Is Deep Space Nine racist?
- Thread starter Destructor
- Start date
Understanding nuance and complexity in positions is always important, and especially so when dealing with positions of which you disapprove.
I would argue this is a perfect example of Klingons not being racist or speciesist. A member of any species can be adopted into a Klingon house. Behavior, not biology, is the qualification.
(Now just to be clear, I'm not saying I approve of the Klingon desire to impose their cultural behaviors on others, and I'm not saying that impulse isn't bigoted. I'm saying it's not racist.)
More problematic is when Worf and Martok refer to Jadzia having the "heart of a Klingon." This is basically an anti-racist sentiment couched in racist language; similar to when John Milton wrote, "He, therefore, that keeps peace with me, near or remote, of whatsoever nation, is to me, as far as all civil and human offices, an Englishman and a neighbor: but if an Englishman, forgetting all laws, human, civil, and religious, offend against life and liberty, to him offended and to the Law in his behalf, though born in the same womb, he is no better than a Turk, a Saracen, a heathen"; similar to when Chekhov says, "We do believe all planets have a sovereign claim to inalienable human rights."
I've seen a few threads with a similar title lately. "Is XX Racist?" "Is YY Racist?""
The answer is no.
If people are running around looking for something to label as "-ist" the problem is not with the perceived "-ism, " it's with that person. The obsession with "-isms" -- in my view -- makes these people "Ism-ists." There is far too much "Ism-ism" and frankly it's time we did something about it.
I'm calling for a universal ban on "Ism-ism" and I hope you'll join me in my cause. Donations will be accepted at the Anti-Ism-ism website: www.ism-ism_sucks.com.
Thank you for your support.
I am Whateverist and I find this offensive!
You are NounVerbing the oppression of these fictional species with your #RealPersonPrivilege!
I find your Whateverism offensive and I refuse to acknowledge it with a response.
Except for this one.
And that one.
Ok, I'm done responding to your Whateverism and I'm offended at being called a NounVerbist. I'm going to my safe space.
Is DS9 racist?
I believe that if you really work at it, you can convince yourself that everything that you see is racist, and that you are very clever for seeing it.
If you are wise enough you can see that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and that DS9 is just an old TV show.
I believe that if you really work at it, you can convince yourself that everything that you see is racist, and that you are very clever for seeing it.
If you are wise enough you can see that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and that DS9 is just an old TV show.
I believe that if you really work at it, you can convince yourself that nothing that you see is racist, and that you are very inconvenienced when others point out racism.
Just to be clear, I don't think Deep Space Nine is a particularly racist Star Trek series, and I don't think Star Trek is a particularly racist franchise. In fact, Star Trek does particularly well on this issue, and Deep Space Nine does perhaps the best of the Star Trek series. I chose my avatar for a reason. My comment above is aimed not against Deep Space Nine; but against the position that people look for and talk about racism too much, that racism is not a serious problem and that subtle forms of racism don't matter.
Just to be clear, I don't think Deep Space Nine is a particularly racist Star Trek series, and I don't think Star Trek is a particularly racist franchise. In fact, Star Trek does particularly well on this issue, and Deep Space Nine does perhaps the best of the Star Trek series. I chose my avatar for a reason. My comment above is aimed not against Deep Space Nine; but against the position that people look for and talk about racism too much, that racism is not a serious problem and that subtle forms of racism don't matter.
If a show portrays racism, it's not necessarily racist itself. A good show presents ideas to the audience without a clear right answer. The Ferengi in The Last Output were clearly meant to be idiots, but I call that the show being bad, not racist because it's not talking about any real races.
It's better when Trek presents a Trek race as reasonable but different. The Klingons seem biologically more predisposed to violence than humans. There's nothing racist about that, of course, because this is all imaginary races in space. But it tricks us into asking how we would deal with it if part of the human race had biological predispositions. Say we found that European people are biologically adapted to be worse at math than Asian people. How would we handle that?
