Michael Burnham & Racial Double Standards
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лип 2024
- Michael Burnham has been one of the most controversial character in all of modern Star Trek. So let's break down why she's been so controversial and the racism that may be at the heart of it.
✔KENNEDY'S 'MICHAEL'S BURDEN' ARTICLE✔
www.womenatwarp.com/michaels-...
✔ SUPPORT ✔
Patreon: / jessiegender
PayPal: paypal.me/jessiegender
✔ OTHER PLATFORMS ✔
Twitch: / jessiegender
✔ SHOP ✔
Book that I Helped Write: bit.ly/39EqtP4
✔ SOCIAL MEDIA ✔
Instagram: / jessiegender
Twitter: / jessiegender
Facebook: / jessie.gender1
✔ OTHER PROJECTS ✔
What the Frell podcast w/Council of Geeks: councilofgeeks.libsyn.com/
✔ CONTACT ✔
E-mail: jearl1892@gmail.com
Mail: Jessie Earl
PO BOX 85787
Seattle, WA 98145 - Фільми й анімація
I should have made this clearer in the video but just to reiterate since I see folks arguing it in the comments, it’s ok to dislike Star Trek Discovery, nor is the character of Michael Burnham above any criticism, but we should be keeping in mind how the dynamics of how her race and gender influence our feelings towards the character and how she is written.
OH I totally get it!!
Oh, absolutely. As someone with a mountain of criticism regarding the show and the handling of the character, I do my best to make sure that my grievances would be the same regardless of her race or gender. If it were Will Riker or Luke Skywalker swooping in to magically solve everyone's problems for them, I'd have the same complaint.
And since they both kept doing that multiple times throughout 2020, then I am making damn sure to hold them both to the same standard.
We love you girl! You invited to the BBQ for sure
I thought you did a good job getting that point across. This is probably one of your Star Trek best videos, imo.
I get that. I just don't try to relate with characters in that way. I tend to personally relate with a character despite gender, race, sex, etc... So I tend to relate with Adira's nervousness, Burnham's responsibility hoarding (I am literally writing a thesis of quantifiable universal morality to explain the immorality of climate change, with the primary motive being to confront climate destroying behaviour and change minds), with Saru's gentleness and his caught between fear and rage, with Tilly's anxiety, and with other characters besides that. So I find I search for insights into being me when I perceive these characters, rather than try to derive my feelings from some social element.
I've said for years that saturation is the only solution. Then, no single character has the burden of representing an entire people.
Definitely. The cycle always seem to be that the stereotypes and awful representation come first. And then the tragics that you can pity. And then the perfect angels to overcorrect decades worth of bad representation. And then very, very slowly do you get complex, flawed, full characters who behave like real people. The gap between each wave should get smaller and smaller until we can actually get into the technical stuff like... writing... instead of symbolic representation.
@@AllTheArtsy five years ago, I was in a production of "Yellow Face" by David Henry Hwang. I played HYH, the playwright's father, as well as several other characters. It was an all-Asian cast. The producer let me write a little piece for the program where I articulated as much, drawing from a documentary I saw in my college's Media Criticism and Theory class on Black representation in television. I kind of broke it down like this (an excerpt from the larger piece of writing, stressing that these are not necessarily linear steps):
A larger sociological issue is that there are several stages an underrepresented people go through in the media (they're more or less linear):
1. Invisibility
2. Caricatures as played by the dominant people, white people in blackface or yellow face, often as villains or comic relief (the Amos n Andy radio show).
3. Caricatures as played by representatives of the underrepresented people (the Amos n Andy TV show, Long Duk Dong).
4. Token characters (what in television would be called extras, with no lines, or co-stars, with lines that render the character someone whose sole purpose is to move the plot forward, i.e. a nameless helmsman on the Enterprise).
5. Noble characters played by representatives of the underrepresented people (which itself is a problem as it's a large contributor to creating false idealized portraits. Rightly or wrongly The Cosby Show was criticized for this, and it's a major factor in the concept of the Model Minority).
6. Characters that are minority versions of sanitized white sitcoms with recycled plots.
7. Flawed and complex characters written and performed by the underrepresented people that tell that people's story.
8. Saturated proportional representation that allows honest representation, both in numbers and in the diversity of characters within the underrepresented people.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
Or people could write thier own stories and come with thier own intellectual properties and instead of being lazy hacks and ripping off the legacy of someone else more talented .
@@clifflondonuncensored that's pretty much what I was talking about. There's no "or" about it. But the people who really were lazily stealing other people's characters were the ones wearing blackface or yellowface, like Brando, John Wayne, Alec Guinness, or Al Jolson.
That "not actively thinking that" is called having implicit bias. And it's still not good!
Everyone has implicit biases, it's how you mitigate them that makes the difference.
As we see lately in our Capitol the biases are very very real. As a black woman I experience this. Especially in positions of power
Implicit bias is BS
@@Swifter101 Says the person who doesn't want to deal with their implicit biases
@@custardstuff5178 well.
Bovines do excrete, so perhaps he's trying to say it is a selfevident fact of life?
I see so many comments putting those double standards on a lot of the cast since Saru is basically the only (assumed) "white" cishet man on the whole main cast. People will say stuff like "Adira is such a useless character, they only exist to force diversity down our throats", and I can only think of Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura who got less than half of Adira's characterisation and importance to the plot in three full seasons. Also, those characters had a huge impact on minority groups who finally saw that _someone_ out there saw a place for them in their future, and people don't seem to get that characters like Stamets, Adira, and Burnham do the same thing for us today. Burnham's story literally tells us that not only is there a place for women of color on a spaceship, but there is a place for them in command. It's such a powerful statement. (Minus the negative framing, but the way I understood Burnham handling the whole thing in season one was her internalizing what everyone says about her, i.e. her being responsible for the war.)
", and I can only think of Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura who got less than half of Adira's characterisation and importance to the plot in three full seasons."
Bare in mind that none of Chekov, Sulu's or Uhura's plots or characterisation revolved around them being African, Japanese or Russian. Adira has had a lot of characterisation but it's all been revolving around their relationship and how they sexually identify.
"and people don't seem to get that characters like Stamets, Adira, and Burnham do the same thing for us today. "
I disagree, I think people are fully aware which is why they want better for the show. Stammets, his husband and Burnam are solid fleshed out characters. I might dislike what the writers do with Michael but as a concept she is solid, same goes for Stammets. I don't like that they just have him being mean and horrible then suddenly descide that he's kind and paternal but, both Michael and he are well thought out and it's great to see more than just straight white guys in command. Something that Trek has always been good at doing.
I hope that we get more for Adira in terms of character. All I know about them now is that they are sad their boyfriend died and they don't identify as a gender.
@@domoarigato3000 I disagree with your point about Sulu, Chekov and Uhura. While you're right about Sulu, the other two were very much characterized around their ethnicity. At times, it seemed like Chekov's only character trait was dropping names of Soviet (at the time) places and historical figures and saying stuff like "the Russians invented that" whenever he got the chance. It's less prominent with Uhura I believe, but in one of her first scenes to air she meets another black man on the ship and is totally blown away when he speaks her native language. (There's probably more, but I haven't rewatched much of TOS in a long time.) Seeing how she usually just presses a few buttons and looks at the camera, that feels like one of only a few scenes where she greets any characterization at all, and it directly references where she came from.
Adira is shown as an intelligent, hard-working person who has trouble fitting in, who has been through a lot of trauma, and finds someone they can relate to in their new, chosen family. And that's what I can tell from the few episodes they've been in.
@@elim_inator So I get your point and if we are to pull apart all of the casts contributions we might find that some of their major episodes are to do with their race, I'm not familiar enough with TOS to argue otherwise. However Uhura at least was still shown to be a solid member of the crew, she mostly interracts with spok or kirk but she plays a part.
ua-cam.com/video/fK3Fc14xOu8/v-deo.html
With regards to Adira, I'm sorry but being smart and hardworking is standard for every crew member of every star trek show ever (Lower decks aside).
I don't know why you think Adira has trouble fitting in. They've never shown this in the episodes, they literally beam onto the disco and are immediately part of the crew. Maybe they've said it somewhere but they certainly haven't shown it. That being said the only characters she talks to are Stammets and Grey.
So kinda like I said, all I know about Adira is that they're sad their boyfriend has died and they don't identify with their gender. The chosen family thing came out of nowhere in that last episode. However, again this is kind of just playing into the trope of gender queer characters.
That said, I don't think the way Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura were handled would fly nowadays. It was impressive for the 1960s (when there was so much less diversity in Hollywood, even in comparison to today), but it's simply not enough now. TOS is a nice relic of the past, but it simply does not hold up to today's standards. We shouldn't look back to the kind of representation afforded to people when bigotry was so much more prominent (not that it isn't prominent now). The way those three characters were handled was impressive for the time, but it's backward now. DS9 is a much better model as far as representation goes. That said, Adira did get some characterization this season. It wasn't too much, but it's acceptable given that she's only been around for one season. It's less excusable that the bridge crew that we've seen constantly since season 1 has as much personality as a set of cardboard cutouts. It's also irritating how they keep emphasizing how Adira has become like an adopted child for Culber and Stamets when her interactions with them (particularly Culber) were so minimal.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
I wonder if people had the same discussions when Ben Sisko became captain
(Flashbacks to Usenet) Yes, yes they did...
From my point of view Sisko already had a lot of command experience and we saw him leading and managing the station prior to his promotion to captain. Burnham most of the time does her own thing and personally I'm missing the feeling of her being integrated with her crew. She was promoted to XO, but we have seen her barely doing anything in that position, she was then demoted to CSO, and we see her barely doing anything in that position. We see a few action scenes and she gets promoted to CO. It's not a problem Burnham as person, but how she's presented by the story.
@@NPSao this is my thinking too. I was an infant so I don’t remember discussions back in the day, but I really don’t think it can be argued that Burnham has anywhere near Sisko’s level of experience. By the time Sisko was made captain in my first watch through as an adult, I was frankly confused why he wasn’t already made a captain because I’d forgotten he was already one. He was already answering directly only to the Admirals and Provisional Government. He was very much the Captain of DS9
The interwebs had a lot of criticism for Sisko. I remember the n word going around quite a bit. But they stopped hating him as much when Janeway showed up. And they hated Janeway.
Once it was known that the lead character on DS9 was going to be a Black male a LOT of Trek fans tuned out. I remember having to search the TV guide to find where it was moved to. Quite often I had to record it at an odd hour then watch the next day.
My wife and I are Trek fans and Black so we followed the show from beginning to end. I’m glad that that DS9 now gets the respect it should have.
Indeed, the racism behind the criticism of her character is a lot more subtle than the open hatred of the loudmouths. I also want to call out female fans of the show who claim not to be racist, but are unwilling to check their biases, and will write whole essays castigating her for behavior that has been clearly displayed by white male characters they support.
As a Black woman I work hard to be fair in my criticism of her, and how I do it, because I don't want to fuel any bad faith illegitimate criticisms of her, because so many actual racists disguise their criticism behind a slight veneer of legitimacy. For example, I actually agree with Saru for demoting Michael, but I have to make extremely clear why I supported his decision otherwise my statement could be used to support their bad arguments. For the record, I do think Michael has a Savior Complex (who must selflessly serve others) but how is that any different from Kirk, who did much the same. But I do like how they call her out on the show though!
Also Black female characters are so rare in mainstream SciFi, that we haven't yet figured out a way to criticize them without falling in to the trap of supporting bad faith arguments.
I dunno, not to go all allmediacritcismmatters, but I see bad faith arguments literally everywhere when it comes to criticism.
It strikes me that media criticism in general is pretty weak online with the difference being that poor criticism in regards to identity issues can contribute to real harm.
I think then, the way to criticize minority characters without supporting bad faith arguments is to engage in constructive media criticism supported by good faith arguments while promoting the good faith arguments of others.
Put another way, you're never going to stop people from making bad faith arguments. You're never going to make an argument which can't be subverted or uncharitably interpreted. These will always be weaknesses of language, there are no silver bullets for bad faith actors. The goal then is to lead by example and drown out or ignore bad faith criticism. Engaging with it often as not just gives it longer legs, so to speak.
Of course, this is the internet and I've never once seen people avoid feeding the trolls. So maybe a measured approach is idealistic naivete on my part and we should really just be bullying the bullies? Shrug.
