Sisko's racial rant in Badda-Bing Badda-Bang

[Withers]

Now, let's set the record straight. I think Sisko's attitude was wrong--BUT...I understand why he felt that way. However, regardless of history, it it illogical to hold as guilty those who are not responsible for the sins of history. Vic, and his lounge, is an example.

You expect a judgment to be made based on what he didn't say in direct opposition to what he did say... and that, to me, seems completely unreasonable. In order to be viewed as anything but what it was (a perfectly legitimate reason to not want to participate in a leisure activity) one has to work to contort it. Rather than doing that I choose to accept what I saw and what I heard.

-Withers-​

 

[Myasishchev]

Rush--I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek of course. (Except for the ka in Chekov's name instead of a kha, which is bothersome, although maybe it is a real name after all.) But I did get the feeling that Sisko saw it as a fiction. To take DarkEyes' point, it would at least be dissonant, even if not really uncomfortable, to hang out in a fake nightclub in 1970s South Africa where whites and blacks were hanging out, had the same socioeconomic status, weren't being forced to mining operations.

Plus, there are a billion other valid reasons to hate Vic's, and maybe that was just the one that came to Sisko's mind, and didn't seem as dismissive of his dorky subordinates as the plain truth that these nerds hang out in a fake bar generated inside a real bar.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Rush--I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek of course. (Except for the ka in Chekov's name instead of a kha, which is bothersome, although maybe it is a real name after all.)

Oh, I know. I was just using it to make a point.

But I did get the feeling that Sisko saw it as a fiction. To take DarkEyes' point, it would at least be dissonant, even if not really uncomfortable, to hang out in a fake nightclub in 1970s South Africa where whites and blacks were hanging out, had the same socioeconomic status, weren't being forced to mining operations.

I dunno. I may not be African-American, and thus, I may not really understand.

However...I am part Cherokee. As you know, the Cherokee tribe suffered a great deal under some rather unfortunate policies (to put it mildly) of the US, under Jackson and Van Buren.

I also have a great deal of Irish blood in my veins (which helps explain my occasional flairs of firey temper ). The Irish, of course, have endured quite a bit of strife at the hands of the British.

Nonetheless...none of this would cause me to refuse to enjoy a fictional program set in the days of early America, or in England, during the time periods I mentioned. I would understand, as Kassidy did, that regardless of the opression of the past, I could enjoy the good of that time, without enduring the pain of the bad.

Am I ignoring the Trail of Tears, or the Irish oppresion? Perhaps...but then...perhaps not. That does not make me an "Uncle Tom", any more than Kassidy is.

Plus, there are a billion other valid reasons to hate Vic's, and maybe that was just the one that came to Sisko's mind, and didn't seem as dismissive of his dorky subordinates as the plain truth that these nerds hang out in a fake bar generated inside a real bar.

Perhaps...but the fact that it's what he brought up indicates that it was really on his mind....

 

[Nightdiamond]

Consider how many times comments were made about humanity's distant past that weren't related to race, but were related to other negative things, such as war, greed, selfishness, etc. .

For Example, in Encounter at Far Point, there were comments frequently made about how violent humans were, or how "bad" humans were during the same time period, except, racism was excluded (although implied).

So, why would it be any different to mention race?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Not at all.

He thought Vic was misinformed.

His reaction is no more racist than Picard straightening Data out when he makes a mistake out of a lack of information and/or experience.

Picard didn't make it a point to not go near Data. He went to Data, and discussed the problem with him.

Sisko, on the other hand, did not do the same with Vic.

Knowing Vic, I think he could be approached. I think he'd actually be glad to air out any concerns, given we know how much he cares that those around him are able to feel good about what they're experiencing.

Interestingly, in VOY's "Flesh and Blood," B'Elanna and Kejal end up having the discussion openly. Kejal was created with the appearance and some of the knowledge of a Cardassian, a species B'Elanna had a very, VERY bad firsthand history with. But Kejal made the point to B'Elanna that she's really an alien, and one that's made her own decisions and should be treated accordingly.

I think a Sisko-Vic conversation would go a lot better, though, and could have been very interesting because we'd find out a lot about how Vic sees himself.

