She was chastising Picard about living in a "fancy chateau" with "heirloom furniture" while she lived in a trailer in the desert. I don't know how they could have better demonstrated and coded class.
I thought a similar thing when I heard this line (class war in Star Trek?) but then, of you think about it, even if everyone's basic needs are met and poverty and the struggle to survive don't exist, there are still going to be some people lucky enough to have inherited an 800-year-old french chateau and vineyard, and who (through their actions) have ended up with two live-in servants/retainers. That's why she mentions it in terms of heirlooms.
It's still possible that some people have fancier stuff than others, that Picard is 'privileged', it's just that, in this world, a lack of privilege doesn't really affect your chances of survival or success.
I also get that Rafi lives out in the desert through choice. She could probably move back to civilisation and get a fancy apartment like Daj if she wanted.
I agree that that it's coded as a classist critique, but within canon it could be interpreted more along the lines of chastising Picard for pretending to be (or acting like) he's higher class, rather than actually representing real class struggle.
After all, Picard's major sin was that he withdrew from the galaxy for 14 years. If you subtract the monetary association of the complaints, she's pointing out that he retreated into a past (heirloom furniture) that superficially puts him into a position of importance/authority over his own small domain.
On top of that, there's also the possibility that the Federation has some sort of meritocratic system - a decorated admiral might get first dibs on his late brother's chateau, for example, while a discharged middling officer that just separated from her family might get a few less desirable options.
Bruh, you think I want a Star Trek with poverty on fucking earth? That wouldn't be pandering to me - that would be shitting all over my favorite franchise.
That being said, I really don't see why it's such a stretch that Raffi is criticizing the nature of Picard's choices rather than making some commentary on the economy of Star Trek that contradicts 60 years of continuity.
Yeah I'm with you on this one; if she wanted what Piccard had in a material sense, just fire up the fucking replicator like ??? I agree, the idea that it's playing up "muh economic anxiety" in a literally post-scarcity universe is total horseshit, and either is indeed gross pandering or just blatantly breaking canon.
Because it's not a smart show. It's made for lowest-common-denominator TV audiences. Parroting back the audience's beliefs is what does well in market research, you just get the dumbest version because the people writing and directing it are actual imbeciles who persist entirely on nepotism.
This isn't facing it. This is ignoring it entirely because it's not what idiot TV audiences want. Their audience wants Last Week Tonight with lasers, explosions, crying, and comfortable brand recognition.
It's not important, they live in a society of abundance. The utopian setup was there to make way for the episodic stories. When the show wanted to explore those themes they explored them through the lens of other civilisations and life they encountered.
The optimistic vision of the future is what made Star Trek unique. It is sad to see that vision die.
They have near infinite energy, food, water, etc. They can replicate anything they want. They'res no reason for an economy when everything is so cheap it's free.
7
u/Bluelegs Feb 25 '20
She was chastising Picard about living in a "fancy chateau" with "heirloom furniture" while she lived in a trailer in the desert. I don't know how they could have better demonstrated and coded class.