Cigarettes burn, women bleed,

What are we trying to save?

Development is only one of the many ways to live. It is probably the hunger to find meaning in what is otherwise a pretty empty existence. We fight to live only for the fear of death. This is foolish, if you ask me.

I saw him hoping against hope

An old man of borrowed breaths

But his life is only as real,

As of the ones who filled his time,

All already sentenced to death

So we spend millions of pounds and half our time on extravagant scientific projects trying to figure out just why we exist. Philosophers and religious men have their own screwed up opinions. I don’t know what the truth is and I don’t judge, but all I see around me are distractions.

I saw his hand-built make-believe home

With enough to keep us all occupied

So we’re busy living, so we don’t analyze

The reason for reason, so we don’t ask

At least till the old man dies

Our existence is only temporary and we know it. And so we start screwing with it. We create a world where the mere purpose of our lives becomes moving forward. And we start building, for we know that when moving forward will no longer be an option, we will need something to look back upon.

And we get all messed up between living and analyzing.

Sitting atop his own world, he counts the rolling tears

And what he’s built and what will remain,

And what he’s taken to his grave

For all he wants is to have mattered

He lost his watch long ago, and he didn’t even notice

Cigarettes burn, women bleed, what are we trying to save?

F. Scott Fitzgerald grew up in Minnesota, as Nick did, and they both attended an Ivy League school. These two men along with Gatsby served in the military during World War One. After the war they all fell in love with three beautiful women.

Cover of The Great Gatsby

Fitzgerald then moved to a house next to a huge mansion on Long Island, New York. The owner of the mansion, an alleged bootlegger, even called Fitzgerald “old sport” which resembles Gatsby’s behavior. Close to Fitzgerald’s neighborhood was the Corona dump, which resembles the Valley of Ashes.

            Both being born in Minnesota, Fitzgerald shows his mid-western roots and values through Nick. They both believe in loyalty, friendship, and perseverance. Throughout the novel, Nick proves to be an honest hard-worker. For example, Gatsby offers Nick an illegal business to make big money, but he refuses (pp. 82-83).

            Jay Gatsby also resembles F. Scott in certain ways. Gatsby fell madly in love with Daisy, driving him to obtain great wealth in order to win her love. Fitzgerald also fell in love with a beautiful girl, whose name was Zelda.

Zelda was said to be one of the most gorgeous girls around. Fitzgerald was going to marry her, but Zelda broke off the engagement because of worries about being unable to live her flapper lifestyle on Fitzgerald’s current paycheck. It was this woman that drove him to write This Side of Paradise, to obtain the wealth that her lifestyle demanded.

Image by cliff1066™ via Flickr

 After F. Scott acquired his wealth, he became a reckless partier. Gatsby wasn’t a heavy drinker like Fitzgerald, but he did host many parties to attract Daisy (pg 39-41). Both Zelda and Daisy were overwhelmed by the amount of love that Fitzgerald and Gatsby showed for them. These two men sacrificed everything for their women, even friends. They both had few friends because they were so preoccupied with winning Daisy and Zelda’s love.

            Fitzgerald’s life ended in similar fashion to Gatsby’s. His funeral was attended by very few people. The famous writer and poet Dorothy Parker supposedly called him “the poor son-of-a-bitch” at the funeral, the same quote Owl-eyes stated at Gatsby’s funeral (pg 175). Fitzgerald died thinking that he was a failure, but seventy years later, most high schools and even some college courses require that one of his novels are read and analyzed.

            The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is essentially an autobiography. Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby are used to reflect Fitzgerald’s past experiences and beliefs.

 F. Scott Fitzgerald’s legacy lives on through The Great Gatsby.

The American Dream we know today is that of commercialism that feeds into a capitalist monster. Our “ American Dream” really has nothing to do with the dreams of our own heart as a nation. We are dumbed down by subliminal messaging, false concepts and beliefs about how we are to look, feel and live in order to be happy. Our American Dream is a superficial illusion of make believe fed to us through advertisements, the media and the superstars that we dub idols and heroes.

This illusion of super hypes and new age technology are really nothing but props to distract us from true freedom, and who really wants to face truth when they can stay in their comfort zones, curled up in their Hannah Montana blankets, drinking their Coca Cola while they watch the latest episode of the Hills. True freedom has a price to pay and fear of stepping away from every falsehood we’ve been taught, and cannot forget ,because it tempts us every day in every direction, keeps us locked into a never ending cycle of submission to the powers that be.

