The First Interracial Kiss on (American) Television

Big frakkin' whupass can of worms. But...I'm prepared to let that one go (to Sixties TOS, which knows no better). And despite inconsistencies, I can't hate Montalban. He is Khan. But if they resurrect Khan for JJTrek....hmmmm....

 

Being a black man in 1960s America was different than being a black woman in 1960s. This is already self evident with the amount of black men in more, or less, less stereotypical roles than black women on television and media. She was not only black but a woman.

When Star Trek initially went into production, it was still the mid-60s. The height of the civil rights movement, the rise of the second wave of women's rights. Socially, it would not have been accepted to have a black woman in command of a crew, especially over white people. This is coming from the same people who couldn't deal with a white woman in second command -- what makes you think that they were gleefully in accepting a black woman on the bridge with a reoccurring role?

The studios were taking a risk and eventually it paid off, but they played it safe. The studios didn't want criticism or protests because Uhura was what she should have been, a confident officer proficient at her job and willing to take command when and if necessary in a crisis. They wanted the show to air without incident, Uhura became the set piece to advance the plot... you compare her line count to all her male counterparts in the show and she'll have 3 - 4 lines tops.

There would be occasions where she would be yelled at for not doing her job to the standards Kirk wanted, there would be occasions where she would be demeaned in a obtuse manner (Squire of Gothos is a great example), etc. Uhura was the token black character on the show. A memo asking for more sprinkles on their vanilla ice cream does not necessarily mean that the studio wanted supporting/main cast members of color.

And when Julia premiered, it still received major criticism and the actress herself experienced stress from the job.

It was successful, yes, but it still was a mess to produce. What would have happened if this show was produced four years earlier? Before Dr. King's assassination? Before Malcom X's assassination? Before Robert Kennedy's assassination? Before a time where the country was forced to see how ugly the situation was becoming?

Nichelle Nichols, while I may disagree with some of the things she says in terms of her character on the show, I still believe her when she says that the studio tried to buy out her contract and Roddenberry saved her by turning her into a day player. Whatever happened on television after Star Trek went into production doesn't speak for what happened while the show in pre-production.

Ohohohoho that's a great one. " I can't command because I'm a woman so I went batshit insane and switch bodies with my former lover so I can kill him and take his ship! "

Stay classy, ST writers, stay classy.

 

You've made my point as in... it won't be that way for much longer. As time goes by conversions to Judaism will happen, not just in Europe but everywhere else in the world. Just as they're happening in another traditionally "non-conversion-oriented" religion -- Hinduism.

And I know all about the Pogroms. I had a Euro history track in college.

 

Three shows that prove Uhura isn't the ground-breaking black character that she's often credited for by so-called television historians.

In fact, Julia was a far more ground-breaking black female character than Uhura ever hoped to be. She was a professional nurse, a single mother and the titular of the show.

If Roddenberry had the balls he's so credited with having, he would've recast the Number One character with a black actress when it came time for a second pilot.

(Oh and before someone hauls out that tired myth that the test audience didn't want a second-in-command ... the network wanted a strong female character and had no problem with that character being the exec, but wanted a better actress, preferably one that wasn't sleeping with Roddenberry, according to Inside Star Trek.)

 

So you have documentation about a rise in conversions to Judaism? A significant rise that would impact the ethnic element of Judaism?

How can you know "all about the Pograms" and not be aware of the postion of Jews in European society at the time Shatner and Nimoy's ancestors were living in Russia?

 

As has already been stated, it's clear from Inside Star Trek and elsewhere that NBC didn't have a problem with the Number One character -- they just didn't like the actress (and when Roddenberry brought her back as Nurse Chapel, they weren't thrilled either, but at that point they didn't want to rock the boat with the show's creator). Roddenberry made the decision to drop the character when he refused to re-cast the role with an actress who was both capable and not sleeping with him.

Nichols is mistaken on that point, if you're recalling it correctly. She never had a contract with the studio, just a handshake agreement, which meant she was always paid as a day player. It's the only way they could afford to pay her. This is also documented in Inside Star Trek, though if you wanted to look at the actor deals themselves, they're held in the UCLA special collections.

 

No, I don't have documentation but it's an easily arrived at theory if you look at the global trend in terms of migration and religious mutation.