I'm glad someone compared her to Kirk. She is just like kirk (minus the womanizing) and honestly much better written and acted.
Not to mention that when she nearly died trying to get the red angel attention everyone probably was cheering that "death scene"!
I was cheering her death scene the character has to die serving the federation in order to reedeem oh say starting a war being a mutineer... atleast I think so
@@hawkstringfellow she didn't really start the war though. The war was going to happen anyway not that most people in the federation knew that. She also wasn't wrong about how to deal with the Klingons though it likely wouldn't have worked in that instance.
Moreover I'm not a fan of the idea that someone needs to die to be redeemed for a mistake or bad judgement. It's not like we're talking about Nazis here who absolutely do need to die if they want redemption.
So this may be the only space where I feel like I can share my recent experience. On Facebook, there is a group for players of Star Trek Online on the PS4. Someone replied to a random post with a Trump meme. The meme was one of those dismissing "who cares" memes. I responded that the meme shouldn't be allowed because it brings up a lot for someone like me. The moderator (John Myers) of the group then proceeded to explain that Trump is a historical figure since he is a former President, so the post is allowed. However, my recollection of the group was that all memes that contained President Obama were quickly deleted. I then added a meme that included AOC (Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez), and guess what? It was quickly deleted, but the Trump meme remained. I immediately commented on the double standard and bias on his end, and the moderator suggested I leave the group, so I did.
I shared my experience on two other Facebook groups and on one the moderator deleted the post, and the other, the Trump-leaning moderator (John Myers), defended his position by stating that he didn't care about how I felt and referred to his stance as being "indifferent." This I found ironic because his stance wasn't indifferent, because he was fine with the Trump post and not with my AOC post.
There is not just a double standard with Black, POC, Queer, and Trans indentified characters on Star Trek, there is a double life or double value system between what Star Trek represents, its values, and Gene Roddenberry's vision versus the audience itself and how gendered, racist, and even anti-equity we can be. I encounter it on reddit forums, conventions, and even in the chat section of Star Trek Online. So much antisemitism that it discourages me from playing. And each time, the moderators do nothing.
The worst of it is that when those of us who are defending ourselves and the principles of Star Trek, we get shut down - constantly. No voice, no acknowledgement, no unity. So I find this channel to be open-minded enough for me to share my experience and thank you Jessie for giving me and all of us a voice.
Thank you so much for sharing this story. I’m so sorry that happened to you, and I’m disappointed especially that it happened in a Star Trek space. But I’m also glad to find you here in this space, and I welcome you and send you love ❤️
I don’t understand how deep conservatives and bigots can like Star Trek so much. It’s one of the most obviously progressive shows out there
I've heard critics hate on Michael Burnham for being incompetent and a Mary Sue within the same argument. Pick a lane dude!
In fiction I suppose it's possible to be both. She does seem to be better than most at almost everything she touches and seems to have far fewer flaws than most people to inhuman levels. The show has a way of turning her flaws into virtues when it turns out her disobaying orders was the right thing to do after all, I mean, what do those Captains and Admirals know eh? They can all take the day off now Michael Burnham is on the case.
I've never liked the shows format of being overly focused hers or any particular character as it invokes temptation to create a Mary Sue. So I get why she is the way she is.
Her Writing is incredibly inconsistant. The Showrunners should pick a lane in 3 Seasons i can't figure out what the Protagonists are on about. Cisco was a loving father and kind of the Everyman, Janeway was doing the tough Mother Schtick, Picard the distanced man of principle, Archer was the ambitious one and Kirk the cheeky John Wayne in space. There is no such thing for Burnham that i can see. Please help me here i really want to like Star Trek again :-/
@@mayarosexxx And yet Starfleet captains routinely disobeys Admirals and do whatever they want and decide their way is better, ships’ crew members have done that too. Michael is hardly the only Starfleet officer to have their flaws of disobeying orders be turned into virtues by being right. Star Trek is rife with characters being that way because they are the heroes of the story, and no one has ever been hated in such vitriolic way like Michael Burnham has been.
Besides, Michael was raised by Vulcans, she graduated even above Vulcans at the Vulcan Science Academy, and given how stringent Vulcans are about education and being so smart, it’s not even that out of the question that Michael would figure stuff out. Hell, Kirk and Spock and the TOS crew literally took a few hours to figure out time travel.
@@mayarosexxx I think we first need to ask ourselves the question of why we have all adopted this idea that Mary Sues are all bad, and why we hate Mary Sues, when they have existed as male characters in heroic fiction for ever? Why is there all this antipathy for Mary Sues when, from what I can see, all that is is female characters being gifted the exact same treatment as male heroes in a storyline, and I think that's what Jessie is getting at.
This is what the hero character acts like in most heroic fiction, so why is it okay to dislike her for behavior that's no different than male characters I've seen again and again in Star Trek from one male character after another.
Im not sorry for being automatically suspect when critics get upset when good things happen to her, or she gets rewarded or she wins the day. For me, how she's treated is no different than the numerous white male characters that have always existed in fiction.
@@CaptainPikeachu lol none of them started out as a problem a person with a PhD in Anthropology shouldn't be participate in and is a first officer who essentially gets her first Captain killed.
Also you are overestimating how smart Vulcans rather than Ascetic they actually are.
i think it is partially to do with the fact that we are growing past the era of the 'infallible hero'. when ever the main character of a star trek does something, it has just about always ended up as the right thing to do. we had glimpses of other captains doing wrong. picard refusing to help. sisko poisoning a planet and faking evidence. archer with sim. janeway with tuvix. the list goes on. i think that in all these situations, the more recent the episode is, the more weight that is given to their wrongdoings. the added nuance that someone good can be wrong, and someone bad can be right. i can easily imagine pike getting judged for making the wrong choice these days, but not nearly as much so even 20 years ago.
i dont doubt that a lot of the reactions to burnham's choices and responses comes from racism and sexism. but i hope that we have already started on the path towards the ideals and equality that star trek has almost from the start at least been attempting to portray
That's what the final scene is about!. Seeing MB sit back in that chair, smile and say"Let's Fly" it appeared as if the very spirit of Gene Roddenberry was exhalting all of humanity that ' Yes we've finally done this, now let's quickly move on!
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
And I totally agree with you about the show itself giving her that weird double standard. Star Trek should be an example! In my opinion this Star Trek just reinforces some of the unsavory aspects of humanity which I do not believe that Star Trek should be doing with human characters.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
I have been watching ST all my life, have seen every episode minimum once, and I love Discovery. Some continuity 'problems' can bug me for 5 seconds, and then I'm over it, just watch the show... or don't. I don't understand people who keep watching a show that they don't like, and keep b*tching about it online. Newsflash: it's not real guys, if you are not entertained, don't watch. Michael is an interesting character, makes controversial decisions, so if you don't always like what she does, that's the point, that doesn't mean it's a bad show, I would even argue that the shows succeeds in making you care about it.
I care about the way Donald Trump dealt with the pandemic. Doesn't mean I support it in any way. Star Trek may not be "real", but it has a substantial impact on real life not the least through it historically inspiring countless people to go into science and engineering. Then Discovery comes and tells us that it's useless going into science, you won't find any solutions to the problems of your time, salvation is found from the past, not in progress. And that at a time where hundreds of thousands of people are dying and scientists are getting death threats from denialist.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
@@ohauss I don't get how you get that reading out of that, I don't have the same impression;
"Do not end the discussion with this video."
Dammit Jessie I've got a life y'know, I can't just go jump into a rabbit hole of Star Trek and politics that'll keep me absorbed for the next two months.
*looks at the state of affairs in the US*
Um... so where'd that rabbit go, eh?
It's a tradition of Starfleet Captains to not follow orders. Michael just shows what a menace someone like Kirk must have been before becoming Captain.
Exactly. The show took the long way to demonstrate how fine a line a phenomenally creative Captain treads. They don't just turn into that person after they take the captain's chair.
An difference is that when previous captains did take big risks/ broke the rules, they were lucky and it turned out to be the right thing to do (Even if it was impossible to know). Burnhams action have often a bad end even if she tries to do the right thing. Another example of taking risk that turned out bad in Star trek is Captain Janeway actions witht he Caretaker in the first episodes of Voyager. That also have been heavily critizised.
I am annoyed about the characters in movies/TV series always get rewarded after the outcome, not judged by the risks they take.
Then it's first now that Burnham actually is an Captain....
@@lubricustheslippery5028 I definitely can see that, I just never really thought about Burnham herself that much but I can see why people would be annoyed that she never seems to get punished. I do feel that if they were trying to correct that with the Book situation and then made her Captain at the end of season 3 it may have been a bit too soon? But I guess what I really think is the problem is that Star Trek hasn't really addressed the issue with the type of hierarchical structure it portrays. I like that they approached that with Burnham though.
@@Ireallywouldrathernot She got punished in S1. And got praised by doing even stupider things in the end of S3. It was just some strange offchance that her actions turned out to work.
In general heroes in TV and movies all get celebrated for stupid risk taking if the luck (plot armor) makes the actions to result in a good outcome.
I think the difference is that repeatedly disobeying your immediate commander - the people you have to work with day in day out - shows that you're not trustworthy at all, and too arrogant to work in a command structure. With Kirk and Picard, the scenario was usually that their commands were coming from remote admirals who didn't understand the reality of situations on the ground. Burnham doesn't have that excuse.
What is something that others captains have done with 0 repercussions?
Sisko launched a mass destruction weapon on a planet without permission.
Picard forcibly moved a colony of Native Americans, also broke the prime directive several times.
Janeway killed Tuvix and altered countless timelines...
Sisko can do whatever the hell he wants cause he is Sisko.
Picard was following orders I believe
Everybody points to Kirk breaking regulations but he really didn’t do it a lot . Janeway On the other hand said “ fuck it wanna fight !? Oh didn’t think so”
I think we've now seen them all face consequences for their actions though as well as have chances to redeem them.
By the end of season 3 I feel like we're good with Burnham. The people around her don't appear as her 1 dimensional cult, she's been smacked down, and she's learned.
It's classic Trek handling of a Captain, mostly, and mostly after the mess that was season 1 of course.
*Shrugs* I'm just going to forget season 1 ever happened personally. Will probably not go back to season 2 either. Trek canon is contorted beyond belief anyway so I mostly just cut out the bits I don't like. Lol
Picard didn't move them. He was ordered to and debated whether to follow through until circumstances let him off the hook.
Big difference:
All three were commanding officers at the time, which generally have a high degree of autonomy.
BTW, I'm one of the staunchest critics of Sisko's use of a WMD, because to me, it's just as much anti-trek as a lot of things in Discovery appear to me antithetical to the core philosophy of the show.
@@StudioBrock1337
To be fair, that’s how most of the Trek shows are. The first couple of seasons are the usually really rough around the edges, or just flat out sip up in the case of TNG. Once they find their footing they start to get good generally
Hi Jessie!
Thanks for the thoughtful video. I'm someone who did really struggle to get invested in Michael, but I do admit that many of the reasons for that aren't her fault as a person - and more to do with other aspects of the show, and that a lot of the hate towards her comes from a really nasty place.
I think right from the start she's had a lot to work against. When Discovery were announced, viewers weren't expecting the show to revolve around a single person. Yes, we'd had leads before in Star Trek, but never to the extent that each and every story in the first couple seasons revolved around her. I think regardless of who the character was, that was going to be a challenge for a lot of people, and admittedly for me as well. I found it really strange that at the end of the first season, we still didn't have a grasp of who the bridge crew were. I think I would have struggled with DS9 for example - if the first two seasons were all about early Bashir, without given the breathing space to enjoy other characters if we weren't immediately invested in the one thrust front and centre.
Beyond that, the writers similarly embroiled her character within a family of established characters (Sarek and Spock), that I feel was unnecessary, took away from Michael as a character standing on her own - and again immediately made many viewers less welcoming towards her, regardless again of her actual traits. I think that's part of a wider issue with S1-2 Discovery, that of making an active decision to mire itself in established continuity, without really showing a lot of interest in that part of the continuity - an odd oxymoron that upset a lot of people.
I take your point about viewers 'revelling' in her being 'taken down a peg' in season three. There is a heck of a lot of malice out there, and its definitely fuelled by sexist and racist attitudes.