I don't think it was a 'rant', and to be blunt, I get tired of this issue being brought up every now and then, usually by white guys, IMO, who really don't like the fact that Avery Brooks/Sisko was too 'uppity' (my word, not any that I've seen from an poster who had problems with this scene, but that's what I think is the problem some people really have with Brooks/Sisko's 'attitude' on this matter or others).

As others pointed out, it was Behr who wrote that; Brooks delivered the lines. How one feels about those lines should not reflect on Avery Brooks one way or the other.

As for my problem, apparently it's very much a minority one--it's simply that I think the writers did not fully consider the implications of Vic's sentience, and what it meant for Sisko to be indifferent to the plight of a living being.

Behr's objective--making it clear that the real 1960s weren't like that--could've been accomplished in many ways that would not have implied coldness towards the life of a rare alien. I think the conversation I suggest above would've been good. Or if not that, maybe even having Sisko say something like that he feels like he needs to hold his nose going into that holographic environment, but if that's what it takes to save this living AI, then so be it.

(And then follow it up with said discussion between Sisko and Vic. I think it would be VERY interesting if Vic knew the history and said he sees it as his purpose to do a far better job than his antecedents did. Perhaps--he is the embodiment of what people were dreaming of back then, when they dreamed of their world transformed. )

He made a personal decision that had no impact on anyone but himself, and he changed that decision after talking to Kasidy.

Well, given that Vic's alive, another sentient being is at stake.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Pavel Chekov, with his stupid misspelled name

Just curious... how should it be spelled?

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Chekhov.

 

[Withers]

As for my problem, apparently it's very much a minority one

Yeah... I don't think there's much support to be had for Vic and being alive. Still, that's got the makings of a thread if you were so inclined. It's certainly a separate issue than the one (or lack of one) being discussed here.

-Withers-​

 

[DevilEyes]

Now...as a side note: Someone brought up Uhura. Again, Lincoln unintentionally slipped and said the N-word. He apologized quickly, but Uhura was not offended. She understood what he meant...and didn't get all worked up over something irrational.

How is that in any way similar to Sisko's criticism of the Las Vegas holodeck program? It's a completely different situation with no similarity whatsoever. In fact, one might say it was an example of the opposite, since it was showing an awareness of history - the word "negro" did not always carry the offensive connotations it has had for the last few decades. It was just a word that was ordinarily used to refer to black people, and it would be silly to get offended just because someone from Lincoln's time used that word, if there was no malicious intent or actual racism behind it. OTOH, one might use the terms that are deemed "politically correct" today, and still say very racist things.

Sisko, on the other hand, was objecting to whitewashing the history, pretending that some things did not happen - which was what he saw in the Las Vegas program - and I don't see how that is "irrational".

 

[Myasishchev]

^Chekhov.

Yep. Two different sounds, with kh representing the voiceless velar fricative, as in "Achilles" or "loch" or (I think) "Noach." I wouldn't be surprised if Russian-Americans had names romanized such, or ultimately if there is a separate Russian name "Chekov," but I've looked and never seen a "Chekov." However, obviously the googling is full of Pavel Andreyoviches, which makes proving the negative even harder.

Edit: although a new technique to exclude P.A. Chekov just occurred to me, and it turns out there are a few "Chekovs." Drat, foiled again by fact.

 

[broberfett]

That has gotta be the most cringe worthy moment on DS9.

Sisko just went into militant black man mode which just didn't fit with Star Treks we are one race...the human race attitude.

Don't know whose bright idea it was to put that in there ,but it was just bad.

Sorry it's supposed to be the far future...the 'our people' attitude should be a thing of the past especially with the uncountable alien races that have come ,and gone though Star Trek.

Is there an easily linkabe clip of the moment?

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Is there an easily linkabe clip of the moment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puBrFifxSSM

SLR

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Actually, iirc Kassidy's reaction was less extreme than my girlfriend's whenever I point out that the hero of her beloved Lord of the Rings films is a feudal bastard who, after helping defeat the reforming force of Sauron, probably goes on to work his serfs half to death and practices droit de seigneur on 13 year olds.

Except for this little detail that most people don't know about:

Droit de seigneur (French pronunciation: [dʀwa d(ə) sɛɲœʀ], "the lord's right", often conflated with the Latin phrase "Jus primae noctis"), is a term now popularly used to describe an alleged legal right allowing the lord of an estate to take the virginity of the estate's virgins. Little or no historical evidence has been unearthed from the Middle Ages to support the idea that it ever actually existed.

