"Who Are You?" and "What Do You Want?": The BABYLON 5 / STAR TREK Comparison T (1 Viewer)

[Rex Bachmann]

Mike Broadman wrote:

Federationese[/I]]Quote:

I thought about this again and, you know, what's really going on there that I also picked up on is not so much their fearfulness making them seem "humanized", it's the fact that they're speaking English. One of the reasons I've been so exercised by the way aliens are presented in popular science fiction on the screen in general is their "easy humanness". There used to be (apparently) an old rule of thumb among reviewers of science-fiction film and television that said the number one crash to alien credibility was the eyes. If the eyes looked human through the make-up, there was no real chance to believe in the alienage of the characters. I'd like to add here that the "easy-humanness" factor for me comes through with the voice and the speech. If someone shoots a flame thrower at an alien creature in a movie and the creature withdraws with (or without) a characteristic noise, that's enough to let the audience know the creature fears the flame. But if you then have the creature say in English (or any other human language, if the film is shot in that language) that it is afraid, then you introduce the complex elements of human vocal inflexion, pitch, and the rest of the affective baggage. There's just no way around it, as far as I can tell. This is one reason I'm always for avoiding having alien characters talk directly to the humans. I know that it won't serve the dramatic ends of the stories as well as some would like, but, damn it, in real contact situations, I just don't think it would be the way it's usually portrayed on screen.
Oh, well, mine is a lonely voice.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Michael TLV wrote:

Quote:

? ? ? ? ?

 

[Michael TLV]

Greetings
Shadows ... from bad to ..???
Considering that once we found out the real reason behind why the Shadows were doing what they were doing ... they were no worse or better than the Vorlons.
But since vorlons went from good to bad ...
ah heck ... they are all bad ... okay ...!!
Or good ... from a different point of view.
Regards

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Michael TLV wrote:

Before taking off for the Rim, the Shadows' last acts were to
(1) surround Sheridan's fleet with their energy draining death-cloud in order to coerce compliance or freeze everyone to death.
(2) fire missiles at Sheridan's and other noncompliant ships.
Which road was it they were in the middle of?

 

[Rollie]

Rex, what an excellent topic!

There is one example though, regarding the Dominion that I thought I'd clarify on. It involves a spoiler stated earlier.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Re: Vorlons speaking English

You probably already knew this, but the Vorlons speak in a very complex musical-type language which you can hear when they talk. It is translated via the encounter suit. They've been dealing with younger races for a very long time, so they figured out a way to communicate easily.

Also, the inflection with which Kosh spoke was painstakingly detailed by JMS. He personally oversaw everything Kosh said and was very picky about it. It emphasised that idea that even though he speaks very little, he says a lot.

In general, I have no problem with aliens speaking English. If they don't, the focus of the drama then naturally becomes the language issue, or at least it is a huge part of it. That's fine if that's the point of the show, but not if it isn't. Enterprise, for example, has had that in a few episodes.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

