Long, long ago, in a living room far, far away…I watched Star Trek. I was a fan, though I doubt I realized I was watching television history in the making. I remember when Leonard Nimoy (“Mr. Spock”) did a voiceover announcement to say the show had been renewed despite a threatened cancellation. The subsequent iterations of the Star Trek franchise never won my devotion like the first: No one would ever be quite like Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, etc. Captain Picard, doubtless, had a certain appeal, but the man put up with Wesley Crusher, for pity’s sake. Looking back, I remember some great quotes, some spoken on The Enterprise, some on the hostile planets the away teams visited. Here are some I recall and lessons they teach.
“I canna change the laws of physics,” Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery Scott. The chief engineer kept The Enterprise going, even when it was severely damaged. He could do remarkable things; but he understood some things were beyond his control. We sometimes exhaust ourselves raging against the unchangeable: An action taken that cannot be reversed, words spoken that cannot be called back, the onslaught of the bad habits of a lifetime. Though we yearn to control our circumstances, sometimes we can’t.
“…to boldly go where no man has gone before…” Capt. James Kirk, describing the Enterprise’s five-year mission, repeated at the beginning of most episodes. Those words hint at great adventure, the kind of adventure seemingly no longer possible in our world. But I include these words because of the fuss and bother they caused. First, there is that pesky split infinitive “to boldly go.” It reportedly outraged English teachers across the nation because the statement violated the rule against splitting an infinitive; Kirk (and Picard after him) should have said, “to go boldly.” But there is no such rule. Grammarians, borrowing from the rules of Latin, attempted to impose the rule on English, but it doesn’t fit. It reminds us that sometimes those who tells us, “you can’t do that,” are just wrong. But the second objection to the description of the mission is more subtle. Kirk’s words were declared to be sexist. (Picard would say, “to boldly go where no one has gone before,” ignoring the grammar fanatics while defusing the feminists’ objections.) It doesn’t matter that “man” has been used to refer to both genders for centuries, it doesn’t matter that fully 90% of those hearing Kirk’s words would never think he was imagining only males on the five-year-mission; it doesn’t matter that Communications Officer Uhura (who took the com from time to time), Nurse Chapel, and Yeoman Rand were key members of the team, valued by their coworkers, indispensable in some of the stories, the words were offensive. Nor, of course, does it matter if writers have to do a bit of linguistic gymnastics to avoid seeming to exclude women from recognition for their accomplishments. If we want to communicate today, we’ll do it.
“I do not approve. I understand,” Spock. The Enterprise is visiting a planet where war has been reduced to a deadly computer game in which millions of virtual casualties are replaced by flesh-and-blood individuals and, then, humanely killed in “disintegration stations” so the “civilization” might live on. After one of the planet’s leaders explains this approach to war, the ever-logical Vulcan comments, “There is a certain scientific logic about it.” The leader, misunderstanding Spock’s intention, says, “I’m glad you approve.” But Spock replies, “I do not approve. I understand.”
With just a little tweaking, the statement becomes, “I do not agree. I understand.” It is the height of arrogance to insist that understanding must mean agreement, or that disagreement implies misunderstanding, yet that’s how some think. Ideally, America should be a place where honest disagreement can occur without violence and name-calling. Instead, we face a situation where disagreement inspires hatred. If I disagree with your progressive politics, I must be stupid, bigoted, or evil. If I disagree with your conservative politics, I must be stupid (always a good starting place), un-American, or immoral. In such a climate, work toward compromise is impossible. Note to politicians and voters on planets everywhere: To ask for understanding is fair, to demand agreement is despotism.
“Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor not an engineer,” Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy. The statement appears in several forms during the series: “I’m a doctor…not a bricklayer…not a torpedo technician…not a physicist…not an escalator (honest)…not an officer of the line.” Anyway, you get the point.
While McCoy may have been covering himself in case of failure, the statement is a reminder that the smartest, most educated of us have limitations. There’s no shame in admitting we don’t have all the answers. We sometimes need help in sorting out problems. Such help may come from family, friends, clergy, or specialists we seek out. “Bones” could often do more than he thought he could do, but he had really imaginative writers. The rest of us may need help.
Captain Kirk made two statements that are especially relevant today: “. . . the prejudices people feel about each other often disappear when they get to know each other” and “Leave bigotry in your quarters; there’s no room for it on the bridge.”
Racism is a problem in our nation. There’s no denying that; but there’s also no denying movement toward eliminating racism has been made. Only those with a political agenda will deny that. Will racism ever be eradicated? I don’t know. Maybe it’s significant the multi-ethic, multi-species crew of The Enterprise still faced racism in the 23rd century.
Whites, Blacks, and Asians have worked alongside each other for at least half a century. I had a Black supervisor in a job I held briefly in the late 1960s; during the next decade I worked in a large department store with an African-American manager (the same decade in which I was reprimanded for recommending a Black woman for a position at another store). Race doesn’t limit opportunities like it once did. Obviously, more needs to be done. But denying the advances won’t help the cause.
Terms like “white privilege” don’t help either. It’s a notion impossible to quantify. Look at how many “people of color” (another unhelpful phrase) are in positions of leadership they would have never held in 1920 or even 1970. During the past two decades a large school district in Ohio has had as its superintendent a Black female, a white man (who was openly gay), and another Black female. That would have been unimaginable when I was a fearful first-grader stepping into a classroom the first time.
I’m sure the opportunity to work with people of varied races and ethnicities has helped change our attitude toward people who don’t look like us. But it’s never going to change everyone. Some of us will always harbor bigotry in our quarters, at home. The best we can do is attempt to make sure the bigotry has no opportunity to be manifested “on the bridge,” in the workplace, in the awarding of scholarships, in infrastructure improvements, etc. Since governments can’t change hearts, it’s all we can do. All we can do…?
Recently, I’ve heard smart people “pooh-pooh” the old notion that spiritual transformation is the only hope for dealing with bigotry, racism. Suggesting changed hearts must precede changed attitudes is dismissed as hopelessly old-fashioned, evangelical even, though it was once a mainstay of Christians from every tribe. We will never return to the days of the sawdust trail, but maybe there are elements of that old message we need to hear again.
“Beam me up, Scotty,” usually Kirk, seeking to return to The Enterprise from a planet surface. This may be the most popular and ubiquitous quote. I saw a variation on a Tee-Shirt just before the 2016 elections. It said, “Beam me up, Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here.” Even those who’ve never seen Star Trek have an idea of the phrase’s meaning.
Anyone who has waited in a noisy airport for a flight, in order to sit on an overheated plane, in a too small seat next to a too large stranger might welcome the idea of transporting instantaneously from one place to another, even if it did mean having one’s “atom’s scattered back and forth across space.”
Ah, but here’s the thing. Those with time to pour over Star Trek scripts tell us that, like Casablanca’s “Play it again, Sam,” it was never said. Ever.
From now until November, we’re going to hear all kinds of statements attributed to both candidates and their supporters. Unfairly, I believe, we will hear outrageous statements linked to a single evangelical but contorted to be the view of all evangelicals. As much fun as it might be to use such quotes as ammunition against the other side, be sure the words were said in the first place and, if they were said, whether the speaker represents the candidate, a group, or only him-or-herself.
