Because it became saddled with SJWism and PC culture.
For example:
> Looking back from two decades later, Next Generation (1987–94), Deep Space Nine (1993–99), and Voyager (1995–2001) feel like a single continuous 1990’s moment, a moment that began in a renewed liberal optimism for multiculturalism and progress and the general advancement of humanity.
Where is the SJWism and PC culture which saddles the latest ST movies? How did all that SWJism result in Khan Noonien Singh becoming a white guy? Or Kirk switching from being "a stack of books with legs" in the Academy to the womanizer he's become now?
The essay continues:
> Alas, that moment had clearly run out of gas when September of 2001 happened, and when it brought with it the terrible, epoch-shaping tragedy of that year.
I believe your thesis is that the worldview post-9/11 had a less impact than on ST and optimism than the increased SJWism and PC culture you see, yes?
Seems rather far-fetched to me.
If you're really paying attention, and with the exception of DS-9, almost all of the heroes are white and educated (or their sidekicks) and all the villains are dark and barbaric. Seems straight up racist to me.
> yes, there was diversity on the bridge, but not that much of it, not really. Uhuru was a service worker and Worf was a punching bag; when the show made a black captain, was it a coincidence that the show also became “darker” and less optimistic, when its characters started to be “flawed” and “ambiguous”? Voyager had a female captain, but it marooned her to the farthest reaches of the galaxy (and the less said about the garbage politics of the reboot movies, the better). But the point is this: Star Trek has always wanted to be more progressive than it ever really managed to be, because it wanted its cake and also to eat it. The future was a human race that had perfected itself, but which also felt comfortable—for white men—because not so much had changed. We were still in charge.
The Cardashians seem to be based on Totalitarian Communist regimes. They have grey skin, which isn't dark, but is also not a human skintone anyway, but they seem to map most closely to Russian/Stalinist. Not dark or barbaric by any means.
The Borg seem to be a comment on Western technocracy run-amok. I have trouble seeing the Borg as anything besides a cautionary warning against tech singularity ideology. If you submit your culture to the logic of machines don't be surprised when it becomes mechanical and inhumane.
There are dark and barbaric trek villains too, of course. The Jem'Hadar shock troopers seem like a particularly charged take on the trope, being essentially militarized slaves. Interesting, though, that the Jem'Hadar were controlled by a very white technocratic Vorta. Maybe a reference to historical practices like the Ottoman Jannisaries. What should we make of the non-humanoid shapeshifter "founders" though? Pure scifi or allegory for the formless, faceless, secretive domination of neoliberal capitalist interests acting in the shadows?
The Ferengi are dark skinned and despicable, with more than a hint of "Shylock" flavored bigotry incorporated into the trope. Kinda unfortunate. They did significantly redeem this trope in later DS9 episodes when they focused more on Quark and showed some of the more nuanced and interesting aspects of Ferengi culture.
And then there's the Klingons. This one is hard to put a finger on. They were originally introduced as space barbarians with a swarthy (but not black) complexion. I think the original model there was intended to be something like Barbary Corsairs, which is kind of a racist trope I guess. The Klingons were updated a lot though. The more mature portrayals of Klingons had them as an honor society that resembles Samurai culture in a lot of ways, while also incorporating a kind of hedonistic body culture that is very un-Japanese. It's not so simple really. What about now? Klingons made less human-seeming and more cartoon villain seeming? Not sure where they're going with this.
Forest. Trees.
ST is the most racist show ever.
But "most racist"? More than, Amos ‘n Andy, Tom and Jerry, or the Looney Tunes cartoons - three shows which often top the lists of most racist shows?
I disagree.
I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook.
It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'youth education' - again, which can be positive, but it's always going to be a hint 'North Korea' no matter how you cut it.
I think motives are not so bad ... but we live in a new world. It's not so easy as 'putting a traditionally marginalized person in a leading role' anymore. That's all fine, but it's not thoughtful. It's Disney. And lazy.
As evidence of this culture - here you have a show that puts extraordinary attention on putting 'marginalized people into leading roles' - and yet the storyline is 'still racist'. This is getting ridiculous.