True freedom is a spirit and heart that is unlocked and unwavering. The delusion that has taken the face of the American Dream has taken away from humanities true pursuit, and that is of love. Love for others and an honorable self love. America promotes greed, envy, distastefulness and distractions. We need to stand up and honor a day in which nothing mattered but the pursuit of truth. Its time to reclaim our freedom of choice. It is a choice to live a life of integrity and honor. It is a choice to let fear and misguided perceptions foster guilt that stunts our growth and our ability to truly live, love and prosper. Every single thing we encounter in one day, one moment, in one single second, is another choice to make. I choose to live. I choose to love. How do you want to be remembered? Our legacies effect those that come after us and every generation to follow. Do you choose to leave curses to those who follow or do you choose to leave truth?

My dream has nothing to do with what the latest fad is or what my culture says will make me happy and
fulfilled. My dream is that of integrity, honor, love and truth. I’m sure that was what the revolutionists were fighting for too. They didn’t have Escalades and Prada hand bags back then. They had a vision and they fought for it. Our countries citizens need to remember what’s important, shut off the television and notice the beauty of the world around them. Simplicity is what we are lacking, a simple faith and courage to find out what our dreams truly are.

                Legacy practices among universities have been around for many generations. In some cases a students will be tremendously under qualified, and have a relative or two which are alumni of the university at hand; these students may be admitted into the school despite the under qualification. For the most part the universities that partake in legacy admission preferences are those which are very competitive and elite. A prime example of this is the Bush family; in 1964 George W. Bush applied to Yale, at the time he had a “C” average from high school, along with a 566 SAT verbal score. However George W. Bush was admitted, this was most likely due to the fact that the Bush family had two previous generations at Yale University (Dekoven).  The positive sides of the issue focuses on the most common reason legacy students are admitted; this would be the fact that alumni give donations to the universities, and this is especially encouraged as more family members are entered into the school.  In 2001 alumni gave $7billion or 28% of all donations to colleges, and universities (Thomas and Shepard); this amount of money is a huge contributor to the programs at these elite universities. In order for these elite universities to maintain their elite status, they are in a continuous development of new academic programs.

                The history behind legacy admissions is rather ugly, as its basis is based on race, ethnicity, and gender. However in my opinion the history behind legacy admissions is unrelated to the current use of legacy admissions. In the early 1900’s all alumni children were admitted, who could demonstrate at least the minimum ability. In the 1920’s there were a greater amount of Jewish students being admitted into the universities; legacy students were being admitted more frequently in order to limit the amount of Jewish students.  During the civil rights movement universities favored minorities, and females over the average student, however at this time there was still a greater amount of legacy students than these other students. However this history is irrelevant to the current issue because legacy students are now admitted as a mean of obtaining money for funding, rather than a racist effort to minimize a certain group of people (Howell and Turner).

                The argument against legacy admissions is a very simple, but hard hitting idealism. When most people see that Notre Dame’s freshman class is 23% legacy students (Curse of Nepotism), they are appalled, and the reaction is that the process is not fair. This is the main argument, it just isn’t fair. This argument tends to be very effective among people outside of the university staff, and obviously the legacy community. The argument tends to suggest that admissions processes should be completely fair and objective. By the non supporters of legacy students, many believe that education should be an equal advantage opportunity. However as Schulman points out in May the Best Man or Woman Win that equal does not specifically mean fair.

                In order for universities to function and remain competitive they need money. This is the main premise behind those who support the admission of legacy students.  In 2001 alumni provided $7billion to universities and colleges (Thomas and Shepard); this amount is very significant to the universities. With the money, the universities directly invest the money back into the students and the university, this fact is often over looked by those who oppose legacy admissions. Thomas and Shepard argue that legacy admissions are in fact defensible because the process isn’t fair, and that it cannot be fair; however to serve as a benefit to most students legacy students need to be admitted, if they are qualified.

                The issue that I am examining is not if the act of admitting legacy students, but rather that the specific practices of each university should be kept private.

                As Thomas and Shepard describe in Legacy Admissions are defensible because the process can’t be ‘fair’, the admissions process is not fair and this is evident to all despite legacy admissions or not.  This why I believe that universities should be able to keep their policies private if they so choose. If a university is giving minorities preference of whites, is this fair? The answer is no, this is just as much as a problem as legacy students. Either one of these instances should be kept private because it would demonstrate pure racism or elitism. If we had universities admitting that they were elites or racist, they would be breaking the law every admissions cycle. So are they breaking the law? Again the answer is no, by admitting more minorities, athletes, and legacy students the university is inviting more funding and support (Megalli).

