This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Datalore” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Angel One” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. It’s about a matriarchal society where males are considered stupid and are denied the vote. It’s sort of illustrating for men what women have gone through during many centuries and across most of Earth. One of the planet’s leaders label those who dissent “anarchists.”
Lastly, it also includes the Federation’s opposition to the death penalty.
I give it three stars out of five.
“11001001” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Too Short A Season” See this for a plot summary.
The political aspect of this episode is the issue of giving weapons to one or both sides in a conflict. I’d say that this is always a bad idea, considering which States are manufacturing weapons (and ships, planes, etc.). I imagine South Africa might be closest to being ethical arms dealers. In general, the world needs less arms and arms dealers are fairly repulsive (for more of my thoughts on that see this where I discuss the episode “Business As Usual”).
When I think of anyone selling/giving arms to both sides in a conflict, that is a horrible idea. Sometimes giving arms to one side (for example the Soviet Union giving training and arms to the ANC’s military wing) is good, but aiding both sides simply results in a longer war with all that that entails.
I give it two stars out of five.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews D
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews C
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Battle” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“Hide and Q” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give one star out of five.
“Haven” See this for a plot summary.
It’s explained that in decades past, a planet was engulfed in a war between two groups of people. At one point, one side used biological weapons, which killed or at least infected much of the population they were aimed at. But the side that used biological weapons ended up getting infected too and almost all humanoid life on the planet died. Just one more reason why every nation on Earth should get rid of WMD. My thoughts on WMD are here, while discussing the episode “Armageddon Game.”
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Big Goodbye” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Battle” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give two stars out of five.
“Hide and Q” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give one star out of five.
“Haven” See this for a plot summary.
It’s explained that in decades past, a planet was engulfed in a war between two groups of people. At one point, one side used biological weapons, which killed or at least infected much of the population they were aimed at. But the side that used biological weapons ended up getting infected too and almost all humanoid life on the planet died. Just one more reason why every nation on Earth should get rid of WMD. My thoughts on WMD are here, while discussing the episode “Armageddon Game.”
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Big Goodbye” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews B
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The last Outpost” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. We meet the Ferengi and get some more information about them. They’re uber-Capitalists and sexists. My thoughts about them are in this post when I discuss the episode “A Man Alone.” Riker says that Ferengis are just like Humans on Earth several centuries earlier.
One complaint. Having watched DS9, which uses Ferengi for laughs and which makes it clear that there are VERY few Ferengis who are skilled in combat, it’s kind of annoying to see them portrayed most of the time on TNG as aggressive and violent.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Where No One Has Gone Before” See this for a plot summary.
In general a non-political episode, but there is, for the second time, a reference to a human colony that’s not part of the Federation and that has a major problem with “rape gangs.”
I give it one star out of five.
“Lonely Among Us” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Justice” See this for a plot summary.
One bit of politics is that Picard explains how the Federation doesn’t sentence criminals to death. On the other hand, he says that using the death penalty was ended in connection with progress towards eliminating crime by some investigative method that ID’ed potential criminals (we’re left to assume that therapy or something is used to turn such people away from criminality). So it’s more or less not saying that the death penalty is wrong today or in recent years, but that’s probably just some bad writing- elsewhere it’s made very clear that Starfleet is against the death penalty.
I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The last Outpost” See this for a plot summary.
This is a fairly political episode. We meet the Ferengi and get some more information about them. They’re uber-Capitalists and sexists. My thoughts about them are in this post when I discuss the episode “A Man Alone.” Riker says that Ferengis are just like Humans on Earth several centuries earlier.
One complaint. Having watched DS9, which uses Ferengi for laughs and which makes it clear that there are VERY few Ferengis who are skilled in combat, it’s kind of annoying to see them portrayed most of the time on TNG as aggressive and violent.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Where No One Has Gone Before” See this for a plot summary.
In general a non-political episode, but there is, for the second time, a reference to a human colony that’s not part of the Federation and that has a major problem with “rape gangs.”
I give it one star out of five.
“Lonely Among Us” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Justice” See this for a plot summary.
One bit of politics is that Picard explains how the Federation doesn’t sentence criminals to death. On the other hand, he says that using the death penalty was ended in connection with progress towards eliminating crime by some investigative method that ID’ed potential criminals (we’re left to assume that therapy or something is used to turn such people away from criminality). So it’s more or less not saying that the death penalty is wrong today or in recent years, but that’s probably just some bad writing- elsewhere it’s made very clear that Starfleet is against the death penalty.
I give it two stars out of five.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews A
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Encounter at Far Point” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary
From what I remember, most episodes the first three seasons of TNG more or less sucked. This series premiere gets that trend going.. I could probably write several pages worth of things that annoyed me, here’s a summary:
1. Although I can’t put my finger on it, Picard and Riker annoy me.
2. A lot of the dialogue was flawed.
3. They talk about the Ferengi as if they’re even more war-like than the Klingons. This continues through most of TNG until the Ferengi are given a much friendlier role on DS9.
4. I don’t like Q episodes in general.
5. It referred to Farpoint as some far-off place. But the Enterprise gets there very fast.
6. In the marketplace scene, it seemed like about 75% of the extras walking around are dressed as Starfleet members. What’s that about?
In general I just didn’t like it.
There is a bit of politics in the sense that humanity’s dark side (in the past) is discussed, although the specifics barely went beyond vague references to wars.
I give it 1 star out of five, and the only reason I give it that much is that it kicks off what becomes a good series that results in the creation of my two favorite series.
“The Naked Now” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Code of Honor” See this for a plot summary
One bit of politics. In the alien race's society women are not treated equally with men.
I give it one star out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Encounter at Far Point” Parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary
From what I remember, most episodes the first three seasons of TNG more or less sucked. This series premiere gets that trend going.. I could probably write several pages worth of things that annoyed me, here’s a summary:
1. Although I can’t put my finger on it, Picard and Riker annoy me.
2. A lot of the dialogue was flawed.
3. They talk about the Ferengi as if they’re even more war-like than the Klingons. This continues through most of TNG until the Ferengi are given a much friendlier role on DS9.
4. I don’t like Q episodes in general.
5. It referred to Farpoint as some far-off place. But the Enterprise gets there very fast.
6. In the marketplace scene, it seemed like about 75% of the extras walking around are dressed as Starfleet members. What’s that about?
In general I just didn’t like it.
There is a bit of politics in the sense that humanity’s dark side (in the past) is discussed, although the specifics barely went beyond vague references to wars.
I give it 1 star out of five, and the only reason I give it that much is that it kicks off what becomes a good series that results in the creation of my two favorite series.
“The Naked Now” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Code of Honor” See this for a plot summary
One bit of politics. In the alien race's society women are not treated equally with men.
I give it one star out of five.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews KK
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Friendship One” See this for a plot summary.
I’m having some trouble deciding what the political aspect of this episode is. It could be about using certain energy sources without the right controls, or using them at all (in this episode it involves anti-matter, but you could interpret this episode as being anti-nuclear power). I don’t know anything about matter and anti-matter, but it seems like in the ST universe it’s a safe enough source of energy. I wouldn’t be surprised if the problem was that the knowledge they recieved from the probe was radically ahead of where they were technologically and they skipped a few steps- steps which might have resulted in them avoiding the accident.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Natural Law” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has a lot to say about technologically advanced societies not treating indigenous people (at least those who live in a traditional way) with respect for their culture. It also illustrates how many from the advanced society will think that invading an indigenous society and radically changing it is good for the indigenous people.
For some reason I’m having trouble describing this episode better than I have, so I’ll just leave it at that. I give it three stars out of five.
“Homestead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Renaissance Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politiccal episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Endgame” parts 1 and 2. See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter, but one that deserves some comment since it’s the series finale. Looking at the series finales for each of the 1990s series, I think this one is the best of the three.
I give it five stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Friendship One” See this for a plot summary.
I’m having some trouble deciding what the political aspect of this episode is. It could be about using certain energy sources without the right controls, or using them at all (in this episode it involves anti-matter, but you could interpret this episode as being anti-nuclear power). I don’t know anything about matter and anti-matter, but it seems like in the ST universe it’s a safe enough source of energy. I wouldn’t be surprised if the problem was that the knowledge they recieved from the probe was radically ahead of where they were technologically and they skipped a few steps- steps which might have resulted in them avoiding the accident.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Natural Law” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has a lot to say about technologically advanced societies not treating indigenous people (at least those who live in a traditional way) with respect for their culture. It also illustrates how many from the advanced society will think that invading an indigenous society and radically changing it is good for the indigenous people.
For some reason I’m having trouble describing this episode better than I have, so I’ll just leave it at that. I give it three stars out of five.
“Homestead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Renaissance Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politiccal episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Endgame” parts 1 and 2. See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter, but one that deserves some comment since it’s the series finale. Looking at the series finales for each of the 1990s series, I think this one is the best of the three.
I give it five stars out of five.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews JJ
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Repentance” See this for a plot summary.
