Is Deep Space Nine racist?

[Nerys Myk]

All those Enterprise plots may be considered canon now by Star Trek fans and Star Trek writers, but they weren't part of the original Star Trek program's premise. To the contrary, they were created and influenced by writers of Generation-era Trek, with its different conception of the Federation.

To be fair, the Federation wasn't not part of Star Trek's original concept. It was added in the latter half of the first season, IIRC. Prior to that the Enterprise was presented as and Earth ship working for Earth's government. Spock was presented as being unusual, an alien in Earth's service. Once they introduced the idea of the Federation, everything changed ( sort of). The Enterprise is now a ship in the service of a multi species Federation and Spock is the son of a prominent diplomat in that Federation. How unified that confederation is depends on the plot though. They're tight enough to have a diplomatic corps and unified military but at times see semi-independent.
I think episodes like Journey to Babel shows the true diversity of the Federation. And if the budget allowed they'd do it in every episode. It also shows Earth as being just another member. In fact it's pretty much irrelevant to the Coridan problem. Vulcan seems to hold more sway.

 

[KelisThePoet]

I'm not saying that the Federation wasn't a part of the original Star Trek (though as you note, Earth and Starfleet were not consistently presented as being a part of any Federation throughout the entirety of the show). I'm saying that the original presentation of the Federation was far more terra-centric than it became in Generation-era Trek, though I concede, "Journey to Babel" was an exception to the rule. But even in that episode, I'm not sure the fact that Sarek holds something of a swing vote on the Coridan issue is evidence that the Vulcans are more influential than the humans, broadly speaking.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not saying that the Federation wasn't a part of the original Star Trek (though as you note, Earth and Starfleet were not consistently presented as being a part of any Federation throughout the entirety of the show). I'm saying that the original presentation of the Federation was far more terra-centric than it became in Generation-era Trek, though I concede, "Journey to Babel" was an exception to the rule. But even in that episode, I'm not sure the fact that Sarek holds something of a swing vote on the Coridan issue is evidence that the Vulcans are more influential than the humans, broadly speaking.

References to Earth drop off once the Federation is introduced. The officials are Federation officials. The diplomats represent the Federation. The problems are Federation problems Kirk introduces himself as from the Federation. Earth only becomes the center again in the films, where Earth is threatened every other film. OTOH, the officials tend to be humans or least look human. In TOS aliens tend to look very human.

Vulcan doesn't hold the swing vote in JTB, they hold the influence to sway other members to follow their lead. So it seems Vulcan in the form of Sarek is very influential in council sessions. Or at least Gav thinks so.

 

[jaime]

Personally, I want to see more humans in Star Trek, not fewer.

First of all, I liked the way the mostly human cast of the original Star Trek explored and demonstrated human diversity, the kind of diversity encountered in the really real world.

Second, unless an alien character is thoroughly developed in a nuanced way, as Spock was, it comes across like window dressing, an artificial way to add something interestingly exotic, which in addition to lazy writing is the exact opposite of sensitivity to diversity. All the casual talk in Deep Space Nine about Morn's multiple stomachs and off-screen nonentities who have children by budding or who sport transparent skulls, its all a transparent (pun intended) use of extraterrestrials to make the station seem weird and bizarre, and to make its humans more normatively human.

Third, even when a member of the main cast is an alien, the writers often use the fact as a crutch to generate stories and character interactions, inadvertently denying the possibility of such stories and interests to real, genuine human beings. Kira and Jadzia are strong, assertive females, but they're both alien females (and Jadzia is androgynous to boot). What the station needed was more human women like Cassidy Yates.

You see, this all reads like the Star Trek type of scifi isn't for you. Ones with Aliens.
You get small range left to enjoy....Red Dwarf...paradoxically the Alien series. Maybe Interstellar....there's no aliens so far in Dark Matter, so you are in luck.
Also, what's with the discrimination against made up, genuine, alien species in the sci fi show...is Jadzia less of a person with 12 inches of past life slug in her?

