore truth and claim to be “enlightened” and “futuristic”. Thankfully Gene knew history and didn’t feel threatened by the truth.

Facts are facts, and truth is truth. Putting a label on the truth so you can ignore it may fool the ignorant, but it isn’t fooling anyone else. You obviously don’t understand that Jesus criticized religions even more than you do. He emphasized the fact that religion was not important. He criticized the pharisees more than anyone else.

His message freed people from the legalism of rules and regulations, and the blood sacrifices … He was the final sacrifice.

But He also said that “few would find it”. And look around today … has there ever been a time where so many are so lost, and their lives devoid of purpose and meaning? Few indeed.

By: lbateman

lbateman — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:57:00 +0000

And one other thing … I agree about Who Mourns for Adonis. That is, IMO, the worst episode they ever produced, and the religious references are only one problem with that one.

Its also another good example of the poor roles they gave to women … even highly trained scientists are on staff for no reason except to fall in love with evil aliens and get the crew into trouble. Granted, they come around at the end of the episode, but one of the biggest themes of TOS throughout the series is the idea that women have to rise above their instincts to scream and act irrational to be useful … in almost every case of a strong female character, they included scenes of irrationality to highlight the "female" nature. Even Nurse Chapel, probably the strongest woman in the original show IMO, spends most of the series in puppy dog love with Spock … can anyone really imagine them using that as a theme for a male character? I can't.

By: lbateman

lbateman — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:57:00 +0000

And one other thing … I agree about Who Mourns for Adonis. That is, IMO, the worst episode they ever produced, and the religious references are only one problem with that one.

Its also another good example of the poor roles they gave to women … even highly trained scientists are on staff for no reason except to fall in love with evil aliens and get the crew into trouble. Granted, they come around at the end of the episode, but one of the biggest themes of TOS throughout the series is the idea that women have to rise above their instincts to scream and act irrational to be useful … in almost every case of a strong female character, they included scenes of irrationality to highlight the “female” nature. Even Nurse Chapel, probably the strongest woman in the original show IMO, spends most of the series in puppy dog love with Spock … can anyone really imagine them using that as a theme for a male character? I can’t.

By: lbateman

lbateman — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:51:00 +0000

Excellent comment … Thank you. Truth be told, I'd forgotten about M'Benga, so thanks for reminding me. I did recall Daystrom's role, as well as Commodore Stone. Those were all solid roles, but also "token" ones when put against the fact that by default, the Enterprise was a white ship in that time. Given the size of the crew, and the percentage of humans with black skin, Enterprise should have had more black crew members and officers (not to mention asian, Indian, etc). While producers made reasonable efforts to include blacks and other minorities in higher numbers than any other show (its not hard to beat 0, lol) and they did a pretty good job of putting them in non-stereotypical roles, they still didn't even come close to making Enterprise "representative of humanity as a whole" or even the USA as a whole at that time.

So while I agree they were better than most, they still fell short. Uhura had to show off her ass and be a secretary to make it to the bridge. M'Benga had a "decent" role, but also a very small one … he doesn't appear in every episode. And by and large, the only place where significant number of black actors got work on Start Trek was through "Ensign Expendable" roles, security staff, and background characters. Other than Daystrom and Stone, I can't think of another "guest star" role given to a black actor over the three year series.

I do agree with you that it was prgressive for blacks … I'm just saying that from our perspective they were pretty small steps. When we take them in the tenor of the times, they make more sense, and in many ways, its remarkable that Rodenberry got as much as he did out of the show given the difficulties he had with NBC. But I think its still worth pointing out that as great as it was for its time, it still falls short of "racial harmony." And, the way they treat women in general throughout the show is pretty regressive … even main female characters like Uhura were prone to fits of screaming in a dangerous situation … would have been very nice to see at least ONE "Tasha Yar" type character in the original series. I still feel that as progressive as they were, they fell short in most areas where they strove for egalitarianism. We can write that off to the times it was produced in, but I still think its worth doing the analysis of what went right, and what went wrong.

Thanks again for the comment … very thoughtful :)

By: lbateman

lbateman — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:51:00 +0000

Excellent comment … Thank you. Truth be told, I’d forgotten about M’Benga, so thanks for reminding me. I did recall Daystrom’s role, as well as Commodore Stone. Those were all solid roles, but also “token” ones when put against the fact that by default, the Enterprise was a white ship in that time. Given the size of the crew, and the percentage of humans with black skin, Enterprise should have had more black crew members and officers (not to mention asian, Indian, etc). While producers made reasonable efforts to include blacks and other minorities in higher numbers than any other show (its not hard to beat 0, lol) and they did a pretty good job of putting them in non-stereotypical roles, they still didn’t even come close to making Enterprise “representative of humanity as a whole” or even the USA as a whole at that time.

So while I agree they were better than most, they still fell short. Uhura had to show off her ass and be a secretary to make it to the bridge. M’Benga had a “decent” role, but also a very small one … he doesn’t appear in every episode. And by and large, the only place where significant number of black actors got work on Start Trek was through “Ensign Expendable” roles, security staff, and background characters. Other than Daystrom and Stone, I can’t think of another “guest star” role given to a black actor over the three year series.

I do agree with you that it was prgressive for blacks … I’m just saying that from our perspective they were pretty small steps. When we take them in the tenor of the times, they make more sense, and in many ways, its remarkable that Rodenberry got as much as he did out of the show given the difficulties he had with NBC. But I think its still worth pointing out that as great as it was for its time, it still falls short of “racial harmony.” And, the way they treat women in general throughout the show is pretty regressive … even main female characters like Uhura were prone to fits of screaming in a dangerous situation … would have been very nice to see at least ONE “Tasha Yar” type character in the original series. I still feel that as progressive as they were, they fell short in most areas where they strove for egalitarianism. We can write that off to the times it was produced in, but I still think its worth doing the analysis of what went right, and what went wrong.

Thanks again for the comment … very thoughtful :)