Star Trek: SNW Reviews E

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“A Quality of Mercy” Episode Ten, Season One. See this for a plot summary.

This episode has four main political themes that I’ll briefly discuss.

First, it touches on the issue of genetic engineering, which I discussed here, in relation to the LEADERSHIP of StarFleet going after Pike’s second-in-command for being engineered.

War (General)

Second, the issue of war and paranoia and bigotry. Although it’s suggested that had Pike acted a little less like a StarFleet Captain and more like an officer of the US military, it would have prevented war, I don’t think that means the writers, producers, etc. are veering off to the right. The tendency in a Cold War-type context to say “we can’t trust them” (referring to the enemy) is well-illustrated and Pike’s response to that sort of thing is admirable. Especially when you consider that in the possible future he experiences, his attempt at peace-making probably would have gone somewhere if the Romulan ship’s second-in-command hadn’t violated a direct order from his peace-sympathizing superior. To a large degree you also can’t hold it against Pike that that Romulan ship, whose Captain had potential to promote peace, was destroyed as an example to others on the orders of the Romulan Praetor.

We also see some racist hostility towards Spock when it’s learned that Vulcans and Romulans look almost exactly the same. As it’s in the possible future, we probably won’t see it again (especially since that discovery takes place about 8 years later in The Original Series).

Anti-Muslim Bigotry

In the very last paragraph of a SNW review here I wrote about something that puzzlingly comes up in episode 10. In episode three Pike reads five names- people important to his future. One of them is, I THINK, a Muslim name (Google AI sort of confirmed that for me), but now, in episode 10, another name, taken from Pike’s knowledge of his future, is mentioned but wasn’t mentioned in Episode three. That name is, I am almost certain, a Muslim name- Maat Al-Salah. Even if it’s not a reference to a SECOND Islamic-named character prominent in Pike’s future and ST just decided to re-name that character, it is a second mention of a StarFleet cadet whose ancestors were almost certainly Muslims. Also, Maat’s father is a StarFleet officer.

The Palestinain-Israeli Peace Process is Over

I just sort of stumbled onto a news story about something I had been largely ignoring for about 2 months. The Peace Process between Israel and the Palestinians is over. Read this. I have done two important posts about this issue. One is about how the term "Apartheid" is an appropriate description of how Israel treats the Palestinians, and one is an argument against zionism.

A good source of information about the conflict is here. For a more frequently updated and relatively neutral source, see The Times of Israel.

Tom

Anti-Zionism Is No More Anti-Semitic Than Irish Republicanism Is Anti-Protestant

I have always been a supporter of the Palestinians. Well, in Junior High, to whatever tiny degree I was political and politically educated, I guess you could say I was a neo-conservative and I drew Israeli flags on my my notebooks, etc. But since I started becoming more educated and progressive and active, in High School, I have been a supporter of the Palestinians. On this blog, as I simultaneously go to great lengths to oppose anti-Semitism (the best examples are here and here, but all my posts that are partly or totally about anti-semitism are here), I have also referred to Israeli Apartheid, as a way to describe how the Jewish State treats it’s Palestinian citizens and, more so, how it treats the Palestinians in the West Bank (I haven’t said much about Gaza but it is horrible what is happening there and it also involves the fact that the Palestinians are stateless and there is bigotry towards Arabs). But I have not really said much critical about Zionism.

In this post I will argue that Zionism was not justified, or a good idea, and has been a disaster., and that a one state solution is a better idea than a two state solution.

UPDATE 10/1/23 The next paragraph is a response to something I read from a fairly good source of information- the idea that critics of Israel, if they aren't anti-Semitic, must recognize the Jewish population's right to self-determination.