A pretty good episode about various aspects of the crimimal justice system. It’s made clear that some large majority of the Starfleet crew are against the death penalty. There’s also some stuff about how inmates are atttacked by guards and about food and drink being given to inmates inconsistently (the former I’m sure happens in US prisons, but the latter, I’ve never heard of that happening here)
Another aspect is about racism resulting in certain races being disproportionately represented in prisons and also more likely to be executed. (that’s another feature of America’s prison system)
I give it four stars out of five.
“Prophecy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Void” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Workforce” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
It’s not clear whether or not the power station they work at is public or private. In any case, what was happening was pretty messed up. Even if it is public and therefore it might seem that ST is taking a swipe at the public sector, that’s not so bad. It’s not like the public sector is above criticism or something.
Anyway, a good two-parter, I give it three stars out of five.
“Human Error” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Q2” see this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Author, Author” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Repentance” See this for a plot summary.
A pretty good episode about various aspects of the crimimal justice system. It’s made clear that some large majority of the Starfleet crew are against the death penalty. There’s also some stuff about how inmates are atttacked by guards and about food and drink being given to inmates inconsistently (the former I’m sure happens in US prisons, but the latter, I’ve never heard of that happening here)
Another aspect is about racism resulting in certain races being disproportionately represented in prisons and also more likely to be executed. (that’s another feature of America’s prison system)
I give it four stars out of five.
“Prophecy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“The Void” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Workforce” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
It’s not clear whether or not the power station they work at is public or private. In any case, what was happening was pretty messed up. Even if it is public and therefore it might seem that ST is taking a swipe at the public sector, that’s not so bad. It’s not like the public sector is above criticism or something.
Anyway, a good two-parter, I give it three stars out of five.
“Human Error” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Q2” see this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Author, Author” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews II
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Flesh and Blood” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter (as I explain above, I’m ignoring the issue of whether or not holograms are just machines or should be treated as equal to the non-photonic life forms).
I give it three stars out of five.
“Shattered” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politiccal episode, but a very good one. I give four stars out of five.
“Lineage” See this for a plot summary.
A fairly political episode which seems to be talking about Bi- or Multi-racial people and how some are made to feel unwelcome in both the communities that their parents are part of. It illustrates how B’’Elanna Torres, whose Dad is human and Mother is Klingon, had to deal with humans rejecting her.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Flesh and Blood” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A non-political two-parter (as I explain above, I’m ignoring the issue of whether or not holograms are just machines or should be treated as equal to the non-photonic life forms).
I give it three stars out of five.
“Shattered” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politiccal episode, but a very good one. I give four stars out of five.
“Lineage” See this for a plot summary.
A fairly political episode which seems to be talking about Bi- or Multi-racial people and how some are made to feel unwelcome in both the communities that their parents are part of. It illustrates how B’’Elanna Torres, whose Dad is human and Mother is Klingon, had to deal with humans rejecting her.
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews HH
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Critical Care” See this for a plot summary.
In general a good political episode about health-care. It’s basically criticising how an elite get excellent care, even preventative care that isn’t neccessary at the moment. Something similar happens in real life today where 10s of millions don’t have insurance; many who do have insurance have limited options, have to pay a lot out of their pockets, have high premiums and deductibles and frequently their insurance company denies coverage.
What happened in this episode is similiar to what happens with health-care in America. In this episode The Doctor’s criticism of their health care system can be seen as reflecting how the Federation feels about that. I'm a supporter of the Single-payer (Canadian) model for health care.
There is one more time when a Starfleet officer and (in this case) Neelix each individually engage in questionable interrogation tactics. I wouldn’t call them torture, but they’re not far off from that. Something similar happened with the administrator of the hospital the Doctor is working at. What the Doctor does is a little questionable, but the idea of giving the administrator a chance to experience what most of the patients experience seems good.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Inside Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Body and Soul” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but I do like how Jeri Ryan has to play Seven of Nine as if she were the Doctor.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Nightingale” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. One thing I’d like to note is that their failure to promote Kim is ridiculous- Tuvock got TWO promotions.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Critical Care” See this for a plot summary.
In general a good political episode about health-care. It’s basically criticising how an elite get excellent care, even preventative care that isn’t neccessary at the moment. Something similar happens in real life today where 10s of millions don’t have insurance; many who do have insurance have limited options, have to pay a lot out of their pockets, have high premiums and deductibles and frequently their insurance company denies coverage.
What happened in this episode is similiar to what happens with health-care in America. In this episode The Doctor’s criticism of their health care system can be seen as reflecting how the Federation feels about that. I'm a supporter of the Single-payer (Canadian) model for health care.
There is one more time when a Starfleet officer and (in this case) Neelix each individually engage in questionable interrogation tactics. I wouldn’t call them torture, but they’re not far off from that. Something similar happened with the administrator of the hospital the Doctor is working at. What the Doctor does is a little questionable, but the idea of giving the administrator a chance to experience what most of the patients experience seems good.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Inside Man” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Body and Soul” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but I do like how Jeri Ryan has to play Seven of Nine as if she were the Doctor.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Nightingale” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. One thing I’d like to note is that their failure to promote Kim is ridiculous- Tuvock got TWO promotions.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews GG
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“The Haunting of Deck Twelve” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Unamatrix Zero” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A very good two-parter. I think the idea of some Borg revolting is inspirational, kind of like slave revolts in the American South.
I give it five out of five stars.
“Imperfection” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Drive” See this for a plot summary.
There’s a brief reference to people who believe in racial seperatism. Besides that, a non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Repression” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“The Haunting of Deck Twelve” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Unamatrix Zero” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
A very good two-parter. I think the idea of some Borg revolting is inspirational, kind of like slave revolts in the American South.
I give it five out of five stars.
“Imperfection” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Drive” See this for a plot summary.
There’s a brief reference to people who believe in racial seperatism. Besides that, a non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Repression” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews FF
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
”Live Fast And Prosper” See this for a plot summary.
A mostly non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
There is one political aspect. Janeway does something which I’d say is in a gray area between interrogation without torture and on the other side, WITH torture. She tries to scare one of the impostors by threatening to turn her over to those she cheated, and then exaggerates how horrible their criminal justice system is (esp. the prisons). After the interrogation session she indicates that she’s pretty far from going through with the threat.
That sort of interrogation technique seems okay to me. It’s different from, for example, something I read about that happened in the early 1970s in N. Ireland. Republican detainees were blindfolded (or hooded) and put on helicopters that then took off. Shortly after reaching some high altitude, the helicopter returned to just 1-3 feet above the ground and the detainee was pushed out, thinking they were much higher in the air. That’s torture, and what Janeway did seems different.
“Muse” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Fury” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Lifeline” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
”Live Fast And Prosper” See this for a plot summary.
A mostly non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
There is one political aspect. Janeway does something which I’d say is in a gray area between interrogation without torture and on the other side, WITH torture. She tries to scare one of the impostors by threatening to turn her over to those she cheated, and then exaggerates how horrible their criminal justice system is (esp. the prisons). After the interrogation session she indicates that she’s pretty far from going through with the threat.
That sort of interrogation technique seems okay to me. It’s different from, for example, something I read about that happened in the early 1970s in N. Ireland. Republican detainees were blindfolded (or hooded) and put on helicopters that then took off. Shortly after reaching some high altitude, the helicopter returned to just 1-3 feet above the ground and the detainee was pushed out, thinking they were much higher in the air. That’s torture, and what Janeway did seems different.
“Muse” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Fury” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Lifeline” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews EE
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Spirit Folk” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Ashes to Ashes” See this for a plot summary.
A good episode. I like the idea of her searching for Voyager to rejoin the crew and get back to Earth, but I have mixed feelings about her going to back to the Kobali in the end.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Child’s Play” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.
“Good Shephard” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Spirit Folk” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Ashes to Ashes” See this for a plot summary.
A good episode. I like the idea of her searching for Voyager to rejoin the crew and get back to Earth, but I have mixed feelings about her going to back to the Kobali in the end.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Child’s Play” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.
“Good Shephard” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews DD
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Virtuoso” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Memorial” See this for a plot summary.
A pretty poverful episode about war crimes It’s more or less comparable to some actions by the US military in Vietnam, the Holocaust, and some others although those two seem to be the most comparable with what happens in this episode. It also illustrates the tension between the soldiers who want to cover it up and those who wanted to go public with what happened.
As far as Vietnam, I’ve heard from good sources that massacres (usually very small) of Vietnamese civilians by the US military were common. Besides things like the testimony of John Kerry, and other similar testimony, I also find reasons to criticize America’s intervention in Vietnam in two novels about that war by Nelson DeMille. One reason I consider those novels to be good for people arguing with supporters of the Vietnam war, is that DeMille saw combat in Vietnam and as far as I can tell based on reading most of his novels, he’s more of a Hawk then a Dove. It seems that would probably mean that when he writes unflattering things about the US involvement in Vietnam during that era, it’s not driven by ideology, it’s driven by what he saw and heard in Vietnam. The novels are “Word of Honor” and “Up Country.” The former is more connected to this episode than the latter is.
