Babylon 5 Reviews E

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it is more significant than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.

**Season 2 Episode 6 “A Spider in the Web”** See this for a plot summary.

There is one political aspect that definitely needs to be mentioned and a couple others that are also worth mentioning.

First, an Earth businessman comes to B5 to do some negotiating for a business effort on the Earth colony of Mars. Captain Sheridan is asked by an Earth Senator to spy on him. Their conversation I think is worth quoting in full (at the very least SOME of what was said is important enough to be quoted):

Senator Voudreau: Captain Sheridan.

Sheridan: Senator, what can I do for you?

Senator: Taro Isogi, chief executive of FutureCorp. has arranged a meeting on Babylon 5 with Amanda Carter, a representative of the Mars Provisional Government. Carter is an outspoken advocate of mars independence and we suspect FutureCorp. is conspiring with her to finance another rebellion on Mars Colony.

Sheridan: Do you have any proof?

Senator: We know FutureCorp desperately wants a foot-hold in space. An exclusive trade and services agreement with Mars would give it to them, if they could move the current Mars conglomerate out. Many of the members wanted to pull out after the last rebellion. Another would have them running like river rats.

Sheridan: I understand your concern. But there’s not much I can do about it. I have no authority over corporate negotiations. Babylon 5 is neutral territory. Any race can negotiate here without interference, even our own.

Senator: This is a possible threat to Earth Alliance security Captain and as such we are asking you to check it out. nothing official. just keep an eye peeled and an ear open. and report anything of interest to me.

Sheridan: with all due respect senator my duties as commander of B5 don’t include spying on civilians.

Senator: these are volatile times, Captain. practicalities are more important than principles if lives are to saved. I’ll expect to hear from you soon.


I think this illustrates that the Earth Alliance is imperialist towards Mars, although I believe the conflict and background to the conflict is probably similar to what happened with Britain and the 13 American colonies. It also may be a sign that the Earth Alliance was becoming openly undemocratic after the coup that happened at the end of the first season (that is, they might be behaving less democratically than they were before the coup (that might seem like a stupid statement, but as some readers might not know, the coup took place when the President was killed in an APPARENTLY accidental explosion- it wasn't SEEN  as a coup by hardly anyone, but viewers know that the then-Vice President was responsible)). It seems like security must be spying in some of their investigations, which if done when a judge with very high standards for that sort of thing says they can, would almost definitely be okay with me. In general, and in this specific case, I like what Sheridan has to say about neutrality and civil liberties on B5. The Senator seems willing to spin ridiculous conspiracy theories about Mars if they help Earth retain control of that planet.

There is also some other talk about the cause of Martian independence. The Earth businessman believes that his plans will make Mars self-sufficient and that will lead to independence non-violently. I’m not sure how true that sort of thing is (in reality or on this show). I guess it would make Mars less dependent on Earth, but I haven’t gotten the impression that Earth opposes Martian independence because Mars is not self-suffient (although if the problem is partly about convincing more residents of Mars to support independence, than I guess less economic and developmental dependence on Earth would help). And economic development might possibly make Earth less willing to leave Mars, if that development would mean more tax revenue, for example.

Some relevant facts about the North of Ireland:

1. I read once or twice that one reason the British and Unionists retained Counties Fermanagh and Tyrone when N. Ireland was formed is that a four county statelet wouldn’t be economically viable.

2. On a related note, a lot of people in the 1960s believed that new economic developments in the North would result in equality and a decline in sectarianism but it got worse. Part of what led to that is that the old NI-based and Unionist-owned companies were being replaced by foreign firms who didn’t care what someone’s religion was. Which meant that Protestant workers benefited from discrimination and sectarian attitudes in general less than they used to. They did not take that change lying down.

3. Lastly, some of the government actions of the Unionists in the 1960s (those which were in conflict with the modicum of movement towards equality) involved shifting development away from equality for Catholics. They cut a railroad to Derry; when they wanted to place a new university in the West they choose largely Protestant Coleraine instead of largely Catholic Derry (Coleraine is also pretty close to the East); and when an expert on development suggested a new city in the West they instead developed one just outside the Belfast area.


