Madner Kami wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:27 am
Pay attention how there is bascially only one episode at all, where Sisko being black is made a theme and it's the one episode where he switches positions with Benny Russel, the novel writer in 1950s' New York.
Incidentally this is also how you write a good black character: You do not draw attention to his skin and treat him like every other human character in your play. This creates true equality. His skin-colour just did not fucking matter, as it should.
Because drawing attention to our differences dehumanizes them? I'm guessing you Don't See Color?
There are other episodes where his race is a part of it. Think about how many times his New Orleans heritage plays into, not major arcs, but minor things with the cooking. Also there was the Save Vick Fontaine episode where his girlfriend brings up racism of the past.
There aren't many episodes where racial predjudice against black men becomes relevant, it is true, but you don't need to sweep a character's race under the carpet like it's something dirty.
When people say they don't see colour, they are not saying "help me I'm blind" they are saying "I don't give a shit what colour you are, I am going to treat you like I do everyone else."
The word for that is equality btw.
It's certainly what they think they are saying. In actuality, it means "if I notice bad things disproportionately affecting black and brown people, I'll call you racist for drawing attention to it."
No, it's as Clearspira describes (here at least). If someone chooses to disregard issues that certain peoples face then it starts to become neglect. Going so far as to cite double standards and reverse racism is a bit further.
Color Blindness as is in general is considered passively racist, but not for treating people equally as is put.
There are plenty of occasions where casting someone of a specific race or gender is necessary or at least preferable. "Diversity" or "representation" that flies in the face of history and common sense risks being insulting (more often mildly, sometimes greatly) to all parties.
Women defending Russia from the German invasion in WW2- good to show and historically accurate. Women storming the beaches of Normandy- stupid pandering that would just piss people off
A squad of the modern U.S. army that contains a woman or two- possible, and fine
A squad of the modern U.S. army made up entirely of women- not impossible, but highly improbable demographically, and unless you have a really specific plot reason it's an almost surefire distraction from whatever your story actually is. Also pandering.
With Star Trek and a lot of other futuristic sci-fi, or superhero stuff, you don't have to deal with those factors. A female Sisko, a Hispanic Sisko, an alien Sisko, all that is possible.
I don't know whether they specifically pursued a black actor to play Sisko, but it wouldn't bother me if they did. Sisko's race makes no difference to me, and makes little to no difference in the Star Trek universe (outside an episode or two). But there are people in the real world who might be inspired by a black lead in Star Trek, the same way that so many were inspired by Uhura decades earlier. So why not try to make a difference in people's lives and allow an underrepresented group to see a positive, strong character in a leadership position?
IIRC the role was not initially going to be any race. Hell, in various materials I've read possible actors included James Earl Jones, Edward James Olmos, and Richard Dean Anderson. They ultimately picked Avery Brooks who was best known at the time for his role as Hawk in the Robert Ulrich series "Spenser For Hire" (and a short-lived spinoff "A Man Called Hawk" about his character).
(Also, you may now imagine Sisko played like Darth Vader, Bill Adama, or Colonel Jack O'Neill.)
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia
Administrator of SFD, Former Spacebattles Super-Mod, Veteran Chatnik. And multiverse crossover-loving writer, of course!
Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:45 am
Here's one thing I note about the anti-SJW crowd. They think trying to change the language means "censorship," but honestly... no one is stopping you from saying what you want. We're just trying to get you to realize the deeper implication of what our words as a society means.
Just clarify for me. What do you mean by change the language? And can you give an example of it being labelled as censorship? And I wish to stress I am not trying to refute your statement, but understand it.
Yukaphile wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:45 am
Here's one thing I note about the anti-SJW crowd. They think trying to change the language means "censorship," but honestly... no one is stopping you from saying what you want. We're just trying to get you to realize the deeper implication of what our words as a society means.
Madner Kami wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:27 am
Pay attention how there is bascially only one episode at all, where Sisko being black is made a theme and it's the one episode where he switches positions with Benny Russel, the novel writer in 1950s' New York.
Incidentally this is also how you write a good black character: You do not draw attention to his skin and treat him like every other human character in your play. This creates true equality. His skin-colour just did not fucking matter, as it should.
Because drawing attention to our differences dehumanizes them? I'm guessing you Don't See Color?
There are other episodes where his race is a part of it. Think about how many times his New Orleans heritage plays into, not major arcs, but minor things with the cooking. Also there was the Save Vick Fontaine episode where his girlfriend brings up racism of the past.
There aren't many episodes where racial predjudice against black men becomes relevant, it is true, but you don't need to sweep a character's race under the carpet like it's something dirty.
When people say they don't see colour, they are not saying "help me I'm blind" they are saying "I don't give a shit what colour you are, I am going to treat you like I do everyone else."
The word for that is equality btw.
It's certainly what they think they are saying. In actuality, it means "if I notice bad things disproportionately affecting black and brown people, I'll call you racist for drawing attention to it."
Changing "mankind" to "humanity." This is one area I do agree with, though I know many anti-SJWs who hate it, but the quality of our thoughts and concepts can only be as good as the quality of our ideas, and we do think in language. Or changing "chairman" to "chairperson" or "spokesman" to "spokesperson." I think you're crossing the line when you wanna change that thing in the middle of the street to a personhole cover, though.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Yukaphile wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:10 pm
Changing "mankind" to "humanity." This is one area I do agree with, though I know many anti-SJWs who hate it, but the quality of our thoughts and concepts can only be as good as the quality of our ideas, and we do think in language. Or changing "chairman" to "chairperson" or "spokesman" to "spokesperson." I think you're crossing the line when you wanna change that thing in the middle of the street to a personhole cover, though.
Wasn't it Human kind originally though? It was abbreviated to mankind. Now to minimalize 'man' we go back to human. And I have heard some gripe on 'man' in human.
But I do agree salesperson, chairperson, policeperson. Are getting a bit annoying.
No, I was saying I want stuff like "chairman" changed to "chairperson."
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
