Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No VPN in the land of the Pharaohs?

VPNs are blocked and it's too much hassle to try and find out which ones are working this week.

Especially if the grand pay off is I get to watch more Disco.

Back on SNW.

Episode 8. It’s very Trek, isn’t it!

In some ways, I think the core of what used to define Star Trek for me was a pro-colonial attitude and complete trust that technological advancements would solve all the problems of human nature. It is about humans living in a communist utopia and being super happy about it.

And pre-movie Kirk might as well be god for all his infallibility.

That's kind of what the show was all about when Gene Roddenberry was running things. He was crazy optimistic about the future and how as technology advances people would just become nicer to one another.

Naturally most of his episodes were about humans invading new planets and destroying their governments and culture because they saw them as inferior.

I thought the shift when he died was interesting because Trek suddenly was okay with the Federation having institutional problems and hypocrisy (before we just had Star Fleet officers that got possessed by aliens once in a while).

To me that's the legacy of Trek one way or another, and it only makes sense that new Trek has to deal with that.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
In some ways, I think the core of what used to define Star Trek for me was a pro-colonial attitude and complete trust that technological advancements would solve all the problems of human nature. It is about humans living in a communist utopia and being super happy about it.

And pre-movie Kirk might as well be god for all his infallibility.

That's kind of what the show was all about when Gene Roddenberry was running things. He was crazy optimistic about the future and how as technology advances people would just become nicer to one another.

Naturally most of his episodes were about humans invading new planets and destroying their governments and culture because they saw them as inferior.

I thought the shift when he died was interesting because Trek suddenly was okay with the Federation having institutional problems and hypocrisy (before we just had Star Fleet officers that got possessed by aliens once in a while).

To me that's the legacy of Trek one way or another, and it only makes sense that new Trek has to deal with that.

I do not see how Star Trek is pro-colonial at all. The Prime Directive seems firmly anti-colonial. Nor do I see Roddenberry making technology the solution to all problems. Earth is an allegedly Post-scarcity society but there is still conflict, still medical issues, still ethical issues that have not been resolved by technology. Humanity still makes mistakes and has to learn from other species. Not everyone is super happy. Some miners work for years to get rich and get cheated a con man selling androids if I remember correctly….

Roddenberry was an Air Force combat veteran and a cop earlier in his life (as well as being the son of a cop) and I think that influenced his views. His take on Starfleet would have been based on those experiences. I know my views on life were shaped by my time as a soldier and a cop, and his take on Trek resonates with me compared to what I see of Trek today.

Kirk is hardly infallible. He makes plenty of mistakes. Over and over again. I honestly can not understand how anyone would see him as infallible. His failings as a father. As a romantic partner. As a leader who has a number of casualties under his command. He is carried in part by his friends as friends but also by his crew who are more than just windowdressing or cheerleaders for him.

I also do not see how you can say “most of the episodes were about humans invading new planets”. Sure, I get that some episodes the Prime Directive seems ignored but invaded? Exploration leading to contact and then potential conflict? Sure. Especially in cases of ignorance. But rarely malice except in the case of individuals. Hardly systematic, institutional invasions.

Roddenberry showed us a vision of what could be, if we wanted to have it. If we tried. A difficult to maintain almost utopian future that required constant vigilance and maintenance while striving to further improve. That resonates with me.

Current Trek seems to be focused on bitterly remarking on what we have already and how it will continue into a dystopian future. It relishes denigrating institutions and highlighting quirky individuals who find the ends often justify the means. That does not resonate with me.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:


I do not see how Star Trek is pro-colonial at all. The Prime Directive seems firmly anti-colonial...

The original show didn't have a Prime Directive. It was far more pro-colonial than the later shows (since it was mostly about how the Enterprise finds new civilizations and fixes all of their problems by bringing human ideals to them). At its worst, they straight up kill the gods/robots that made a planet into a paradise so that the people can learn through suffering like humans did.