**Season 2 Episode 9 “The Coming of Shadows”** See this for a plot summary.

When the leader of the Centauri (Emperor Turhan) comes to B5, G’Kar (the Narn Ambassador) tries to get him banned by Sheridan. We hear that the Centauri occupation of Narn (which lasted about 100 years and ended about 15-30 years earlier) involved the strip-mining of the planet and the death of 100,000 Narn (and that may have been just one incident). Sheridan points out that while Turhan’s FATHER was responsible for that occupation, the Emperor was trying to make amends with the Narn. Sherdian seems to understand that what happened to the Narn was horrible, but encouraged G’Kar to start a dialogue with Turhan. When Sheridan refuses to ban the Centauri leader, G’Kar plans to assassinate Turhan. Before he has the chance, the Centauri is taken to the med lab and within hours is dead. G’Kar learns that he came to B5 to apologize to a Narn (specifically G-Kar, a governmental official) for everything his people did to the Narn. Specifically he said: “We were wrong. The hatred between our people can never end until someone is willing to say 'I’m sorry' and try and find a way to make things right again. To atone for our actions.”

In response to a set-back for his political associates in a domestic Centauri political battle, Molari has his allies the Shadows attack and defeat a Narn colony which is subsequently occupied by the Centauris. Right before he learns that the Centauri were responsible for the attack, G’Kar does try some dialogue with Molari. G’Kar forsees another genocidal occupation of Narn planets by the Centauri. The likelihood of it being genocidal is confirmed when the latter initially refuse to allow the civilian population to leave the colony. Molari actually says they’ll be kept busy, and when the Minbari ambassador suggests that means labor camps, Molari actually responds by saying they’ll just be getting re-training! That’s practically an admission that they were planning the creation of labor camps (Molari agrees to let the civilians leave when Earth threatens to send in observers who will investigate what is happening to them and exactly what happened with the initial attack). At roughly the same time, the Narn declare war against the Centauri.

Lastly, there’s one bit of civil liberties when Sheridan expresses alarm at the possibility that his staff eavesdropped on diplomatic communications. I can only imagine how he’d respond to what the American NSA has done.

Even without hindsight knowledge of Turhan’s intentions, I think Sheridan had a good idea encouraging G’Kar to attempt a dialogue with him. Assuming Turhan didn’t believe that the Centauri deserved an apology from the Narn, what he said about reconciliation between the two races was good. At the end, I think that the Narn were not only justified but correct in declaring war on the Centauri- as they explained in G’Kar’s statement, they won’t allow another 100 years of genocide. It’s an even better statement when seen in the context of Molari’s admission that Narn civilians would be used as forced labor.


**Season 2, Episode 10 “GROPOS”** See this for a plot summary.

There are about seven political aspects to this episode. It’s set against the background of an Earth military force waiting on B5 for orders to help one side of an alien civil war.

1. As part of the preparations for the attack, B5 is given a major weapons systems upgrade. Sheridan sees conflict between that and B5 being a place for peace-making. It reminds me of a quote of Einstein’s that you can’t simultaneously prepare for and prevent war. I don’t embrace it whole-heartedly (I’m not a pacifist and believe that as horrible as I’m sure it is, war is sometimes necessary, and/or helpful, and/or justified) but I think there’s a fair amount of truth to it. As I’ve said elsewhere on this blog the “posture” of the US military is sort of saying “don’t fuck with us” to most of the world. The thing is I think in that situation some people will WANT to fuck with us (I know there are other reasons for hostility to the US, but I think that’s part of it).

2. Sheridan learns that Earth is helping one side of the alien civil war so that they can have a presence in that part of space, a part that is strategically close to the front line of the war between the Centauri and the Narn. In an earlier conversation the assault force commander says that with the Narn-Centauri war going on the other alien races will get more aggressive. This seems fairly militaristic on the part of Earth. I also wonder if you could call it racist towards the other alien races that will allegedly get more aggressive because of the Narn and the Centauri. It SOUNDS like it MIGHT be a legitimate concern considering what I’ve seen in movies about bar brawls starting. On the other hand, I believe it’s been established that Earth is xenophobic.

