Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who was the most Liberal character on the original Star Trek series?
Who was the most Conservative character on the original Star Trek series?
I really liked the original Star Trek. It seems there weren't too many liberals in the future. Everyone on board was expected to carry their own weight, do their part and fulfill their own needs. The ship supplied a home and food but if you thought you were going to get treated "special", off to Ceti Alpha VI you went. More than likely Khan was liberal, blaming everyone else for his bad choices in life and seeking revenge for his own stupidity. But back to the OP question, Dr McCoy.
Finally an interesting thread after all these new ones that are pretty pointless.
Spock was somewhat liberal although his use of logic would preclude many " bleeding heart" beliefs. He was a pacifist in most respects but did use force when necessary.
Bones was highly emotional which made him both conservative and liberal. He'd rail against the applications of logic and technology being put ahead of human compassion, spirit and emotion.
Kirk was the most conservative. He wouldn't hesitate to use force when necessary and while he didn't choose that as his first course of action he would commit fully to it.
I think these three would have a VERY hard time trying to fit in either party and would most likely just not vote.
That's odd-I always thought they were Chinese communists.
>>> The klingons were originally more classic communist chinese/ russian with a very big Ghengis Khan, Attila The Hun outlook. Then they got totally rewritten in TNG and became more feudal japanese in attitude. I never quite understood that but Roddenberry had been outgrown by his creation and was past his creative prime when he briefly produced that show. Then the romulans became more TOS klingon , the two pretty much switched personalities. Maybe Q had something to do with it.... The Ferengi were brilliant merchants, capitalists run wild, and I thought they had a great creative niche. The idea that the Federation outgrew money never made sense in TNG. In TOS they had currency, colonized and traded. Maybe the new replicators changed that although you could provide somebody with a replicator and a place to live and he wouldn't have to do anything for a living. What would motivate people? Studying art or spending all day drinking synthehol might be fun but society would soon stagnate without the drive to better your lot in life. We see that now with welfare, it ruins whole communities.
I really never thought of Star Trek in terms of liberal vs conservative but if I think about it, I once had a very liberal supervisor who despised Captain Kirk for some odd reason so he must have been a conservative.
Now the Tribbles were probably liberals. They had no eyes, there was a lot of them and their world was warm and fuzzy.
>>> The klingons were originally more classic communist chinese/ russian with a very big Ghengis Khan, Attila The Hun outlook. Then they got totally rewritten in TNG and became more feudal japanese in attitude. I never quite understood that but Roddenberry had been outgrown by his creation and was past his creative prime when he briefly produced that show. Then the romulans became more TOS klingon , the two pretty much switched personalities. Maybe Q had something to do with it.... The Ferengi were brilliant merchants, capitalists run wild, and I thought they had a great creative niche. The idea that the Federation outgrew money never made sense in TNG. In TOS they had currency, colonized and traded. Maybe the new replicators changed that although you could provide somebody with a replicator and a place to live and he wouldn't have to do anything for a living. What would motivate people? Studying art or spending all day drinking synthehol might be fun but society would soon stagnate without the drive to better your lot in life. We see that now with welfare, it ruins whole communities.
Actually the Klingons were origionally just funky looking bad guys who weren't so bad you couldn't have them on your station once in a while, and you wouldn't have to go to war just for that. The really dark villens who remained even to the end as dark and untrustworthy are the Romulans. They do what gives them the advantage. They have the thought power of a Vulcan without the logic problem, though their society is both practical and repressive. Woe the day the Tal'Shair need to speak to you.
In tng and on, the science of makeup and special effects (including the latex masks used) were cheap enough they could do with Klingons what they wanted to, and make them really look alien. It was money that kept them looking like made up actors in tos. Nicely, though, the known Klingons were continued and fleshed out.
They are a warrior society. They operate with Clans and have a clear class system along with it. That whole concept of "honor" is showcased when its proven the war with the Federation was started by the changelings, but it goes on becuse to not violates "honor".
Actualy that the feds did not have "money" is wrong. They use credits. Its like that automatic deposit in your account you spend entiriely by use of debit card. In places where they do use currency like Bajor the starfleet people were paid in their currency. And of course the universal currency is latinum.
But there were interesting questions raised by the technology. If you had a replicator, then you wouldn't need to buy most of what you have to. Economies and patterns would HAVE to change. But there are those who still in trek's world value things made by hand, books printed as books, and the like. But things you buy are of a different sort. Basically food and shelter are not the main concern. And those things which were supposedly taken out of society are still there... competiton, a desire for excellence, creativity, ambition. All these exist but just in different ways. If people all liked to persue their inner goals, why would there be something like Starfleet and its explorations and structure. It's evident that it is a very large and important part of the Federation, perhaps more than in a society like ours.
Trek was born in the beginning of the 60's when an optimism that we could be better if we wanted to existed. It carried through in some way most of the series, but still got darker as OUR perceptions got darker. I know The Great Bird had his vision altered but all universes/cultures change as did the Federation. I write trek fanfiction and mine is very dark, and I've noticed that there seems to be an ever growing amount of it about how paradise got compromized out of its existance. Look at any particular trek and its general focus/attitude and you'll see where we were when it was being produced.
If only a post Dominion war world series had been done, but then those of us who like to write them would have cannon to run up against.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
