Sisko (DS9-R spoilers)

[DarKush]

Why do some posters equate self-sacrifice with dying? Hadn't Sisko and all the DS9 crew sacrificed for seven years and most of them returned home. Why shouldn't Sisko get the opportunity to do the same?

Just because the ending might have been originally conceived to be different, writing changes occur all the time for a variety of reasons. I believe I read that that the writers were at one time thinking about having DS9 all be the dream of Benny Russell. Because they went another route, and I'm glad they did, does that make what we got so unbearable or untrue?

What made Sisko dying or not coming back so much better, or integral to the series finale than leaving it open for him to return?

 

[Sci]

Hey, I'm glad that Sisko was able to come back in the books through the change as well!

How come Avery Brooks didn't have a problem with Rapture? Because in that ep. Sisko actually DOES try to abandon his son, girlfriend and all of his friends as they beg him not to.

As I recall, he does not actively try to abandon them -- he tries to preserve his ability to experience visions from the Prophets. That's not the same thing.

I feel like a lot of you are missing the point, I'm sure you probably feel the same way about me. If you want to do something to help your culture, how about trying to do an episode that actually points out serious problems in it and call attention to them??

In this particular instance, the question only came up as they were writing the LAST EPISODE. It's not like Brooks could just go to the writers and ask them to have the next episode be about that issue -- there weren't going to be any other episodes.

And, besides, Brooks and others would likely argue that by having an intelligent, respected, successful leader who is raising a well-adjusted, successful son by himself -- and who happens to be an African-American -- that every episode of DS9 was role modeling appropriate behavior for any American, especially those who belong to currently marginalized minority groups.

And, last but not least, let's not forget that DS9 and Trek in general has done numerous episodes that explicitly point out social problems and deal with them, not the least of which would be "Far Beyond the Stars," which Brooks directed.

The last episode of Deep Space 9 wouldn't be an appropriate place to do this, since there never was an issue of abandonment in it. But what if there had been an episode addressing something like this, would Brooks have complained about it? I would hope that he wouldn't, but it sure seems like he would.

I'm not sure what you mean there. If there had been a DS9 episode that had dealt in some way with the issue of the disintegration of the African-American family, I doubt Brooks would have complained at all -- provided that that episode didn't, like, come out in favor of said disintegration. Why would you assume he'd have an objection?

I see that as hurting his people, not helping them.
What if a powerful and intense episode about drug addiction was written for DS9, involving Jake perhaps accidentally getting addicted to something and then triumphing over the drug using willpower, and the support of his friends and father?

I would sure as hell complain, because addiction isn't something you triumph over with willpower. It's a mental illness that can be arrested, but there's a reason that the big slogan in A.A. is "One day at a time." Any recovering alcoholic knows that he or she could relapse at any time, even after years of sobriety; that's why they take it one day at a time.

Would Brooks have complained about showing a young black man addicted to drugs? Or what if it was Nog they portrayed as being addicted? Would he have a problem with that? We can never know for sure, but seriously think about this.

I have no clue, and I'm not going to judge a man for something he didn't even do.

Also, sorry I'm not buying the whole argument that if you're not black you can't understand. I'm a human, we all are. Isn't that what Trek is all about?

Sure, we're all Human, and there are common experience we all share. But a white person cannot understand what it is like to be black because he's not been treated like he was black; it's really that simple. You cannot know what it is like to be an oppressed ethnic group if you have never been oppressed on the basis of your ethnicity. Similarly, a heterosexual black man can never know what it's like to be a homosexual black man. Etc.

You can't understand what it is like to be someone else until you've walked in their shoes. That's just life. That doesn't make you a bad person. All it means is that you have to be on the receiving end of oppression to really understand it.

If something that most people agree is morally wrong is going on and there can be a good story of Trek built around it then I think it helps everyone to bring attention to the issue, not running away from it in fear of hurting people's feelings or offending them.

No one's done that. In the case of "What You Leave Behind," a good story built around something that's happening that most people agree is morally wrong isn't even applicable -- the episode wasn't going to be about the disintegration of the African-American family, so why shouldn't Brooks and the writers step in to make sure that no one got the sense that it was re-inforcing, however unintentionally, the stereotype that all black men abandon their children?