3. We are reminded that B5’s doctor refuses to do exobiology work for the military when what they want are better ways to biologically or genetically wipe out alien life. In fact most of the conversation in which he explains that to his Marine father in this episode is a good example of human racism- from his father. He doesn’t pull any punches when he lets his dad know how offended he is by that.

4. There is a minor hate crime committed by a few Marines against the Minbari ambassador. They harass her for appearing part-human, surround her with her back against a wall and threaten her before another Marine intervenes.

5. The arrival of six large transports for the Marines required the dock workers to work a lot more than usual, and Sheridan has Ivanova arrange for paid time off for them as compensation for their extra work.


**Season 2, Episode 11 “All Alone in the Night”** See this for a plot summary.

There are two political issues here that are basically about the role of the military in politics.

We learn that traditionally the 9-member governing body of the Minbarri is divided between the three castes on Minbar, with the warrior, religious, and worker castes each getting 3 seats. When Delenn is replaced (because they disapprove of the transformation she went through), it is by a member of the warrior caste instead of someone from her own religious caste, thus giving the warriors 4 seats out of nine. She expresses serious concern about this. The new member from the warrior caste argues that since they are the ones who fight the wars, they should have greater representation than the workers or the religious caste.

I certainly don’t think there should be any formal expansion of power that the military have in relationship to government policy. To a large degree I think influence by the military here in the US depends on who the elected civilian leaders are and how THEY feel about the military- do they unquestioningly agree with whatever the military says about foreign policy and war? And for better or worse, the fact is that when vets run for office a certain section of the population give them a few extra points for being vets (and sometimes that involves some votes for PROGRESSIVE, anti-war vets). Although I would love to see free college education for everyone who gets accepted to a college in this country, for now people in the military get a lot of help paying for college. And then there are other things like veterans’ medical benefits, Memorial Day, etc. So it’s not like our society doesn’t recognize, for better or worse, the sacrifices made by service men and women (sometimes for a good cause but usually not (that statement is referring to ALL of the history of the US)).

There was an interesting episode on the TV show “The West Wing” in, I think, the first season. There is a violent incident involving people who are Arab and/or Muslim and might be called terrorists. The President’s personal physician, a Navy doctor, is killed. In the Situation Room the military propose some kind of minimal armed response against a state that might be partly responsible (I think it may have been Syria). The President demands something more aggressive, so the senior military officers leave and then return to the White House with a proposal that would be very bad for the civilian population of part of Syria (much worse than it would have been under their earlier proposal) and get the President to accept the earlier proposal. (I can’t remember if this was before or after the President started acting in line with his very liberal-progressive principles, but in any case it was weird because he had those principles)

The second issue is the existence of people in the military who are either progressives and/or believe very strongly in democracy in the face of some degree of authoritarianism. We learn that since Earth President Santiago was assassinated (the official line is that it was an accident) a resistance has developed in the military and Sheridan is part of it and brings his Executive Officer Ivanova, security chief, and B5’s head doctor into the conspiracy. It’s said that Santiago was a friend of B5, but we also know that he was budget-cutting, xenophobic, and isolationist which might have meant anti-war although I don’t think we can be sure of that (he was also possibly anti-labor). But apparently his replacement is worse- after the Narn-Centuari war starts he is quite ready to get into inter-stellar fights without any apparent progressive ideas guiding that (although I lean heavily towards non-violence, it IS possible for force to be used for progressive goals and as I watch the show I would be less concerned about the new President of Earth if he were guided by progressive values); we can probably assume he is continuing the budget-cutting, that he is probably an opponent of Martian Independence, and that he is xenophobic. As we see in the 3rd and 4th seasons, there is a Civil War on Earth over the legitimacy of Santiago’s successor.

