OK but they almost certainly wanted a black person on cast for that show to push a social agenda that "color is only skin deep". And the decision to show an inter-racial kiss between Uhura and Kirk was deliberate.
Does anyone really believe that color is only skin deep anymore? In theory it could have worked, but as I'm fond of saying the Soviet Union outlived the idea of racial equality. How bad does an idea have to be if it can't even outlive a totalitarian Communist State?
Every era's Star Trek pushes the "progressive" ideas of it day. And TNG is still my favorite show that I still watch all the time, but I recognize it for what it is: propaganda for a previous era, no longer relevant.
OK but they almost certainly wanted a black person on cast for that show to push a social agenda that "color is only skin deep".
I'm no Star Trek fan, and I don't know about their motivation for this casting. However, it makes more sense for there to be black characters in a show about the distant future than it does in one about medieval Europe. Presumably, blacks didn't go extinct, so they're still out there somewhere.
Does anyone really believe that color is only skin deep anymore?
Color itself is skin-deep. It's not the color creating any differences, like lactose intolerance.
Every era's Star Trek pushes the "progressive" ideas of it day. And TNG is still my favorite show that I still watch all the time, but I recognize it for what it is: propaganda for a previous era, no longer relevant.
I liked Captain Planet when I was an impressionable kid. Obviously, I now recognize it as pretty blatant environmentalist propaganda.
Color itself is skin-deep. It's not the color creating any differences, like lactose intolerance.
No, it's all the other genetics that accompany said color that influence behavior, but let's not sit here and pretend that they are decoupled from one another.
While there's been a social attempt to eradicate the concept of "biological differences by genetic upbringing" (and one could posit that this current trend of 'genetic equity' is some pseudo-intellectual way of addressing that and thus "swinging in the other direction") The reality is that anybody that actually knew what was going on could see the problem but the faith/hope was that education and work could overcome the differences (and in a lot of cases it does).
The problem is that this isn't just "race" issue by color - The irish are not the dutch are not the italians are not the greeks are not the germans, etc; But that there's this inspid retarded notion by 'the elite' that it's all white vs black.
tl;dr - Yes Star Trek was showing an ideological narrative of the future where ALL THE RACES/NATIONS had come together in peace per humanitarian norms of the day. But I don't consider that woke by any stretch of the imagination - just a future where the world could work together in peace. By TNG this had been warped into the woke notion of social justice - because that's where Roddenberry had deluded himself into. (We DoNt uSe MoNeY bEcAuSe We SuRvIvE oN tHe GaS oF oUr OwN fArTs)
OK but they almost certainly wanted a black person on cast for that show to push a social agenda that "color is only skin deep". And the decision to show an inter-racial kiss between Uhura and Kirk was deliberate.
Does anyone really believe that color is only skin deep anymore? In theory it could have worked, but as I'm fond of saying the Soviet Union outlived the idea of racial equality. How bad does an idea have to be if it can't even outlive a totalitarian Communist State?
Every era's Star Trek pushes the "progressive" ideas of it day. And TNG is still my favorite show that I still watch all the time, but I recognize it for what it is: propaganda for a previous era, no longer relevant.
I'm no Star Trek fan, and I don't know about their motivation for this casting. However, it makes more sense for there to be black characters in a show about the distant future than it does in one about medieval Europe. Presumably, blacks didn't go extinct, so they're still out there somewhere.
Color itself is skin-deep. It's not the color creating any differences, like lactose intolerance.
I liked Captain Planet when I was an impressionable kid. Obviously, I now recognize it as pretty blatant environmentalist propaganda.
No, it's all the other genetics that accompany said color that influence behavior, but let's not sit here and pretend that they are decoupled from one another.
Genetics may vary between all the groups within a color though.
While there's been a social attempt to eradicate the concept of "biological differences by genetic upbringing" (and one could posit that this current trend of 'genetic equity' is some pseudo-intellectual way of addressing that and thus "swinging in the other direction") The reality is that anybody that actually knew what was going on could see the problem but the faith/hope was that education and work could overcome the differences (and in a lot of cases it does).
The problem is that this isn't just "race" issue by color - The irish are not the dutch are not the italians are not the greeks are not the germans, etc; But that there's this inspid retarded notion by 'the elite' that it's all white vs black.
tl;dr - Yes Star Trek was showing an ideological narrative of the future where ALL THE RACES/NATIONS had come together in peace per humanitarian norms of the day. But I don't consider that woke by any stretch of the imagination - just a future where the world could work together in peace. By TNG this had been warped into the woke notion of social justice - because that's where Roddenberry had deluded himself into. (We DoNt uSe MoNeY bEcAuSe We SuRvIvE oN tHe GaS oF oUr OwN fArTs)