If he is taking one for the team, speaking morally, should he not feel some sort of regret?
Is Deep Space Nine racist?
- Thread starter Destructor
- Start date
He still looks bruised by the entire business to me. He may try to explain it away to himself but by my reading he hasn't fully convinced himself.
In real life it's not so simple, which is why it plays into the notion of toxic masculinity as well as might
=right and other concepts.
But yeah, the actor that portrayed Vreenak did an excellent job.
And Sisko said he'd do it all over again. There's no repercussions for his actions, nor his decision NOT to imprison Garek for the people he has murdered. It's portrayed by the producers that Sisko did the RIGHT thing. Immoral actions are okay if you're the "good guy." But everyone views themselves as being the "good guy" or on the side of right.
Sisko doing it over again doesn't mean he lacks regret or that he isn't bruised by the experience. Humans are complex and sometimes their remarks or self justifications are at variance as to how they feel. Sisko's body language and lengthy self justifications indicates to me at least, that he is bruised by the experience whereas as old Garak is as cool a cucumber, he ain't even flinching that guy. The producers aren't making it simple for us here, they are coming up with some complexity for us to chew on.
As for Starfleet, when the chips are down and the stakes are high, they do realpolitik.They overlook these things or even sanction the immoral. Think Admiral Nastypants correcting Picard on his treatment of Hugh over in TNG. Hugh's rights were null and void according to old Nastypants. Or all the obstruction Starfleet Medical gave out when Bashir wanted a cure to Odo's illness. Put under the kosh, principles get put to oneside and realpolitik comes into play.
I'm not arguing that he isn't bruised by the experience from a moral standpoint.
But they are. It's the Machiavellin "the ends justify the means." It's not as hard a choice to make when the people involved are portrayed in a villainous light. Romulans=bad guys. Vreenak=bad guy. Therefore, in the end, it's okay to fake evidence to start a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. It's okay to murder a Romulan senator if that's what it takes for you to win. Yeah, you should feel bad about it, but hey, that's a small price to pay to do what's necessary. But don't feel TOO bad about it, because you won.
I agree, and it's realistic. But it feeds into the idea that ends justify the means. And that's not far off from the typical action hero seen in movies, who solves all his problems with violence and is seen as justified in doing so.
No, he hasn't. That was the intent.
I should correct that and say that there is SOME small degree of Sisko questioning himself and not thrilled at sacrificing his integrity and beliefs, but in the end, not really. Remember, he'd do it all over again, and that does not strike me as regret. Regret is thinking, "maybe I should have done that differently."
Why should he feel regret, when the war is going in the Federations favor now? Vreenak was a bad dude anyway. Who'd shed tears for that guy (except for his for his family and friends). And Sisko is pretty much certain that the Dominion would go after Romulus after they demolished the Federation and Klingons, so war between the Romulans and the Dominion is inevitable.
Why should he feel regret, when the war is going in the Federations favor now? Vreenak was a bad dude anyway. Who'd shed tears for that guy (except for his for his family and friends). And Sisko is pretty much certain that the Dominion would go after Romulus after they demolished the Federation and Klingons, so war between the Romulans and the Dominion is inevitable.
Newflash: not everything characters say in TV and films is meant to be taken literally.
Then it kind of goes against the ending then if he didn't really mean it. He does another questionable thing when he makes a planet uninhabitable for the Maquis. That's Sisko, the Captain who does "what's necessary."
Was there any negative repercussions shown as a result of Sisko fabricating evidence to start a war? In real life we have a good example, but what about in DS9?
Well, you asked whether he feels regret. He does feel regret. That doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't plough through those feelings of regret and do it again if called upon to do so. Humans are often complex, conflicted and wounded beings.