Droit de seigneur

Sure, I'm being a stick in the mud when I do that, but I enjoy it.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out how historical or pseudo-historical fiction in general, and specifically historical fiction that you're being cajoled into participating in, is profoundly insensitive to subalterns, even if the socioeconomic conditions of the fictional world no longer exist in your present.

Except when said detail never existed, as I pointed out above, and when you being said stick in the mud is pissing off people trying to enjoy the movie in question.

Regarding that awful Vulcan DS9 episode, Solok was just as dismissive toward Sisko and humans as he was to them. So its not a clear cut example of Sisko beating up on the Vulcans. I didn't care for that episode because I think it slammed the Vulcans and set the stage for ENT to do more of the same, but their behavior was just as antagonistic or more so than was the DS9's crew.

The Vulcans were being DB's-a way of bringing back the same attitude Spock, Sarek and other Vulcans had towards humans in TOS, as well as the same conflicts that resulted from said attitudes. Why? To spice things up in the Star Trek universe from what they were in TNG. And let's face it, those part of TOS in which Spock & McCoy needled each other about Spock's Vulcan-ness were (IMHO) the best-as was 'Take Me Out To The Holosuite'. It's possible you didn't like it because of the baseball angle.

What Sisko said in this episode was right, and had to be said. What episode still rankles me just as much as this one does others is 'Past Tense' in which Behr & Co. had a chance to truly acknowledge the homelessness that Sisko & Co. were seeing in 2024 San Francisco and said nothing other than a few silly homilies about America's problems becoming too big to handle, instead of saying that certain domestic right wing neoconservative policies and a certain international one were the real causes of the Sanctuary Districts being built-that and also 50 years of the media telling Americans that these policies actually worked, when they didn't. To sum it up; Why be honest about a past injustice in 'Badda-Bing, Badda-Boom' and not be just as honest in 'Past Tense'?

 

[Hober Mallow]

I'm sorry, but this thread is fuckin' hilarious....

This.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Been a while since I've seen the episode, but I think Sisko is upset with "Vic's" and not Vic.

 

[Sci]

That has gotta be the most cringe worthy moment on DS9.

Sisko just went into militant black man mode which just didn't fit with Star Treks we are one race...the human race attitude.

Don't know whose bright idea it was to put that in there ,but it was just bad.

Sorry it's supposed to be the far future...the 'our people' attitude should be a thing of the past especially with the uncountable alien races that have come ,and gone though Star Trek.

It's amazing how threatened some people can be over the idea of African-Americans retaining a unique cultural identity alongside other unified pan-Human identities -- or how that can blind them to a legitimate point, that it is somewhat dishonest to portray American establishments of the early 1960s as racially egalitarian when they were not.

ETA:

Rush, you're completely mis-contextualizing Sisko's argument.

Sisko was in no way holding Vic, as a person, responsible for the actions of white Americans of the 20th Century. Sisko, frankly, wasn't even addressing Vic as a person.

Rather, Sisko was holding up the overall representation of 1960s Los Vegas up as an example of a dishonest portrayal of history. It is implicit in this that he holds the program's creator, Felix, responsible for lying about history. Sisko's argument is not that Vic is in any way responsible for racial oppression; Sisko's argument is that the fictional holographic program of 1960s Las Vegas is dishonest and should therefore not be supported.

And, yes, Sisko comes around and eventually agrees with Kassidy's argument that one need not view the overall program as having an obligation to be historically accurate and can, in fact, view it as a representation of how the past should have been, a means of preserving the good parts of that past in their modern lives without preserving the bad parts.

It is completely inaccurate to claim that Sisko is holding Vic personally responsible for anything; Sisko isn't even addressing the question of Vic, as a person, he's addressing the fictional environment in which Vic lives.

 

[Myasishchev]

Actually, iirc Kassidy's reaction was less extreme than my girlfriend's whenever I point out that the hero of her beloved Lord of the Rings films is a feudal bastard who, after helping defeat the reforming force of Sauron, probably goes on to work his serfs half to death and practices droit de seigneur on 13 year olds.

