Why the Star Wars saga is incomparable in goodness to the Star Trek series (a polemic)

In the first place, be it known that the Star Wars saga is inferior for its wanton destruction of non-human peoples. The Wookies on Kashyyk, the Ewoks on Endor, the Tusken Raiders on Tatooine, the Gungans on Naboo and more are caught up, often times in battles in which they themselves have nothing invested, for the sake of the gratification of the main characters. The only human instance of any sort of genocide is the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope, in which case we can only suppose that the planet was mostly humans, since we never see the people on the planet, whereas with the deaths of the races mentioned above, we are given prime view to the massacres unfolding upon the people.

Human characters make up the greater part of the main characters, yet they somehow are able to avoid dying as much as possible. Characters such as Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, and Padme Amidala are all able to manipulate the other species much the way that the gods of the Greek pantheon manipulated humans, often putting them in danger, often killing them wholesale, all for their own personal whims and their own personal battles. The peoples of the Ewoks, Tusken Raiders, and Gungans have nothing to do with the so-called "bad guys" but somehow find themselves inthe middle of the conflict. Anakin slays a whole tribe of Tusken Raiders to avenge his mother, Padme convinces the less intelligent Gungans that the Trade Federation will kill them all, and Luke uses the Ewoks' superstition to demand tribute in the form of battle.

One might say, what of the countless hordes of the Trade Federation or the Imperial armies that die? In the first place, George Lucas has gone to great extent for us to not even think of these armies as human. The Trade Federation army consists of soulless robots. We feel nothing for them since they are not even characters. The storm troopers are even more protected. In the first place, they wear body armor that prevents us from seeing their faces and recognizing that they are, in fact people. Secondly, they are clones, so the argument can be made (and is certainly a theme in Star Wars) that they aren't really people either.

Couple this idea with the fact that even the main villains (Darth Sidious and Darth Vader, respectively) of the entire series are distorted in appearance. Darth Vader wears a suit that, like the storm troopers, distorts his countenance to looking more like a robot than a person. Darth Sidious is veiled in shadows through the entire series and when we finally see his face in Return of the Jedi, his eyes are yellow and his face unattractive. On the other hand, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Anakin Skywalker, Padme Amidala, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Mace Windu, Leia Organa, and Lando Calrisian are all humans. Therefore, George Lucas illustrates a heavily biased look at which lives are valuable, namely those of the human main characters and those that are not, namely almost anybody else, illustrating a sort of xenophobia.

In the second case, it is also clear that George Lucas lets his own personal biases and racism develop the plot for him. Many of the characters which the audience finds detestable are charicatures of minorities. Consider, for example, the Neimoidians of Trade Federation fame. With their distinctly Easter Asian accents, their slanted and squinted eyes and other physical features, it is almost certain that George Lucas is portraying them as an almost Soviet-Union era portrait of Eastern Asians.Similarly, the character of Watto appears to be an anti-Semitic character. The Gungans and the Jawas are clearly sterotypes of minorities as well.

Furthermore, all of the main characters with a couple notable exceptions, who get anything done, are white humans. Even Chewbacca and the 2 droids, who are main characters, have very little necesary function, and, in fact, only work in correllation with the other characters toward their main goal. The first African-American to be portrayed (note: James Earl Jones does the voice of Darth Vader, but not the face nor the costume) in the films is depicted as being a smooth-talking double crosser who sales his friend out and flirts with his girlfriend. He is redeemed in Return of the Jedi, but Lando's portrayal in Empire Strikes Back is nothing less than racist.

Yoda, being a short, green alien, is the only notable exception to the rule of white human supremacy in Star Wars.However, even though he is often a dynamic character, in the original three films, Yoda never speaks syntactically correct English, lies to Luke about his identity, is never involved in the action and is ignored by Luke when he warns Luke of impending doom. So, while Yoda may seem to be the exception to the rule, this is only in the newer films. Similarly, in the three newer films, we are given an African-American character that we can both honor and respect in Mace Windu, but we are not given a pleasant impression of him as he is very critical of the adorable, young, white Anakin Skywalker.

On the other hand, Star Trek has always maintained a record of being neither Xenophobic nor racist. In The Original Series, for instance, the alien race of Klingons and Romulans are often portrayed as being enemies. However, one must also note that the alien species of the Vulcans, who are ethnically related to the Romulans, are seen as being allied to the human species. Furthermore, in The Next Generation, the long-standing animosity between Klingons and humans is all gone.

Furthermore, the United Federation of Planets does not actively invade other planets (as per the Prime Directive) in order to enlist the help of the natives, nor does it actively seek combat with its so-called "enemies" (as per the establishments of neutral zones). Rather, the Federation, as shown in the series and the movies, seeks to bring peace and enter into positive diplomatic relations with other peoples (most notably in The Undiscovered Country, Insurrection, and Star Trek). Never does the Federation try to sway superstitious peoples nor do they try to coerce people. Rather, once a species has attained sufficient scientific advancment (ie faster than light travel) the Federation contacts them for treaty negotiations, thus following a method that is neither xenophobic, nor human dominated.