In general, I believe it is VERY important that such atrocities are not forgotten and that those responsible should be held accountable. Memorials at the sites of massacres will help make it less likely that such crimes will be repeated. War crimes trials would have a similar effect.
I give this episode five stars out of five.
“Tsunkatse” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars.
“Collective” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Virtuoso” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Memorial” See this for a plot summary.
A pretty poverful episode about war crimes It’s more or less comparable to some actions by the US military in Vietnam, the Holocaust, and some others although those two seem to be the most comparable with what happens in this episode. It also illustrates the tension between the soldiers who want to cover it up and those who wanted to go public with what happened.
As far as Vietnam, I’ve heard from good sources that massacres (usually very small) of Vietnamese civilians by the US military were common. Besides things like the testimony of John Kerry, and other similar testimony, I also find reasons to criticize America’s intervention in Vietnam in two novels about that war by Nelson DeMille. One reason I consider those novels to be good for people arguing with supporters of the Vietnam war, is that DeMille saw combat in Vietnam and as far as I can tell based on reading most of his novels, he’s more of a Hawk then a Dove. It seems that would probably mean that when he writes unflattering things about the US involvement in Vietnam during that era, it’s not driven by ideology, it’s driven by what he saw and heard in Vietnam. The novels are “Word of Honor” and “Up Country.” The former is more connected to this episode than the latter is.
In general, I believe it is VERY important that such atrocities are not forgotten and that those responsible should be held accountable. Memorials at the sites of massacres will help make it less likely that such crimes will be repeated. War crimes trials would have a similar effect.
I give this episode five stars out of five.
“Tsunkatse” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars.
“Collective” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews CC
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“The Voyager Conspiracy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Pathfinder” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but a good one. First, it’s centered around a minor character in the series The Next Generation. It also contains a brief appearance by the TNG character Deanna Troi.
I also love the aspect of Starfleet and Voyager trying to communicate with each other and find a quicker way home for the latter.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Fair Haven” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode.
How will I ever connect this episode to Ireland in some way? : ) (that’s what I usually try to do with posts on this blog). We do learn that Janeway is very interested in Irish history. It’s not clear exactly when it takes place. I’d say sometime around 1900. If it’s before 1925, and I’m pretty sure it is, it ignores British imperialism, and possibly the War of Independence and the Civil War (I’m assuming it’s a village in the SOUTH of ireland; if it’s supposed to be in the six counties that became N. Ireland, that’s a major problem).
I give it two stars out of five.
“Blink of an Eye” See this for a plot summary.
This is one of my top 10 ST episodes, even though it’s very non-political. I just love the concept. A political bit is that of the two astronauts who go into outer-space to meet Voyager, one is female.
I give this episode five out of five stars.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“The Voyager Conspiracy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Pathfinder” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but a good one. First, it’s centered around a minor character in the series The Next Generation. It also contains a brief appearance by the TNG character Deanna Troi.
I also love the aspect of Starfleet and Voyager trying to communicate with each other and find a quicker way home for the latter.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Fair Haven” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode.
How will I ever connect this episode to Ireland in some way? : ) (that’s what I usually try to do with posts on this blog). We do learn that Janeway is very interested in Irish history. It’s not clear exactly when it takes place. I’d say sometime around 1900. If it’s before 1925, and I’m pretty sure it is, it ignores British imperialism, and possibly the War of Independence and the Civil War (I’m assuming it’s a village in the SOUTH of ireland; if it’s supposed to be in the six counties that became N. Ireland, that’s a major problem).
I give it two stars out of five.
“Blink of an Eye” See this for a plot summary.
This is one of my top 10 ST episodes, even though it’s very non-political. I just love the concept. A political bit is that of the two astronauts who go into outer-space to meet Voyager, one is female.
I give this episode five out of five stars.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews BB
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Alice” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“Riddles” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.
“Dragon’s Teeth” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“One Small Step” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode, but a good one. I like stuff about what exploring space will be like in the near future, say sometime around 2025 or maybe 2050. I liked that movie “Mission To Mars.” I would like the ST series Enterprise even less than I do if it weren’t for the fact that it takes place during a time period when, for example, transporters were rarely used and so shuttles were used most of the time.
I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Alice” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“Riddles” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it three stars out of five.
“Dragon’s Teeth” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, I give it two stars out of five.
“One Small Step” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode, but a good one. I like stuff about what exploring space will be like in the near future, say sometime around 2025 or maybe 2050. I liked that movie “Mission To Mars.” I would like the ST series Enterprise even less than I do if it weren’t for the fact that it takes place during a time period when, for example, transporters were rarely used and so shuttles were used most of the time.
I give it three stars out of five.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews AA
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Warhead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Equiniox” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
This is definitely one of my favorite two-part episodes of all ST. I give it five stars out of five.
There is one bit of politics. At one point Janeway engages in what is basically torture and is stopped by Chakotay. She ends up suspending him but shortly after she re-instates him, she says something which could be acknowledged as admitting that she was wrong (she says that Chaoktay might have been justified if he had taken control of Voyager in response to what the Captain was doing).
My favorite part is when Captain Ransom has changed his mind and is going to go down with his ship to save Voyager from destruction. He says to Janeway: “you’ve got a fine crew Captain, promise me you’ll get ‘em home.” It's my favorite line in the entirety of ST.
“Survival Instinct” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Barge of the Dead” See this for a plot summary.
Basically a non-political episode. But it does involve KLINGON religion. It’s portrayed in a way that is respectful of Klingons who are religious.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. The first scene with the Doctor and Tuvock is hilarious.
I give it four stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Warhead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Equiniox” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
This is definitely one of my favorite two-part episodes of all ST. I give it five stars out of five.
There is one bit of politics. At one point Janeway engages in what is basically torture and is stopped by Chakotay. She ends up suspending him but shortly after she re-instates him, she says something which could be acknowledged as admitting that she was wrong (she says that Chaoktay might have been justified if he had taken control of Voyager in response to what the Captain was doing).
My favorite part is when Captain Ransom has changed his mind and is going to go down with his ship to save Voyager from destruction. He says to Janeway: “you’ve got a fine crew Captain, promise me you’ll get ‘em home.” It's my favorite line in the entirety of ST.
“Survival Instinct” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Barge of the Dead” See this for a plot summary.
Basically a non-political episode. But it does involve KLINGON religion. It’s portrayed in a way that is respectful of Klingons who are religious.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. The first scene with the Doctor and Tuvock is hilarious.
I give it four stars out of five.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews Z
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people in America, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
This is the review I had to skip earlier because the DVD was not working. Fortunately with these episodes, chronology is not very important.
“Once Upon A Time” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but one of my favorites. I give it four stars out of five.
“Timeless” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode but a very good one. I like the idea of two crew members getting home and years later trying to help the others. And it’s cool to see Geordi LaForge from The Next Generation..
I give it four stars out of five.
“Infinite Regress” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politcial episode. I like how Ryan has to act multiple characters.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Nothing Human” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is about a Cardassian doctor who experimented on Bajorans during the Cardassian occupation of the latter’s planet(s). Kind of like Nazi Dr. Mengele in the Concentration Camps. More specifically, it’s about whether or not medical knowledge developed from such experiments should be used. I’d say the information should be used, but the people who did the experiments should be treated like the criminals they are and sentenced to life in jail.
I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people in America, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
This is the review I had to skip earlier because the DVD was not working. Fortunately with these episodes, chronology is not very important.
“Once Upon A Time” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but one of my favorites. I give it four stars out of five.
“Timeless” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode but a very good one. I like the idea of two crew members getting home and years later trying to help the others. And it’s cool to see Geordi LaForge from The Next Generation..
I give it four stars out of five.
“Infinite Regress” See this for a plot summary.
A non-politcial episode. I like how Ryan has to act multiple characters.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Nothing Human” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is about a Cardassian doctor who experimented on Bajorans during the Cardassian occupation of the latter’s planet(s). Kind of like Nazi Dr. Mengele in the Concentration Camps. More specifically, it’s about whether or not medical knowledge developed from such experiments should be used. I’d say the information should be used, but the people who did the experiments should be treated like the criminals they are and sentenced to life in jail.
I give it three stars out of five.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews Y
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“Juggernaut” See this for a plot summary.
Another environmental episode. There’s also an element of environmental racism.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Someone to Watch Over me” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out five.
“11:59” See this for a plot summary.
This is kind of a political episode. It touches on big capital pressuring small-business to sell so big business can build something new. If the small business(es) involved all agree to sell and the government doesn’t pressure them, that seems like most of the time it’s fine (exceptions would include historical structures (that was recently a really big deal in Dublin with a building used by republicans during the Easter Rising)).
An interesting, unique ST episode but I don’t like it much and am almost tempted to give just one star, but I’ll give it two (out of five).
“Relativity” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but one of my favorites. I give it four stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“Juggernaut” See this for a plot summary.
