I submit that this country doesn't even need the courage of the Halkans. We'd face no danger from simply refusing to assist genocide. In fact, we'd gain respect from much of the world. No, we need the MORALS of the Halkans.
I was going to write "the moral courage" of the Halkans, but I left it "courage" because I think they possess physical, ethical, and moral courage. They are prepared to suffer death rather than to be a party to inflicting misery on others. They are entirely courageous, in short.
I did gather that's what you meant. But sometimes people can have physical courage and not have any morals. Also, the Halkans' standing firm on their principles may well have required sacrificing their lives, as the clip portrayed. If the U.S. would stand firm on its [supposed] principles, the only loss would be monetary, and only suffered by war profiteers. Plus which, the country would get a start on climbing out of the moral gutter. Not to mention the saving of Gazan lives, of course.
given i'm not familiar w/ star trek, bill, never having owned a TV and being overseas during the star trek era, i cannot comment from a fount of knowledge on the subject of star trek. however, it seems to me that it might be redundant to differentiate or slice up the word 'courage' into 'moral courage' and 'physical courage'. not to stamp too fine a point on it, but i thought the word 'courage' incorporated the idea of stepping up to the plate of morality and defending what one knows is righteous or noble or honourable behaviour toward others, whether or not the consequences for one's doing so were detrimental to one's self. i doubt one could behave in a courageous way w/out a moral compass to direct her/his actions. that might be more accurately labelled 'bravery'.
That episode has always been one of my favorites since seeing it in its original broadcast. You make a great point in focusing on the Halkans. Too often, I think, the context for many of those original series episodes faded into the background with the conflict Kirk and crew are facing.
I also liked the the alternate Spock predicting the collapse of the empire - something now very real in our bad version of the "Federation".
Great article Bill - many good insights into what ST was actually reflecting in terms of cultural entitlement. And yet, still fondly remembered by those of us who were a bit older and saw its first run as teenagers; it was a breath of fresh air in a universe of dreck TV, e.g., "My Mother, the Car", and offered hope for a better future.
Too bad Roddenberry couldn't have taken it as far as he wanted with the network and its censors.
That was a great episode. It always brings me back to thinking that a root cause of the problem is that the focus on wealth accumulation, and shafting workers in the process, is a system designed to remove all traces of morals and ethics from those who are hell bent on profits. When it is all about the bottom line and revenue streams, peace is off the table. Peace is not profitable, at least not in this alternate Imperial universe that Joe Biden and his denizens have given us.
You miss the point. It wouldn't matter if there was no such thing as money, greed would still exist. Greed existed long before money was ever conceived. There will be people who want all the toys or all the ice cream or all of whatever it is that pleases them. It is simple greed. Money is just one of those things that makes it easy for greedy people to steel from others.
Thanks for the reminder of that episode. I'm now reminded of a 'sci-fi' I really liked, Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon, published in 1937. It's the observations of a space-time traveler and the intelligent beings he encounters amid the star systems. In one sub-story, he encounters a pacifist race that in its principles will not join a war to defend itself and so faces annihilation. I was struck by that at the time and it comes to mind from time to time, as it is the most extreme form of pacifism that I could imagine- one that would seem to fly in the face of logic and the prime directive of survival.
Power is the problem. If a human or group of humans gain enough power they will be a threat not just to other humans but to everything. Before modern technology, all was local, the damage was contained. No longer.
The primary historical example is the expansion of the Europeans over native people around the globe, killing and destroying as needed to get whatever they wanted from the colonies they established, then waging war with each other over the colonies.
But it is a human problem, not limited to Europeans. The change in outlook toward everything other than oneself or one's group when power is obtained is evident throughout human history as first this and then that group swept aside another.
Israel is the current example of the problem. One could say that if any group would have learned from history what power can do it would be the Jews. They suffered terribly in Europe over centuries but they survived. Even the holocaust that attempted to wipe them out failed while at the same time proving beyond doubt that power will allow humans to do anything demonstrated by Nazi Germany.
But the wrong lesson was learned by the Zionists, a minority of Jews at the end of WW2, in favor of Jews obtaining total power by seizing a land for exclusive possession and then building enough power to resist all who disagreed with them. This they did.
In their refusal to see the lesson about what power always does, Israel proceeded to fall into the very same situation. They were bewitched by their superiority in battle, saw themselves as righteous vindicators of the holocaust and never looked back. All who might come against them deserved death. In fact, attack first and pre-empt. Add in nuclear weapons and the unlimited backing of the US and there is no limit to Israel's arrogance, so sure are they of control of Congress. Netanyahu makes strident ultimatums as did Hitler. No restraint, no hint of compromise, it is all dictation, warnings, self righteousness addressing a world (the entire world including the US!) that had better mind what is said.
This would be farcical, a tiny country of 8 million people dictating to the world, if it weren't so dangerous because of total US backing (for now). But this mouse that roars is the proof of the awful consequences of power.
