ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Did Sisko have a problem with race in "Badda -Bing, Badda-Bang" ?

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Mar. 19 2011, 11:22 pm

Let's face it, we all know Captain Ben Sisko was a stern, leader with strong convictions, as was Avery Brooks the actor who played him who spoke about his Afro American views on the world and his pride about it, we all know Slavery and Civil Rights existed and was abolished and corrected hopefully we learn from the hatred and grew from it, and by the 24th century HOPEFULLY we won't carry negative feelings about it and wear it around our neck, Sisko in the episode "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang" act like he was doing just that, When the 1962 Las vegas holosuite program Vic's place was about to be overrun by the mob, the Ds9 crew Kira, Bashir,Obrien , Nog and Ezri Dax, offer to help Vic get it back, when Sisko's girlfriend Kasidy told him to come along, Sisko immediately gets upset and goes into a "black people was not wanted into Las vegas " speach stating "The civil rights movement was in it's infancy it wasn't an easy time for OUR people", What is Sisko afraid of ? It's a holo fantasy ! sure after a while he decided to join them, but is this how a 24th century man should be talking ?   In the TOS "Savage Curtain" Lieutenant Uhura said "In our century we no longer fear word" when Lincoln called her a charming Negress.. I would think that by the 24th century race in any form wouldn't be an issue, for Sisko to say that shows he have deep buried issues, though its probably how Avery Brooks and writer Ira Steven Behr felt, coming from a man 400 years after the civil rights 1960's, sounds stereotypical and silly, Star Trek is about a brighter future not holding on to negative events of the past , Ben Sisko is a good character, I hope there's more to him than this..Opinions ?    

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Mar. 20 2011, 1:46 am

I honestly think it shows the childish, stubborn side of Ben Sisko... (as with "Take me Out to the Holosuite" as well.) I mean -- racism is nothing to be dismissed and in saying this, I am in no way dismissing it.


But...


As you say, it has been four hundred years, and Sisko is still in such a huff over it that he won't even go into Vics?!?! And really, has he taken a good look at his crew lately? These are no strangers to historical / ancestral, and even recent, race-based discrimination.


I know I've said this before, but imagine if it was Kira listening to Sisko and his hissy-fit, and not Kassidy!! Really. And she has the forbearance to let go of fifty years of recent occupation and attempted genocide on her own world!! If I was Kassidy listening to him in that scene, then Ben Sisko would have ended up with a high-heel boot-shaped imprint right up his bum!!


Now Kira probably wouldn't kick him up the butt because he's her superior officer, but I'll bet you all the Latinum in the Quadrant that she would want to.


He has not experienced any of that in his lifetime. Let's face it. The man comes from a pretty priviledged existence where he has not had to put up with that kind of discrimination himself at all, and his ancestors have not experienced it either for over a century. I mean, shame on him for being such a crybaby compared with Kira and Kassidy. And Jake. And Nog. And Rom...


Need I go on?


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

parrothead117

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 299

Report this Mar. 20 2011, 9:53 am

I appreciated Sisko's comments in that episode.  We have to remember that Star Trek is not really about the 24th century, it's about us, just as TOS was about the 1960s.


Will people in the 24th century still romanticize and fantasize about Vegas in the rat pack years (DS9, Vic's), noir crime films and novels (TNG, Dixon Hill), and 19th century London (TNG, Sherlock Holmes)?  To answer that question, we should stop and ask ourselves whether everyone in our society romanticizes those things.  I know a lot of people who do, but none of them are black, and not many of them are women.  On the holodeck these are fun worlds to pop in and out of precisely because the holodeck does not replicate the dark sides of those time periods.


So I think Sisko's comment was useful.  Star Trek needed to overtly state that yes, we know we're romanticizing time periods in which things were not all fun and games.  Thankfully, in the future, we get to pick and choose what we want from them so that everyone can comfortably participate.  And don't forget, Sisko eventually relents.


"We must strive to be more than we are, Lal. It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal. The effort yields its own rewards." - Data, "The Offspring"

Blinkn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 232

Report this Mar. 20 2011, 10:22 am

 


I agree that the use of "our” people in this Roddenberry utopia does seem somewhat out of place but that was an esoteric 20th century outlook gaffe on the part of the writers, one they're good at making, frequently.


The sentiments of Sisko's monologue don’t bother me when I consider that he is from the North American south where human racism was born, which in contemporary times more than 150 years after slavery and 50 years since the formal “Civil Rights” struggle race continues to be a continuous and evocative issue in America as a whole but especially in the south.  I think it would only dissipate after we admit it is still a part of how we perceive each other, like in Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.


Sisko’s words resonate in our racist ears as problematic perhaps in part because too many of us are unwilling to admit there is still work of any kind to be done.


