Sisko's dislike of the Vic Fontaine holosuite program

[exodus]

It makes perfect sense. Sisko saw the program as inaccurate and felt that it diminished the struggles of people of that era. He's right. If you read TheGodBen's review of Voyager, you see that he had the same reaction to the depiction of Fair Haven. He's Irish, and long removed from that period, but took issue with the depiction (and rightly so).

Some people take history much more seriously than others. Sisko is one of those people. In fact that is a consistent character trait for him. He collects authentic african art. He built an authentic recreation of a Bajoran light sail ship etc.

As an African American male, I thank you for this.
This is dead on.

As a Hispanic male of Mexican descent, I do oppose the view you praise.

We Mexicans in Texas were here before the American who brought slavery to us. Going further back in time, I hold no hate or contempt of Columbus, the first slave trader in the New World, or the Conquistadors that followed him. I pity them for their greed and disregard for human life.

The lynchings of my people rivaled those of blacks throughout the southwestern United States. And that happened after we became a part of the United States. Land that legally, by treaty, was to remain in the property of those who owned it before Texas became independent of Mexico was taken from them. Those who were able to keep their land lost it when Texas became a state, despite the treaties and guarantees made for the annexation of Texas.

My parents couldn't speak Spanish on school grounds, even outside of class or before or after school without receiving disciplinary action.

We too couldn't use the front door, we too we barred from many places except as janitors. There were signs that said "No dog or Mexicans allowed" on many establishments. Hispanics couldn't vote, my grandparents couldn't vote, and never did because they still feared the repercussions of exorcising their hard fought for right.

I do look back on those times not long removed from me, and do feel not hate but pity for those ignorant people who committed the atrocities.

The only time I do get mad is when people try to reinstate those policies, under different names, and try to make it sound like they are helping us or the country. Things like voter ID here in Texas or the blatant gerrymandering of districts. Arizona's batshit crazy governor and that states laws. The GOP candidates each trying to out do each other by proposing a bigger more dangerous wall along the US Mexico boarder. Those things made me make me mad because it does show the prejudice that is still here in the United States.

But once these things have passed, and they will, I or the children of my nieces on and nephews will see this all as a time of idiocy and pity these people doing these things.

I would gladly and happily go into a holodeck simulation that showed things as they should have been. I would know it's not historically correct, and I'd be okay with that. It's not a whitewash of history, but a playground. A man as smart as Sisko should have realized that.

While I hear what you're saying, do we really have to turn this into my race suffered more or worse than your race did?

Doesn't the Federation determine if you can join based upon if you live up to their standards? Aren't they prejudice toward those that don't?
Picard was prejudice toward Q.
He looked down on Q because Q didn't share human values and never once took the time to even understand the culture of Q.
Wasn't O'Brian prejudice again Cardassian's?
He referred to them by using a racial slur.
Didn't we see prejudice against Odo by the Federation?
There was prejudice against Ferengi
Kirk was prejudice toward Klingons.
So that fact that Sisko isn't exposed to prejudice in the Federation is a farce. Prejudice still exists in the 24th century.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

DarKush:

At least personally I feel the writers should have paid attention to what was going on between the two shows...though it's not surprising that they dropped the ball given that they couldn't even consistently maintain a simple thing like a shuttle count or damage and supplies counters on Voyager itself.

Had they not succeeded in crossing wires with Voyager, in this episode, and running afoul of everything that had been established about sentient holograms and the Doctor's plotline, then I would've been more accepting of the episode's objectives. A simple holonovel and a game without a life at stake could have done it quite well.

But with Sisko placed in the position of being willing to stand by and allow an alien's death in the 24th century, the stakes go so high that to my mind it destroys the point about the 20th century. The plot switches from a debate about how we treat history to a plot that reads like, "Unless Sisko changes his attitude about this sentient hologram, he [the hologram] will die for crimes committed by people 400 years ago."

So the intended point by the authors is a reasonable one. What came out in the execution wasn't because the stakes were literally life and death, and also put Sisko in a hypocritical position. As far as that VOY continuity goes, though, I'm going to take a closer look at that--at how much time had been spent working on the arc of the Doctor's rights, some seminal points in that arc, and where VOY stood in that arc at the time "Badda Bing, Badda Bang" aired.

The Photons Be Free incident, while the most flagrant one with a very offensive court ruling as the result (sounded almost Dred Scott-ish in that the court seemed to do its damnedest to avoid ruling that the Doctor was sentient), was actually not the first time the Doctor's rights as a sentient being became an issue. I think there is sufficient grounds to argue that the Doctor's rights and freedom are a series-long arc, equivalent to Data's "search for humanity."

In the very first episodes of VOY, we see the Doctor with zero control over his working conditions and life, and treated by the crew in a manner that was quite frankly rude and disrespectful.

But one of the real kickers, prior to "Badda Bing, Badda Bang," is the debate that occurs in VOY's "The Swarm" (2373) where the Doctor hits his memory capacity and Janeway is seriously debating deleting his memories, essentially destroying his personality and forcing him to start completely over. Kes ended up voicing how unacceptable this was, and an alternate solution was found that, while damaging, at least partially saved his memories.

In "Revulsion" (2374), the issue of the Doctor's gained freedom, versus a sentient hologram who lacks such freedom, comes directly to a head and is the central plot of the episode, and the result of the episode is to establish a greater appreciation in the VOY crew of who the Doctor is, what he does for them, and what he deserves because of all of these. (The hologram in that case had literally been driven mad by being treated as a tool, and snapped and killed the crew of his ship.)

But probably the most flagrant incident occurs during the 5th season. On 11 January, 1999, "Latent Image" airs on Voyager, which again is centered on the Doctor's personhood and rights as a sentient being. The crew decides to tamper with the Doctor's memories because they didn't like the fact that he was suffering an emotional crisis over decisions he had to struggle with. A rousing argument is made, when the memory block fails, about the wrongness of tampering with him and treating him as a machine, because he is in fact a person.

Then on 24 February, "Badda Bing, Badda Bang" airs on DS9, and Sisko is in the position of saying it's OK for Vic to die because of an environment he was programmed into without his control or consent. That's a mere 6 weeks apart.

It's pretty hard to stomach what happens in "Badda Bing, Badda Bang" after the outcome of the episodes above, and other episodes that we know are to come--things that many Trekkies were likely to have seen before turning and watching "Badda Bing, Badda Bang." I'm of the mind that once the sentient hologram can of worms was opened on VOY, it did indeed dictate how DS9's hologram had to be seen. That point can be argued, but the poor continuity was in my opinion a failing of the writers and those who were supposed to have been coordinating between them.



Regarding Vic's outward appearance...I tend to view his outward appearance as a mere shell, whereas the being underneath I tend to perceive him in my imagination as a being of energy and code. "White," "male," and even "human" all fall away in my final perception of who and what he is. He's a nonhumanoid alien to me, in terms of who he really is.


Regarding IRL racial issues...I do want to propose one point for consideration. For example, I know some people have resentments. I recently had the unpleasant incident of watching a nice, innocent NOVA documentary on what looked like a normal Google Videos account only to get to where the credits rolled and discover that some dickhead had edited white supremacists links into the end to give the documentary a totally different message than what was intended.

But I think shame is a powerful thing too, that can make people want to flinch away from the reminders thereof. For older people it can be shame in one's own past sins. For young people it's shame in one's ancestors. I do believe that affects people and lends a contribution to racial dysfunction, not knowing how to handle those feelings.

 

[Vanyel]

As an African American male, I thank you for this.
This is dead on.

As a Hispanic male of Mexican descent, I do oppose the view you praise.

We Mexicans in Texas were here before the American who brought slavery to us. Going further back in time, I hold no hate or contempt of Columbus, the first slave trader in the New World, or the Conquistadors that followed him. I pity them for their greed and disregard for human life.

The lynchings of my people rivaled those of blacks throughout the southwestern United States. And that happened after we became a part of the United States. Land that legally, by treaty, was to remain in the property of those who owned it before Texas became independent of Mexico was taken from them. Those who were able to keep their land lost it when Texas became a state, despite the treaties and guarantees made for the annexation of Texas.

My parents couldn't speak Spanish on school grounds, even outside of class or before or after school without receiving disciplinary action.