The only thing I would suggest, it that while there is evidence that Michael's working outside the system is often justified - I think a lot of viewers' (like myself), appreciated some consequences because to us Michael's 'working outside the system' actually appeared to show a lack of respect for the characters around her - even her friends, at times it even made her seem arrogant. The first time in season One, her captain died. In Season three, she put the crew of discovery in a terrible position without seemingly giving that too much thought.
Anyway - thanks again!
I find your reply very refreshing
"lack of respect for the characters around her - even her friends, at times it even made her seem arrogant" I think that was an interesting aspect of the character. It had to do with the Vulcan upbringing and morals that clashed with her human emotions and then learn how to work with other humans.
@@lubricustheslippery5028 I don't think actual Vulcan characters ever had a problem reconciling their logical nature with emotional humans to such an extent that it led them to disobey orders.
I challenge you to name one captain who wasn't "arrogant". How many admirals has Picard, Archer, or Kirk stood up to? How many orders have they disobeyed? This is the double standard we are talking about. One of my favorite Trek moments was when Picard disobeyed direct orders in ST First Contact. Worf is about to blow up the defiant by crashing it into the Borg cube and then the pilot says "We've got another starship coming in! It's the Enterprise!" Now I don't remember a single fan being pissed at Picard for saving the day. Nobody called him "problematic" or "arrogant". But every time Burnham has a bright idea it's a problem. Smh.
@@seanlamont8501 The thing is in real life when someone do stuff like that they often fail and get punished. In movies they always win and get selebrated. The bigest difference between Burnham is that it doesn't always lead to an favorable outcome (at least in the begining of the series) and is more realistic.
I argue that in real life captains should be punished if they take stupid risks even if it happens to lead to an favorable outcume.
I would say Captain Sisko is the worst offender. There was a serious war situation against an enemy that is very good at infiltration so Starfleet had all reason to not spread vital information to more than an absolute vital few poeple and trust the captains folow order. In that situation Sisko was going against the Admirals flew Defiant (an important military asset lot of fire power and a cloak) into Dominion space provoking them.
The thing that annoys me about Michael Burnham isn't that she goes outside the system. It's the way that her Messiah Complex is shown to be justified, all the time. In Season 1, she was the reason that Q'onos didn't get destroyed by the Federation. In Season 2, she was the only one who could pilot the Red Angel suit to bring Discovery to the future. In Season 3, she was the one who came up with the plan to rescue Discovery from Ossyra. Season 3 was a bit better about not making her the most important person on the entire show, but it still rewarded her for constantly shouldering all the responsibility for everything. Captain Picard may have been the primary plan-maker on TNG, but there were enough episodes centered around other people that he didn't feel like the most important person in the galaxy. DS9 went overboard with Sisko in its last season by making him a literal god, but it still had enough episodes around other characters even in its more serialized format (like Ezri, or Julian, or Nog, or Kira) that it felt fresh. Discovery is even more serialized than DS9 ever was, so it can't get away with Michael being the solution to every problem. They address that she has a Messiah Complex, but the events of the show always portray it as being a good thing. I personally didn't think that she should have been promoted to Captain yet because she still had so much personal growth left. When Sisko became captain, it felt more precipitated by character growth than an obligatory promotion. Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone; I tried to keep implicit bias out as much as possible. I do wonder how many people will disagree, and where they might disagree.
Did you mind when Kirk was promoted to Captain in the movies?
@@oduntola8208 Actually, yes, that was one of the cheesier aspects of a not-so-good movie (Star Trek IV is vastly overrated). Also, he wasn't promoted, he was demoted (just as a matter of keeping details straight, not that it makes any difference to the overall cheesiness of what happened).
@@sparshjohri1109 I'm talking about the movie where his dad's friend literally took him off his motorcycle and gave him a Starship to command! Did you have ANY problem with that display of nepotism?
@@oduntola8208 Oh, you're talking about the 2009 movie. My bad. Yes, that scene also makes no sense (it makes even less sense than the conclusion of A Voyage Home). You're pointing out another instance of bad writing in the history of Star Trek.
@@oduntola8208 Also, the wrongness of the nepotism aside, at least Kirk's faults are shown to be actually negative character traits. His being foolhardy and wild doesn't actually lead to any positive outcomes for the movie as a whole. It's his maturity that leads to the resolution (at least from what I remember of the movie, which admittedly is somewhat hazy). So what exactly does the 2009 movie have to do with the issue I laid out?
As a black man, I can say that thank you for bringing this up. You don't know how many times I'll watch a review and someone uses the fact that Micheal Burnham is black to criticize the inclusivity of the show. Saying that she is only on the show because she is black which diminishes the representation. Which genuinely confuses me. Especially when they think they've made this profound statement of "If you switched out her race, the character would be the same so I don't get why she is black." If she could be any race, why should it matter that she is black.
In the black community we can sometimes hold the actual level of blackness in your skin color to different standards. The darker a person is the stricter the standards are for them. It's as if we look for more faults in people with dark skin so we are more likely to call them on it when we see them.
I've even seen a video in which a dark-skinned man complained about Starfire from the Titans reboot for being his skintone. He literally points out that she is "gold and brown, but not that brown".
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
As a person of colour I feel that Burnham is seen by somer in the fanbase as an 'Uppity Black Woman' . They don't like that Burnham has agency, they don't like that she acts outside the chain of command and they're happy when Burnham is 'put in her place'. The bar will just be set ridiculously higher now that Burnham is Captain. There is nothing that Burnham will ever do that these people will accept.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
Yes Yes Yes they really love you and accept you !!!! Stop simping blacks have been in star trek as captains and admirals for decades . Some of yall will say some of th most uninformed dumb things for the love of gay and trans people. Do some research We have been in the true trek universe for ever . Have a little self respect. Sooo embarrassing.
I haven't seen Star Trek: Discovery yet. But i keep on seeing theses "Woke or SJW" videos. But Star Trek has always been diverse and a beacon of hope. So i don't understand why people are complaining about a Franchise that is literally is "SJW"
I've seen people attempting to make fun of Star Trek Discovery and Picard by calling them SJW star trek. I replied with almost the exact same comment as yours.
"Franchises that is literally is "SJW""
Yes! They clearly haven't seen DS9 for example.
Exactly! That's the entire foundation of the franchise, so people who make those arguments really are showing their biases.
@@verne1986 Sshh! You might scare all the neckbeards who think the Federation is a utopia full of perfect people who always do the right thing...
Those are people who pretend to be Star Trek games j just so that they can inject their fascist politics into everything.
Anyone who complains about "social justice warriors" is not a real Star Trek fan. Star Trek has made a point of portraying people like that as villains since the very first series.
People will portray Kirk being impulsive is that Kirk knows when it’s appropriate to use force or go against orders (sometimes he prevents necessary food shipments arriving or incites diplomatic incidents). People criticising Burnham instead phrase it as “thinks she knows best”.
The way they frame it depending on who it’s about tells everything, whether or not they’re conscious of it.
I’m hoping that once everyone gets used to her as captain, some of these “rebelliousness” critiques die down a little... we went from having no black female main cast to having several across the different series, so I’m hoping that this will help how they are all interpreted. Maybe the lack up till now has made it hard for others to separate their bias from interpretation? I know as a black woman, when you only have the one, you feel like you need them to be a paragon, less we never have the opportunity for a role model again...
@Tesla-Effect lol!!! Absolutely true! How could I let her out?! I’ve cosplayed as her TWICE!!🤣 Forgive me!
... Not to be picky but I always saw B'Elanna Torres on Voyager as black, she had attitude and strength and no accent, and her and Tom definitely were different cultures so she fit into my programmed mind that way. And many Klingons are black actors, and again my mind viewed them as black. I am just saying I felt black people were hugely part of Star Trek by end of DS9. As my Taiwanese roommate would say, it is Asians who are not allowed to lead in all of US TV and he is sorta right, they just hide their hurt except when you really push them that it annoys them. Disco did totally show other orientations, wow did they, they had guts in many ways, I guess I should cut them more slack it really is ambitious show.
Nope, all that's happened is they've made her even of an insufferable, know it all Mary Sue that keeps failing upwards.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
I guarantee you that, had Michael Murnham be a white man and Discovery would have been the same otherwise, there would have been far less criticism of the show! People wouldn't criticize a white male Michael for being the central character because, as this is the standard narrative in fiction, it wouldn't have been as obvious to many. Her decisions would likely also be far less criticized because white male protagonists going rogue to do the right thing is also very common. It's not purposefully but because we have been ingrained with this "normal" thing so much in our patriarchal society.
While I'm sure that some people are racially motivated, I absolutely do not like the show. And trust me I criticize the hell out of Star Trek Enterprise and that is headed by white man. Trust me I can pick that show the hell apart right now ... dare me
The Noir cop is built around this archetype.
@@TheFerrett3 You mean the white man? I would love to understand your statement but you have to be more specific. :)
IMHO, you are a) right, b) correct and c) accurate.
i'm pretty sure that if Michael was a white guy and his first action was to knock out his captain and take command of the ship to fire on the klingons my reaction would still have been wft is this shite... if Michael was a white guy and when the windows of that shuttle fogged up and the pilot got out of the shuttle to wipe them clear then fell off the shuttle... I'd have still said wtf is this shite..... if the security officer had said who brought in the human garbage and Michael was a white guy I'd still think wtf is this shite... if Michael was a white guy but every five minutes everyone stopped to tell us how stunning and brave he was I'd probably still think wtf is this shite and why does everyone keep saying how amazing this guy is... when I can't see anything likable in him at all.. And I'd still go back and re watch ds9 and voyager to cleanse this crap from my brain.... Now if you love STD that's great, there's something for everyone out there.. but to pretend that any criticism of the show is just a sexist double standard is about as shallow as the writing on the show lol
I look at it this way. On the one hand characters within the show call out her "messiah complex " because she has an(as one friend said of myself) "overdeveloped hero complex" but we should also remember that Michael was born into the "cowboy diplomacy " era of the Federation (as Janeway once pointed out). And, she was kinda fast tracked(like Kelvin Kirk) to the XO position on the Shenzou. She went from "Sarek's ward" to executive officer in 7 years. Her captaincy is only 3 years(for her) from that. That kind of elitism definitely has an effect on people. And the fact that Sonequa plays it that way, with the neurotic ticks that come with being raised that way, in the household that raised Spock(we know what a psychological mess he was till later in life) is a brilliant bit of characterization
Exactly this. And though I think her arc in late season 2 and season 3 is a bit rushed in my opinion I think the show at least heavily implies that her journey in the 32nd Century has been coming to terms with that need to do everything herself and start relying on others. She still does have that hero complex but she's accepted it and is aware of it now and I think that's a big part of why she lets her hair down (literally) a lot more in season 3. It's actually a shame that we skipped over that year she was looking for Disco because you can't tell me that she didn't have to force herself to rely on Book because she realised she wouldn't be able go survive or even function in the future without him.
Note, though, that Spock got his own captaincy relatively late himself and practically only after his own captain was promoted to admiral.
This is not really the type of people who are naturally put into a captain's chair. A captain needs to make decisions on a dime, with limited information. You ideally want someone in such a position with good self confidence, cowboy diplomacy or not - the ability to make decisions and be ready to face the music, no matter how the chips fall. They should certainly not be trigger-happy hotshots, but if you prevaricate for eons whether to engage or retreat, you're toast. And you certainly don't want someone in the chair muttering "F....f....f... what should I do? I have no idea what to do..." because that's gonna lead to professionalism and discipline going down the drain for the entire bridge crew.
Incidentally, Riker was, of course, much like that - he was happy being XO, making decisions as needed with the safety net of a captain above him who has the final responsibility for the vessel either way. Riker was even called out for it after he shunned his own command. But on the positive side, you could say it as Riker recognizing he wasn't "there" yet.
@@ohauss Spock also never wanted to be a Captain. He had absolutely no inclination in that regard which is shown several times in TOS. He was happy being a science officer and First Officer. We can assume that he eventually saw the logic in putting his experience in the Captain's chair and/or Kirk just kicked him into it without a choice. But it was clearly never an ambition. By contrast all the other Captains we've seen, including Burnham clearly had that need a drive to become a CO.
@@paulscott2037
But Burnham has more than the drive to become a CO. She often acts as if she already is CO and doesn't need to defer to anyone. A CO needs people skills - even more so in an environment like Star Fleet - be able to win over people to follow their lead, and be a team player.