Another environmental episode. There’s also an element of environmental racism.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Someone to Watch Over me” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out five.
“11:59” See this for a plot summary.
This is kind of a political episode. It touches on big capital pressuring small-business to sell so big business can build something new. If the small business(es) involved all agree to sell and the government doesn’t pressure them, that seems like most of the time it’s fine (exceptions would include historical structures (that was recently a really big deal in Dublin with a building used by republicans during the Easter Rising)).
An interesting, unique ST episode but I don’t like it much and am almost tempted to give just one star, but I’ll give it two (out of five).
“Relativity” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but one of my favorites. I give it four stars out of five.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews X
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“The Disease” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five. One thing to briefly mention is that it is probably the main episode where ST (outside TOS with Sulu), via Harry Kim shatters (well, at least damages) the stereotype of Asian-American men, as Harry Kim has some intimate moments with a woman.
“Course: Oblivion” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Fight” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Think Tank” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. As a Seinfeld fan, I think I’ll note that Jason Alexander was a guest star.
I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“The Disease” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five. One thing to briefly mention is that it is probably the main episode where ST (outside TOS with Sulu), via Harry Kim shatters (well, at least damages) the stereotype of Asian-American men, as Harry Kim has some intimate moments with a woman.
“Course: Oblivion” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“The Fight” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Think Tank” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. As a Seinfeld fan, I think I’ll note that Jason Alexander was a guest star.
I give it three stars out of five.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
From Belfast to Bethlehem: Ireland-Palestine Solidarity
The old web-site of my old CU-Boulder group Students for Justice in N. Ireland is on Geo-Cities and will disappear soon. I link from my blog profile indirectly to that site, and there is one last document from that site that I'd like to still have in cyberspace and available, one way or the other, from this blog.
So below is a short article for the newspaper of the CU-Boulder Coalition for Justice in Palestine. It was written late 2002 or early 2003. SJNI included copies of it on our literature table at events or in the student center.
(When I refer to the republican movement and sort of equate that with Sinn Fein, that's significantly off; usually the RM refers to both political AND military parts; SF supports the Palestinians, and the IRA do too I'm sure but that's not really relevant)
(When I say that the IPSC has a presence in the Nationalist Community of the North, that's largely accurate, but I'm sure some small minority of people in the North who support the Palestinains are not members of the Nationalist community)
(When I refer to the "nationalist/republican struggle" I was being a little lazy and should have seperated them, although I'm not sure how much that matters)
UPDATE 3/15/20 A few months after SJNI endorsed the CJP, they invited us to co-sponsor an event. It was cancelled because the speaker was in criminal trouble for allegedly supporting Islamic Jihad. I wouldn't be surprised if he was innocent of breaking the law, but I imagine he must have been a supporter in other ways of Islamic Jihad. Althoug CJP, about a year earlier, had brought Hanan Ashrawi to speak and I would have been thrilled to recommend to SJNI that we co-sponsor THAT event, if the other event hadn't been cancelled, I would have had to reccomend to SJNI that we decline- continue to endorse the CJP, but not co-sponsor that event. A) I don't support religiously fundamentalist political movements, and B) SJNI would have been destroyed from the inside and outside if we had co-sponsored that event. But the point is, CJP wanted to raise our profile by listing us a co-sponsor.
Here it is.
From Belfast to Bethlehem: Ireland-Palestine Solidarity
In working-class nationalist (Catholic) areas of Northern Ireland one usually sees Irish flags flying from every lamp-post. However, when I walked down the Falls Rd. of west Belfast last February, I saw at least as many Palestinian flags as Irish ones. At first I was a bit surprised, until I remembered reading a couple weeks earlier that the Palestinian Ambassador to Ireland had visited the area at the invitation of the local chapter of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Group (http://www.supportpalestine.org).
Since the renewed Intifada in Sept. 2000, Irish people have been greatly moved by the Palestinian struggle and have frequently expressed that support in rallies and demonstrations. There are IPSG chapters throughout Ireland, including among the nationalist community in N. Ireland. The republican movement (Sinn Fein) has been especially supportive. When I attended the National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth, one of their main events included a speech by the Palestinian Ambassador. The display of flags I saw in Belfast I saw in pretty much all nationalist areas I visited. In Derry, the Irish flag flying from the "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING FREE DERRY" monument (a major symbol of the nationalist/republican struggle) has been replaced by a Palestinian one.
(Interestingly, in many loyalist/Protestant areas where British flags are common, Israeli flags have been put up. Whether this is in solidarity with another group of colonial-settlers in a similar situation or just a knee-jerk reaction to republicans I'm not sure)
This solidarity is based on many things. A general concern for human rights and an identification with those nations who have, or are continuing to, experienced imperialism. More specifically, Irish republicans see a lot of similarities between their struggle in N. Ireland and that of the Palestinians.
It is in this spirit that Students for Justice in N. Ireland at the University of Colorado at Boulder has formally endorsed the Coalition for Justice in Palestine.
So below is a short article for the newspaper of the CU-Boulder Coalition for Justice in Palestine. It was written late 2002 or early 2003. SJNI included copies of it on our literature table at events or in the student center.
(When I refer to the republican movement and sort of equate that with Sinn Fein, that's significantly off; usually the RM refers to both political AND military parts; SF supports the Palestinians, and the IRA do too I'm sure but that's not really relevant)
(When I say that the IPSC has a presence in the Nationalist Community of the North, that's largely accurate, but I'm sure some small minority of people in the North who support the Palestinains are not members of the Nationalist community)
(When I refer to the "nationalist/republican struggle" I was being a little lazy and should have seperated them, although I'm not sure how much that matters)
UPDATE 3/15/20 A few months after SJNI endorsed the CJP, they invited us to co-sponsor an event. It was cancelled because the speaker was in criminal trouble for allegedly supporting Islamic Jihad. I wouldn't be surprised if he was innocent of breaking the law, but I imagine he must have been a supporter in other ways of Islamic Jihad. Althoug CJP, about a year earlier, had brought Hanan Ashrawi to speak and I would have been thrilled to recommend to SJNI that we co-sponsor THAT event, if the other event hadn't been cancelled, I would have had to reccomend to SJNI that we decline- continue to endorse the CJP, but not co-sponsor that event. A) I don't support religiously fundamentalist political movements, and B) SJNI would have been destroyed from the inside and outside if we had co-sponsored that event. But the point is, CJP wanted to raise our profile by listing us a co-sponsor.
Here it is.
From Belfast to Bethlehem: Ireland-Palestine Solidarity
In working-class nationalist (Catholic) areas of Northern Ireland one usually sees Irish flags flying from every lamp-post. However, when I walked down the Falls Rd. of west Belfast last February, I saw at least as many Palestinian flags as Irish ones. At first I was a bit surprised, until I remembered reading a couple weeks earlier that the Palestinian Ambassador to Ireland had visited the area at the invitation of the local chapter of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Group (http://www.supportpalestine.org).
Since the renewed Intifada in Sept. 2000, Irish people have been greatly moved by the Palestinian struggle and have frequently expressed that support in rallies and demonstrations. There are IPSG chapters throughout Ireland, including among the nationalist community in N. Ireland. The republican movement (Sinn Fein) has been especially supportive. When I attended the National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth, one of their main events included a speech by the Palestinian Ambassador. The display of flags I saw in Belfast I saw in pretty much all nationalist areas I visited. In Derry, the Irish flag flying from the "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING FREE DERRY" monument (a major symbol of the nationalist/republican struggle) has been replaced by a Palestinian one.
(Interestingly, in many loyalist/Protestant areas where British flags are common, Israeli flags have been put up. Whether this is in solidarity with another group of colonial-settlers in a similar situation or just a knee-jerk reaction to republicans I'm not sure)
This solidarity is based on many things. A general concern for human rights and an identification with those nations who have, or are continuing to, experienced imperialism. More specifically, Irish republicans see a lot of similarities between their struggle in N. Ireland and that of the Palestinians.
It is in this spirit that Students for Justice in N. Ireland at the University of Colorado at Boulder has formally endorsed the Coalition for Justice in Palestine.
A brief intro to N. Ireland
Below is an edited and extended version of something I wrote in 1998. It is now written from a 2017 perspective and improved and the part about how NI was created is new. I'm not sure it's still "brief" but if you are unfamiliar with NI this will give you a lot of the background that is relevant to following current events there today.
Northern Ireland: A Struggle for Democracy and Self-Determination
By Tom Shelley
Students for Justice in N. Ireland
"Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of justice"
- Martin Luther King Jr.
The situation in N. Ireland (NI) has changed greatly in the last 20 years, which could signal a new period of sustainable peace and justice. If this will happen, many things need to be addressed. Certainly one such area is the origins of the recent conflict (which lasted from about 1969 to about 2005). For political reasons, the British government, much of the media, and others who more or less make excuses for British imperialism in Ireland, have put forward the image of a conflict between "terrorists" and the security forces with little political context.
