![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarnathI've been watching the discussion these past days, and I'd like to offer a different perspective; I propose that:
1) It was a good thing that they lifted the "ethnic" symbols from Khan because the way the character was originally written was racist,
and
2) They did it already in The Wrath of Khan back in 1982.
Let's start with 1).
I think a lot of people have forgotten a lot about Space Seed. Understandably, since it's a rather unremarkable episode with a very stupid love story as the pivotal point. But what was it really about? Who was this Khan, and what were the issues he represented?
People talk about classic Khan a revolution of a cerebral antagonist, but I think this is a false impression. The episode itself is set up to contrast the enlightenment of society in the 23rd century with the barbarism of the past of which Khan is the representative.
Enlightenment versus barbarism
This is the main theme of the episode. Yes, really. The whole point is how this dangerous, primitive (compared to the 23rd century), violent warlord is pitted against the civilised present.
He is used to illustrate the Earth's violent and barbaric past, and I personally think that the "foreign" imagery, the mismatched "exotic" names, the gold and opulence in his costumes, the "men like me take what they want", how he treats the woman who falls for him, and the feudal ideals he espouses are meant to create a picture of a strong and fearsome and in some ways noble and intelligent but in essence barbaric enemy. He's also treacherous and underhanded towards anyone not of his people.
"Probably a Sikh; they were the most fantastic warriors", the historian (Marla McGivers) says. He later seduces her by dominating her, making her kneel, and pretty much forcing her to help him take the ship. He's written in relation to her as the powerful but mysterious "oriental" prince, or the sheiks in the old rapey romance novels, who compels her with his strange magnetism. They actually say it in the episode:
"He has a magnetism.. almost electric. You felt it." (Bones to Kirk when Kirk asks what Bones thinks of Khan's influence over her.)
Later on, there's a conversation about him:
Bones: "The last of the tyrants to be overthrown."
Spock: "Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is..."
Kirk: "We humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling but there, nevertheless."
They admire him, but the way one admires a wild animal, something uncivilised that needs to be controlled, and because they still have a streak of barbarism. Of which he is the representative in this scenario. Note that they don't actually seem to think he can be reasoned with, which is validated by the episode when he's quick to violence, and his only goal being to conquer this new world.
Some lines from various parts of the episode, though mostly from the dinner they have with him:
Kirk: "They were hardly supermen. They were aggressive, arrogant, could begin battle among themselves."
Khan: "Such men they take what they want."
Spock: "Like a team of animals under one whip?"
Kirk: "You have a tendency to express yourself in military terms, Mr Khan."
Khan: "It has been said that social occasions are only warfare concealed. Many prefer it more honest, more open."
He is intelligent in the way that he can learn the technical aspects of the new world he wakes up in very easily, but he only wants to use it to rule, to conquer, to be a warlord. He has no appreciation for or interest in diplomacy or the finer points of politics.
Loyalty and treachery
He also has trouble understanding the loyalty the crew feel for Captain Kirk, why they won't betray him, which is another situation where he tries to solve the situation with threats and blackmail.
He is loyal to his own "tribe", but he is not written to have a general sense of honour in the way that Star Trek stands for, that is, to treat every person with a certain amount of respect. For him, might makes right, and his superior power gives him the right to rule and to take what he wants (something that's reinforced by him saying "I will take" about various things during the episode). He's portrayed as untrustworthy in general, much like the Klingons in TOS, and the Romulans in TNG.
Terror
This is something that may be more relevant to us today than when the episode was originally aired, but when he fails, he tries to blow the enterprise up along with himself and everyone else, effectively turning himself into a suicide bomber. I think it's mostly important in view of AOS (reboot) Khan doing much the same at the end of the film (when he thinks he's lost everything.
As for 2)
For The Wrath of Khan all "ethnic" markers were gone. No brown face make-up, no oriental-looking clothes or hair, not even a mention of his origins. Despite it being the same actor, he's barely recognisable as the same character.
There's no question that Hollywood is too white, or that institutionalised racism makes it hard for actors who aren't white to find work. My thoughts on this particular character though, is that he was written in a racist way from the start, and removing the "ethnic" markers that were only there to make him seem more threatening and uncivilised is probably not a bad idea.