The series' anthropocentricism has already been alluded to, though not discussed.
[I had originally conceived this as a post for the Star Trek Gripes and Pet Peeves Thread as what I call a "Comfort-Zone" Issue: Who is the Federation and Why don't they ever show up? "Race"/ethnicity in ST, but by the time I got it together I decided that it was really more of an analysis than a "gripe", per se, so I saved it until now. It mainly concerns the world of Star Trek, but has some comparative comments on B5.]
As pointed out in a previous post, one of Star Trek's greatest claims to fame is its promotion of so-called "diversity". It is supposed to showcase a world (universe) where both (all?) genders, a variety of "races", human and nonhuman alike, are well represented in crews and among civilians everywhere; where "differences" (genetic, cultural, intellectual, spiritual, etc.) are not only "respected", but "celebrated" (to use the current parlance). "Infinite diversity in infinite combination" (or something like that), as Spock is heard to say in at least one TOS episode ("The Way to Eden"???).
Well, Star Trek certainly gives all the appearances of "diversity". In any given crowd scene in a program one can find a breakdown between whites and nonwhites of something like 80% (white) / 20% (nonwhite)(that's a guess, of course. It varies, so I won't be held to exact numbers on this).
In an American context---and ST is, like it or not, a reflexion of American tastes and at least some Americans' ideals---the bellwether of "diversity" is the "inclusion" of blacks (people of Sub-Saharan African descent). That it seems to have in reasonable plenty. In addition to human characters, we find blacks as Klingons, blacks as Vulcans, blacks as Romulans (e.g., "The Pegasus"), blacks as Bajorans, etc.
The problem I have here is not with the numbers, it's with the science fiction. Not to say that other humanoid races wouldn't have their own forms of "diversity", just that what's presented to us always looks too familiar. It's for this reason that one wonders why this "diversity" on remote planets would take on exactly the similar, comforting pattern expected in a U.S. audience. In other words, what's presented looks just like (some) Americans' idea of a perfectly "balanced", diverse citizenry. It's another case of Star Trek's producers playing to the intended (original) audience in the laziest way possible. ("Oh, look, they're just like us!")
Blacks and their Names: Is Earth "United"?
As any good cultural anthropologist can relate, naming systems are one of the seminal diagnostics of a culture. In traditional cultures names have meaning and convey power, and aren't trivially bestowed or used. An onomastic (i.e., naming) system may reflect, or even embody, the ideals, ideology, world view, or belief system of the pertinent culture.
In TOS effort was made to show the crew as internationally representative; hence, the presence of
Lts. Sulu and Uhura, as well as a (for the time) unusually high number of nonwhite guest stars and extras. Most relevant here is that this was manifested by the naming. In the early episodes of ST: TOS great care was taken that black characters have African names. This was supposed to symbolize that the crew was "international", not just a bunch of "Yankees in space". (The persistence of so-called nation states was perhaps hinted at, but never, to my knowledge, explicitly stated.) Most of the blacks in early TOS had (what passed, at least, for) native African names or backgrounds: Lt. Boma (Don Marshall) of "The Galileo Seven"; Dr. M'Benga (Booker Marshall) of "That Which Survives", and, perhaps, the anonymous crewman mimicked by the "salt vampire" from M-113 who speaks Swahili to Uhura in "The Man Trap". (In the latter case, it is left unclear whether the Swahili-speaking capacity is a by-product of the creature's "download" of Uhura's desires for an "ideal man" or, alternatively, because the original, mimicked crewman had that capacity in his own right). The big exception to this rule in early Trek is William Marshall's---yes, "Blacula" himself---duotronics computer prodigy, Dr. Richard Daystrom ("The Ultimate Computer"), namesake of the later(?) Daystrom Institute ("Measure of a Man", "Data's Day").
In any event, in one very early ST: TOS episode ("The Corbomite Manuever"???) the Enterprise is referred to as a United Earth Ship (but only once, I think). That's about all we know.
As the original series went along, the crew faces not only became whiter, as David Gerrold long ago pointed out in his book, The World of Star Trek, but the blacks became more "assimilated". The black characters (both regulars and guests), through much of the rest of that show, and in the ongoing world of Trek, took on the same old panoply of predominantly British ("Anglo-American") names as their white counterparts bore. By "British names", I mean, of course, the standard names found among the American (US) founder populations: English, Welsh/Cornish, Gaelic (Scottish & Irish), some Scandinavian (particularly via the Danes) (like Henderson, Anderson, etc.), some Dutch, and some French (via the Normans), most of which one can also find among black populations scattered throughout the English-speaking world today.