                Ivy league universities are private institutions, as are most of the elite universities which participate in legacy admissions; the word “private” is key, a public university is forced to release their financial records to the public, on the other hand private universities are not required to do so in the traditional means. So if a private university is private, shouldn’t that mean they can keep their records private? In this instance, I believe the answer is yes, private universities should be entitled to their private status, just as a private business is entitled to privacy, or as a person is entitled to privacy. 

                The most important reason to keep universities privacy is because the university is striving for high standards, and satisfied students. In order to uphold these high standards, a university may have to cut a corner to achieve the end result which pleases the majority of people.  The real issue is whether or not the means justify the end result.  And as we can see these universities are very successful, and maintain a high level of competition. I believe that if universities records were to be publicized, the universities and its students would suffer (Preserve Right to Shape Community).

                The argument that supports public access to the records and policies of universities main premise is the idea that the education process should be fair. If the education process was fair minorities, athletes and legacies would not get any preference; if in fact the admissions process was fair, it would be very reasonable to give public access of policies and records. This is the case in California, and in fact they do give public records (Dekoven).

                However it has been shown that the admissions process in major competitive universities is almost impossible due to the fewer spots in a university that qualified applicants. What are the universities supposed to judge on if they have more qualified applicants than space; obviously it makes sense to give preference to those who contributed to the 28% income of money. The simple fact that universities cannot be fair disproves the opposing argument; if the opposing argument is disproved, then the universities are forced to keep private records in order to not break the law and upset those who were not admitted because while they fit the requirements, they were not athletes, minorities, or legacies.

                After reading several articles on the issue of legacy students, we can come to a conclusion on how their policies and records should be kept. In DeKoven article Time to Bury the Legacy argues that if the admissions process were to be completely fair, universities would be able to release their policies and their records concerning admissions. However as Thomas and Shepard point out in Legacy Admissions are defensible because the process can’t be ‘fair,’ points out, the admissions process is not fair, and in a competitive university it is impossible to achieve fairness; in order to be fair every student who is qualified must be admitted, however there is not enough space for all of these students, so they have to be picked on factors such as legacy, athletics, and race or ethnicity. As a result universities have to keep their records private in order to protect the students and the school. As we can see Universities should be able to keep their admissions policies and records private.

DeKoven, Rober. “Time to Bury the Legacy.” San Diego Union Tribune 23 Feb. 2003.

Howell, Cameron, and Sarah E. Turner. “The History of Legacy Admissions.” Reseach in Higher Education June (2004).

Megalli, Mark. “So Your Dad Went to Harvard.” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education Spring (1995).

“Preserve Universities’ Right ti Shape Student Community.” USA Today 26 Jan. 2004.

Schulman, Miriam. “May the best man or woman win.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (1996).

“The curse of Nepotism.” The Economist 10 Jan. 2008.

Thomas, Debra, and Terry Shepard. “Legacy Admissions are defensible because the process can’t be ‘fair’” The Chronicle of Higher Education 14 Mar. 2003.

Well this person’s name is John Bird!  Still doesn’t ring any bells?  Well what if I were to tell you that he is the founder of Big Issue, the magazine you’ve probably seen been sold by homeless people outside shops and on busy high streets.  Now while you may feel that the Big Issue is simply a capitalist venture which exploits the poor, let me now tell you that nothing is further from the truth.  Instead, it is designed to give homeless people a chance to make some money for themselves and teaches them all about saving bit money so that they can further buy their next bundle of magazines (and make subsequent profit).  I have even researched further and found that according to many who been homeless; Big Issue enabled them to gain the money to rent out a small room to live in, taking them off the streets.

So despite what many people may say, Big Issue has actually improved (and saved) a vast number of people’s lives, effectively turning would-be down and outs into productive citizens of the community.  Yet what is not known about the founder of Big Issue, John Bird, is that he himself didn’t come from privileged background.  He quite openly admits that as a child and young adult, he grew up in poor parts of East London, turning to crime, etc.  He spent large amount of his younger years going in and out of juvenile centres and subsequently, prisons.

Yet by the same philosophy which he brings to Big Issue, he subsequently turned his life around and has become a thriving philanthropist.  Part of his philosophy which I have found to be a great advantage in my life is the idea of taking small steps to success (or 3% rule as he refers to it).  If you would like to find out more about how intentionally taking small steps can lead to success, please read my subsequent article, ‘Small Steps To Success.’

