Listen, snowflake. Star Trek has always leaned hard to port

There’s a new Star Trek series pre­mier­ing tonight on CBS. Already Twit­ter is awash1 with crit­ics com­plain­ing that Star Trek is no longer Star Trek, that it has turned into a pro­pa­gan­da vehi­cle for the «social jus­tice war­riors» who are push­ing an anti-Amer­i­can, pro-glob­al­ist, diver­si­ty-lov­ing agen­da. See the IMDB reviews, too.

One has to won­der what Star Trek these peo­ple are refer­ring to. Star Trek always pushed a social agen­da of diver­si­ty and uni­ty. Gene Rod­den­ber­ry was an out­spo­ken social­ist, and fought to pro­duce a show with a crew made up of peo­ples from nations around the world. The bridge crew of the orig­i­nal Enter­prise includ­ed a Russ­ian in the depths of the cold war.

The Fed­er­a­tion of Plan­ets includ­ed peo­ples of many dif­fer­ent plan­ets. It was­n’t just glob­al­ist, the vision was uni­ver­sal­ist. The first offi­cer of the Enter­prise was­n’t even from Earth. Not only that, he was mixed-race.

Do these buf­foons not remem­ber the episode Let That Be Your Last Bat­tle­field where the peo­ple with black on the left side of their faces and the peo­ple wth white on the left side of their faces destroyed their entire civ­i­liza­tion because they could­n’t get along? Lokai calls Kirk an «ide­al­is­tic dream­er» before going back to a plan­et of corpses.

Or City on the Edge of For­ev­er where Kirk falls in love with social­ist peace activist Edith Keeler?

Or the episodes where Starfleet val­ues came to log­ger­heads with the entre­pre­neur­ial ven­tures of Har­ry Mudd?

I could go on, but theres not much point.

I might not like the social agen­da of Star Trek Dis­cov­ery. I don’t know; I haven’t watched the first episode yet. There could be any num­ber of rea­sons that I, as a life­long Star Trek fan, might dis­like this new series. But if I find it to be too activist, that won’t make it any less Star Trek. That will make it exact­ly Star Trek.

Leave a Reply