 

[Trent Roman]

Actually, what I object to is Trent's assumption that he's qualified to tell black people they don't understand the issue even though it affects them and not him. I think that's incredibly condescending.

As would I, if I had ever said such a fucking thing.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[The Grim Ghost]

^ Thanks for the well thought out response Sci. Wish I had time to respond, but I must depart for a New Years party. Perhaps later, if my head is still screwed on right. Hope you all have a good one by the way.

Christopher, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Leaf]

How come Avery Brooks didn't have a problem with Rapture? Because in that ep. Sisko actually DOES try to abandon his son, girlfriend and all of his friends as they beg him not to. You could say that he wasn't in his right mind, but I always got the idea that even after he was returned to normal he wished he could have gone through with it.

Probably because Avery Brooks most likely had a stack of scripts in his trailer and knew perfectly well that Sisko would be back next week.

 

[Ktrek]

Unless you're African-American yourself, I don't think you're qualified to judge how it would've been perceived by African-American viewers, or to dismiss Brooks's views about how it might be perceived.

Chris,

I respect you a lot and love your books but even you have to see that the above statement is ludicris! It would be like saying to an African American that unless you're Irish American you not qualified to judge how O'Brien's actions on the show would be perceived or you can subsititute gay, or blue collar or whatever in any scenario of your choosing! Come on are people really THAT stupid in your mind?

Kevin

 

[Sci]

Unless you're African-American yourself, I don't think you're qualified to judge how it would've been perceived by African-American viewers, or to dismiss Brooks's views about how it might be perceived.

Chris,

I respect you a lot and love your books but even you have to see that the above statement is ludicris!

No, it's not, it's common sense. No one who has never been the victim of the unique racial oppression suffered by African-Americans can ever pretend to fully understand their experiences or points of view.

The simple fact is that people from different groups are not yet treated equally by society -- and until they are, they can't pretend to have a full grasp of other groups' experiences.

 

[KlingonPredator]

This is not the first episode in which Avery Brooks made a stand concerning race. In the episode when they were trying to get Vic's place back from the mob,he pointed out CORRECTLY that African Americans weren't allowed in those places during that period in history. Kas pointed out to him that in the current reality,such was not the case and he joined the party. His stand was not a problem for me,nor was his decision to tell Kas he would return,for the reasons he said so. As was stated earlier,we live in a vacuum between what the universe is and what we want it to be. Sisko(Brooks) is/was very consious of both realities, and he was excellent in living in both. IMHO, he did a fantastic job.

 

[Ktrek]

No, it's not, it's common sense. No one who has never been the victim of the unique racial oppression suffered by African-Americans can ever pretend to fully understand their experiences or points of view.

The simple fact is that people from different groups are not yet treated equally by society -- and until they are, they can't pretend to have a full grasp of other groups' experiences.

I think you're wrong Sci because you are making a statement of fact that only what is "experienced" can be known or understood and that is absolutely false. Many things can be learned, known, and understood by observation. Experience is not the only method of learning.

Kevin

 

[Sci]

No, it's not, it's common sense. No one who has never been the victim of the unique racial oppression suffered by African-Americans can ever pretend to fully understand their experiences or points of view.

The simple fact is that people from different groups are not yet treated equally by society -- and until they are, they can't pretend to have a full grasp of other groups' experiences.

I think you're wrong Sci because you are making a statement of fact that only what is "experienced" can be known or understood and that is absolutely false. Many things can be learned, known, and understood by observation. Experience is not the only method of learning.

Kevin

Experience is not the only method of learning objective facts, sure. But it is the only method of learning a subjective experience. You can't know what it is like to be African-American unless you are African-American. You can't know what it's like to be gay unless you are gay. You can't know what it's like to be white unless you are white. Etc. You can learn many things about them, sure -- but the actual sensation of being one, and the knowledge that comes with being a part of those various communities, you cannot learn without experiencing it. And that's just like.

 

[Steve Roby]

This is not the first episode in which Avery Brooks made a stand concerning race. In the episode when they were trying to get Vic's place back from the mob,he pointed out CORRECTLY that African Americans weren't allowed in those places during that period in history.

Yup. And race was an element in "Far Beyond the Stars," too. If you think that Avery Brooks was wrong to think about how a 20th century audience might interpret what happened in the finale of a TV series filmed in the 20th century, you weren't paying attention earlier.

