What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I approve this message.

I have spoken.

 

@Farscape One I literally have tears. Well done.

Probably a fair point.

 

*applauding intensifies*

Damn straight!

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

100% the same. Thank you.

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.

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.)