 

[jaime]

I just finished binging DS9 and there were a handful of conversations I hadn't noticed before that made me uncomfortable (which surprised me since DS9 is the best Trek). A recurring theme in DS9 was that almost every species had a problem killing members of its own species. Bajorans balked at killing Bajorans (justified as collaborators), Cardassians balked at killing Cardassians (a totalitarian police state can't function without killing it's own citizens), etc. Even Sisko balked at killing humans during a Maquis episode (Really? Because humans don't kill humans?).

There were several conversations throughout the series that seemed odd and out of place, particularly in a supposed enlightened future. Why is killing another human taboo, but it's fine killing a sentient Cardassian?

I think killing in general is taboo in Star Trek, it's why phasers have stun settings.

 

[jaime]

The human dominance of the Federation does seem unrealistic at first blush. On the other hand, if someone wrote a science-fictional series in the nineteenth century and that series depicted Americans (Yankees, USA-ers) dominating the global politics and alliances of the mid-twentieth to early-twenty-first centuries, I'll bet readers would raise similar objections: "If there was a real-life NATO or United Nations, I doubt people would allow new-kids-on-the-block Yankees to dominate so much of it. Why should they?" Yet here we are.

And the comparison is not merely analogous. The Starfleet and Federation of the original Star Trek were largely modeled on and allegorical of post-WWII USA and its constellation of global allies. In other words, right at the time the USA took a huge step forward in global dominance, a US television show aired about humans who'd recently taken a huge step forward in galactic dominance.

What Star Trek never provided, to the best of my knowledge, was an analogous explanation for the huge step. There's no allegorical event equivalent to WWII (I suppose we could consider the Romulan War) and no allegorical technology equivalent to atomic and nuclear weapons. Instead of providing such explanation, the Generation-era spin offs (aired in a later, arguably less history conscious America) strayed from the original premise. The UFP is no longer a science-fictional USA, at least not so obviously. But because of the limits of production and audience expectation to which you allude, the UFP remains dominated by humans and in fact dominated more or less by Americans with the typical Hollywood look, which is less defensible with the original premise abandoned.

While I agree in part with what you say, and ignoring the fact the show was made in Hollywood....wouldn't the typical Hollywood look be fine? Aren't we all supposed to be in perfect health etc even into old age in the 24th century? The Hollywood look is an ideal of perfection, no matter what race or ethnicity the actor actually is. White teeth, sculpted forms, it doesn't matter whether it's Lucy Liu, Jada Pinket Smith or McKenzie Westmore ( I know her dad designed living beings for a living, but she is known in our household for her insanely classical looks on face off. Plus she's really good on face off, managing to wheel out her dad with the same line week after week.) Hollywood is full of physically perfect people apparently.
Would we like to see more aliens? Yes. How do we make them convincing and cheap? They even explain why so many species are humanoid. I really think wanting less Aliens sort of defeats the point in Trek.

 

[LJones41]

I hate to say this but the TREK franchise does suffer from a "humanity on a pedestal" syndrome. Is there an alien culture that is portrayed as superior to Earth's? I do not recall one. It's odd that the Vulcans are portrayed - especially in "Deep Space Nine" and "Enterprise" - as possessing a superior (almost snobbish) attitude toward other aliens. Yet, I have constantly detected this very attitude from the Human characters in all of the shows. Even worse, the Humans' sense of superiority tend to be portrayed as something positive - with the exception of a few episodes. In "Deep Space Nine", it went a little too far with Sisko constantly referring to Earth as "Paradise"

 

[TheSeeker]

Hi @jaime. Please try to avoid multiple posts in a row. If you have multiple posts to address please make use of the multi-quote feature found at the bottom right of a post, right beside the reply button. When you are ready to reply to all posts simply click on "Insert Quotes".

Thanks!

