I always saw Sisko as having ambitions to the Admiralty. I hope they don't totally lose that.
Sisko (DS9-R spoilers)
- Thread starter chris32482
- Start date
I think the admiralty ambition was from his younger life, when he assumed Starfleet would be everything. I'm pretty sure that all changed after Wolf 359, at which point it was no longer in his plans.
If not for the Dominion War, I might agree. But I think that kind of kickstarted his hankering for a set of admiral's pips. During the war Sisko seemed very at home commanding a fleet - more so than just one ship or station.
Well, it was mentioned in the Search, part 2 wasn't it? But I'd imagine that examples like Vaughn/Prynn would make him reevaluate his priorities. I doubt he'll leave SF, but after not being with his wife during her pregnancy- he better stick around a while or he'll be in hot water... hotter water, I guess.
No, it changed because he grew more attached to Bajor and his role as the Emissary. Throughout the series, we saw him increasingly torn between his Starfleet and Bajoran attachments, and his plans for where he wanted to be in the future shifted from a desk at Starfleet Command to a cabin in the hills of Bajor.
Really? I never saw Sisko as having those ambitions. Ever.
^ In The Maquis pt. 1, Sisko and Cal Hudson mentioned their Academy ambitions to be "Captains by 30 and Admirals by 40". Whether he was serious or if it was typical late teen/early twenties bravado, who knows?
Last edited:
The whole idea of Sisko being perceived as abandoning his family and that playing into some sort of stereotype...how damned absurd!
Nobody cares about race in the future. It is a null point, prejudice doesn't exist anymore in the Federation. At least not among humans.
As for how it would be looked at in the real world, he wasn't "abandoning" them. He was sacrificing himself to save them and all of Bajor from the pah wraiths. Who would consider that abandonment? Ridiculous! Only someone desperate to seize on something like this would ever even consider it. Because it isn't the story. It is mis-reading the story.
On the relaunch books, I haven't read Warpath or the new Kira book yet but I would like to see more Sisko more involved in the books. He was away for quite awhile (in terms of the books coming out, not in their time) so I would like to see more of him. Is he even a member of Starfleet anymore?
Nobody cares about race in the future. It is a null point, prejudice doesn't exist anymore in the Federation. At least not among humans.
As for how it would be looked at in the real world, he wasn't "abandoning" them. He was sacrificing himself to save them and all of Bajor from the pah wraiths. Who would consider that abandonment? Ridiculous! Only someone desperate to seize on something like this would ever even consider it. Because it isn't the story. It is mis-reading the story.
On the relaunch books, I haven't read Warpath or the new Kira book yet but I would like to see more Sisko more involved in the books. He was away for quite awhile (in terms of the books coming out, not in their time) so I would like to see more of him. Is he even a member of Starfleet anymore?
And sadly that is a very common phenomenon (and I'm not picking on any specific race here, people of every race, sex, age, ect. do it).
Maybe, but so are so many things in real life. There are a disproportionate number of African-American families without fathers (for various reasons) and Brooks simply didn't want the Sisko family to follow that trend, hence the inclusion of the simple line "But I will return."
Some might view it as Brooks' vanity or a message aimed only at African-American viewers, but I applaud Brooks for apparently taking a stand on the issue...
Is this an issue one can take a stand on? Is there a lobby out there in support of parental abandonment?
I'm glad Brooks pushed for a more ambiguous ending, because it means we were eventually able to get Sisko back into the books, but I've never agreed with his reasoning. Like destro said, this is the Star Trek universe; nobody thinks that way anymore.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
I'm glad Brooks pushed for a more ambiguous ending, because it means we were eventually able to get Sisko back into the books, but I've never agreed with his reasoning. Like destro said, this is the Star Trek universe; nobody thinks that way anymore.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
I never saw Sisko as abandoning those ambitions. He's not one of those captains like Kirk or Picard, the type who will be Captain (and only Captain) until the day they die. Sisko seemed very much at home when at a fleet command - look at how he handled the Dominion (we often saw him commanding fleets during the war).
We know Archer and Janeway became Admirals, and I saw the same in store for Sisko. Admiral's stars don't have to mean being stuck behind a desk. I agree, Sisko would never do that. He would be an Admiral out in the field, with a flagship of his own, at the head of a fleet.
Deep Space Nine wasn't being watched by Star Trek people, it was being watched by us. What Brooks wanted to do is in line with what Star Trek has always been about: portraying what humanity would be like if we chose the better path.
