Neanderthal Negativity

One aspect of contemporary science fiction that I am greatly concerned about, indeed worried, is the tendency of television sci-fi and film to trivialize the life experience of Neanderthals and other proto-human peoples. This can occur in something as innocous as the Flintstones, or as deeply troubling as Geico commercials. The slogan "So Easy a Cave Man Can Do It" I find personally morally revolting. That slogan is nothing more than human biological chauvinism against a lifeform potentially as advanced and sentient as we are. The sci-fi channel has frequently used the Neanderthal-run-amok plot idea and it also featured in Star Trek:TOS ("Galileo Seven", the TNG episode about a deevolved Worf) and the old BSG. I believe it is imperative for television programs to be respectful in their treatment of Neanderthal life, and I believe this for entirely rational reasons.

The human species may be on the cusp of major technological breakthroughs that will allow us to meld species. Already this has been done at the embryonic level, with human-animal hybrids (usually destroyed after a short time in the womb). The definition of what constitutes humanity is therefore much more problematic today than it was, say, 20 years ago. For that reason, sci-fi fans must demand that science fiction series treat potentially sentient lifeforms with respect. The evidence for Neanderthal sentience is overwhelming. To make fun of "Cave Men" as stupid is, in my opinion, the equivalent of using the N word, and indeed is a conscious play to human racist sentiments. I, for one, will continue to be incensed at how television disrespects our closest sentient relatives, and I hope you will be too.

"Our durn 'racists are dun' The portrayal of racists in science fiction

(According to the Star Wars novels,
the Emperor was a notorious racist, hence the
image).

One of my pet peeves with science fiction is the stupidity of its portrayals of racists. Apparently, to be a racist, you must either be a corporate executive or someone whose IQ is below 80. No where is there any indication that racism often comes from understandable but misguided concerns about economic and social competition with other racial groups. Instead, the portrayal of racist groups in science fiction aligns them with the "dumb working class", as if there's only nice regular Joe working class guys who don't complain, or on the other hand racist white snobs. Sorry to break it to you, Hollywood, but not every racist only graduated from the fourth grade. Science fiction series like Babylon 5 (i.e the Homeguard) spread the comfortable illusion that racism can be eliminated with education. British series are much more perceptive in this regard, with racism being used as a tool of government policy in Doctor Who (Genesis of the Daleks) and Blake's 7. Too often, too, the anti-racist character is identified with the white middle class - James T. Kirk, Picard, etc. Issues of racial separatism are rarely addressed, as every one lives in a multiculturalist harmony. This is problematic, I believe, because it assumes without cause that diversity is what everyone wants and that it is infinitely desirable. Yet many black separatists (and even a few white separatists) merely want to be left alone by those of other races, so much do they not trust those people. Science fiction has never been able to address the issue that we may, ultimately, not all want to get along.

For anyone interested in a more complex portrayal of racism than can be found in most Hollywood pics, I suggest you see two films: The Believer and This is England (neither sci-fi). These films are far more nuanced in their portrayal of race relations than is typical in Hollywood. The sci-fi novels of Octavia Butler as well as the sci-fi classic Black No More, are also a good place to start.

The Arts and Sci-Fi Television

Science fiction television has never really done a good job of portraying the arts. STNG had a rather pretentious view of the arts, showcased by numerous allusions to Shakespeare and company. Babylon 5, meanwhile, while art itself, did not do so well in those episodes that dealt with literarily significant figures. Take for example, Michael York's truly dreadful performance in "A Late Delivery from Avalon" and the equally putrid retelling of the Grail legend that wasted the talent of all-time great actor David Warner. Then there's Commander Kang (or was it Chang, I can't remember) in Star Trek VI, with his mouthed renditions of the Great Bard's works.

Perhaps the best series for dealing with the arts has been the new Doctor Who, which has offered entertaining and original takes on Dickens, Shakespeare, and Agatha Cristie. Also well done was the STNG episodes concerning Mark Twain, which featured a cameo from my all-time favorite author, Jack London (not in the flesh, of course.). In general, however, sci-fi television does not assume a high level of intelligence on the part of its audiences, though it does so more than most other genres.

All this begs the question: What science fiction series do you consider art? For me, Blake's 7, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all definitely forms of artistic television, going beyond the simple boundaries of mere entertainment. Firefly, Farscape, Doctor Who, The Twilight Zone, Max Headroom, Dollhouse, and a few other series also deserve attention by literary and film critics. But as my students always remind me, art is in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps every series can be viewed as art, even Buck Rogers. Well, then again, maybe not . . .