If you would like to find out more on Bird’s philosophy to success, I would recommend purchasing his personal development book ‘Change Your Life’ from Amazon or click on following link.

John Bird Book

it is, you will know what to do for each person  Anon

I have been reflecting on the opportunities and experiences which occurred during the past year. 

A reason

During 2010, I decided to invest time and energy into my poetry, both written and spoken.

K, came into my life to manifest the reality, by creating the workshops that would enable me to perfect my craft. 

She also provided a slot very month where I could perform to a live audience. I met her through a friend who invited

me along to K’s monthly eclectic mix of poets and musicians coupled with an appreciative audience.

K and I continued the conversation until I found myself at her workshop manifesting the reality of receiving coaching

and training for my written and spoken word. Through the workshops  I also met some amazing friends, who continue to inspire and motivate me.

A season

Morocco entered my life in March 2010, I fell in love with the vast and diverse landscapes from the frenetic souks, to the serene majesty of the Atlas mountains, surrounded by a lush carpet of yellow wildflowers, the panoramic oceans. I was captivated, by the environment, the people and the food. I overdosed on seafood, laughter, the luxury of the ham-man, mint tea! a particular favourite, and sunshine. After a particularly awful winter of snow and misery in London, Morocco was the week long oasis that my spirit needed.

A lifetime

My grandmother created a legacy of love within me, her passing in 2004 was a tumultuous event,

which left me holding onto her memory in strong denial of her passing. Over the past few years,

I have reflected on the love and nurturing that I received, and the safety that her arms meant,

grappled with the loneliness of not having her in my life. I was able to let the pain go, as I came to

a place of acceptance of the legacy that she had left behind in me.  My ability to love and

live well, comes from her, my earliest role model; she had such a deep reservoir love

that I am grateful for her gifts of wisdom and love.

As I celebrate and honour all that unfolded last year, I look with joyful expectancy to

all that will unfold throughout 2011.

In an area known as ‘Four Corners’ territory – where the borders of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona meet – is a gorge known as the American Valley of The Kings, even though we know much less about the people who lived there than we do about the Egyptians. Within this ‘valley’ was discovered, over a century ago, ruins which are today seen as America’s most significant archeological preserve.

The Anasazi people left behind an incredible legacy of historical remains.  The mystery is in the fact that they obviously vanished from their townships almost overnight, about 700 years ago.  They simply walked away – why is not yet known – leaving everything they couldn’t carry.  Archeologists have been able to date this ancient culture to around 1250AD at its height, but it began long before that.

Among ruins scattered in canyons and open deserts of the four corners, it has been deduced that the nomadic tribes who roamed the area at the time of Christ’s birth began to band together to grow maize and build settlements.  This is a harsh climate, hot in daytime yet below freezing at night.  The Anasazi gradually learned to plant a variety of crops and stockpile hem against lean times.

As the centuries rolled by, they had constructed a network of well built roads around the region, and nearly 100 spectacular towns.  Along with thousands of small farming communities, these formed a huge and powerful alliance against potential enemies.  Nearly all roads in the region led to what is believed to have been their capital city, situated in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.

Houses were carved into cliff walls reaching high up into the air, and well-planned multi-storey pueblos were built that were America’s tallest buildings before skyscrapers were ever thought of. By the 11th century, this was a thriving and powerful people, as can be seen by the ruins of some of their ‘great houses’ – like Pueblo Bonito, which is set in Chaco Canyon – but this was when, it seems, the rot set in.

Just as in today’s society, the Anasazi had class divisions, and the wealthier among them were envied.  They also performed the same rape of their environment as later settlers would – denuding the area of pine forests, which would have been essential for rainfall and the prevention of soil erosion.  By 1100, the population was huge, for the size of the area.  Was the land over farmed, food animals hunted to practical extinction?

The water table in the area had become dangerously low by then, without trees, and it needed only a period of drought to tip the balance.  This happened in 1130 AD, and the effects were catastrophic.  There is evidence that, around this time, towers and defensive structures were built around the great houses of Chaco Canyon.  The have-nots were obviously getting restless.

By 1150, clans that had happily co-existed and traded had split into warring factions, and a dreadful period of land grabbing and slaughter began – similar perhaps to the events in Yugoslavia’s recent history.  Survivors fled to higher ground in terror, building dwellings high up in the canyon cliffs. 

