|
DFu4ever posted:Michael Dorn, now not black enough because of lobster head. What? That's stupid, and not at all what I was saying. Your position is basically "Well, you're saying Nichelle Nichols isn't black enough because you're pointing out that her and Kirk kissing was under mind control."
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What? That's stupid, and not at all what I was saying. Your position is basically "Well, you're saying Nichelle Nichols isn't black enough because you're pointing out that her and Kirk kissing was under mind control." It isn't go any further into stupid territory than your argument which can be summed up as "playing an alien? Doesn't count!" DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You can put a black guy with a white woman so long as the black guy is in alien makeup. It's Mass Effect all over again (or rather, Mass Effect is TNG all over again). Oh, gently caress you. All you do is come in this thread and call every drat thing racist. It's like you want to pick a fight over it. Well gently caress you. I have enough problems with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis outside of Seattle for Christ's sake, I don't need you loving up my Star Trek thread. GB2D&D and good goddamn riddance Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:It isn't any further into stupid territory than your argument which can be summed up as "playing an alien? Doesn't count!" Not "playing an alien? Doesn't count!" but "playing an alien? Certainly relevant to how we look at it and how it is read!" Like, are you familiar with the long and sordid history of trying to portray interracial relationships in film and television, a history in which Star Trek actually was directly involved? Gatts posted:It's also technically inter species. Troi is Betazoid and Worf is Klingon. There were a couple of other interesting episodes, I think one with Riker who fell for an androgynous person of a species with 3 sexes and Picard and a woman trapped on a planet where it turns out the woman was a dude who was projecting an image. Then DS9 had Jadzia and her lover from a former life who was a wife of a host I think. Avery Brooks directed that episode so I'd like to think he got into character and went "KISS with MORE PASSION!" The Riker episode is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - Frakes apparently wanted the other character to be played by a man, but it got nixed. Star Trek has, often clumsily, thrown itself at a lot of social issues - especially surrounding identity - which is one of the strengths of the franchise. But, of course, they run up against the fact that, as a country, we aren't where we say we are, let alone where we want to be. 7thBatallion posted:Oh, gently caress you. All you do is come in this thread and call every drat thing racist. It's like you want to pick a fight over it. Well gently caress you. I'm sorry that people are discussing race and racial implications in Star Trek, a franchise that has from the loving outset been concerned with race and racial implications. I can see how that might make someone who responds to "what, they couldn't cast an Indian guy" with "I don't find Bollywood actors imposing" uncomfortable. It's probably not a bad time to deconstruct your possessiveness and what that says, too. Though yes, comparing "Yo, it is still crazy hard to portray interracial relationships straight out" to Neo-Nazis is a classy move. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
How come this fell so short of the last film domestically? Did they do as much advertising?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:How come this fell so short of the last film domestically? Did they do as much advertising? Pretty much every Hulu ad I saw from April to June was STID-themed, but it may very well be that movies are down generally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:How come this fell so short of the last film domestically? Did they do as much advertising? No clue. Could be a lot of things, including coming out in between Iron Man 3 and Fast 6. They marketed it well, so that can't really be used as an excuse. On the flipside, it has done quite a bit better overseas. It's already passed 09's foreign sales and there are still quite a few countries it hasn't opened in. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:No clue. Could be a lot of things, including coming out in between Iron Man 3 and Fast 6. They marketed it well, so that can't really be used as an excuse. Trek 09 opened on May 8 and the only competition it had for the surrounding three weeks or so was X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Angels & Demons. There was also Terminator 4 but nothing high quality in the demographic it's going for came out until The Hangover on June 5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The Riker episode is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - Frakes apparently wanted the other character to be played by a man, but it got nixed. Star Trek has, often clumsily, thrown itself at a lot of social issues - especially surrounding identity - which is one of the strengths of the franchise. But, of course, they run up against the fact that, as a country, we aren't where we say we are, let alone where we want to be. I like that there were dudes like Frakes who bought into it and actually seemed to give a crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I like that there were dudes like Frakes who bought into it and actually seemed to give a crap. Seriously, Star Trek has pretty much always been a response to fundamental and pervasive injustice with often flawed, often clumsy utopian ideals - it's always, for better or for worse and despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, been more about Jim Crow than Jim Kirk. As much as I disagree with the implications of SMG's analysis (at least insofar as it's supposed to justify entrenching systemic racism because of it's confrontational purpose), at least it attempts to grapple with this instead of focusing on smoking nacelles to justify selling out its core. And this effect isn't just feel-good self-importance on the part of the series. See also: quote:On Star Trek Nichols gained popular recognition by being one of the first black women featured in a major television series not portraying a servant; her prominent supporting role as a bridge officer was unprecedented. During the first year of the series, Nichols was tempted to leave the show, as she wanted to pursue a Broadway career; however, a conversation