What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[fireproof78]

I have never seen Sisko as a 'loud, black man', or any other kind of stereotype. I've never thought of Avery Brooks' portrayal as anything but a great example of fatherhood and leadership. (At this point, I don't think it's a secret that Sisko is my favorite captain. The whole "Kirk vs. Picard" question that has appeared so often over the years? The correct answer is Sisko.)

The times when he did raise his voice are very much times that are justified. And a few others, when he was simply angry (such as his hunt for Eddington), shows him as being human. That's not a stereotype... that's making the man relatable. No one has the ability to be calm all the time and not get angry at certain things... we all have buttons that can get pushed. And to extend the Eddington example, "FOR THE UNIFORM" illustrated Sisko does have a character flaw: he can get very single-minded/obsessive. (Him building and piloting the solar ship in "EXPLORERS" also is a highlight of this trait.) By your logic, I'm supposed to assume all black men are obsessive or too single-minded?

I love the fact that Sisko has a vulnerability... it makes his character human and relatable. By far, Ben Sisko is the most layered captain in the franchise.

As far as his family having a Creole restaurant and him being a chef as well, I think you are missing the point of Sisko being a cook. Let's look at a few things.

His background is engineering. He is a father. He is a chef. He is assigned to a place where the planet needs to be essentially rebuilt. What do all these things tell you?

Sisko is a builder. He builds ships. He builds a life for himself and his son. Cooking is another form of building. He builds a community on the station. He is the perfect choice to help rebuild a society after an occupation.

Black, white, asian, latin, etc... what difference does it make? Sisko could have been any ethnicity, and I would have still loved him because of the quality of his character and the richness of his layers.

*applauding intensifies*

Damn straight!

 

[Gul Sengosts]

Like I've said, DS9 is my least rewarched, but I recall Sisko yelling in anger quite a bit. Shaking. Seething. Also being "loud" very often... excited to greet someone, laughing loud enough to startle passersby, that kind of thing.

Basically, a stereotypically loud black guy.

Compared to Kirk, Picard and Riker, Sisko was loud and angry, by magnitudes.

I think people who haven't grown up being told not to be an angry, loud brown dude don't see it.

You saw that as a humanazing trait, I saw it as another portrayal of angry black man. Had he been white, it would've read differently, but in the cultural context of when it was created, when angry black man was ubiquitous, it plays into the sterotype, whether intentionally or not. Again, being blind to it is as racist as doing it on purpose.

Race blindness, while supposedly an ideal goal, is also a type of racism, in a world where racial and cultural differences, racism and stereotypes exist. It's a universal "well meaning" form of prejudice I daresay most people are guilty of.

First of all, thanks for sharing all you said in your posts, much appreciated. I believe I get where you're coming from, and it makes me think. And while I (being a white European) am not really qualified to judge what good(!) Black representation is, I want to share my thoughts on Sisko--as I perceive him.

First of all I want to address the matter if he actually is that angry. He does express his anger more so than Kirk and Picard did, but I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison because Sisko is in a setting that's inherently much more conflict-laden. Kirk/Picard commandeer space ships where everyone is in Starfleet and works together, and even when meeting other species/cultures, they have an obligation to be diplomatic. Picard is even often criticised for being too emotionally repressed.

So I think Sisko showing more anger is at least partially inherent to the different kind of show that DS9 is. Besides, I think the angriest person on DS9 is Kira, at least early on. Sisko is... eccentric... in his display of anger, but I believe that's Avery Brooks being Avery Brooks more than a writer's or director's choice.

I can see how his depiction may remind of the terrible stereotype of Black people being angry by default. The difference being, as others have pointed out, that I see his anger as justified and I'm 100% with him, as opposed to the stereotype that depicts Black people as being unreasonably angry or even dangerous. Not saying I know better, just how I read it.

This raises questions about how to best avoid bad tropes and stereotypes. While it's obviously good to be aware and avoid them, the question is at what point do you try to avoid them so much that you stop writing characters? As in, is it better if you end up having only calm, friendly, inoffensive characters like Uhura and Geordi? Because then I'm afraid that we're in turn recreating the racism of white people being allowed to be angry and Black people being not. I guess you could say, try to keep it below a certain level, but I think that's still putting constraints on Black characters but not white ones.

