Didn't we see a Catholic church and priest, albiet an alien Catholic priest, on planet Scotland in Sub Rosa?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
True. I was more aiming at the previously stated notion that Klingons were specifically designed after Black American stereotypes. That sure has played a role in parts of the Klingon mix that's been amassed over the decades, but I think you can't generalise it as the essence of Klingons. I believe you can in the case of the Kazon which is why I brought them up in comparison.
More to your point, yeah absolutely the Klingons have a problem with a generic dangerous/wild otherness that is fed by stereotypes of generalised brown people. But of course there's also the Japanese/Yellow Peril/general Asian stuff going on. Basically everything that's vaguely non-white.
To extend that, I find it interesting how they were depicted initially. TOS has an infamous reputation for brownfaced Klingons, highlighting the issue that brownness is used to make them look more alien and more dangerous, and that's absolutely true for Kang and his crew in Day of the Dove. But despite this reputation, I believe that's the only episode that does that (correct me if I'm wrong).
In TOS, usually they're a stand-in for the Russians, and the first time we see them, they're actually just a bunch of white guys with black hair--except for their leader who cosplays as Genghis Khan, so we also have some Yellow Peril there. In The Trouble with Tribbles, bunch of white guys, this time including their leader. No brown or Asian stereotypes whatsoever, at least none that I recognise. There's no viking or samurai or warrior culture yet. So ironically, the rare depiction of Klingons that I believe stays clear of any racial stereotypes is also found in TOS.
Which is where my comment was coming from, in my opinion the Klingons--as in, over the entirety of Star Trek--are everything and nothing. But again, yeah agreed the generic brownness/racial otherness is indeed present in some form or another in most of Trek's history.
It's a very interesting conversation. Star Trek wears progressivism on its sleeve, but there's a lot to unpack. It can be good, it can be bad, it can be very good and it can be very bad. A lot of Trek betrays the lack of diversity in the creators' rooms, having very well-meaning-liberal vibes. Sometimes it goes well but sometimes it really misses the mark. And then sometimes it's downright racist and reactionary, consciously or not.
Doesn't mean I don't love Trek, but I think it shouldn't be watched uncritically either. And when it leads to constructive conversation that raises awareness, I guess that's good too.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a good point, but I don't want to be overly critical of it. I don't know if I can enjoy something if I was that overly critical, and there still needs to be some room for it to be an entertainment medium.
White people playing "other" either because the character or the actor is prominent is par for the course. Most if not all the white actors who played Klingons were fairly well known, if only in the scifi community.
Also, given how many black actors did play notable Klingons, that says a lot itself. I daresay they haven't had as many roles as anything else.
My bad on the Creole vs Soul food... DS9 is my least rewatched. But as far as the point, it doesn't matter: it's stereotypically African American from the South... in the US certainly.
TOS and TNG need to bee seen as seperate from a lot of standpoints.
Different times in particular. Different (less) involvement by Roddenberry also.
TOS Klingons were very much USSR/China. And honestly, they were more yellow ad their faces had a "yellowface" look, while they behavior was very "Russian" stereotype.
TNG Klingons were very different.
I get why so many people keep claiming they're a mix of things... but I'll guess none of tose sayong so are black or brown.
Watching this in the 90s, being of color, living in predominantly black neighborhoods my impression of Klingons was: black Kiss fans. Physically it wasn't just the skin color, but facial features: because many African Americans played Kligons, they obviously had black features, like flatter noses with wider nostrils... something that carried over to and made more pronounced in DIS.
Take away the brow ridges, and put them in a group... tell me it doesn't look like mostly black people and a few Latinos.
Culturally, the viking thing tracks... I can definitely see that. But once you have "black stereotype" in your head, you see "African Savage." So if they were going for Viking, not seeing the issue is as racist as doing it on purpose.
I think the samurai thing is a pretty superficial and slapped on. Which is probably more of the "alien races are 2 dimensional" issue.
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.
Different times in particular. Different (less) involvement by Roddenberry also.
TOS Klingons were very much USSR/China. And honestly, they were more yellow ad their faces had a "yellowface" look, while they behavior was very "Russian" stereotype.
TNG Klingons were very different.
I get why so many people keep claiming they're a mix of things... but I'll guess none of tose sayong so are black or brown.
Watching this in the 90s, being of color, living in predominantly black neighborhoods my impression of Klingons was: black Kiss fans. Physically it wasn't just the skin color, but facial features: because many African Americans played Kligons, they obviously had black features, like flatter noses with wider nostrils... something that carried over to and made more pronounced in DIS.
Take away the brow ridges, and put them in a group... tell me it doesn't look like mostly black people and a few Latinos.
Culturally, the viking thing tracks... I can definitely see that. But once you have "black stereotype" in your head, you see "African Savage." So if they were going for Viking, not seeing the issue is as racist as doing it on purpose.
I think the samurai thing is a pretty superficial and slapped on. Which is probably more of the "alien races are 2 dimensional" issue.
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.
TIme travel always makes a bad episode watchable.
I think I hear what you're saying, and I absolutely do want to be sensitive to the harmful impact of the "angry black man" stereotype on people. But one of the reasons I don't think DS9's portrayal of Sisko falls into that stereotype is that his anger is rarely depicted as a bad thing -- it's almost always depicted as righteous, as something the audience should share. On the occasion when it isn't, it's almost always depicted as something we should at least relate to or understand -- his anger is never depicted as something that's inherently threatening or dangerous. It's human.
I also don't think Sisko is depicted as being "loud" any more than, say, Picard was -- Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks both started out as stage actors, and I think both of them get a bit theatrical in their delivery sometimes. Now, I will certainly concede that in the larger cultural context of the "loud black man" stereotype, it is understandable to be uncomfortable with Brooks's acting choices because that stereotype was so common.