The Jewish people in general don’t have a right to self-determination. They are not a nation. Religious groups don't have a right to self-determination (Catholics globally and in Ireland don't). In America (and I think social scientists and/or Jews in other countries would agree) being Jewish is a religious and/or ethnic identity and ethnic groups don't have a right to self-determination (Irish-Americans don't have a right to self-determination). Even with a large concentration in Israel, Jews are mostly a diaspora, and that was even more true in 1948. The Irish diaspora does not have a right to self-determination. The Irish on that island do, but not the diaspora. Since many people use the term “bi-national” when describing a one state solution to the conflict, I use the term that way twice in this post. Some would say I’m saying that the Jews are a nation. On one hand, the Jewish people of ISRAEL might be a nation, but some people including some Irish republicans would say that N. Ireland Unionists are a nation, and IF they have a right to national self-determination, as a settler population, it is inferior to that of the indigenous Irish (although this is complicated because there are some Unionists who are Catholic and some of those are technically indigenous, it is a lot more accurate to say Unionists are an ethnic group that could be called British-Irish) (IF European-Americans have a right to self-determination, it is trumped by that of American Indians). So, the Jewish-Israeli population might have a right to self-determination, but it is trumped by the right to self-determination of the 100% indigenous population of Palestinians (almost the entire Jewish-Israeli ethnic group are settlers or the descendants of settlers). IF (and it might be a huge if) anyone says that the Jews are a race and therefore they have a right to self-determination, here's my response: A) No, races don't have a right to self-determination (does the white race have a right to self-determination?); B) The Nazis certainly thought Jews were a race, and C) are such hypothetical supporters of Israel saying that Israel is a racial state?

The Jewish population dispersed from the Holy Land almost two millenia ago. Yes, some remained, but the idea that they could reserve the entire area for all the descendants (two millennia later) of those who left is ridiculous. MANY Irish Catholics left Ireland and although some of their descendants can become Irish citizens, the VAST majority cannot. And that includes the descendants of that VAST majority of the emigres who left as result of British and Unionist policy in Ireland. Let me focus on the area currently called Northern Ireland. For centuries there’s always been a large minority of the population that identify as Catholic and/or Irish. No one says that all the descendants of the emigres can come back.

Some would point to the Holocaust as a relevant difference, and that’s not totally irrelevant. I’m not saying I deserve an award from the Anti-Defamation League for this, but there is a fair amount of material on my blog about the Holocaust, here. Although I have mixed feelings about criminalizing Holocaust Denial because I am opposed to censorship, I believe an argument can be made that Holocaust Denial breaches international law on genocide, and I don’t oppose criminalizing it. At least half, maybe 2/3, of Europe’s Jewish population was killed intentionally and efficiently by a regime that meant to exterminate the entire population and that fought to the death and was only defeated after a MASSIVE military effort that included what you might say were at the time three of the world’s super-powers (the US, the USSR, and the UK). As I have written elsewhere, genocide is the cultural equivalent of a species going extinct. And of course there is the background of widespread global anti-Semitism before Nazi Germany, and the refusal of most, maybe all countries to take in more than a handful of refugees during the Nazi era in Germany.

On the other hand, here’s what the Irish went through that comes sort of close. Although this is roughly equivalent to what Hitler did with the work camps in the early years of the Holocaust, Cromwell (in the 1600s) sent tens of thousands of Irish people to the Caribbean as some kind of cross between indentured servants and slaves. They had no choice and worked under slave-like conditions until they earned their freedom or died (many or MOST died) (they usually lasted about 3-7 years). During the Famine, 10-15% of the population died and 10-15% of the population would have died if they hadn’t emigrated. This was concentrated in the South and West of Ireland where there very few settlers- if you ignore the settlers and their descendents, it was probably closer to 15-20% and 15-20% of the population. Why did a potato blight result in something close to genocide? First, the indigenous Catholic population was still recovering from about 1.5 centuries of political and legal disempowerment that occurred because of the Penal Laws which denied them most of the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants (it varied from right to right). “Catholic Emancipation” was only made about 90% complete about 15 years earlier. Because of this and general poverty, the indigenous population was largely dependent on land owned by land lords and the potato crop. For about 45 years before the Famine and during the Famine, Ireland didn’t have a devolved parliament, they were completely ruled from London. Crucially, during the Famine, MASSIVE amounts of food were being shipped from Ireland to Britain, something that involved seventy-five British Army regiments. Now, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it’s not like the British were rounding up the Irish with the goal of extermination. But the deaths only stopped when the blight stopped. And the facts are the facts as far as how many people died or had to emigrate to avoid dying. There’s much more, but that’s the most serious and relevant stuff.

What happened in the Holocaust, is not much worse than what happened to the Irish. On the other hand, what the Nazis wanted to do is worse than what the British wanted, IF the British had wanted what happened to the Irish to happen. But there are two more things to consider: A) The British were more or less racist towards the Irish at that point in Anglo-Irish history and were more concerned about practicing Laissez-faire economics and feeding the British population than they were concerned about mass starvation among the Irish, and B) keeping Jews in concentration camps (not DEATH camps) or ghettos with little or no food or medicine was not terribly different from what the British did disempowering and impoverishing the Irish and taking food, at the barrel of a gun, out of Ireland while there was a potato blight.

