Star Trek and American Imperialism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ค. 2024
- #startrek #lore
The way Star Trek approaches various moral and ethical issues has always been influenced by the sociopolitical environment in which each installment was produced. In this video, I examine how one of the most oft-overlooked influences, U.S. foreign policy, shaped the franchise from its early days to the 21st century.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @orangeriver
This video was sponsored by Treksphere: www.treksphere.com
Music in this video by Kevin MacLeod: www.incompetech.com
- Support -
Patreon: / orangeriver
Official website: www.orangeriverproductions.com
Merch store: orange-river-productions.creat...
- Social media -
Facebook: / orangerivernw
Twitter: / orangerivernw
Instagram: / orangerivernw
And don't forget to subscribe!
- CHAPTERS -
00:00 Intro
01:17 Captain Kirk and JFK
02:44 Vietnam and The Original Series
06:02 Realpolitik and War on Terror
09:51 Outro - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
"The ultimate Kennedy Western" is such a sexy phrase, isn't it?
I guess?
Some of the most thoughtful and nuanced star trek content on the internet. You rock 🪨
Very interesting to see the change in attitudes across TOS
Growing up with TOS, I always saw the Klingons as the Russians, Romulans as the Chinese, and the Vulcans as the Japanese.
And to go with your Kirk/Kennedy analogy, Kirk was the youngest person to ever be a starship captain. Kennedy was also the youngest president.
@James Furey Irish CATHOLIC as well!
You continue to operate on a whole other level. Would love to see more of this kind of content!
Thank you so much!
@@OrangeRiver do you think what win the Imperium of Man Kind from Warhammer 40.000 all the Borg from Star Trek?
Yeah this is a good summary of how Star Trek was influenced a lot by American foreign policy, and I like how you don't praise or condemn it for this connection, but just analyze and show how it was.
This is my absolute favorite YT channel. Thank you!!!!
Really interesting, thanks for the video! Side note, the lighting was awesome in this one :D
Thank you!
Peace and long life
Great video thank you leave long and prosper🖖🏼
Please revisit this concept in a new video, definitely the most interesting part of trek is how it adapts to its time
This is awesome, I’d love to see more !!
@@frigyou1078 These comments are insightful. I'd love to read more!
I LOVE your channel content.
Surprised about the low view count….great video, really great man.
Thank you! I've admittedly had to do lots of experimenting with the title
Interesting analysis
It was very well searched, thank you
I don't watch all your videos. Hell I only come by every few months. Damnit I don't always agree with all your takes. With all of that said I have to say I enjoy EVERY video I watch please keep up the good work.
Thanks man! Hey, disagreement is perfectly fine-- these videos are largely intended to spark discussion after all.
@@OrangeRiver You do a great job. Star Trek and Superman helped get me though some lonely times as an child so seeing young people who love it makes me happy. If I could make an request when you have the time do an video on Worf he's the one person in Trek I wanted to be like an outsider who found a home.
@@TheDuck632 I'll certainly keep him in mind-- most of the videos I'm doing currently cover entire species, but Worf is someone I find very interesting as well.
One original episode worth discussion in the context of the Vietnam War is a Taste of Armegeddon. After reading H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty can see parallels with the policies implemented by both administrations during that war and the actions of characters of that episode.
I'm glad you're willing to discuss both the nerdy, lore-centric and the more nuanced and political aspects of this franchise. I understand that it's a sort of escapism for a lot of people, but Trek has always had its finger on the pulse of real world issues, big and small. There's this big push nowadays to "keep politics out of my escapism," but that just isn't possible, and anything that really tries to do that won't be memorable or have any kind of staying power like Star Trek has.
Current Star Trek is done very bad and the political massage just doesn’t make sense for Star Trek. It feels like it’s artificially changed to match a ideology in some ways
@@latviankhan2989 I disagree. It may be hamfisted in some ways, particularly early Discovery, but it's pretty common for the first season or so of a Trek series to be kinda awful before it finds its footing.