And the OP stresses Burnham was raised in the same household as Spock. But as we just said, Spock is quite different. He has no problems playing second fiddle, and even when he does something alone, against orders or without approval, he does it clearly and unequivocally in the service of others, putting their welfare above his own.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
One thing I do want to add was that there was a lot of initial criticism of the romance of Burnham and Book. This is too brief a venue to discuss the erasure of Black romance (quick, name who Sidney Poitier kissed in any movie, any Black man who Halle Barrie kissed etc...). People forget that the big thing that the Cosby showed was to end that long train of characters without a romantic partner (think Julia) and show a romantic couple.
Julia felt like the Black Mary Tyler Moore and the Courtship of Eddie's Father. The Book / Burnham romance is going to be fascinating. He's super supportive so far. Almost a fan of MB. Which seems right.
I remember the backlash again Janeway back in the 90s in a very similar fashion and believe it's part of the reason Voyager isn't regarded as highly as some of the other series. People still drone on about some of the decisions she made which would have been celebrated if done by Kirk or even Picard, but no because it was Katherine it was wrong. I can only imagine the additional pressure Burnham would have. I have my own issues with the show but the characters aren't one of them (mostly the production design and distinct lack of cheesiness)
When I got into Trek (about the time Discovery started) there were still folk telling me Janeway was too emotional and reckless for a captain.
I do think that the dislike for Captain Janeway is sexist. She makes no more stupid decisions than the other captains
@@TheFerrett3 *insert Janeway eyeroll gif here* ;)
Voyager is still the top most rated trek show on netflix... so I'm not sure why people think its not regarded as highly as others.... unless its people like steve shives getting the boot in every 5 minutes haha
See, I quite like the Burnham character, but I pretty much despise the Janeway character. Janeway was stilted and boring. She wasn't genial like Kirk, Picard, or (especially) Archer. She wasn't relatable like Sisko. She was, instead, arbitrary, kurt, and prone to wildly poor and sometimes malicious decisions.
Burnham also makes poor decisions (if I was Admiral Vance, I wouldn't let her anywhere near my starships), but she's also relatable and kind. One of the best decisions the writers made was putting her in a room with Tilly.
I didn't like Voyager, I tried watching it a couple times, and just didn't really like the characters. I don't feel that way about Discovery at all.
I never found Janeway to be "worst captain ever". She did get a lot of bad writing, but over all I feel as a captain she was no better or worse than Picard, Kirk or Sisko. I did find Burnham a bit grating, but in the same way I found Archer a bit grating - the focus was a little too much on that one character, often to the expense of the others. I'm not gonna claim the previous Trek shows were pure ensemble shows - but they did focus on the bridge crew in general more than both Enterprise and Discovery did.
And by the end of season 3 I still know basically nothing about any of the bridge crew except Saru and Burnham, and even there the onus is solely on Burnham. Not even poor awesome Tilly has gotten that much attention - most people are more excited about her evil MU counterpart than Tilly herself. And it's something I feel Enterprise got wrong too - even though we even got 2-3 episodes focused on each of the bridge crew, the focus was way too much on Archer even in their own episodes, so I never felt we got to know Travis or Reed or Hoshi. It was all just Archer (and later Trip and T'Pol). It's a new approach, and one that grates on me. Mind you, Discovery is much better put together than Enterprise was.
The irony of it is that Burnham isn't a bad character. She has issues, she makes mistakes, she's nowhere near perfect, she's highly competent and skilled but has authority problems, etcetera. I'm actually looking forward to her being a captain in the next season, because she'll finally see how the shoe fits on the other side - she's gonna have to wrestle with arrogant hypercompetent engineers, insecure ensigns, bridge crew members who keep their problems too buttoned up, and so on. She's gonna find out that it's not that easy to be a captain. I look forward to seeing it.
...I guess what I'm saying is that the issues I have with Burnham has nothing to do with her as a character or her character arcs, but the way the episodes have been constructed (the Trill episode for example was one where her presence on the surface could easily have been the ship's doctor instead, and didn't need the action scenes at all). Even Enterprise had episodes where Archer had little presence other than a brief twenty second scene.
And to be honest, I feel any issues I have could be resolved if the show was simply named Star Trek: Burnham. Because that would feel more honest from the producers and writers than pretending it's about the ship Discovery and its crew. I don't even mean this in a negative way, I would definitely watch Star Trek: Burnham. Just like I watched Star Trek: Picard.
I understand and actually support this criticism, becasue I have the same problem. I wish I knew the other characters more, and Michael takes up all the oxygen in the script, but this is what I meant about criticizing her in the first place because here you have to give this long treatise carefully spelling out why you have perfectly legitimate issues with her, because people making bad faith arguments have muddied the conversation around her so much that when people have legitimate criticisms, it makes you look like you agree with them.
Yes we need more of an ensemble, of the bridge crew I still can only remember Owo and Dettmer's names, and up until this season I mainly remembered Dettmer because of her cybernetic implant.
They did a poll several years back for a Star Trek anniversary (might be UK TV) on who is fan favourite captain. Janeway won it.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
@@theswampus670 The show already has an ensemble; it's just that that ensemble doesn't focus on the bridge, that's all. Trek may have a tradition that it focuses on the bridge crew, but, there can be more than one tradition in Trek.
Damn, you hit the nail right on the head. Everything you said in this video makes perfect sense. In a way, the way they've written her, the way we perceive her as a character is brilliant. To invoke that kind of feeling from people and to understand that there's a double standard is something that I never would have thought of.
A lot to think about. One thing this does shine a light on is the reverse, the way white cis/het male characters are rarely held to consequences. I appreciated Micheal getting dressed down because it created a new challenge for her, a place to grow. How many opportunities for interesting character growth for other characters have been lost because their actions had no consequences. I think Picard having to live with consequences was the best part of his new show.
Yes, it sucks that so much of this falls on Micheal's shoulders as the first Black woman, and the "fan" reaction is *shakes head* but I also think there are upsides to characters facing more consequences in Trek.
What we do about the low standard our society holds white dudes to IRL, I don't know.
Picard had to face the consequences of his actions more than once - even actions he didn't take voluntarily. He was deeply traumatized by being used by the Borg to kill his own people, and then Sisko comes and confronts him about it on the nose. But comparing Michael with a commanding officer misses the point of being a commanding officer.
And how on Earth is Michael "the first Black woman"???
@@ohauss Picard really never faced any real serious consequences, outside of his Borg arc, though. In fact from the TNG era of Star Trek(including DS9 and VOY), it's one of the glaring issues with it. He wasn't in control of his own actions and he gets unfairly held responsible for them. Versus times when he genuinely broke protocol, it turned out badly, and the most he got was basically a finger waggle from an admiral. What Picard had going for him though was his own sense of personal accountability. He was always the harshest judge of his own actions. Also I think the OP meant first black woman captain.
... But in the future racism is dead, it is maybe urealistic but true somehow Humanity Got Better, so it is just WRONG to slip into the view that all the White officers get away with stuff. And not sure I see it, Wesley at the academy for his crime got punished and his friends expelled, and even for minor crimes Picard does a speech and call such conduct evil and put a demerit in their records and all the admirals did get caught and it seemed justice would be harsh to them- - - I never felt there was laxness or discrimination in the future. I may sound werid, but Roddenberry and Star Trek are the future without these old problems, period, we can't just totally ignore the whole point. And I think the writers putting women into the leads admitted all this, we are wrong to undo this and insist racism is there in the future. Hmm, what fights are left for the future, I guess just the shared goal of supporting friends and being brave, this is shared there are not particular groups who face unfairness, man the future sounds great compared to now...
@@mostlyguesses8385 the show may be set in the future, but it is written by real humans grounded in the time they are writing. Writer and critic; Lani Dian Rich uses the term 'terroir' which comes from winemaking, it states whatever is in the soil gets into the grapes and flavours the wine. Attitudes in the world the writers live in colour the writing whether they intend to or not. And in our world there has historically been a tendency to give lighter or lesser consequences to white men than to everyone else. This doesn't need to be intentional, the figures meeting out consequences just had an easier time empathizing with people who look like them. That's changing, but slowly.
That doesn't mean white men never faced consequences, in or out of fiction, Wes is a good example of that, just that it happened less. The fact that that and Family are the two examples people have come up with, and they are two of the best episodes in the series, kind of makes my point that we get better drama when characters do have to face consequences and grow.
@@sara_sah-raezzat5086 ... If you listed disobeying orders, by Riker, versus Burnham, Burnham is like once an episode and R is like once every 20. She clearly is a maniac...... I sorta admire that, but maniac compared to boring LaForge or Riker.
On other issue, they gave B bad goals, in S2 the Red Angel was not an enemy attacking anyone, and then they showed it tied to her family so her obsession became totally selfish. In s3 the Burn was a 150 year old mystery, not hurting anyone, and never claimed to be reversible, but B got obsessed. In s1 we blamed B for the war, so that was a mixed issue in our minds. . . . . B always seemed WRONG in her obsessions, bad writing, P and Riker was just trying to save lives and the ship rarely obsessed with some science mystery
If disobeying orders/disrespecting chain of command as a big character flaw and getting no punishment from it, then pretty much every main character in trek would be awful.
Right? Every season of every series of StarTrek has one or more (generally more) "character X disobeys orders" episode! It's a StarTrek staple!
They don't do it the first few bloody episode, plus it usually doesn't end up in a war.
Also their decision usually doesn't end up getting your mother figure/mentor figure killed.
@@ANTSEMUT1 Chief O Brien disobeys in episode 5 to help tosk.
In episode 10, tuvok disobeys orders and makes the secret exchange to get the space folding device from the aliens who love stories
Archer goes against top brass when he exposes the vulcan's spy monastery in episode 6
@@thecommenter6773 and how did those things end? Did it make anyone who followed along look really bad? Or caused a lot more problems than it solved?
Thank you for this! As a black person you have my permission to get mad for us lol. This video is long overdue I knew it would come from you. I heard no lies here.
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
Michael was a child who couldn't do anything when she lost her parents. No surprise she grows up trying to control everything to keep that from happening ever again.
I think that we can also view the discourse around this show through the lens of contemporary American politics. In my view, Discovery is in many ways an identity politics paradise in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, and ability. I noticed this especially during the closing scene of That Hope is You, Part II, when Captain Burnham glances across the bridge. The joy I felt in seeing such diversity was tempered by the nagging feeling that I don't actually know these people. They're props to make progressive fans feel good, but they lack any depth. Conservative fans see characters that aren't fleshed out and feel frustrated and that frustration gets pointed towards Burnham, who is essentially the only semi fleshed out character. And progressive fans (so starved for representation) react strongly to defend Discovery. This functions as a barrier that prevents pressure on the writers to do a better job of humanizing this crew. We have the most diverse crew Trek has ever had, and conservative fans don't see themselves in this season ( the show lacks any straight able-bodied white men). That can't be ignored and I suspect that is fueling some of the vitriol towards Burnham and Discovery. White men have never had to try to see themselves in others and until now a straight white man has been an integral par of Burnham arc ( Lorca, Pike, Spock). This comes at a time when White men fear that their stronghold on culture and power is waning. The answer isn't to include straight white men and not to shame white men for not connecting with diverse characters (it's our culture). We need to point out the implicit bias and also write more fully fleshed out diverse characters. Personally, I think the writers should not only have diversity on the show, but also help us to know and understand these diverse characters(their backgrounds, motivations, traumas) Hell, we don't know any of the bridge crew and we still don't know the story behind Book's name. This show has empty diversity and it struggles to make us connect with these characters. That's a writing room problem as much as a fandom problem.
I 100% agree with you about the bridge crew. I keep forgetting their names and it's frustrating when they get close-ups whenever they react to something, I keep thinking 'who are you and why should I happy you're acting like this?'
@@Redrally Right! My sentiments exactly.
Great analysis
They were going to give us characterization on Detmer, and then they just stopped. Lieutenant Owosekun just manifests convenient traits when necessary (we had no indication that she grew up in a Luddite community in season 2, and we had no background on her holding her breath for ten minutes straight in season 3). Rhys and the person who handles messages (I can't remember his name) have as much personality as the redshirts from TOS. There was definitely more focus on the interpersonal relationships among the crew, but still nowhere near what there should have been. I can't bring myself to care very much about the characters because I know nothing about them.