Between it's creation in 1920 and about 1998 or 2005, the statelet of NI was based on sectarianism (bias towards people based on their religion, in this case, against Catholics). The area was given a devolved parliamentary system which was autonomous from London. It's first Prime Minister explicitly described it as "a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people." From the very beginning, up until around 1998 or 2005, there was a central theme to politics, economics, and other areas of society- that Nationalists (those who identify as Irish (around 90% of Catholics and roughly 5% of Protestants)), were disloyal. On one hand, this was largely true, as practically all (to one degree or another) wanted to live in a 32-county Ireland (26 counties in the "South," 6 in NI) and quite reasonably viewed the the British state as both foreign and hostile. On the other hand, this contributed an excuse (along with other motivations such as simple bigotry and capitalist goals) for Unionists (those who identify as British (about 95% of Protestants and about 10% of Catholics) and support NI remaining in the UK) to marginalize and repress (until about 1998 or 2005) about 35-45% of the population.
How N. Ireland Was Created
After about two and a half years of anti-British guerrilla warfare by the IRA, in 1921 a treaty between the Irish and the British was negotiated.
A year earlier, the 1920 Government of Ireland Act was passed by the British Parliament.The part about the 26 county “South” of Ireland was meaningless because in that area British rule had largely collapsed. Then there was the 6 county “Northern Ireland” area that would remain part of the UK and is still part of the UK. The boundary was designed so that the UK could retain as much of Ireland as they could with the requirement that the area would have a semi-permanent Protestant/pro-british majority- it was gerrymandered. The ancient province of Ulster, throughout which the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) was organized, has 9 counties, three of which had large Catholic majorities and were left behind because they were ungovernable. Two counties with small Catholic majorities (Fermanagh and Tyrone) were included, partly because they had very good farmland and partly because the UUP would leave behind no more Protestants. Also, the second largest city (Derry), with a Catholic majority, which was right on the border, was included (as was another, smaller, such city).
In an online debate about N. Ireland among socialists many years ago someone said that the British Prime Minister at the time of the partition of Ireland simply out-negotiated the Irish Republican leader Michael Collins, as if that settled it. During the talks in 1921, the British threatened “immediate and terrible” war if the Treaty was not accepted.
One of the key issues associated with the Treaty was the boundary of N. Ireland. A key part of the Treaty was a Boundary Commission (BC) to evaluate and if necessary adjust the border. The Republicans negotiating the Treaty believed that the BC would transfer large parts of NI to the South, and one source I read said that without those areas (including counties Tyrone and Fermanagh) NI might not be economically viable. In general, a less unreasonable drawing of the border probably would have increased the likelihood of the Treaty being a stepping stone to complete independence for all of Ireland and at the very least it would have spared hundreds of thousands of Catholics from what ended up happening to Catholics in N. Ireland.
Why didn’t this happen? There are about seven small reasons and one big one. First, the BC had a representative from the Southern Ireland "Free State" one from the N. Ireland state (or statelet, known as Stormont), and one, the Chair, from the UK state. The idea that the Chair was somehow neutral is ridiculous. It was two to one and then the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council (a part of the British state) decided that the BC could function with only 2 members. Shortly before the BC reported in 1925, the Southern Ireland representative quit in protest of an ostensible plan to take valuable land from the South and give it to the North in exchange for unimportant strips of land in the North (it’s believed that this was a (successful) ruse intended to force the South to confirm the border as it was in order to avoid losing any territory). In the early 1920s in Belfast and to some degree elsewhere in the North there was a high level of violence against the Nationalist community from both the security forces and other unionists. This may have had an effect on the ability of Nationalists to demonstrate their opposition to Stormont and was used to pressure the IRA to cease activity in the Six Counties- activity that might have highlighted, in the border areas, opposition to Stormont as the BC was meeting (the beginning of the Civil War in the South may have been more responsible for the end of IRA activity in N. Ireland, but according to Michael Farrell on page 61 of his book “Northern Ireland: The Orange State” the pro-Treaty (pro-compromise) Southern "Free State" attacked their political opponents because the British (and Stormont) pressured them to stop IRA attacks in the North; This was in exchange for stopping the pogroms in Belfast). In general, the North was turned into an armed camp with about 50,000 in the locally recruited security forces and 16 battalions of the British Army (the population would have been about 1.25 million and NI is 5,460 square miles).
The big reason was the set-up of local gov’t in N. Ireland. In 1920, under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, local gov’t elections were held using proportional representation, something the British put in the law to protect minorities. Out of nearly 80 local gov’t bodies, Nationalists controlled 25, including counties Fermanagh and Tyrone and Derry city. Many of them declared their allegiance to the underground Irish gov’t in Dublin. 14 of these bodies, including Fermanagh and Tyrone, were dissolved and replaced by Unionist-appointed commissions. The N. Ireland law about elections to local gov’t was changed so that PR was done away with and all councilors had to make a declaration of allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. When the new boundaries were drawn without PR, it was done by a single unionist who invariably accepted unionist submissions (he didn’t do anything with the corporations (i.e. Belfast) or urban councils). The result was that after elections in 1924 (just months before the BC started working) Nationalists controlled only 2 local government bodies. This was partly because in protest of the new boundaries and the required declaration of allegiance many Nationalists boycotted the elections.
Here and there you could say that the British and/or the unionists, in different negotiations, did out-negotiate Michael Collins. But that doesn’t change the very serious concerns, then and since then, about the treatment of the Catholic and Nationalist minorities; or the right to national self-determination of the Irish people. Crucially, when the Treaty was signed, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 said there would be proportional representation, and the boundaries for local gov’t elections had been drawn fairly, and there was no requirement for local councilors to declare allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. If it had been otherwise, the republican negotiators would have addressed it. As it was, it made sense for them to assume that the BC would transfer about 1/4-1/3 of the Six-County population to the South.
“A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People”
The Treaty which created NI stipulated that elections to the Belfast parliament should be on the basis of Proportional Representation (PR). This allowed the Nationalist Party (moderate Catholics) to minimize electoral conflict with the N. Ireland Labour Party. The largest party, the Ulster Unionist Party, (which was in every government, practically always without coalition partners, during the 50 years of devolved government) always won about 80% of the parliamentary seats. After two elections with PR, the UUP instituted a single-member district system explicitly because they wanted a two-way contest between them and the Nationalists which they would almost always win. This had the effect of creating three-way conflicts among the opposition, between the Nationalists, Labour, and (occasionally) Sinn Fein (which usually had little interest in elections and had a policy of abstaining if elected). Local government elections in the UK were based on the ownership of property (if you didn't own a house you didn't vote; if you owned a certain kind of business, you got more votes). In 1946, this was abolished in the rest of the UK, but was actually strengthened in NI. This system, which was aimed mostly at Catholics (but also of course affected poor Protestants), continued until the very early 1970s. Discrimination in the allocation of public housing (which ended at roughly the same time) combined with the widespread poverty among Catholics to disenfranchise many of them at the local level (and it was incredibly common for multiple Catholic families to live in the same small home). Early on the Unionists also started a practice of gross gerrymandering that lasted until the very early 1970s. As a result, almost all local and county governments were controlled by the UUP, even in areas where Nationalists were the clear majority (including two of the six counties, and the second largest city, Derry).
Discrimination was institutionalized. The Unionist-controlled governments almost exclusively hired Protestant staff. Even in Nationalist-majority areas, like Derry and counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, Catholic workers were vastly under-represented in the public sector. When it came to “non-manual” employees of local government in 1951, only 11% were Catholics while about 34% of the general population was Catholic. In the private sector, Unionists openly and explicitly encouraged discrimination against Catholics. This was especially used as a tactic to divide Catholic and Protestant workers. For example, in 1932 unemployed Catholics and Protestants joined together to successfully strike for more public assistance. In the years afterwards, Unionists (including the man who was Prime Minister from 1946-1963) made speeches encouraging business owners (most UUP leaders were wealthy employers themselves) to only hire Protestants. One clear sign of this was that in 1971, official figures showed that Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants were.
In order to deal with any threats to the statelet, and to generally repress the Catholic population, Stormont always had many repressive tools available to it. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was, unlike it's English/Welsh/Scottish counterparts, always armed and the all-Protestant and notorious B-Specials (possibly a cross between the National Guard and the State police in the US) were even worse. The NI Minister for Home Affairs always had the power to ban organizations, publications, marches, to intern without charge, to conduct warrant-less searches, etc. His power was the public envy of his counterpart in S. Africa under Apartheid. In the 1950s the display of the Irish flag was banned.
It was in these conditions that roughly a third of the population (Catholics) lived for about 47 years before the civil rights movement. Over the years there had been various protest efforts, there were a few unsuccessful IRA campaigns, but mostly Nationalists were demoralized and made little effort to effectively challenge the Unionist State. This all changed in the mid-/late-sixties. A number of historical, political, and economic factors created a situation where Nationalists rose up to demand their rights. The greatest influence was the civil rights movement taking place in the American South.