We too couldn't use the front door, we too we barred from many places except as janitors. There were signs that said "No dog or Mexicans allowed" on many establishments. Hispanics couldn't vote, my grandparents couldn't vote, and never did because they still feared the repercussions of exorcising their hard fought for right.

I do look back on those times not long removed from me, and do feel not hate but pity for those ignorant people who committed the atrocities.

The only time I do get mad is when people try to reinstate those policies, under different names, and try to make it sound like they are helping us or the country. Things like voter ID here in Texas or the blatant gerrymandering of districts. Arizona's batshit crazy governor and that states laws. The GOP candidates each trying to out do each other by proposing a bigger more dangerous wall along the US Mexico boarder. Those things made me make me mad because it does show the prejudice that is still here in the United States.

But once these things have passed, and they will, I or the children of my nieces on and nephews will see this all as a time of idiocy and pity these people doing these things.

I would gladly and happily go into a holodeck simulation that showed things as they should have been. I would know it's not historically correct, and I'd be okay with that. It's not a whitewash of history, but a playground. A man as smart as Sisko should have realized that.

While I hear what you're saying, do we really have to turn this into my race suffered more or worse than your race did?

Doesn't the Federation determine if you can join based upon if you live up to their standards? Aren't they prejudice toward those that don't?
Picard was prejudice toward Q.
He looked down on Q because Q didn't share human values and never once took the time to even understand the culture of Q.
Wasn't O'Brian prejudice again Cardassian's?
He referred to them by using a racial slur.
Didn't we see prejudice against Odo by the Federation?
There was prejudice against Ferengi
Kirk was prejudice toward Klingons.
So that fact that Sisko isn't exposed to prejudice in the Federation is a farce. Prejudice still exists in the 24th century.

I'm not. I'm just saying mine, like all races, have at one time or another has suffered persecution. It's a fact. But some time you need to let go of the anger and be vigilant to keep it from happening again.

 

[Vanyel]

And in my OP I did state that between humans there was no prejudice. I didn't say anything about prejudice between species. That clearly does exist.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I think it's a little strange if we put things along a timeline. Sisko is upset about something that happened 400 years ago, but has since righted itself.

Is there anything from 400 years ago that has since righted itself that anybody here still gets worked up about? What pisses people off about 1612?

 

[DonIago]

Catholicism? (ducks)

 

[Sci]

We should bear in mind that the fate of the EMH Mark Is, including their use as a source of forced labor by a UFP that didn't realize they were sentient, was not established when "Bada-Bing, Bada-Bang" was written. That arc didn't occur on VOY until after DSN ended its run.

I think it's a little strange if we put things along a timeline. Sisko is upset about something that happened 400 years ago, but has since righted itself.

Is there anything from 400 years ago that has since righted itself that anybody here still gets worked up about? What pisses people off about 1612?

Well, racism, slavery, and the conquest and oppression of Native Americans comes to mind. Those all started about 400 years ago, give or take, and they're still hot-button issues.

 

[Nightdiamond]

That idea seems nice in theory, but in reality, it rarely works that way.

The only way that idea would work, is if 400 years later, there is virtually no trace of the original offence left in that society.

If 400, 200, even 600 years later, it is still doing anything remotely related to the original offence, then right or wrong, people are going to have hard feelings.

In Sisko's case, 100 years after slavery was abolished, black people still wouldn't be allowed inside a fairly ordinary casino, because of their race. Or a lot of places for that matter.

Or share a simple interracial kiss lasting only a few seconds on network TV, without a hail storm of controversy.

Consider, that the in the middle east, there is still anger and strife over things you can arguably link back to over 4,000 years ago.

24th century humans probably look at 20th century America, the same way we look at the 19th century american south. Not too fondly.

I'll be fair to Vic, and say that the program was obviously designed to be friendly to all visitors, but I'd still consider a human's feelings first, then maybe a hologram's survival.

 

[Deckerd]

4,000 years? Huh?

 

[sonak]

I think it's a little strange if we put things along a timeline. Sisko is upset about something that happened 400 years ago, but has since righted itself.