 

[Marie1]

No, it's not, it's common sense. No one who has never been the victim of the unique racial oppression suffered by African-Americans can ever pretend to fully understand their experiences or points of view.

The simple fact is that people from different groups are not yet treated equally by society -- and until they are, they can't pretend to have a full grasp of other groups' experiences.

I think you're wrong Sci because you are making a statement of fact that only what is "experienced" can be known or understood and that is absolutely false. Many things can be learned, known, and understood by observation. Experience is not the only method of learning.

Kevin

Experience is not the only method of learning objective facts, sure. But it is the only method of learning a subjective experience. You can't know what it is like to be African-American unless you are African-American. You can't know what it's like to be gay unless you are gay. You can't know what it's like to be white unless you are white. Etc. You can learn many things about them, sure -- but the actual sensation of being one, and the knowledge that comes with being a part of those various communities, you cannot learn without experiencing it. And that's just like.

I agree, its a bit of a sympathize/empathize thing. You may sympathize because of what various people have gone through, but you can't empathize unless you've gone through it yourself. Being horrified by a wrong should take place either way. But if Brooks wanted to make sure his character, Sisko, was coming back, and wanted to assure his pregnant wife of that because he was part of a race that, as he saw, had a problem with men abandoning families. I think thats good of him, to always be thinking of being a good example. Its something that translated to everyone anyway.

For instance, I have a friend was always going on about how terrible Africa is, and how she wants to be a doctor in Africa. And I'm fully aware Africa is a bad place, but aside from the infomercials which seem made up ("poor" kid with no food, but with gold earrings, with "no shoes" but you can see the tan lines from them, etc.) does she have any idea whats happening? Rwanda? Hutus and Tutsis? Nope, not a clue. And it was well within our lifetime. There has to be real understanding, which involves education. But its extremely hard to understand the pain unless you've been there. Its... senseless, and painful and ridiculously hard to fight.

 

[William Leisner]

No, it's not, it's common sense. No one who has never been the victim of the unique racial oppression suffered by African-Americans can ever pretend to fully understand their experiences or points of view.

The simple fact is that people from different groups are not yet treated equally by society -- and until they are, they can't pretend to have a full grasp of other groups' experiences.

I think you're wrong Sci because you are making a statement of fact that only what is "experienced" can be known or understood and that is absolutely false. Many things can be learned, known, and understood by observation. Experience is not the only method of learning.

Kevin

Many African-Americans, including Whoopi Goldberg and astronaut Mae Jamison, have cited the inclusion of Uhura on TOS as an important inspiration to them in their formative years. Now, I can understand, on a purely intellectual level, about inspirational role models. But, as a white man, I know I'm not quite getting something. Uhura was a minor character who only ocassionally played an important role in that week's story -- how, I ask myself, could she have had such a marked impact on so many people just by her presence?

However, just because I don't fully understand it, and didn't have a similar experience watching white guys on TV, that doesn't mean that I disbelieve Goldberg or Jamison or the rest. And if I do believe there's a difference in perception, then that pretty much has to be chalked up to the differences in experiences.

 

[DarKush]

Good question Will,

Why Uhura made such an impact? Because before her, there were very little roles for blacks outside of being servants or buffoons. Though Uhura perhaps said and did little, she was prominently on the bridge, she did her important job well, and she a was respected officer. This was something that was very unusual compared to a lot of the other depictions of blacks, especially black women, during that time on TV and film. Nichelle Nichols often tells the story of how MLK encouraged her to stay on the show because of the positive impact she had on black youth, even though she too had issues with the smallness of her role. Nichols even worked with NASA after Trek ended to recruit more minorities into the space program, another indicator of the impact she had on youth.

Uhura IMO helped a lot of young black kids realize that they could be someone, they could make a valuable contribution as well, that they had a future, one of the reasons I think Avery Brooks took the Sisko role. I took a class on African-American cinema years ago which really opened my eyes to society's depiction of blacks in popular entertainment, even before the pro-KKK epic movie Birth of a Nation. If you're interested, one author I recommend is Donald Bogle. Bogle has written extensively on the depictions of blacks on film and TV (Primetime Blues and Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks), and Uhura is definitely a step up-perhaps a small step, but a definite improvement-from what came before. One movie I recommend is Spike Lee's controversial film Bamboozled which also touches on the history of black portrayals in popular entertainment, particularly the minstrel shows of the late 19th and early 20th century, and then proposes that much of the current black media portrayals are updated forms of minstrely (sp).