This phenomenon is not restricted to ST, of course. Babylon 5 is, in its own way, even worse in this respect, with J. Michael Straczynski's (JMS) overt and unrelenting Britophilia, from the subject matter to the naming to the casting of his show, being a real symptom of the Anglo-American bias phenomenon. (Note particularly his repeated Celtic motifs: King Arthur and the search for the Holy Grail ("A Late Delivery from Avalon"), Excalibur (the main starship in Crusade), etc.).
To my recollection, only one black character out of those that have appeared and been identified in JMS's various Babylon 5 series has had a non-British name. (That was Tucker Smallwood's turn as Nigerian-born investigator David Endawi in the episode "Matters of Honor".) Curiously enough, that's also true of the white characters. For a man with a name like Straczynski---rhymes with Stravinsky---there's almost nary a character who isn't named Daniels or McGriff or Jones, or the like, in his stories. Since Slavic groups, for example, together represent the demographically largest single ethnic "block" (as defined by language family) in Europe today, one would think more (Anglicized) Slavs would appear in the B5 world than, in fact, do. Those that do appear tend to be members of the so-called "Russian Consortium".
Similarly, executive producer Rick Berman was once asked about the lack of (overt) Jews in the world of ST, something he said he hadn't been cognizant of until then. (Did this question to him lead to the less than veiled analogy of the Ferengi as Jews (i.e., wealth-obsessed, despised traders) in (I believe) "The Jem'Hadar" episode of DS9?)
JMS does do a turn when he names Daniel Dae Kim's telepathic character in Crusade John Matheson and nonchalantly gives a white ISN reporter an African (Bantu?) name in one of the second- or third-season episodes: either Rif Hutton as "ISN Reporter" in "The Long Twilight Struggle" (season 2) or, more likely, Matt Gottlieb as "ISN Reporter #2" in "Severed Dreams" (season 3). The character's name ("Chris[topher](?) M..."(?)) is pronounced outloud and displayed (spelled out) on screen, if not in the end credits. (Could and would someone with tape of those episodes check for me and report on the name, please?)
It seems that this Anglo-American bias in the naming of characters is also tied in with naming of ships in Trek. Yes, there's the occasional sop to "internationalism", with names like Kyushu, Zhukov, Gorkhon (!), Ahwahnee, but the vast majority of names falls strictly under the Wellington- , Melbourne- , or the Monitor-, Valiant-types (i.e., strictly Anglo-American). (Babylon 5 fans will recognize that EA capital warships are always(?) named after classic Greek (mythological) figures.) And, with USS (standing for what?, one wonders) at the head of their monikers, there's a dead give-away for the show's pervasive American bias, as well. I keep expecting to see some incarnation of the "USS Enterprise" itself, whose name the ST producers can't seem to shake at all---hey, there's only 26 letters in the alphabet, fellas!---line up in space between its sisters ships, the USS American and the USS Institute!
So, what's going on here?
Ideally, science fiction---even popular science fiction---should explore the implications of what it presents. In this regard, ST has done no such thing. Rather, it has taken for granted a certain idealized future world and foisted it on its audiences for over three decades now. (Of course, TOS didn't have the freedom to explore such things. The other series, and the movies, however, have no such excuse.)
So, what, if anything, does the presence or persistence of such naming conventions imply? Is it attributable to lack of thought ("imagining") on the writers'/producers' parts? To lazy writing? Or perhaps to social change in the society depicted on the series? A people that bears naming conventions not endemic to its ancestry (e.g., black Americans with European---mostly British---names, or Koreans with primarily Chinese family names) has in fact a disrupted history. These "franchises" do not at all deal with these phenomena in the speculative-fiction context in which they appear.
What, if anything, does the make-up of the crews and crowds imply? Blacks, Orientals, Latins, Amerindians appear here and there among whites in non-Earth settings; also among "alien" races. Look again at the faces in TNG episode "The Inner Light", which features scenes that take place on a world whose entire pre-spacefaring humanoid populace has been extinct for at least a millenium before Jean-Luc Picard comes to experience their final days---hence, no possibility of contact with Earth---and you may see some of those faces. Countless such mixed-race scenes are repeatedly presented among the nonhuman populations encountered in DS9 and Voyager.