I’m not going to cover more than .001% of this subject, but I think there are progressives in state military organizations (i.e. the US Army). I knew a democratic socialist who joined the military to pay for school. In the mid-1970s a fascist dictatorship in Portugal was overthrown by elements of the military who then gave up power and a democracy was created.

Strategically Comprehensive

In a recent poem I created this rhyming couplet about Sinn Fein and the IRA (if you're not familiar with my poems, I should explain that I almost always write with someone else's voice, not my own)- “We started with defending our areas, now we’re on the offensive/The republican struggle is strategically comprehensive.” (The first line isn’t relevant to this but I think it’s a good rhyme) (it's a reference to the diversity of their tactics and strategy, for more on that keep reading). Not long after that I discussed with a friend in Dublin (who is also a left-wing supporter of Sinn Fein) the calls by some for SF MPs in the British Parliament (now, *7* of them!) to take their seats (the Democratic Unionist Party took 10 and there is one independent unionist). The argument that I read here and there in favor of SF doing it is that, in the context of a conflict over Brexit between most N. Ireland voters and most British voters (including what must be a majority of the Tory party), N. Ireland needs representation from more than one anti-Brexit politician (the DUP are pro-Brexit and the independent Unionist is anti-Brexit). More generally and especially after the DUP used it’s MPs to prop up the Conservative government, the argument is also that N. Ireland needs anti-Tory representation to try and help stop more austerity and other Tory initiatives.

My friend in Dublin felt that abstention should be seen as a tactic and that SF could embarrass the DUP in the state-wide Parliament and reduce the strength of the Tory/DUP arrangement.

Initially I wrote the following:

“I’ve been thinking of SF and abstentionism. My opinion of Devlin-McAliskey is not hurt by the fact that she took her seat, but I’m inclined to go with what SF says about them taking their seats. I mean, clearly their voters seem just fine with that policy. I also wonder, what is behind that policy? Would they see it as recognizing British rule over the Six-Counties? is it that they have [outside the European Parliament] absolutely zero desire to vote on laws that effect the British people the way British politicians [in the Westminster Parliament] pass laws that govern Irish people [in the North]? Also, isn’t there a good chance it would result in another split in SF- not necessarily a tiny one?

I’m open-minded about what you’re saying, but so far I’m more inclined to just back whatever decision they make about it.”

(although I usually read a LOT about N. Ireland current events in the Irish News and the BBC News, I don’t have the money or time to also read more than a few things a month from republican sources of news and opinion and thus am not REAL familiar with the current thinking in SF)

(Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey is described here)

I’ll return to talk of abstention TODAY shortly.

After the 1981 Hunger-Strike which saw prisoner Bobby Sands elected to Westminster, SF started contesting elections in N. Ireland- I believe for the first time since the ’69/’70 split that saw the Provisionals created. This was a major step forward strategically for the Republican Movement (what back then would have been called the Provisional Republican Movement and what are called in more recent decades Sinn Fein and the IRA). I believe that during most of the years 1982-1997 the PRM was doing almost everything they could do to A) put pressure on the British and the Unionists, B) strengthen their movement, and C) help people. (although I wasn’t doing N. Ireland activism at the time, I would have supported the 1994-96 cease-fire by the IRA (the now permanent cease-fire started in 1997))

I’ll be briefly describing (and here and there evaluating) each part of this effort.

Armed Struggle

First, I did some research and some estimating and some math and concluded that only in .3% of their operations did the (P)IRA attempt to kill civilians. A post about that is here. Also, even though SF’s vote was only (on average) 40% of the Nationalist vote this is not the end of the story. There is plenty of evidence that almost the entire nationalist community supported the 1981 Hunger-Strikers (see the middle third of this). There is also evidence that almost no one in the Nationalist community went to the police about crime and instead almost everyone went to the IRA (this is supported by a statement by Eamonn McCann on pages 22-23 of the 1993 edition of his book “War and an Irish Town” and by an article around 2003 in the Irish Times). Most Nationalists who didn’t support the IRA’s campaign nonetheless agreed more or less with the IRA’s goals and wanted Volunteers (IRA members) around- for defense during times of sectarian tension and for when crime HAD to be dealt with violently.