The original show takes pains to make sure that not only is Humanity always Right, but Kirk is always kind of representative of the best of us. His "flaws" all end up as strengths until the movie depictions of him (where he has a major shift in personality). A lot of this comes from the era in which the 'good guys' needed to 'win' all the time.


TNG was able to grapple with issues in a more mature way, but the Prime Directive is a funny subject because the show almost never depicted it as 'correct.' It is like a good idea in the abstract that is never good in the moment- and mostly comes up to provide conflict (so that they can ultimately disregard it and do the right thing). Sometimes the Prime Directive messes up character motivations (like Picard violates the Prime Directive to save a kid in one episode, but he thinks that a civilization needs to die because he won't violate it in another episode- in that case I think Jordi, Ryker or Whorf violate it instead and Picard is an obstacle in the story).

Eventually the writers started making the Prime Directive sometimes be right- but I think that was pretty late in TNG. It might have only happened after Gene died.


In my view, Gene saw the Federation as an idealistic utopia that kind of follows the pre-WWI idea that the rational movement of the Enlightenment was making people behave better, and he subscribes to a very conformist view. I agree that the later writers made the Federation into a more pragmatic political power that sometimes does unethical things to outsiders.

I think this follows the way that Americans view America in the eras involved- in the 1960s the population mostly thought of ourselves as the 'good guys' in a simplistic way. That was more complex in the '80s and '90s and currently we see that our government often behaves in pragmatic but unethical ways.

I think this follows the way that Americans view America in the eras involved- in the 1960s the population mostly thought of ourselves as the 'good guys' in a simplistic way.

Ugh. The 'America' episode (Omega Glory) of TOS was particularly painful for this reason. Heart of Darkness meets yellow peril meets the exalted Constitution that will raise up the noble (white) savages over their evil communist attackers, thanks to their mindless obedience to the sacred words.

TOS does reference the Prime Directive.

On stardate 3156.2, the USS Enterprise was trying to determine the fate of the starship Archon. After his entire crew was threatened with death by the Landru computer, Captain Kirk caused the computer to self-destruct by convincing it that it was harming the society that it was designed to protect. Kirk justified the interference by claiming that the society was not "a living, growing culture" and that as an arrested culture the Prime Directive did not apply to it. Following the destruction of the computer Kirk left behind a team of specialists to assist the planet with societal development in the absence of Landru. (TOS: "The Return of the Archons")

This episode contained the first mention of the Prime Directive in Star Trek. It also was the first instance of the Federation taking on the responsibility for mentoring an entire civilization's population post-interference.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Prime_Directive

And yes, many plots revolve around interpretations of the Prime Directive as situations force people to consider the spirit rather than the letter of that general order. It can be frustrating to see what appears to be contradictory decisions from characters however that is the nature of discretion. What makes sense today may not make sense tomorrow, even given almost identical criteria. Almost identical. It is never identical because at the very least the decision maker will have changed based on the experiences gained between the decisions.

I disagree that Kirk is always shown to be the best of us. He is a heroic character but not the best of humanity.

This is probably going to sound awkward but I see myself as “a good guy” and saw the USA as “the good guys” earlier in my life. I tend to think most protagonists think of themselves as “the good guys”. I have known many violent criminals who saw themselves as “one of the good guys”. And that conflict comes often from diametrically opposed “good guys”. So that kind of story resonates with me.

I no longer see the USA as so clearly “the good guys”, both the government and a large percentage of the population. This is part of what caused the cynicism and bitterness that is like a blight on me. I long for even temporary escapes from the disillusionment I feel and yet part of me hopes that things will find a way to improve. Progress has been made. The USA may feel worse than it was in the past but it is demonstrably better across the board than it has ever been. It ugh hope and striving to be better that things get better. I think Roddenberry believed that and expressed it through Star Trek.

I think seeing ourselves as “not the good guys” is counterproductive. Self loathing is not something I find enjoyable to watch. Nor do I think unethical behavior is merely being pragmatic.