Since those other groups together make up a plurality (and probably a majority) of the human population now and are likely still to do so futurely, if present demographic trends continue---as already pointed out by David Gerrold in his book of 30 years ago---the question for an Earthly context is, if Federation ships are to be "peopled" primarily by human beings, why are all such ships peopled primarily by Caucasians? To my recollection, no predominantly Oriental, Black African, Latin, or the like, crews have ever been presented in ST.
Where are the Federation vessels manned by predominantly non-white human crews? Has there been some devastating change in the proportion of whites to nonwhites in the entire human population (i.e., on Earth and elsewhere, as well) that we haven't been told about? If not, where are they? Is there some kind of predetermined "racial balance" not only in Star Fleet, but among the Earth and Earth-descended populations, that mandates this? Do the peoples in question still "lag", or is not only material abundance, but scientific and tech knowledge, as well, not evenly apportioned (by group) among the entire human population of the day?
ST is stone-silent on this matter, even though it's had three decades to address it in some form or another. Good speculative fiction would've addressed the issue by now, I think.
But now let's take this further:
Where are the other Federationists in Star Fleet itself? Except for the quite (phenotypically) human-like Vulcans, who mostly man---"person"?--- their own ships ("The Immunity Syndrome", "Take Me Out to the Holo-Suite"), nonhumans have only a token presence; at best, a smattering of "others" aboard Star Fleet vessels. By all inspection, it can be reasonably (if not strictly logically) inferred that nonhumans do not serve in numbers in Star Fleet. One wonders, then, at their power and influence in the government that this fleet supposedly serves, that is, the Federation.
Why would this be? The choices seem to be:
(a) nonhumans are unable to serve. (Needs exploration.)
(b) nonhumans are unwilling to serve. (Needs exploration and explanation.)
(c) nonhumans are not allowed to serve (either through overt ban or, more likely, through subtle socio-politcal discouragement). (Really needs exploration and explanation.)
(d) nonhumans are able and potentially willing, but are uninterested in serving. (Yeah, right!)
(e) something else not listed here.
(f) any combination of the above.
(D) is a clear cop-out, an unsatisfactory dismissal of the issue. (Nevertheless, it serves as the "party line" (standard retort) whenever the issue even slightly rears its ugly head.) Since all the Federation members are roughly equivalent on an evolutionary scale, one might expect most member planets to have the capacity to have low early-death rates among their populaces, (presumably) just like contemporary Earthpeople. So, if no want of populace explains their nonpresence, what does? What proportion of the entire Federation populace (billions? trillions?) could and would one expect to be "human"? How many Federation members are there? (Kirk once gave the figure "150 and expanding", which was supposed to mirror the membership numbers in the United Nations of the time.) Among those members, how many different "races" (however defined) are there? (Unknown.)
Human power-political relations have both a horizontal and a vertical dimension. The horizontal dimension is generally what we call territoriality. (As Moe would say, "Spread out!") I guess it's the need to fill any "fillable" niche. The other dimension, the vertical one, is that of hierarchy, the need---and, yes, I think it is a "need". Other animals have it, why not man?---to be "in position" vis-a-vis other living things with which we interact. This means, to some extent, how much control one living thing excercises over other living things (whether it be human power-political relations, hunter-prey relations (a.k.a., the "food chain"), or whatever). Given the way ST has always treated its aliens (i.e., as "brothers under the skin"), one might not unreasonably expect similar characteristics and similar needs among these alien populaces. Yet ST ignores, in my opinion, the very behavioral dynamics that come with the "humanness" of its aliens, in its depiction of the relations between existing Federation members. Such questions sometimes get asked with respect to reluctant or eager, but not exactly welcome, prospective new members. Otherwise, it shows up, if at all, among established members mostly where the issue of local (i.e., planetary) control arises (e.g., "Attached" vs., say, "The Cloud Minders").