Armed struggle was many things. It was a statement to the world that (independent of  how that statement was made) Republicans and Nationalists in general had serious problems with being ruled by Britain and with the inequality they experienced at the hands of the British and most of their Protestant neighbors. It was a refutation of Thatcher’s “Normalization” policy. The deaths of British soldiers, RUC officers and UDR (a locally recruited British Army unit) members made the news and underlined the occupation as such (and kind of suggested the possibility that if it weren’t for the British Army the IRA could defeat the local security forces and loyalist paramilitaries to such a degree that it would change the attitude of the Unionist population towards (and in) negotiations with their Nationalist neighbors and the Southern state). Those deaths were also aimed at sapping the will of the British to remain in N. Ireland. The bombing campaign in England had similar goals- sapping the will of the British, making the news and occasionally (in ways that RARELY resulted in civilian death) giving the British people some small sense of the terror their Army inflicted on the Nationalist population. Bombing of economic targets specifically in both England and the North was aimed at pressuring the business community into pressuring the British and the Unionists to change their attitude to negotiation with SF (bearing in mind what I write in the next paragraph (with parentheses), some IRA bombs in the North and in England were aimed largely at just disrupting life for people, to hopefully put more pressure on British and Unionist politicians). Armed struggle might have shown the security forces that they couldn’t  brutalize the Nationalist community with impunity.  Attacks on loyalist paramilitaries were relatively infrequent and probably rightly so- I think an argument has been made that they helped the British with their propaganda about being peace-keepers between two mutually hate-filled tribes.

(about 99% of the time that the IRA bombed civilian property the plan was to place the bomb, leave, phone in a warning, the place would be evacuated, and the bomb would go off. About 99% of the time that that was the plan that is what happened)

When I offered .3% as a relatively solid estimate for IRA operations where civilian life was targeted, I was not counting their efforts to help keep loyalist mobs outside Catholic areas and (towards the very beginning of the conflict) their efforts to help keep the security forces outside of some Catholic areas. The former saw them viewed as defenders of the Nationalist community. The latter made the “no-go” areas (especially Free Derry) possible for about two years. Including that stuff would lower it from .3% to something like .2%

As part of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process after the first democratic election in South Africa, the ANC partly justified it’s use of force by saying that by attacking the infrastructure and security forces of the Apartheid state they were encouraging others to resist in other ways- that is, they showed that it was possible to strike at the state oppressing them.

Mass Struggle

Mass Struggle might be defined as the mobilization of large numbers of people for non-violent political conflict where their numbers (not arms or money or political power) are their weapons and public spaces are their battlefields- what we saw with the civil rights movements in both the US and N. Ireland. Marches and rallies around the prisoners issue (roughly 1978-1981) were organized (frequently by members or supporters of the Provisional Republican Movement). In terns of getting people in the street it was a massively successful effort, but when the prisoners struggle was over mass struggle appears to have decreased. The nationalist community broke back down into it’s constituent parts and marched separately or not at all. But SF still did organize marches and rallies and such and some WERE very large. Such actions demonstrate how DEEP a movement’s support is, and can result in helpful confrontations with the security forces, in a way more widely accepted than armed struggle.

Young People Rioting

I don’t know how many of those young people were members or supporters of the PRM but I think this is very relevant to putting pressure on the British. This was closer to being mass struggle than armed struggle was and could have been the result of mass struggle. But it also contained some plusses that were found more with armed struggle. It was probably more likely to get in the news than mass struggle, it could have resulted in serious injuries for the security forces (and often did) and even in the absence of an injury it could have sapped the will of the non-local part of the British Army, who were reminded more deeply than usual that they were unwanted in certain areas. But as it was less lethal than armed struggle and less likely (probably a LOT less likely) to result in civilian deaths caused by nationalists and republicans, it was more acceptable than armed struggle to many people.