I came over and watch this video as you linked it in your Star Trek Avatar video. Just so you know that people do click on your links!
Haha good deal!
good video
Thanks!
As someone from a country that suffered a genocide due to US imperialism just to stop a bunch of hippies, the comparison between nazism and communism and status of the US as heroes in the Vietnam-US war almost made me puke, literally. And I'm not even communist or too interested in politics. Makes it even harder to watch TOS now. I'm glad following series got better though, at least until the 90s (haven't watched newer series and I'm good with TNG, VOY and DS9 for now).
🖖
Interesting.
America, fuck yeah!
How do you feel about the anti-Trek...Warhammer 40,000?
There are many good points about showing as a American war thing, But what about now where is a sharp divide in the country? Where what we though as new friends is going to the old world norm of empire building? What's happening in Aphganistan (I know I blew the spelling) as our old enemies there is regaining the country?
The Dominion war is a good thought on Not wanting to fight a war, Don't mean peace when the other guy does want it.
Looking forward to analysis on current trek and its political influence! I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that when it comes to foreign trade and economic policies discovery will be... quite nuanced. Aka ita all woke
Wow, i watched this video despite the title because I had accumulated a lot of respect for you based on previous videos. I was expecting a nasty rant which relentlessly and unfairly accused the US of imperialism. Instead, I got a thoughtful view of how current US experience was affecting what we saw in Trek. I still don't like the pejorative title, but otherwise found your views interesting. I definitely agree the Kennedyesque optimism about seeking greater engagement with the world is reflected in the essence of TOS. I think that many fans who refer to ST's "Optimistic" view of the future would like us to return, even if they don't realize it, to that same sort of world engagement.
Of course Kirk *does* overtly support the vietnam war as lamentable but necessary. Trekies are frequently in denial about that
Modern trek is a great WB show
Even if it doesn't always work, I like how Star Trek reflects the times. The best entertainments utilize social commentary to craft compelling storylines without falling into the trap of being didactic in a way that puts off the audience, and I think various incarnations of Star Trek pulled off that balance well many times and maybe inspired a little objectivity in viewers. Maybe a quixotic notion but I like to think so.
👍👍👍
Wow, you were quite beardsly in this video.
In teh wurd of Spock: "fascinating."
"He is much like our own Mr. Spock isn't he?"
Realpolitik is translated to English as 'realistic, practical, actual' - but it is, in fact, just another political philosophy or theory. Of course like IR Realists who consider themselves to be "correct" - they might be factually wrong. We all consider ourselves to be correct. Strip away the fancy verbiage. Gene's utopian worldview is worth taking seriously even if most polysci majors consider it foolish. They might turn out to be wrong, too.
Perhaps because the Federal Government of the USA seems to be drifting towards that of a totalitarian, High-tech, Imperial, Surveillance state, the UFoP in Star Trek now comes across as more meddling and oppressive than enlightened.
I've heard you refer to Star Trek as a "progressive" series several times now. I don't think that's at all correct. The show many have _presented itself_ as "progressive", especially if you consider Gene Roddenberry's ultimate vision, but in actuality was very consistent in its liberal, anti-progressive messaging. For one, the decision-making collective that is Starfleet was often proven faulty by the individuals out in the field, a bottom-up method of development that is inverse to the progressive mindset. This even happened often in TNG, under one of the most by-the-book captains, who butted heads with his superiors on numerous occasions and was constantly proven right. There's also the fact that Trek often contemplated the dangers of rapid technological or social advancement (the Eugenics Wars being perhaps the number one example), advocating instead for organic, natural change rather than enforced change - once again a liberal mindset that is totally anti-progressive.
Just thought I'd put it out there.
Unfortunately everything you wrote sounds like we're working with different definitions of "progressive" and "liberal."