The fact that Khan of AOS is a terrorist with (in the beginning) unfathomable goals who is only loyal to his "in-group" and has no scruples using the Enterprise crew and then killing them, seemingly having not the slightest loyalty or camaraderie spring up from shared trials is another thing to consider. He's a stranger among them with a different culture they don't quite understand, and which makes him dangerous to them. Even his nature in itself is a danger. Not to mention that he bombs major cities and flies a ship into high-rise buildings; that would not have been a good thing in the political climate of today. I know it's simplistic, but I still think it would create the wrong impression with a lot of people. And lets face it, these are all things that would sound like a racist portrayal for non-white characters.
On top of that, AOS Khan has a lot in common with Space Seed Khan; he's violent, untrustworthy, and completely without mercy for anyone who gets in his way. He's also sympathetic in many ways, but the terrorist markers would probably overshadow that for a lot of people if he'd been anything but white. Especially as it's presented as being his innate, genetic nature rather than ideology, and that he could never live in a peaceful, enlightened society where violence is not supposed to be the answer (or even the last resort, ideally).
Well, hopefully this has added something to the discussion.
1) It was a good thing that they lifted the "ethnic" symbols from Khan because the way the character was originally written was racist,
and
2) They did it already in The Wrath of Khan back in 1982.
I think a lot of people have forgotten a lot about Space Seed. Understandably, since it's a rather unremarkable episode with a very stupid love story as the pivotal point. But what was it really about? Who was this Khan, and what were the issues he represented?
People talk about classic Khan a revolution of a cerebral antagonist, but I think this is a false impression. The episode itself is set up to contrast the enlightenment of society in the 23rd century with the barbarism of the past of which Khan is the representative.
This is the main theme of the episode. Yes, really. The whole point is how this dangerous, primitive (compared to the 23rd century), violent warlord is pitted against the civilised present.
He is used to illustrate the Earth's violent and barbaric past, and I personally think that the "foreign" imagery, the mismatched "exotic" names, the gold and opulence in his costumes, the "men like me take what they want", how he treats the woman who falls for him, and the feudal ideals he espouses are meant to create a picture of a strong and fearsome and in some ways noble and intelligent but in essence barbaric enemy. He's also treacherous and underhanded towards anyone not of his people.
"Probably a Sikh; they were the most fantastic warriors", the historian (Marla McGivers) says. He later seduces her by dominating her, making her kneel, and pretty much forcing her to help him take the ship. He's written in relation to her as the powerful but mysterious "oriental" prince, or the sheiks in the old rapey romance novels, who compels her with his strange magnetism. They actually say it in the episode:
"He has a magnetism.. almost electric. You felt it." (Bones to Kirk when Kirk asks what Bones thinks of Khan's influence over her.)
Later on, there's a conversation about him:
Bones: "The last of the tyrants to be overthrown."
Spock: "Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is..."
Kirk: "We humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling but there, nevertheless."
They admire him, but the way one admires a wild animal, something uncivilised that needs to be controlled, and because they still have a streak of barbarism. Of which he is the representative in this scenario. Note that they don't actually seem to think he can be reasoned with, which is validated by the episode when he's quick to violence, and his only goal being to conquer this new world.
Some lines from various parts of the episode, though mostly from the dinner they have with him:
Kirk: "They were hardly supermen. They were aggressive, arrogant, could begin battle among themselves."
Khan: "Such men they take what they want."
Spock: "Like a team of animals under one whip?"
Kirk: "You have a tendency to express yourself in military terms, Mr Khan."
Khan: "It has been said that social occasions are only warfare concealed. Many prefer it more honest, more open."
He is intelligent in the way that he can learn the technical aspects of the new world he wakes up in very easily, but he only wants to use it to rule, to conquer, to be a warlord. He has no appreciation for or interest in diplomacy or the finer points of politics.
He also has trouble understanding the loyalty the crew feel for Captain Kirk, why they won't betray him, which is another situation where he tries to solve the situation with threats and blackmail.
He is loyal to his own "tribe", but he is not written to have a general sense of honour in the way that Star Trek stands for, that is, to treat every person with a certain amount of respect. For him, might makes right, and his superior power gives him the right to rule and to take what he wants (something that's reinforced by him saying "I will take" about various things during the episode). He's portrayed as untrustworthy in general, much like the Klingons in TOS, and the Romulans in TNG.
This is something that may be more relevant to us today than when the episode was originally aired, but when he fails, he tries to blow the enterprise up along with himself and everyone else, effectively turning himself into a suicide bomber. I think it's mostly important in view of AOS (reboot) Khan doing much the same at the end of the film (when he thinks he's lost everything.