How much autonomy and identity have standing members given up, and who determines the rules of admission and membership in good standing? (Yes, I know the Federation Council is the continuing body, but who decides what the ground rules should be in the first place, and how are they determined? By a constitution framed mainly by Vulcans and humans?)
And, though it's never been explored, "differences" that might get into the way of all this "harmony" have been hinted at. In "Conspiracy", Admiral Quinn (although under alien influence) actually openly speaks of the "problem of assimilating new races into the Federation". The Federation is, after all, an expansionist power (however "benign" it may see itself), as the Sona' leader, Ru'afo, points out to Captain Picard in Insurrection. The more expansion, the more "territories" and peoples to rule over, the more enemies, and the more problems when the "mix" of competing visions, desires, and interests doesn't work.
"Assimilation" is usually the human response to such problems, but the competing vision (or, here, doctrine) of "diversity" keeps the ST producers from removing the mask (blinders) of ideology and dealing with the practical realities of their creation. The Maquis rebel Michael Eddington (I believe, in "For the Uniform") keenly observes that the Borg collective, unlike the Federation, is at least honest about its assimilationist intentions.
What, then, is the relationship between Earth/Vulcan (founding members) and the rest of the Federation? (I have no immediate answer to this question. I raise it only as a relevant thought piece.)
Is the Federation, as the Klingon Chancellor's daughter, Azetbur, asserts in The Undiscovered Country, a "homo sapiens-only" club, in any but a token sense? Who has the power? And, realistically, would all the nonhuman worlds of this vast Federation really want to rely for their defense, as well as for the protection and fostering of their economic interests and well-being, on a predominantly human military (Star Fleet)? What, if anything, does any of this tell us about the Federation as a political organization? Is the situation as ST presents it not stretching the limits of behavioral verisimilitude? Invisible people tend not to be "happy" people.
Here, I think, Babylon 5 is somewhat more realistic in presenting the tensions, jealousies, and struggles over hierarchical positions, and the like that such an alliance would truly entail. Squabbles among the members over Interstellar Alliance commands and goals recur throughout the series. Drazi, Narnite, and Brakiri are shown to be mutually distrustful, mutually hostile and exploitative groups, with co-operativity in short supply among them. There is, as well, a visible racial hierarchy among them. The Drazi are clearly below both Brakiri and Narnites in the racial pecking order ("Movements of Fire and Shadow"), and every group despises the carrion-feeding Pak'mara.
ST wouldn't dare tackle this social phenomenon, except, of course, to condemn such "noncivilized" feelings. Its humanoid aliens seem to have not the slightest compunction about associating with members of other racial groups. Intermarriage---both the social and the genetic problems of such "interspecies" mating---is trivialized (think Rom and Leeta, Worf and Jadzia Dax---heck, think Kira and Odo on DS 9), one assumes, in order to make a statement about today's Earth people. Maybe it makes for good drama. (Maybe!) But does it make for good science fiction? (I know. I know. Some of you don't care. Fair enough. I do!) Would a Ferengi find a Bajoran woman---no bulbous head with huge ears, no sharp(ened) teeth, no orangish pigmentation---attractive? (Not even to mention the converse!) Credibility is strained, and we return to the Hollywood B-monster movie, where the "beast" must always have the blonde! (Formula. Formula. Formula.)
Though it handles these kinds of real-life tensions much better than the other "franchise", B5, too, "cops out", as somewhat miraculously, all the other races always end up deferring to or defaulting to the human position or viewpoint in almost all matters. "As the humans say, . . ." is echoed interminably throughout the course of the series, as all become "assimilated" in one way or another to humanity. (Do they not, for instance, have (and use) any sayings of their own? And why would they give them up to use alien expressions?)
As far as racial differences with respect to mating are concerned, B5 acknowledges the possibilities. G'Kar of Narn more than once offers to mate with the human Lyta Alexander, either artificially or the old-fashioned way, in order to produce Narn---actually half-Narn---telepathic offspring. B5 also displays the
problems: e.g., the scorn faced by Delenn from the Minbari themselves ("Freak!") for becoming part-human
and by Sheridan for his personal relationship with her even as he presses hostilities against the Clark regime.
So, what we seem to have in the Star Trek franchise is a vast interstellar alliance called the United Federation of Planets---with an Anglo-American/European human elite atop its hierarchy:
Federation