Of course, humanity itself with the power it has obtained is showing the problem on a global scale. Do we care about wiping out species, do we even care about the threat to us from our production of global warming? No, because we are the species with all the power and we would not listen to the opposition of the entire natural world, helpless before us, even if it could realize what is happening and had the power to speak to us in protest. Did slave owners heed the complaints of their slaves?
Our conquest of disease, our mass production of food, our technologies that allow a creature evolved to run on foot across the African veldt now feeling no hesitation to get in a car for a trip of 1/4 mile or to fly without a moment of hesitation around the globe just for fun, to live in heated and cooled homes expecting every object we want to be produced and delivered to our door. In our power we have completely forgotten that we are just another animal species as we maintain a "lifestyle" completely alien to any other plant or animal that exists, and believe it sustainable!
Israel, as all with power before it, will meet the same fate. So, on a global scale, will humanity. Technology has liberated us to temporarily escape nature into our very comfortable artificial world, but only briefly before the delusion of permanency ends, evaporating as it must in the face of reality.
I love the reference. "Mirror, Mirror" was one of my favorite episodes, if only because of Spock in a goatee. The sad irony of that episode as analogy is that the US thinks of themselves as the good Federation, yet, in reality, they are the imperial warmongers of the ISS Enterprise.
Personally, I would offer "Errand of Mercy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errand_of_Mercy) as a more hopeful Star Trek episode. The Organians, through force of will get the Federation and the Klingons to negotiate a treaty that ended their incipient war. They did this by recognizing clearly that both sides were warmongers. Blessed be the peacemakers!
Genocide in the promotion of MIC profit is no vice.
While an installed puppet’s right to host the empire’s offensive might next door to our next target is a moral imperative worthy of tripping nuclear war
Hi Everyone: In case you're interested, I've written about this "Star Trek" episode before, back in 2009 for TomDispatch.
Here's the link: https://tomdispatch.com/william-astore-affirming-our-prime-directive/
"Why do we lack the courage of the Halkans?"
I submit that this country doesn't even need the courage of the Halkans. We'd face no danger from simply refusing to assist genocide. In fact, we'd gain respect from much of the world. No, we need the MORALS of the Halkans.
Yes -- the moral courage.
Precisely so!
I was going to write "the moral courage" of the Halkans, but I left it "courage" because I think they possess physical, ethical, and moral courage. They are prepared to suffer death rather than to be a party to inflicting misery on others. They are entirely courageous, in short.
I did gather that's what you meant. But sometimes people can have physical courage and not have any morals. Also, the Halkans' standing firm on their principles may well have required sacrificing their lives, as the clip portrayed. If the U.S. would stand firm on its [supposed] principles, the only loss would be monetary, and only suffered by war profiteers. Plus which, the country would get a start on climbing out of the moral gutter. Not to mention the saving of Gazan lives, of course.
Not to mention that, on its best day, the U S. doesn't come close to the Halkans on the scale of simple decency.
given i'm not familiar w/ star trek, bill, never having owned a TV and being overseas during the star trek era, i cannot comment from a fount of knowledge on the subject of star trek. however, it seems to me that it might be redundant to differentiate or slice up the word 'courage' into 'moral courage' and 'physical courage'. not to stamp too fine a point on it, but i thought the word 'courage' incorporated the idea of stepping up to the plate of morality and defending what one knows is righteous or noble or honourable behaviour toward others, whether or not the consequences for one's doing so were detrimental to one's self. i doubt one could behave in a courageous way w/out a moral compass to direct her/his actions. that might be more accurately labelled 'bravery'.
That episode has always been one of my favorites since seeing it in its original broadcast. You make a great point in focusing on the Halkans. Too often, I think, the context for many of those original series episodes faded into the background with the conflict Kirk and crew are facing.
I also liked the the alternate Spock predicting the collapse of the empire - something now very real in our bad version of the "Federation".
Yes. I'm sure in the 1960s, most Americans saw themselves as the "good" Federation and the "evil" one was probably thought to be the USSR.
Of course, the 1960s witnessed America's imperious war in Southeast Asia, not exactly "good." And it's gotten less good since then.
We are now the ISS Enterprise, a theme I've used before, here: https://tomdispatch.com/william-astore-affirming-our-prime-directive/
Great article Bill - many good insights into what ST was actually reflecting in terms of cultural entitlement. And yet, still fondly remembered by those of us who were a bit older and saw its first run as teenagers; it was a breath of fresh air in a universe of dreck TV, e.g., "My Mother, the Car", and offered hope for a better future.
Too bad Roddenberry couldn't have taken it as far as he wanted with the network and its censors.
That was a great episode. It always brings me back to thinking that a root cause of the problem is that the focus on wealth accumulation, and shafting workers in the process, is a system designed to remove all traces of morals and ethics from those who are hell bent on profits. When it is all about the bottom line and revenue streams, peace is off the table. Peace is not profitable, at least not in this alternate Imperial universe that Joe Biden and his denizens have given us.
And another ST episode, "Cloud Minders" from season 3 explored many of those issues of resource and worker exploitation to benefit a privileged elite.
Yes, the Cloud Dwellers vs. the Troglodytes. I am afraid Joe Biden isn't going to give us the same happy ending as that episode did.
