Do you think having Kirk’s superior officer, an Admiral, being black was tokenism also?
Actually, tokenism of the kind we are all so well aware of a bit later, didn’t exist back then. Certainly the by the numbers casting we see in so many ads didn’t either.
The reason I don’t buy the charges of racism and sexism is the respect with which these characters are treated. Roddenberry’s previous show (he was a writer, not the creator, so you can’t blame him) had a Chinese character. While he was smart, clever, and brave, he also wore funny clothes, spoke with a funny accent, was in a definitely subservient position, and had a name of “Hey Boy.” Note that the minority characters on Star Trek were not stereotyped. Scotty’s position was, but he didn’t go around dressed in kilts. Chekov started out more stereotyped, as a joke. Somewhere, I don’t remember where, Sulu says something about being inscrutable and Kirk says that he is the most scrutable man he ever met. So Roddenberry was deliberately playing against stereotyping. Notice also how much more sexist the evil mirror universe was, with navel baring uniforms for the women and a mistress for the captain.
But I do agree that the Enterprise would probably not pass an EEOC review. You have to examine the early shows, where they spent money to show the size of the crew, not the late ones where they tended to turn them into pyramids or something.
Apart from the fact that it’s incredilbly off-topic (TOS not being historical fiction), I simply can’t see how it’s RACIST. Sexist, in many places, but not racist. And I say that as a black man who loved it all through his formative years and who was always very sensitive to racial issues.
If anybody knows a term for this, I would appreciate it. I’m completely flabbergasted by the sheer number of black sergeants, judges, and superior officers today, and many of them are female and black as well. Last I heard, the fictional number was over 50%, while the actual number was under 5%, with female blacks being under 1%. I see the opposite effect in prison scenes as well, where the majority are white in fiction, but the majority are minorities in fact.
I wouldn’t say tokenism, since there’s so many, and often if you see a minority commanding officer, you see minority subordinates as well (e.g. Lethal Weapon.)
Interestingly, I have yet to see this trend for fictional college professors.
Thinking of “presentism” in works set in the past, I didn’t watch much (and enjoyed even less) of the Merlin series when it was showing on NBC last summer but I did notice that it portrayed an unusually racially diverse version of Camelot. In a generic fantasyland I don’t think this would have bothered me at all, but King Arthur is very strongly associated with medieval Britain and it did seem weird to see so many non-white actors in crowd scenes.
On the other hand, this was of course a fantasy and not striving for any great historic accuracy. (Heck, it wasn’t even particularly faithful to Arthurian legend and literature.) And the actual medieval tales of King Arthur were a little more diverse than one might guess; there was at least one North African Knight of the Round Table, Sir Palomides. The presence of East Asians and South Americans in the court of Uther Pendragon is a bit harder to justify, unless maybe they flew in on the back of a dragon.
On the OTHER other hand, if the creators of Merlin had racial diversity as their goal then I kind of feel they didn’t go far enough. Of the main cast only one character was non-white. The role of Guinevere was played by a black actress…but she wasn’t a princess. She was a servant. So in what may have been the first time ever that Guinevere is depicted as not being white*, she gets downgraded from a princess in her own right to a lady’s maid of humble birth. If they were throwing realism out the window anyway then why not have a black princess for once? Some of the minor knight characters were played by black actors, so in this fictional version of medieval Britain there were apparently other black people of high social status.
*Funnily enough, the “guin” in “Guinevere” means “white”.
Yeah, it bothered me when the censors added that “clanging bell” sound to cover it. Gosh, I’d rather they just bleep it like the serious swear word it is, but that “clannnng” noise just makes a joke out of it.
And dubbing it into similar-sounding words with a completely different meaning, too! “He says the sheriff is near!” Sheesh. It’s almost like they were trying to take a piece of serious social commentary and turning it into a comedy or something. :rolleyes:
What’s next, taking a Nazi documentary and turning it into a musical extravaganza?
Who the hell knows–nothing surprises me these days. You might as well get a pitiful brain damaged fellow, dress him in a tuxedo and put him on stage yelping out the chorus to some old Broadway tune for people to laugh at his mournful efforts. That’d be a f**king yuck-fest, wouldn’t it? :mad:
It’s not off-topic - it was written over 40 years ago. It’s as historic as Heinlein’s books.
Racist only really in the way that most of the cast were white males, even when they were aliens. But, I agree, it was very advanced for its time when it comes to race.
Being written in the past is not the same as being set in the past.
Before anyone gets in a hissy, I’ll admit that I participated in the SF hijack more than I should have. Nonetheless, accurate depictions of past attitudes in period pieces is a whole 'nother thing than accurate predictions of future attitudes–especially since the latter is not likely to be, ah, accurate.
I see. By the definition that racism is when a carefully allocated quota of minorities does not appear, I agree it is. By any other standard, no.
An interesting quote from the Wiki article on Uhura
I’d say that someone is racist or sexist when they do not acknowledge that any person of a group can do anything, or assume that the position of a person in that group is limited - like the maid example above. Clearly Roddenberry paid more attention to racism than to sexism - I suspect he was not sensitized to sexism back then, but, on the other hand, people were not getting killed in the effort to allow women to vote either. BTW, some NBC affiliates in some places were not all that happy with ST for these reasons. Roddenberry put the success of his show on the lne to demonstrate equality more than anyone could today - if that is not good enough, I don’t know what to say.
As far as quotas go, as far as we saw genius computer scientists in that century were 100% black. I’ve managed not to feel discriminated against.
I apologize for participating in the hijack, but it at least brought up an interesting and relevant point - how can we tell racism and sexism? In some places it is obvious, like the Nancy Drew books I mentioned. But if there is a book set in the past which ignores the few exceptions to general sex roles, and goes with the more general roles of women, say, is it sexist still? if a novel about late 19th century science does not include Marie Curie or someone like her, is the author committing a sin?
