I may watch today. At the same time, it’s my oldest niece’s 18th birthday today. I was praying the Bell Riots wouldn’t happen today.
Past Tense - Date of the Episode is Approaching
- Thread starter cgervasi
- Start date
I think they happen on the 1st through 3rd so you are still ok.
The action that led to the death of Gabriel Bell happens tonight, though. And since we’re on a different timeline, who knows what’ll happen?
Watched this Friday night and actually watching it again now.
It's really a good couple of episodes and just interesting to see how they still kind-of set-up the arc the war is going to start. (julian asking if humans really are different in the 24c than the 21c if things went bad.
Dick Miller always fun and, I argue cares more about the situation than any of the other district workers, including the social worker woman. He cares so much, but is angry and lost that nothing can be done to improve life making him bitter and angry, so his behavior is one of someone who doesn't care to try and conceal his emotions.
Still and interesting couple of episodes and just wild to see it taking place today/this weekend.
I wonder why there's children in the Sanctuary District instead of them being with foster homes or something, them being in the districts without proper care or education seems odd unless the resources of the government is just so spent there isn't even a way to properly care for at least the children.
It's really a good couple of episodes and just interesting to see how they still kind-of set-up the arc the war is going to start. (julian asking if humans really are different in the 24c than the 21c if things went bad.
Dick Miller always fun and, I argue cares more about the situation than any of the other district workers, including the social worker woman. He cares so much, but is angry and lost that nothing can be done to improve life making him bitter and angry, so his behavior is one of someone who doesn't care to try and conceal his emotions.
Still and interesting couple of episodes and just wild to see it taking place today/this weekend.
I wonder why there's children in the Sanctuary District instead of them being with foster homes or something, them being in the districts without proper care or education seems odd unless the resources of the government is just so spent there isn't even a way to properly care for at least the children.
Last edited:
I liked the podcast episode we're talking about. It was a good point how on several occasions DS9 shows the point of view of violent rebels. The podcast points out how usually TV shows with violent rebels take the position that the rebels are unreasonable and are hurting their cause by using violence. I love how this show tricked me into being the side of the hostage-takers rejecting offers of incremental change in the future.
I disagree with the podcasts far-left views, esp on the modern tech industry, but I liked their commentary and share their hope and the hope of the show that humankind will solve our problems and respect everyone's rights.
Does it? I would agree that DS9 takes a generally sympathetic view of rebels, or at least tries to make an honest appraisal of what drives them, their idealism leads them to tragedy. Eddington and Hudson are great examples of idealism that gets the better of the whole movement. What we see in Past Tense is not rebels--not as leaders. The Bell Riots simply happen. Sisko isn't playing the role of a rebel, but instead, he is a conservateur of history. He tries to replicate the playbook as best he can. Webb is clearly a community organizer, but he is neither an activist or an idealist. He pursues bourgeois respectability: jobs. Sisko and Webb have two goals: show the world that they are ordinary people who can be part of the mainstream and prevent BC from killing the hostages so the people of the district can be seen as respectable. These are modest goals, not for widespread social change, but an attempt to get society to live up to its values. There is no ideology. There is no oppressor/oppressed dynamic. There is a deficit of empathy that needs to be cleared away for the down on their luck to rejoin mainstream society.
I don't think you have to be far left to appreciate the absurdity of expecting someone to get a job when they're a prisoner in few city blocks ruled by gangs.
My point is they take hostages and make demands. Their demands are modest: to stop jailing people who haven't committed any crimes and help them find jobs.
That's a good point that Sisko may just be trying to play a role that he doesn't fully believe in so that history is maintained. There is no line, however, after he refuses the governor's offer to create a committee to investigate possible reforms, where he says he doesn't believe in taking hostages even for a good cause and if it weren't for the need to preserve the timeline he would have accepted to governor's offer so that the hostages would be freed.
It seems like Sisko's view is that the wrongly-imprisoned sanctuary residents were justified in taking hostages to demand their rights be respected.
Absolutely. The episode made it broad so almost all viewers would find the Sanctuaries immoral. It made it clear that people with a prior criminal record were not put in the Sanctuary districts. The hostage-takers' demands were to stop imprisoning people and initiate a gov't jobs program that I imagine was like the Civil Works Administration.
"They" is BC and the ghosts. From what we see in the episodes, it is that group (or faction) that take the hostages and whom Sisko and Webb only have a limited ability to control. Indeed Webb and Sisko discuss early in the episode how far things have gone off the rails, or at least this is Webb's opinion. Sisko very clearly states that they can only deal with the situation that has presented itself.
Even in the previous episode, after Bell's murder, Sisko looks toward Webb as a symbol of peaceful demonstration, not a rebel or revolutionary. Sisko doesn't seem to have full information on what went down. He knows that the safety of the hostages was a key to reversing the public image of the unemployed. However, he lacked details about what happened at the processing center, the locus of the key events of the riots. He doesn't recognize Webb. He doesn't recognize BC. He doesn't recognize Vin (although he could just be regarded as someone in security in the long view). He doesn't know the key leaders, yet his gut told him to go to the peaceful, non-violent community leader, the non-idealogue, not ally himself with the ghosts.
I disagree. It was a fact. It was beyond his control. His control of the hostages was tenuous at best, and BC seems on the verge of lashing out against them at several points. There's no indication that Sisko supported the riots and the hostage taking other than it preserved the future whereto he wanted to return.
Looking at what Ira Steven Behr has said about the episode, his goal was not to make predictions about where history was going (not some necessary conflict) or to argue a point of action, but to stress how the lack of empathy exacerbated social problems. He overlayed it with a story partially inspired by Attica. But he tasked the main character with holding back the outrage that occurred at Attica. I'm sure the people on the podcast want us to justify the actions of people who strike out in rage, but I suspect ISB only wanted to show the rage as both an expression and a problem, meaning the consequences of that rage are not necessarily justified.
"Knowing what happens in that future allows us to change things now, so that some things never happen." - Riker in All Good Things
Maybe so, but I often wonder what would happen if the tons (hundreds?) of people in Phoenix's largest encampment got sick of being treated less than human.
Speaking of leading up to the Bell Riots, the Supreme Court recently ruled that cities could ban camping in public places even if there was no homeless shelter with space available for them. Many other cities have responded by criminalizing homelessness as well.
theappeal.org
Cities Rush to Criminalize Homelessness After Supreme Court Ruling
In the two months since the court's decision in Grants Pass, an analysis by The Appeal finds that dozens of municipalities have passed or proposed new camping bans that levy the possibility of fines, tickets, or jail time against unhoused residents. More are sure to follow.
theappeal.org
The city I work in has a very large homeless population for a number of reasons and the city is reluctant to take action despite making parts of the downtown area less safe. Eventually the county sheriff stepped in to break it up but it has returned despite shelters, and local charities offering spaces and new shelters.Speaking of leading up to the Bell Riots, the Supreme Court recently ruled that cities could ban camping in public places even if there was no homeless shelter with space available for them. Many other cities have responded by criminalizing homelessness as well.
Cities Rush to Criminalize Homelessness After Supreme Court Ruling
In the two months since the court's decision in Grants Pass, an analysis by The Appeal finds that dozens of municipalities have passed or proposed new camping bans that levy the possibility of fines, tickets, or jail time against unhoused residents. More are sure to follow.
It's always going to be a problem I suspect.
Similar threads