• Americans
• Anglo-Americans (both European & assimilated Anglophones)
• Europeans
• humans/Vulcans
• "other" humanoids (nonhumans/non-Vulcans)

Ultimately, I don't believe there is any intentional message in either of these series about the composition of future human society. The descriptive phenomena are merely a reflexion of the natural biasses both of the producers and of the primary intended audiences of these programs, which are overwhelmingly Anglo-American and middle-class. It is, put very plainly, as I have called it elsewhere, a "Comfort Zone" issue. ("The future will be just like today, only more so!")
One only wishes, however, that a little more conscientious imagining had gone into some of the details of the depiction of that future world. It is not enough to talk about "infinite diversity", as Star Trek, in particular, does. Better to put it into science-fiction practice in ways that really count (not just by number of "diverse" faces, human or nonhuman, in crowd scenes).

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Rollie wrote:

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mike Broadman wrote:

I think we've had this conversation more than once before. You're willing to sacrifice (at least some) verisimilitude for the sake of the drama. I feel that, since science fiction is a literature of IDEAS, first and foremost, dramatic plausibility and scientific possibility come first.
It's an ongoing disagreement over viewing priorities.

 

[Mike Broadman]

It is understandable that there can be more humans in Starfleet, since Earth is one of the founders of the Federation. However, this should mean there would be more Vulcans, too.

G'Kar of Narn more than once offers to mate with the human Lyta Alexander, either artificially or the old-fashioned way, in order to produce Narn---actually half-Narn---telepathic offspring.

G'Kar's interest in human women was looked at as a perversion or an odd sexual taste in B5 as expressed by his attache. It was a play on men of power who do sexually questionable things (hookers, underage girls/boys, etc).


The preponderance of humans in positions of power in the Federation always bothered me, too, especially since the Vulcans were actually more advanced than humans early on in the Federation's history.

Note in "Encounter at Farpoint" when Q held up the Enterprise on its mission- but specifically put humanity on trial. He is specifically interested in humans, not Vulcans or Klingons or anyone else.

Maybe humans just took more of the initiative in getting the Federation off the ground, and it then just became "traditional" for them to be so many of them. Who knows, maybe it will be addressed in Enterprise.

I think both ST and B5, for better worse, try to make us feel better about being human. Star Trek does it by presenting a future where we conquer disease, greed, etc. Babylon 5 does it by having humans lead the alliance against the Shadows, breathing new life into the Rangers (which wasn't even a human thing!), and having alien races acknowledge human's supposed unique ability to "build communities." Also, both shows imply that, in the very distant future, humans will evolve to some higher form of existence: Q expresses concern that humans are "dangerous" and B5's 4th season final Deconstruction of Falling Stars shows a human as sort-of-a-Vorlon-type thing.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mike Broadman wrote:

Well, I don't know about that, but even if one concede your point, mine is that they are not only a simple majority, effectively speaking, they are Starfleet. Take all the humans out of all the Starfleet crews we've seen in the Star Trek universe and what've yah got? Zilch!

 

[JJR512]

But we haven't seen all the crews in the Star Trek universe. There have been hints, and even outright mentions, of other ships crewed by other species. For example, ships with all Vulcan crews. Why do we only seem to see human crews? Because Star Trek is a story being told to humans. If Star Trek was a show being shown to Vulcans, they'd be seeing episodes where the Vulcan crews are all they see. If Star Trek was a show being shown to Betazoids, they'd be seeing shows where ships are crewed by Betazoids. But Star Trek is fictitious, and we are humans, and as humans, we relate to other humans better than we do to non-humans, so we are shown the human crews.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

JustinR wrote:


Quote:



But we haven't seen all the crews in the Star Trek universe. There have been hints, and even outright mentions, of other ships crewed by other species. For example, ships with all Vulcan crews.





The Vulcans are, I think, well covered in my post. As to "the others", where are these "hints" you mention? In over 35 years of Trek, I don't remember hearing any mentioned. (I know the old gray matter is fallible.)

Specifics, please.



Quote:



Why do we only seem to see human crews? Because Star Trek is a story being told to humans.






We not only "seem to see only human crews", that's all we do see. It is understood that certain things are the way they are for reasons of the facility of the drama (e.g., everyone's speaking English all the time), but the main point of my post is that we see predominantly human crews for the same reason we see predominantly Caucasian crews: this is of comfort for the primary intended consuming audiences, which are white, middle-class, and English-speaking ("Anglo-American").