 

[William Leisner]

^ The thing is, though, no matter how many classes I take or how many documentaries I watch, I will never have that visceral experience of being a young Black person in the 1960s, and will never experience seeing Uhura on screen the way others have.

By the same token, I can't have the same reaction Avery Brooks did to the final scene of WYLB, and I certainly can't say his reaction was wrong because it didn't match mine. Intellect and experience, for better or worse, are not always going to be complimentary.

 

[DarKush]

That's true. You might not ever feel or experience what Whoopi Goldberg and Mae Jemison did when they saw Uhura, or what I did when Sisko appeared on the screen staring down Locutus in "Emissary", but hopefully my answer provided some context for why Goldberg and Jemison were inspired by Uhura.

 

[Trent Roman]

This is not the first episode in which Avery Brooks made a stand concerning race. In the episode when they were trying to get Vic's place back from the mob,he pointed out CORRECTLY that African Americans weren't allowed in those places during that period in history. Kas pointed out to him that in the current reality,such was not the case and he joined the party. His stand was not a problem for me,nor was his decision to tell Kas he would return,for the reasons he said so. As was stated earlier,we live in a vacuum between what the universe is and what we want it to be. Sisko(Brooks) is/was very consious of both realities, and he was excellent in living in both. IMHO, he did a fantastic job.

Venturing into this thread again in the hope of polite discussion, I recall being bothered by that when it first aired. Not Sisko's objection that a place like Vic's pastes over the ugly reality, which I actually agree with--I can't stand the 50s nostalgia trend for the same reason--but rather the way he expressed it. It's been a while and I don't have a copy of the episode on hand, but according to an online script he says: "But don't you see, that's the lie. In nineteen sixty-two, the Civil Rights movement was still in its infancy. It wasn't an easy time for our people and I don't want to pretend that it was." I was very jarred by "our people", designating himself and Kass, occuring in a 24th century context and making a clear racial delineation. My belief, or hope anyway, would be that in Star Trek the entire concept of race, biologically fallacious to begin with but which survives the debunking because of its sociological impact, would have fallen away entirely, that it wouldn't even occur to a 24th century human to make such distinctions, let alone perpetuate the idea that there's still a distinct black 'people'. Personally, I like to explain it away insofar as Sisko's experiences as Benny Russell, and possibly even when he had to impersonate Gabriel Bell in the early twenty-first century (that episode didn't imply any racial dimension to the Sanctuary Districts, but if such were created today it stands to reason that the same disadvantaged minorities who are overrepresented in urban ghettoes and the penal system would be disproportionately affected), have sensitized Sisko to the racial issues of the past in a way that most other 24th century people, regardless of their background, could not be. Sure, they would know their history, but how many others would have the lived experience of racial discrimination that Sisko did? So that's how I prefer to account for it; although I still wish it had been phrased differently.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[DarKush]

Trent,

You're not the first person who I've read had problems with Sisko's reaction. But for me, I saw it has Sisko respecting the memory of his ancestors, which might've been stirred by his experiences as Russell or Bell, as you pointed out.

I didn't have a problem with it. Because, I think Avery Brooks understood that DS9 was based in the future, but a comptemorary show, and he wanted to be historically accurate or better yet, conscious. And many of the audience might not realize or care to remember or admit that such attitudes existed during that time period in America.

 

[Sci]

This is not the first episode in which Avery Brooks made a stand concerning race. In the episode when they were trying to get Vic's place back from the mob,he pointed out CORRECTLY that African Americans weren't allowed in those places during that period in history. Kas pointed out to him that in the current reality,such was not the case and he joined the party. His stand was not a problem for me,nor was his decision to tell Kas he would return,for the reasons he said so. As was stated earlier,we live in a vacuum between what the universe is and what we want it to be. Sisko(Brooks) is/was very consious of both realities, and he was excellent in living in both. IMHO, he did a fantastic job.