I want to see a character that isn't labeled as 'gay' have a nice, normal romance with no hint of prejudice, no allegory and no message at all. Just put it there, like it happens all the time and no one gives a damn, which is exactly how it should be. I don't want a story about how no one understands them or how society isn't accepting, just have it happen. ~ SLagonia

Blinkn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 232

Report this Mar. 20 2011, 10:39 am

parrothead117 I couldn't have said it better, you hit it on the head!

toranaprem

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 621

Report this Mar. 20 2011, 3:00 pm

Quote: parrothead117 @ Mar. 20 2011, 9:53 am

>

>I appreciated Sisko's comments in that episode.  We have to remember that Star Trek is not really about the 24th century, it's about us, just as TOS was about the 1960s.

>Will people in the 24th century still romanticize and fantasize about Vegas in the rat pack years (DS9, Vic's), noir crime films and novels (TNG, Dixon Hill), and 19th century London (TNG, Sherlock Holmes)?  To answer that question, we should stop and ask ourselves whether everyone in our society romanticizes those things.  I know a lot of people who do, but none of them are black, and not many of them are women.  On the holodeck these are fun worlds to pop in and out of precisely because the holodeck does not replicate the dark sides of those time periods.

>So I think Sisko's comment was useful.  Star Trek needed to overtly state that yes, we know we're romanticizing time periods in which things were not all fun and games.  Thankfully, in the future, we get to pick and choose what we want from them so that everyone can comfortably participate.  And don't forget, Sisko eventually relents.

>


Beautifully said.


I bristle when people over romanticize and gloss over the ugly aspects of history. I completely understood why Sisko would feel the way he did, even in the 24th century.


Don't expect me to go into a holosuite about ancient Athens as a female-bodied person and not get peeved when nobody wants to acknowledge the rampant misogyny of that culture.


Pretending history was all sweetness and light doesn't do anybody any good. Certainly not the historical record!


"What will they find when I am ripped apart? 'I love you, captain' written on my heart."

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 20 2011, 7:55 pm

it's probably JJ Abram's fault.

iBorg13

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1944

Report this Mar. 20 2011, 8:25 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Mar. 20 2011, 7:55 pm

>

>it's probably JJ Abram's fault.

>


Lololololololololololol!!!!!

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Mar. 21 2011, 1:56 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>if i was sisko i would not have wanted to go there either

>uhura was talking about words and not actions

>


If I was Sisko I would go there, because I know it's only a program where there's no racism, Sisko's fears are misplaced,Uhura was not only talking about words but conducting oneself ans acceptanace, because Lincoln DID offended her buy calling her a charming Negress  

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Mar. 21 2011, 2:27 am

Quote: parrothead117 @ Mar. 20 2011, 9:53 am

>

>I appreciated Sisko's comments in that episode.  We have to remember that Star Trek is not really about the 24th century, it's about us, just as TOS was about the 1960s.

>Will people in the 24th century still romanticize and fantasize about Vegas in the rat pack years (DS9, Vic's), noir crime films and novels (TNG, Dixon Hill), and 19th century London (TNG, Sherlock Holmes)?  To answer that question, we should stop and ask ourselves whether everyone in our society romanticizes those things.  I know a lot of people who do, but none of them are black, and not many of them are women.  On the holodeck these are fun worlds to pop in and out of precisely because the holodeck does not replicate the dark sides of those time periods.

>So I think Sisko's comment was useful.  Star Trek needed to overtly state that yes, we know we're romanticizing time periods in which things were not all fun and games.  Thankfully, in the future, we get to pick and choose what we want from them so that everyone can comfortably participate.  And don't forget, Sisko eventually relents.

>


Look, you miss the point, Star Trek IS about the future NOT the 1960's, it's a time when ALL nationalities  and races work together, do you realize how bold that was to show on TV in the middle of Cilvil Rights and racism ? It's about people, but people who grew out of fear and ignorance..What does Ben Sisko even know about racism ? he carried on like he lived through it, he had a priviledge background a high ranking officer and the "our people" remark was just a racist thing to say, Doctor Bashir is Indian or arab he never had a problem going to Vic's, Obrien is of Irish decent, do we ever hear him crying about how bad the Irish were treated in the 1900's when they came to america ?.. People still romanticize about Vegas, but do NOT FORGET the good things of that time, Sammy Davis Jr open doors for Black people to play there,in the 60's we had Motown and Stax records, alot of African American stars came from that time..Sisko's comments were NOT useful coming from a naval officer 400 After the Civil rights, it  sounds like a man who carries racism inside  himself and the Vic's issue just allow it to burst out,  One of the bad sides of DS9 is that it can carry darl a little too far.  

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 21 2011, 5:12 am

Quote: DammitJim6200 @ Mar. 21 2011, 2:27 am

Quote: parrothead117 @ Mar. 20 2011, 9:53 am

>

>

>I appreciated Sisko's comments in that episode.  We have to remember that Star Trek is not really about the 24th century, it's about us, just as TOS was about the 1960s.

>Will people in the 24th century still romanticize and fantasize about Vegas in the rat pack years (DS9, Vic's), noir crime films and novels (TNG, Dixon Hill), and 19th century London (TNG, Sherlock Holmes)?  To answer that question, we should stop and ask ourselves whether everyone in our society romanticizes those things.  I know a lot of people who do, but none of them are black, and not many of them are women.  On the holodeck these are fun worlds to pop in and out of precisely because the holodeck does not replicate the dark sides of those time periods.