with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., changed her mind. She has said that King personally encouraged her to stay on the show, telling her that he was a big fan of the series. He said she "could not give up" because she was playing a vital role model for black children and young women across the country, as well as for other children who would see Blacks appearing as equals. It is also often reported that Dr. King added that "Once that door is opened by someone, no one else can close it again." (On the other hand, Ferengi dicks.) The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Though yes, comparing "Yo, it is still crazy hard to portray interracial relationships straight out" to Neo-Nazis is a classy move. I was referring to real life poo poo, and you're the chucklefuck who called casting Cumberbatch white supremacy. That isn't loving white supremacy you rear end in a top hat. That's making a casting decision. Unless you're saying that JJ Abrams strictly follows a "belief, theory, or doctrine that the white race is superior to all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore retain control in all relationships." as per the dictionary. That's the dictionary definition of white supremacy. I've stared monsters that follow that right in their goddamn eyes. I've known victims of white supremacist attacks, stabbed because they were listening to rap or wearing the wrong clothes. Their families threatened because of the color of their skin. So don't you loving dare. Don't you goddamn dare. gently caress you. I'm out of this thread. Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
In my heart of hearts I truly know that this is a work of reporting and not fiction: http://zizekpress.com/2012/05/22/an-interview-with-slavoj-zizek-star-trek-and-the-interpretativism-of-race/
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I was referring to real life poo poo, and you're the chucklefuck who called casting Cumberbatch white supremacy. I get how it's really easy to limit white supremacy to the obvious poo poo - it's tempting, especially speaking as someone who has been subjected to serious violence for being the wrong color, to think "those are the bad people." They are bad people, sure but attacking someone on account of their race, not hiring someone because of their race (or because they're "too imposing" or "not imposing enough" and oh how that just happens to coincide ...), or simply acquiescing to the institutions that are inexorably linked to the history of straight up white supremacy in this country are all symptoms of the same disease. Starting with a basic rundown on what institutional racism is might help, but honestly you're better off looking into the myriad of scholarly works that deal with this. The thing is, your intentions are probably good, but by limiting the horribleness of racism to the most obvious manifestations, you're letting institutions off the hook. And that's not what Star Trek, from "The Cage" to Into Darkness, would have us do. What we're dealing with in STID is Federation as Borg, enforcing whiteness: from the literally identical (one guy, CGI-cloned) Nibiru people to Khan, from the monochromatc flag staff to the phonetic transliteration of Qo'nos to Kronos, from the inherent tension between "don't play God, Jim," to the notion of the Prime Directive, which is as close to an explicit setting of Starfleet as God of the Cosmos as we're going to get, and even including the change from the original series's colorful corridors to commercialized, glistening whiteness. Kirk, who literally poisons himself to death with the tools of racial imperialism - note that the warp core is what kills him and that - warp technology - is the threshold of the "civilized race" that is worthy of interacting with the Master Races of the Federation, is saved only through recognizing that he, as a deceived cog in the machine, and Khan, the thoroughly colonized oppressed, are wedded by blood in the struggle against oppression. Ultimately, the film leaves it to the viewer to decide which solution is tenable - Khan's perpetual slumber, outside the grasp of the oppressor, to be met with violent resistance when confronted? Or Kirk's dedication to changing it from within? Simply pointing to the Klingons and saying "them, that's really oppression" is dismissed as a red herring, and rightly so - even if their crimes are easier to point to. Danger posted:In my heart of hearts I truly know that this is a work of reporting and not fiction: http://zizekpress.com/2012/05/22/an-interview-with-slavoj-zizek-star-trek-and-the-interpretativism-of-race/ This is pretty much amazing. (And quite on the nose for the argument of "Well, if Khan had been a person of color, he would've been a terrorist and that would've been worse!") The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Danger posted:In my heart of hearts I truly know that this is a work of reporting and not fiction: http://zizekpress.com/2012/05/22/an-interview-with-slavoj-zizek-star-trek-and-the-interpretativism-of-race/ The very first sentence is very much perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
"...it has become clear that ethnic studies paradigms have become entrapped within — and sometimes indistinguishable from — the discourse and mandate of liberal multiculturalism, which often relies on a politics of identity representation that is diluted and domesticated by nation-building and capitalist imperatives. In addition, in our post-affirmative action and so-called “post-racial” society, an ethnic studies narrowly confined [to] identitarianism fails to speak to the emergence of a multicultural white supremacy and settler colonialism. People of color become ethnographically entrapped within academic discourse. As Rey Chow contends, ethnic studies scholars are often entrapped within the role of becoming self-confessing subjects who display their ethnicity in the service of multicultural representation. Our assigned intellectual task is what Denise da Silva describes as a “neoliberal multicultural” representation that “includes never-before-heard languages that speak of never-before-heard things that actualize a never-before-known consciousness.” Thus, it is often the case that gender and ethnic studies scholars who do not challenge logics of current disciplinary formations or their assigned role to display their “difference” actually prosper in the academy. Their success is then used as an alibi to attack scholars who do refuse their position of ethnographic entrapment. Furthermore, ethnic and gender studies