Evidence of tiny stone houses, 100 ft above the canyon floor, can still be seen in the Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, where the ruins of the ‘Cliff Palace’ are a wonderful and mysterious sight to behold.

It’s believed that the Anasazi people moved, en masse, southwards around 1250 AD, setting up new towns on the way, such as can be found in the Aztec National ruins in New Mexico, and at Paquime – also known as ‘Casa Grandes’ in Mexico.  When Europeans arrived in the ‘four corners’ area, the native inhabitants were Apache, Navajo and Pueblo Indians.

Pueblos are thought to be the Anasazi’s closet descendants, though Anasazi is actually a Navajo word which most accurately translates as ‘the ancient enemies’.  Since there is evidence of conflict between Pueblos and Navajos, it seems logical to suppose that early Navajo nomads could well have raided Anasazi settlements.

The Pueblo Indians are today known as the Hopi tribe, and in their language the ancestors are referred to not as Anasazi, but ‘Hitsatinom’.  They live now about 50 miles from the Keet Seel ruins – ancient dwellings found cut into a sandstone cliff in northern Arizona, hardly changed since being abandoned by the Anasazi, and still strewn with the tools and pottery pieces that inspired it’s name, for Keet Seel is Navajo for ‘broken pottery’.

Little is known of the spiritual beliefs of these amazing people, but their civilization was apparently based in the belief that ritual was a part of everyday life, and spirituality had practical meaning in the way they ran their affairs.  They had established a comparatively grand social and political system between the 9th and 11th centuries, but they were to end up hoist by their own petard.

It seems that this amazing people were, in the end, victims of their own success, because they didn’t give enough thought to conservation of the environment around them.  When the resources of the area truly were exhausted, they were left with no alternative but to seek new places to settle, but the internal warfare that had fragmented them meant that they would never re-establish another Anasazi nation, after they disappeared from the four corners, around 1300 AD.

It may well be fact that there are so-called ‘ghost towns’ dotted all over the south-western USA, but these are simply creaking saloon doors and wooden shanties, with no real sense of history about them at all.  If you want to see the original ‘ghost towns’, where a civilization very much like our own vanished long before we even got started,  head for the four corners.  It’s an experience you won’t forget.

Star Trek: The Original Series was a fairly popular show in the 1960’s that really created a genre for its type of story as well as being the base for other Star Trek series that would be created throughout the rest of the century.  However, there is a significant difference between the original series [which will be substituted in this paper as TOS which it is more commonly addressed as] and other later series.  The biggest differences aside from special effects and style, is that TOS was in reality a social commentary to express various social problems occurring at that time.  The reason Star Trek was able to do this was by creating a futuristic scenario where earthly problems exist as a faint remembrance to the near utopia created by the federation, whereby interaction with various alien races allows for Captain Kirk to solve problems in the name of humanity.

The Crew

                Before moving, it is important to analyze what exactly the crew represents in the large scheme of the series and in a larger historical context.  In the sixties, it was a time for civil rights and for America to reconcile with the blacks and the injustices that had occurred from it.  Also, the cold war was still raging on in Asian nations and with the super power of Russia that still frightened America with its potential to create a nuclear war.  From this initial context, it is interesting to note the members on the bridge.  Naturally, the Captain seems to be this strong American leader, and clearly understands American culture as expressed in other episodes and often represents the classic American hero.  But then there is the communication officer Lt Uhura who is black and a woman.  Never in the series is she considered any less of a member than the rest of the members.  She represents an equality of blacks and women in society as being able to hold rank and a position that requires important skill.  On the ship, as demonstrated by episodes that will be later alluded to, Kirk mentions how absurd it is to consider a person based on their skin color as it has no demonstration on which the person is.  In one sense, her presence on the ship allows for a pseudo manifestation of Martin Luther King’s dream where whites and blacks live in harmony which was made only three years prior to the show’s creation.

                Second, an important member on the bridge is Chekov the Russian helmsman.  Again, this allows for the show of a one day peaceful future where in that day, it would seem nigh impossible for Russia and America to be friends, but in the series, Chekov is a ranking member who finds little quarrel with his commanding officer or resentment in the past.  Now, Chekov does play for a role to make fun of Russians by his “flawed” history by claiming that every important invention was created by a “famous” Russian inventor, but nevertheless, he is still competent in his work and can dispel any notion of the “Evil” Russian by his notorious cheerful attitude and nobility that he often displays when desiring to do the honorable thing. [Though is only expressed in the few episodes that Chekov plays a major role such as “The Spectrum of the Gun”]  The same idea of former enemies working together is seen through Commander Sulu, the Asian commander who is third in command and is in charge of weapons.  In a time period where there was strong race and national conflict, Star Trek brought them all together in a peaceful manner.  Considering the time, it is remarkable to see such diversity and innate equality on the Star Ship when at the time integrating blacks into white schools was a big deal. 