For The Wrath of Khan all "ethnic" markers were gone. No brown face make-up, no oriental-looking clothes or hair, not even a mention of his origins. Despite it being the same actor, he's barely recognisable as the same character.
There's no question that Hollywood is too white, or that institutionalised racism makes it hard for actors who aren't white to find work. My thoughts on this particular character though, is that he was written in a racist way from the start, and removing the "ethnic" markers that were only there to make him seem more threatening and uncivilised is probably not a bad idea.
The fact that Khan of AOS is a terrorist with (in the beginning) unfathomable goals who is only loyal to his "in-group" and has no scruples using the Enterprise crew and then killing them, seemingly having not the slightest loyalty or camaraderie spring up from shared trials is another thing to consider. He's a stranger among them with a different culture they don't quite understand, and which makes him dangerous to them. Even his nature in itself is a danger. Not to mention that he bombs major cities and flies a ship into high-rise buildings; that would not have been a good thing in the political climate of today. I know it's simplistic, but I still think it would create the wrong impression with a lot of people. And lets face it, these are all things that would sound like a racist portrayal for non-white characters.
On top of that, AOS Khan has a lot in common with Space Seed Khan; he's violent, untrustworthy, and completely without mercy for anyone who gets in his way. He's also sympathetic in many ways, but the terrorist markers would probably overshadow that for a lot of people if he'd been anything but white. Especially as it's presented as being his innate, genetic nature rather than ideology, and that he could never live in a peaceful, enlightened society where violence is not supposed to be the answer (or even the last resort, ideally).
Well, hopefully this has added something to the discussion.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-20 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-20 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-21 12:40 pm (UTC)SS Khan makes me cringe with the stereotypes. WoK Khan is a dangerous but interesting villain. STID Khan is an artificially created monster, used by admiralty.
All three are a reflection of the time they were written in, but, really, SS Khan is better left in the past...
no subject
Date: 2013-05-21 08:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-21 09:18 pm (UTC)I'm talking in circles XD I guess what I'm trying to say is that he is not a good character to discuss the hollywood issues, and another choice might have been even more problematic.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-21 09:42 pm (UTC)Either way it's only there to make him stranger, more threatening, as it really doesn't fit in with any given ethnicity. And it is said in the episode that he ruled a quarter of the world "from Asia to the Middle-East".
Nah, his origins are probably completely different from what was described in TOS. Even in later Star Trek series they stopped mentioning it, IIRC. Or the Star Trek time line is a different from ours.
I think he could be an interesting topic of discussion if people stopped and thought about the character rather than just react emotionally. But as said before, people have forgotten too much about Space Seed, and how different the WoK Khan is, and haven't stopped to analyse what AOS Khan is and represents.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-21 04:33 pm (UTC)I think the mismatched names are a point that needs further mention: Khan is Arab and simply means "prince" whereas, as correctly stated, Sing is a name associated with the Sikh. Now, I could be wrong, but I always thought the Sikh were a rather peaceful people, and in their history they were often strongly prosecuted by Muslim warlords. Mixing a Muslim and Sikh name seems like either deliberate to emphasis the novelty and 'against nature' element of Khan as genetic creation or b) simply the lack of knowledge when the character was initially written and the attempt to give him a, as you suggested, name as exotic as possible.
Furthermore, I've always wondered why they chose a Mexican to play a supposed Indian character, and - now this is guesswork too, but I may be right - to me it felt as if, back then, they were merely looking for an "exotic" actor and thought nobody (of significance, i.e. white people) would notice the difference anyway.
That's two very problematic details on top of yours. But the one that stands out the most is the terrorist aspect, in my opinion, and the fact that, in an Islam- and xenophobic environment as today it would serve to underline the stereotype that terrorists are mostly from the Middle East or Orient.
Thanks for the good entry & Cheers
leandraholmes (on tumblr)
no subject
Date: 2013-05-21 08:14 pm (UTC)As far as I know, yes, you're right about the Sikh. I know very little about that religion, but Wikipedia says "Sikh teaching emphasizes the principle of equality of all humans [...]" which doesn't exactly sound like Khan!
I knew about the title "Khan", but in Space Seed he actually says it's his name, not a title! The things the crew says seem to confirm it. (Noonien seems to be entirely made up.)
Mixing a Muslim and Sikh name seems like either deliberate to emphasis the novelty and 'against nature' element of Khan as genetic creation
I hadn't thought of that! Considering the emphasis in Space Seed of the group being very mixed, I think you have a very good point.