The way I felt about it is that Sisko is allowed to be angry, in a way that's actually breaking through those constraints, depending on how you look at it. The usual stereotype tries to tell me that Black people are angry because that's just how they are and you shouldn't listen to them. Sisko seems to tell me that yeah, this Black man is angry, but listen to him because he's right! And doing so, in a way I think it's actually fighting the stereotype.

I believe DS9 is also the first time one actual Black perspective finds its way into Star Trek. Classic Trek is for the most part well-meaning and liberal, depicting a colourblind utopia where we fixed racism etc. And while it certainly brought some advances (well, at least TOS did), even if there's some diversity it's always told through the perspective of white people. Showing characters how white writers see them, telling stories that matter to white writers.

Avery Brooks changed that because he threw in all his weight and had a lot of input on Sisko. He insisted on being depicted as a loving, caring father because fighting the deadbeat dad trope mattered a lot to him. He was extremely invested in Far Beyond the Stars (even directing it) because it mattered so much to him. Sisko has an issue with the Vic Fontaine fantasy where "everyone" is having a jolly good time in 60s Vegas, presumably because Avery Brooks had an issue with these 60s nostalgia fantasies. Not going into if it's resolved well or not, but that it even comes up shows that this isn't made by white people only.

As for the being American thing, I didn't know that this was also due to Brooks's influence, but that doesn't surprise me at all. If you look at the other Classic Trek shows (by which I mean, up to and including ENT), not a single Black regular is canonically from America, despite all the actors being American. In the case of Uhura and Geordi, I guess it's commendable that they wanted to include canonically African characters, although questions arise about how this TV show made by white Americans puts all Black characters in "foreign" roles.

TNG's other Black regular, Worf, is an alien. Recurring character Guinan is an alien. VOY's only Black regular is an alien. Two of ENT's lead characters are white Americans, the Black regular isn't even from Earth. Avery Brooks couldn't have known about the latter two shows when his character was created, but there's a pattern that may have made him say "screw that, I'm from America. From the south."

All of this is not to say that everything's perfect, or that I'm right, again I'm not qualified to judge that. But I hope I could explain my thoughts why I perceived Sisko as mostly good, and an actual advance over the previous (well, and following) series.

 

[Sci]

As far as parenting, I wil give Sisko being a well done departure from the "African American deadbeat dad" trope. I think there's a few instances where there's issues, but that's pointedly "working single dad" stuff, especially when shit hits the fan.

100%. No one is perfect but Sisko is absolutely the kind of dad we should all be so lucky to have. There is a reason "The Visitor" is one of Star Trek's greatest episodes.

But on the loud angry blac man thing... I think our difference in opinion is rooted in fundamentally different perspectives.

.Because being a preteen and teen POC in fhe 90s, I recall one lesson over and over again: it is never ok to be loud, angry or aggressive, for any reason. I lost many hours to detention to that. I would bet that every show targeted to black kids in the 80s and 90s had an episode with that explicit lesson. Cosby, Family Matters, Fresh Prince, just off the top of my head, definitely had those episodes. I wouldn't be surprised if Sesame Street did (seriously... they probably don't, but it really wouldn't surprise me, it was that ubiquitous).

And, even rhough again, DS9 is my least rewatched, Sisko pops out in my head as the "loudest" and "angriest" captain/commander ( then Kirk, Riker, Picard).

And, maybe like you said, the issue was that he was one of the more developed characters... we saw more of his life outside command, his problems etc, and that Brooks has an expressive performance... but then it goes back to: if he weren't black it'd be interesting, but because some of that can be seen as "stereotypical" of a black guy, I for one can't avoid seeing it that way.

I hear what you're saying. Having grown up white, I have the privilege of having been allowed by our culture to have the full range of human emotions -- I wasn't told that I'm not allowed to be angry, and I never carried the burden of knowing that if I were to get angry, other people would treat me as dangerous or a threat or irrational or to be dismissed, or just generally treated as unworthy and inferior. I am very aware that that was one of the privileges being white conferred upon me.

