![[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.