The Star Trek series and movies have also always been proactive in fighting racism. Take, for example, the Original Series, which started in the 1960s, during a time when Equal Rights and the Soviet Union were both hot-button issues. Uhura, the communications officer, was an African-American woman, and Chekov, the chief engineer, was Russian. These roles were innovative and very forward thinking for the time. Furthermore, the cast included Sulu, the Asian pilot; Scotty, the Scottish transporter operator; and Spock, the Vulcan (an alien race) science officer.

Furthermore, the following series, the Next Generation, which aired in the 1980s included officers from all different walks of life. Warf was a Klingon, Geordi LaForge was an African-American who was blind, Data was an android and DeAnna Troy was a Betazoid, another alien species. The next few series, Deep Space 9 and Voyager, continued the tradition with Black Vulcans, Changelings, genetically engineered humans, Ferangi, holograms, etc.

My third argument against Star Wars is the mockery of Catholicism. The Force, as you may or may not know, is some kind of metaphor for the clergy of the Catholic Church. Thus, you have Jedi (a Latin-looking word) apprentices, knights, and masters, as you have deacons, priests and bishops. The Jedi Council is some kind of parallel to the Magisterium, and, like priests, the Jedi are forbidden to marry. How often has a character said the phrase, "The Force be with you," and one among you responds, "And also with you." Furthermore, there is Anakin Skywalker, "The Chosen One," born with no corporeal father, destined to bring balance to the Force and most certainly a Christ figure in this regard.

However, this is not an homage. It is mockery. Consider, for instance, the fact that there are no lay "Force" followers. It is all made up of clergy. Furthermore, Gran Moff Tarkin refers to it as "an ancient and superstitious religion." There is no doctrine, no dogma, no scripture to base their faith on either. All Jedi simply meditate on the Force and this is what makes them Jedi. What are we to make of the fact that all the Jedi are killed? Is this the way to pay respect for a people, to insinuate that all their kind will be massacred, by their savior, no less? And what is the Force but "midichlorians?" God is reduced to a microscopic organism in the Star Wars movies, and its followers simply meditate on it and do nothing to spread good tidings or practice any kind of righteous living. In fact, the function of Jedi, it seems, are to be Paladin, to fight in the name of this apparently God-like force, though they have no doctrine, no creed and no standard. What's worse is their virtues. The way of the Jedi is not to bring truth and justice. It is to move heavy objects, jump tall heights and deceive people into believing lies. These are the people that we're supposed to revere? Liars and charlatans? What does Lucas mean by portraying clergy this way?

Furthermore, Lucas takes the theology of the Force into a very Manichean direction by giving it dualism. There is a Dark Side and a Light Side to it. God is both good and bad, but we're to believe we want to be on the good side. Furthermore, rather than convincing us that the Light Side is to be desired, Lucas muddies the waters. The savior, the "Chosen One" (Messiah in Hebrew, Christos in Greek) turns to the Dark Side and kills the majority of clergy on the Light Side. The only one who escapes is Yoda. He even kills Obi-Wan, his former master and instructor. At the end of the movies, the only living Jedi adherent is Luke Skywalker, who, in a very short amount of time, went from being ignorant about the Force to being able to overpower Darth Vader, the Chose One, who, it might be added, is also Luke's father, a violation of his vow of celibacy. If one likens our faith to the faith of the Star Wars movies, those who do not know our faith will be deceived into believing we stand for things that we do not.

"But," you might argue, "in Star Trek there is no faith. At least in Star Wars there is a religion." This is completely false. Many characters throughout the series and movies, of human, Vulcan, Klingon and other species, are shown practicing the religious customs of their cultures. Star Trek does not provide the basis for why any of these are right or wrong, but rather, it takes a more pluralstic stance. Yes, on might argue that a pluralistic stance is not favorable if we are seeking truth. However, I would argue a stance that provides the opportunity for our faith to be true is better than a stance that portrays our faith in the wrong light.

Finally, from an ethical perspective, Star Wars is worse in that it glorifies battle and devalues life. The heroes of Star Wars are the ones who are the best at killing. Luke kills countless storm troopers, causes his father's death, leads Ewoks to their death, kills animals such as the Rancor and the Hoth snow beast, slays many on the Skiff in Tatooine, and kills millions of people on board the Death Star, and yet we think of him as the hero. No one ever seeks to bring justice or reform to their enemies. Rather than seeking the humane, diplomatic approach, everyone seeks to kill off their nemeses. One might argue in the face of oppression fighting is necessary. I would argue, with Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Dietrich Boenhoffer and Franz Jagerstatter that the way of pacifism is the way to fight back.

Star Trek, on the other hand, reinforces the idea that people are reasonable, that given the chance, they would rather live than die, that enemies, even enemies of different species, are to be treated with respect, that life is precious and that peace is the primary mission.