Now, this might be me talking out of ignorance -- I really do want to make space for the possibility here that I am very wrong and that this thought comes from my blind spots. But. What do you think about the possibility of engaging with Brooks's performance as Sisko, including his occasional anger and occasional loudness, as a rejection of the idea that black people cannot have the full range of human emotion lest they be seen as dangerous or lesser? What do you think about the idea of interpreting Broosks's performance as a rebellion against the idea that black people cannot get angry or express strong emotion? As a living condemnation of white supremacist fears of black emotion?

Again, I think I understand where you're coming from. If you're trained from an early age to understand that the dominant in-group uses stereotypes about members of your community having uncontrolable anger or emotion to dehumanize your community, I can definitely see where Brooks's performance might register as problematic. And I may well be speaking from a position of white blindness to some of the nuances of that experience -- but I really do think that the narrative never dehumanizes Sisko for his feelings and that black people should not have to be performatively calm all the time. Black anger is legitimate.

Just like while I am sure they meant to celebrate African American Southern culture with hsi background, it rolls together with every other little thing, and reads super-prejudiced. Not quite "watermelon stand" racist... but just... over correcting with his "blackness."

I think that's a fair take. The only thing I will say is, I didn't really realize it was a stereotype growing up. And to this day, I do relate to Ben's experience with his father Joseph; my late mother didn't always take good care of herself.

I also appreciate the discussion and perspective

100% the same. Thank you.

By your logic, I'm supposed to assume all black men are obsessive or too single-minded?

Farscape, you and I are making some of the same arguments, but I would really like to ask you to turn it down just a little bit here. Thewanderingjack is coming at this topic from perspective of being a black person who has had to live all their life knowing that the stereotype of the loud/angry black person can and will be used against them if they express normal human emotions. That's a really heavy burden to have to live with. I don't happen to agree with them about Sisko, but I also respect that sensitivity to that stereotype. I think it's really important respect where thewanderingjack is coming from and respond to what they're actually saying, not to ascribe to them outlandish slippery slope arguments.

Black, white, asian, latin, etc... what difference does it make? Sisko could have been any ethnicity, and I would have still loved him because of the quality of his character and the richness of his layers.

I mean, let's be clear here. Your group identity matters. It matters not just because of how society treats you -- it also matters because the way we carry our communities' histories informs the choices we make. It matters that Sisko is black. It matters that he is the descendant of enslaved persons. It matters because, from a real-world perspective, it meant that he, and Brooks through the character, could be a source of inspiration and hope for black people, kids especially, watching the show. Brooks has often talked about that -- that he took the role on Deep Space Nine to depict a world where black Americans have a future and have an equal seat at the table.

And it also matters from an in-universe perspective. Sisko is a character who is obviously very deeply invested in his heritage. He works to carry forth the culture of his African ancestors.* He has studied and is deeply invested in the history of the African-American struggle for justice, to the point of being initially upset at first that the Vic Fontaine holoprogram did not accurately represent the oppression visited upon black people in mid-20th Century America. In my view, one of the reasons Sisko is so dedicated in the war against Dominion oppression is that he links the brutality of Dominion conquest to the brutality of chattel slavery and white supremacy -- his heritage fundamentally informs his identity.

So, yes, it does matter that Sisko is black. It's an important part of who he is, and it's a good thing that deserves to be celebrated, not to be treated as a distraction or an impediment or a whatever.

* (A very, very legit criticism to raise against Deep Space Nine is that this didn't get more attention -- African art is used as set dressing, but we don't get a sense of which of the hundreds of African cultures Sisko is descended from, or of if he perhaps has simply never been able to determine which African culture(s) he is descended from because of the lack of records stemming from slavery.)

 

[fireproof78]

I hear what you're saying. Having grown up white, I have the privilege of having been allowed by our culture to have the full range of human emotions -- I wasn't told that I'm not allowed to be angry, and I never carried the burden of knowing that if I were to get angry, other people would treat me as dangerous or a threat or irrational or to be dismissed, or just generally treated as unworthy and inferior. I am very aware that that was one of the privileges being white conferred upon me.