@@OrangeRiver I suppose that's always possible, especially given to the tendency for definitions to be changed on a whim these days... However the definitions of "progressivism" and "liberalism" have been with us for several centuries, and as far as I know they're both quite clear. Progressivism is the belief that change is inherently good and must be pursued as a goal in and of itself; whereas liberalism advocates allowing diverging ideas to compete in order to determine which changes (if any) are best. If these aren't your definitions... then what are?
I mean, progressivism to me has always been about improving human society through political action. Liberalism has a bevy of definitions--there's modern market neoliberalism, for instance, and good ol' liberalism as in liberal democracy, freedom of speech, civil rights, etc. The second overlaps with progressivism. Granted, we don't know a lot about Earth's government structure in Star Trek, but there's no way in my mind that progressive politics didn't play a huge role (as OPPOSED to neoliberalism) in helping achieve their proto-post-scarcity future. So in that way, yes, Gene's vision of Star Trek was progressive. As for contradictions to that vision that skew more liberal, I'm of two thoughts on that: on the one hand, I agree Trek is very liberal in many ways, in the "marketplace of ideas" sense like you alluded to. But a lot of the soft retcons to the universe (like Ron Moore doing away with the no-money rule) don't really scream anti-progressive to me. I just don't understand where you're coming from about Trek's liberalism and progressivism being diametrically opposed to each other
@@OrangeRiver (P.S. Apologies in advance for the length, but this has got me thinking and it's a really interesting discussion)
Isn't every political action an attempt to improve human society? By that definition alone, both Greenpeace and the Nazi Party are progressive, since they both seek/sought to improve society through political action. In fact, the only _non-progressives_ would then be anyone who either takes political action to keep things exactly as they are (Ultra-Conservatism?) or abstain from political action altogether (Anarchism? Or just nihilist inaction?). The key to progressivism is instead an approach to *change itself as a inherently desirable,* as diametrically opposed to *traditionalism* in which there are things that must _never_ be given up.
Liberalism doesn't really "overlap" with progressivism as much as it is simply a different metric. In a sense it's the application of the scientific method to determine whether, at any given point in time, it is preferable to be progressive or traditional. That is why freedom of action or thought is so integral to liberalism - you must be able to entertain various theories in order to determine which, if any, is desirable at any given time. This even applies to neoliberal markets, in the sense that interfering with the individual pieces of an economy can stifle by mistake anyone who might come up with the correct solutions. Taken to the extreme, you get libertarianism, wherein almost any interference in individual action is seen as undesirable.
As such, the opposite of liberalism is not progressivism but *authoritarianism.* Unfortunately, that is a key component of progressivism, being the attempt to push society forward constantly, whether the individuals or even the majority agree. Political action is used to obtain the power required to enforce change. That "forward" direction, however, is always subjective, so you *can* still put things like the Nazi Party or the Soviet Union into that progressive basket - they both thought they were making a change for the better in their societies, even though neither were at all liberal by any sense of the word. That still does not mean "liberal" is the opposite of "progressive", of course - it's all about _how_ a society reached the decision to change.
And that brings us back to Star Trek. It's very clear, as we both agree, that the Star Trek vision is highly progressive, in the sense that humanity is collectively assembled in order to change itself "for the better". Simultaneously, it is also liberal, as we see many aspects which ensure individual rights - whether or not they conflict with said progressive goals. However I contend that the show has _far_ more examples where the liberal ideal trumps the notional progressivism, with a clear message that the authoritarian aspect of progressivism must _always_ give way whenever there is a conflict between them. This effectively makes the show decidedly _liberal,_ within a progressive framework.
The best example I can give off the top of my head is "The Measure of a Man". Maddox's approach is 100% progressive: He's proposing to dismantle one creature for the chance to acquire an *incalculable* benefit to _trillions._ That whole "the needs of the many" thing. In a strictly progressive society, Maddox would be lauded as a hero. But in a courtroom that operates on liberal principles - one that has to consider the individual as well as opinions that differ from the dry calculation of societal benefit - Picard argues to consider the minority's viewpoint, to literally halt progress in defense of an individual's rights. This is not a singular example, either - it crops up almost every time there is a philosophical dilemma from TOS to DS9 (sadly I can't vouch for later shows).