It is an end-justifies-the-means episode were the "end" is avoiding a zero sum result like capitulation before the Dominion. Sisko has a robust self image of himself as a principled and moral individual and this episode interrupts that self image and humbles and disturbs him. We're also supposed to be uncomfortable with all the murder and the misdirection even if ultimately we're lead to the inevitable conclusion that 'it had to be done'
I agree. It's a lowering of the moral standard. We feel uncomfortable with it at first, but when we see the results, we end up justifying it, so the moral bar is lowered even more. And again, it helps that the people murdered by the good guys weren't likable, in typical tv trope fashion. I think had the character of Vreenak and the forger been portrayed in a more sympathetic light, the episode and Sisko would have been viewed a lot less favorably by fans. But it was necessary by the writers to do that, in order for us to eventually rationalize Sisko's decision. If we don't like someone their lives are less valuable than those we do like. It helps to reinforce the us vs. them mentality, and using other groups different from our own, as pawns or collateral damage.
How does it go against the ending? He thinks he can "live with it," tries to convince himself, then shamefully deletes the evidence of what he had done. The point of the episode was to explore how those things acceptable by raison d'état can be completely problematic in terms of personal ethics, and the two cannot be easily resolved. Did there need to be negative repercussions? No, the ending was more natural without them.
I assumed he deleted the entry because he doesn't want to leave any possible evidence behind that this was engineered by the Federation or himself.
I don't sense shame by the end of his monologue, but I'll have to re-watch it.
There didn't need to be negative repercussions, but it perpetuates the idea that that type of behavior is justifiable. Had the Romulans done the exact same thing though...had they forged evidence and say, had Picard killed, we would use it as further evidence of their villainous and treacherous nature. That is what is problematic about the episode.
The reality is that things that are personally abhorrent are allowable when done by governments, particularly in times of war. The episode deals with what is a common dilemma of morality, a type of dilemma that TNG skirted rather than addressed. Indeed, that is what makes the episode stand out: it explores moral issues that TNG avoided.
I wonder if Stephen McHattie has to deal with Trek fans coming up to him in public and asking him to say that "It's a FAAAAAAKE!" line. He's probably real tired of it by now.
Kind of like how Mandy Patinkin absolutely hates it when people keep making him do the Inigo Montoya thing...
Then, I lost respect for Sisko.
Now, i think he was dead right.
Life isn't black and white. The greater good is often better if a few people get ground under.
The Federation could have lost the war due to its own ineptitude in defending Betazed. The choice was trick the Romulans into war on its side, or face a possible defeat. And defeat wouldn't be a negotiated peace, it's total annihilation by the Founders.
Sisko knew this. Starfleet knew this.
I don't see how that makes DS9 racist. Placing a black man as Captain, the lead character, who was a link to the Bajoran gods, and run the Dominion War effort, telling Admirals, Klingon Chancellors and Romulan Admirals what is what....racist? this is more power than any white Captain ever had. Picard never run a war effort from the top down in a General Ike-esque way. No were Kirk or Janeway religious icons.
Now, i think he was dead right.
Life isn't black and white. The greater good is often better if a few people get ground under.
The Federation could have lost the war due to its own ineptitude in defending Betazed. The choice was trick the Romulans into war on its side, or face a possible defeat. And defeat wouldn't be a negotiated peace, it's total annihilation by the Founders.
Sisko knew this. Starfleet knew this.
I don't see how that makes DS9 racist. Placing a black man as Captain, the lead character, who was a link to the Bajoran gods, and run the Dominion War effort, telling Admirals, Klingon Chancellors and Romulan Admirals what is what....racist? this is more power than any white Captain ever had. Picard never run a war effort from the top down in a General Ike-esque way. No were Kirk or Janeway religious icons.
All Captains broke the rules. And why didn't it have to be done?
he's a pseudo-intellectual crackpot.
what about characters who were racist towards humans? like Solok? Quark was to some extent.
The Founders see it as their duty/right to impose order on all solids, because solids oppressed them in the past, and they need to control them since they are superior.
no wonder Trump won....should run for President of the Federation....he'll build a wall and make the Romulans pay for it.
Similar threads
