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.

American Democracy

On 6/13/17 I made some significant changes to some of this.

First, let me address something. I know sometimes when people talk about making America more democratic, some people, either because they're anal, or because they oppose making America more democratic, respond by pointing out that America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Although I consider myself some kind of amateur political scientist (about 1/5-1/4 of my degree, Ethnic Studies, could be taught in a PSCI course and I took 4 PSCI courses outside ETHN) I struggle a little with this. When I looked at it recently and asked several very political people I know, I found different definitions for “republic” and different definitions for “democracy.” It was so mixed that I am not sure which definitions are right. I lean a bit towards defining a republic as a democratic or undemocratic state which, critically, has no monarch. Also, I’m tempted to tell the “we’re a republic not a democracy” people I’ll take them seriously about it when they convince more than 1% of America’s elected politicians to stop calling it a democracy. You can label my writing below a call for a more democratic republic, or a call to strengthen our democracy, or something like that. I think most people will see that the problems I’m briefly addressing in this post are in conflict with democratic and/or republican values. If I could remember what my PSCI professors had said 20 years ago about this, I might just go with that, but I can’t remember what they said, so I’m just going to go with what I have written above.

(I'm talking about POLITICAL democracy- don't get me started about America's democratic deficit economically (capitalism) or sociologically (i.e. white cops getting away with it when they murder unarmed Black men) which is much worse than the problems with our democracy in a political sense)

How do we make America more democratic? There are several ways. To varying degrees I’ll describe them below. And I'll be honest- although I'd support greater democracy anyway, there's reason to believe that what I'm proposing would benefit the liberal/progressive/left side of politics.


1. Proportional Representation. Although I prefer the form where there are many districts with something like 3-5 members elected from each, and I also prefer Single Transferable Vote (you rank the candidates based on your preference and your vote is transferred depending on how each candidate does at each stage of the counting), it'd be great to see some kind of PR for one part of the Congress.

2. Let felons vote. Although there's probably tons of people in correctional institutions who shouldn't be there, I'm willing to concede that some small majority of them probably should. But their punishment is that they lose their freedom, they don't lose their citizenship. Also, it's not insignificant that felons barred from voting are disproportionately people of color. At the same time, they're counted in census counts that shape congressional districts. Under slavery, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for this purpose. Now it's 100% and they still can't vote. Also, to some small degree, since a lot of these institutions are in rural areas, it may mean more mostly rural ( and probably conservative) districts.

3. Instant run-off voting for President. I wouldn't say this is the most important. I kind of feel that 3rd parties like the Greens should just ignore the Presidential race and focus on races they have some chance of winning (I might later on post my thoughts on progressive 3rd party electoral stuff), but the fact is they aren't going to ignore it and will continue to act as potential or actual spoilers. IRV will allow them to vote their conscience without throwing away their vote.

4. Statehood for DC. The residents of Washington DC, a mostly non-white city don't have a voting member of the House and have no one at all in the Senate. The population of DC is bigger than that of Wyoming. They should have a voting member of the House and two senators. It’s basically “taxation without representation.”


5. There's probably a bunch of things relevant to this that I'm going to skip (i.e. shortening the work week so people have more time for activism/civic involvement, taking money out of politics, etc.); The last item, and in fact the one that prompted me to write this in the first place, is about the Senate.

(UPDATE 6/10/09 The stuff about how the process of amending the constitution works, and the general population and racial demographic figures come from Wikipedia)

Our Senate is ridiculously undemocratic. Each state has the same representation regardless of how big or small they are (population-wise). To look at the extremes, Wyoming and California, if you take 2 and divide it by the number of either eligible voters or the number of citizens in each state, it means that the tiny fraction of a vote that you could say each Californian has in the Senate is MUCH tinier than the one that you could say people in Wyoming have. This is wrong. Also however you define "small" (as long as they have less than 10 congressional districts) the small states are mostly conservative. Even if that changes, it would still be undemocratic, and it's not likely to change.

The reform should be that each Senator gets a number of votes based on how many seats in the House their state is entitled to.

I have had some trouble coming up with a perfect way of convincing even the least willing to concede defeat when it comes to how undemocratic the current set up is. What I wrote above about CA and WY might work, and another possibility is to describe a hypothetical situation where the American President is directly elected by the people, but the people in Wyoming get something like 60 votes and the people in California get 1 vote. It's not a solid analogy, but the Senate is roughly as powerful as the President, which strengthens this argument. Lastly, it might make sense to say that if you take the population of Wyoming and divide by two you get a certain number and if you do the same thing with CA, you get a number about 55-60 times bigger- then ask what they would think if in one state, there was a congressional district for every X # of people and in another state, there was one for every 55X # of people (for some reason I can’t be sure, but I believe that could described as one state having more representation per capita). Also, it occurred to me that, not only are the people in the smaller states likely to be conservative, they're VERY likely to be white (depending on how you look at it it’s kind of close, but when considering this, if you give a lot of weight to CA with it's huge population, and also to the really small, really white states, this is a significant problem)..


On a related note, something should be done about the Electoral College. I'm not sure if we should get rid of it, but at the very least it should be reformed so that it eliminates the 2 votes each state gets from having two senators. UPDATE 10/13/20 I just did a post about the EC. It's here.

 

UPDATE 3/6/21 I am going to offer some ideas for how to accomplish this. Obviously getting Senators and representatives from small states to vote in favor of it will be difficult, and then the same sort of thing will happen getting 3/4 of the states to ratify it. I think you start by creating a coalition at the national level with state and local sub-groups. As you’re building the coalition, you start talking about the unfairness of the current set-up and then you start doing polls about the subject in CA, NY, TX and many of the other states that have at least 10 congressional districts. You release the results of these polls, you demonstrate support through marches and rallies, etc. At that point you have the appropriate documents for a constitutional amendment submitted in the House and the Senate. At some point you need to internationalize the campaign and explain to the world how unfair the current set up is. In order to get politicians from and in small states to vote in favor of this, you’ll have to get NGOs in other countries to pressure corporations based in those countries to threaten to boycott any state and/or congressional district whose politicians vote against the amendment. To a lesser degree you could probably put enough pressure on some AMERICAN companies to do the same thing. 

 

UPDATE 5/25/21 The person behind the site I link to below thinks that we should just abolish the Senate. Although I think we need to reform and keep it (the House can't take on the extra work of confirming presidential appointees (i.e. cabinet members, etc.) considering that there's a lot of them and they all want some time speaking for the cameras and it's part of the checks and balances) abolishing it is preferable to the status quo. 

UPDATE 6/1/21 I just thought of something that makes reforming the Senate a better idea than abolishing it. For the foreseeable future the odds are very high that a reformed senate will have a Dem majority (a majority of the votes will be controlled by Dems) and that can block legislation from the House when it's occassionally controlled by the GOP.

UPDATE 6/24/22 I just thought of another good point to make in favor of reforming or abolishing the Senate to address the undemocratic way it works. State Senates (that is the upper chamber of every American state legislature with the exception of Nebraska which is unicameral) don't use counties the way the US Senate uses the states- State Senate districts aren't two for each county, and they don't give each county the same number of seats in the State Senate. Why do that sort of thing at the national level when we don't do it at the state level? No one says that the less populous counties need protection from the more populous counties (some State Senate districts are made up of multiple counties and some counties have more than one State Senate district). Why is it seen as important for democracy to protect the less populous STATES from being out-voted by the more populous STATES?

********

UPDATE 5/25/21 There's a large site with some good stuff about this issue- making America more democratic here. I don't agree with all of it completely.