This is such an interesting point of view. I grew up white and being angry was not OK. My friends and I could deal with a lot of emotions but if you were angry you did not show it. So watching TOS and others was kind of cathartic because being mad could be used.

 

[Commander Troi]

This is such an interesting point of view. I grew up white and being angry was not OK. My friends and I could deal with a lot of emotions but if you were angry you did not show it. So watching TOS and others was kind of cathartic because being mad could be used.

Same with growing up female. Anger was "being shrewish" so seeing anger used well was good to see, even if it was primarily from men. I think that's why I loved Spock so much - the "need" to have to control my feelings.

 

[gweeps]

Neelix is one of the most endearing Star Trek characters.

 

[Farscape One]

This is such an interesting point of view. I grew up white and being angry was not OK. My friends and I could deal with a lot of emotions but if you were angry you did not show it. So watching TOS and others was kind of cathartic because being mad could be used.

Exactly. I am also white, and anger was very much frowned upon while growing up, in school, and at work, too.

Anger isn't an ethnicity or gender issue. It's a human issue.

 

[Sci]

Exactly. I am also white, and anger was very much frowned upon while growing up, in school, and at work, too.

Anger isn't an ethnicity or gender issue. It's a human issue.

It is a human issue, but it is also very much a gender issue and a racial issue.

It is certainly true that plenty of white people grow up being told they're not allowed to get angry! But the difference is, your anger won't then be used against you and all other white people. Your anger isn't used to rationalize dehumanizing white people.

If you're white, you also don't carry the burden of knowing that if you're angry at a cop, he might shoot you down like a dog because he thinks people of your racial group are inherently threatening.

And similarly, if you're a man and you've been told you're not allowed to get angry, that isn't used as a weapon to support a social structure that subordinates and oppresses you on the basis of your gender.

Again, this is not a competition. The emotional abuse of being told you're not allowed to be angry is very real. But it's different when you're told that you're not allowed to be angry because of your race or your gender, and the particular consequences both for yourself and for your community as a whole are different.

 

[Farscape One]

It is a human issue, but it is also very much a gender issue and a racial issue.

It is certainly true that plenty of white people grow up being told they're not allowed to get angry! But the difference is, your anger won't then be used against you and all other white people. Your anger isn't used to rationalize dehumanizing white people.

If you're white, you also don't carry the burden of knowing that if you're angry at a cop, he might shoot you down like a dog because he thinks people of your racial group are inherently threatening.

And similarly, if you're a man and you've been told you're not allowed to get angry, that isn't used as a weapon to support a social structure that subordinates and oppresses you on the basis of your gender.

Again, this is not a competition. The emotional abuse of being told you're not allowed to be angry is very real. But it's different when you're told that you're not allowed to be angry because of your race or your gender, and the particular consequences both for yourself and for your community as a whole are different.

Fair point about gender and ethnicity (I find the term 'race' ridiculous. We're all human... that is a race.) and how some people put such pressures regarding anger and their sex/background.

But on the other side of that coin, white people are not allowed to show anger against anyone, because we'll get instantly accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc... unless the other person we get mad at is another white, straight male.

I'll give you an example. This was about March or April of 1998. I was working at Publix at the time. I had just gotten a promotion to full time, bypassing two other people who had been there much longer. The reason? I was always early, and was always eager to help out wherever there was an issue, and come in on some days off if others called out. One of the guys I bypassed was a black guy (not going to use names because it doesn't matter), and many of the times I went in to cover was because he was the one calling out... a lot. He was showing unreliability. He was clearly mad that I, an 18 year old who had been there about 8 months, got the spot over him... he had been there about 3 or 4 years at that point. Bottom line, over the next 3 months, almost every day that both of us were working, he would be insulting, do things that would make my job harder like leaving large messes near my freezers that required a lot of cleanup, leaving soda cans inside the freezers so they explode (which is a very messy and time consuming thing to clean up properly), and other stuff. And I never said an ill word to the man. And all of that on its own, I don't care. I didn't let it bother me. But... then he started getting physical. He had pushed me around many times, he threw stuff at me, whenever he walked by he would smack the back of the head... hard. Once it started getting physical, I told my manager about it, and he said he'd "have a word with him". And the physical part of this kept happening and happening... for nearly two months. And each time it happened, I'd tell my boss. Then one closing night, he smacked my head again... really hard. I finally had enough, so I punched him and got him by the throat and I said, "Leave me the fuck alone!" It took TWO guys to get me off him, because I was that angry.

Next day, I am at the store manager's office, along with him. He actually had the nerve to call me racist because I got mad at him for hitting me for almost TWO MONTHS. And then the store manager was talking about how we don't tolerate racism, so I very matter of factly stated to the store manager, "You do realize that I have been telling you about how he has been physical with me for almost two months, and not one of you has stopped it, right? Am I supposed to just keep taking it while you just sit on your asses and do nothing? Yeah, after 2 months I finally said 'enough', so I lost my cool. What the hell do you expect?"

I think the store manager knew that if he had fired me, I could come back with a lawsuit because I had dozens of reports filed. He got a writeup in the end. But he did finally leave me alone. Whether that's because he was told to finally leave me alone or because I actually hit him back and got him by the throat, I don't know.

My point for sharing this is that even when I am justified in getting angry or defending myself, I can easily get slapped with words like 'racism'.

So don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I'm white, my anger can't be used against me as some rallying cry to call myself and other white people racist or sexist or whatever when there is no evidence of it.

And agreed, it's not a competition, and I've never said it was. But no one person or any group can claim a monopoly on anger being used against them or their group or their community or anything else.

 

[Sci]

Fair point about gender and ethnicity (I find the term 'race' ridiculous. We're all human... that is a race.)

It is certainly true that race has no validity from a biological perspective. But race is a social construction, and its impacts are very real. And the distinction between race and ethnicity is real -- which is why you can have populations that are simultaneously white yet are still regarded as ethnic (e.g., Latinos of European descent).

But on the other side of that coin, white people are not allowed to show anger against anyone, because we'll get instantly accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. A cursory look at how common white anger is should make that clear.

I'll give you an example. This was about March or April of 1998. I was working at Publix at the time. I had just gotten a promotion to full time, bypassing two other people who had been there much longer. The reason? I was always early, and was always eager to help out wherever there was an issue, and come in on some days off if others called out. One of the guys I bypassed was a black guy (not going to use names because it doesn't matter), and many of the times I went in to cover was because he was the one calling out... a lot. He was showing unreliability. He was clearly mad that I, an 18 year old who had been there about 8 months, got the spot over him... he had been there about 3 or 4 years at that point. Bottom line, over the next 3 months, almost every day that both of us were working, he would be insulting, do things that would make my job harder like leaving large messes near my freezers that required a lot of cleanup, leaving soda cans inside the freezers so they explode (which is a very messy and time consuming thing to clean up properly), and other stuff. And I never said an ill word to the man. And all of that on its own, I don't care. I didn't let it bother me. But... then he started getting physical. He had pushed me around many times, he threw stuff at me, whenever he walked by he would smack the back of the head... hard. Once it started getting physical, I told my manager about it, and he said he'd "have a word with him". And the physical part of this kept happening and happening... for nearly two months. And each time it happened, I'd tell my boss. Then one closing night, he smacked my head again... really hard. I finally had enough, so I punched him and got him by the throat and I said, "Leave me the fuck alone!" It took TWO guys to get me off him, because I was that angry.

Next day, I am at the store manager's office, along with him. He actually had the nerve to call me racist because I got mad at him for hitting me for almost TWO MONTHS. And then the store manager was talking about how we don't tolerate racism, so I very matter of factly stated to the store manager, "You do realize that I have been telling you about how he has been physical with me for almost two months, and not one of you has stopped it, right? Am I supposed to just keep taking it while you just sit on your asses and do nothing? Yeah, after 2 months I finally said 'enough', so I lost my cool. What the hell do you expect?"

I think the store manager knew that if he had fired me, I could come back with a lawsuit because I had dozens of reports filed. He got a writeup in the end. But he did finally leave me alone. Whether that's because he was told to finally leave me alone or because I actually hit him back and got him by the throat, I don't know.

I am very sorry that that happened to you. You absolutely did not deserve that abuse. But frankly, your individual experience is not evidence of systemic oppression against white people. Especially since, as you say, you were not fired. And especially since being accused of racism rarely has consequences as negative for white people as being subjected to racism has for black people.

And agreed, it's not a competition, and I've never said it was.

Yet you are behaving as though it were a competition. You saw a conversation that centered the suffering of black people and tried to change the topic to the alleged suffering of white people -- even though the alleged suffering of white people has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not the fictional character of Benjamin Sisko embodies anti-black stereotypes.

I don't think you did this consciously, but you just tried to make white people the center of the narrative. Please stop.

 

[1001001]

Okay, I’ve tried giving everyone a wide berth. This is an interesting discussion, but we’re pretty far afield from Star Trek at this point. Anything further on these points needs to go in Misc. or TNZ.

Let’s move on.

Thanks

 

[Farscape One]

Read your conversation, Sci.

 

[Sci]

Read your conversation, Sci.

Please kindly refrain from pestering me to read DMs in a thread where the mods have instructed us not to continue the conversation.

 

[Farscape One]

Please kindly refrain from pestering me to read DMs in a thread where the mods have instructed us not to continue the conversation.

Actually, I wasn't contuing the conversation. I was telling you to not make assumptions about my motivations, which was not a part of the discussion. I was trying to keep it to just us, but since you want to be a dick about it and post here on it...

DON'T FUCKING MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MY MOTIVATIONS WITHOUT ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION!!!!

 

[Awesome Possum]

I think that Rick Berman was the worst thing to ever happen to the franchise. He held it back and in the end nearly killed it completely.

 

[Farscape One]

I think that Rick Berman was the worst thing to ever happen to the franchise. He held it back and in the end nearly killed it completely.

As far as not stepping down after VOYAGER and giving the franchise a break to get people wanting it more, I agree. I heard he wanted to have at least a year break between VGR and ENT, but UPN said they were making a new ST show with him or without, so he stayed. New blood at the top might have helped.

While some of his decisions I didn't agree with, I can't go so far as say he was the worst thing to happen to the franchise. Among other things, he was the one who convinced Roddenberry to hire Patrick Stewart as Picard, which was very pivotal. Stewart brought a lot to the table and helped make TNG the cultural phenomenon it became. If TNG didn't succeed like it did, we never would have gotten DS9, VGR, ENT, and our current era of shows.

Berman also kept the franchise going for 14 years after Roddenberry's death... a total of 18 straight years on the air. I can't think of another franchise that kept going that long before a break or a collapse, except for classic DOCTOR WHO for 26 years.

 

[Awesome Possum]

As far as not stepping down after VOYAGER and giving the franchise a break to get people wanting it more, I agree. I heard he wanted to have at least a year break between VGR and ENT, but UPN said they were making a new ST show with him or without, so he stayed. New blood at the top might have helped.

While some of his decisions I didn't agree with, I can't go so far as say he was the worst thing to happen to the franchise. Among other things, he was the one who convinced Roddenberry to hire Patrick Stewart as Picard, which was very pivotal. Stewart brought a lot to the table and helped make TNG the cultural phenomenon it became. If TNG didn't succeed like it did, we never would have gotten DS9, VGR, ENT, and our current era of shows.

Bernan also kept the franchise going for 14 years after Roddenberry's death... a total of 18 straight years on the air. I can't think of another franchise that kept going that long before a break or a collapse, except for classic DOCTOR WHO for 26 years.

14 years on life support with deteriorating conditions.

 

[Farscape One]

14 years on life support with deteriorating conditions.

At the very least, 7 of those years were DS9. Most certainly not life support and definitely not deteriorating.

VGR season 7 and ENT seasons 1 and 2, I agree with your statement. VGR season 6 was schizophrenic in terms of quality. ENT season 3 was a step up, and season 4 was superb, though sadly too late. (To be fair, Manny Coto was really the one spearheading that season.)

 

[1001001]

I was trying to keep it to just us, but since you want to be a dick about it and post here on it...

Well, not much wiggle room here. Warning for flaming.

The thread has righted itself, so let's not derail any further.

 

[Jayden Dersch]

All Star Trek is good. Yea there might have been some bad episode's but they were outdone by the Awsome ones