Venturing into this thread again in the hope of polite discussion, I recall being bothered by that when it first aired. Not Sisko's objection that a place like Vic's pastes over the ugly reality, which I actually agree with--I can't stand the 50s nostalgia trend for the same reason--but rather the way he expressed it. It's been a while and I don't have a copy of the episode on hand, but according to an online script he says: "But don't you see, that's the lie. In nineteen sixty-two, the Civil Rights movement was still in its infancy. It wasn't an easy time for our people and I don't want to pretend that it was." I was very jarred by "our people", designating himself and Kass, occuring in a 24th century context and making a clear racial delineation. My belief, or hope anyway, would be that in Star Trek the entire concept of race, biologically fallacious to begin with but which survives the debunking because of its sociological impact, would have fallen away entirely, that it wouldn't even occur to a 24th century human to make such distinctions, let alone perpetuate the idea that there's still a distinct black 'people'. Personally, I like to explain it away insofar as Sisko's experiences as Benny Russell, and possibly even when he had to impersonate Gabriel Bell in the early twenty-first century (that episode didn't imply any racial dimension to the Sanctuary Districts, but if such were created today it stands to reason that the same disadvantaged minorities who are overrepresented in urban ghettoes and the penal system would be disproportionately affected), have sensitized Sisko to the racial issues of the past in a way that most other 24th century people, regardless of their background, could not be. Sure, they would know their history, but how many others would have the lived experience of racial discrimination that Sisko did? So that's how I prefer to account for it; although I still wish it had been phrased differently.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

You know, I'm of two minds about the "our people" line. On one hand, yeah, I tend to have the same reaction that you do -- I would hope that by the 24th Century, "black" is as meaningful description of a man as "tall" or "blonde."

On the other hand, though, there's something to be said for wanting to preserve cultural identity and cultural diversity. There's something to be said for wanting the African-American community to survive as its own unique community, and to thrive within the larger world (and, in Trek's case, galactic) community well into the future.

As with many things with race, the question becomes one of diversity vs. assimilation. How do you encourage a sense of intercultural (or for that matter, interspecies) unity whilst also encouraging a sense of cultural (or species) diversity and identity?

I don't know that there's any right answer to that question, and goodness knows our cultures today are struggling with it. So, you know, when I thought about that scene, and how I didn't like that Sisko had said "our people," the more I thought about it, the more I realized:

Maybe I, as a white person, have to learn to accept the idea that a black man can say "our people" in reference exclusively to other African-Americans while also having another larger conception of "our people" that includes whites. In other words, a sort of living mental "E pluribus unum:" From many, one. I thought about the fact that I experience a sense of community with other Ohioans, or with other British-Americans; I wouldn't hesitate to refer to them as "our people" whilst excluding non-Ohioans or non-British-Americans in other contexts. But that doesn't mean that I don't think of non-Ohioans or non-British-Americans as being "my people," too -- it's just that I have different "peoples" that I belong to. I have multiple communities that I am a part of, and none of it has to threaten the other communities.

So that's how I interpret Sisko's line. That there is still a vibrant and thriving and unique African-American community in the 24th Century -- that African-Americans didn't just disappear. But that that community is part of larger communities -- the community of Americans, the community of Humans, the community of citizens of United Earth, the community of the Federation. So "our people" isn't always an exclusionary thing -- it was in THAT context, but in another, Sisko would certainly think of whites as being his people, too. It's having multiple identities and loyalties without demanding that one take precedence over the other.

 

[Trent Roman]

But for me, I saw it has Sisko respecting the memory of his ancestors, which might've been stirred by his experiences as Russell or Bell, as you pointed out. I didn't have a problem with it. Because, I think Avery Brooks understood that DS9 was based in the future, but a comptemorary show, and he wanted to be historically accurate or better yet, conscious. And many of the audience might not realize or care to remember or admit that such attitudes existed during that time period in America.

Certainly, Sisko has always, even before his experiences in the past, been a character in touch with his cultural roots. We can see it in the foods he likes to cook, his collection of West African masks, etc. My problem is not that Sisko finds fantasies like Vic's distasteful for what they conceal about the historical reality--I perfectly well sympathize with that attitude--but with the fact that the dialogue seemed to imply (to me, anyway) that the concept of race had persisted even into the 24th century.