                One of the most important characters on the bridge and in the series is Mr. Spock, Science officer and second in command.  Mr. Spock is the representation of pure reason which is something of the old philosophers under the enlightenment era.  This idea of pure reason, something that in most minds is something impossible and undesirable in the desire to be “human” Spock gives insight to how war and conflict should be stopped.  Logic, which many people would rather not live like, but whole hardily admire, is the only way that Spock organizes his life by and analyzes every situation by how logical it is.  To Mr. Spock, it is only logical that a world is ruled under one leading organization, war should be avoided and only done for defense; irrationality is what leads to so many problems.  Spock’s reason gives credit to the ideas of Star Trek because it would be thus “logical” for all the people of the earth to work as one entity and there is no “logical” reason for racism.

                However, Mr. Spock brings conflict between the essence of humanity and the abilities of deductive reasoning.  Throughout the series, there is usual conflict between Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock where McCoy often attempts to prove to Spock how reason is second to human compassion whereas Spock claims that compassion is only an element of logic but it should be done so without focusing on the emotional point of view.  McCoy does exhibit a large perspective of human compassion.  As a doctor, he looks to end suffering and can’t bear the suffering around him.  While Mr. Spock can see that logic would deem the loss of one person over the many, McCoy still sticks to the outlook of emotion of the protection of friends and protecting the lives of any he can personally instead of the more utilitarian approach of Mr. Spock who often is willing to sacrifice himself for the wellbeing of everyone else.

                The mediator of all this is Captain Kirk.  Captain Kirk represents the notion of what it means to be completely human.  He expresses the desire for freedom, for free thought, for compassion, the desire to know and understand, the concept of loyalty while still defined by his reasoning to get passed difficult situations where he has to set aside some values and give into logic when it is the only plausible option left to use.  Kirk will be looked at in more detail when we look into issues outside the ship where Kirk demonstrates his strong association with the idea of “humanity” in its balance of reason and calm judgment and emotional passion which makes up a proper human being.

Dialect of Star Trek-

                When we discuss the dialect of Star Trek, we will be referring to the nature of the language used and the cultural references that are distinct throughout the series.  The most noticeable dialect, and most important, is the Christian based dialect.  By this, it is implied that much of the language used to describe moral phenomenons and problems, often, Biblical language is employed.  For example, when Spock comments on the usefulness of the tribbles, he describes them when voicing his concern by stating “they are like the lilies of the field; they toil not nor do they spin but they consume a great deal.”  The line is derived from Mathew Chapter 6 verse 28b, “observe how the lilies of the field grow; they toil not nor do they spin, yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his gory clothed himself like one of these.”  Now, despite there are clearly two variations in meaning, Spock’s language produces a clear Biblical allusion, and both hold in common that the “lilies of the field” are life that does not put forth effort into its survival but simply come about and spread.  This is not a “one time deal” though, or made by only a few characters.  Almost every major character makes biblical allusions that come directly from the Bible.  Notable allusions occur in “The Empath” where Scotty makes an allusion to Christ’s parable in Mathew Chapter 13 of the “pearl bought at a great price” when hearing about the woman who would suffer to prevent the pain and deaths of an entire planet which is yet another allusion to Christ and the bible.  Other allusions are found in episodes such as “I Mudd” with Luke 4, [even though as a joke by Mudd for “man cannot live by bread alone” when explaining to Kirk why he created only female androids] Spock and McCoy’s discussion of the lion’s den in “The Gamesters of Triskelion,” and Psalm 8:2 in “A Piece of the action.”  Though the context was changed, often, the lines were used in such a way that being religious in origin was not its main point, but everyone in the audience would recognize them as so.  Understanding this demonstrates the religious vernacular at the time when Star Trek was created.

