TheBoost said:
In a broad manner Trek does (the white/black vs. black/white aliens) but when you really look at HOW these races/cultures are written I think you see a lot of racist ideas. Notably, how species and culture are the same thing, unless your human. Only humans can have variety...
Some good points there. I guess you could take these things as racism, but I think it is more the limited scope of the story tellers.
Sometimes Trek has tried to make alien species more indepth and three dimensional, but it is true, for the most part they are defined by their cultural traits than shown to be diverse planets of people. But again, I think this is due to limited scope, not any ill will toward the created species. It is easier to say, "These are Klingons, they are violent and like to fight, etc." Than to say, "Klingons from the Eastern most continent of their planet..." I think some species have been shown to be more diverse than others. The Ferangi are perhaps the most 2D aliens on the show. All together I find them to be very shallow and poorly thought out, but again, it is just a silly sci-fi show, made up for entertainment. The fact that certain traits found in our shallow two diminsional aliens are often seen as negative character traits (greed culture of the Ferangi, culture of violence with the Klingons) just doesn't come off as racist to me.
I still think that for the most part ST has done a great job of condemning racism, and depicting it to be a very negative thing. I do agree that many poor choices of words and ideas by the writers can be seen as somewhat racist (speciesist?). But I think it is more poor communication of ideas, than something that should be seen as racism. Kirk clearly wasn't knocking vulcans by saying that Spock was the most human soul he had known. This line was suppose to be touching, not a statement that humans are superior to vulcans, but Spock was okay because Kirk precieved him more human than vulcan. I think you run into these issues when you open up a world much bigger than the minds of the men who created it. It is hard to imagine a universe filled with hundreds of inhabitable planets with just as many various species of aliens. What kind of terminology would we use? What term would be used to refer to all intelligent lifeforms (as human is used to describe all people on earth)?
Given that we have had zero known contact with extra terrestrial lifeforms, I just don't think the science is there to prove this. Yes, it is true with earth species, a dog can't mate with a cat. But I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go along with the idea that various alien species in the galaxy have evolved so closely along the same lines that they are able to produce viable offspring with one another. Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous that all these different aliens look so much alike. At the end of the day, you could peg the "bad science!" label on every single sci-fi and fantasy story ever told.
I'm not attacking that they all look human. That's a reality of TV/Film production. But if Vulcans and Romulans have a common ancestor and can breed, they are the same species. That's what 'species' means.
I wasn't suggesting you were attacking all species looking human. That was my own statement. Too me, it is as ridiculous that the Klingon and a human could produce offspring as it is that a Klingon and a human would look so much alike. That is the real world biological definition of the word "species". But I think we can agree in the Trek universe, a human and a klingon clearly are not the same species. If, lets say, in the real world aliens are discovered, and it somehow turns out we can breed with them, I suppose we would have to change the definition of species. Right? Or could we consider two seperate lifeforms, that evolved on different worlds, but that somehow ended up compatible for procreation, to be of the same species?
Really, I've always hated the 'Star Trek has real science' argument. Of 'Star Trek is for grown ups.'
I'd agree. Star Trek is more for grown ups. Kids can enjoy it, I know I did, but ultimately it deals with some pretty adult themes. However, the real science part of it is total BS. I have yet to meet anyone who would make that argument. Anyone who does is clearly too much of an idiot to realize that it is all just technobabble put in place to make it sound more scientific. I think it achieves this goal quite well, but it is really sad if some people decide this means that any of this stuff is in any way plausible real world science.