From: dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Re: The Bogeyman in Pop Movies
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:31:52 GMT
Reply-To: dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals)
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article <1992Jul26.202416.3770@cfa.harvard.edu>, 
egnilges@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ed Nilges) writes... 

>In article <1992Jul26.191537.3631@cfa.harvard.edu>
>unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (tuu) writes:
>>...Unfortunately the
>>Republican boneheads have tarnished the wonderful Star Wars name.
> 
>I am aware of this.  Lucas remains responsible for making a movie in
>which Fascist solutions of war and irrationality are brought to bear
>on problems, just as they were in the Persian Gulf War.  Contrast the
>Star Trek series, with its didactic but refreshing liberalism.

Ouch!  You totally missed the boat, but ran right off the dock anyway.

Every time the "good" guys fought in Star Wars, it was in defense, to
save themselves, their planet, their (fill in the blank).  What is
irrational about trying to survive?  You are suggesting, I suppose,
that they had gone to the emperor and said, "please don't blow us up
with your Death Star.  We will be more than happy to arrange trade
agreements with you."  In fact, the entire final battle between Luke
Skywalker and the Emperor was about Luke's need to control his anger
and NOT strike out irrationally.

Now let's talk about that "refreshing liberalism" you are so fond of.
I submit that Star Trek is much closer to the Persian Gulf situation
than Star Wars.  Every episode is a justification of America's right
to go anywhere they want and do anything they want, regardless of what
others want or need.  It is American Imperialist propaganda.  Of
course, all of the aliens they encounter have rights, but they are
HUMAN rights.  Well, I doubt that any of these aliens ever wanted
human rights, much less a powerful starship with a bunch of humans to
enforce them.

The Prime Directive, you say?  Ask yourself how many times the Prime
Directive was brought into question, and then discarded because it
wasn't appropriate to that particular situation (Persian Gulf), or was
even used just to get the upper hand on the alien race (a few STNG
episodes).  Also, notice that many of the problems created in the
episodes are a result of the Enterprise, by its mere presence,
disrupting societies.  But instead of leaving, and staying out of it,
as they should, they go all the way and dismantle the society, for its
"own good."  I can't even count the number of times Kirk asked
himself, "Do I have the right to...."  He always came to the same
conclusion.  Damn straight, he did.

I shouldn't even have to mention the sparsity of ethnic and cultural
diversity on board the Enterprise in either version of the show.  Ah
yes!  So _refreshing_ to see a blind black man in a position of
authority.  Oh!  But he's not really blind, because he would be an
invalid if he were.  He's hardly black for that matter--no offense,
Kunta Kinte.

And what about that famous line: "To boldly go where no man (ouch),
let's make that, no ONE has gone before!"  If no one has been there
before, they should be out there all alone.  But there are aliens
EVERYWHERE!  Don't they count as someone?  Surprise!  They don't, any
more than all those savages we took from Africa.  Captain Kirk is much
more dangerous to those aliens, with his manipulative diplomacy, than
the Star Wars Jedis could possibly be.

Star Wars always took pains to recognize other ALIEN forms (not just
humans with pointy ears) as having their own rights, their own value,
not determined by humans.  I admit, when Star Trek came out, the
technology didn't allow for convincing non-humanoid aliens, much less
ones that are regular members of the crew.  But Next Generation could
have done it easily with their effects budget--if they chose to.

Sometime, ask someone from another country how much they like American
humans exporting American human culture and politics to that country
of humans.  And then imagine if you weren't even human at all.


(Incidentally, I enjoy Star Trek, and watch it often.  I just 
recognize it for what it is, and don't buy into its "liberal" values 
unquestioningly.)
   						:-D ave


[Moderator's Note: Please note that this article is cross-posted to
 rec.arts.cinema, which is a moderated newsgroup.  If you intend to
 reply to this posting, please be sure to direct your posting to the
 most appropriate newsgroup(s).  -- Manavendra Thakur, Moderator,
 rec.arts.cinema.]
Newsgroups: misc.legal