Furthermore, I've always wondered why they chose a Mexican to play a supposed Indian character
It's hard to say when so much time has passed, but I think it's likely it's as you suggest. But probably coupled with that it might have been hard to find Indian actors in the US back then? It's also the sort of thing that wasn't acknowledged as racist back then, as I understand; Montalbán also played people from various American Indian tribes and even a Japanese samurai once. It's like the sexism; it's so over the top racism for us that no one would even think of saying it wasn't.
in an Islam- and xenophobic environment as today it would serve to underline the stereotype that terrorists are mostly from the Middle East or Orient.
Yeah, this is the major point, isn't it?
Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful answer!
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 05:22 am (UTC)Khan actually exists as first name, but as it seems only in modern times. I suppose it used to be a title only before that (and a surname also). So if we assume it was deliberate, then whoever genetically designed Khan and named him probably gave him that name because of what purpose they had in mind for their creation. And they chose Sing as surname because it was common in the area they lived, but the combination does seem like a message of saying "I'm gonna shit on everything you love and give you a WAR PRINCE with the name that stands for peace and spirituality." Or it was their fucked up idea to achieve peace through ruling the inferior.
And yes, I realise things were a bit different back then and that proper ethnic representation was rather subordinate. Entertainment was mainly made for white people (those that could afford owning a TV or going to the movies), and as long as someone looked exotic enough and could be made to look like someone from a certain ethnicity with lots of makeup it was fine.
As sorion also said above, Khan's ethnicity is not clear; whoever created him could have used DNA from a great variety of ethnic backgrounds, even British (since there always were many British people in India), and it's also rather irrelevant. Khan doesn't have an ancestry or family background. He's nothing more but the sci-fi interpretation of Frankenstein's Monster.
Furthermore, if we look at WToK again, all (most?) of his crew where white, even pale blond and blue-eyed. Were they genetically engineered by someone else then? Or was it the same scientist/group of scientists. Why would they make one look so he could blend in in India but the rest looking Western/Northern European?
But the problem in this discussion is that people react very emotionally, as you said above to sorion. I often read that denying it is problematic that they used a white guy to play Khan means you're racist, and that you shouldn't even try to find counter arguments. I find it quite sad that there obviously still is a climate of hate, prejudice and xenophobia that makes any factual and logical discussion appear to be of mal-intent.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 05:27 pm (UTC)Oh, wait. I think that might actually be it. The new Khan actually says that, doesn't he? Sort of...?
"Genetically engineered to be superior so as to lead others to peace in a world of war."
Not the first and certainly not the last time someone would say and believe something like that...
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 09:33 pm (UTC)It's not Khan as a name I find strange, but the combination of that name and Singh. As you say, the combination is mismatched, which is one of the reasons I think it's only there to reinforce how foreign and strange he is. He is supposed, as far as I can tell, to seem like an impressive and powerful but dangerous and untrustworthy prince from a culture they can't really understand, someone with to them barbaric customs.
(I think one of the most telling things is actually the treatment of Marla, though.)
As sorion also said above, Khan's ethnicity is not clear; whoever created him could have used DNA from a great variety of ethnic backgrounds, even British
Yeah, though I actually think he was meant to be North Indian in Space Seed. It's not that I don't think there hasn't been white-washing of the original Khan (though the first time was definitely in The Wrath of Khan); it's that I think it's white-washing that makes the character less racist. It's a weird situation, but this is what I really think.
Furthermore, if we look at WToK again, all (most?) of his crew where white, even pale blond and blue-eyed.
It's very interesting, because in Space Seed the Enterprise crew specifically comments that Khan's crew is of every ethnicity!
I also don't think that the character in The Wrath of Khan carries all the problematic aspects of the original Space Seed Khan - in fact, the white-washing is mostly what removes them - but it's not this Khan we see in AOS. In AOS, it's the ruthless, foreign terrorist unable to exist in a civilised society that we see, and casting a latino (in honour of Montalbán) or a South Asian (because of supposed origin) would have sent rather unfortunate signals.
I often read that denying it is problematic that they used a white guy to play Khan means you're racist, and that you shouldn't even try to find counter arguments.
Yeah, I saw a comment like this today, and it's not that I don't understand the impulse; actors that aren't white are discriminated against, the institutional racism in Hollywood is a huge problem, whitewashing is practically always racist and wrong, and excuses are always being made by racists and in a racist manner in order to keep the status quo. Why shouldn't this just be another such case? But it's the culture of absolutist thinking that strikes again. A refusal to look at the particulars. And shaky knowledge of the old canon, heh.