Initially, they demanded reforms designed to democratize the NI statelet, and their tactics were entirely non-violent. However, as soon as the movement took off, the Unionist State went into operation to defend itself. Civil rights marches were blocked or attacked by the RUC (the police) and/or unionist gangs. Reforms were offered, but were entirely too little, too late. In August 1969, in response to the growing confidence of nationalists, the RUC and a Unionist mob launched a determined attack on the Catholic Bogside ghetto in Derry. The area was successfully defended by local youths over 2-3 days, and the "Battle of the Bogside" sparked off similar confrontations in Belfast. There, where Catholics were more vulnerable, unionist mobs (led by the RUC) unleashed a wave of terror- in one night alone, 650 Catholic families were burnt out of their homes (in general, 83% of the homes and buildings either destroyed or needing re-building were occupied by Catholics; many of the Protestant victims were attacked by the same mobs as their Catholic neighbors were attacked by; but some were forced out in retaliation by Catholics (the odds are that the Catholic-occupied homes and buildings contained more families than the Protestant-occupied homes and buildings)).
In the early Sixties, the IRA had largely abandoned it's arms and turned to political action (it was very involved in the civil rights movement). When the situation turned violent in August 1969, the IRA was unable to effectively defend Nationalist areas. Where Unionists and the RUC were repelled, it was due more to the courage of youth throwing stones than to armed IRA members.
From Civil Rights to National Liberation
After 2-3 days of intense rioting with around 5-6 deaths of Catholic civilians, the British Army came onto the streets of Belfast and Derry. It's difficult to say what this meant. For most people at the time, especially the besieged Nationalists, the Army had kept the situation from becoming an all-out war, and had stopped a possible slaughter of Catholics. In Derry for example, the B-Specials were approaching the Bogside when the Army arrived. To some extent they also stopped the anti-Catholic pogroms in Belfast, although there were charges that they aimed their guns at the victims not the attackers and arrested many of those few Catholics with guns. Bernadette Devlin, a republican-socialist MP who had been at the Battle of the Bogside, argued that Nationalists should oppose the Army, that their imperialist history would lead them to repress Nationalists. It's also certain that there were ulterior motives for deploying the Army. In Derry, until the Army arrived, the Nationalists were driving the police back, and might have liberated a large piece of the city (London didn't want that or a massacre by the B-Specials). Also, the RUC/Unionist violence, especially in Belfast, had the potential to strengthen the republican argument, and London didn't want that. The Army and other interventions by London were used partly to restore the authority of a moderately (at best) reformed Stormont and stop the growth of militancy.
Nevertheless, for around 8-10 months Nationalists welcomed the presence of the Army and the involvement of the British Home Secretary. Most (with the exceptions of many republicans, Devlin, and similar radicals) saw London's intervention as a victory over Stormont- they had based their campaign on the American South's Civil Rights Movement, and believed that the "Federal" authorities would put the locals in their place. To some extent this happened, but only because the Labour Party was in power.
The Army-Nationalist relationship turned ugly in the Summer of 1970. This involved several Orange marches in Belfast. Right-wing Unionist Protestant groups hold annual marches throughout NI. Many go through Nationalist areas and are considered celebrations of Protestant supremacy (for why this is a civil rights issue, see this). Those are unwelcome and always require at least a small security escort, usually the RUC. But in 1970 (and during the Troubles in general) it was often partly the Army. London had been forcing some reforms on Stormont, but the Unionists would not compromise on marches.
In June 1970 a general election brought in a Tory government. Shortly afterwards, during a night of Orange marches throughout Belfast, an isolated Nationalist enclave was attacked by Unionists. The Army wouldn't defend the area, but five Provisional IRA (PIRA) members held off the Unionists. After this (defensive) use of arms by the PIRA, the Tories greatly increased security measures. A Nationalist area of Belfast was cordoned off, flooded with CS gas, and put under curfew for 2 days as brutal house-to-house searches were conducted; at least 4 civilians were killed. It wasn't until February 1971 that a soldier was killed by the PIRA.
Until the Spring of 1972, when Stormont was suspended, London and the Army propped up Stormont (as London had, in different ways, since NI was created), which showed few signs of genuine change. For most Nationalists, the Army had just replaced the RUC. This alienation increased with the one-sided anti- Catholic/Nationalist/Republican use of internment without charge or trial (which started in Aug. 1971) and climaxed with Bloody Sunday when the Army killed 14 civil rights demonstrators in Derry on Jan. 30th, 1972. For most Nationalists, anything less than a united Ireland was unacceptable. The changed situation, and the failure of the old leadership of the IRA (called the Official IRA after the split that produced the PIRA) led to the rapid growth of the PIRA. In general, the Nationalist consensus had shifted from reforming the State, to ending the State.
Today, many people think that the violence was the only problem. Certainly on the Unionist side, all they wanted was stability, the status quo (or a return to Stormont), and an end to violence. But republican violence didn't erupt in 1970 in a vacuum. It wasn't as if some lunatics formed the PIRA because they enjoyed killing people. The Provisional IRA was formed in a long tradition of Irish resistance to British rule, and more immediately, in response to the violence, sectarianism and authoritarianism of the Unionist State. It is important to remember this background when judging the current situation in N. Ireland.
Northern Ireland: A Struggle for Democracy and Self-Determination
By Tom Shelley
Students for Justice in N. Ireland
"Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of justice"
- Martin Luther King Jr.
The situation in N. Ireland (NI) has changed greatly in the last 20 years, which could signal a new period of sustainable peace and justice. If this will happen, many things need to be addressed. Certainly one such area is the origins of the recent conflict (which lasted from about 1969 to about 2005). For political reasons, the British government, much of the media, and others who more or less make excuses for British imperialism in Ireland, have put forward the image of a conflict between "terrorists" and the security forces with little political context.
Between it's creation in 1920 and about 1998 or 2005, the statelet of NI was based on sectarianism (bias towards people based on their religion, in this case, against Catholics). The area was given a devolved parliamentary system which was autonomous from London. It's first Prime Minister explicitly described it as "a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people." From the very beginning, up until around 1998 or 2005, there was a central theme to politics, economics, and other areas of society- that Nationalists (those who identify as Irish (around 90% of Catholics and roughly 5% of Protestants)), were disloyal. On one hand, this was largely true, as practically all (to one degree or another) wanted to live in a 32-county Ireland (26 counties in the "South," 6 in NI) and quite reasonably viewed the the British state as both foreign and hostile. On the other hand, this contributed an excuse (along with other motivations such as simple bigotry and capitalist goals) for Unionists (those who identify as British (about 95% of Protestants and about 10% of Catholics) and support NI remaining in the UK) to marginalize and repress (until about 1998 or 2005) about 35-45% of the population.
How N. Ireland Was Created
After about two and a half years of anti-British guerrilla warfare by the IRA, in 1921 a treaty between the Irish and the British was negotiated.
A year earlier, the 1920 Government of Ireland Act was passed by the British Parliament.The part about the 26 county “South” of Ireland was meaningless because in that area British rule had largely collapsed. Then there was the 6 county “Northern Ireland” area that would remain part of the UK and is still part of the UK. The boundary was designed so that the UK could retain as much of Ireland as they could with the requirement that the area would have a semi-permanent Protestant/pro-british majority- it was gerrymandered. The ancient province of Ulster, throughout which the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) was organized, has 9 counties, three of which had large Catholic majorities and were left behind because they were ungovernable. Two counties with small Catholic majorities (Fermanagh and Tyrone) were included, partly because they had very good farmland and partly because the UUP would leave behind no more Protestants. Also, the second largest city (Derry), with a Catholic majority, which was right on the border, was included (as was another, smaller, such city).
In an online debate about N. Ireland among socialists many years ago someone said that the British Prime Minister at the time of the partition of Ireland simply out-negotiated the Irish Republican leader Michael Collins, as if that settled it. During the talks in 1921, the British threatened “immediate and terrible” war if the Treaty was not accepted.
One of the key issues associated with the Treaty was the boundary of N. Ireland. A key part of the Treaty was a Boundary Commission (BC) to evaluate and if necessary adjust the border. The Republicans negotiating the Treaty believed that the BC would transfer large parts of NI to the South, and one source I read said that without those areas (including counties Tyrone and Fermanagh) NI might not be economically viable. In general, a less unreasonable drawing of the border probably would have increased the likelihood of the Treaty being a stepping stone to complete independence for all of Ireland and at the very least it would have spared hundreds of thousands of Catholics from what ended up happening to Catholics in N. Ireland.
