What is the important similarity between Captain Jean Picard, Christopher Columbus, and the BOOOOOORRRGGG??

      Hint: They're all pasty white guys!! (I'm only kind of kidding). After putting that thought aside, we can see that the obvious similarity is that the are all men of conquest, with that being the case, the real question is why do we generally have such extremely different impressions of each of them? What makes a "good" or "bad" conquistador?
     I think many people would be inclined to say how they treat the land and people on which they arrived, is the defining factor in deciding if they are moral or amoral. I rather, would suggest that it is actually the adventurers motive or mondus operandi, or at least the one that they proclaim, that shifts our perception of that person and possibly even turn a blind eye to their less humane actions. People live vicariously through stories of adventure and like to identify with the main character, so we like a story with a main character with a motive we can aspire to; "To go where no man has gone before", "To discover the New World", but "Resistance is Futile"?, not so much. Because of our bias, we would rather chalk up mortality at the hands of a conqueror we "like", or maybe just their carelessness as just symptom of adventure, than instead destroy our perfectillusion of grandeur, especially if that conqueror is from our direct history.
     In the case of Christopher Columbus many American people will put aside the genocide he committed in their mind as to not destroy the romantic vision of "the Discoverer" and effectively themselves, it's borderline narcissistic. I'm in no way saying that Picard has a similar moral compass to Columbus, just a similar motto. For the same reason that we look past Colombus's atrocities, we look past Picards shortcomings, even if they are partly due to some kind of Butterfly effect. He used his confidence to explore as a way to pick up alot of responsibility, that viewers sometimes let him shed when something goes wrong. For example, because of how Picard handles Q and the Borg, thousands of people die in battle. At the very least, Picard is not mindless, we are just apt to look over the messiness and dark side that inevitably come along with having the drastic influence of leading a civilization to new explorations.
             I think what is most distressing about the Borg, besides the fact that they kill entire species, is that they don't seem to have any heroic motive, at least not from the human perspective. They seem to have a mindless appetite for over consumption and destruction. It doesn't make sense to us, they seem like viruses; why would they even bother with conquest? How can we logically reason with or make sense of a race that's motive is not "self-improvement" or adventure. It is scary to think that a species could erase something so immense like an entire species with out any passion, even if it is nefarious, how do we as humans wrap our heads around it?

Why I love Octavia Butler's Writing style and how she conquers sensitive topic with it.....also a random thing about the femal victim role in sci fi.

    Octavia Butler is already so wildly celebrated and recognized, but that won't stop me from doing the same :). I found her writing to be refreshing and flowing; no info dumps, pretentious science explanations that sound like a 12 year old boy wrote it, just pure narrative from a fictional source that is actually experiencing whatever strange new world Octavia drops us into.

    Needless to say, Octavia Butler is into some WEIRD stuff, but in my eyes that's not exactly a deterrent. Her work turns things that could easily be considered campy or simply gross into something interesting and thought provoking, but that's because she digs DEEP and gives every detail of the story special attention and care - but really that's all you need to make any story worth reading.

I think that is what made the first story we read in class so sophisticated - I say while still being mindful of it's terribly disturbing aspects (it would be pretty hard for Butler to downplay those traits anyways). The truth is the weird sexual/farming slavery of humans by aliens is super interesting, and maybe just as plausible as one of the common alien invasion tropes. Besides, the characterization of all of the humans and aliens is incredible, the interpersonal social aspects of post invasion world is not something I had really considered before ( I kind of assumed we'd be mostly dead). I think this story also drew some strong real-life parallels of slavery, abuse, and Stockholm syndrome. Honestly, the way she wrote for the main alien almost made me understand it's side, ALMOST. (did I almost get Stockholm syndromes by Butler?). This story also made me think a lot about how we treat the animals we use for food, clothing, etc. Even in the case of the aliens being superior to humans (as many assume we are to animals), everything they do to the humans seem incredibly wrong; it's even more sickening when you think about how we violate animals in just as inhumane ways (Maybe we don't try to use them to grow our parasitic offspring, but we still do some terrible things that we try to justify.) Overall the power dynamic between the alien and her human is totally disconcerting, it would almost be easier to understand if she was just overtly physically abusive, and did not act as some kind of family member.
          And now for the last little bit that I kind of built up in the title. What I found completely interesting was how I perceived the protagonist, the stereotypical victim character to be female, even thought he was overtly defined as male. While I don't like the fact that I subconsciously assumed that, I think Butler may intentionally written the main character as a doted on, but raped and manipulated young person, in order to make the statement that we are biased to assume that a victim is female, for good or bad reason I'm not sure.