And what did I say that told you that I wasn't aware of "the postion of Jews in European society at the time Shatner and Nimoy's ancestors were living in Russia"?

 

One book isn't the defacto on what happened when it's already established that there's 23523523523 stories of what actually happened behind the scenes on the set. What I see on that show completely contradicts whatever the heck the producers are trying to say. If the show wasn't trying to push Uhura into the back they wouldn't have had suits standing on set during the shooting of Plato's Stepchildren or reduce her lines or slowly reduce her to silently sitting behind Kirk throughout an entire episode by S3.

As affirmative action is just loaded with institutionalized racism, the suits didn't want Uhura being more than what she was on the show.

Nichols said it herself in the interview that she had a contract and her agent called her with news from Roddenberry telling her that the studio was about to buy her out the show and that in order for her to stay on the show she had to been changed to a day player. Only way they could afford to pay her? She sometimes came out of an episode making more than Shatner, Nimoy and Deforest because she'd make over time pay. It had cost more to keep her on a daily on a few episodes...

Why would they have contracts and deals that were never signed? They would only have the agreements that they signed.

I do not agree that NBC and Desilu sat at the table with Roddenberry with big grins, twinkles in their eyes, and great hopes of revolutionizing the world through the great epic moral tales of a rainbow crew coming together to work towards discovering brand new worlds nor will I ever agree that Star Trek deserves all this recognition and praise for "ground breaking television" on race and women's rights.

 

Jewish migration? Isn't Most of that to Israel.?What trend is there in the mutation of Judaism that would indicate a rise in non Jews converting?

The whole "Jewish" isn't an ethnicity and Nimoy is a Russian name so Nimoy is ethnically Russian statements. Which to me indicates a lack of knowledge or understanding of the Jewish dispora and the Pogroms as a motivating force to Jewish migration and immigration throughout history.

 

I referenced Inside Star Trek: The Real Story to disprove the commonly printed assertion that NBC forced Roddenberry to eliminate the Number One character. What Uhura has to do with that point, I don't know. If you'd like to read a different book that presents the same explanation for Number One's disappearance after "The Cage" try Joel Engel's biography, "Gene Roddenberry: The Man and the Myth Behind Star Trek."

As far as Uhura is concerned, I didn't perceive that the show was trying to push her to the background any more during the third season than in the first two. She was in the background from day one, with little effort made to foreground her character at any point.

The assertion that she sometimes made more on an episode than one of the three stars is pretty suspect. She was being paid very little for her acting services (too little, in my opinion), according to everything I've read.

I'm not an expert on the point-by-point of her time on the series, but I do know that she was initially hired as a day player on "The Corbomite Maneuver." Most of her lines were originally delivered by Bailey before Roddenberry inserted her character into the script (close to the last minute).

In addition to contracts, there are also internal memos outlining how the supporting players were to be paid. For more specifics, you'll have to wait to see the documents yourself. Unless I get a grant to do more research this summer it will probably be a while before I have a chance to get back to the Roddenberry Papers.

Of course, you could also just go ahead and read Inside Star Trek: The Real Story, which might be one of "23523523523" accounts of the production of Star Trek, but it's also the best one that's been written thus far. It is both well-researched in terms of primary sources (mainly, the Gene Roddenberry papers at UCLA, but the papers held by Solow and Justman are consulted as well) and in seeking the input of as many people involved with the series' production as were still alive at the time.

Roddenberry's own account of the series' production, The Making of Star Trek, is incredibly self-congratulatory and littered with errors that flatter Roddenberry's character and his audience. At one point, for example, the book claims that overseas sales agents for NBC wanted the show to make its cast more white for sales reasons. In fact, an internal memo by Roddenberry describing his meeting with overseas sales agents describes them wanting just the opposite!

I think it deserves some praise, but that praise must be pretty measured. The integrated cast is commendable, but it must also be noted that Sulu and Uhura had the thinnest characters of the principal or supporting cast (to the point where both could be replaced with other characters with little change to the script). It's curious that they're the only major recurring characters without first names (Spock's first name, of course, being "unpronounceable").

 

Given Nicholl's ever-growing MLK story, it's difficult to take her seriously as a factual source, especially when her assertions fly in the face of what we can see on other TV shows on the same and competing networks at the same time.