On one hand, you could sort of compare Zionism with the 1800s immigration of Irish to America and what happened to the indigenous population of this country during that century. But the Irish population didn’t rally to that to quite the same degree that the Jewish population rallied to Zionism (I would estimate that in an average year of the last 8 decades, about 80% of Jewish people were Zionists, and I think that about 35-44% of the world's Jewish population live there, and many others spend some time there; there isn't a comparably solid ideology about the Irish emigrating to America, although probably 60% of the diaspora live here). And I am not happy about what Europeans and European-Americans have done here in relation to the indigenous population, and I have done some activism about that. My activism on the issue reflects the fact that I got an Ethnic Studies degree with a primary focus on American Indian Studies. And in both cases, I’m not saying anyone needs to get on a boat and go back home. But the white population here and the Jewish population in what used to be called Palestine, need to transform their relationship with the Indians and the Arabs, respectively.

You could also sort of compare it to what the British did settling the Irish province of Ulster, 2/3 of which makes up N. Ireland (although it was not in response to mass suffering let alone genocide). I’m not real familiar with that, but I guarantee you that centuries ago the Catholic population was treated perhaps worse than it was the first 80 years after N. Ireland was created, and there’s some information about that here, here, and here. We are talking about a colonial effort, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone when I make that comparison on this blog.

I’ll return to the N. Ireland comparison soon, but let me say a few more things first. Responding to the Holocaust by founding a Jewish State in the Holy Land was not a great idea. After the war, those Jews who just couldn’t stay in Europe would have found safety in America, or probably SOME European countries like the UK, Ireland (although they were neutral, the war-time Prime Minister had a fairly good record of opposing anti-Semitism and the 1937 Constitution explicitly recognized the Jewish religion as part of the Irish nation), Denmark (whose population went further than any other to save the Jewish population from the Nazis), just to mention a few solid examples. In terms of safety, founding the Jewish State was, at least in hind-sight not that helpful in reducing anti-Semitism and the Jewish population there has only been relatively safe because of A) a ridiculously skilled or ridiculously lucky military, B) MASSIVE military support from the US, and C) in the last 4-5 decades, the possession of nuclear weapons. As far as anti-Semitism world-wide, the fairly predictable effect of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians under its rule has been to just make anti-Semitism more popular than it was shortly after WWII.

Also, I’d say the Jewish religion isn’t as connected to the land once known as Palestine as the Christian religion is. What I call the Old Testament begins a long way from Jerusalem. And then there was 400-500 years in Egypt. Although the early history of the Jews is part of the Bible, Christianity is INCREDIBLY defined by the birth of Christ, his life, his death, and if you believe people like me, his resurrection, and then his ascendence into heaven. It all took place in the area once known as Palestine. And yet, I think the Crusades by European Christians were reactionary.

In Ireland, the goal of republicans and nationalists could be called a “one state solution.” They want Ireland united. Some socialists and others predict that if Sinn Fein got close to its goal, the actual result would be a repartitioning of N. Ireland. I think that’s unlikely and crucially, SF would not accept that. Also, what they want is a secular state of all religions and you MIGHT also use the term bi-national. There is a theory I largely subscribe to, that the Unionists in N. Ireland are actually Irish, but I’m also comfortable with the idea that they can and (in a united Ireland) will develop a British-Irish identity which I’m sure the Irish will be willing to accommodate. Below I address the idea that the South of Ireland is today based on religion and/or ethnicity (it’s diverse enough that ethnicity is the right word).

I don’t know when I started to drift towards supporting a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with settlements and with the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and with Trump’s “peace” plan, I am thinking that the two state solution is dead. There’s also the fact that MANY West Bank Palestinians (not to mention many of those in Gaza) would like to experience the relative democracy that Israelis enjoy and certainly most of them would like to enjoy the relative prosperity most Israelis enjoy. MANY people in the West Bank are not happy with the Palestinian Authority and I imagine that when it comes to a democratic society a small or large minority of people in Gaza are not happy with Hamas. A recent poll described and analyzed in an article here found that about 2/3 of Palestinians have given up on the two state solution.