 

[Nyotarules]

I hate to say this but the TREK franchise does suffer from a "humanity on a pedestal" syndrome. Is there an alien culture that is portrayed as superior to Earth's? I do not recall one. It's odd that the Vulcans are portrayed - especially in "Deep Space Nine" and "Enterprise" - as possessing a superior (almost snobbish) attitude toward other aliens. Yet, I have constantly detected this very attitude from the Human characters in all of the shows. Even worse, the Humans' sense of superiority tend to be portrayed as something positive - with the exception of a few episodes. In "Deep Space Nine", it went a little too far with Sisko constantly referring to Earth as "Paradise"

I wonder if this is why some fans hated the portrayal of humanity in ST ENT as the weaker partner with the Vulcans. The only culture or beings portrayed as superior beings are the Organians, the Q, Trelane's parents referred to the crew as 'pets' and in all those cases they would be superior to all beings in the Federation. Although Vulcans like Spock and Sarek believe they have superior culture, but the culture comes across as too ancient and 'no fun'.
Talking about the Q, their only interest is in humanity which probably makes the rest of the Federation feel snubbed or relieved!

 

[jaime]

Hi @jaime. Please try to avoid multiple posts in a row. If you have multiple posts to address please make use of the multi-quote feature found at the bottom right of a post, right beside the reply button. When you are ready to reply to all posts simply click on "Insert Quotes".

Thanks!

I find the multi quote, and even the ordinary reply button, don't always like my internet connection. Also, sometimes I am reading the posts backwards, one at a time, so I don't always intend to reply to more than one, but then I end up doing so occasionally.

I will try to do as you request, but it's doesn't always work for me, basically.

 

[KelisThePoet]

References to Earth drop off once the Federation is introduced. The officials are Federation officials. The diplomats represent the Federation. The problems are Federation problems Kirk introduces himself as from the Federation. Earth only becomes the center again in the films, where Earth is threatened every other film. OTOH, the officials tend to be humans or least look human. In TOS aliens tend to look very human.

Vulcan doesn't hold the swing vote in JTB, they hold the influence to sway other members to follow their lead. So it seems Vulcan in the form of Sarek is very influential in council sessions. Or at least Gav thinks so.

I'm not saying the 23rd Federation is terra-centric simply because of references to Earth. The Federation is terra-centric (or perhaps terran-centric) because most of those Federation officials and diplomats are humans. Moreover many of the Federation problems Kirk deals with parallel nicely and overtly with US foreign policy problems of the 60s, the galaxy of the Federation being an allegory or fictional version of the post-WWII world, largely from a US perspective.

On the issue of Sarek, I'm not sure his personal influence translates to Vulcanian influence generally, though the Vulcans do typically get presented as the other most influential group in the Federation, besides humans.

You see, this all reads like the Star Trek type of scifi isn't for you. Ones with Aliens.
You get small range left to enjoy....Red Dwarf...paradoxically the Alien series. Maybe Interstellar....there's no aliens so far in Dark Matter, so you are in luck.
Also, what's with the discrimination against made up, genuine, alien species in the sci fi show...is Jadzia less of a person with 12 inches of past life slug in her?

I never said I didn't want to see any aliens. I just said I think the human characters should play a larger role. To me, the original Star Trek got the balance right.

My having a preference for how many or what kind of fictional aliens I'd like to see in a TV show hardly qualifies as "discrimination" in the ethically charged sense that word applies to real prejudice against real diversity. Jadzia is not less of a person because of the slug. She's less of a person because she's a fictional character from a made-up species. More to the point, she's less of a role model to diverse human girls (and boys) because she's an androgynous alien. I'm not saying androgynous aliens should never be in science fiction (nor am I saying that real boys and girls can never emulate them); but I am bothered when there aren't any strong, real human women to share the stories with them.

While I agree in part with what you say, and ignoring the fact the show was made in Hollywood....wouldn't the typical Hollywood look be fine? Aren't we all supposed to be in perfect health etc even into old age in the 24th century?

