MailBucket home // ieet-images
Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:21:46 -0400
Frelling brilliant as usual. Also see their analysis of Dr. Who and
British politics:
http://io9.com/338332/doctor-who-revolutionary-or-tool-of-the-man
http://io9.com/373241/do-real+world-politics-affect-star-treks-prime-dir ective
Do Real-World Politics Affect Star Trek's Prime Directive?
<http://io9.com/373241/do-real+world-politics-affect-star-treks-prime-di rective>
The cardinal rule in the Star Trek universe is the Prime Directive,
which forbids the super-advanced Federation from interfering with the
development of less-advanced cultures. Of course every crew breaks it
regularly, but some crews have broken it more than others. Since Star
Trek often tries to make reference to current U.S. politics, we decided
to see if there was a relationship between these imaginary violations
and what the US was doing in the world. Click through for a comparison
of U.S. overseas troop levels and Star Trek's meddling, which may
surprise you.
As you can see, Trek's crews have always treated the Prime Directive
like a speed limit on the Interstate. But the high point of Prime
Directive violations was the late 1990s, which surpassed even the late
1960s of Kirk's cowboy-ism.
At the same time, the United States was reducing its troop presence
around the world. Why did Starfleet start interfering more, even as
America was throwing less of its weight around? The late 1990s was an
era of military spending cutbacks and base closures, when the U.S.
seemed to be less influential without the threat of the Soviet Union to
rally our own citizens, let alone our allies.
I know what you're going to say: It's all down to Star Trek: Voyager's
Captain Janeway and her "anything goes" approach. But first of all,
Janeway's not the only culprit. Ben Sisko on Deep Space Nine also played
fast and loose with the Directive more in the late 1990s than in its
earlier seasons. And the Federation also threw its non-interference
principles out the window, in different ways, in both 1998's Star Trek:
Insurrection and 2002's Star Trek: Nemesis.
But also, consider that Voyager is a metaphor for the U.S.' more
confusing situation after the Cold War. Instead of being one superpower
facing another (like the Klingons, Romulan or Borg) suddenly the Voyager
is isolated in a quadrant full of independent players, each of whom has
its own agenda. Just as the Soviets were replaced with Bosnians, Serbs
and Kosovans and the U.S. had to form alliances to deal with messy
situations, Voyager faces a bunch of warring races and Janeway has to
strike deals with different races to escape in one piece.
All of which makes us wonder: If Star Trek were on the air as a
television show now, and it took place during an era where the Directive
applied, would we see fewer violations? After all, U.S. troop levels in
other countries have rebounded, and we're once again involved in a
massive confrontation overseas. Would a 24th century Trek step more
lightly around the galaxy, to counterbalance the United States' greater
use of force?