You're viewing a single thread.
Am I the only one here who's pretty much indifferent towards Crusher but couldn't stand that bigot Pulaski?? 😬
I'm going to defend Pulaski here because I don't think she was a bigot. Data was unique. There was no precedent there for how to relate to an android like Data. To the point that Starfleet literally had to have a legal case over whether or not he is sentient. She was a doctor. Her idea of sentience was biological. She did not have the framework to initially understand that an android can be sentient.
Look at it this way: let's say tomorrow, someone develops an actual AI, a sentient computer program rather than just an LLM. And you told people, "I know all those other LLMs sound like they're alive, but this one really is alive," a lot of people would find that pretty hard to buy. She was in a world where computers sounded alive but were not alive.
There's also a lot of bigotry in Star Trek that is a lot worse than that. I don't just mean O'Brien and the "Cardis" stuff. McCoy was just a bigot. He talked about Vulcans the way his Southen ancestors would talk about N-s. And he never learned considering he was still at it when he was an old man at Farpoint Station. Kirk is such an anti-Klingon bigot that he almost starts a war over it. And he essentially gets proven right even while also being wrong. There's even Federation-wide prejudices. All genetic augments are bad people even if their parents did it when they were babies. Romulans cannot be trusted. Ferengi are always trying to cheat you. Of course, these prejudices always get shown to be true in the show (or there's the "one of the good ones" character), but that's just justifying the bigotry.
So I would put Pulaski pretty damn low on the Star Trek bigotry level, especially compared to some more beloved characters.
I would argue that Bone's anti-Vulcan specism isn't exactly like anti-black racism. Vulcans purposely held humans back and avoided sharing technology for about a hundred years after first contact. They were not a lower class of people, but viewed as elitists who know better.
To me it's closer to how (some) Southern folks view "liberals."
Yeah, Star Trek's monocultures make disliking a culture the same thing as disliking a species, but in Star Trek V Bones seemed delighted at the idea of a passionate Vulcan, showing it's not the species he has an issue with.
I would argue that any Vulcan who acts like they're inherently superior to other more emotional beings is being illogical.
Did that idea really exist in the franchise before Enterprise?
Data was unique. There was no precedent there for how to relate to an android like Data. To the point that Starfleet literally had to have a legal case over whether or not he is sentient. She was a doctor. Her idea of sentience was biological. She did not have the framework to initially understand that an android can be sentient.
I see your point, but counterpoint: based on the fact that he was a Starfleet officer, which only people are allowed to be, and just interacting with him, it's pretty clear on an instinctive level that he has personality quirks, preferences, self awareness etc.
What's more, I could understand her initial doubts due to what you described, but even after getting to know him, she'd keep gainsaying his personhood for no apparent reason other than seemingly trying to convince HIM that he was nothing but a robot.
It's that stubbornness and lack of rationale that makes it feel like bigotry rather than just confusion and inquisitiveness to me.
As for bigotry being rife in Star Trek, this sounds like a cop-out but it's true: I haven't seen much yet since I started with TNG and am only a few episodes into season 3 so far lol
Even with what you have seen so far, think about how the bigotry is baked in when humans are super diverse but every alien in the show is part of a monoculture that has a bunch of very well-defined stereotypes. Worf is a Klingon so he acts like how any Klingon would act and it doesn't matter if he was raised by humans because Klingons are Klingons and will always be Klingons.
In the case of Worf, though, he's extra Klingon. Which isn't all that unusual; second-generation immigrants sometimes lean extra hard into their perceived home culture despite the fact that they only know how their parents act and miss out on a lot of subtleties. I can imagine that even other Klingons think he's weird for listening to nothing but Klingon opera.
But yeah, in general Star Trek does simplify; species have one culture and planets have one biome. Then again, the narrative usually wouldn't be helped by lines like "it's a beautiful, verdant planet except for where you'll beam down, which is an asbestos desert that looks like a bowl of used cat litter" or "we're going to rendezvous with a Klingon ship but the crew are part of this subculture that doesn't consider physical combat valid and exclusively dresses in yellow".
We do see more detail with cultures the story spend a lot of time around; e.g. the Bajorans are shown to be multi-faceted because those facets are relevant to the narrative.
My very favorite instance of that happening was actually on SG-1. Where O'Neill and Carter accidentally end up in an ice crevasse, and she tunnels up to the surface, takes a look around and says "It's an ice planet."
spoiler
They're on Earth in Antarctica
Bajorans are a lone exception. Virtually every Klingon is the same. Romulans, Andorians, Cardassians, all pretty much the same.
Then again, humans are also pretty samey from an outside perspective. There aren't many humans who openly reject the Federation's ideals. A small number of exceptions does exist but other species get those as well. Even the Maquis still behave like Federation people; while they fight their own little war they generally do that while adhering to Federation standards.
a Klingon ship but the crew are part of this subculture that doesn’t consider physical combat valid
ENT has an entire moon-sized prison full of those.
True.. Tbf though, most of the races seem to be more or less allegorical representatives of different aspects of human nature, so having too many pacifist Klingons or brave and selfless Ferengi or whatever would just muddle the narrative IMO..
If I see someone shouting at a fridge and calling it names, then I wouldn't like them either.
Just because it is an object, doesn't mean you don't have to treat it with respect. Especially if it isn't even yours.
she was obviously written like that so they could give her some character growth.
lot of the star trek characters didn't exactly age well according to today's standards, just take it with a grain of salt. i definitely liked her more than crusher, who was always so bland...
Good point. Seeing her for the first time a few months ago did her no favors lol. Tbf though, she was casually yet stubbornly bigoted even by late 80s standards in a show that was inherently xenophilic if anything.
Also, might just be me, but it very much felt like the bigotry was supposed to be a POSITIVE trait to show of her scientific skepticism or whatever compared to all those Pollyannas just going around treating other people as equals by default 🤦
have you finished the season already? she does get some development.
Yeah I have, but I don't remember any development with regards to her bigotry, her stubbornness, or both being portrayed as her being "the rational one", which is what I hated about the character lol
she started the season acting like an asshole to data, she ended up admitting her prejudice, asking for his help and respecting him.
i think the biggest problem was her character left as abruptly as it entered the scene, so there wasn't enough time.