My reference to the "Hollywood look" was not about health and beauty. Sorry for the unclear language on my part. I was referring to the fact that most of the people on Star Trek look ethnically like Americans, and particularly like the American ethnicities that traditionally dominate American film and television.

 

[φ of π]

I'm racist.

I don't trust Trill symbiotes.

I don't believe anything of the host survives, it's just a deception by the Goa-- the Trill.

 

[Nyotarules]

^At least they enter thru the stomach and not the back of the neck lol

 

[jaime]

I'm not saying the 23rd Federation is terra-centric simply because of references to Earth. The Federation is terra-centric (or perhaps terran-centric) because most of those Federation officials and diplomats are humans. Moreover many of the Federation problems Kirk deals with parallel nicely and overtly with US foreign policy problems of the 60s, the galaxy of the Federation being an allegory or fictional version of the post-WWII world, largely from a US perspective.

On the issue of Sarek, I'm not sure his personal influence translates to Vulcanian influence generally, though the Vulcans do typically get presented as the other most influential group in the Federation, besides humans.

I never said I didn't want to see any aliens. I just said I think the human characters should play a larger role. To me, the original Star Trek got the balance right.

My having a preference for how many or what kind of fictional aliens I'd like to see in a TV show hardly qualifies as "discrimination" in the ethically charged sense that word applies to real prejudice against real diversity. Jadzia is not less of a person because of the slug. She's less of a person because she's a fictional character from a made-up species. More to the point, she's less of a role model to diverse human girls (and boys) because she's an androgynous alien. I'm not saying androgynous aliens should never be in science fiction (nor am I saying that real boys and girls can never emulate them); but I am bothered when there aren't any strong, real human women to share the stories with them.

My reference to the "Hollywood look" was not about health and beauty. Sorry for the unclear language on my part. I was referring to the fact that most of the people on Star Trek look ethnically like Americans, and particularly like the American ethnicities that traditionally dominate American film and television.

My humorous point around Jadzia and similar made up people is..that the human characters are precisely as fictional as the alien ones. The federation itself is an alien society to us. Earth in the 23rd or 24th century is alien to us. In many cases, and given the television requirements of the day, we need those alien characters because they couldn't show a human in the manner they needed and stay on the air (see rejoined, or the morality tale of let that be your last battlefield. Tell me how those work with just human characters, and how they get it made. Fiddly huh?) regardless of which...it is a sci fi show. And Jadzia is not androgynous, that's actually part of the point in the character. Dax may be genderless, but Jadzia is not. That's part of the experience gathering going on with joined trill. The women, or men, don't need to be human to be relatable.
And with Hollywood Look...well....Trek always had a hugely diverse cast. There's a ton of ethnicities make up modern America, and I can only think of maybe one they didn't cover with a main character. Nationality...well...yeah...maybe. Kinda. But since that's in the character bio, and not defined by the actor chosen...even that's a spread. Trek has the most diverse cast for television of its time, and even now, especially by American standards. I can't tell you how much I went off friends when it dawned on me how...white ...their New York was. Ironically also true of the Cosby Show, even if we have better reasons for avoiding that show now. Coming from a country that never had segregation, in a time period where my day to day existence was the complete opposite of those monoculture like depictions....I didn't even notice how diverse Trek was. I didn't have to, because Trek seemed normal. It's only when you put the cast photos of Ds9 and Voy under a spotlight you really see that. TNG...maybe not so much, but it definitely wasn't Friends, or Power Rangers token stereotypes. Even TOS had recurring roles like Doctor M'Benga, alongside its trailblazers of Sulu and Uhura. It even managed to get a Brit in, even if it was a pretend one. Can't complain about that, Shatner wasn't American either, even if Jim Kirk was.
I think this is something that certainly isn't there in Ds9, and trying to equate alien species with races falls flat in many ways. It's also worth remembering the episode that originates your avatar encapsulates precisely the reason why Ds9 is the opposite of what you describe. In the future, humans are so cool, not only does skin colour not matter, but nor do the bumps on your head or a transparent skull..even if they can't budget in the sfx for those. This is a show where a Klingon marries a Trill, a Bajoran marries a Ferengi, a human settles down with half the same afore mentioned Trill, a Bajoran settles down with a being that be literally anything...etc etc.