 In later episodes, “Bread and Circus” the episode concludes with Uhura mentioning to Kirk and Spock that the followers of the “Son” were followers of Christ who apparently had just left that planet that they were on.  Not only did the episode allow for an amusing futuristic glance at a Rome that never fell, but also a peak into the life of the believers in olden days.  This episode is interesting to note because there is no rejection of seeming problem of acknowledging the Christian god [note Mr. Spock’s reaction as he is the voice of reason who is also well acquainted with the lines from the bible and does not make claims to the notion as being illogical]. However, there are noted episodes with biblical references in either title or nature.  Before moving on, it is important to see how moral values were justified through religion based on the Biblical dialect of the series.  In the episode “The Ultimate Computer” when arguing with the M-5 Computer system, the main argument Kirk used to attempt to force the computer to shut itself down was to argue that murder was against “god’s laws” as well as men, but the main emphasis was on the latter.  Even the justice demanded was based on a Biblical worldview where premeditated murder was to be punished by death.  Thus, with the synopsis of the crew, and acting worldview under which the series was written under and analyzed, we shall now continue to more specific cases where Star Trek acted strongly as a social commentary.

Star Trek on Racism-

                The most intense argument against racism was developed in the episode “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” in which two aliens, Lokai and Bele are ready to fight to the death based on the color of their skin.  Now, there is apparently more problems than simply the two hate each other because of their skin type, but there are remarkable similarities to the arguments used to define blacks in the era of slavery and in the episode.  The two aliens differ only in that the colors on each side of their face is opposite from the other.  To the crew of the enterprise, no noticeable difference exists between the two species, but to each other, the difference is like day and night.  To a degree, what the writers were conveying was how ridiculous and illogical it was to be racist.  Humans are all one race and despite skin color, there is no significant difference between the two.  Bele though calls on mental differences between the two; he cites that Lokai and his type need civilization thrusted onto them otherwise they would be incapable to handle it themselves.  Further, he accuses Lokai’s kind as being lazy and brutish.  Clearly this is what was used to defend racism, the notion of creating the other group as inferior to most humans and to create an image of one’s own superiority.  However, through the dialogue, it would seem that the only reason that Lokai’s kind could not achieve to the level of Bele was because they were held down socially.  Because of these two conflicting tensions and both sides claiming that the other was wholly responsible for all the problems in their society, a feud began and violence exploded between the two races.  As a social critique, equality must be admitted, but there shouldn’t be a sort of “blame game” to force grievances on one side or the other.  In a sense, if both whites and blacks would start as equals and admit to being of one larger human race, the problem of racism should dissipate.  The larger critique though is how illogical racism is.  Both parties believe that because of the skin and the color skin on each side, a difference is created, yet from the onlooker, there is virtually no difference at all.

                Since Star Trek existed in the midst of the civil rights campaigns, shortly after King, it makes sense for Star Trek to create the analysis that it did.  If racism kept in existence, it would ultimately destroy the nation.  It does not take much to look back into American history and see the tensions between the civil rights leaders and the institutions that existed [primarily racist].  Look at the example of Martin Luther King.  He was a peaceful mover for equality, but was assassinated.  This would give more allowance for more militant movements such as the “Black Panthers” who would be willing to kill to obtain equality, though they did not believe it was possible so long as the whites still had the power.  In essence, if the civil rights movement was not successful, the tension that would arise from injustice and indoctrinated self believe of superiority, would eventually break out and destroy the best parts of the nation.  This would even seem more possible from the remembrance of the Civil War which tore apart the nation about 100 years earlier.

Star Trek on technology-

Star Trek Takes is written in the 1960’s only about twenty years after the Cold War began and the drop of the first atomic bomb.  The sixties were a time period in the middle of the Space Race, the escalating weapons race and the beginning of Super Computers that were steadily advancing and the prospect of a computer controlling daily life seemed more prominent than ever.  Star Trek continuously explores the problems with relying on technology while still focusing on the important and good uses of a computer.  In “The Ultimate Computer” Spock states “while computers make good servants, I would not want to serve under them,” an example of just how the writers believed how technology should be handled.  A constant theme throughout Star Trek is that if a society is run by computers it will fall apart.  Evidence of this is in several episodes such as “a Taste of Armageddon” and “return of the Archons” where the dependence on computers have stifled societal growth because of the death of creativity within that culture.  Other episodes show the danger of Computers/technology either being too strong to handle or hindering human achievement such as “The Doomsday Machine” and “The Changeling.”  Despite taking place in a very futuristic setting, Star Trek relies on the rhetoric of humanistic philosophy to continuously push the message that technology is a tool but not a solution to any problem.    