Why didn’t this happen? There are about seven small reasons and one big one. First, the BC had a representative from the Southern Ireland "Free State" one from the N. Ireland state (or statelet, known as Stormont), and one, the Chair, from the UK state. The idea that the Chair was somehow neutral is ridiculous. It was two to one and then the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council (a part of the British state) decided that the BC could function with only 2 members. Shortly before the BC reported in 1925, the Southern Ireland representative quit in protest of an ostensible plan to take valuable land from the South and give it to the North in exchange for unimportant strips of land in the North (it’s believed that this was a (successful) ruse intended to force the South to confirm the border as it was in order to avoid losing any territory). In the early 1920s in Belfast and to some degree elsewhere in the North there was a high level of violence against the Nationalist community from both the security forces and other unionists. This may have had an effect on the ability of Nationalists to demonstrate their opposition to Stormont and was used to pressure the IRA to cease activity in the Six Counties- activity that might have highlighted, in the border areas, opposition to Stormont as the BC was meeting (the beginning of the Civil War in the South may have been more responsible for the end of IRA activity in N. Ireland, but according to Michael Farrell on page 61 of his book “Northern Ireland: The Orange State” the pro-Treaty (pro-compromise) Southern "Free State" attacked their political opponents because the British (and Stormont) pressured them to stop IRA attacks in the North; This was in exchange for stopping the pogroms in Belfast). In general, the North was turned into an armed camp with about 50,000 in the locally recruited security forces and 16 battalions of the British Army (the population would have been about 1.25 million and NI is 5,460 square miles).
The big reason was the set-up of local gov’t in N. Ireland. In 1920, under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, local gov’t elections were held using proportional representation, something the British put in the law to protect minorities. Out of nearly 80 local gov’t bodies, Nationalists controlled 25, including counties Fermanagh and Tyrone and Derry city. Many of them declared their allegiance to the underground Irish gov’t in Dublin. 14 of these bodies, including Fermanagh and Tyrone, were dissolved and replaced by Unionist-appointed commissions. The N. Ireland law about elections to local gov’t was changed so that PR was done away with and all councilors had to make a declaration of allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. When the new boundaries were drawn without PR, it was done by a single unionist who invariably accepted unionist submissions (he didn’t do anything with the corporations (i.e. Belfast) or urban councils). The result was that after elections in 1924 (just months before the BC started working) Nationalists controlled only 2 local government bodies. This was partly because in protest of the new boundaries and the required declaration of allegiance many Nationalists boycotted the elections.
Here and there you could say that the British and/or the unionists, in different negotiations, did out-negotiate Michael Collins. But that doesn’t change the very serious concerns, then and since then, about the treatment of the Catholic and Nationalist minorities; or the right to national self-determination of the Irish people. Crucially, when the Treaty was signed, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 said there would be proportional representation, and the boundaries for local gov’t elections had been drawn fairly, and there was no requirement for local councilors to declare allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. If it had been otherwise, the republican negotiators would have addressed it. As it was, it made sense for them to assume that the BC would transfer about 1/4-1/3 of the Six-County population to the South.
“A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People”
The Treaty which created NI stipulated that elections to the Belfast parliament should be on the basis of Proportional Representation (PR). This allowed the Nationalist Party (moderate Catholics) to minimize electoral conflict with the N. Ireland Labour Party. The largest party, the Ulster Unionist Party, (which was in every government, practically always without coalition partners, during the 50 years of devolved government) always won about 80% of the parliamentary seats. After two elections with PR, the UUP instituted a single-member district system explicitly because they wanted a two-way contest between them and the Nationalists which they would almost always win. This had the effect of creating three-way conflicts among the opposition, between the Nationalists, Labour, and (occasionally) Sinn Fein (which usually had little interest in elections and had a policy of abstaining if elected). Local government elections in the UK were based on the ownership of property (if you didn't own a house you didn't vote; if you owned a certain kind of business, you got more votes). In 1946, this was abolished in the rest of the UK, but was actually strengthened in NI. This system, which was aimed mostly at Catholics (but also of course affected poor Protestants), continued until the very early 1970s. Discrimination in the allocation of public housing (which ended at roughly the same time) combined with the widespread poverty among Catholics to disenfranchise many of them at the local level (and it was incredibly common for multiple Catholic families to live in the same small home). Early on the Unionists also started a practice of gross gerrymandering that lasted until the very early 1970s. As a result, almost all local and county governments were controlled by the UUP, even in areas where Nationalists were the clear majority (including two of the six counties, and the second largest city, Derry).
Discrimination was institutionalized. The Unionist-controlled governments almost exclusively hired Protestant staff. Even in Nationalist-majority areas, like Derry and counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, Catholic workers were vastly under-represented in the public sector. When it came to “non-manual” employees of local government in 1951, only 11% were Catholics while about 34% of the general population was Catholic. In the private sector, Unionists openly and explicitly encouraged discrimination against Catholics. This was especially used as a tactic to divide Catholic and Protestant workers. For example, in 1932 unemployed Catholics and Protestants joined together to successfully strike for more public assistance. In the years afterwards, Unionists (including the man who was Prime Minister from 1946-1963) made speeches encouraging business owners (most UUP leaders were wealthy employers themselves) to only hire Protestants. One clear sign of this was that in 1971, official figures showed that Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants were.
In order to deal with any threats to the statelet, and to generally repress the Catholic population, Stormont always had many repressive tools available to it. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was, unlike it's English/Welsh/Scottish counterparts, always armed and the all-Protestant and notorious B-Specials (possibly a cross between the National Guard and the State police in the US) were even worse. The NI Minister for Home Affairs always had the power to ban organizations, publications, marches, to intern without charge, to conduct warrant-less searches, etc. His power was the public envy of his counterpart in S. Africa under Apartheid. In the 1950s the display of the Irish flag was banned.
It was in these conditions that roughly a third of the population (Catholics) lived for about 47 years before the civil rights movement. Over the years there had been various protest efforts, there were a few unsuccessful IRA campaigns, but mostly Nationalists were demoralized and made little effort to effectively challenge the Unionist State. This all changed in the mid-/late-sixties. A number of historical, political, and economic factors created a situation where Nationalists rose up to demand their rights. The greatest influence was the civil rights movement taking place in the American South.
Initially, they demanded reforms designed to democratize the NI statelet, and their tactics were entirely non-violent. However, as soon as the movement took off, the Unionist State went into operation to defend itself. Civil rights marches were blocked or attacked by the RUC (the police) and/or unionist gangs. Reforms were offered, but were entirely too little, too late. In August 1969, in response to the growing confidence of nationalists, the RUC and a Unionist mob launched a determined attack on the Catholic Bogside ghetto in Derry. The area was successfully defended by local youths over 2-3 days, and the "Battle of the Bogside" sparked off similar confrontations in Belfast. There, where Catholics were more vulnerable, unionist mobs (led by the RUC) unleashed a wave of terror- in one night alone, 650 Catholic families were burnt out of their homes (in general, 83% of the homes and buildings either destroyed or needing re-building were occupied by Catholics; many of the Protestant victims were attacked by the same mobs as their Catholic neighbors were attacked by; but some were forced out in retaliation by Catholics (the odds are that the Catholic-occupied homes and buildings contained more families than the Protestant-occupied homes and buildings)).
In the early Sixties, the IRA had largely abandoned it's arms and turned to political action (it was very involved in the civil rights movement). When the situation turned violent in August 1969, the IRA was unable to effectively defend Nationalist areas. Where Unionists and the RUC were repelled, it was due more to the courage of youth throwing stones than to armed IRA members.
From Civil Rights to National Liberation
After 2-3 days of intense rioting with around 5-6 deaths of Catholic civilians, the British Army came onto the streets of Belfast and Derry. It's difficult to say what this meant. For most people at the time, especially the besieged Nationalists, the Army had kept the situation from becoming an all-out war, and had stopped a possible slaughter of Catholics. In Derry for example, the B-Specials were approaching the Bogside when the Army arrived. To some extent they also stopped the anti-Catholic pogroms in Belfast, although there were charges that they aimed their guns at the victims not the attackers and arrested many of those few Catholics with guns. Bernadette Devlin, a republican-socialist MP who had been at the Battle of the Bogside, argued that Nationalists should oppose the Army, that their imperialist history would lead them to repress Nationalists. It's also certain that there were ulterior motives for deploying the Army. In Derry, until the Army arrived, the Nationalists were driving the police back, and might have liberated a large piece of the city (London didn't want that or a massacre by the B-Specials). Also, the RUC/Unionist violence, especially in Belfast, had the potential to strengthen the republican argument, and London didn't want that. The Army and other interventions by London were used partly to restore the authority of a moderately (at best) reformed Stormont and stop the growth of militancy.
Nevertheless, for around 8-10 months Nationalists welcomed the presence of the Army and the involvement of the British Home Secretary. Most (with the exceptions of many republicans, Devlin, and similar radicals) saw London's intervention as a victory over Stormont- they had based their campaign on the American South's Civil Rights Movement, and believed that the "Federal" authorities would put the locals in their place. To some extent this happened, but only because the Labour Party was in power.
The Army-Nationalist relationship turned ugly in the Summer of 1970. This involved several Orange marches in Belfast. Right-wing Unionist Protestant groups hold annual marches throughout NI. Many go through Nationalist areas and are considered celebrations of Protestant supremacy (for why this is a civil rights issue, see this). Those are unwelcome and always require at least a small security escort, usually the RUC. But in 1970 (and during the Troubles in general) it was often partly the Army. London had been forcing some reforms on Stormont, but the Unionists would not compromise on marches.