is never positioned as a field of thought that can fundamentally question or reshape larger academic discourses. By shifting the focus and expanding the scope of inquiry of ethnic studies from multiculturalism representation to the analytics of power and domination, ethnic/gender studies would become situated as an expansive field that addresses how the logics of domination structure the world for everyone, not just those who are racialized or gendered in particular ways." -Andrea Smith, "Multicultural White Supremacy and Heteropatriachy: Fostering Insurgent Scholarship In the Academy", my bolding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I was referring to real life poo poo, and you're the chucklefuck who called casting Cumberbatch white supremacy. Whilst I have alot of sympathy for those people and thoroughly respect your Nazi bashing, you're still basically saying 'this Other Thing is worse so you're not allowed to care about this Thing, we can only care about one Thing.' which is a unfair to Warszawa and pretty reductionist. And SMG's reading is (as always) really smart and insightful, but something basically no-one is ever going to conclude without the aid of their own Critical Theory teacher, so I don't think it's so much worth outside of an insular film community discussion. Most people are going to simply conclude it was a profit-led piece of Hollywood casting to maximise ticket sales at the expense of minority representation, and from their level of analysis that is a good place to leave it. You're usually pretty on the ball with class/gender/race stuff SMG but in this case I think you need to ~check your privilege~ and consider that racial-casting is more than just an academic curiosity for some people. (http://www.racebending.com/v4/featured/star-trek-whiteness/) is a good article from actual people of colour on why this whole thing has been pretty lovely.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I get how it's really easy to limit white supremacy to the obvious poo poo - it's tempting, especially speaking as someone who has been subjected to serious violence for being the wrong color, to think "those are the bad people." They are bad people, sure but attacking someone on account of their race, not hiring someone because of their race (or because they're "too imposing" or "not imposing enough" and oh how that just happens to coincide ...), or simply acquiescing to the institutions that are inexorably linked to the history of straight up white supremacy in this country are all symptoms of the same disease. How do you know any of those things were involved with the casting decisions made during production of this film? Why have you interpreted the Prime Directive, a rule specifically against playing god, as an imperialist notion to elevate Starfleet to God status? Had the first European explorers and settlers come to America and seen that there were already people living there and so decided not to interfere with them would that be playing God? Would that be racial imperialism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:"...it has become clear that ethnic studies paradigms have become entrapped within — and sometimes indistinguishable from — the discourse and mandate of liberal multiculturalism, which often relies on a politics of identity representation that is diluted and domesticated by nation-building and capitalist imperatives. In addition, in our post-affirmative action and so-called “post-racial” society, an ethnic studies narrowly confined [to] identitarianism fails to speak to the emergence of a multicultural white supremacy and settler colonialism. People of color become ethnographically entrapped within academic discourse. As Rey Chow contends, ethnic studies scholars are often entrapped within the role of becoming self-confessing subjects who display their ethnicity in the service of multicultural representation. Our assigned intellectual task is what Denise da Silva describes as a “neoliberal multicultural” representation that “includes never-before-heard languages that speak of never-before-heard things that actualize a never-before-known consciousness.” Thus, it is often the case that gender and ethnic studies scholars who do not challenge logics of current disciplinary formations or their assigned role to display their “difference” actually prosper in the academy. Their success is then used as an alibi to attack scholars who do refuse their position of ethnographic entrapment. Furthermore, ethnic and gender studies is never positioned as a field of thought that can fundamentally question or reshape larger academic discourses. By shifting the focus and expanding the scope of inquiry of ethnic studies from multiculturalism representation to the analytics of power and domination, ethnic/gender studies would become situated as an expansive field that addresses how the logics of domination structure the world for everyone, not just those who are racialized or gendered in particular ways." Yes, but a) both whether and the extent to which "ethnic studies paradigms have become entrapped within — and sometimes indistinguishable from — the discourse and mandate of liberal multiculturalism" are debatable propositions, and it serves no one to assert that they are wholly co-opted and therefore gently caress it; and b) at no point does the idea of "expanding the scope of inquiry" mean abandoning reality by ignoring how the logics of domination structure the world in particular ways for those who are racialized or gendered in particular ways - looking at everyone as if institutions affect them identically is foolish. Many of the books I've cited engage with and directly attack supremacist structures (see Guinier & Torres; see also Derrick Bell, not cited but definitely useful), and I think reducing critical race theory, for instance, to "ethnic/gender studies" and the overarching framework of ghettoizing the dialogue of scholars of color into separate categories because they choose to apply theory and practice to racialized and gendered structures is similarly a problem. This leaving aside that our central problem is not that "ethnic/gender studies" scholars are not challenging their own role, but that a role of color was cast white, and at the end of the day that's further entrenching the institutional problems in Hollywood, even if it's coming from this perspective. Your theories are insightful and interesting, but tangentially relevant to the problem we face, which is that if we're going to seize the means of cultural production and claim our cultural space, we