(I should explain something about one of the polls results- that 84% want to withdraw recognition of Israel. It might be a large minority of that 84% want to destroy Israel. There must be GREAT anger towards Israel in Gaza considering the humanitarian disaster, the complete lack of state-hood and the resources for state-hood, and the periodic, brutal and short-term invasions by the Israeli military in the last 15 years. But it might also be a flawed response to calls for the PLO to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, something that will make it easier for Israel to treat it’s Palestinian population as second-class citizens, and it might be inspired by a desire to see Israel destroyed in the sense that it is replaced by a secular, democratic, bi-national state including the West Bank and Gaza. I mean, in the same poll 78% want to stage NON-VIOLENT protests against Trump’s plan, suggesting that they aren’t out for Jewish blood)

There’s also a poll saying that 30% of Israelis want a federation with Palestine, which might indicate support for a one state solution, although in that article Juan Cole is pessimistic that it’s that positive.

Although it’s easier said than done, a one state solution would solve the conflict better than a two state solution would. It would turn Israel into a fully fledged democracy and the odds are that social conservatism would be weakened in both the Palestinian and Jewish populations, and even if Israelis see some small decline in their lifestyle as part of a redistribution of wealth, hopefully it would be negated by the creation of a social democracy- Israel, in a slightly warped way, used to be a social democracy, and Fatah, the dominant part of the PLO, has been for decades a Jr. or (today) a full member of the Socialist International (sure, the SI isn’t as socialist as it used to be, but still…). Even if Jew-hatred continued in Iran and they got a nuke (I’m saying IF to both), if the Jewish and Palestinian populations were more integrated and the Palestinians were happy with the new state, I doubt a WMD or conventional attack would take place. Some of the money currently spent on destructive military activities would be funneled to things like health care and education and the environment.

I have tried to find out exactly what contributes to calling Israel The Jewish State. I spent hours in the library. Actually I didn’t but I am really good at using Google Advanced Search and identifying what sites are good sources for this or that topic. I couldn’t find hardly anything except for stuff about the recent Nation-State law which is both horrible and fairly vague (there's also a ton of stuff on a related question here). I believe that some of what contributes to use of the phrase Jewish State can be retained in a one state solution. The Jewish religion and culture can be protected along with Islam, Christianity, Druze, and the various other cultures like that of the Arabs. Equality legislation can be created and enforced.

Immigration policy would probably have to change in two ways. Those who fled or were expelled from Palestine as a result of the creation of Israel (and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza), and their descendants will have to be allowed back. We’re talking about people whose parents or grandparents left, not people whose ancient ancestors left. Jewish immigration might have to be curbed a little compared to the current policy and hopefully Jewish leaders in the new state won’t travel the globe unnecessarily encouraging Jewish immigration. It should remain a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution. If you doubt that happens or think it will cease when the conflict there is resolved, think again. Fascism is on the rise throughout the world, including in Europe, and although it’s possible they’re not all as anti-Semitic as Hitler was, it’s still a problem. Although, or perhaps because, it’s an unbelievable story, read here about how a Jewish-American had few options but to immigrate to Israel to avoid being killed by Nazi Skinheads partly because he’s Jewish (even before the Internet, Nazi skinheads networked pretty well and Daly might have had trouble avoiding them by simply moving somewhere else in America, and I'm pretty sure he decided to immigrate around 1995) (I read elsewhere that on one hand he became a Likud activist but on the other hand he did work supporting Ethiopian Jews facing racism)). The new state could use diplomacy, economic power, and when needed their scaled down but probably still efficient foreign intelligence agency and military to help those Jews in the world who are experiencing persecution. And their diplomacy will be more respected than it is now.

