I dunno, Brooks does have a point about the media's traditional depiction of black men.
That doesn't mean you should pander to the reaction against such inanity by altering a critically important element of the storyline simply because you're afraid of how it might be wrongly interpreted, or because a single representative of that minority cries foul. Any reasonably intelligent regular viewer watching events transpire on
Deep Space Nine knows Sisko's departure has everything to do with the Prophets' claim on him and
nothing to do with a black man's unwillingness to be a presence in the lives of his wife and children. Concern with whether those utterly lacking in perspective or perceptiveness get it insults the intelligence of those who do.
Star Trek should be above that, and the writers should have stuck with the 24th century story they'd been developing for
years, rather than spontaneously catering to Avery Brooks' 21st century sensibilities. They'd already demonstrated Sisko to be a
great parent: He devoted himself to Jake, and their bond is unquestionable. For all
Deep Space Nine's purported gritty realism, they dropped the ball big time here.
Even if Sisko is part-god now who symbolizes the greater good, he's still going to be a man who abandoned his unborn child.
Well, like it or not, Sisko
did abandon his unborn child. This vague "I'll be back ... maybe even yesterday" isn't exactly reassuring to those still living in the world where tomorrow actually follows today. In addition, he doesn't promise, "I'll be back as a husband to my wife and a father to my children," nor does he even imply it. [A desperate Kasidy simply jumps to that conclusion.] Such would be difficult considering that, from what I saw in "What You Leave Behind," the Prophets rescued his soul from the Fire Pits in the instant before his body, like Dukat's and the Kosst Amojin text, turned to ash. And since the Prophets don't create bodies for themselves, but instead inhabit the faithful when necessary, I don't imagine they're going to remake Sisko's for him.
His resurrection in the entirely non-canonical
Deep Space Nine Relaunch aside, it's pretty apparent Sisko probably isn't coming back in his role as incarnated Emissary, and almost certainly not as someone with whom you can ... hmm ... play catch and pitch woo.
This man
knew he had a destiny to fulfill, was
specifically warned by the gods who created him that another marriage was a tremendously bad freakin' idea, and obdurately chose to get hitched (as well as get another woman with child) anyway. It's the very definition of heedlessness and irresponsibility. Then, when the time came to pay the piper, the writers had to back off and enormously dilute the storyline's impact.
This is
yet another example of Sisko escaping the consequences of his actions, as with "For the Uniform" and "In the Pale Moonlight." Brooks doesn't like that Sisko's been called home, and so they override it? That's both spineless and poor writing.
That's hardly a Roddenberry-ideal, I think. Trek's always been one to buck tired trends, like strong Asian men and women in authority.
Well, I hardly think any avowed Niner has right of appeal to Roddenberry's ideals, when
Deep Space Nine is easily, for better and worse, the most iconoclastic of the
Treks.
The "tired trend" they should have bucked was kowtowing to the actor's personal agenda to the detriment of the story.