need to get in the door and keep that door open. What whitewashing does is try to disprove MLK's quote posted above - it attempts to close the door again. Lord Krangdar posted:How do you know any of those things were involved with the casting decisions made during production of this film? Hollywood is not immune to the legacy of racial oppression and white supremacy that permeates American institutions - it requires active engagement with and repudiation of these institutional problems. Whitewashing is a prima facie case of acquiescence to institutional racism by further marginalizing - it is an act where intent is not relevant to whether the harm occurs. quote:Why have you interpreted the Prime Directive, a rule specifically against playing god, as an imperialist notion to elevate Starfleet to God status? Had the first European explorers and settlers come to America and seen that there were already people living there and so decided not to interfere with them would that be playing God? Would that be racial imperialism? Because the idea that "we cannot intervene with the lowly savage for fear that we, in our mightiness, may put him above his station - we must see if he rises on his own to be worthy of our company," and "we cannot reveal our existence, for they simply cannot handle the truth" a) infantilizes the indigenous people and b) sets Starfleet above and separate from the exogenous experiences that undoubtedly shape cultural development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Because the idea that "we cannot intervene with the lowly savage for fear that we, in our mightiness, may put him above his station - we must see if he rises on his own to be worthy of our company," and "we cannot reveal our existence, for they simply cannot handle the truth" a) infantilizes the indigenous people and b) sets Starfleet above and separate from the exogenous experiences that undoubtedly shape cultural development. In fact certain episodes of Star Trek directly imply that this is the ultimate evolutionary state of any advanced civilization; "Errand of Mercy" comes to mind, where what appears at first to be a weirdly placid and isolated society infact turns out to be far more advanced than either the Federation or the Klingons, and their reluctance to affect in even the slightest way the concerns of exogenous civilizations is evidence of their enlightenment. EDIT: Actually DS9 is in large part about the effects of when a supremely advanced civilization interferes with a less evolved society, but from the perspective of that "inferior" society. The younger society (Bajor) views the older race (The Prophets) as gods, and the Prophets in turn kind of look like dicks for not helping the Bajorans out. Strange Matter fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The Riker episode is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - Frakes apparently wanted the other character to be played by a man, but it got nixed. Star Trek has, often clumsily, thrown itself at a lot of social issues - especially surrounding identity - which is one of the strengths of the franchise. But, of course, they run up against the fact that, as a country, we aren't where we say we are, let alone where we want to be. 1)Frakes is a straight baller, much respect to him 2)Another example of this is the DS9 Dax lesbian example where they chose another attractive white woman to play Dax's former lover. They could've gone in a ton of directions with that including casting a woman of color and/or of a different body type, but they instead went with the culturally permissible option and of course it ended up being so terrible and boring and challenged nothing but my ability to stay awake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:That's true but is that such a terrible point of view to have when the alternative is "It is our duty as a superior civilization to enforce our ethics and culture upon less sophisticated societies?" Any civilization that undertakes a concentrated campaign of exploration beyond the boarders of its homeland has to figure out which side of that debate they fall on, otherwise they'd just stay home, paralyzed by being too concerned with how history and other civilizations will view them to take any action. But is that the only alternative? Are we doomed by fate to "undertake[] a concentrated campaign of exploration beyond the borders of its homeland"? Are we fated to encounter Schrodinger's Pre-Warp Civilization, where the very act of observing (itself by bombarding a planet with sensor radiation) changes that civilization irrevocably? Or is there a way to treat a civilization as an equal, influencing without enforcing? I don't think the film necessarily answers the question, but it certainly raises it and casts doubt in the Prime Directive. 1st AD posted:1)Frakes is a straight baller, much respect to him Star Trek is basically a study in how going from enterprise (socially conscious Wagon Train in space, let's push some norms) to franchise (oh poo poo, can't piss off too many syndicated viewers) gutted its courage. It's not so cut and dry as that, of course, but the simplistic analysis would be C.R.E.A.M. (Capitalism Ruins Everything Around Me), a more honest interrogation would probably go into the late-70s and 80s rollback of racial justice and justice generally. Frakes, basically, is the Robert Baratheon of the Star Trek franchise: "What, because I'm [a straight, white, conventionally attractive man]? Piss on that, I want to do something!" A Steampunk Gent posted:(http://www.racebending.com/v4/featured/star-trek-whiteness/) is a good article from actual people of colour on why this whole thing has been pretty lovely.) Both Racebending and Racialicious have been all over this, and rightly so. I've linked their articles throughout the thread, but everyone should check them out if they're skeptical. Racialicious probably gives a bit more credit for the black bridge officer (Darwin?) than I would, but - and I hope this has been obvious - there's no universal "right" stance for a person of color to take on this. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:But is that the only alternative? Are we doomed by fate to "undertake[] a concentrated campaign of exploration beyond the borders of its homeland"? Are we fated to encounter Schrodinger's Pre-Warp Civilization, where the very act of observing (itself by bombarding a planet with sensor radiation) changes that civilization irrevocably? Or is there a way to treat a civilization as an equal, influencing without enforcing? I don't think the film necessarily answers the question, but it certainly raises it and casts doubt in the Prime Directive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:That's true but is that such a terrible point of view to have when the alternative is "It is our duty as a superior civilization to enforce our ethics and culture upon less sophisticated societies?" Any civilization that undertakes a concentrated campaign of exploration beyond the boarders of its homeland has to figure out which side of that debate they fall on The only options on encountering other cultures are not "run and hide" and "murder and colonize indiscriminately". At least not necessarily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Hollywood is not immune to the legacy of racial oppression and white supremacy that permeates American institutions - it requires active engagement with and repudiation of these institutional problems. Whitewashing is a prima facie case of acquiescence to institutional racism by further marginalizing - it is an act where intent is not relevant to whether the harm occurs. I'm not concerned with intent as much as what actually took place to get Benedict Cumberbatch in the role of Khan. It seems bizarre to me that you and others want to talk at length about the subject without addressing that important most basic aspect, unless you really want to talk about institutional racism in Hollywood in general and you're just using the controversy over this film as an excuse to keep changing the subject to that larger issue. quote:Because the idea that "we cannot intervene with the lowly savage for fear that we, in our mightiness, may put him above his station - we must see if he rises on his own to be worthy of our company," and "we cannot reveal our existence, for they simply cannot handle the truth" a) infantilizes the indigenous people and b) sets Starfleet above and separate from the exogenous experiences that undoubtedly shape cultural development. I don't know if any part of the franchise ever mentions the full text of the prime directive, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. The various entries in the franchise may not always be consistent about what the Prime Directive entails but that doesn't mean you should just go ahead and make up your own racist caricature to criticize. Have you considered that the Prime Directive could have come about because the humans of Starfleet are judging humanity's own imperialistic tendencies and temptations, not because they're judging other species as "lowly savages"? If humanity suddenly found out about the existence of space-faring alien life that would have massive but unpredictable effects on every aspect of human life. It's not "infantile" to react strongly to an event that suddenly shifts one's whole species' understanding of the universe and their place in it. Were the aliens in that scenario concerned about the moral and ethical implications they could decide not to initiate first contact without looking down on us as inferior, except in the sense that they currently posses knowledge that we do not. I agree that it doesn't make sense to be so concerned with protecting the natural development of a species, given that contact with other races is just as natural as any other experience. But its just as silly to claim that deciding not to interfere is playing god. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Well the finale of The Next Generation spells that not only is there another alternative but that it's inevitable that advanced civilizations will either realize that there's more to learn by looking inside their own minds than in aggressive, quasi-imperialist exploration or they destroy themselves through their own lack of foresight and understanding. The whole plot of "All Good Things..." hinges on the Federation poking at something they don't understand in what seems like an innocuous manner, and through their ignorance very nearly causing the human race to cease existing, and it's only through Picard opening his mind to new possibilities beyond "use technobabble of the week to solve this problem" that he averts extinction. If the Borg is the dark mirror of the Federation, then Q is the dark mirror of the captain of the Enterprise (so signaled by his donning the captain's uniform) - perpetually exploring, tinkering, toying with "inferior" races - subjecting them to arbitrary and seemingly nonsensical tests (like, say, achieve warp drive before talking to us). The honesty of his intervention is what gives him his power, as opposed to the self-imposed, self-deceptive constraints that Starfleet embraces. Lord Krangdar posted:I'm not concerned with intent as much as what actually took place to get Benedict Cumberbatch in the role of Khan. It seems bizarre to me that you and others want to talk at length about the subject without addressing that important most basic aspect, unless you really want to talk about institutional racism in Hollywood in general and you're just using the controversy over this film as an excuse to keep changing the subject to that larger issue. What are you concerned with, then? That they really, truly tried, when there's zero evidence that they even looked at North Indian, Indian, or Indian-American actors? That they cast a Hispanic actor who then dropped out so then they cast white? It's that last part (and partly the cross-casting) that is unacceptable. It doesn't matter what took place, because there's no real justification - Cumberbatch should not have been on the table for the role of Khan, just like Mickey Rooney shouldn't have been on the table for the role of Mr. Yunioshi. quote:I don't know if any part of the franchise ever mentions the full text of the prime directive, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. The various entries in the franchise may not always be consistent about what the Prime Directive entails but that doesn't mean you should just go ahead and make up your own racist caricature to criticize. I'm sorry, what part of looking at the underlying principles of the Prime Directive as it's presented in the film and surrounding franchise is "making up my own racist caricature"? There is difference between using language that exposes the underlying assumptions of the Prime Directive and a caricature. quote:If humanity suddenly found out about the existence of space-faring alien life that would have massive but unpredictable effects on every aspect of human life. It's not "infantile" to react strongly to an event that suddenly shifts one's whole species' understanding of the universe and their place in it. Were the aliens in that scenario concerned about the moral and ethical implications they could decide not to initiate first contact without looking down on us as inferior, except in the sense that they currently posses knowledge that we do not. It's infantilizing (and self-deifying) to presume that your role is to keep the truth about a group's place in the universe from them, though. Looking at the Niburuans as "primitive" is one thing, but assigning value to that designation and using it as the basis to determine what their "place" with regard to obtaining knowledge is is infantilizing. What right does Starfleet have to make the decision about what will and will not "impermissibly" alter a culture? That very decision is imposing its values on the Nibiru, without even giving them a say. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Well the finale of The Next Generation spells that not only is there another alternative but that it's inevitable that advanced civilizations will either realize that there's more to learn by looking inside their own minds than in aggressive, quasi-imperialist exploration or they destroy themselves through their own lack of foresight and understanding. The whole plot of "All Good Things..." hinges on the Federation poking at something they don't understand in what seems like an innocuous manner, and through their ignorance very nearly causing the human race to cease existing, and it's only through Picard opening his mind to new possibilities beyond "use technobabble of the week to solve this problem" that he averts extinction. But is exploration itself an inherently bad thing? Imperialism being a bad thing doesn't mean that history would have best been served by everyone staying in place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:If the Borg is the dark mirror of the Federation, then Q is the dark mirror of the captain of the Enterprise (so signaled by his donning the captain's uniform) - perpetually exploring, tinkering, toying with "inferior" races - subjecting them to arbitrary and seemingly nonsensical tests (like, say, achieve warp drive before talking to us). The honesty of his intervention is what gives him his power, as opposed to the self-imposed, self-deceptive constraints that Starfleet embraces. Maxwell Lord posted:But is exploration itself an inherently bad thing? Imperialism being a bad thing doesn't mean that history would have best been served by everyone staying in place. Besides, there are just as many episodes of Star Trek where the Federation has to deal with civilizations that are at their level or more advanced than they are, and that comes with its own risks as well. Kirk, Picard and Sisko know they aren't gods because there are Romulans and Klingons hanging around that have all the same tools and abilities that they do. Strange Matter fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Civilizations: The problem here is the assumption that all civilizations are equal. Most are not. Are the individuals within said civilization sentient beings and should they be respected / treated as such on that front? Certainly. However, trying to state that the civilizations themselves are equal is unrealistic. Civilizations have differences in technology. Civilizations have differences in outlooks and views. Civilizations have differences in the way they handle their internal issues and their foreign relations with other civilizations. Point in fact, the movie that we are debating so very heavily. The consequences of the Enterprise doing nothing on the first planet were quite clearly stated in that film, and they were dire. The Enterprise did something that the individuals of the planet were entirely incapable of doing for themselves because of the technological differences between the two civilizations. To put it another way, if we are going to treat all civilizations as equal then we cant condemn the Borg for their actions can we? Khan: Ok, since this debate is so long running and I can not comprehend why; I offer the following. The basis of the arguments put forth as I understand them is that the original actor portraying Khan looked a certain way and that conveyed a deep and subtle message to the viewers of the original Wrath of Khan in regards to eugenics. As such, casting the new Khan with an actor not of a certain group of races did a grave disservice to the character concept. If we are going to argue that, then the looks of the original Khan are a very valid topic and the heart of the entire argument. Quite frankly, the original Khan looked European to me. That is because that is exactly what his lineage is. Ricardo Gonzalo Pedro Montalbán y Merino was a Mexican citizen yes, and quite proud of his homeland which is a good view for any citizen to hold. However, his parents were not born in Mexico but rather Spain. In other words Ricardo's lineage is European and more specifically Spanish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Montalb%E1n If someone can provide information that invalidate this, please do. Otherwise, we are arguing over the looks of an actor for a role when the original actor's lineage was European and quite frankly from one of the most Imperialistic / Colonial powers in all of Europe. As such, I really do not understand the validity of the argument against the actor for the new Khan (especially considering he did a fantastic job). The message of Khan remains the same, superiority through breeding and then attempting to enforce said superiority upon others is something that should be fought. Never.More fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:This is a very good point, and it's supported throughout the original series as well. There are at least three times in the first season alone where the Enterprise encounters beings that are for all intents and purposes godlike-- The Squire of Gothos, Arena and Errand of Mercy (I'm sure that I'm forgetting some). In Squire of Gothos, Trelaine treats the humans as playthings; in Arena, the aliens interfere in as small a scale as possible in order to preserve the isolation of their territory; and in Errand of Mercy, the aliens try their best to stay uninvolved but their hands are forced by the Federation and Klingons and they interfere on a massive scale. The reason Q episodes have pun titles - especially Q's most important role, dragging Picard by his starched collar to press his face against the viewscreen and see what his Federation has become in "Q Who" is to get the audience to ask "Who is Q?" and understand the answer: "Q is You."
