I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook.
It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'youth education' - again, which can be positive, but it's always going to be a hint 'North Korea' no matter how you cut it.
I think motives are not so bad ... but we live in a new world. It's not so easy as 'putting a traditionally marginalized person in a leading role' anymore. That's all fine, but it's not thoughtful. It's Disney. And lazy.
As evidence of this culture - here you have a show that puts extraordinary attention on putting 'marginalized people into leading roles' - and yet the storyline is 'still racist'. This is getting ridiculous.
How about 'it's just not good'. Because it's not?
Coen Brothers said it right - while 'diversity might be important' - the most important thing is the story'. Start with the story, focus on the story. If you start with a social objective, it's just going to come out all wrong, and be 'bad'. Like the new Star Trek. Sadly.
"If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!"
It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. It's not common, but nobody will bat an eye, and I really don't think the vast, vast majority of people care one way or another. It's not the 1960's.
There are a lot of interesting stories to tell, that may very well involve 'non classical' views, so let's tell them.
My point is the lines were easier drawn then - but not in 2017.
1950 was less nuanced. Black people were not allowed on TV, it was 'shocking' to have them there. An easy choice, in retrospect.
In 2017 - real social progress is complicated, it's not black and white. No pun intended :). I do not think that 'social progress' - in the populist sense, defined by the slightly-left-of-centre popular social voices - will have history fully behind them. Surely in many ways, but think it's much more complicated now.
I completely agree! But neither is it "saddling the show with SJWism and PC culture." It's just... a normal, unremarkable thing, which as you say the vast majority of people won't care about one way or the other.
From a review: "T'Kuvma, the Klingon leader, has a rallying cry of “Remain Klingon .... loathes the Federation ideals of equality, diversity, and peace. "
Those are nice ideals, and the work in a nation like America, which is 'an idea'.
But consider for a moment that 95% of people outside America live in 'ethnic groups' - and who's ethnic identities are existentially challenged by an American led corporate-globalism.
I live in Quebec, where the issue is real. The decline of the 'Francophone' culture - which is very different than the 'rest of North America' - can be measured. It's not doing so badly, but it's an issue: new immigrants want to speak English, and be 'Anglo' (i.e. not just language), meaning at one point in the future 'there is no Quebec'. I'm not hyperbolic, I think it will be ok - but my point is the issue is fully legit. Literally two hours ago I had a convo in a cafe with a French girl studying finance 'in English' to move to 'New York' 'where the money is' (literally her words).
I agree with the commenter (maybe for different reasons) because I feel that many outside America will simply see 'The Federation' as a metaphor for 'Americanisation'.
"We are morally superior"
"Your culture is barbaric"
"Give up your stupid cultures and norms, and become like us, speak English, and put a Starbucks on every street corner"
Even though that might not be the intent - often, it really is pragmatically that.
'Free Trade' with America, which is 10x bigger than any partner really means: "once we have even trade, our companies will devour yours". Imagine if Canada-US had 'free trade' on ownership of Telecoms. Do you think Bell Canada would buy Verizon? No. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T would instantly buy Telus, Rogers and Bell (their Canadian counteroparts). 100% of the 'good jobs' would go to the US, in Canada, only 'tech support' and 'local marketing' would remain. But because the 'balance sheet' would look better, economists like it (and have convinced even left-of-center politicians of this).
Yes - ideas such as 'equal pay for equal work' are fairly universal ... but cultural context is relevant.
You know what would be more 'authentically Star Trek'? ----> the 'Prime Directive' !!! "Don't mess with other cultures!"
If they stuck to the 'Prime Directive' maybe they'd be more appreciative/understanding of the Klingon's views instead of just starting a war (!) with them :)
FYI - the original Klingon's I don't think were politicized in this context, of course I think Rodenberry may have used them as a stand-in for the Soviets or whatever. (Soviets were hard-core egalitarians though, at least on paper. More female Engineers than males in Soviet Russia).
Anyhow: "Disney Social Politics" does not fit very well in the rest of the world. Even though Americans think they might be 'doing good' by promoting specific values, like so many things, we know the parable about 'good intentions'. Let's try the 'Prime Directive' (except when it comes to stopping things like genocide etc..) I like that one :).
My sole point was that Star Trek has literally always been explicitly about idealized, utopian social justice -- so complaining that it's in decline because of SJWism is ridiculous. Star Trek was 100% PC SJW from day one.
Instead I guess I'll say that those people should try to be clearer about whatever distinction it is that they do see between those things, because just using "SJW" as a pejorative without explanation tends to look like a rejection of those ideals.