Elections

Although I feel safe assuming that the PIRA campaign had the support of about 40% of the nationalist community in the 1970s, it is helpful to be able to point to votes for SF as proof that almost half that community DID support the PIRA’s armed campaign in the years 1982-1997. I believe in both “parliamentary” and “non-parliamentary” methods for creating political change but I, and a LOT of people attach a lot of value to how much popular support underground armies have. Election campaigns also give another chance to interact with voters and with the media and explain a party’s platform. Elected politicians, even those who don’t take their seats, might get more respect and/or a larger audience of (for example) potential converts and and might get more assistance of one sort or another from other politicians or activists, etc. (although less relevant, elections were also contested in the South)

Local Government Battles

SF not only contested local government elections, when elected they took their seats. This resulted in two different kinds of important battles engaged in by SF councilors and activists. First, to gain equality within the council- MANY SF councilors were blocked from access to the chamber, and/or to funding they and their areas were entitled to. Second, battles over issues relevant to local government. For example, around 1990 (according to the 1993 edition of McCann’s “War and an Irish Town” (p. 43)) a SF councilor in Derry led a successful campaign against the building of a toxic waste incinerator outside the city. Lastly, in general I think that sitting on local government councils proved that they were willing to try non-violent democratic engagement with their Unionist political opponents.

Propaganda

Propaganda is often defined neutrally and just means putting out a party’s message. SF did one newspaper during this time. One thing that might be sort of unusual in such situations was the HUGE number of murals in areas that were at least heavily if not mostly republican. Murals about the IRA, murals about international struggle, murals comparing the experience of nationalists to the experiences of people of color elsewhere, murals about community issues like poverty or eating disorders, murals about other topics. (I am almost certain that at least 90% of those murals were commissioned by SF, SF members or SF supporters)


International Solidarity

SF has done a fairly good job of generating international solidarity with them and with the nationalist community in some countries outside Ireland and Great Britain. But as I have explained elsewhere on this blog, in my opinion they are handicapping this work by making their approach in America much more moderate than progressive. (although significantly different, semi-successful efforts were made to mobilize supporters in Britain)

There is one tool that was used against Apartheid and that is being used against Israel that they have not pushed and that is boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against the UK (not UN sanctions of course because of the veto the UK has in the Security Council). SF might have been silent about BDS because they knew that they didn’t have enough support globally to make it work. I go into that in a post here, starting with the paragraph that begins with “Was S. Africa much worse?”


One reason I have done this post is to say that members and supporters of the Republican Movement (and others in the Nationalist community in the North, but I have focused on SF because I support them) have done almost everything they could do to get the British out. Which makes it even more infuriating when I think of how little was done by the Left in western Europe and by the Left in America.


Abstention Today

Going back to abstention in Westminster today, exchanging some emails about it with my Dublin friend got me thinking more about SF taking their seats. I wonder if Westminster could be/should be seen by SF as just another battlefield on which to push the peace process, equality and even Irish Unity. In general it could be a forum to raise those issues. Also, it could help build a broad-based movement of British people supporting the Nationalist community if SF were to consistently vote progressively on things affecting British people like austerity, the environment, etc. (there’s a small mystery for me- the Troops Out Movement, which had good relations with SF, seems to have evaporated??????)

I should say that I believe that what we are talking about here are tactics and strategy but not principles (I have supported the 1997 IRA cease-fire since day one). I believe that the PRM usually did a great job of using them during the conflict and has usually been doing a great job using most of them since the conflict died down and basically ended (I would say around 2005) (with the exception of armed struggle and rioting the others are still being used by members and supporters of SF).

IF SF decide to take their seats, I would not criticize them about that (possibly about some of their votes, but with the exception of abortion I doubt even that would happen).