It might be a good idea to initially have some kind of power-sharing set up like they have in N. Ireland. Not comparable to the one in Lebanon which is stupid, but like the one in N. Ireland. See this and this. There might be some relevant ideas here, in a peace plan proposal for N. Ireland I developed (that’s right, the UN Secretary General DID call me on the phone to discuss it- in my wildest dreams). (UPDATE 4/2/20 As far as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, that can be done in some way that resembles what's done in N. Ireland with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. What was difficult for me until now was what to do about a Head of State? I just figured it out. They could use what's called in Britain and Ireland "Alternative Vote" (what's called "Instant Run-Off Voting" in America). In the UK/RoI context it's proportional representation (with Single Transferable Vote) with just one seat being filled. They could use that, but with an elevated threshold, like 66% instead of 50%+1. That way the top parties (I don't think there should be a limit, but I imagine most of the smallest ones won't bother) will probably nominate moderates who can attract a lot of votes, and the winner will definitely be someone a large majority of the voters will be more or less happy with. And it might be best to put a lot of the power over the military and foreign policy in the President's hands, at least kind of like they do in France (also, one more idea- Constitutional Amendments should definitely require what in Northern Ireland they call "cross-community support") (It might also be a good idea if the Interior Ministry is formally or informally reserved for a MP who designates themselves as "Other" and/or it requires "cross-community support;" informally it's reserved for an "Other" in N. Ireland) (I'll be honest, I don't know what happens with the French President and the Defense and Foreign Ministries, but I would suggest that those ministers in a future WhateverIt'llBeCalled be appointed by the President and require confirmation by the Parliament with "cross"community support"))

A one state solution might avoid an Israeli Civil War, although it might also unavoidably be preceded by one. When the government pulled settlers out of Gaza, there was talk of civil war. To one very large degree or another, settlers in the West Bank wouldn’t have to leave.

Let me say a little more about N. Ireland and a one state solution. Republicans and especially the moderate Social Democratic and Labour Party in the North don’t want the Protestants to leave (although the SDLP is closer to the Catholic Church than SF is, they’ve overall done a better job of attracting Protestants). They have worked with the Unionists to sustain the Peace Process and create a new society in N. Ireland and take steps towards a United Ireland. I believe that SF compromised more than they should have had to in terms of agreeing that Ireland will only be united when a majority in N. Ireland want that, but for the most part I support the GFA and the steps republicans have taken to make the Peace Process work. An example of this is senior SF leaders attending various events that are MUCH more Protestant and/or Unionist than Catholic and/or Nationalist, if not totally Protestant/Unionist. At least once in the last twenty years organizers of the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Belfast printed their materials in English, Irish, Chinese, and Ulster-Scots (a very, very minor language associated with Protestants and Unionists). Although SF believes that there should be separate legislation for promoting the Irish language in N. Ireland, they support something similar for Ulster-Scots. SF has practically always been willing to work with Unionists. The recent three year crisis in the Peace Process which was started with SF withdrawing from the Assembly’s Executive, was triggered largely by a financial scandal involving the First Minister (a Unionist) and involved  Unionist opposition to an Irish language act and same-sex marriage, a sectarian policy decision by a Unionist minister, and Unionist talk about how much anti-Protestant bigotry there is in N. Ireland (seriously, very little, and if you think I’m downplaying it because I hate them, too, see this (especially the notes BELOW the poem) and/or look at the survey results for “Equality” and for “Contact and Mixing” here or read this about sectarianism in the first 50 years of N. Ireland).

Lastly, here is my response to the idea that the Republic of Ireland (the South) is comparable to Israel.

After the War of Independence in Ireland, in 1920-1925 the South became what was called a “Free State.” Its independence from the UK was limited. For example, members of Parliament had to swear an oath to Queen. The 1937 Constitution created the position of President and the first President was a Protestant. Presidential terms are normally seven years and someone can serve two terms. In the 1970s there was another Protestant President for about 2 years before he died. So, out of 9 Presidents, two were Protestant. As far as the 1937 Constitution and Catholicism, it’s true that early drafts emphasized Catholicism and the Catholic Church, but there was GREAT opposition to that. The final draft of the relevant section recognized the existence of the main Protestant churches in Ireland, as well as the Jewish religion, and it recognized “the special position” of the Roman Catholic Church “as the guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.” This special place for the Catholic Church was done away with in 1972. The ban on divorce was done away with in 1995. There were of course homophobic laws (only in 1993 was homosexuality decriminalized) and the constitution had to be amended in 2015 to allow for gay marriage (there wasn’t anything in the document about “a man and a woman,” but still, only in 2015 was it amended to solidly legalize gay marriage in a country where a law could be more easily overturned by politicians if the country drifted to the right) and abortion is 99% illegal there. But there is plenty of homophobia and pro-life nonsense among Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. (also, although the Catholic Church is in two ways sexist, that can be exaggerated, and in recent decades, FREQUENTLY the Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) has been a woman and between 1990 and 2011 the slightly powerful position of President of Ireland was held by women, one of whom went on to become the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights)