When the video ran, I thought she was saying that Burnham was a bland character, and I wholeheatedly agreed. I also agree with the notion of empty diversity. However, I must warn against wishing that representation would limit itself to "good" shows. Although I would obviously wish that only shows that are to my taste would include diversity (because that would make scrolling Netflix much easier, duh), I think it is the wrong way to think about it. Discovery should not have to be a better show than it is just because it does have diversity. It should just be a better show. Period. It used to be that shows with representation were better than average, simply because they had to jump through higher hoops than "normal" shows. But that time has passed, apparently. And in a way, that is progress.
Thank you thank you thank you. For addressing the apparent vitriol, hatred and double standards that I have seen all along with the "criticism" of this show, and also how her actions more broadly reflect the social-economic position of black women in society, namely working outside the system. Very well stated :-)
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
I think you're right that part of the problem is her not being in command. I was interested in having an mc who wasn't the captain, but as much as I'm sad to lose Saru, I think it'll work better with her in the big chair.
I admit I was just a little pleased to see her disciplined for running off. Mostly because I was upset that it feels a lot like she was betraying her friends for a character we barely know, not just doing her own thing. Do I feel that a women have more responsibility to their friends? Subconsciously, maybe. I'm willing to allow for that.
But Michael reads so much like Kirk, even having a line about no win scenarios that made me smile. So I'm excited to see what she does as captain.
I was also glad to see her finally evening out her friendship with Tilly. I felt she was letting Tilly down a whole lot in s3 so I was glad they were back to supporting each other instead of Tilly supporting Michael all the time.
Thank you for your wonderful and constructive comments about Burnham. We have had several conversations over the years about this very issue. I am glad that you see through the criticism for what it is! Yes, we do need to discuss these issues so we can talk about problems in this century in order to improve the position of women in society!
That said, do you remember when Troi got her promotion on TNG? She was belittled and critiqued in a similar way as Burnham! I remember one article that said Data should have been promoted because he was more deserving and smarter, despite Data saying he had no ambition! When Troi beat Data at three dimensional chess, that was also derided as being impossible! There was a clear message from some fans that Troi shouldn't be ambitious nor promoted. Many, not all, fans simply wanted Troi to be a sex symbol with nothing to do but please their sexual fantasies! Things didn't end here! When the Duras Sisters shot down the Enterprise D, Troi was called a bad driver instead of being commended for taking over the helm during a battle situation! When Picard ordered Troi to ram the Shimitar in Nemesis, again Troi wasn't described as brave, but was compared to a bad driver! This slight on Troi's character is an example of how society has been conditioned to devalue women and not give them recognition for the work they do! Finally, Obama was held to a higher standard than most presidents while Bush Jr and Trump could be as dumb as a box of rocks! It's a sad state of affairs which I hope will end one day!
Lemme start by just applauding @Jessie Gender for exemplifying how to talk about these issues with insight while leaving it to black people, especially women to speak for themselves. Great video and kinda brave given the climate out there right now.
I agree with most everything you said, but I want to point out something else that occured to me in reading people rag on Burnham getting promoted to Captain at the end of the finale. She is responsible for resuming interstellar travel! People seriously doubt she'd get at LEAST a fat promotion for driving to that outcome? Seriously?
Imagine that electricity went out everywhere for 100+ years, and then someone under your command in a quasi military org figured out why and how to solve the issue. Would you care that she’d broken some rules to get it done? Or would you be elated that she’d turned the lights back on? Within the reality of the show, OF COURSE she got promoted! She fixed interstellar travel throughout the galaxy!
I have been really liking Discovery and Picard season one was good and I'm look forward to seeing where they take season 2. I cannot wait until I'm able to see lower decks.
Peace and long life.
The only issue I have with Michael Burnham is that the show centers squarely around her, she is the star of 95% of the episodes, and if she is not the star, she is at least a strong plot point like in the Georgiou episodes in season 3. Discovery is filled with loads of fascinating characters, I want them to have their own feature episodes too and thus allow the show to grow and breathe.
Everyone loves ice cream but once in a while we like to try different flavors for variety, and Discovery has failed at giving us variety. every other Star Trek shows would have episodes where someone besides the captain was the star, and everyone was better for it. In Discovery, the solution originates from Michael almost always and the other characters just seem to hero worship her, which gets tiresome. and I would much rather not say any of this because Sonequa Martin-Green seems like a wonderful person, and I think she and her character would be better served if every other character were allowed space to grow with her.
Yes, this is why I still haven't made it through the second season. I am so bored with her being at the center of every narrative. All of the characters are interesting, and I want everyone to get their time to shine and be shown as competent at doing their jobs.
Great video Jessie. Being a 52 year old black man who's been watching Star Trek since I was about 6 years old. This is the reception Michael Burnham received from a Star Trek group I used to be in. One guy said "the moment I saw that the lead character was going to be a black woman I didn't even bother" or forced diversity which never makes any sense so if the whole show was white people it wouldn't be forced diversity it would just be standard. Sometimes people don't listen to themselves. Michael Burnham reminds me a lot of time Paris Tom now he wasn't the lead character on the show but he too lied was court-martialed and sent to prison and most fans were just willing to overlooking. I have had issues with the writers sometimes seeming like they write Michael into situations when it's like they don't want the fans to root for her. I'm sure that's not their intent but that's how it comes across sometimes. many times people would go out of their way to praise any other character like Tilly Saru or Captain Pike but oh no not Michael. It gets so ridiculous I even heard a person criticize the show why can't she have a normal hairstyle instead of an African hairstyle for the record they change Janeway's hairstyle almost every season on Voyager. One writer said if you took Sonequa Martin-Green out of that role and put someone like Chris Pine in that role 90% of the problems people have with Michael Burnham would go away. Is that true I don't know it depends on your perception. Everything gets Amplified with social media and of course the most negative things stick out more than the positive.
I was excited to read that Sonequa Martin-Green was cast as the lead! I'd only seen her on Walking Dead before, and stopped watching that show when she left.
I really appreciate this message and think it was needed as well as liking how you handled it. I also thought you did a good job and I liked the other references you gave. I thought the Michael's burden piece was well done as I had also read it. I don't have a problem with people not liking the character of Michael Burnham as long as they have specific and real reasons to back it up. The problem is that people's bias tends to bring out a lot of hypocritical reasons and it turns into a hateful rant. When you point out another Captain that did the same thing there seems to always be an excuse for the other Captain.
So many individuals also ignore a lot of Burnham's background as being raised by Vulans. Season one is watching characters reject a human being raised by a Vulcan. Season two is about Burnham finding her humanity and then season three finding a balance.
While Burnham has many character flaws, it is hard to even point those out because so much time is spent dealing with defending the character. It is also hard to tell where Burnham has character flaws and where the flaws are in the writing. Hopefully people will watch this and possibly give them a new outlook oh her character.
This is the video that brought me to your channel and ultimately the reason I subscribed. Thank you for your thoughtful commentary.
I think all those who are “suited for the Captain’s Chair” possess the wisdom and strength to know when it’s time to paint outside the lines and when not to. (Even sometimes a little of both) Will be interesting to see how the character grows into that role as captain.
If I'm being honest, I think the first season just didn't do a great job at endearing Burnham to the audience. She did a bunch of stuff that was obviously a bad idea and had massive negative consequences. The audience didn't take to her. So in later episodes when they slid her into the defacto star trek protaganist role, we aren't seeing the world from her perspective like we do with Kirk or Picard, we are seeing her from Star Fleet's perspective. The way she's always the one instigating the plot and solving it gives us this sense that she feels superior to those around her. I doubt that was the intention, I don't think it's the actress's fault but it is the feeling you get. And then when the show tried to justify it, it feels patronizing, it feels like the show is explaining to us why she deserves to be the main character. We are stuck in this outside position, having someone tell us why the lead is so great instead of being in the lead's head. From that outside position watching her do whatever she likes and get rewarded for it is frustrating and watching her do whatever she likes and get admonished is cathartic.
I'm not sure how you'd go about fixing it either. Cause a lot of the setup with her from the first season follows tropes and techniques we are used to seeing in a sympathetic villain, not in the hero, and the audience, conscious or not, identifies that. So when the show turns around halfway through S1 and wants us to root for Burnham as the hero, it feels bad as a viewer.
As somebody who has always found hero-versus-villain type storytelling very contrived, I found the first season's characterization of Michael refreshing at the time.
@@voltijuice8576 But that's what it is - the lone hero against the adversity posed by enemies and imbeciles.
Disagree. TOS and its movies were routinely not simply "Kirk's perspective". There's a reason Spock was called the Brain, Bones the Heart and Kirk the Hand of the Trio. They were sort of a Trinity - metaphors for different aspects of the human condition that occur in all of us simultaneous, isolated to look at them individually, much like alien races in Star Trek were metaphors for a long time.
@@ohauss - I meant character in terms of personality and dynamics. That the characters were then used in typically dramatic narrative conflicts I see as story-based creative decisions rather than character-based ones.
Hero, enemy, and imbecile I understand as narrative roles rather than characters..
Two of the biggest problems with Discovery are a) taking the focal character out of the ship's command structure while trying to make her the hero of the show, and b) playing fast and loose a professional chain of command, something that I've seen come up in modern Star Trek a lot. The problem isn't with Michael Burnham's race or her gender, it's the way she's been written into a corner for three seasons. She's not the person running the ship but the writers wanted her to be the classic hero the has the adventures and solves all the problems so plot has to be contrived to put Burnham in that position. Having a non-traditional focal character looks good on paper but these writers have really struggled to make that work.
Re: high standards. I have high functioning autism and when people hear it sometimes they think I'm a super genius as well, and it bugs me that most in media are also depicted as having savant syndrome. So I relate to this in a round about way.
Represent!
So what do you think about the Netflix show, Atypical. I don't think he's portrayed as a savant but more or less fascinated with certain topics so learns all he can about them. But that's just a small element. Mostly, it's about his learning to navigate social cues and build satisfying and caring relationships. I haven't finished it but thank-you for outting yourself cuz now remember liking it and now wanna go back to it.
3:34 Were you required to reduce the quality of those pictures? Because it would be helpful to make the title of the article at least visible or put a link in the description. ;) :)
Ah, I see you mentioned the title verbally. Should have waited for that. Sorry :)
I've seen the same last week in The Expanse fandom...
SPOILERS FOR LAST WEEK EPISODE
...there was a fucking high amount of people crying because Naomi didn't die, some very racist and misogynist and some a little more subtle calling plot armor and arguing about how people explode in space instead of reading some real science or remembering S1E6 when Uncle Mateo takes his helmet for a moment to remove a tube
And it would help if they knew the show was based on a series of books.
I've noticed the hate for Naomi exponentially increase with her storyline focusing on her being a mother too.
Highly thought-provoking Thank-you, Thank-you for making the point about MB's mutiny. True, if Michael's Vulcan Hello had succeeded thousands of lives could have been saved. However, Star Fleet's punishment of Burnham felt correct in-universe, too. Because Star Fleet has always been overly authoritarian and sexist in Trek. That's part of the growth Vance had to undergo, to properly appreciate that his way, is not always the right or only way. And that perhaps he was being as sexist as he was with his own daughter.
Nu Trek, thru Mariner and Burnham and their parents, does Trekdom a great service by diving deep into what it takes to succeed in a universe where you still have a few strikes against you. In MB's case, she was brought up as a Vulcan but her race made her a target. So Sarek made sure she learned how to defend herself and studied to be the best of the best. Theoretically, being educated in those Vulcan learning bubbles may provide superior intellectual gifts. Fortunately, Culber, Book, Bryce, and Owosekan provide a wider perspective of Blackness so Michael's excellence can be seen with better context.
Still, it's the fear of the logic extremists attacking her new family at an early age is what gave Burnham her messiah complex. That's what caused MB to create the rift between herself and her younger brother. Spock first points it out to her. Then the entire crew lets her know they can share the burdens of the galaxy with her and travel 1000 years into the future to make their point.
Being a person of color, I identify greatly with Michael and the need to stand up to injustice wherever we see it. Often, that is a lonely task. But to be successful I've found I must find a coalition of the willing to transverse the treacherous water of race together. Amanda Gorman said it best earlier this week, "if we merge mercy
with might and might with right, then love becomes our legacy and change our children’s birthright." The operative word is "WE".