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What are you concerned with, then? That they really, truly tried, when there's zero evidence that they even looked at North Indian, Indian, or Indian-American actors? That they cast a Hispanic actor who then dropped out so then they cast white? It's that last part (and partly the cross-casting) that is unacceptable. I can't judge whether they "really truly tried" because I was not privy to the casting process. Neither were you. The difference between you and I is that I have yet to be convinced immutable "roles of color" exist. quote:I'm sorry, what part of looking at the underlying principles of the Prime Directive as it's presented in the film and surrounding franchise is "making up my own racist caricature"? There is difference between using language that exposes the underlying assumptions of the Prime Directive and a caricature. You added the racism in (ie. using the term "lowly savages") and then want on to say the prime directive is racist. The parts you added are the same parts you object to. If you want to say you're exposing the underlying assumptions then explain how the text supports those additions. quote:It's infantilizing (and self-deifying) to presume that your role is to keep the truth about a group's place in the universe from them, though. Do you interfere with the lives of everyone around you all the time? If not, are you "infantilizing" them? I'm an atheist. I don't think God exists. Since I don't go around constantly telling every Christian what I see as the truth about their place in the universe, am I "infantilizing" them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Quite frankly, the original Khan looked European to me. That is because that is exactly what his lineage is. Ricardo Gonzalo Pedro Montalbán y Merino was a Mexican citizen yes, and quite proud of his homeland which is a good view for any citizen to hold. However, his parents were not born in Mexico but rather Spain. In other words Ricardo's lineage is European and more specifically Spanish. On the other hand, the entire history of Latinos in the United States. Not to be overly dismissive, but race is not about skin color. Race and racialized identities are often based off what may seem like arbitrary characteristics, because they usually are arbitrary (and serve political ends). See (and pay particular attention to the pictures in the first and third link when you're talking about what someone "looks like" - there's a whole phenomena called "passing" that is explicitly about this): http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-dark-art-of-racecraft/275783/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-social-construction-of-race/275974/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/ Yes, Montalbán is a criollo born of peninsular parents, but a) Jesus we should not be using casta to argue racial categories; and b) in the United States, Latino has become a racialized identity (see, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/for-many-latinos-race-is-more-culture-than-color.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0; http://bernardoferdman.org/Articles/Ferdman_Gallegos2001_racial_id_latinos_US.pdf; http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=837) and, when you live and work in the United States from 1940 to 2009, you are exposed to and situated - whether you like it or not - in the American racial context. Don't believe me? Ask Ricardo Montalbán (from your own link): quote:The way he was asked to portray Mexicans disturbed him, so Montalbán, along with Richard Hernandez, Val de Vargas, Rodolfo Hoyos Jr., Carlos Rivas, Tony de Marco, and Henry Darrow established the Nosotros ("We") Foundation in 1970 to advocate for Latinos in the movie and television industry. He served as its first president and was quoted as saying: See also http://web.nosotros.org/ Treating Montalbán as "basically white" because he "looks white" is, at best, woefully ignorant. Lord Krangdar posted:I can't judge whether they "really truly tried" because I was not privy to the casting process. Neither were you. Nor does my argument rely upon being privy to it. Results matter, this isn't the Rooney Rule. quote:The difference between you and I is that I have yet to be convinced immutable "roles of color" exist. Should a character that on the page is not white be played by a white person when people of color are systemically marginalized by Hollywood? At all? If so, should Brad Pitt play Malcolm X? I would propose that, right now, given the institutional racism present in Hollywood, we should not be handing roles of color to white actors and further entrenching this problem. quote:You added the racism in (ie. using the term "lowly savages") and then want on to say the prime directive is racist. The parts you added are the same parts you object to. If you want to say you're exposing the underlying assumptions then explain how the text supports those additions. If I'd said "primitives who'd 'barely invented the wheel,'" it'd have the same meaning and would actually literally be a quote from the film. That's how. That line was absolutely not presented neutrally in the film, as well. I mean, do you really think the film wasn't at least inviting the critique of paternalism with the Prime Directive? quote:Do you interfere with the lives of everyone around you all the time? If not, are you "infantilizing" them? If the reason you're not doing that is because you think they're too stupid to handle it, then yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:
Let's examine a hypothetical. Say there were no Prime Directive and any culture that they come across would HAVE to he approached because Starfleet is not allowed to say who is and is not developed enough for this privilege. Say one of those cultures wants something from Starfleet like, say, designs for transport capabilities or warp drive. Starfleet would have to give them these things because to deny them would require a determination about what knowledge they can and can't have, which is infantilizing. Say they use this technology to exploit or enslave another culture. Starfleet cannot intervene because this would be imposing Earth morals upon an indigenous culture. Do you see how this is a problem even though Starfleet had no intention to impose any morals? Do you see how adhering to the Prime Directive solves this problem? Also I'm curious to know how a culture can be infantilized if they aren't even aware alien beings exist and why it matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
