T'Pol's Un-Vulcan Like Behavior

[honeybee]

I do think that Vulcan society was more "conservative" if you will than T'Pol was, which does mean she was going against the grain. I don't think she was alone in this - her mother turned out to be a more literal rebel.

She's not an extreme example of rebellion like the Vosh 'Katur, but given her exposure to off worlders opening her mind, she's going to have different ideas than people who stayed home on Vulcan and never questioned the status quo.

I like that there is a spectrum of ideas and approaches among Vulcans. Soval may be more "conservative" than T'Pol, but he is more open than perhaps other Vulcans would be. And so it goes.

[pdsldl]

So you judge T'Po'ls behavior by standards that didn't even exist in her own time. And went against what she and millions of Vulcans were taught were the teachings of Surak? So to carry that to real life you look at the history of Christianity or Catholicism and compare the behavior of current day Christians or Catholics to the entire history of what they were or should be?

[Eian Flannagan]

I truly have no desire to get involved in a game of semantics with anyone, so I'll just break it down this way:

reb-el
- noun
1. a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.
2. a person who resists any authority, control, or tradition.

Yeah...the Vulcan Arc in S4 shows us T'Pol fulfilled the criteria in #1.
Yeah..."The Andorian Incident," "Breaking the Ice," and "Fusion" in S1, "The Expanse" in S2, "The Xindi" (pre-Trell-D), and at least 4 other eps (post Trell-D) in S3, and "Home" (even though she caved at the end), "Awakening," "Kir'shara," and "The Aenar" in S4 show us T'Pol fulfilled the criteria in #2.

Thus, canonically speaking and by definition, T'Pol is a rebel. Regardless of what type of authority, control, or tradition (corrupt or otherwise), a rebel is one who goes against it. T'Pol did. So she is.

Now that's simple.

To say T'Pol wasn't a rebel because Vulcan society 150 years in the future models her actions 150 years in their past is like saying colonists throwing tea in Boston Harbor wasn't rebellious because today we'd just shove a Sidewinder missile up King George's ass. You cannot base the actions in one era on what exists in the future. Especially considering that it is usually the rebels who create the traditions and societies of the future.

[WarpGirl]

Why not? What is so wrong about that, history is all about context. I haven't done anything wrong. I haven't asked people to like what I'm saying. So why try to make a person feel bad about their own way of looking at things.

[Silverbullet]

T-Pol was apersonal Rebel. She did not belong to any Rebel Group or organization nor subscribed to their ideals. She would be horrified at a group rebelling against the goverment as she grew up under that government and considered it legal. She , however, questioned her position in her society since she lived among Humans and began to learn of their views. She began to Love a Human and fought against that because it was not accpetable to her society. So she was and was not a Rebel. This situation caused her many problemms and may hav even led to her experiementation with TD. She was conflicted in ways mostly on a personal level. Professionaly she was competent. She did not have to go against her background to serve perfessionaly on a human ship. It was her personal interactions that caused her to Rebel against her Societies teachings, customs and traditionons. She had cast her lot with Humans as she rsigned from the VHC and eventually joined Star Fleet did not leave Enterprise until it was to be mothballed and then (we can only assume) she continued to serve in Star Fleet and either become part of the crew of anther Starship or started to work and live on Earth at the Starfleet Acadamy. What happened between TnT? So our girl is a Rebel in the sense she is personally rebeling against her society but not a Rebel because she had, until the Forge believed that the government was legimate.

[Aquarius]

:roll: Nope still don't get it. I look at ST and I look at ALL of it together. It's one huge mural, not individual snapshots.

But that's how life happpens, WG. We can't be judged right now by what we're going to become in the future, which is what you're doing to T'Pol and the version of Vulcan society she comes from. You have the advantage of omnipotence here, they do not. Sorry, but I find your reasoning flawed.

[WarpGirl]

Technically history judges the past based on the present. ENT is ST history, it's set before the entire franchise began. Therefore judging based on all the other Treks isn't unreasonable. That's it I'm done.

[Aquarius]

I truly have no desire to get involved in a game of semantics with anyone, so I'll just break it down this way:

reb-el
- noun
1. a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.
2. a person who resists any authority, control, or tradition.

Yeah...the Vulcan Arc in S4 shows us T'Pol fulfilled the criteria in #1.
Yeah..."The Andorian Incident," "Breaking the Ice," and "Fusion" in S1, "The Expanse" in S2, "The Xindi" (pre-Trell-D), and at least 4 other eps (post Trell-D) in S3, and "Home" (even though she caved at the end), "Awakening," "Kir'shara," and "The Aenar" in S4 show us T'Pol fulfilled the criteria in #2.

Thus, canonically speaking and by definition, T'Pol is a rebel. Regardless of what type of authority, control, or tradition (corrupt or otherwise), a rebel is one who goes against it. T'Pol did. So she is.

Now that's simple.

To say T'Pol wasn't a rebel because Vulcan society 150 years in the future models her actions 150 years in their past is like saying colonists throwing tea in Boston Harbor wasn't rebellious because today we'd just shove a Sidewinder missile up King George's ass. You cannot base the actions in one era on what exists in the future. Especially considering that it is usually the rebels who create the traditions and societies of the future.

Well-done, Eian!

WG--Yes, the Vulcan we were shown in Enterprise was contrary to the Vulcan we were shown in TOS. We all get that, we all pretty much agree with that. However, for whatever reason, TPTB decided, when creating Enterprise, to show us that Vulcan society was not static, that it had been through changes, that it hadn't always been what it was when we met Spock--most likely because NO society is static, unless it's dying out.