In June 1970 a general election brought in a Tory government. Shortly afterwards, during a night of Orange marches throughout Belfast, an isolated Nationalist enclave was attacked by Unionists. The Army wouldn't defend the area, but five Provisional IRA (PIRA) members held off the Unionists. After this (defensive) use of arms by the PIRA, the Tories greatly increased security measures. A Nationalist area of Belfast was cordoned off, flooded with CS gas, and put under curfew for 2 days as brutal house-to-house searches were conducted; at least 4 civilians were killed. It wasn't until February 1971 that a soldier was killed by the PIRA.
Until the Spring of 1972, when Stormont was suspended, London and the Army propped up Stormont (as London had, in different ways, since NI was created), which showed few signs of genuine change. For most Nationalists, the Army had just replaced the RUC. This alienation increased with the one-sided anti- Catholic/Nationalist/Republican use of internment without charge or trial (which started in Aug. 1971) and climaxed with Bloody Sunday when the Army killed 14 civil rights demonstrators in Derry on Jan. 30th, 1972. For most Nationalists, anything less than a united Ireland was unacceptable. The changed situation, and the failure of the old leadership of the IRA (called the Official IRA after the split that produced the PIRA) led to the rapid growth of the PIRA. In general, the Nationalist consensus had shifted from reforming the State, to ending the State.
Today, many people think that the violence was the only problem. Certainly on the Unionist side, all they wanted was stability, the status quo (or a return to Stormont), and an end to violence. But republican violence didn't erupt in 1970 in a vacuum. It wasn't as if some lunatics formed the PIRA because they enjoyed killing people. The Provisional IRA was formed in a long tradition of Irish resistance to British rule, and more immediately, in response to the violence, sectarianism and authoritarianism of the Unionist State. It is important to remember this background when judging the current situation in N. Ireland.
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews W
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“Gravity” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Bliss” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Dark Frontier” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
In general a non-political episode, but there is one thing I’d like to comment on. At one point Seven frees several people the Borg captured and were about to assimilate. It reminds me of how some people would help Jews escape or hide from the Nazis.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“Gravity” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Bliss” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Dark Frontier” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
In general a non-political episode, but there is one thing I’d like to comment on. At one point Seven frees several people the Borg captured and were about to assimilate. It reminds me of how some people would help Jews escape or hide from the Nazis.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews V
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“Thirty Days” See this for a plot summary.
An environmentalist episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Counterpoint” See this for a plot summary.
A sort of political episode. Voyager is helping some telepaths who are persecuted by a government that doesn’t like telepaths.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Latent Image” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Bride of Chaotica!” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
Unfortunately I am skipping 4 episodes which are on a DVD that doesn’t work. Hopefully soon the video store will have it fixed or replaced soon. Fortunately, the odds of those episodes containing something that I need in order to understand episodes after those four is very low.
“Thirty Days” See this for a plot summary.
An environmentalist episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Counterpoint” See this for a plot summary.
A sort of political episode. Voyager is helping some telepaths who are persecuted by a government that doesn’t like telepaths.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Latent Image” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Bride of Chaotica!” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews U
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“One” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Hope And Fear” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Night” See this for a plot summary.
A political episode about environmentalism and specifically environmental RACISM. There are some good lines about that especially the effect of profit-seeking on the environment.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Drone” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Extreme Risk” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but there’s one thing worth mentioning. I like the part about how B’Elanna deals with the death of the Maquis.
“In the Flesh” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“One” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Hope And Fear” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Night” See this for a plot summary.
A political episode about environmentalism and specifically environmental RACISM. There are some good lines about that especially the effect of profit-seeking on the environment.
I give it four stars out of five.
“Drone” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Extreme Risk” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, but there’s one thing worth mentioning. I like the part about how B’Elanna deals with the death of the Maquis.
“In the Flesh” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews T
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“The Omega Directive” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political but pretty good episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Unforgettable” See this for a plot summary.
I’m a little disapointed that Janeway and Chakotay were okay with Kellin taking the stowaway and erasing his memory. When it’s Kellin who’s being tracked by the Tracer, they feel that the Tracers are wrong and Chakotay feels that Kellin’s society should allow people to leave if they want to. The fact that the first person was a stowaway doesn’t seem to justify the differences in Starfleet attitudes. If people want to leave a society they should be allowed to and they certainly shouldn’t have their memories wiped.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Living Witness” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has many aspects that I want to comment on.
First, it’s entertaining to see the Voyager crew acting as they do at the beginning.
Second, the idea of the Doctor being activated again after 700 years and then a little bit later resuming a course to the Alpha Quadrant to learn if Voyager made it home takes what I like about VOY a little further.
But the bulk of this is about how the episode illustrates oppression, historical memory, and reconciliation.
Although it’s not clear, it seems like there was bigotry towards the Kyrians (and they may have been oppressed) before the war but that they started the war and were less than completely innocent. Although it’s not clear how much they were the victims before and during the war, it’s clear that they still experience some oppression 700 years after the war.
In the Doctor’s version of events the Vaskan ambassador makes derogatory comments about the Kyrians and carries out an extrajudicial execution of the Kyrian leader. 700 years later, Kyrians are still excluded from many institutions and forced to live outside the city center.
The brief description of how truth and reconciliation won in the end is inspiring, although it’d be better if there were some more details.
I give it five stars out of five.
“Demon” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“The Omega Directive” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political but pretty good episode. I give it four stars out of five.
“Unforgettable” See this for a plot summary.
I’m a little disapointed that Janeway and Chakotay were okay with Kellin taking the stowaway and erasing his memory. When it’s Kellin who’s being tracked by the Tracer, they feel that the Tracers are wrong and Chakotay feels that Kellin’s society should allow people to leave if they want to. The fact that the first person was a stowaway doesn’t seem to justify the differences in Starfleet attitudes. If people want to leave a society they should be allowed to and they certainly shouldn’t have their memories wiped.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Living Witness” See this for a plot summary.
This episode has many aspects that I want to comment on.
First, it’s entertaining to see the Voyager crew acting as they do at the beginning.
Second, the idea of the Doctor being activated again after 700 years and then a little bit later resuming a course to the Alpha Quadrant to learn if Voyager made it home takes what I like about VOY a little further.
But the bulk of this is about how the episode illustrates oppression, historical memory, and reconciliation.
Although it’s not clear, it seems like there was bigotry towards the Kyrians (and they may have been oppressed) before the war but that they started the war and were less than completely innocent. Although it’s not clear how much they were the victims before and during the war, it’s clear that they still experience some oppression 700 years after the war.
In the Doctor’s version of events the Vaskan ambassador makes derogatory comments about the Kyrians and carries out an extrajudicial execution of the Kyrian leader. 700 years later, Kyrians are still excluded from many institutions and forced to live outside the city center.
The brief description of how truth and reconciliation won in the end is inspiring, although it’d be better if there were some more details.
I give it five stars out of five.
“Demon” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Star Trek: Voyager Reviews S
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Retrospect” See this for a plot summary.
One way to look at this episode is that it could almost be referred to by people accused of rape. But that probably isn’t the right way to look at it. In the episode it’s not actually rape, although the dialogue could confuse you about that. And there are many elements that undermine the idea that it illustrates a case of false rape allegations. For one thing, it DOES make sense that Seven was confusing her treatment by the Borg with what happened in the episode. And The Doctor was an amateur psychologist. In general, it doesn’t do what I suggested at the beginning, although considering that possibility is unavoidable.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Killing Game” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
You’d think this would be my favorite two-parter- Star Trek and WWII (Europe!) combined. But, like all VOY bad guys except for the Borg and Species 8472, I’m not a big fan of the Hirogen. So I give this two-parter only four stars out of five.
“Vis a Vis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
There are several episodes in VOY that involve the question of whether or not holograms are alive, and/or feature conflict between holograms and organic beings. I’m going to ignore that part of VOY, it’s a bit too philosophical, and comparing the maltreatment of holograms to the maltreatment of, for example, Black people, seems stupid. Although I kind of make an exception for The Doctor (it’s impossible to be a fan of ST and not do that) I lean towards saying that holograms are not life forms, but I don’t feel like going into it.
“Retrospect” See this for a plot summary.
One way to look at this episode is that it could almost be referred to by people accused of rape. But that probably isn’t the right way to look at it. In the episode it’s not actually rape, although the dialogue could confuse you about that. And there are many elements that undermine the idea that it illustrates a case of false rape allegations. For one thing, it DOES make sense that Seven was confusing her treatment by the Borg with what happened in the episode. And The Doctor was an amateur psychologist. In general, it doesn’t do what I suggested at the beginning, although considering that possibility is unavoidable.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Killing Game” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.
You’d think this would be my favorite two-parter- Star Trek and WWII (Europe!) combined. But, like all VOY bad guys except for the Borg and Species 8472, I’m not a big fan of the Hirogen. So I give this two-parter only four stars out of five.
“Vis a Vis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)