In fact, whenever the show's liberal ideals happen to clash with _traditionalist_ views (usu. when dealing with alien cultures), it tends to relent to traditionalism with very little argument! Fortunately, whenever that happens you can be sure it'll get backlash from fans, and often *rightly so.*
As a result of all this, I am very much opposed to calling Star Trek a progressive show. Again, I think it is much better defined as a strictly liberal show where only the *setting* is progressive-oriented.
I still don't agree with how you're using the word progressive, albeit with my admittedly broad definition. Progressivism should self-evidently not include endorsing eugenics like the Nazis...that's bonkers. (I know, Woodrow Wilson's segregationist policies are calling...) Modern American progressivism inherently values social justice, in my experience. That CAN be authoritarian, but also can include libertarian socialism...frankly the problem is that neoliberal Democrats have muddied the waters on what progressive even means anymore. Even though it's consistent with your definitions, I don't agree with your point about Maddox--if he won Starfleet would have greenlight the creation of a slave race. Maybe I'm thinking in too America-centric terms, but I think the framing of your last sentence is something I can get behind. In any event, "progressive" is not even a word in my vocabulary much anymore
Couldnt they borrow the prime directive part of star trek?
There's only six TV series (ST, STA, NG, DS9, VOY, ENT) The others aren't even good enough to exist as a holo novel at Quarks
Bruh... I know you got those nostalgia goggles on because youre including enterprise and im old enough to remember when people said the same thing about it back in the day. Disco, Picard, and whatever else they got coming honestly aint worth all the drama. People are going to be making nostalgia clips on them in a decade and im gonna keep lapping up the star trek because I love star trek and want more lol
@@eminentbishop1325 I gave them all a go and can't stand anything after enterprise. The writing, characters and themes are not trek to me...but that's just me
@@eminentbishop1325 enterprise is great (every now and then)
@@eminentbishop1325 There are so many things wrong with Trek after ENT. Why is 7 of 9 in Picard, they never met in TNG or VOY. Plus after the best of both worlds Picard had a bigotry towards the borg, but now he's aligning himself with them? Star Trek hasn't been Star Trek since 2009.
@@mjanderson4
... you know you could actually watch the show... right? You sound idiotic. Since when is it a requirement that characters have to personally know each other to be in a show together? What kind of fucking complaint is that??? And trauma is not "bigotry" and the whole point of First Contact is him worki g through it. Not to mention, if you were actually in good enough faith to get the most basic facts about the show right, he isn't siding with the fucking borg. There are only former drones, mainly Hugh whith whom he shares a long relationship established on TNG. Also he literally is a former drone himself. Jesus you whiny old men
I stopped watching Star Trek Enterprise after the Xindi "terrorist" attack on Florida where Trip's sister was killed. The 9/11 replay was beyond obvious.
@@subraxas LOL
We have a serious SCIENCE problem here!
How do you design a 1430 ft skyscraper (70 ft in the 6 basement levels) to hold itself up without figuring out how to distribute the steel? Look at the shape of 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower which did not have to support twice its own weight in concrete.
So how do you analyze a supposed straight down collapse without knowing the distributions of steel and concrete? Try finding any "experts" discussing that in the last two decades. The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.
Science fiction should address the ailment of sci-fi readers who are poor at science. But we now have sci-fi writers who say "plane of the elliptic" when it should be "plane of the ecliptic". The Laws of Physics are not patriotic.
People who complain about Trek being political now amuse the hell out of me. Trek has always been political. The Original Series was anti-Vietnam War to the point of literally beating the viewer over the head with it if they had two brain cells to rub together. People are only upset about Trek being political now because its "woke" and they don't like "woke" anything because it means they're not king of shit mountain any more, but have to admit that there are interesting people and stories beyond their tiny white, straight, cis, rich, Christian experience.
Baywatch had a bigger viewer audience world wide, give me a break!!!
MAGA Month