Is there anything from 400 years ago that has since righted itself that anybody here still gets worked up about? What pisses people off about 1612?

why is that weird? From today's perspective, the Atlantic slave trade is far in the past. So were pogroms against Jews in Europe. Or, if you want to go back farther, there are a lot of Muslims who still are resentful about the Crusades. Or how about what was done to American Indians?

Have you seen the activism against celebrating Columbus day? That refers to events over 500 years ago.


Again, I think a lot of the reaction against what Sisko says in that episode is because of fans' discomfort with honest talk about racism, not because it was out of character.

 

[DonIago]

Can't it be both?

 

[Nightdiamond]

4,000 years? Huh?

Well, without taking sides, one action tends to be linked to a previous action, which eventually goes all the way back into ancient times, when one region was conquered by one tribe, and then later, itself conquered by another.

So many different powers and empires with different agendas, which in some way or another leads up to the situations we see today.

 

[Deckerd]

Nowadays, bigotry is taught by adults to children, so we're talking 20-40 years max. Nowadays adults actually understand, given their observational skills aren't impaired, that teaching children bigotry is not considered a Good Thing by Society. Imagine 400 more years of social responsibility and how much any of our shit will mean to those people.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I think it's a little strange if we put things along a timeline. Sisko is upset about something that happened 400 years ago, but has since righted itself.

Is there anything from 400 years ago that has since righted itself that anybody here still gets worked up about? What pisses people off about 1612?

why is that weird? From today's perspective, the Atlantic slave trade is far in the past. So were pogroms against Jews in Europe. Or, if you want to go back farther, there are a lot of Muslims who still are resentful about the Crusades. Or how about what was done to American Indians?

Have you seen the activism against celebrating Columbus day? That refers to events over 500 years ago.


Again, I think a lot of the reaction against what Sisko says in that episode is because of fans' discomfort with honest talk about racism, not because it was out of character.

Would this be more from the extremists and people who aren't as enlightened as the people from utopia Trek?
I mean, Muslims and the crusades, really? As someone who descended from Poland, it's not like I have any problems with Germans nowadays. But when I watch a war movie, I expect Poland to get trounced on, that's what happened! Good or bad, there's been enough time for us to move on, especially our more tolerant generation that is probably getting more tolerant as time goes on. At least, with the educated and enlightened people that will eventually be commanding space stations and starships.

 

[Sci]

^^ Being upset that a work of historical fiction is ignoring historical acts of oppression doesn't mean that you haven't "moved on" or think your culture is still being oppressed. It means that you object to glossing over acts of oppression.

 

[sonak]

I think it's a little strange if we put things along a timeline. Sisko is upset about something that happened 400 years ago, but has since righted itself.

Is there anything from 400 years ago that has since righted itself that anybody here still gets worked up about? What pisses people off about 1612?

why is that weird? From today's perspective, the Atlantic slave trade is far in the past. So were pogroms against Jews in Europe. Or, if you want to go back farther, there are a lot of Muslims who still are resentful about the Crusades. Or how about what was done to American Indians?

Have you seen the activism against celebrating Columbus day? That refers to events over 500 years ago.


Again, I think a lot of the reaction against what Sisko says in that episode is because of fans' discomfort with honest talk about racism, not because it was out of character.

Would this be more from the extremists and people who aren't as enlightened as the people from utopia Trek?
I mean, Muslims and the crusades, really? As someone who descended from Poland, it's not like I have any problems with Germans nowadays. But when I watch a war movie, I expect Poland to get trounced on, that's what happened! Good or bad, there's been enough time for us to move on, especially our more tolerant generation that is probably getting more tolerant as time goes on. At least, with the educated and enlightened people that will eventually be commanding space stations and starships.

you know, it wasn't like Sisko was marching up and down the promenade in a Malcolm X t-shirt and waving "Black Power" signs.

He was expressing his (understandable) annoyance with what was basically a recreational program. I don't know why his reaction is being blown out of proportion to make it seem like he was "obsessed" by race, but sadly this is usually what happens when someone even brings up the issue of race.

 

[exodus]

And in my OP I did state that between humans there was no prejudice. I didn't say anything about prejudice between species. That clearly does exist.

Prejudice is still prejudice.

 

[exodus]

As a Hispanic male of Mexican descent, I do oppose the view you praise.