Thank you for pointing out WHY Michael has a savior/messianic complex, because this is heavily disregarded.
All I really have to say is that I don’t think it should have been Michael in that symbiont pool with Adira. It should have been Paul!
Thank you!
(Edit - Not because we share the same name, because from a plot standpoint it makes much more sense.)
I disagree. At that point in the story, Adira was closest to Michael. Adira didn't develop a relationship with Paul until after she regained her trill memories. Just my opinion.
@@melodramatic7904 THEIR
Right? She doesn't need to be shoehorned into every situation... I quite enjoyed episode 2, because it mostly didn't have Michael.
Agreed 100%
Thank you so much for your insights, you are one of my favorite pop-culture critics, great to see you every time my friend.
I want to know who wrote the "colored hero" article. Anyone know?
Good video. Having been watching Discovery (currently about halfway through the third season) recently and I agree with this somewhat frustrating double standard we adhere POCs in conjunction to white cishet male (and female) characters to. It can promote positive discrimination and implicit bias as you pointed out, and not often calling these out and actively having important discussions regarding having representation to underrepresented communities in current times is a necessary vital thing. Having watched Discovery and following Burnham's actions and her overall character journey thus far, she's certainly more well rounded as a lead compared to how inconsistent Archer and Janeway were often written as in their respective shows. She has flaws in terms of upholding the values of Starfleet within the stories but it comes from an understandable emotionally resonant place. She is willing to face the consequences of her actions as a "responsibility hoarder", that to me makes her come off as more a hero of upholding progressive ideals than her two predecessors who at their most extreme lean much more into the reactionary (Archer and Janeway in two specific but strikingly similar situations were they torture a prisoner to get the information they want, whereas Mirror!Georgiou is the one willing to carry out similar actions despite Burnham's repeated objections).
Many of the flaws pointed out about Burnam are praise by other captains like Kirk and Picard. In this case it showed three season of a Commander taking that next steps to becoming a captain. That has never been done before. Kirk was kicked out of Starfleet for not following orders. He also was promoted to captain for not following orders. Picard was also told to leave Starfleet for not following orders. My point is that some of the greatest Starfleet captains didn't always follow the rules or they were making decisions beyond their paygrade.
Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who are three of my all time favorite Sci-Fi franchises so I love to follow UA-cam channels that discuss them.
However, when the lead character in these franchises recently became a woman I had to drop some channels due to their thinly veiled misogyny.
One channel in particular the host and his co-host just kept going in on Mary Sue and SJW to the point he was never actually discussing the plot. Then when you add on the fact that Michael Burnham is a Black woman I kept on dropping channels.
This channel and one other are the only two subscriptions I have left for Star Trek. Keep up the good work Jesse.
I'm a multiracial Black man. To be honest, I never see or saw color when looking at the character of Michael. In fact, I paid more attention to her name -- a traditionally male name - than I did to her color/race or whatever. Her character is so "American" that I don't myself seem to put her in box. There are other people like me in the United States who were raised sort of entitled and also don't see color. Sometimes, I forget this isn't always to case in our counter (USA).
I also bond more to you yourself because of how we are similar -- what I pick up from your personality. I listen to a few people on here and you are one main people I put first (your channel).
UFF! The show "haters" on here are very very annoying. I ask why they watch the show if they don't enjoy it? Do they just review the show to get monetized. These people are very smallminded and should find other shows to watch if they get absolutely no benefit from watching the show.
Excellent video and analysis of the "Burnham Situation" - you are expressing my thoughts exactly!!!
Zeroing in on Michael, lets a certain component of this fan reaction off the hook. Many Trekkies who hate Michael also hate (...to varying degrees...) ST Picard, but from the opposite direction, saying they hate how Picard is now “diminished” or being yelled at, or they’ll say he’s being made to apologize to Romulans or Raffi, and they’ll say it’s because the writers want him to suffer for being a white cis male. He’s not the large and in-charge Picard of yore.
Also, they seem to have a visceral reaction to certain smaller white cis male characters on Discovery being talked down to, they believe, or diminished, like the famous a**hole mansplaining know-it-all on early Season 2, who got killed from his own hubris on that dangerous space dive to the planet surface. Or they’ll say Pike listens to Burnham, who’s always right or “knows more than the Captain”. They reject her “saving the day” all the time.
But it’s more than that. The fan reaction to John Boyega taking off that Stormtrooper helmet in the Force Awakens trailer echoed back from the corners of the universe. No one had seen the film yet, but it was “ruining childhoods”. The reaction to Daisy Ridley as the star, to a female Dr. Who, to James Bond casting rumors -
...and on the flip side: the reaction and demand for a Pike led series, the initial reaction to the Picard announcement (...as if to “save” the franchise...), the notion that The Orville is “real Star Trek”, that Mandalorian is “real Star Wars” - all of this is a variation on a theme - namely - that these “fans” have an almost allergic reaction to a white-cis-straight male not being centered, and not being in charge when he is (Picard).
Most of the people I’ve encountered on social media would never characterize themselves as racist or sexist - uh - but being uncomfortable or offended because the white male cis-straight guy is no longer the leader, not always the center - is exactly what homophobia, queer-phobia, sexism, and white supremacist delusion are.
They don’t just dislike the shows or the movies. They are ANGRY. They will show up in forums and seethe and gripe and try to shame others for liking this “woke crap”. They meet on clickbait hate sites (...and UA-cam channels... we all know which ones...) and their hatred churns and festers. They zero in on names like Abrams, Kurtzman, and Kathleen Kennedy and turn them into pejoratives. In today’s climate, I’m surprised there haven’t been violent incidents. Some of this toxic fandom is beyond a sober critique of writing or Burnham’s shortcomings as a character.
The double-standard with Michael is often a secondary characteristic of a much uglier subtext.
I agree with everything you said here.
A very well rounded discussion, Jessie. Well done!
It's a shame that prejudice against race, gender, age etc. is still such a sticking point or trigger for extreme reactions in modern society.
Thank you for all the work you do. Another great, well reasoned take.
Compliance training is a thing. Especially for minority (BIPOC/Gender/Disabled) people . We need to be honest about that. There are also important conversations to have about “equality “vs. equity
I love discovery, actually it's my favourite show of all time and I love the character of Burnham, I loved how season 3 was changing her character from a messianic complex to a more human, selfish and a bit darker person, I wish they can explore that further. But it is true there is a lot of racist and sexist bias, the first season of the 13th Doctor was review bombed yet I believe it was the best season, it was very relevant and focused on the political events that took place i the past, it was very educational and sadly it was hated for that and the fact that it's a female Dr. This shit never ends and it hurts every time you see these reviews on UA-cam
I don't think the issue is with Jodie as the Doctor, inasmuch as it is with Chibnall as the showrunner
@@heartofdawn2341 Good point but there are people out there in some comments in UA-cam were people literally said the show is ruined because Dr who is supposed to be a 'White male' but yes there is also a lot complaints about Chinbals woke historical take which i really love
*YO WHITE MAN! IT"S PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT MINORITY!*
Well said! You did a great job. I admire the thought you put into your channel.
I am so glad you did this video -- and I trust you. . For me, the issue of Michael Burnham is fraught. I've seen bullying happen so much in my life. Bullying societally happens due to race, gender, sexuality, and even class. People bond over nitpicking the faults of the outcast and create a world in which treating that person with contempt, oppression, and injustice is okay. As a white woman, I can't speak for how this resonates for people of color, and as a sis-het-female, I can't address how it may feel to anyone who is not. Yet, I have been bullied -- been an outcast in a group and had every nuance of my actions disparaged and criticized by others, and they have allowed themselves to treat me in a way that has caused me great pain -- and I've seen this happen to others. When I watch the attack videos on Burnham -- that's what it feels like: Racism, YES, Sexism YES and just plain old bullying: YES. I adore Burnham, and in a way identify with her. So all of this is just painful. Yet I so so respect you and thank you for your take on this: I know you and I trust you.
I think this is a great topic and I thank you for it. I do think that in some years people's attitudes may change. Captain Janeway wasn't treated the best but apparently now people love watching Voyager on Netflix and people recognize she's a great captain.
I think one different factor that also doesn't let people see their bias is the lack of an exaggerated antagonist. DS9 had the Ferengi, representing the things we want to avoid, greed, corruption, sexism. In Voyager, we have the Kazon being extremely sexist and hating captain Janeway because she is a woman with power. En Next Gen, there is several encounters where the equality, among races, genders and more is openly discussed and addressed. This didn't happen or at least in such strong in your face way. This allowed the viewer to remain unquestioned about their bias, comfortable without an exaggerated personification of this bias that will make them see it and reject it.
Thanks for talking about this :)
When Kirk and Picard disobeyed orders it was usually because they were handed down from on high by Starfleet Command or some remote, out of touch admiral. The point of having Kirk and Picard disobeying orders was to show that, sometimes, breaking the chain of command is the right thing to do because the people handing down those orders don't understand the moral or practical implications on the ground.
By contrast, Burnham isn't disobeying remote detached authority figures, she's disobeying the orders of, and breaking the trust of, her closest colleagues - people who are her mentors, friends - who are right there with her in the situation. Acting in this way isn't being a rebel or a renegade, it's being un-empathic, untrustworthy and arrogant towards those who should be able to rely on her completely.
When other characters have behaved in a similar way - Ro Laren in Preemptive Strike, Worf in Reunion and Change of Heart, Wesley Crusher in The First Duty, and Tom Paris' whole character arc - this is explicitly shown to be the wrong thing to do for a Starfleet officer.
(Personally, her having this personality isn't automatically a reason to dislike the character, the problem is what the writers do with it. It's a really mixed bag - acknowledging and building it into the storyline in S3 is positive, but things like handwaving away her conviction in S1 and then having her promoted to captain despite her obvious difficulty with the chain of command are annoying is really hard to accept).
But my point is that I don't think characterising this as a double standard is accurate. It's not a 1:1 comparison.
Kirk in the reboot films acts just like this, though.
Just recently discovered your channel. I had read the article when it first came out. It nailed it. There is a concept in Sociology of Work called Tokenism. The problem with tokenism is that the token person (99% of the time the person who isn’t a white cis male). Is that all the expectations of the category of the token people gets laid on them. Star Trek often, and I hate this term, Mary Sue’s the token. It drives me nuts and this past season it was Adira (I think they did that a bit with Torres in Voyager)... I love the character overall, but I had a couple of eye roll movements because of the tokenism. BUT as more trans characters show up on tv in general we will see this happen less. Side note, I love the character of Burnham precisely because I think the writers are struggling with how to write a character like her. Thanks for the video!
Kennedy's article is great, so your video. I can't help but wonder if this 3 season coming of age story till captaincy is purposefully centered and lots of time spent at Burnham just to highlight this double standard issue. I was far from understanding all those nuances, but me and some friends got this: Kirk did it, what's the fuss she doing it too? Okay, some more lines to Owo, Keyla, Rhys, Bryce and Nilsson is dearly expected to S04, but I can't stop thinking the writers did a lot of focus on Burnham to get us uneasy and reflect over it. That's what Discovery is about, uh? See a d understand new things... or relate yourself as you never seen before. I totally relate with this constant need to prove yourself just because there is some hidden bias. It sucks.
One more thing, could you do some analysis like this with Saru? I love his development, and I love the way he wields authority. He is so kind, thoughtfull, and overcame such strong fear, quite the opposite male authority character we see at Anson's Pike. Seems many peeps translates Saru authority stile as weakness, but I don't, and one of my favorite lines is between Saru and Pike over Culber and Tyler fight: " The Starfleet manual offers no regulatory guidelines for interactions between humans with Klingons grafted to their bones and a ship's doctor returned from the dead." 🖖😁
(Saru, as Kelpien, also had to reach the high bar...)
The thing that bothers me about burnam is that she is portrayed as the best of the best, the ideal of star fleet . Every character constantly reminds us that she is the ideal human. But she constantly gets into situations that don’t support that, she constantly kills random aliens without any regard just for the sake of the show to have action moments, the writers always find excuses for her to not take the peaceful or diplomatic path.
Also the show in general lacks a lot of development to the other cast members, specially their relationship with burnam. So it feels kinda weird that saru who had a lot of development suddenly stops / gives up being a captain.
Oh God this, all of this.
And she's friends with space Hitler. Why are they all friends with space Hitler!?
