In an idealized fictional future that might be the case, but we are nowhere near that kind of world today. Star Trek has always been used to shine a light on current and past social issues so I don't know why you expect the writers should have ignored these events. Your arguments against acknowledging past injustices and horrors suffered by blacks and Jews are pretty thin and smack of wanting to whitewash history. I don't want to hear any more on the subject. Get back on topic or infractions will follow.
Even if we take that as fact (and I don't) why does that mean that Sisko cannot be attracted primarily to women of color?
ironically, as an African American, Brooks was probably the most ethnically mixed member of the cast.
Siddig is Sudanese and English. As an African American, Brooks would be a mixture of African ethnicities, some European (probably a mixture of German, Scottish and English), with a small possibility of Native American. Not to mention, African American culture is itself a hybrid.
If I could rewrite DS9... on the top of my head... There would be no characters lifted from TNG. O'Brien and Worf had their role in TNG, big or small, somehow it feels it would have been better if they stayed there. Picard in the pilot was enough. No First Contact uniforms. Jadzia is there all 7 seasons.
I don't know much about genealogy, but I love how you restrict Sid to one level and go full theoretical bloodline on Brooks. Especially with Sudan being in Africa too.
Not really. There is a lot to be said about North Africans, who were not traded away as slaves in the last 500 years, and their insularity that developed with the collapse of the spice trade. Simply put, African Americans are, because of circumstances forced on them, among the most ethnically mixed peoples.
Worf first appearance on ds9 is a year sooner. In the january of 1995 premire of voyager worf offer to assist janeway in her mission. And is temporarily assigned to voyager.
Worf became the ship's senior operations officer (instead of a youthful ensign), and part of Janeway's inner circle. Harry Kim is relegated to the important role of Voyager's cuddly chew toy.
I'm skimming through some of this thread, and yeah, where is Discofan's outrage over the dating/mating choices of Kirk, Picard, or Janeway, compared to Sisko? The famous interracial kiss was notably forced upon Kirk and Uhura so you can't use that one, and of course a kiss is not a relationship. I am African-American and with the dearth of positive black romantic relationships when DS9 was on and now, in the media, I remain impressed with how Sisko and Jennifer and later Sisko and Kasidy were depicted. And the idea that Sisko could not feel some connection to his ancestors ignores that we do the same things today. How far removed are Americans from 1776, but many enjoy the annual July Fourth celebration, the Founders and their ideals are constantly evoked and argued over to this day, and I can imagine we see similar behavior across the globe, for nations and cultures far older than the United States. But I do think some people are triggered by the idea that a black person can or should have a racial consciousness, dare I say racial pride, it offends them for some reason, and therefore these characters, and the actors who portray them, are held to a different standard than any white actor/character. I've seen this affronted attitude regarding Sisko before. Is Discofan upset over Chekov or Picard's praise of their character's cultures? Same with McCoy or Tucker? And even within Trek itself, we see Vulcans, Klingons, Bajorans, etc. revere past ancestors. What Avery Brooks did was not even outside the bounds of in-universe Trek. And I for one was so happy to see it when I was a kid because I saw so little of it elsewhere in the things I enjoyed. Not including racial consciousness/awareness isn't progress, it was a way of saying your culture, your history, your experiences don't matter. That you have nothing of value to contribute, so for Brooks to make sure Sisko had racial consciousness and pride, that he made sure to include positive depictions of a black father and son, were great.
Following on from what you said here. To Discofan and those who might share similar views, so, there is a time limit on what people should remember? Who decides that, and why? And shouldn't that be up to the members of the group most egregiously affected by whatever tragic/horrific event? Why should someone outside that group determine how the affected group should feel about it? Especially if the determining group is likely the descendants of group that caused pain to the affected group in the first place? Who ultimately does that benefit, and why? It sounds tone deaf at best, and callous at worst for someone else (who I am assuming is not from the same group) to want to decide what Brooks, or other African-Americans (like me) should hold on to, should commemorate or commiserate as it were. And even internally there are debates about history (i.e. Kanye West's views on slavery in the US) however those are internal debates that should not be externally directed. I'm not saying people can't, or shouldn't have opinions, or find something distasteful if it rankles them for whatever reason, but I also hope they understand that that there are other views out there as well and that just because they are personally offended, it doesn't mean that it's wrong, or wrong for everyone else either. I also would hope that if standards are going to be imposed on one character, or the group he represents/originates from, then that same standard is applied across the board. And also for those affronted that they look into why they are upset, what makes them uncomfortable about it, and perhaps that process will bring about more/some empathy by the end of it. The ability to see things from another person's point of view, or at least respect differing points of view, are supposed hallmarks of Trek.
The irony of ktt's example is that after several centuries, many Jews became comfortable enough with the countries where they lived that they believed they were equal citizens and they would be protected from extremism. Four hundred years were not enough to protect them.
I wouldn't radically rewrite it, as much as I dislike the Pah-Wraiths. But basically: The new Dax would be a man. Part I of "What we Leave Behind" would be an episode of its own, maybe called "The Dominion Siege" or something like that. Then, I'd simply expand Part II into a two-parter of its own, to flesh out the exits of the characters and to allow this closer to stand on its own, and honestly, I'd showcase the announcement of Bajor entering the Federation within it, if not the actual event itself, to show real closure in the arc that opened the show. Otherwise, I suppose keep the rest, except for the male Dax not ending up with Bashir, obviously.
Although I'd support male Dax ending up with Bashir, the chances of that getting on TV in the 1990s were slim to none.
I wouldn't go that far with Bashir, a confirmed heterosexual. It'd be neat, though, in the true-love kinda way. That said, my idea leaves no "ending" for Bashir, who ends up with no one. Uh, well. You win some..