Is Ireland defined by ethnicity? Until about 20 years ago the South was almost literally 100% white, and there weren’t many non-Irish white people (in the last 20 years there has been bigotry that sort of resembles racism towards, for example, Poles). In 2004 there was an Amendment to the constitution that eliminated birthright citizenship for people born to parents who are not both citizens of Ireland. But if one parent is a citizen, they get citizenship. Also, although naturalization has been restricted, it’s still possible and it’s still fairly easy for citizens of the European Community (although that could be interpreted as racist, I don’t think they had much of a choice as a member of the EU). First, the parties in Ireland I primarily support (SF and Irish Labour) opposed the citizenship Amendment as racist (and also as being in conflict with the Good Friday Agreement). Second, although I couldn’t have said this until recently, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland for the last few years was a man named Leo Varadkar, whose father is Indian. Also, he’s an openly gay man. I don’t like him or his party (Fine Gael, who are sort of socially liberal but sort of pro-British and in love with capitalism). According to wikipedia, he was a government minister between 2011 and 2017 when he became Taoiseach. Between 2007 and 2011, when FG were in Opposition, he was a  Spokesperson (shadow minister?). The Irish language is recognized by the Constitution as the first official language and English is recognized as the second. A lot is done to promote the former, but practically everyone practically always speak the latter and everything official is available in both languages. The British came very close to stamping out the Irish language (and they WERE trying to).

The South is not comparable to the Jewish State. And SF doesn’t want a United Ireland to be any more Catholic or based on ethnicity than the South is now. The second half of this (starting with the sentence “A lot of people…”) talks about the former, and most of this deals with the latter.

In conclusion, Zionism was not justified, or a good idea, and has been a disaster. That doesn’t mean Jews need to leave. But they do need to transform their relationship with the Palestinians, and I believe that is best achieved through the creation of a truly democratic, secular, bi-national state.

Babylon 5 Reviews L

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 goes further 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 5, Episode 1 “No Compromises”** See this for a plot summary.

This is partly about the inauguration of the President of the Interstellar Alliance. G’Kar reads the Declaration of Principles (which he wrote). He talks about freedom and inclusiveness and the right to pursue reforms within the IA (and probably member worlds as well).

When he has Sheridan place his hand on what in America would usually be the Bible, he uses a  book that is a compilation of the first page of every holy book of every race that has joined the Alliance. Although in the Declaration of Principles he DOES mention the inclusion of atheists, I’m still not totally in favor of using ONLY holy books in the swearing-in ceremony. But if I ignore that, what he did with that compilation is pretty cool.


**Season 5 Episode 3 “The Paragon of Animals”** See this for a plot summary.

A big part of this episode is about how to build the Interstellar Alliance (it’s pretty obvious the writers were inspired by Star Trek). Sheridan and most of the other main characters want members to sign a Declaration of Principles but for various reasons that have nothing to do with the substance of it, they refuse. Garibaldi, who sort of comes out as more right-wing than left-wing, says that some use of force is needed first to demonstrate what the IA can do. Sheridan is reluctant but soon finds himself needing to do it as a situation develops with a race that want membership in the IA. It turns out that the victimizers of the planet are aligned with a de facto member of the IA and Sheridan uses this (as well as successful martial and political maneuvering in the crisis) to convince the others that signing the Declaration of Principles is necessary. Setting aside for a moment how things worked out, I largely disagree with Garibaldi. Sheridan shouldn’t have been pressured to find a fight in order to get the Declaration signed. If an opportunity to fight in that situation doesn’t present itself, you shouldn’t go looking for one (at the very least because you can be accused of CREATING a crisis for your benefit politically) and starting out with principles by itself isn’t that bad.


**Season 5, Episode 4 “A View From the Gallery”** See this for a plot summary.

In general this is supposed to be from the viewpoint of B5’s working-class, but it doesn’t say much about life for workers in a capitalist system- for example, although B5 is a pro-union show, it doesn’t say anything about unions. That part of the episode is not a waste of time, it just could have been a little more political.

The main political thing is a brief discussion of how, in war, captured enemy wounded should be treated. Dr. Franklin strongly advocates for treating them as well as possible- that is, as well as friendly wounded should be treated. Although I can imagine supporting a war against an enemy state or organization I hate, their captured wounded should be treated well. It’s the right thing to do, and might affect how the enemy treats captured wounded soldiers. (on a related point, I DO accept that in some cases prisoners can't be taken and they have to be killed (i.e. units that are behind enemy lines, or the IRA in N. Ireland), but it really should be the norm).