@@blenderpanzi yeah.... that’s a huge problem, the empress is probably repónganles for the genocide of multiple species and no one seems to be bothered by that.
@@gonardtronjuan And she ate people!
You are so good I am enjoying so much your commentary of Star Trek is just mind blowing I love you is all I can say keep it up ....just GREAT !love it ...
Burnham's story arch is the story of my work life.
Racism in a stereotypical male white fandom?!! Never!
anyway, I agree completely with you :)
Good job Jessie, you addressed what I have stated in previous comments about the implicit bias that our culture has against black women.
Unfortunately, the show runners decided to centre STD around a complex character who makes questionable choices and is overly and unnaturally (read unearned) empathetic/emotional at times. The actress is unable to portray this character convincingly and charismatically and it does not help that she appears to be always saving the day and the other characters are continually and unnaturally praising her. This has nothing to do with her gender or ethnicity and not solely the fault of the actress alone. The actress and the character are also failed by the writers and an audience that want an ensemble cast where no character is unjustifiably pre-eminent above the rest, particularly one that doesn't seem that likeable. This incarnation of Star Trek is visually splendid and highly inclusive but the actors, characters, writing and storylines fail to make it good television no matter how much money is spent on it or how good it looks.
This video reminded me of exactly why I haven't watched the show. For her constantly working outside the system to be a good thing it really emphasizes the criticism that Disco is the start of this new dystopian Star Trek that completely defeats the purpose of the franchise. Star Trek isn't supposed to be a modern day military drama with cool space ship fights. It's was supposed to be a utopian vision of the future. The Federation isn't supposed to be the United States. It was supposed to be better.
Late to the conversation but after listening to you about the standards of characters something came to me.
I think part of why perhaps Kirk gets away with being insubordinate could have something to do with the audience at the time. Old shows tend to have the heroes be pillars of being right even when they are wrong. They are the guys who always know what’s best and the audience expected that. In the modern era story telling has evolved a lot with much more nuance with how characters are depicted and also people seem to prefer much more these days that characters are grounded and stories however fantastic the setting are grounded. So when people are displayed with what they perceive as a let’s say overachiever who never truly gets punished it rubs them the wrong way where as going back a few decades people wouldn’t have issue with it. I think you are right in that there’s an unhelpful standard applied to characters like Burnham but a big fault of that lies with the writers ‘overcompensating’ for what they may see as past damages.
Anyway another great video and look forward to more :)
Friends, please, are there spoilers to Season 3 in this? Thanks in advance! I adore Jessie and I absolutely love Michael, but I can't have spoilers. Should I watch now?
Yes, some spoilers.
@@PaulfromChicago Thank you so much!
Props for taking this topic on. RESPECT!
I have a bigger problem with Tily getting XO and Saru not getting a real chance to shine as the CO before promoting Burnham to Captain. My big problem with Burnham is there’s sooo much Burnham. I dont even know the Communications Officer or the not-Robot LT’s names. Why bring her back in a new role and do nothing w/ her? But i guess i digress.
As a black man, I think that you and others are over analyzing the situation and in doing so making everything worse. The issue is actually a writing problem NOT an identity problem. It’s this need to make it an identity issue that is missing the point. Were the writing better we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We would be focusing on the story instead of the race/gender of the character. Your comparison with Kirk is interesting because it doesn’t illustrate the bias you think it does. In Kirk’s case we had 20 years to get to know that character and Spock. We knew and understood his motivations and his frustration at being an Admiral had 3 movies in which to breathe and sink in. His frustration was echoed by the characters around him an the audience was brought along for the journey. Disco does not give its characters time to evolve. It just asks you to accept a situation as given, shakes it up and then demands that you accept the new situation whether the corresponding emotions have been earned or not. For instance, we are supposed to accept that the death of Ariam in season 2 was tragic. However until the episode of her death we had spent no time with the character. Thus the emotional goodbyes and tears felt unearned. We were supposed to accept that the characters cared about Ariam but they never took time to really SHOW us that they did or even tell us who she was. THAT is a writing issue.
The other problem I have with Disco and some of its fandom is that it’s obsessed with the identity of characters instead of the narrative value of characters. Much of the criticism made about Burnham isn’t because she is a black woman, but because the writers seem overly concerned with the fact that she is a black woman. Thus instead of writing her as a good solid character they write her with symbolism in mind. To be fair, she is not the first character in Trek where this has been a problem. I’ve long looked at the difference between the treatment of Janeway and Sisko in much the same way. The people writing Voyager were OBSESSED with the fact that Janeway was the first female character. They mentioned it all the time and it impacted the way they told their stories. Men were never allowed to openly question/challenge her and she was never really allowed to be wrong. They didn’t allow her to get into relationships because the female captain couldn’t get side tracked. That even led them to include patently stupid traits in the character like her not being a good cook and thus somehow burning a replicated meal. That was an intentional attempt at subversion despite the fact that it didn’t make sense in the context of the world. Janeway was conceived and written as a female captain instead of a captain that happened to be female. Sisko, on the other hand, was given none of that concern. He was written as a captain that happened to be black instead of a black captain. Thus he was allowed to be angry and resentful at Picard, he was able to be shown as wrong sometimes. There was NO PROBLEM with having his female subordinates or even other female characters get in his face and tell him he was wrong. The only time him being black came into the equation was when they made it a story beat. There are MANY things In DS9 that might not have been allowed to happen had the writing team been overly concerned with Sisko’s race. Instead they focused on what made sense based on the character hey created and what the narrative needs were of the story.
The Disco writers DESPERATELY need to get off of the representation bandwagon and focus more on the writing and telling the best stories possible. Stop focusing on what your actors are and focus on the needs of the story. If they did that they would have a better sense of who their characters really are and things would feel less...disjointed.
"James T Kirk… You will be given the duties for which you have repeatedly demonstrated unswerving ability: the command of a starship."
*And everybody clapped*
@JessieGender. Maybe it is unconscious biases on my part, but I think it is more poor writing but my biggest complaint is that she is (or maybe seems to think) that she is the only one that solve the problem/save the universe ect. I can see the point that has been made that look at Kirk, look Picard, look at other characters on Star Trek, but they were all either The Captain or the Commander of the Station. They are suppose to be one that decisions the plot revolves. Nevertheless, at least to me it seems that it wasn’t always them that saved the day, that the other characters of the show used their skills and talents to help save the day and in turn were developed more as characters. I have mentioned this before (not sure if here on this channel) but one of my complaints has been that none of the rest of the characters have gotten a whole lot of development. I feel, by the time season three of the previous Trek shows started, more of the “secondary” characters were more developed than in Discovery. This has changed a lot in season three, and I hope that it continues in season four. With Burnham ascending to the Captaincy, her decisions driving the plot does make way more sense, which depending on how it is written, should alleviate at least some of my complaints. But we will see in a year or so when season four airs (is airs even the correct word for a streaming series).
Vulcans view themselves as superior to humans. As a human growing up on Vulcan, Michael Burhnam had to prove she is as good or better than Vulcans. Now re-read this sentence and replace:
“Vulcans” with “white males”,
“Vulcan” with “America”, and
“human” with “minority”.
I believe she led a lonely childhood focusing on her studies. She didn’t fit in. Who could she confide in? Who could she depend on? Many closeted LGBTQ are in this situation. It may impact one’s level of teamwork resulting in taking on the burden unto themselves.
Seeking validation.
Taking on much responsibility.
Putting 100% of yourself into your job.
To me, this makes perfect sense for her character. As an American born Asian who is LGBTQ, I can identify with this.
Some have complained that Michael flipped-flopped her feelings in season 3. She finally got a taste of a “normal” life. And now she is questioning whether Star Fleet is still the right place for her. Who hasn’t had a dilemma questioning their future? Mid-life crisis is an example.
Some have also complained that she cries too much. Well, if you were taught to withhold an emotion your entire life and now you discovered it is ok to show that emotion, wouldn’t you let your emotions flow? I would. And I have.
Comparing leads across all ST series as of their respective season 3’s, I believe Michael Burhnam is the most complex. The most human. SMG's performance is stellar. She's made me forget she was in The Walking Dead.
Finally, I propose stop using “SJW”. It’s primarily used by people want to discredit anyone who is seeking equality in an inequitable society.
Finally #2, I hope the UA-camr who decided to stop reviewing Discovery *discovers* that it is no longer the 1960’s.
Finally #3, There's an easter egg in my comment. Who can find it?
Jessie Gender, the conversations presented here about Michael Burnham are ones I've personally heard since Discovery's first season. In terms of the idea that "a black woman cannot get away with something Kirk (a white man) did. As time's gone on, there is an issue that I've noticed in the current Star Trek (including the Kelvin timeline) films, and is heavily pointed to in Beckett Mariner in Lower Decks. And that is the issue of caricaturized, polarized characters.
I'll start with Chris Pine's portrayal of an alternate James T Kirk. Granted, it was a Kirk who grew up in a single parent household with a changed history. As strong an actor as Chris Pine was, the writing stripped any nuance and complexity from the Kirk character (as portrayed by William Shatner) and presented a polarized, action star type of rebel. Purely as characters, Michael Burnham, Raffi Musiker and Beckett Mariner have all been presented in similarly polarized ways. Even male characters like Stammets have those polarizations. Mainly on Discovery, its characters like Tilly, Owo and Saru that have any sort of nuanced character traits at all.
As difficult as this may be to here, perhaps the elephant in the room with matters such as Michael Burnham's character is not based on the double standards of race and gender. But rather based on a very generational argument. A generational difference in writing movies and TV, what the best way to represent different people. We have an older generation who go for a more nuanced approach, and a younger one who go for a more in your face polarized nature. And both accusing the other of hypocrisy so much, they can barely create something that isn't highly controversial. That's a rabbit hole, big and vast as it is, that needs to be addressed in matters such as Michael Burnham as well.
I see this as less of a generational issue, and more as a section of the fan base is used to Trek as comfort food. The issues in previous series were presented with a lighter touch so that people still felt comfortable at the end of the episode.
I think a positive of Discovery is that it doesn't allow viewers to get too comfortable.
@@seymssogood appreciate the comment, even if in the long term I disagree with it. There is a difference between comfort food and...not putting the audience on the front line of a war from the writers room. I truly do see a generational difference there. Different vantage points of terrors like 9/11 and such? That's bound to create a situation where certain people of a certain age will expect media (TV, film, etc) to be based in their emotional grievances. Its not a nasty judgement on my part mind you, but a seeming truism I've observed. Star Trek was originally created to showcase an evolved humanity dealing with problems from its own history occurring on other planets. At this point, its a Star Trek where the human characters represent a humanity facing its own challenges, largely a sci fi version of that post 9/11 world we've been living in. Huge difference in intent there. Same basic show for sure, just based in different generational intents.
@@Andregrindle Now I find your response very interesting and I can see what you are saying. I guess that ENT season 3, for example, was based on American grievances you mentioned?
I think that, seeing as Trek is an American show for, primarily, a US audience, what Discovery is doing what the previous shows didn't really do, which is to deconstruct the American experience within the context of sci-fi. Asking hard, complex, and uncomfortable questions of ourselves instead of those folks "out there".
@@seymssogood right! Discovery, Picard and them are more for people who either desire or demand that grievances in Trek be direct and explicit. Whereas it was done in a more cerebreal and implied way in past Trek series.
You got me thinking about how I thought about negative actions in legacy trek.
My conclusions are that negative actions are less impacting because having an episodic format encouraged it.
Discovery having a darker tone emphasized negative consequences.
Burnham is judged more because the show encourages it.
Personally, I think a lot of the issues with Michael stem from her ostensibly being the main character. In previous series the focal character was usually the captain, but the rest of the cast was just as fleshed out and important. It was an ensemble cast.
Discovery is really just about Michael. There are other important characters sure, but unless Michael is talking to them they don't get screen time very often. Case in point aside from Tilly, Saru and Stamets I can't name any of the other major characters off the top of my head which I can do for all of the other series but Enterprise.
The other problem is the situations they put her in. When Kirk goes rogue against Starfleet he's usually fighting against bureaucracy or overly cautious or callous admirals and defies orders in an attempt to do the right thing. His friends and crew mates are all behind him and even if he suffers consequencesfor his actions he's not ashamed of what he did because. Michael is usually acting alone and in the first episode is decidedly against her friends and crew mates in an attempt to fire on a ship unprovoked. While it can be argued that her actions would have stopped the war it's hard to argue that she was doing the right thing.