Except for this little detail that most people don't know about:

Droit de seigneur (French pronunciation: [dʀwa d(ə) sɛɲœʀ], "the lord's right", often conflated with the Latin phrase "Jus primae noctis"), is a term now popularly used to describe an alleged legal right allowing the lord of an estate to take the virginity of the estate's virgins. Little or no historical evidence has been unearthed from the Middle Ages to support the idea that it ever actually existed.

Droit de seigneur

Yes. I even looked up the wikipedia article because I couldn't remember how to spell it. : /

Sure, I'm being a stick in the mud when I do that, but I enjoy it.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out how historical or pseudo-historical fiction in general, and specifically historical fiction that you're being cajoled into participating in, is profoundly insensitive to subalterns, even if the socioeconomic conditions of the fictional world no longer exist in your present.

Except when said detail never existed, as I pointed out above, and when you being said stick in the mud is pissing off people trying to enjoy the movie in question.

Okay, but the serfs thing is probably true. I suppose hyperbole might not have been the proper measure to take, since the discussion boils down to historical fact, and droit de seigneur is unlikely to have existed in widespread practice, if at all.

All right, how about Don Bluth's Anastasia, another favorite of my girlfriend, and a movie I happen to actually like regardless, but which I find distasteful in many ways--principally in how it pretends World War I wasn't happening, that Nikolay II was not wilfully and ineptly leading his country to the breaking point (AGAIN) and personally directing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his subjects for no particular reason, that Rasputin was in league with the devil, and that Russia was a sweet place to live before the Bolsheviks (unaccountably) came to power.

(Also, of course, Anastasiya Romanova was unfortunately spending her days in an unmarked grave outside Yekaterinburg by the timeframe of the film, but that inaccuracy isn't offensive, per se, unless mining the brutal death of an innocent, seventeen year-old girl for a children's entertainment is offensive, which I suppose kind of is. I wonder if Don Bluth ever considered an Anne Frank project with a wacky, talking, Nazi bat.)

 

[Deckerd]

In 24th century, definitely. But to pretend that it wouldn't have mattered in the 1950s or 1960s would be both stupid and dishonest.

Guess what? It wasn't the 1960s when the show was made and it wasn't set in the 1960s. The fact they had to drag in something so completely irrelevant to either setting is what's really preposterous. As I said here, sex or race should not be comment worthy in a 21st century television show. Nor should sexual orientation. We should at least aspire to that in our entertainment if not, so depressingly, on this messageboard.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

All right, how about Don Bluth's Anastasia, another favorite of my girlfriend, and a movie I happen to actually like regardless, but which I find distasteful in many ways--principally in how it pretends World War I wasn't happening, that Nikolas II was not wilfully and ineptly leading his country to the breaking point, that Rasputin was in league with the devil, and that Russia was a sweet place to live before the Bolsheviks (unaccountably) came to power.

(Also, of course, Anastasia Romanova was unfortunately spending her days in an unmarked grave outside Yekaterinburg by the timeframe of the film, but that inaccuracy isn't offensive, per se, unless mining the brutal death of an innocent, seventeen year-old girl for a children's entertainment is offensive, which I suppose kind of is. I wonder if Don Bluth ever considered an Anne Frank project with a wacky, talking, Nazi bat.)

No problem with your hatred of that movie, I hate it too, and I also hate Nicholas and Alexandra as well, for making people believe that these two were great people when in fact they were incompetent morons whose carrying on wrecked the Russian state and brought about all of the calamities that lay ahead.

 

[DevilEyes]

In 24th century, definitely. But to pretend that it wouldn't have mattered in the 1950s or 1960s would be both stupid and dishonest.

Guess what? It wasn't the 1960s when the show was made and it wasn't set in the 1960s. The fact they had to drag in something so completely irrelevant to either setting is what's really preposterous.

We should aspire to completely forget history (even the very recent one)? It is completely irrelevant?

"Yes, kids, our society is wonderful and it always was so. Racial and gender equality always existed. Fact."

As I said here, sex or race should not be comment worthy in a 21st century television show. Nor should sexual orientation. We should at least aspire to that in our entertainment if not, so depressingly, on this messageboard.

So you want your entertainment to be completely escapist?

Or are you claiming that race, sex, and sexual orientation, are not an issue in the real world today (except on those pesky messageboards)?

I can only say this to you: get your head out of the sand.