go to NBC.COM and dig through their archives….I watched it there and I live in Toronto!

I don’t resent his comments. They are representative of his opinion, and apparently what he feels is the opinion of the rest of the World toward Trek.

I just do not agree that the rest of the World has had enough real exposure to ST to draw such conclusions. I believe my response was something along the lines of the suggestion that most probably wouldn’t even know of Starfleet.

“I have little trouble imagining Kirk in a contemporary tale, going into an Islamic country and showing the local culture that their treatment of women is wrong, parading starfleet women around without covering their faces in contempt of local culture and most likely openly seducing a local woman and parading her around without her Niqab. ”

Lol. I think that’s about right for 1966-1968.

In fairness, we’ve already seen Trek’s view on this sort of thing evolve since then. I seem to recall an episode of ENT where Commander Tucker took it upon himself to interfere in a similar manner with a culture whose treatment of a certain segment of its population he found distasteful and unfair. The results being disasterous, the lesson was that it was outside of his or anyone else’s place to pass such quick judgement on another culture.

I really don’t see how a mid-1960’s attitude toward the superior values of America and the West has any place in future Star Trek stories. It would be absurd to depict such nonsense today.

“To ignore that subtext in favor of the overall more hopeful view that the humans on Earth will one day all work together in complete agreement without poverty, ignorance, or intolerance, is to simply view the series through a rose-colored filter. ”

But that is the very goal of the series, regardless of the fact that the execution has been flawed (particularly when looking at it 40 years later). Even if the method used to try and present that message hasn’t been perfect in every episode, the goal is still a good one.

The method should be improved…that’s all—and I think that’s just a matter of updating the perspective, as has already been done to some degree.

You totally got my response to trekboi’s paragraph. It was just a jab at my own Catholic faith’s history, as he seemed to describe their mission in a nutshell.

Your comments are perceptive and ring true, except, perhaps the inverted commas around “evil” in WWII. The Third Reich was pretty evil, though one could look at the US nuking of 2 Japanese cities the same way.

As for Kirk ignoring the Prime Directive, he sure did. A lot. But he always had a reason which vindicated him. Eminiar VII, “A Private Little War” all had their ducks in a row.

As for the Federation, it was indeed an allegory of what happens when America takes over. TNG changed that quite a bit, at least for Europeans, who saw Picard, and perhaps Troi and even O’Brien as moving the show away from a US focus.

If you notice, in ST09, Pike refers to the Federation as a ‘peacekeeping armada.’ Not Starfleet, but the Federation. Bob Orci mentioned once here that it was deliberate, and based on a changed perception, and perhaps a more accurate view of the organization’s true purpose in his re-boot.

Regardless, there were lots of messages in any given episode. However, one message that resonated with me from TOS more than any other Trek stories usually involved Kirk forcing his views on other cultures. Not just attempting to change those cultures for the better, but specifically forcing the Federation’s and in some cases his personal beliefs on them, sometimes over the objections of Bones or Spock. Again, this is a general observation about Trek and clearly one others have as well. Is this the main reason foreign audiences reject Trek? Probably not, but considering French clothing designers had anti-American labels sewn into their clothing during the Bush (2) years, I would imagine any such behaviors by a mainly white American cast would be equally objectionable. Kirk embodies so-called “cowboy” diplomacy, often ignoring cultural taboos and deriding social and political conventions. His views about politicians and diplomats are clearly stated and he typically runs the show his way regardless of the consequences. The Trouble With Tribbles is a perfect example of his complete disregard for the issues, but because it was a comedy, the serious undercurrent of his personal philosophies were softened.

I have little trouble imagining Kirk in a contemporary tale, going into an Islamic country and showing the local culture that their treatment of women is wrong, parading starfleet women around without covering their faces in contempt of local culture and most likely openly seducing a local woman and parading her around without her Niqab. This is obviously an extreme example of Kirk-like behavior in TOS, but otherwise typical. Whether one agrees with the Federation values and Kirk or not, it is not so much the message as it is the means by which Kirk & Co. affect change which I think perpetuates a negative image of the West, which may be offensive to other nations.

Trek may have been hopeful, but it was “American” hopeful, following on the heels of America’s self-perceived successful defeat of “evil” in WW II with an ongoing fight to preserve the American way during the cold war, the Federation mirrors the global expansion of America as “savior” and “protector” while simultaneously using its power and might to spread its cultural and religious values as the only way to “do-business” with a financial empire that lasted 50 years. As it stands today, whether correctly or not, other nations blame those 50 years of American “decadence” for bringing down the global economy. To ignore that subtext in favor of the overall more hopeful view that the humans on Earth will one day all work together in complete agreement without poverty, ignorance, or intolerance, is to simply view the series through a rose-colored filter. The fact I and anyone else see it more objectively, should not be an indictment of our pessimism. To say everything the American military is doing for the world is ultimately for its own good without regard for the methods employed, or even asking if the majority of the world wants such change, would be a similar comparison.