>So I think Sisko's comment was useful.  Star Trek needed to overtly state that yes, we know we're romanticizing time periods in which things were not all fun and games.  Thankfully, in the future, we get to pick and choose what we want from them so that everyone can comfortably participate.  And don't forget, Sisko eventually relents.

>

Look, you miss the point, Star Trek IS about the future NOT the 1960's, it's a time when ALL nationalities  and races work together, do you realize how bold that was to show on TV in the middle of Cilvil Rights and racism ? It's about people, but people who grew out of fear and ignorance..What does Ben Sisko even know about racism ? he carried on like he lived through it, he had a priviledge background a high ranking officer and the "our people" remark was just a racist thing to say, Doctor Bashir is Indian or arab he never had a problem going to Vic's, Obrien is of Irish decent, do we ever hear him crying about how bad the Irish were treated in the 1900's when they came to america ?.. People still romanticize about Vegas, but do NOT FORGET the good things of that time, Sammy Davis Jr open doors for Black people to play there,in the 60's we had Motown and Stax records, alot of African American stars came from that time..Sisko's comments were NOT useful coming from a naval officer 400 After the Civil rights, it  sounds like a man who carries racism inside  himself and the Vic's issue just allow it to burst out,  One of the bad sides of DS9 is that it can carry darl a little too far.  


 


You're just upset that Sisko is a more passionate, human, accomplished leader that Jean-Luc Picard.


Picard was on the Enterprise ferrying dignitaries around, playing Hamlet in the holodeck, and sipping Earl Grey tea in his ready room while Sisko was out leading the war against the Dominion and becoming a god.


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Mar. 21 2011, 7:33 am

Yeah, this topic kinda reminds me of the thread posted a while ago on the Voyager board when someone asked why there had to be a black Vulcan. Why the flip do you care? Seriously, please be honest with yourself that in some way the topic "bothers" you because you think people like me should be over this sh**. Well most of us aren't and there isn't a "get over it" schedule we need to follow for the comfort of others. Avery Brooks was a 20th century actor playing a 24th century fictional character written by 20th century writers. Or do you not realize that ST tackles current and past human issues under the guise of a fictional future?


Oh and, (big secret), blacks and those of African descent are individuals. Really, it's true. So Uhura (who grew up in the African Confederation) may very well have been over it, while Ben Sisko (who grew up in the American South) might still be a bit sensitive. Oh, and we won't even touch the obvious 60's vs. 90's perspective and what could be addressed on TV issues.


And utopia does not equal perfection or amnesia. Race might not have been an issue, but that doesn't mean that Ben Sisko had to FORGET what people like him in the past had to endure.  Nor does it mean that it wouldn't still resonate with him just because his current world was comfortable and privileged.


But seriously, ST is fiction. So if Sisko's comments bother you, please understand that is your issue and not the character's or the writers.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Blinkn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 232

Report this Mar. 21 2011, 9:09 am

parrothead117 and Treknoir I think have the issue sown up!


I think all this comes down to a faluire to think critically about a situation.


 


How would people react to a post... The Occupations over, why can't the Bajorans get over it already. Quit whinning.


I want to see a character that isn't labeled as 'gay' have a nice, normal romance with no hint of prejudice, no allegory and no message at all. Just put it there, like it happens all the time and no one gives a damn, which is exactly how it should be. I don't want a story about how no one understands them or how society isn't accepting, just have it happen. ~ SLagonia

parrothead117

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 299

Report this Mar. 21 2011, 9:12 am

Quote: DammitJim6200 @ Mar. 21 2011, 2:27 am

>

>Look, you miss the point, Star Trek IS about the future NOT the 1960's, it's a time when ALL nationalities  and races work together, do you realize how bold that was to show on TV in the middle of Cilvil Rights and racism ?

>


This is exactly why TOS was about the 1960s.  It was a critique of the 1960s.  Its vision of the future used the 1960s as its reference point.  It sought to show that, in the future, people will have gotten past some of the problems that were then afflicting society.


TOS was overt in its opposition to the Cold War and Vietnam and racism.  DS9 was equally overt in its opposition to racism and its discussion of many other social issues that were current in the 1990s, such as terrorism and the separation of church and state.  Star Trek is a show set in the future, but it is about contemporary society and contemporary debates.


"We must strive to be more than we are, Lal. It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal. The effort yields its own rewards." - Data, "The Offspring"

parrothead117

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 299

Report this Mar. 21 2011, 9:13 am

Quote: Blinkn @ Mar. 21 2011, 9:09 am

>

>How would people react to a post... The Occupations over, why can't the Bajorans get over it already. Quit whinning.

>



LOL!  Nice one.


"We must strive to be more than we are, Lal. It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal. The effort yields its own rewards." - Data, "The Offspring"

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum