Slashdot Mirror
Why Did The Stars Wars and Star Trek Worlds Turn Out So Differently? (marginalrevolution.com)
HughPickens.com writes: In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity, while in Star Wars there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror. Why the difference? Tyler Cowen writes about some of the factors differentiating the world of Star Wars from that of Star Trek: 1) The armed forces in Star Trek seem broadly representative of society. Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers. 2) Captains Kirk and Picard do not descend into true power madness, unlike various Sith leaders and corrupted Jedi Knights. 3) In Star Trek, any starship can lay waste to a planet, whereas in Star Wars there is a single, centralized Death Star and no way to oppose it, implying stronger checks and balances in the world of Star Trek. 4) Star Trek embraces egalitarianism, namely that all humans consider themselves part of the same broader species. There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers in their blood. 5) Star Trek replicators are sufficiently powerful it seems slavery is highly inefficient in that world.
Yes, because slavery definitely doesn't exist in Star Trek...there's definitely no Orion Syndicate or Orion Slavers or slave girls.
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
Why I thought it was because one was science fiction and the other was science fantasy.
Would have been more interesting to do a comparison between two science fiction universes.
Episodes of Star Trek were quite often, if not always, morality tales, and a relatively peaceful, morally advanced society provided a good backdrop for those tales. Star Wars was a tale of high adventure, and those sorts of stories are best served by heroes dealing with unseemly characters and places, by power-mad leaders, and by huge imbalances of power.
The writer(s) made it so.
Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas have very different world views.
It's pretty simple, because they both came from the imagination of two different people.
Gene Roddenberry imagined what he thought was as close to the most perfect universe as could possibly exsist. In the case of TOS, he also tried to use fictional races and themes to make people think about how silly we are as a species too. Basically to make its viewers think about being better people.
George Lucas created a universe out of themes from various genres he probaby enjoyed as a child. He wanted to create a universe full of awe and spectacle. The story was the framework for presenting it. George was more artistic and wanted people to leave the theater thinking, "wow, that was cool".
There's nothing wrong with either, they are just different. And both franchise had their ups and downs. The current Star Trek movies have been more about being shiny than they were in the past. And I don't think I need to say much about the prequel Star Wars trilogy.
Long before the phrases "political correctness" and "social justice warrior" existed, Gene Roddenberry created those exact concepts. The main characters of Star Trek reflect Roddenberry's idea of a perfect, politically correct world:
Sulu is the token Asian
Spock is the token alien
Uhura is a two-for-one deal, black and female
And Chekov, the token Russian, who constantly brags about the superiority of Russia, because the original series was written at the height of the U.S.-Russia cold war.
But then you have the other Trek series where suddenly everyone is grouped together in more stereotypcial ways. The Klingons are the violent, savage blacks. The Ferengi are the greedy Jews, The Bajorans are the religious extremists. The Cardassians are the Muslim terrorists. The Romulans are the Chinese -- a secretive dictatorship ruling over people who all look and dress the same.
One person's terrorists are another person's freedom fighters. Even George Washington et al were terrorists in their day. But because they fought on our side, and because they won, they are instead considered freedom fighters.
there is a very important distinction between a rebel and a terrorist to be made. George Washington et al never resorted to terrorising attacks on soft targets. Terrorists are more like ineffective rebels that then resort to horrible acts of violence on women and children because they
a) they are a bunch of faggots
b) they cant actually fight directly and win.
Star Wars universe is dominated by religious belief and power, at least by those at the top. The Star Trek universe is diverse but most of our view is through the dominant power of the Federation, which is a pluralistic, tolerant, and non-secular.
This tells the story. The Federation is successful because it's guiding philosophy is humanism, not worship of Midi-chlorians.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
That's some nice 20/20 hindsight, but you're neglecting the impact of technology on warfare. When Washington fought, the terrorism that their technology supported was part of routine military operation - burning fields, looting, killing women and children indiscriminately, etc.
Terrorists are indiscriminate. They attack civilian targets, including civilians who do not materially support the opposition. Their objective is to destroy peace of mind and the conceptual philosophies of the opposing civilisation. To cause people who pride themselves in freedom to assemble, associate, and travel to set up guards whose demands meet or exceed the oppressive regimes that they once mocked. To invest themselves in torture. A successful terrorist maximises pain and suffering.
Rebels, on the other hand, look to oppose a specific regime. Their assaults on civilian targets are limited to such things as military contracting firms. Their goal is to gain independence, and once gained, the actions and beliefs of their former masters are only of interest to the extent that their hard-won liberty would be threatened. A successful rebel isn't maximising pain and suffering, because military victory is what's important and efficient victory costs them less.
There are rebel terrorists and terrorist rebels, but the two fundamental concepts are not the same.
You missed by a bit...
Obviously Roddenberry purposefully populated his cast with a multi-racial/ethnic cast, but there is much more complex thinking going on, mostly relating to the politics, issues and attitudes of the TOS era:
Sulu isn't a 'token Asian' he is not by coincidence, Japanese. Just 20 years after WW2 it was all much more fresh in peoples minds: Pearl Harbor, Rape of Nanking Internment of Japanese American Citizens etc. This is Roddenberry addressing all that head on.
Uhura isn't a token Black Female either, she is an Officer. Back in the early mid 60's these types of characters didn't exist. The country was having race riots, the cities were burning. Much worse than Baltimore or Fergison today. Add these facts with the fact that Roddenberry staged the first interracial kiss ever shown on TV, and it becomes more clear she isn't there as a token. You cheapen her accomplishment and influence by labeling it token before there were even tokens.
And yes Chekov is a nod to the cold war mindset. Just a couple years after the Cuban missile crisis where we REALLY did almost blow our selves up. The cold war was a real thing and on peoples minds. His presence on the bridge was a loud statement. Also Chekov is always wrong in his Russian superiority, but his character is saying: there is still Russia after the Soviet Union, in the unified post racial/nationalist earth of the future, don't worry, we wont shed our unique cultures/histories.
The Klingons are not the 'violent, savage blacks' they are actually rather articulate in TOS and represent the Russians. the Romulans were the Chinese (this is before Nixon went to China, it was a secretive closed society, nothing like now). Also its easy to forget that even though they were both communist party oligarchies they were also opposed to each other, just like the show.
What all this really was: a vehicle for discussing the tensions, issues, and politics of the day, some of which were too taboo to be straight forward about on the TV of the day. Which itself was a simplistic 42 minutes of a very repressed medium.
This isn't to say star trek TOS had no flaws, especially regarding women: no women Captains in TOS (except the aliens) Women's 'Uniforms' were really just miniskirts. etc.
Overall you missed the original intent of these characters and the real world that inspired them by a Kilometer.
In the Federation, the inferior (non-Human) races do not for the most part enjoy all the technological advances Humans do; and are massively under-represented in the high-ranking positions in the military.
That's what happens when you're shooting a series with a limited SFX and makeup budget. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
It's like dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on cities: it's okay if you're doing it to end the war and prevent a potentially much larger number of deaths. By blowing up Alderaan, the Empire hoped to end the bloody rebellion once and for all and thus save innumerable innocent lives that would've been lost if the rebellion were allowed to expand to an all-out galactic civil war.
This space intentionally left blank
Actually, that's not how a social justice warrior world would work.
They don't seek to make a "politically correct world", but a world where everyone is forced to be equal and repay for what your ethnical group did in the past etc etc etc, to not mention always defining people into "oppressors" and "oppressed".
It would be a insane world where people would be monitored 24/7 to stop any kind of oppression, and you would need to pray for your ethnical group to not be defined as "oppressors" that week, or well, its oven for you, even if you didn't actually did anything.