I've heard this Klink=USSR/Rom=China analogy before but I don't agree.
To me the Klingons, with their martial philosophy, fu manchu mustaches and asian features were invisioned to be some sort of Mongol-type empire with a Nazi twist. They are treacherous, sneaky and brutal.
The Romulans on the other hand, from the original episode where they were introduced exhibited Roman behavior (thus "Romulans"). Duty, honor and service to the state. The "emperor", the senate, helmets and outfits, ranks, names and even down to the salute.
Note that I consider only the early episodes to be examples of Roddenberry's vision as he continued to put less and less of his own ideas into the show as it progressed. And the quality of the show deteriorated as a result.
When TNG came around, the "bad guys" switched behavior. Now the Klingons are driven on honor and duty and take on an even more asian-like culture and language. The Romulans become more sneaky and underhanded and take on some behaviors of the TOS klingons.
Personally, I miss the old Klingons and Romulans.
I found an interesting interview with Roddenberry,
http://www.philosophysphere.com/humanist.htmlSome snippets.
"I guess from that time it was clear to me that religion was largely nonsense ? largely magical, superstitious things. In my own teen life, I just couldn?t see any point in adopting something based on magic, which was obviously phony and superstitious."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander: You identify yourself philosophically as a humanist?
Roddenberry: Yes.
-----------------------------
Alexander: Some have described you as a modern Jonathan Swift. Would you explain that?
Roddenberry: I always enjoyed Jonathan Swift, the lands he went to and the characters he invented. It always seemed to me that the type of writing I was doing was like what Swift did.
Swift used his characters to point out stupidities in our own systems of thinking. When you see the Lilliputians fighting and double-crossing each other, you are watching humanity through Swift?s eyes. I?ve been sure from the first that the job of Star Trek was to use drama and adventure as a way of portraying humanity in its various guises and beliefs. The result was that Star Trek ? in the original series but even more powerfully in the second series ? is an expression of my own beliefs using my characters to act out human problems and equations.
------------------------
Roddenberry: However, the truly serious things that we can be censored about are criticism about the military-industrial complex and advertising. You have to tread very carefully around advertising because it uses television to whet appetites and sell products. You?ve got to be careful about that.
Alexander: Corporate interests?
Roddenberry: Corporate interests, the possibility that Russia might be a little bit right in some things it does.
----------------------------
Alexander: I remember the character of Commander Riker on the current series commenting on how it was no longer necessary for animals to be raised for food. Twenty-fourth century technology could create an analog of meat so that all the things associated with bringing meat to the table were no longer necessary.
Roddenberry: I look forward to that day coming. We would have our juicy T-bone steak without having to kill the animal. I feel different way about domestic animals now. I am a bit queasy about the way we raise our chickens and beef cattle and so on. It?s really ugly.
----------------------------
Roddenberry: There will always be the fundamentalism and the religious right, but I think there has been too much of it. I keep hoping that it is temporary foolishness. Some of it will always be around because there will always be people who are so mean-spirited and such limited thinkers that their religious beliefs seem so logical ? that there is a god, and so forth ? that nothing else in their limited concept can explain what the existence of a god can. There?s been a lot of it lately ? Youth for Christ and that sort of thing. I?m hoping that this is just a bump in time.
----------------------------
Alexander: Do you consider yourself a feminist?
Roddenberry: I really do, although I know many people who would laugh at that. Maybe I consider myself a feminist; maybe the inner person is still being careful of that at times. I?ve got a secretary who certainly doesn?t consider me a feminist. She criticizes me very often, and I listen to her.
-------------------------------
Alexander: You once said to me that, while writing for Parker, you had come to the conclusion that the solution to the drug problem was legalization, or perhaps not legalization, but decriminalization, making drugs a public health-medical problem. Have you changed your mind on that?
Roddenberry: If anything, I believe that even more firmly as time has gone on. I think the current drug czar [William Bennett at the time of this interview] is a foolish man and will accomplish nothing. When people have a need ? a physical need ? people are going to have drugs if at all possible. For some people, it is very upsetting, demanding need. I certainly believe that people who believe otherwise ? that with mortality you can toss drugs to the side ? are wrong. I?ve come close enough to feelings where I could have been an addict to believe that I am forever strong. I hope so now; but forever ? who knows?
Alexander: There is a big movement in this country to enforce the Puritan ethic by fiat of law.
Roddenberry: In this country, we tend to believe that law can cure anything. But, of course, it can?t.
--------------------------------------
Roddenberry: Yes. Television got off to a very bad start regarding violence. They had pretty much unthinking writers. The Western with the man who was fast with the gun is a good example. I?ve been puzzled for many years why people who should know better, including philosophers, incorporate that in their thinking ? that violence is an answer to many things ? because we know in life it isn?t. Violence begets violence. Everything that is supposedly wrong with television is part of what a writer puts in and reaps.
-------------------------------
Alexander: On Star Trek people think their way out of problems.
Roddenberry: More so on Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is the product of my mature thought and having achieved a majority of years. I used to think that Star Trek was very good about being nonviolent, but still there are episodes that I rushed over. Kirk would pick up the challenge of another race a little too fast for my comfort. I made quite a change in attitude and direction of the show when I did The Next Generation, because the new captain is not apt to do those things.
-------------------------------------
Alexander: I would say, from your time as a policeman, you saw violence in the street and saw what it really does to people. Most Americans, unless they have been through military combat or have worked as police officers, firefighters, or paramedics, have no idea what real violence is and what a gunshot or a knife wound really does to someone. They see sanitized violence on television with very little blood and no one getting sick. Would you care to comment on this?
Roddenberry: Yes, I think we sanitize violence and escape any real feeling about what it really is. Television violence has no agony in it ? or anything else, for that matter. People who are shot clutch their breast with a brave little smile and die?but off-camera. Violence is an ugly thing. When it is done, it should be done for the sake of the ugliness so that you are saying to the audience, "This is a terrible thing, even the hero is doing an ugly thing". There should be a comment on that ugliness.
------------------------------------------
Roddenberry: In the early 1960s, I was much more a macho-type person. I was still accepting things from my childhood as necessary and part of reality ? how men related to women, et cetera. My assistant, Susan Sackett, used to say to me, "You really put down women a lot for someone who is supposed to be thoughtful and liberal." I began listening to her and agreeing that she was right in her perceptions.
My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down "fags" as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women.
---------------------------------------------
Roddenberry: Yes. I put so much together, subconsciously, that the day came when something forced me to bite the bullet and consider humanism. It was very clear that Alexanders were right. Humanism was right. I?ve known that for some years. One by one, getting rid of the old conventions and beliefs that nag you ? the need to say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, and the like ? leads you to humanism. So, yes, it was a gradual process, and I like to think that it is possible to have that gradual, maturing process all through life.
------------------------------------------
Topic: Differences between TOS (Old Trek) and New Trek. (Read 8417 times)