Not to mention that righteous anger is so very satisfying!
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 03:16 pm (UTC)I went back to your other post about the movie and I was happy to see that you liked it and how you liked it. There have been many negative reviews -- some of the reviewers have a deep hate-on for the film, even -- on my reading circle. Yeah, I saw plenty of flaws with the movie, I had a ton of fun watching, hope to see it on the big screen again, and will buy the bluray when it comes out. I like Cumberbatch in all his film/TV work, and it was a treat to see him play the action villain.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 08:58 pm (UTC)I'm not very happy with the absolutist, un-nuanced discourse I've seen a lot lately (mostly on tumblr where the alternative is nigh impossible to find). It's like an echo-chamber, where everyone is competing to be the most outraged. It does bad things to varied discussion.
Also, I've seen a lot of people complain that Into Darkness is just a remake of The Wrath of Khan. How blind would one have to be to believe that? It makes me wonder if they've even seen TWoK (or Space Seed, for that matter).
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 09:12 pm (UTC)Nicely put. This is certainly a factor in online journals. As for Tumblr, I got one but doubt I'll ever find the time to use it. I'm avoiding it now to avoid spoilers for Sherlock as it is.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 06:38 pm (UTC)If you don't agree with them, you're a racist/sexist/ableist/homophobe/whatever, and there is no right thing to say.
Stepping into such a post will just put fuel to the fire. Keeping out of it, on the other hand, makes it slowly disappear. The film has more fans than haters...
no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 06:57 pm (UTC)But yeah, it's understandable. Though a shame, because I think it's an interesting topic!
no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 07:02 pm (UTC)The sheer amount of energy that some people can put into hating something is beyond me. I mean, there are people on LJ whose default icon is a hater icon. Why would people define themselves by what they hate? It's... destructive and - for me - disheartening.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 08:03 pm (UTC)Though, in defence of tumblr, I've had much positive feedback on various issues that I expected would bring me many unfollowers, before. So maybe there are plenty of people on tumblr who a) think as we do or b) are sensible enough to engage in a civil and mutually beneficial discussion on an interesting topic.
We'll see. I predict I'll not be able to keep my mouth shut any longer sometime this weekend ^^
no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 08:47 pm (UTC)I've seen mostly good reactions, too :) My dash is usually peaceful. If they're not, I kick them off XD
Better you than me ;-P
no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 09:10 pm (UTC)Choose your words wisely!^^
no subject
Date: 2013-05-24 04:57 am (UTC)Others again are so stuck in their views and so radical about them that they don't even want to hear other opinions and think their own the only valid one. Same goes for the accusation of Uhura being anti-feminist because she should be a 'strong black woman who don't need no man', but they completely fail to see that there usually is a very strong under-representation of WOC who are in a functioning, lasting relationship with any main (white or not) character.
Some people just want to see negativity and discrimination in everything. Arguing with those is wasted time and energy.
But yes, IF I'll write something about this I'll definitely 'choose my words wisely' and try to make it very factual and non-rant-y ^^
no subject
Date: 2013-05-24 07:42 pm (UTC)Same goes for the accusation of Uhura being anti-feminist because she should be a 'strong black woman who don't need no man',
I think her portrayal in the first film was pretty damn sexist because how that relationship was presented, not because she had it. Though yeah, the main female character having to be romantically involved with someone? I'm just so tired of it.
I loved her portrayal in Into Darkness, though! Maybe they listened to the criticism. And I liked her interaction with both Spock and Kirk very much.
I still don't like that the relationship exists (though I love both characters) because it messes up Spock's characterisation that it started when it did. So I suppose my problem with it is the timing? Also, I ship K/S, so I don't want any of them to be seriously involved with anyone else, of course, but that's no criticism of the S/U relationship in canon, just a personal disappointment. ^^;
there usually is a very strong under-representation of WOC who are in a functioning, lasting relationship with any main (white or not) character.
Yes, and this is exacerbated by the fact that women in general are under-represented in media. Add racial discrimination to this, and the roles female non-white actors have are reduced to almost nothing.
But the film Cloud Atlas that I saw this year had as its main pairing the characters played by Halle Berry and Tom Hanks, and it was beautiful. Also, the love story between two of the other main characters played by Bae Doona (a Korean actress) and Jim Sturgess was also very moving. But yeah, it should definitely be more common.