So your real quibble here does not seem to be whether or not T'Pol rebelled against the societies and traditions and expectations she was raised with, because we've established quite well here that she fits the definition and description of a rebel, but rather the fact that B&B showed you something you didn't expect and didn't like is what's hanging you up here.

By your reasoning, WG, everyone should be able to judge you personally, right now, today, based on what the human race is going to be like in 150, without taking into account that the circumstances you live in right now are going to be different than the ones people are dealing with in the future. Does that seem fair to you? I would hope not.

[WarpGirl]

You don't think that was just a tiny bit mean spirited?

[Aquarius]

Considering you replied to my post before I edited it and added the part I directed at you, no. Why is it mean-spirited to tell Eian he did a good job explaining what we meant?

As I said before, go ahead and think what you want. If T'Pol isn't a rebel in your world, cool. But canonically and according to those pesky conventional, generally-accepted definitions, I think a pretty strong case has been made to the contrary, and that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'm drinking the Kool Aid on this one, and I like it.

(Just half-expected a big, red smiley-faced pitcher to come busting through my wall...)

[Alelou]

Warp Girl, the heated response to you might have been provoked by something like, "I don't agree with you and I never will." (That's quoting you.) When you argue in that way, you do tend to get a rise out of people.

I have a question from what I've read. Is "drinking the koolaid" becoming a phrase everybody interprets as "going along with the herd"? Is it in common use?

I ask because I find it kind of startling. Frankly, I don't think a lot of the people who DID drink the Koolaid in Jim Jones' compound had any choice about it -- that was a very violent and threatening atmosphere.

[Eian Flannagan]

Why not? What is so wrong about that, history is all about context.

Why not? Because historical fact isn't based on hindsight. Revisionist historians are not usually the most lauded in the field because they tend to distort the facts to suit their theories. That doesn't actually change the facts of history. And the absolute nature of historiography is that one can tell you how something happened. One cannot empirically tell you why something happened. And there is a wicked difference in the two.

To say that T'Pol wasn't a rebel in the early 2150's because the Vulcans in the 2260's or 2370's behave as she did is the same as saying Joan of Arc wasn't a rebel because religious wars are still being fought today by leaders just like her. So Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn't a rebel because most folks today believe as he did? Really? By definition of the word, that's just wrong. Sorry, but it is technically incorrect.

I haven't done anything wrong. I haven't asked people to like what I'm saying. So why try to make a person feel bad about their own way of looking at things.

I'm not sure anyone is trying to make you feel bad. I believe folks are just expressing their thoughts on the matter at hand---just as you are doing.

Technically history judges the past based on the present. ENT is ST history, it's set before the entire franchise began. Therefore judging based on all the other Treks isn't unreasonable. That's it I'm done.

Uh...technically, no it doesn't. History doesn't judge. People do. History records and interprets according to facts. And history doesn't base past events on current ones. Sorry, but that entire idea boggles my mind. I've been a history professor for 10 years and it's never once occurred to me to base the past on the present.

[Aquarius]

Warp Girl, the heated response to you might have been provoked by something like, "I don't agree with you and I never will." (That's quoting you.) When you argue in that way, you do tend to get a rise out of people.

I have a question from what I've read. Is "drinking the koolaid" becoming a phrase everybody interprets as "going along with the herd"? Is it in common use?

I ask because I find it kind of startling. Frankly, I don't think a lot of the people who DID drink the Koolaid in Jim Jones' compound had any choice about it -- that was a very violent and threatening atmosphere.

Yeah, it's being used that way in this context and others. It started out as meaning someone who blindly goes along with others, as in cult-like behavior, but now it just sort of refers to anyone who buys into anything without asking much in the way of questions.

ETA: Once again, Eian, I think you nailed it, on all counts. And specifically regarding what history is or isn't, I think I'm more likely to defer to your expertise here than anyone else's...unless we have another history professor in our midst?

[Linda]

Uh, I found Eian's explanation very logical, though, yes, stated a bit strongly. Perhaps he could have left out the phrase "Now that's simple" because it could be taken as mean spirited but might have been meant just to highlight his point. I laughed over the imagery of a sidewinder missile up King George's backside because it shows so well the incongruency of mixing historical periods. I do agree with Eain's analysis and quite enjoyed it.

Also I personally try not to say I would hold an opinion and never change it. I feel strongly about some things and express that. But many times on this site people have made good cases for their point of view and that has convinced me to change my opinion. That has been a growth experience for me and I don't at all feel wishy-washy or like I am easily lead if I think about something carefully and then change my mind.

[Aquarius]

Uh, I found Eian's explanation very logical, though, yes, stated a bit strongly. Perhaps he could have left out the phrase "Now that's simple" because it could be taken as mean spirited but might have been meant just to highlight his point.

I can't really speak for Eian here, but I suspect he was just using WG's own phraseology here, because that's how she presented her own point about a page ago, as I did that myself when responding to the same point. Speaking as a fellow poster and not as an admin here for a moment, if Eian's use of "now that's siimple" rubbed her the wrong way, then she shouldn't have said it herself in the first place, in my humble opinion.

Now, as an admin I'd like to say this: rather than having this thread degenerate any further in regards to who's being mean to whom, please let's confine the rest of the discussion to T'Pol and Vulcan society and Vulcan behavior, and if anyone feels another poster is breaking the rules by trolling or flaming, rather than calling them out on it here, please just report the post to the admins and it will be dealt with fairly.

Thanks.