Babylon 5 Reviews D

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it is more significant than usual. There are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes. I also will probably say nothing about the conflict with the evil race the Shadows- sure, I could say Trump is as evil as they are or compare them to Nazi Germany, but that’s kind of silly (I’m sure there is nothing political about the Shadows, they’re just evil, like the Borg or the Empire). And I might skip most of the stuff about the conflict between B5 and the Earth government- I don’t remember it involving stuff like a strong capitalist agenda or racism or something.


**Season 1 Episode 22 “Chrysalis”** See this for a plot summary.

This episode has two items worth mentioning.

1. During negotiations between the Narn and the centauri (the latter used to occupy the former’s space and planets) the Narn announce they are no longer recognizing the treaty between the two of them because it was signed by them while under duress.

In an online debate about N. Ireland among socialists MANY years ago someone said that the British Prime Minister at the time of the partition of Ireland simply out-negotiated the Irish Republican leader Michael Collins, as if that settled it. During the talks, the British threatened “immediate and terrible” war if the Treaty was not accepted. One of the key issues was the boundaries of N. Ireland. Before the Treaty negotiations the Government of Ireland Act had been passed in 1920 (the Treaty was signed in 1921), dividing the island as it has been since then- the Six Counties of N. Ireland and the 26 Counties of Southern Ireland. A key part of the Treaty was a Boundary Commission (BC) to evaluate and if necessary adjust the border.

The Republicans negotiating the Treaty believed that the BC would transfer large parts of NI to the South, and one source I read said that without those areas (including counties Tyrone and Fermanagh) NI might not be economically viable. In general, it probably would have increased the likelihood of the Treaty being a stepping stone to complete independence for all of Ireland.

Why didn’t this happen? There are about seven small reasons and one big one. First, the BC had a representative from the Southern Ireland gov’t, one from the N. Ireland gov’t, and one, the Chair, from the UK gov’t. The idea that the Chair was somehow neutral is ridiculous. It was two to one and then the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council (a part of the British state) decided that the BC could function with only 2 members. Shortly before the BC reported in 1925, the Southern Ireland representative quit in protest of an ostensible plan to take valuable land from the South and give it to the North in exchange for unimportant strips of land in the North (it’s believed that this was a (successful) ruse intended to force the South to confirm the border as it was in order to avoid losing any territory). In the early 1920s in Belfast and to some degree elsewhere in the North there was a high level of violence against the Nationalist community from both the security forces and other unionists. This may have had an effect on the ability of Nationalists to demonstrate their opposition to the Northern statelet and was used to pressure the IRA to cease activity in the Six Counties- activity that might have highlighted, in the border areas, opposition to that state as the BC was meeting (the beginning of the Civil War in the South may have been more responsible for the end of IRA activity in N. Ireland, but according to Michael Farrell on page 61 of his book “Northern Ireland: The Orange State” the pro-Treaty (pro-compromise) Southern gov’t attacked their political opponents because the British pressured them to stop IRA attacks in the North. This was in exchange for stopping the pogroms in Belfast). In general, the North was turned into an armed camp with about 50,000 locally recruited members of the security forces and 16 battalions of the British Army.

The big reason was the set-up of local gov’t in N. Ireland. In 1920, under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, local gov’t elections were held using proportional representation, something the British put in the law to protect minorities. Out of nearly 80 local gov’t bodies, Nationalists controlled 25, including counties Fermanagh and Tyrone and Derry city. Many of them declared their allegiance to the underground Irish gov’t in Dublin. 14 of these bodies, including Fermanagh and Tyrone, were dissolved and replaced by Unionist-appointed commissions. The N. Ireland law about elections to local gov’t was changed so that PR was done away with and all councilors had to make a declaration of allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. When the new boundaries were drawn without PR, it was done  by a single unionist who invariably accepted unionist submissions (he didn’t do anything with the corporations (i.e. Belfast) or urban councils). The result was that after elections in 1924 (just months before the BC started working) Nationalists controlled only 2 local government bodies. This was partly because in protest of the new boundaries and the required declaration of allegiance many Nationalists boycotted the elections.

