TNG - The Masterpiece Society

[Madner Kami]

Which is always weird in Star Trek as if "cultural contamination" is a thing versus societies growing.

Really now? You consider cross-culture pollination as societies growing? I agree, but what are your thoughts about cultural appropriation?

[Deledrius]

The idea of a utopia where no-one's ever unhappy is impossible simply because different people want different things from their lives. The Federation isn't much of my personal idea of utopia; most of what we see in it I find aesthetically incredibly bland and unappealing, and whilst having no material concerns might be one big step towards utopia it's certainly not sufficient - and for some people (such as myself) a very significant factor in quality of life.

That's fair, but the generous implication is that you could still take the "no material concerns" benefit and just go live on a Federation colony that shares your aesthetic. As long as you aren't fundamentally opposed to the basic laws and structures they seem to live-and-let-live (sometimes even in ways that comes back to bite them when the writers feel feisty).

You could also do more optimistically Picard is viewing them as innocent in their ignorance but now are aware their entire way of life is pointless and impossible to continue. Even if 90% of people want to stay, it needs to adapt and change. Which is always weird in Star Trek as if "cultural contamination" is a thing versus societies growing.

The cultural contamination aspect is usually a reflection of the precept held by the Federation (probably as a result of their early relationship with the Vulcans) that maximum diversity of cultures is a primary source of strength for the group as a whole. They don't want to impose a culture, they want to mix as equals. It's never been expressed particularly well, but there's often been a recognition of the power imbalance inherent in early contact scenarios. Usually the power imbalance is illustrated through "technological development" because it's the simplest to demonstrate and (usually) visually obvious, but there are other ways it can manifest.

[CharlesPhipps]

Really now? You consider cross-culture pollination as societies growing? I agree, but what are your thoughts about cultural appropriation?

I feel like cultural appropriation is when one side steals from another via imperialism. I feel like the basis of every society developing is learning from one another and sharing. Isolated cultures are stagnate cultures and worse for it.

[Madner Kami]

Really now? You consider cross-culture pollination as societies growing? I agree, but what are your thoughts about cultural appropriation?

I feel like cultural appropriation is when one side steals from another via imperialism. I feel like the basis of every society developing is learning from one another and sharing. Isolated cultures are stagnate cultures and worse for it.

What constitutes "imperialism" in this context?

[Riedquat]

The idea of a utopia where no-one's ever unhappy is impossible simply because different people want different things from their lives. The Federation isn't much of my personal idea of utopia; most of what we see in it I find aesthetically incredibly bland and unappealing, and whilst having no material concerns might be one big step towards utopia it's certainly not sufficient - and for some people (such as myself) a very significant factor in quality of life.

That's fair, but the generous implication is that you could still take the "no material concerns" benefit and just go live on a Federation colony that shares your aesthetic. As long as you aren't fundamentally opposed to the basic laws and structures they seem to live-and-let-live (sometimes even in ways that comes back to bite them when the writers feel feisty).

The problem there tends to be that it can result in people messing around with something that you're already quite happy with, destroying what you like about it, and them saying "well sod off to somewhere else where you can have that and let us do what we like." One of my personal major aesthetic concerns is the sense of history and its manifestation in the physical surroundings (which is why I'm quite happy living in an old-ish (probably 19th century, very slim chance it's very late 18th) house with a certain level of modern amenities). That simply won't exist on another colony.

[Riedquat]

Really now? You consider cross-culture pollination as societies growing? I agree, but what are your thoughts about cultural appropriation?

I feel like cultural appropriation is when one side steals from another via imperialism. I feel like the basis of every society developing is learning from one another and sharing. Isolated cultures are stagnate cultures and worse for it.

Why are they worse for it? Why the use of the word "stagnant", and the negative implications it carries?

There's always room for improvement in any culture, none are perfect, but there's no guarantee that change will be more positive than negative - see my grumbles - change in the past was certainly positive but these days it's just making me more and more unhappy (even though there are positives mixed in).

On "cultural appropriation", I don't have much time for that though. The type of cultures that worry about it should be more worried about becoming bland copies of larger ones. Just look at clothes for example - should some random culture be more concerned about someone on the other side of the world dressing up in a style they claim, or that they're all wearing jeans and t-shirts and business suits?

[CharlesPhipps]

What constitutes "imperialism" in this context?

Taking cultural treasures and putting them on your wall.

Taking religious practices and selling them for money.

How do you define it?

[CharlesPhipps]

Why are they worse for it? Why the use of the word "stagnant", and the negative implications it carries?

Because I believe that intermixing and learning from other groups is inherently good? Isolationalism being inherently bad.

[Riedquat]

Why are they worse for it? Why the use of the word "stagnant", and the negative implications it carries?

Because I believe that intermixing and learning from other groups is inherently good? Isolationalism being inherently bad.

Rather dogmatic, no? Being rigid like that is a big part of the Prime Directive's problem.

It's fine to say that as an opinion but not to imply it's an objective truth.

Is the pretty much entire loss of a culture as the result of that mixing fine if it brings purely material gains? There's obviously a point where it's the lesser evil (whatever certain Trek characters and writers seem to think) but it's still a tragedy. If we're to take this rather poorly-written episode as an example then it would not be unrealistic if suicide of some of the colonists is the result - are you going to tell them that they should be happy about the loss because of the gains?

Incidentally apologies for being in an even grumpier and more pissed off with the world than usual even for me state of mind today.

[Makeshift Python]

I think the boring part comes from just how utterly talky and understated TNG had become by S5. Just a few episodes prior, Spock made an appearance which I'm sure was a big deal at the time. People wondering what kind of adventure Spock was going to join in on with the TNG crew. In the end, it was just him and Picard hanging around in caves. TNG had very much strayed away from the pulpy adventurous tone of TOS.