The simple fact is that Star Trek and many of its cast and crew were pumped up into a legend that's not all that true. It's sad that the media has glommed onto some of these myths at the expense of recognizing shows that were actually more trailblazing. I love Star Trek, but that doesn't mean it had to be the best show or most progressive show ever made.

 

Demeaned in what way? Sure, Trelane assumes that Uhura is “a Nubian prize, taken on one of your raids of conquest.” We chalk that up to the character’s naivete regarding Earth history. He then admires Uhura’s beauty, saying, “She has the melting eyes of the Queen of Sheba — the same lovely coloring.” That was a surprisingly positive statement about black women in 1966, four years before “Black is Beautiful” became a catchphrase.

In which case there would never have been a television series called Star Trek. There’s a difference between having balls and committing professional suicide.

 

Sorry if I don't reply to everyone here, but my brain is fried from working on some coding projects and that I probably will be repeating myself. lol

I've heard her story told in several different interviews and while little details have changed, the main information has stayed consistent:

1) The trekkie that wanted to meet her was MLK
2) He said stay on the show
3) It was one of the only shows he let his children watch
4) It was a charity event for or hosted by the NAACP

Whatever drastic variations of the tale that a lot of you guys claim she has twisted into I haven't heard myself.

It is the context of the scene that speaks on so many levels. You have to understand that I approach that scene as a multiracial woman, as a black woman. Kirk did not rebuke what the Squire said, he just rather brushed it off but when the Squire directed his attentions to the white yeoman he was quick to defend her. If someone came up to me and my friend/boss/partner and claimed I was a slave acquired on one his conquests and he did not do anything to correct him I would have been offended.

I was also disappointed that Uhura just sat there and didn't correct him at all. I don't care if he compared me to the Queen of Ethopia or Empress of Japan, the fact still remains that, in laymen terms, I'm basically " A beautiful slave ".

My skin color should not matter in my beauty.

The show gets a nod for doing what it did in terms of displaying a future where people can work together to obtain a common goal but it is not ground breaking in what it did because it never once tackled the crucial issues head on within the own cast to avoid problems with the censors and general public.

Revolutionary? No. Ground breaking? No. Breaking the barriers? No.

A pat on the back? Yes.

 

Indeed, studies of Jewish genetics have shown most Jewish communities around the world are more related to each other than their non-Jewish neighbors. This is especially true of the Ashkenazim and Sephardim; the major exceptions are Indian and Sub-Saharan Jews.

The best perspective is to separate the Jewish religion from Jewish ethnicity -- there's a lot of overlap, but being one isn't necessary for the other. However, ethnic Jews are a distinct group and if one believes "race" has any meaning one can argue that they're a different race from Europeans.

 

It was discussed in a number of threads over the years (like this one from 2007 and this one from 2010) here (a search will find them), and Kegek summed up the (then) moving target that is her story, before she's recently amended it to say MLK was a "Trekkie".

 

Recently amended it? Does 20 years ago count as recently amending a story? But, that's neither here nor there as this topic isn't about if Nichols really met MLK or not... nor do I really want to argue about it. lol

 

Its not about Judaism either. But drift happens.

 

lol, that's true too.

 

You’re also approaching a 1960s TV show from a 2011 perspective.

At the time the show was made, skin color still very much mattered. And the word “slave” wasn’t used.

 

I'm approaching a 1960s show from the same prospective that my grandfather approached race relations in the 1960s the same as my father approached race relations growing up. Race relations does not change. We weren't just standing around giggling at obscene comments like that.

That doesn't make it right. Just because they were calling us niggers and japs/orients at time doesn't condone the action nor make it acceptable.

You don't have to say "slave" directly to imply that you are one.

TRELANE: Ah a Nubian prize. (he kisses her hand) Taken on one of your raids of conquest, no doubt, Captain.
KIRK: No doubt.

She is referred to as an object, a prize. Slaves were not people, they were objects. Property. Considering the era that the Squire was obsessed with... there would be no other word for it. It's like putting perfume on shit and trying to mask the disgusting smell: an euphemism.

Just like how Spock's parentage was referred to "gently" as a disadvantage in the movie. Euphemisms play big time in racism.