Stated more succinctly, the root cause of the problem is simple greed.
And we allow it. And some even applaud and encourage it.
You miss the point. It wouldn't matter if there was no such thing as money, greed would still exist. Greed existed long before money was ever conceived. There will be people who want all the toys or all the ice cream or all of whatever it is that pleases them. It is simple greed. Money is just one of those things that makes it easy for greedy people to steel from others.
Thanks for the reminder of that episode. I'm now reminded of a 'sci-fi' I really liked, Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon, published in 1937. It's the observations of a space-time traveler and the intelligent beings he encounters amid the star systems. In one sub-story, he encounters a pacifist race that in its principles will not join a war to defend itself and so faces annihilation. I was struck by that at the time and it comes to mind from time to time, as it is the most extreme form of pacifism that I could imagine- one that would seem to fly in the face of logic and the prime directive of survival.
I almost follow the analogy, Bill...but maybe if you put it in terms of a My Favorite Martian episode perhaps I can fully grasp it.🤭
Obviously, I kid, Bill; I apologize. I use humor and sarcasm as mechanisms to prevent me from breaking down and screaming at the world these days.
Thank you for your enlightening creativity.
Power is the problem. If a human or group of humans gain enough power they will be a threat not just to other humans but to everything. Before modern technology, all was local, the damage was contained. No longer.
The primary historical example is the expansion of the Europeans over native people around the globe, killing and destroying as needed to get whatever they wanted from the colonies they established, then waging war with each other over the colonies.
But it is a human problem, not limited to Europeans. The change in outlook toward everything other than oneself or one's group when power is obtained is evident throughout human history as first this and then that group swept aside another.
Israel is the current example of the problem. One could say that if any group would have learned from history what power can do it would be the Jews. They suffered terribly in Europe over centuries but they survived. Even the holocaust that attempted to wipe them out failed while at the same time proving beyond doubt that power will allow humans to do anything demonstrated by Nazi Germany.
But the wrong lesson was learned by the Zionists, a minority of Jews at the end of WW2, in favor of Jews obtaining total power by seizing a land for exclusive possession and then building enough power to resist all who disagreed with them. This they did.
In their refusal to see the lesson about what power always does, Israel proceeded to fall into the very same situation. They were bewitched by their superiority in battle, saw themselves as righteous vindicators of the holocaust and never looked back. All who might come against them deserved death. In fact, attack first and pre-empt. Add in nuclear weapons and the unlimited backing of the US and there is no limit to Israel's arrogance, so sure are they of control of Congress. Netanyahu makes strident ultimatums as did Hitler. No restraint, no hint of compromise, it is all dictation, warnings, self righteousness addressing a world (the entire world including the US!) that had better mind what is said.
This would be farcical, a tiny country of 8 million people dictating to the world, if it weren't so dangerous because of total US backing (for now). But this mouse that roars is the proof of the awful consequences of power.
Of course, humanity itself with the power it has obtained is showing the problem on a global scale. Do we care about wiping out species, do we even care about the threat to us from our production of global warming? No, because we are the species with all the power and we would not listen to the opposition of the entire natural world, helpless before us, even if it could realize what is happening and had the power to speak to us in protest. Did slave owners heed the complaints of their slaves?
Our conquest of disease, our mass production of food, our technologies that allow a creature evolved to run on foot across the African veldt now feeling no hesitation to get in a car for a trip of 1/4 mile or to fly without a moment of hesitation around the globe just for fun, to live in heated and cooled homes expecting every object we want to be produced and delivered to our door. In our power we have completely forgotten that we are just another animal species as we maintain a "lifestyle" completely alien to any other plant or animal that exists, and believe it sustainable!
Israel, as all with power before it, will meet the same fate. So, on a global scale, will humanity. Technology has liberated us to temporarily escape nature into our very comfortable artificial world, but only briefly before the delusion of permanency ends, evaporating as it must in the face of reality.
I love the reference. "Mirror, Mirror" was one of my favorite episodes, if only because of Spock in a goatee. The sad irony of that episode as analogy is that the US thinks of themselves as the good Federation, yet, in reality, they are the imperial warmongers of the ISS Enterprise.
Personally, I would offer "Errand of Mercy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errand_of_Mercy) as a more hopeful Star Trek episode. The Organians, through force of will get the Federation and the Klingons to negotiate a treaty that ended their incipient war. They did this by recognizing clearly that both sides were warmongers. Blessed be the peacemakers!
Yes, a great episode. Love the way Kirk and the Klingon were both pissed at the Organians for not letting them fight their "glorious" war.
Genocide in the promotion of MIC profit is no vice.
While an installed puppet’s right to host the empire’s offensive might next door to our next target is a moral imperative worthy of tripping nuclear war
Dennis, a few don't know, most don't care, and a few also live in a vacuum of sorts where they are always right no matter how many people must die.
Even Jeff? Now I'm worried ...
Disney World/Land is the American Mecca. Las Vegas is Medina. Holy sites to wasteful capitalism, the American religion of choice.