They got better about that as the series went on, but it still wasn't great. Making her Captain might help alleviate both issues so I'm looking forward to that, but that's been my issues Michael and the series a whole for a while now.
In many ways I think one of the major hurdles Michael Burnham and Star Trek: Discovery faced from the old guard of fans was simply the aesthetic, due to copyright issues they could not use a lot of the old Star Trek designs and that proved sufficiently alienating that a lot of fans of Star Trek were already poised to nitpick because it didn't look like Star Trek and thus any small oddity got scooped up into that same general criticism.
I haven't seen Discovery, is it worth it?i really don't wanna pay for another subscription service
Just downloaded a free streaming app to your phone or fire stick, Morpheus TV or Kodi with an app like The Crew work well.
I remember watching the finale of season 3, I was gutted that Siru was no longer going to be captain, and I think they didn't really get to see enough of him in command. I'm hoping he gets his own ship.
That being said, I love that Burnham is now Captain, there's been a three series arc to get her there. I think the admiral lays out why they need her as captain well, they need a renegade, a rogue - to survive, they have implemented strict discipline, which is what they needed to exist, but to they've they need to push boundaries, to stand as an example of both strength and compassion to the three rest of Star Fleet and the rest of the galaxy.
The 30th century Federation needs a bit of Kirk, and she is so much like him, certainly the version we saw in the Kelvin timeline - more so than any other non-TOS captains.
So story wise, it's good, great even.
I've not touched on the issue of POC's you've raised, I think your points about her being a responsibility hoarder, that she takes the whole world on her shoulders, I think we saw the same thing with Sisko and Janeway, where they hernandez paragons of their shows. I'm not saying other captains didn't carry a lot, but Picard frequently could pass his burdens on to others, but Sisko has to be the one to bring the Romulons into the war, has to fight the war. Janeway carried the whole ethical dilemma of a ship stuck in thousands of light years from home, so much so anyone trying to lift that burden was almost treasonous to her. I don't think we saw the same pressures with the white male captains Archer tells a lot on Trip and the Vulcan (forgotten her name). With Picard aside from Riker, they created a whole new position within the chain of command to help the captain shoulder the burden in Trois.
So yes, I think unconsciously there may be an issue of her being written as a messiah like character, a flawed one it has to be said.
Hope I've not offended people, I'm not someone that has experienced these things personally, being a just about middle aged straight white guy from a prosperous, mostly Liberal, country.
I suspect that some of Doug Jones' time away is due to his success and demand for him as an actor, so that tempers my disappointment. But Saru has been a great captain this season and I am sorry to see him go.
Also, seeing him without makeup made me realize how good he looks for his age! I would have guessed him being 10+ years younger than me rather than 10+ years older.
@@voltijuice8576 it is strange most of the things I've seen him in he's in full body costumes including covering up his face. He's a good looking guy, but I guess he has a talent for acting alien.
Saw him about three or four years ago on Screen Junkies Movie Fights, (back before the allegations against people at that channel), he seems like a lovely guy, so hope we get to see him in more stuff, even if we don't get to see captain Saru
What I don't like is the name calling. I find it offensive when I hear people call her Mikey Spock or Black Space Jesus. Space Jesus is already problematic from a heretical standpoint but adding the racial descriptor intensities the offense. Mikey Spock I find to be strange in that it frames her in terms of her brother. I could go into the possible implication that it strips her of agency by referencing any tangentially connected man as opposed to letting her stand one her own but I won't take it there. It can be said that this name overly familiarizes her which I think is disrespectful. If I was a more petty person than I am I could say that it draws a comparison between Miss Millie and Sofia in The Color Purple. Miss Millie felt that she owned Sofia so she could touch her children or in general command her obedience. One of the first things a person receives in this life is a name and basic respect of that name reflects basic respect for that person.
I think that she should have her own spinoff with Book! Make her and Book privateers who take on missions for the federation outside of the chain of command. Could be swashbuckling fun!
Glad they finally just went ahead and made her Captain.
One of the issues about the Michael Burnam character that has been listed as a criticism from the beginning is her lack of ability to emote based on her Vulcan upbringing. People (Redlettermedia come to mind) state that this handicaps our ability to empathize with her in a way we do previous Star Trek leads (they also allege that Spock, as a protagonist, wouldn't have worked either.) I'm not sure if this is a factor - and to what extent it is if so - but it made sense to me even if I don't consciously recognize it / like Michael Burnam.
From Episode 1, Season 1, people immediately laid into MB and the show for being non-conformist. Merely the name "Michael" for a female (I know 3) was too much for them. And the Klingons didn't look right, etc. But none of it added up to explain the deep hostility. I kept trying to figure it out. It just didn't occur to me that her skin color and gender was the problem. Now I feel deep loss for the lives of the people that have to share a community with them. Thousands, millions of stunted lives denied opportunity to shine.
Great lighting setup Jessie.
This little diatribe is written from the point of view of someone who is not a Star Trek fan and not a part of the community.
Firstly I agree the way the character of Burnham was written in season 1 was shite. From the beginning I could not understand why Burnham was so chastised for her decisions from episode one, which I thought were the right decisions. If the writers has been more nuanced and actually made those decsions about chastising her whilst criticisng the elites in the hierarchal structure for THEIR decisions it would have been better but alas they just left the audience feeling Burnham was wrong in her actions, even though based on the evidence presented by the show that was not true. (A big fan of science and critical thinking.) I do feel that Burnham is given the role of the integral element to being a solution to far to many of the issues faced by the crew of the Discovery. I feel this is because the writers are having some difficulty writing for an ensemble cast. As for the Burnham character having a messiah complex, I would just like to point out the same can be said of Holden in The Expanse. A show these same critics of Discovery love. (I found the first 2 seasons of this show problematic. To much conflict between the central characters. Maybe that's because I listened to the audio books. Even those were problematic at the beginning though, as the characters did not seem to have much in the way of facets.) In the Expanse they do hang a hat on this messiah complex more by other character joking about, or criticisng it.
Where I would disagree with you is saying that the majority of these vocal viewers are not prejudice. I just don't see that. They may not be using the language we associate with overt prejudice because of how they disguise it with terms like 'SJW' amd 'woke'. Just look at the videos and comments on awful UA-camrs like Nerdrotic or Dave Cullen (Disgusting Human beings with a large following.). SJW and woke in a sane reality would not be terms of derision. Even UA-camrs I like, like Red Letter Media who mostly avoid this style of criticism are a couple of old farts (I'm older than them so I'm talking about mentally.) when it comes to new Star Trek. Although I mostly agree with them about Picard. To many mystery boxes and hanging story lines (Money over quality.) I remember watching a youtube video last year, I think it was about Discovery my memory is shot to poops, where the person used the word coloured (The correct spelling:)) and it blew my brain. I asked him if he had just woke up from the 70s or was from S. Africa and I just got a vile response.
Anyway Burnham is not the worst central character in a Star Trek product. For me That's Kirk. I know he is a product of his time but I grew up with that character and never liked him. The best portrayal of Kirk was by Tim Allen in Galaxy Quest.
This is why i subscribe to your channel! I feel the writers were all over the place writing her character which didn't help any. But yes people have to understand there are engrained societal biases in us all. So you dont have to be a raging bigot or racist to fall victim to this. Nor do you have to be white. Black people have a white leaning slant when it comes entertainment as well. 3rd season was better writing for sure but I still feel her character is a bit all over the place and no outline from season to season.
I have always found fault with the character and things that are praiseworthy about her character. My main issue with her character the entire time is she doesn't seem really down to earth. I know being down to earth probably isn't that important in space LOL but she always just seemed so goddamn perfect. Nobody can come up with a winning strategy unless it's her and nobody can win the day unless it's her and oh my God the red angel is her mom. There are just a lot of things that I would find hard to swallow in a person of any color or any alien race. That said I find a lot of positive things about her. She cares deeply for her friends, she's always willing to sacrifice herself for the people she cares about, or for the greater good, she's heroic, she's noble, etc. I believe her interactions with Sukal we're incredible and really spoke to what a wonderful person Michael really is in her capacity for goodness and empathy. My main problem is that regardless of being convicted of mutiny in the first few episodes, she has done a lot of things that nobody else should be getting away with. I thought season 3 was some of the best Star Trek I ever saw and part of that was bringing her down a little bit to feel more like an individual human being I can relate to. I like how in the first episode when she got dosed she actually self reflected and talked about how "hey I have this hero complex where I insinuate myself into every single situation because I feel like I have to be the one to solve every problem." I like that because I felt like it led to actual character growth, where she can trust and support others to solve problems. I also like that when she later disobeyed orders she actually got demoted. I didn't feel that schadenfreude of oh hey look how awesome it is that they took her down a peg. I was just happy that she was being treated realistically for once I did not Revel in her demotion I just don't understand why she made the decision she made in the first place, she should have went to her friends and crew and trusted them. You know I really love her as the science officer and I feel like that's her true calling. And yet at the end of the season Tilly who has spent half of the season coming into her own and learning to be a good first officer and a commanding officer has one defeat and then says "no Michael I just need you to do it instead" Tilly is her best friend, and yet she does not attempt in any way to help Tilly feel more confident in herself or to lift her up or talk about it in any way, she just offers 2 seconds of resistance at most and then jumps in the captain's chair. So that's really my problem is that her advancement as a character often comes at the expense of other characters. This has nothing to do with her skin color or her gender. In fact I was excited and I'm still excited that there is a woman of color as the central character, I love it, and I think Sonequa Martin-Green is incredible. I'm tired of having people say that I'm a racist or something because I have SOME problems with the character, when even though I can be critical of the character, and I do have nitpicks, I overall like her. When Discovery is on season I'm always excited, and every single time it's going to be on I stay up super late just to watch it and Michael is one of the main reasons that I tune in.
That's great. Then this video isn't about you. 😊
How can she be down to Earth when she was raised by Vulcans? I’m sorry but do you expect Vulcans to be “down to Earth” and not seem perfect? Michael was literally raised to be a perfect being of logic, she was pushed to excel and do everything well so she could end up the top of her class and test better than any Vulcan, is it any surprise that she would be basically a perfectionist in everything that she does? This is how she was raised.
And sorry but Michael is actually one of the few characters who actually suffers consequences. Spock literally got his mutiny waved away. Kirk didn’t even get demoted for disobeying direct orders. Most Star Trek characters never suffer consequences beyond one episode. Michael actually did suffer consequences, numerous times in fact.
U Really had a lot to say here. But the part about Burnham taking over for Tilly got my attention. Tilly was in a position that she never should have had in the first place. I see that all too much in the United States. It's called white privilege AKA racism. You know, when you can have the dumbest most unqualified person on the planet become the president of the most powerful country on the planet. It's very dangerous. It was a disaster for the United States. And it was a disaster for discovery and Starfleet when osira took control of the most advanced starship in the Galaxy.
Michael Burnham was the top of her class at the Vulcan science academy.
She's already been a first officer on another ship for 7 years. Saru said she was the smartest officer that he has ever known.
Tilly was an ensign. Never in the history of the United States navy has an ensign been allowed to take control of an aircraft carrier. The most advanced starship in the Galaxy is far more powerful and important than a aircraft carrier. It is absurd.
I don’t dislike Discovery or Michael Burnham but I was glad when she became the captain because I felt the scripts had her crying way too much.
I think I liked Burnham most in season 1, where she maintained a stoicism. The second season and especially the third season I feel there is way to much emoting, not just by her but all of the characters. Honestly this is a big departure from previous series where the characters were a lot less emotional. Now, is this an unconscious aversion to excessive sentimentality maybe. Culturally different ethnic and racial groups have different degrees of expression, and is their an unconscious bias on my part possibly. Her breaking the rules doesn’t bother me, nor that she excelled and everything, because a lot of fictions creates the protagonist to me almost super human. I also think the fact that she was the main character but not the captain was problematic. It’s interesting to see how I feel about the character now that she’s captain.
I don't believe that people "become emotional", they just are. Not unlike how one is always "exhibiting behavior", it's an automatic aspect of being.
OTOH as a neurodivergent person I also don't believe it's possible to have others experience our emotions directly. I know that people are feeling, but I avoid presuming what they are feeling. People stereotype their own emotions because it would be easier to share them if we were somehow more similar.