 Star Trek and Humanism and Freedom

                There is nothing like a voyage through Space and having adventures in the unknown and unexplored.  Such is the general philosophy behind Star Trek.  At its core, Star Trek represents a turn toward humanity.  Because of the nature of the Star Trek setting, the people of Earth are at peace and work with other humanoids and races to achieve a universal mission of piece.  Humanism derives from the idea that people have nearly an infinite potential and it is fueled by their creativity.  Such a message is interesting at the time this was written in the context of the Cold War.  Star Trek almost has a way of telling the viewer, “Why are we fighting the Russians?  Aren’t we all human?  Let’s stop all this conflict and move to a new age where everyone is part of the family of humans and achieve great things together.”  As far as character witnesses to it, Spock repeatedly criticizes the bloody wars on Earth before it was able to obtain peace and reach out to space.  McCoy questions Kirk’s response to the Klingons giving weapons to the villagers in “A Private Little War” demonstrates his disgust with “an arms race” fueled by two superpowers [the Klingons and the Federation] reminiscing of the “Brush Wars in the mid 20th century that went on “bloody year after bloody year.”  As a direct challenge to the Vietnam war, Star Trek shows a mentality of peace over war and how war solves very little in contrast to its nigh infinite damage from prolonged hate.  In “Omega Glory” Kirk tells the “Yanks” how the “sacred words,” which ironically was the exact copy of the Constitution, was meant for all people including the communists.  It should be considered that the “Red Scare” was only a few years back and that requirements for loyalty clauses in contracts was still the norm and yet Star Trek seems to invite the Communists as deserving of the same rights given to regular Americans.  At the very least, human rights were for both sides and War and especially the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD] would more likely destroy American society than preserve it.

                In keeping with the humanistic theme, Star Trek routinely emphasizes the need for people to be free.  Freedom is defined by the show as the ability to think and create freely.  Not only is this demonstrated through episodes where computers and forces nigh imprisoned a population in the name of survival but also in the pain of having freedom.  In “The Menagerie” Captain Pike is offered paradise in exchange for his freedom whereby the Aliens are stunned to learn that he would rather die and suffer and believe himself to be free than to lose his freedom to chose and live in bliss.  McCoy reiterates this in “The Apple” where Kirk ultimately takes away paradise from the natives and gives them freedom which is believed to be superior and for the betterment of humanity.  While Spock claims it was wrong in that scenario because the people were content to live that way, it is brushed away because the people would never advance in their current state.  Freedom is demonstrated to be a hard task and responsibility to maintain.  Further, to take away from this freedom completely alienates Captain Kirk throughout the series where being forced into a conflict or even forced into peace was against his nature.  He would rather fight a war that he did not want than to be forcefully stopped.

Star Trek and American Foreign Policy   

                Star Trek keeps in line with the theme of American foreign policy which is that War is an unnatural state and peace is what is normal.  War is also seen as a misunderstanding and that it should be avoided at all costs.  While war is occasionally a means for peace and security, war is not to be used for conquest and cooperation between states will work for the betterment of society.  While the Federation does not seem to have the same problems of American ideological hypocrisy, it nonetheless is written under such a framework.  In “Mirror Mirror” Kirk tells the Natives that while he could use force, he didn’t and it should be noted for the negotiations.  During the “Day of the Dove” one of the later episodes of the show and the last episode with Klingon appearance, hostilities end between Klingons and Kirk’s crew, they had to come to an agreement of peace to eliminate the entity that fed off of fear and anger.  In some manner, such an attitude can be explicated to the American public to show how war is a natural evil and that it is fueled by hate, and so, by choosing to help rather than hate, war would cease.  Such a mentality would be expected from an idealist based series in America, because Americans, viewing war as evil, would certainly have to agree that it’s a strange entity that keeps men fighting throughout the generations and it would have to be a mutual agreement to understand that war is evil to eradicate it forever.  Finally, Kirk fulfills the American classic model of foreign policy through the Federation’s enduring and strict policy to avoid conflict unless absolutely necessary.

Star Trek and Feminism-

 Star Trek covered many issues under the guise of a Sci-fi setting.  It covered issues of war, peace, racism technology and even at the very end of the series made a social reference to feminism and made only one comment in the “Turnabout Intruder” that the woman’s only flaw was that she hated herself for being a woman and made herself an object of contempt rather than society doing it to her.  Though not explained well throughout the series, Women held many prominent positions throughout the show in a time where many women still had to fight to enter college and have basic freedoms around the world and still socially restricted in the United States.  While not making a big issue over it, it is still a noteworthy observation throughout the show.

In Conclusion-

Live Long and Prosper, and when you chose to beam down to a foreign planet, make sure that you do not beam down in a Red Shirt.