 

[KelisThePoet]

On the issue of ethnic diversity in its cast, Star Trek could have done worse and could have done better. I agree with you that compared to television in general, it did pretty good. But the larger point is the American-ness of the humans on the show of all different ethnicities. I don't have a problem with Americans being over-represented on an American TV show if the Federation is a transparent allegory of the USA, as it was in the original Star Trek, but if Americans become the standard human representations of humanity contrasted against a cast of exotic aliens, we have a problem.

On the issue of androgyny, you're right that my language could be more precise. Jadzia is not androgynous. I usually call the worm androgynous, and even that's not a technically correct use of the term. I'll have to think harder about my terminology, but again I'm making a larger point. Jadzia Dax is not unproblematically female, and there aren't enough characters on Deep Space Nine that are.

I'm not saying that I don't want any allegories of real-world problems using aliens. I just want to see more humans. But the fact that certain human problems have historically been unapproachable on TV except through allegory is not a case for the defense of overusing aliens in Star Trek. It's a case for the prosecution. Whatever the limitations of the past, the future should give us more freedom to tell a broader range of human stories.

For the episode from which I take my avatar, I will only say this. Of all the episodes I've encountered in my viewings, this was the most . . . human.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not saying the 23rd Federation is terra-centric simply because of references to Earth. The Federation is terra-centric (or perhaps terran-centric) because most of those Federation officials and diplomats are humans.

Too small a sample size to really know. Is Nilz Baris human? We don't really know.

Moreover many of the Federation problems Kirk deals with parallel nicely and overtly with US foreign policy problems of the 60s, the galaxy of the Federation being an allegory or fictional version of the post-WWII world, largely from a US perspective.

That's about the themes of the show and isn't really "in-universe". The show was written by Americans for an American audience to comment on then current problems in America. It's what fiction does.

On the issue of Sarek, I'm not sure his personal influence translates to Vulcanian influence generally, though the Vulcans do typically get presented as the other most influential group in the Federation, besides humans.

Sarek represents Vulcan. In council he is Vulcan

 

[Kevin Wolff]

It' s about as racist is we are as a species. Which means yes, of course it is. Not because they wrote it to be so, but because the creators are products of their times. This is by no means a criticism. In fact it's the opposite. It makes Trek art in its truest sense. Creators set out to imagine an enlightened future with evolved sensibilities, and the creation, as art, reflects the times and sensibilities from which it was made back at us, warts and all.

 

[Tosk]

In "Deep Space Nine", it went a little too far with Sisko constantly referring to Earth as "Paradise"

Constantly? He did it a whole total of four times, and one of those was just repeating what someone else said to make a point.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

It is comical that this conversation, concerning human/Anglo-centrism in Star Trek, is taking place in the forum for the series where it was least relevant. DS9 ended with the aliens converting the human hero, becoming part of their cultural and spiritual universe. It ended with the aliens replacing the humans at the top of the series command chain. It ended with characters not only going home with a sense of human culture, but also hoping to learn about their native cultures.

 

[KelisThePoet]

That's about the themes of the show and isn't really "in-universe". The show was written by Americans for an American audience to comment on then current problems in America. It's what fiction does.

The real-world themes and relevance of the show were part of the Federation's identity in the original Star Trek. They were overt and meant to be so.

Sarek represents Vulcan. In council he is Vulcan

Many leaders are more personally popular and influential than their city/state/country/whatever is generally. There's personal charisma and personal expertise.