But I honestly do think that the depth and thoughtfulness he brought to his performance as Sisko transcends that stereotype. To me, when Sisko is loud, the narrative always frame it as being emphatic, not erratic -- the narrative never wants you to look at Sisko and find him weird or off-putting for his emotions. The narrative almost always approaches these things from a position of wanting the audience to empathize with Sisko, not to view him as just a loud or angry black man. In a lot of ways, Sisko is the point of view character for Deep Space Nine, and I think that informs a lot of how the narrative frames his emotional states. The eyes of humanity on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine are the eyes of a black man; a black man is framed as the default setting for humanity for once.
Again, I totally understand being uncomfortable with anything that might remind you of the "angry/loud black man" stereotype. But I honestly believe that Sisko was not that, and that Brooks's more theatrical acting choices would outside of that larger context probably not register as any more problematic than Stewart's more theatrical acting choices.
On a very personal note, I would also just like to note that the relationship between Sisko and his son Jake is very loving, compassionate, empathetic, and supportive. Benjamin Sisko is the kind of father I wish I had had in real life, and the kind of father I hope to be when I have children.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Sisko to me registers as a loving father and an inspirational leader. If he were real, I would follow that man to the gates of Hell and back.
I also want to say, @thewanderingjack , that even where we disagree, I have found your insights very thoughtful and nuanced, and I really appreciate your sharing your views.
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.
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.
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 also appreciate the discussion and perspective
Sometimes, you just dwell in the entertainment. Often, we miss what doesn't really concern us... I'm pretty sure I didn't see it as blatantly antisemitic as I do now when I first watched it, but I'm not Jewish and didn't really know much about Jews or antisemitism at the time.
I didn't notice the sexism at first either... but then it hit me.like a ton of bricks: hardly any females, rarely in prominent roles.or positions, and almost always one of their key characteristics, in universe, is their sexual attractiveness. It's often a plot point.
I would've included that in my list of controversial opinions, but I think many people actually see that one nowadays.
I obviously also still ejoy the show, despite it's many problems, shortcomings, and missteps in terms of inclusiveness.
I find the juxtaposition between the in world idyllic society and how writing ad producing choices belie that really interesting.
Can sexist/racist people write a society that isn't? And aren't we all a little bit racist/sexist?
Somehow, it's part of the fun
They were "fairly well known, if only in the scifi community" because they PLAYED KLINGONS ON STAR TREK. They only "well known" white actors who played a Klingon were Christohper Lloyd and Christopher Plummer. On TOS they were certainly played by consistently working character actors but I wouldn't even go so far as to call John Colicos or Michael Ansara (Lebanese? I didn't know that!) "well known".
Also, really really Avery Brooks. And more so as the show went on and he had more input into his character.
The Klingons changed radically between TOS and the movies, not just in appearance. And then further still in TNG. They weren't even Russian (or Chinese). They were just "bad guys". I suppose there was a little advancement in Day of the Dove where they just became "grumpy". Star Trek III introduced a little more of the "bad ass bikers" sensibility, but certainly not "honor above all". Kruge is a sneaky underhanded so and so. John Shuck in Star Trek IV is more of the same only you can invite him to dinner parties.
If you read The Making of Star Trek in the very first paragraph about the Klingons: "...honor is a despicable trait." Then Ron Moore came along...
Mind you, I think this was often still who we saw in TNG ("bad guys" but we got along better by then), it's just that you had Worf Rozhenko, a Jew from Russia, who liked to cosplay as a Klingon and then got bent out of shape when the Klingons he met didn't act like the storybooks he read growing up.
It's interesting to compare Sisko and Uhura. Sisko is African American, emphasis on American with, as we're talking about, a strong Southern United States influence. He's even a baseball fan! Uhura is nationally African. Kenya, we would later learn. (Have we heard of the United States of Africa since TOS?)
At a time of tremendous division in the United States (even compared to now) the writers (Gene?) decided that Uhura wouldn't be American. To this day I don't know if I see that as expanding the scope of Star Trek (which it surely is) or if at the same time it is making Uhura "from somewhere else" in the context of American television. Obviously there are black people all over the world (anyone else remember an American newscaster calling French kids "French African American"?) and the Enterprise has always been meant to encompass a world wide crew while necessarily casting from Southern California.
Hmmmm. M'Benga is also from Africa. Does TOS imply that there are no African Americans in Starfleet? (Clearly Daystom is from The Stage.)
Just want to echo Sci and say I've enjoyed reading the posts of @thewanderingjack .
When TNG first came on, I was a little kid (8) and I had no idea initially that Michael Dorn was black! Sure, Worf had dark skin, but they put Worf in a wig with straight hair, and the prosthetic built up his nose bridge in such a way that made it look more "Roman" in shape. So the TNG-era makeup both made white people look "blacker" and black people look less black.
I honestly think there’s a topic developing here that may be worthy of its own separate thread. For me, this was one of the most fun threads on the board, but turning it to a discussion about how the “franchise is racist” is a bit of a derailment.
Anyone willing to take that on? It would be appreciated.
Anyone willing to take that on? It would be appreciated.
Agreed. Especially since the stuff being discussed is hardly Star Trek specific, but a Hollywood wide phenomenon. What? Hollywood is racist? Misogynist? Say it ain't so!
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.
Controversial Opinion (trying to wrestle the thread back…lol):
Sisko is the best lead character in the franchise, because of all these things and more.
He’s not my favorite, because I’ll always be a Kirk guy, but I think objectively he is the best.
Similar threads
- Locked