It's up to the viewer to decide if enough Ferengi are scheming to justify saying, "you're as scheming as a Ferengi." Harry Kim said the academy warned him about Ferengi scams. Quark threatened to make a complaint to Starfleet about racial slurs at the academy. Quark used this threat as part of a scheme to get Kim's money. We meet Ferengi like Nog, who in two episodes uses his sales and business ability for good to help everyone get what they want. We see Nog fight in the Dominion War as a normal officer, not a scheming stereotype. We see Rom who's into engineering and not really into business, despite his culture. It leaves it up to the viewer to decide if comments like Kim's are something evil, something often wrong but sometimes right in the case of Quark, or no big deal at all.
I don't think DS9 is racist, and I am a little tired about the racism discussions.
The same here in the Netherlands the discussion about black pete is starting again, or you are against him or you are a racist.
The same here in the Netherlands the discussion about black pete is starting again, or you are against him or you are a racist.
Have you considered not participating?
I suppose I could see "toxic masculinity" being analogous to Klingon warrior culture, but I think the problems Worf eventually saw with the Empire had more to do with politics than "toxic masculinity."
I've only seen Sons of Anarchy, and I don't know if it handled toxic masculinity appropriately, as much as it exploited it male-centric violence, as previous action/crime shows and films have done. It was just obviously a more sophisticated evolution of that same genre.
But don't the protagonists engage in "toxic masculinity" in order to solve their problems. Worf's answer to the alleged toxic masculinity of the Klingon Empire is to fight the Chancellor to the death.
Sisko attempts to bring the Romulans into the war with the Dominion through a forged communication. After Vreenak is assassinated by Garek, Sisko admits he would have done it all over again. The assassination of Vreenak, and the killing of Tolar are okay because one is a mean, smug, unsympathetic member of a treacherous species, and the other is a criminal who tried to kill one of Sisko's friends. It implies to the audience that their murders were justified, not only in the context of the war, but because of who they're character.
*because of their character traits.
I don't think you can really say that episode tried to justify their murders at all. Just look at the ending again. "I think I
can live with it. I CAN live with it." The whole point is that it isn't good or really justifiable, but he lets it happen anyway because he's desperate. It's actually an interesting parallel to the way Starfleet command starts tolerating Section 31 later in the show, but I don't really see the connection to toxic masculinity at all, honestly.
As for Klingon culture, it could in many ways be described in these terms, but the ultimate message of DS9 wasn't really that Klingon culture itself was unworkable, it was that Klingon culture had degenerated into a parody of itself. Gowron wasn't honorable or wise - and neither was any other High Chancellor in recent times - because Klingon society had turned away from upholding its deepest values and simply embraced the appearance of honor instead of actual honor.
The thing with the Klingons is that for the most part they are gender equal anyway (the Q Klingon girl being the only real exception I can think of.) The women are as angry as the dudes. I won't go into the idea of Toxic Masculinity much anyway...as a concept it has many drawbacks as useful applications, and fails that simple test of 'if I flipped this around, would it still be OK?'
I just think that it's very interesting when the "good guys" do something immoral, it's usually to unlikable characters. For example, had the Vulcan senator actually been a fair and honorable man or woman, but simply argued that entering into a war against the Dominion would be suicidal or bring harm to the Romulan people, then the audience would be less inclined to sympathize with Captain Sisko. Had the forger NOT tried to kill Quark, and had been portrayed as questionable but decent in many respects, then Garek murdering him too, and Sisko letting it slide would make them both look more like villains.
Instead, Vreenak is a caricature, almost a mustache twirling villain. The forger is an unrepentant criminal who DESERVED to be killed, as he tried to kill others.
"A guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant."
Sounds like Sisko is justifying his actions.
Garak is cool with it. Sisko is not. Sisko sees it as a moral stain on him; a burden he must bear for the rest of his life. He's taking one for the AQ team so to speak. And whilst Garak doesn't blink in respect to himself, he's self-aware enough to note of Sisko: ".....and all it took was the....self respect of one Starfleet officer..."
I find it very refreshing to have the show feature some old fashioned bad guys from time to time. Sometimes you just like to know who is good and who is evil.
Similar threads