As I was refreshing my memory of these facts I decided that here and there you COULD say that the British and/or the unionists, in different negotiations, DID out-negotiate Michael Collins. But that doesn’t change the very serious concerns, then and since then, about the treatment of the Catholic and Nationalist minorities; or the right to national self-determination of the Irish people. Crucially, when the Treaty was signed, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 said there would be proportional representation, and the boundaries for local gov’t elections had been drawn fairly, and there was no requirement for local councilors to declare allegiance to the Crown and the gov’t. If it had been otherwise, the republican negotiators would have addressed it. As it was, it made sense for them to assume that the BC would transfer about 1/4-1/3 of the Six-County population to the South.

2. At the end, the President of Earth is killed by an explosion on his space ship. As we learn later it’s a bomb and basically a coup involving the Vice President, and in the next 3 seasons there are a lot of episodes about it and I think a few have some elements worth mentioning on this blog.


**Season 2 Episode 1 “Points of Departure”** See this for a plot summary.

There are three brief notes to make about this episode:

1. Commander Sinclair is replaced by Captain Sheridan as the commanding officer of B5.
2. We learn that Minbari society is a caste society and is very segregated.
3. We also learn that the Minbari use torture. In the first episode of the first season it was stated that they are honorable in war (there’s also the fact that during almost the entire series, the Minbari are definitely “good guys”). Those two statements are contradictory and I wouldn’t be surprised if the statement about torture might have been a mistake by the writers.

**Season 2 Episode 2 “Revelations”** See this for a plot summary.

There is one political thing in this episode. The Minbari ambassador goes through some kind of transformation and becomes, as far as her outward appearance is concerned, some kind of hybrid of a human and a Minbari. She says that she did it to bridge the gap between the two races (who had gone to war with each other a decade earlier). I’m torn between calling it a little silly and, on the other hand, saying it takes the themes of multiculturalism and conflict resolution further than normal.

**Season 2 Episode 3 “The Geometry of Shadows”** See this for a plot summary.

There is something slightly political that becomes more so towards the very end. One of the alien races that make up the League of Non-Aligned Worlds, the Drazi, create a new government every five years in non-lethal fighting between those Drazi who wear a purple tie-type thing around their neck and those wearing a green one- all Drazi wear either purple or green. They  choose purple or green based on the color of the clothing item that they blindly pull out of a large container- it has nothing to do with caste, class, race, ethnicity, ideology, religion, government policy, etc. In this episode the conflict becomes lethal for the first time ever and at least one of the two sides becomes fairly blood-thirsty. It almost reminds me of two sociology experiments about elementary school or high school students (the one about blue-eyed and brown-eyed kids that actually took place and the one about high-school students and the “Wave” which may have taken place (about fascism)). It also reminds me of the one done at the university level somewhere in California about prison guards.

At one point, as the Executive Officer of B5 is trying to resolve it non-violently, one of the Drazi compares it to the division and conflict on (today’s) Earth that is associated to some degree with flags. As far as armed causes that are symbolized by flags, the vast majority of the time (looking at the past and the very recent past) I would say that most were not worth the bloodshed and destruction. Many were, in one way of another, manifestations of imperialism and/or capitalism (I’m not opposed to those that were fighting AGAINST imperialism and/or capitalism). A good example is World War I. But, at the relatively positive end of the spectrum, the Allied cause in World War II was, overall, a fairly good cause. As I put it in one of my poems, “although the Allied leaders are not consistent/defeating the fascist states is important.” In general I’m very anti-war but I am not a pacifist.

As far as the display of flags, I’m between fairly and very okay with that most of the time. It’s strongly felt by most of the Irish population that the six counties of N. Ireland are part of Ireland in a fairly political or national way, not just in the sense that they’re part of the same island. I have a problem with the British flag being flown there and I wouldn’t hold it against the nationalist population if they flew the Irish flag in their areas all the time. In the 8th note for the poem here, I talk a little about the US flag. I am fine with the display of (for example) the Mexican flag by immigrants and Mexican-Americans in the US.