You know, I'm of two minds about the "our people" line. On one hand, yeah, I tend to have the same reaction that you do -- I would hope that by the 24th Century, "black" is as meaningful description of a man as "tall" or "blonde."

Sisko actually uses the descriptor "brown people" earlier in the conversation (again, according to the script site I found) which I must say I prefer, not the least because "black" is a cultural construct which is physically inaccurate, while "brown", if vague, seems more neutrally descriptive.

On the other hand, though, there's something to be said for wanting to preserve cultural identity and cultural diversity. There's something to be said for wanting the African-American community to survive as its own unique community, and to thrive within the larger world (and, in Trek's case, galactic) community well into the future.

As with many things with race, the question becomes one of diversity vs. assimilation. How do you encourage a sense of intercultural (or for that matter, interspecies) unity whilst also encouraging a sense of cultural (or species) diversity and identity?

To me, the problem is the point at which race and culture come to stand for one another; where one signifies the other. When one says "African-American culture"; one is automatically making a racial as well a cultural delineation. Movement like Black Pride or Négritude are useful today for countering the denigration African and African-exodus cultures have been subjected to for centuries, but can a concept like Black Pride coexist with an aracial society? Will there come a point where such notions fall by the wayside in favour of integration? (And, of course, that raises the question of whose culture is one being integrated into. It's hardly new to remark that Trek's unified humanity has a very Anglo-Saxon/American cultural feel to it.)

Maybe I, as a white person, have to learn to accept the idea that a black man can say "our people" in reference exclusively to other African-Americans while also having another larger conception of "our people" that includes whites.

I would say that time has already come; certainly, when the President-Elect refers to 'our people' when discussing the economy or somesuch we understand him to refer to all Americans, regardless of ethnicity. (EDIT: Though of course Obama is hardly the first politician to serve in that capacity, but the highest-ranked.) But while it's an interesting interpretation of Sisko's line, I don't think it works in the context of what had come in the conversation previously.

In other words, a sort of living mental "E pluribus unum:" From many, one. I thought about the fact that I experience a sense of community with other Ohioans, or with other British-Americans; I wouldn't hesitate to refer to them as "our people" whilst excluding non-Ohioans or non-British-Americans in other contexts. But that doesn't mean that I don't think of non-Ohioans or non-British-Americans as being "my people," too -- it's just that I have different "peoples" that I belong to. I have multiple communities that I am a part of, and none of it has to threaten the other communities So that's how I interpret Sisko's line. That there is still a vibrant and thriving and unique African-American community in the 24th Century -- that African-Americans didn't just disappear. But that that community is part of larger communities -- the community of Americans, the community of Humans, the community of citizens of United Earth, the community of the Federation. So "our people" isn't always an exclusionary thing -- it was in THAT context, but in another, Sisko would certainly think of whites as being his people, too. It's having multiple identities and loyalties without demanding that one take precedence over the other.

Certainly, if such distinctions still existed in the 24th century, one would expected them to be entirely heterarchical. And the IDIC philosophy of Trek doesn't want to efface differences but celebrate them. Perhaps because I associate so much negative baggage with the concept of race, I cannot imagine a scenario where the notion, but not that baggage of division rather than difference, persists. And of course the concept itself is fallacious, and I would like to see it vanish from public conscience for that reason as well.

I suppose, to me, that the litmus test would be whether race still serves as criteria for these future communities, or whether individuals of any given ethnic background could claim appartenance to a cultural milieu, without a biological factor, merely because it is the culture they prefer. I think we can see that to a certain extent even today, although individuals who might prefer a culture other than the one they were born into still face a lot of prejudice (with epithets like 'poseur', 'coconut', etc.; and it doesn't even have to be racial: even I sometimes get flak from my more fanatically francophone extended family for being far more engaged in anglophone culture). I think of how religion has, in many of the more urban or industrialized regions of the world, ceased to be a matter of intrinsic , inescapable identity and become more a matter of individual preference, such that sociologists have begun speaking of a religious 'buffet' where people can pick and choose the elements they prefer. I'd like to see something like that happen more fully to culture as well, racial and otherwise; such that you could one day say "African-American culture" and refer to the culture created by the exodus and blend of Africans in America, and not necessarily mean "the culture of people with said skin colour", if you see what I'm getting at.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman