The politics of Star Trek: Why I like the first series..

[2aguy]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

 

[DarkFury]

Kirk, my old enemy must I remind you of the Klingon saying? "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

 

[ScienceRocks]

star trek rocked...It is part of the reason why I love science and think the investment of such is so important.

We could have a wonderful future where tech makes our lives so much better.

 

[2aguy]

Kirk, my old enemy must I remind you of the Klingon saying? "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

How'd that work out for you Khan.....?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know about the show's politics, but I do know that as a kid I had a stiffy for this chick:

 

[ScienceRocks]

Imagine what we could do with a molecular assembler? Everyone could eat and have what they want. What a wonderful society.

 

[2aguy]

Imagine what we could do with a molecular assembler? Everyone could eat and have what they want. What a wonderful society.

You will never get one if you leave it to the government.....free enterprise will get there faster...and cheaper and so more people will get to use one.............

 

[2aguy]

You can get a longer version of this at Amazon on kindle for only 1.00.....a good read......


A different author from the article though....

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009VNG4BG/?tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Mustang]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

It was a TV show, man. Try living in the real world for a change.

 

[2aguy]

And in contrast to Kirk....he points out Picard.....

Next Generation’s Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) was more committed to coexistence and non-intervention than to universal liberty and anti-totalitarianism. Following Spock’s lead, Picard would elevate the Prime Directive into a morally obtuse dogma and would seek ways to evade the responsibility of moral judgment. Time and again, the show featured false equivalency on a grand scale, coupled with the hands-off attitude that the Kirk of “The Apple” had dismissed as complicity with evil. Consider the episode “Redemption.” Picard has overseen the installation of Gowron as chief of the Klingon Empire, a decision that, though unorthodox, follows Klingon law. The empire, now humanity’s ally, had invited Picard to judge the leadership controversy, and the Enterprise’s Klingon crewman, Mr. Worf (Michael Dorn), has even resigned to join Gowron’s crew.

But at just this moment, rivals to the throne revolt and attack Gowron’s ship in full view of the Enterprise. In Star Trek VI, Kirk nearly gave his life trying to prevent the assassination of the Klingon chancellor, but Picard, rather than defend the lawful leader of an ally against a revolt of which he had been forewarned—and which takes place in his presence—chooses to abandon Gowron, and his friend and shipmate Worf. He orders the Enterprise to withdraw, rather than be drawn into a battle his own actions helped precipitate. If that were not enough, Gowron—who manages to survive this fickleness—requests aid against the rebels, whom they all know to have been collaborating with the Romulans, deadly enemies of both the Klingons and humans.

Yet Picard again refuses, citing the non-interference directive that Gowron has already waived by requesting assistance. Picard, the Klingons learn, is not a very valuable friend. What accounts for this incoherent foreign policy? Nothing less than Picard’s commitment to non-commitment. He represents a new, non-judgmental liberalism far shallower than that embraced in Roddenberry’s era. Where Kirk pursues justice, Picard avoids conflict. Just as Kirk’s devotion to universal principles goes deeper than politics, so does Picard’s sentimentalism. When it comes to the universe of real suffering, real need, and a real search for truth, he is content not to decide, not to take responsibility, and not to know. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

 

[TheOldSchool]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

So you like the first incarnation of Star Trek, because there was hatred among different sentient species. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[2aguy]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

It was a TV show, man. Try living in the real world for a change.

And Shakespeare merely wrote stories.......oh....that's right....you guys learned that reading Shakespeare was too Western....so you read 3rd rate crap simply because the left likes it.....

 

[2aguy]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

So you like the first incarnation of Star Trek, because there was hatred among different sentient species. Can't say I'm surprised.

Yeah....you obviously didn't watch the series or understand it....they didn't hate anyone, but stood up to violent aggressors...something you morons don't get.....

 

[Mustang]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

It was a TV show, man. Try living in the real world for a change.

And Shakespeare merely wrote stories.......oh....that's right....you guys learned that reading Shakespeare was too Western....so you read 3rd rate crap simply because the left likes it.....

Actually, many of the Star Trek stories were based on Shakespeare. However, it's STILL just a TV show; it ain't real life.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

So you like the first incarnation of Star Trek, because there was hatred among different sentient species. Can't say I'm surprised.

Yeah....you obviously didn't watch the series or understand it....they didn't hate anyone, but stood up to violent aggressors...something you morons don't get.....

Put your money where your mouth is and follow in their footsteps then. You can buy your plane ticket to Turkey here:

Expedia Travel: Vacations, Cheap Flights, Airline Tickets & Airfares

 

[Correll]

This article is from a book looking at how Star Trek Changed as the left has taken hold of the country...,,there is an interesting look at the way the Klingons actually were behaving in the original series...and how the new writers whitewashed it for e new movies...it mirrors the whitewashing of history by the left.....

The Politics of Star Trek

Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”


This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane. - See more at: The Politics of Star Trek

It was a TV show, man. Try living in the real world for a change.

The stories a culture tells, tells about the culture.


The way this story has changed over time, shows the way we have changed over time.

 

[Pogo]

Yet Picard again refuses, citing the non-interference directive that Gowron has already waived by requesting assistance. Picard, the Klingons learn, is not a very valuable friend. What accounts for this incoherent foreign policy? Nothing less than Picard’s commitment to non-commitment. He represents a new, non-judgmental liberalism far shallower than that embraced in Roddenberry’s era. Where Kirk pursues justice, Picard avoids conflict. Just as Kirk’s devotion to universal principles goes deeper than politics, so does Picard’s sentimentalism. When it comes to the universe of real suffering, real need, and a real search for truth, he is content not to decide, not to take responsibility, and not to know.

Actually that particular evolution has to do directly with the audience. When the original series was on TV in the mid-'60s, violence was a way of life (still is, but more so then). By the '90s when TNG came on (with far better writing FWIW), the audience -- the public in general -- had come to figure out that alternatives exist to the idea of dealing with every situation with brute force, fisticuffs, phasers, photon torpedoes and the Vulcan death grip.

Not that complex. You write for, and reflect, the vaues of your current audience.
Same reason cowboys-and-Indians shows don't exist any more -- we outgrew them.

Yeah....you obviously didn't watch the series or understand it....they didn't hate anyone, but stood up to violent aggressors...something you morons don't get.....

How many of the 1960s ST episodes did NOT feature a fistfight somewhere? Were there any at all?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't know about the show's politics, but I do know that as a kid I had a stiffy for this chick:

She passed away earlier this year, at the age of 85.

 

[Correll]

Yet Picard again refuses, citing the non-interference directive that Gowron has already waived by requesting assistance. Picard, the Klingons learn, is not a very valuable friend. What accounts for this incoherent foreign policy? Nothing less than Picard’s commitment to non-commitment. He represents a new, non-judgmental liberalism far shallower than that embraced in Roddenberry’s era. Where Kirk pursues justice, Picard avoids conflict. Just as Kirk’s devotion to universal principles goes deeper than politics, so does Picard’s sentimentalism. When it comes to the universe of real suffering, real need, and a real search for truth, he is content not to decide, not to take responsibility, and not to know.

Actually that particular evolution has to do directly with the audience. When the original series was on TV in the mid-'60s, violence was a way of life (still is, but more so then). By the '90s when TNG came on (with far better writing FWIW), the audience -- the public in general -- had come to figure out that alternatives exist to the idea of dealing with every situation with brute force, fisticuffs, phasers, photon torpedoes and the Vulcan death grip.

Not that complex. You write for, and reflect, the vaues of your current audience.
Same reason cowboys-and-Indians shows don't exist any more -- we outgrew them.

Yeah....you obviously didn't watch the series or understand it....they didn't hate anyone, but stood up to violent aggressors...something you morons don't get.....

How many of the 1960s ST episodes did NOT feature a fistfight somewhere? Were there any at all?

Really? We outgrew them?

The biggest grossing film of the year is Jurassic World.

Followed by Age of Ultron.

And then FUrious 7.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know about the show's politics, but I do know that as a kid I had a stiffy for this chick:

She passed away earlier this year, at the age of 85.

Oh thanks a LOT Captain Buzzkill.