The background of the actor should be unimportant. William Shatner is jewish, and nobody thinks twice about him doneing the Nazi uniform in TOS, nor Spock makeing a joke that Kirk “makes a convinceing nazi” ( also a jewish actor) cause it’s not important. As a character, kirk takes the joke light hearted as well.
Dr. Julian Bashir is of Indian decent. For the purposes of this discusion, the actor being British/Sudenese is not relevent. What IS relevent is that he and OBrien portray British Officers during their holodeck reenactment of the blitz because it’s fun. Both characters come from cultures where their people were being treated a LOT worse by the British ( and particurly British officers) than the few blacks in Vegas for 400+ years. BUT Because it’s trek and EVERYONE is suposed to be over all the cultural and racial problems of the real world… neither think anything about playing a scenerio. The characters aren’t saying “I’m not going to pretend to be a valient British Officer and also pretend that everything was hunky dory for my people during this time” Becuase that’s not what Trek humans do. If anything EVERY example in Trek history EXCEPT this one incedence with Sisko says that people are over all this stuff.
My point that I don’t think anyone is getting is this. It’s not how would WE feel if we were Sisko that matters. It’s how does a fictional character raised in the Trek universe feel. Every precedense established before this inncident has said that humans are completely over ALL guilt,sensitivity,shame, concern,interest, and of out cultural and racial differences, injustices, and problems of the past. Humans have gotten over it. Abraham Lincoln calls Uhura a “nigress” on the bridge of the Enterprise and Kirk and her explain that they are over all that, she looks suprised that he even thought that she would be mad… like she’s never heard of being mad over that kinda thing. That’s what Trek is all about. Getting along and being over it.
I am not saying if 20th century ME were transported to the 1701-D and participated in a holodeck of the US civil war, that I wouldn’t want to be on the side of the Confederate raiders. (I was raised here and union soldiers did burn my ancestors home to the ground, and my ancestors weren’t soldiers in the war… but was a Doctor and a teacher). I have reasons why I wouldn’t want to portray a union soldier ( i probly would thou- I am not too hung up on anchient history) . But If I was raised in 24th century Tennesee, and someone wanted me to be in a hollodeck and up portray Union soldiers marching up Misionaty Ridge, I would think that as a character I would jump right in and not think about it… caus ein TREK everyone is over the past.
Sisko’s argument is about as stupid ( in the 24th century trek universe) as a women not wanting to be in a holodeck representation of the old west because women couldn’t vote, or Dr crusher not wanting to play in Picard’s detective program because women were denied abortion rights at that time.
I understand Avery Brooks not likeing it ( althou it’s pretty imature considering the lesson of trek is get over it) but I don’t understand him not complying with the spirit of trek. and the writers and producers should have acted acordingly. Because Sisko set the ONLY precedence in trek where Humans are not 100% over the racial and cultural injustices of their past ( out present).