Besides, the issue has been pretty important to leaders in the African-American community, so I'm glad Avery Brooks addressed it.
But those social issues don't exist in the Star Trek universe, which makes it an imposition--a very fraught imposition--onto the fictional landscape on the part of the audience, if indeed anybody were to make such an assumption. I think you'd have to be pretty damned racist to watch WYLB and think "Tch. Another black man abandoning his family," and I'm not sure what somebody that racist would be doing watching Trek, particularly DS9, in the first place.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Agreed wholeheartedly.
I always thought of admirals commanding fleets or entire sectors, while situated in Starbases, Deep Space stations - not just sitting around in Starfleet Command.
^ I realize that this is kind of a sensitive issue and I don't want to offend anyone. But this is what I see as the truth:
Star Trek has always done a lot of social commentary. I've disagreed with some of it, and agreed with most of it. What Brooks tried to do is actually against what Trek is about. So what if Trek decided to do a story about father's abandoning children? How is that wrong? What on earth does it have to do with African Americans, or black people or however you would like to put it? It is wrong no matter who does it. The way I see it, assuming that because Sisko is black it is a comment on the issue..that is wrong.
What makes it more ridiculous is that it WASN'T the story. That is what makes this whole issue absurd. It was about self sacrifice, not abandonment.
Star Trek has always done a lot of social commentary. I've disagreed with some of it, and agreed with most of it. What Brooks tried to do is actually against what Trek is about. So what if Trek decided to do a story about father's abandoning children? How is that wrong? What on earth does it have to do with African Americans, or black people or however you would like to put it? It is wrong no matter who does it. The way I see it, assuming that because Sisko is black it is a comment on the issue..that is wrong.
What makes it more ridiculous is that it WASN'T the story. That is what makes this whole issue absurd. It was about self sacrifice, not abandonment.
You know I actually like it better the way they ended up doing it, though. It was unexpected and I think it left things open for some interesting interpretations. What if the Prophets had wanted Sisko to stay longer but he had actually put his family before them? It would certainly be in character for Sisko. Having him gone for only 8 months seems a little anti-climactic, but they guy wanted to see his daughter born so who's to argue?
While it's true that race issues probably don't matter in the Star Trek Universe, they do matter in the here and now and I would argue that Trek doesn't exist in a vacuum for a great many viewers. Trek is probably more of a reflection of the here and now than it is a realistic depiction of the future. If anything, Trek shows us how things can be better than they are today by showing contrasts with the way things currently stand.
It's not racist to at all to watch WYLB and think "Tch. Another black man abandoning his family." For a number of African-American viewers (myself included), it's just real life and nothing to be remotely proud about. It's a very serious problem for many African-Americans. Hell, even I'm a product of an African-American family with a missing father. That's an aspect of the here and now for African-Americans that Brooks just didn't want to see happen with the Sisko family. It has nothing to do with the Star Trek Universe but has everything to do with how Brooks personally felt about depicting another black man being shown taken away from his family forever.
Brooks did whatever the producers and writers asked him to do on DS9, but this was perhaps the one issue that he did take a stand on because it was such a personal issue for him...
I disagree that race issues don't matter in the Trek universe. They are just mainly projected onto the alien races. Cardassian v. Bajoran, Romulan v. Klingon, Human v. Vulcan (ENT), Andorian v. Vulcan, etc.
To me Star Trek isn't a guide to the future, it's the imaginings of primarily 20th century people, who have a lot of good and bad qualities, biases like us all, even on issues of race. Trek was conceived in part to address the issues of the 60's in a way that wasn't so controversial. I think the social conscious aspect of Trek has made it endure when many other less ambitious and enlightening sci-fi shows or franchises have bitten the dust.
I think Avery Brooks understands that though the Trek universe is based in the future, its written by people in the present day for a primarily present day audience. Mr. Brooks also understands, IMO, the importance of media images regarding how races, religions, etc. are perceived. Even Karl Rove, and many others after him, credited the Cosby Show with laying the foundation for an Obama victory by breaking down negative perceptions of African-Americans. I think that's debatable, but it shows perhaps the power of images. And when not just African-Americans are fed a steady diet of negative images, of black men getting arrested, of black men only as rappers or sports stars, it does affect how people view one another IMO, and generally not for the good. I think Mr. Brooks, in his own way, wanted to combat that, and I'm glad he spoke up about it. I bet that the writers/producers probably didn't even realize it was a concern until he brought it to them.
Similar threads
