British colonialism specifically argued for Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the Kipling's "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" used a similar logic to argue that the US should take over the Philippines.
I guess I'm also a little confused that the review complains in such strong language[1] about what looks to be the most interesting thing in the show, assuming the writers have lead with this material for the reason that they intend to return to it though the rest of the season and need, you know, somewhere to go with it, so they can't just start at the end. If it finds a way to retain aliens-as-projections-of-human-psyco/social-demons of traditional Trek (and much popular sci-fi) but also address the definitely-smells-of-racism problems that naturally come with doing that for as long as Trek's done it... god, that'll be among the most interesting things Trek's ever done, and if the writers are competent then they sure seem to be setting up for something along those lines. It's easily the most promising thematic direction the first part of the series has set up, judging from this review, so wow, should they ever not clean it up, please. Dig in, get dirty, and find a way out that's a little more novel and nuanced than "hur hur see it was racism all along and now our protagonist learned a lesson!" and this'll be one for the ages.
[1] "We shall see. But to get there—and I have to say this as clearly as possible—this show needs to clean up its fucking act with respect to the deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons."
The review assumes that the reader has watched the show. I have not. I cannot comment further on this point, nor on the "deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons". I can point out that http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/07/star-trek-discovery-trump-politi... says:
> “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things. It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it. It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.”
and various people have asserted that the new Klingons are supposed to be like Trump supporters.
I guess I'm gonna have to watch for context for the quote. I think the paragraph's getting a little clearer to me now.
As for the rest: haha, wow. Now I've gotta watch, just so I can figure out whether the Klingons are racist (as in, the depiction is racist and the Federation's going all high-colonial Britain on 'em) or racist (as in, they're Trump supporter stand-ins), or somehow both at the same time. Should be... interesting, anyway.
Possibly both, actually, from the one-hour broadcast “pilot” (which seems more of a teaser than a pilot, but I'm not buying CBS All Access on the strength of that teaser, so I probably won't see the rest.)
That is, the focal Klingons are xenophobes looking for a war with the Federation to Make the Empire Great Again, but also there is strong indication of the other, as well. So, something for everyone on that department.
This is not a race thing, not is it a cultural thing. It is a human trait which is universal. It is not just related to physical attacks either, e.g. so-called 'social justice warriors' feel themselves morally superior over those who do not follow their specific strain of self-flagellation and -denial, sports teams, philosophers, investors, anywhere people choose themselves a niche they plant their flags and wave their banners.
Is the Federation in the new series supposed to be a conquering culture or nation, trying to take over the quadrant? If so, that's a huge change.
"It is a human trait which is universal"
Universal? What does that mean? Swedes and Norwegians each feel themselves to be better than the other nationality. They have flags and banners too. So, what is the consequence of this universal trait? Will Swedish tanks be going over the border soon?
Does that mean those who believe in internationalism ("the people of the world should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests") are not human?
Are there wrongs? Absolutely. But we can tackle those when we have clear evidence and direct corrective action. Striking out at anyone with a will to discuss and have legitimate concerns is not a way to bridge the communication gap.
Off topic. Well known argument. Tone seems angry.
Just a guess
You could also skip over the step of posting in comment threads.
1. Donglegate. Told a dongle joke, got fired.
2. Meritocracy Rug, Github.
3. "CodeOfConduct.md"
4. GamerGate
5. Throwing fits about pronouns: https://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate...
6. NodeJS leadership splitting at the seams https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72dff4/nodejs_...
7. Demonization if you are a "White male in tech" - regardless if you are for equality or not
8. Google Memo/"Anti-diversity Screed"
So you're right. I could stay quiet about this. But these problems aren't going to go away with silence. And they aren't going to go away by shaming people into submission or silence under threat of job loss. These things are affecting the whole industry, and it's about high time to confront these issues head-on, without fear of losing your house, your food, and your livelihood. (Why do you think I run under a pseudonym?)