** Season 5 Episode 5 “Learning Curve”** For a plot summary see this.

There are 2-3 political items in this episode.

First, some stuff about diversity. The Interstellar Alliance’s military component, the Rangers, were traditionally just minbari and humans but are now allowing members of other races to join. The lone representative of the Pak’ma'ra seems to be without potential because of certain characteristics of that race. But Delenn realizes those characteristics can be useful in certain jobs that Rangers do. She says something about how they can learn from humans and how we benefit from diversity (I'm not sure what she means exactly, but I think it might be at worst a flawed statement in favor of diversity).

Second is the legacy of the Earth Civil War. The new captain (largely) in charge of B5 was on the government’s side and clashes with Garibaldi. She says that, unlike the anti-government side, she didn’t believe in firing on her own ships- as if it was just those led by Sheridan who did that. It’s not clear to me who started the shooting but I watched some of two earlier episodes and it seems like it was the government (there were also two episodes where anti-government ships were reluctant to attack government ships until they had to). Captain Lochely also talks about how the military doesn’t create policy and how she believes in the chain of command, and how her opponents tore up the constitution. But, even if there was some reasonable doubt concerning the allegation that the President had his predecessor killed so he could replace him, there is no doubt that he dissolved the Senate and earlier was eroding democracy through the McCarthyist Night Watch organization.

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.

Babylon 5 Reviews A

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.

In late 2015 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. Lastly, there are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes.


**Season 1 Episode 1: “Midnight on the Firing Line”** See this for a plot summary.


This is an episode largely about conflict resolution. A colony of the Centauri is attacked and taken over by the Narn. Decades earlier the former occupied the latter’s home world in a near-genocidal manner, and some Narn see this attack as revenge that might as well result in genocide (they’re equally hateful of each other, although apparently the centauri started it). In my study of many conflicts our world has seen in reality, I think that kind of (what might be called) mirror-image hate is fairly uncommon. The military commander of Babylon 5, Sinclair, pushes for a peaceful and multi-lateral resolution of the conflict through the Baby;on 5 Council and the League of Non-Aligned Worlds and emphasizes a blockade of Narn (but at one point he also talks about military intervention, which is disappointing even though it would be multi-lateral). This effort is defeated at one point by dishonest diplomacy by the Narn, but then Sinclair gets some dirt on the them and gets them to withdraw.

We also learn that:
1. Earth’s government is budget-cutting and isolationist and xenophobic. Sinclair seems to believe in a “Domino Theory” involving Narn aggression. Although Sinclair is mostly progressive, Earth and B5 are not utopias like the Federation in Star Trek.
2. The Minbari are known as honorable in war and also take a strong stance against the hatred between the Narn and the Centauri.


**Season 1 Episode 2: “Soul Hunter”** See this for a plot summary.

I don’t have much to say about this episode or the issue it reminded me of, but it DOES remind of an issue between American Indians and institutions of the dominant society. That is the repatriation of Indian remains and of many objects of great cultural significance back to the Indian community. I read a little about it here and here. I think I first heard of it when I heard Winona LaDuke read part of a novel she wrote at a book-reading. I think it’s one of about seven stories in the book, but it sounded very interesting. More about her book here.


**Season 1 Episode 5: “The Parliament of Dreams”** See this for a plot summary.

This episode is about a festival-type celebration of all alien religious traditions represented on Babylon 5. It was organized by Earth and sounds like a fairly good idea in terms of promoting diversity and respect for different religious traditions. When it’s Earth’s turn the military commander in charge of Babylon 5 lines up dozens of people representing Earth’s different religions and introduces alien representatives to them. Those present and mentioned before the episode ends included: an atheist, a Catholic, a Zen Buddhist, a Muslim, an Orthodox Jew, an Oglala Sioux, Greek Orthodox, a member of the Ebo tribe, a Yupik Eskimo, a member of the Jivaro tribe, a Bantu, a Taoist, an aborigine, a Shinto, a Maori, and a Hindu.


**Season 1 Episode 7: “The War Prayer”** See this for a plot summary.

Bigotry and diversity and hate crimes are the major themes in this episodes. Although nothing that seemed worth a direct quote, there are some good statements against bigotry.