I think we are arguing apples and oranges. My understanding of your argument was that the character's actor was important because the original actor's looks conveyed a deep and subtle political message. Lets be honest, how many people do think have actually read very much on this issue? As I said, I consider myself a faithful follower of Star Trek and I had never heard of it. For the vast majority of the people viewing the film, what is presented on camera is what they will take away as the message. They MIGHT go so far as to look up an actors name if they really liked the performance, most of the times they simple remember the character. As such, if we are going to argue that the character should fundamentally be portrayed by an actor who looked a certain way; then the looks of the original actor are key to such a debate. I stated my view on such above. If we are instead going to argue over the nationality of the actor in regards to casting decisions in general, in other words not based on any one role but the situation entirely. That is a very different debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Let's examine a hypothetical. Say there were no Prime Directive and any culture that they come across would HAVE to he approached because Starfleet is not allowed to say who is and is not developed enough for this privilege. Say one of those cultures wants something from Starfleet like, say, designs for transport capabilities or warp drive. Starfleet would have to give them these things because to deny them would require a determination about what knowledge they can and can't have, which is infantilizing. Say they use this technology to exploit or enslave another culture. Starfleet cannot intervene because this would be imposing Earth morals upon an indigenous culture. Do you see how this is a problem even though Starfleet had no intention to impose any morals? Do you see how adhering to the Prime Directive solves this problem? It's easy, by taking away the culture's agency by making a decision for it - by deciding "for its own good," and it matters the same way any conduct framework matters, in how it governs behavior and what that behavior does. Here's where your hypothetical deviates from being relevant to my critique of the Prime Directive: Starfleet doesn't have to do anything. It does not have to provide any of those things, and nor am I arguing that it would, nor does it have to make contact with indigenous peoples who haven't developed warp technology. It does need to recognize that couching the decisions whether or not to do things like make contact or provide technology in altruistic terms that don't reckon with the ideological implications of those terms is a problem. Never.More posted:I think we are arguing apples and oranges. My understanding of your argument was that the character's actor was important because the original actor's looks conveyed a deep and subtle political message. Lets be honest, how many people do think have actually read very much on this issue? As I said, I consider myself a faithful follower of Star Trek and I had never heard of it. For the vast majority of the people viewing the film, what is presented on camera is what they will take away as the message. They MIGHT go so far as to look up an actors name if they really liked the performance, most of the times they simple remember the character. As such, if we are going to argue that the character should fundamentally be portrayed by an actor who looked a certain way; then the looks of the original actor are key to such a debate. I stated my view on such above. Yeah, no one is arguing looks are what mattered, least of all me, so you've completely misunderstood my argument. My argument is because actors of color face curtailed opportunities in a systemically racist Hollywood institution, the gains we've made through playing on the page roles of color should not be eroded or erased in terms of representation and/or opportunity. It's also not about nationality, it's about race (which, along with the systemic issues marginalizing people of color broadly, is why Uhura being played by a black Dominican-Puerto Rican instead of an African-American isn't the same issue as whitewashing Khan). It's not actually a different debate, because films don't exist independent of context (like the rest of Hollywood, for instance). This probably doesn't matter to most Star Trek fans or most white people, because representation and opportunity for white actors isn't really obstructed at all and it's fairly minor in the cosmic scale of racial issues. But for those of us who happened to be sci-fi fans of color, it can matter, and for those of us who are concerned with people of color getting the same shake as white people even in the small stuff, it matters. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:
This is where you are losing me because Montalban was of Spanish decent, ie "white" if you ignore the nationality aspects of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:This is where you are losing me because Montalban was of Spanish decent, ie "white" if you ignore the nationality aspects of it. Yeah, and I just made a post about how that's a silly perspective, it's like four posts up, you should check it out. By the way, even if that were so, it wouldn't justify casting white now. Here, I've even gotten the post for you: The Warszawa, literally four posts up posted:n the United States, Latino has become a racialized identity (see, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/for-many-latinos-race-is-more-culture-than-color.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0; http://bernardoferdman.org/Articles/Ferdman_Gallegos2001_racial_id_latinos_US.pdf; http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=837) and, when you live and work in the United States from 1940 to 2009, you are exposed to and situated - whether you like it or not - in the American racial context. Don't believe me? Ask Ricardo Montalbán (from your own link): The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Yes I am trying to square all of what you wrote together. If Montalblan was born in Florida, he would be white. Since he was born in Meixco is not. How is that not then all based on nationalism. (holding in mind you wrote "It's also not about nationality, it's about race")
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yes I am trying to square all of what you wrote together. If Montalblan was born in Florida, he would be white. Since he was born in Meixco is not. How is that not then all based on nationalism. No, you're wrong. If he were born in Florida, he would be Latino, like any number of American-born Latinos in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
People from Spain aren't white?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:20
|
|