We Mexicans in Texas were here before the American who brought slavery to us. Going further back in time, I hold no hate or contempt of Columbus, the first slave trader in the New World, or the Conquistadors that followed him. I pity them for their greed and disregard for human life.

The lynchings of my people rivaled those of blacks throughout the southwestern United States. And that happened after we became a part of the United States. Land that legally, by treaty, was to remain in the property of those who owned it before Texas became independent of Mexico was taken from them. Those who were able to keep their land lost it when Texas became a state, despite the treaties and guarantees made for the annexation of Texas.

My parents couldn't speak Spanish on school grounds, even outside of class or before or after school without receiving disciplinary action.

We too couldn't use the front door, we too we barred from many places except as janitors. There were signs that said "No dog or Mexicans allowed" on many establishments. Hispanics couldn't vote, my grandparents couldn't vote, and never did because they still feared the repercussions of exorcising their hard fought for right.

I do look back on those times not long removed from me, and do feel not hate but pity for those ignorant people who committed the atrocities.

The only time I do get mad is when people try to reinstate those policies, under different names, and try to make it sound like they are helping us or the country. Things like voter ID here in Texas or the blatant gerrymandering of districts. Arizona's batshit crazy governor and that states laws. The GOP candidates each trying to out do each other by proposing a bigger more dangerous wall along the US Mexico boarder. Those things made me make me mad because it does show the prejudice that is still here in the United States.

But once these things have passed, and they will, I or the children of my nieces on and nephews will see this all as a time of idiocy and pity these people doing these things.

I would gladly and happily go into a holodeck simulation that showed things as they should have been. I would know it's not historically correct, and I'd be okay with that. It's not a whitewash of history, but a playground. A man as smart as Sisko should have realized that.

While I hear what you're saying, do we really have to turn this into my race suffered more or worse than your race did?

Doesn't the Federation determine if you can join based upon if you live up to their standards? Aren't they prejudice toward those that don't?
Picard was prejudice toward Q.
He looked down on Q because Q didn't share human values and never once took the time to even understand the culture of Q.
Wasn't O'Brian prejudice again Cardassian's?
He referred to them by using a racial slur.
Didn't we see prejudice against Odo by the Federation?
There was prejudice against Ferengi
Kirk was prejudice toward Klingons.
So that fact that Sisko isn't exposed to prejudice in the Federation is a farce. Prejudice still exists in the 24th century.

I'm not. I'm just saying mine, like all races, have at one time or another has suffered persecution. It's a fact. But some time you need to let go of the anger and be vigilant to keep it from happening again.

..but you just acknowledged prejudice of non-humans in Trek exists, so Sisko's prejudice for a holo-program falls within that arena. You can't keep something for happening again if you don't address the source from where it comes from.

 

[Vanyel]

While I hear what you're saying, do we really have to turn this into my race suffered more or worse than your race did?

Doesn't the Federation determine if you can join based upon if you live up to their standards? Aren't they prejudice toward those that don't?
Picard was prejudice toward Q.
He looked down on Q because Q didn't share human values and never once took the time to even understand the culture of Q.
Wasn't O'Brian prejudice again Cardassian's?
He referred to them by using a racial slur.
Didn't we see prejudice against Odo by the Federation?
There was prejudice against Ferengi
Kirk was prejudice toward Klingons.
So that fact that Sisko isn't exposed to prejudice in the Federation is a farce. Prejudice still exists in the 24th century.

I'm not. I'm just saying mine, like all races, have at one time or another has suffered persecution. It's a fact. But some time you need to let go of the anger and be vigilant to keep it from happening again.

..but you just acknowledged prejudice of non-humans in Trek exists, so Sisko's prejudice for a holo-program falls within that arena. You can't keep something for happening again if you don't address the source from where it comes from.

Sisko was ambivalent towards Vic. If he hadn't helped it wouldn't of bothered him one way or the other if they failed or succeeded. His anger was to the era Vic's took place in.

 

[CoveTom]

Or share a simple interracial kiss lasting only a few seconds on network TV, without a hail storm of controversy.

It didn't cause one. Nor did the network object to the first officer being a woman.

But I suppose we've traveled down the debate of those myths too many times here...