How about 'it's just not good'. Because it's not?
Coen Brothers said it right - while 'diversity might be important' - the most important thing is the story'. Start with the story, focus on the story. If you start with a social objective, it's just going to come out all wrong, and be 'bad'. Like the new Star Trek. Sadly.
"If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!"
It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. It's not common, but nobody will bat an eye, and I really don't think the vast, vast majority of people care one way or another. It's not the 1960's.
There are a lot of interesting stories to tell, that may very well involve 'non classical' views, so let's tell them.
My point is the lines were easier drawn then - but not in 2017.
1950 was less nuanced. Black people were not allowed on TV, it was 'shocking' to have them there. An easy choice, in retrospect.
In 2017 - real social progress is complicated, it's not black and white. No pun intended :). I do not think that 'social progress' - in the populist sense, defined by the slightly-left-of-centre popular social voices - will have history fully behind them. Surely in many ways, but think it's much more complicated now.
I completely agree! But neither is it "saddling the show with SJWism and PC culture." It's just... a normal, unremarkable thing, which as you say the vast majority of people won't care about one way or the other.
From a review: "T'Kuvma, the Klingon leader, has a rallying cry of “Remain Klingon .... loathes the Federation ideals of equality, diversity, and peace. "
Those are nice ideals, and the work in a nation like America, which is 'an idea'.
But consider for a moment that 95% of people outside America live in 'ethnic groups' - and who's ethnic identities are existentially challenged by an American led corporate-globalism.
I live in Quebec, where the issue is real. The decline of the 'Francophone' culture - which is very different than the 'rest of North America' - can be measured. It's not doing so badly, but it's an issue: new immigrants want to speak English, and be 'Anglo' (i.e. not just language), meaning at one point in the future 'there is no Quebec'. I'm not hyperbolic, I think it will be ok - but my point is the issue is fully legit. Literally two hours ago I had a convo in a cafe with a French girl studying finance 'in English' to move to 'New York' 'where the money is' (literally her words).
I agree with the commenter (maybe for different reasons) because I feel that many outside America will simply see 'The Federation' as a metaphor for 'Americanisation'.
"We are morally superior"
"Your culture is barbaric"
"Give up your stupid cultures and norms, and become like us, speak English, and put a Starbucks on every street corner"
Even though that might not be the intent - often, it really is pragmatically that.
'Free Trade' with America, which is 10x bigger than any partner really means: "once we have even trade, our companies will devour yours". Imagine if Canada-US had 'free trade' on ownership of Telecoms. Do you think Bell Canada would buy Verizon? No. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T would instantly buy Telus, Rogers and Bell (their Canadian counteroparts). 100% of the 'good jobs' would go to the US, in Canada, only 'tech support' and 'local marketing' would remain. But because the 'balance sheet' would look better, economists like it (and have convinced even left-of-center politicians of this).
Yes - ideas such as 'equal pay for equal work' are fairly universal ... but cultural context is relevant.
You know what would be more 'authentically Star Trek'? ----> the 'Prime Directive' !!! "Don't mess with other cultures!"
If they stuck to the 'Prime Directive' maybe they'd be more appreciative/understanding of the Klingon's views instead of just starting a war (!) with them :)
FYI - the original Klingon's I don't think were politicized in this context, of course I think Rodenberry may have used them as a stand-in for the Soviets or whatever. (Soviets were hard-core egalitarians though, at least on paper. More female Engineers than males in Soviet Russia).
Anyhow: "Disney Social Politics" does not fit very well in the rest of the world. Even though Americans think they might be 'doing good' by promoting specific values, like so many things, we know the parable about 'good intentions'. Let's try the 'Prime Directive' (except when it comes to stopping things like genocide etc..) I like that one :).
My sole point was that Star Trek has literally always been explicitly about idealized, utopian social justice -- so complaining that it's in decline because of SJWism is ridiculous. Star Trek was 100% PC SJW from day one.
Instead I guess I'll say that those people should try to be clearer about whatever distinction it is that they do see between those things, because just using "SJW" as a pejorative without explanation tends to look like a rejection of those ideals.