Comfort is a by-product of familiarity, however, and, if there's one thing good science fiction, whether filmed or written, should be exploring, it is the unfamiliar, the strange. Not to do so is a major failing. Major!


The unspoken Star Trek by-word ("The future will be just like today, only more so!") just doesn't cut it with me, whether we're talking about the shape of future human societies (e.g., that today's elites will still be comfortably ensconced centuries from now) or about the relations humans may have with other, potentially sentient beings from vastly different places being just a mirror of the interracial or international relations we know today.

Hogwash.

Any analysis of system may, at some point, require some inference as to what of relevance does not appear among the descriptive facts. (Note that the truth about any phenomenon or entity is greater than the sum of the facts one has on hand about that phenomenon or entity. One can never tell whether or not they're complete.) An everyday example: The lack of female members in a country club these days (and even in the "olden days") tells you something about the social milieu of that club. If we see a whole lot of the membership, but "see only male members", then we can be sure that, whatever the reason, the lack of female members is no accident.

If Starfleet is really primarily a de facto segregated military (as the US military was officially until the very late 1940's, for example), all that Star Trek producers need to have done is to have one episode that delved into the issue and explained why it should be so. If the Vulcans are allowed ships of all-Vulcan crews, do other members of the Federation have them, as well? If so, is this situation by demand of these groups? ("They prefer their own kind"???) Or, is it so in some cases because of incompatible life-support maintenance requirements of different species (the need for different atmospheric pressures and different gasses), for example? Tell us explicitly!

The Next Generation or Deep Space 9 crew could have visited a ship-production facility in one episode---one!---and we could've learned so much about why the ships are manned and designed the way they are. One episode. One!

But, no. The Star Trek producers and writers have to lead us to ignore the evidence right in front of our eyes and pretend that everything is honky-dory (even in the face of the social-evolutionary phenomena of territoriality and hierarchy that I have already explained above). We're looking for verisimilitude, rather than wishful thinking and platitude ("Everyone's welcome here. We're all brothers under the skin."), which Star Trek has throughout its life embodied and fostered to varying degrees. (A Star Trek gripe of mine.)


By the way, I neglected to point out by way of comparison that Babylon 5 doesn't have to deal with some of these problems for much of its run, since, through most of the original program, humans are grouped into the Earth Alliance (EA), where there is no pretense of interspecies cohabitation and co-operation. (Again, a more realistic approach.) Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers does deal with it a little bit in that the Ranger organization is shown to be at the beginning stages of accepting and integrating non-human, non-Minbari members into the ranks. (In this case, Drazi and Narn.)

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mike Broadman wrote:

It dawns on me that that is a point of comparison between the Minbari of Babylon 5 and the Klingons of Star Trek . We are told somewhere along the way that the Klingons slew their gods, which of course, makes one wonder to whom they're doing all that praying. Since the term religion refers to a system of metaphysical beliefs and obligatory related practices directed at guiding social behavior, I would say they both do have "religions", albeit "godless" ones. Notice, in the list I did not refer to their "religion", only to their "mysticism".
I still think these two are good matches for an in-depth comparison. Will nobody take up the challenge? I never meant for this thread to become an "ego-trip" for its originator.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Notice, in the list I did not refer to their "religion", only to their "mysticism".

Yes. I threw in the religion term because the Minbari themselves call it a religion and integrate it into their caste system.

Minbari religion:
Our best window into Minbari religion is through the character of Delenn. The values she always tries to convey are peace and cooperation. She is almost like a monk or friar in her behavior.

The other aspect of her faith is more mythological (although the mythology is based on historical fact). Her reverence for Valen is equivalent to a Christian's reverence for Jesus. Although we know that the explanation for the accuracy of Valen's prophecies has a logical explanation, Delenn did not know that and took them on faith. Also, her single-minded and focused opposition to the Shadows was based as much on religious faith as on historical fact.

One way, IMO, of understanding a religion is by asking the question, "Who do they pray to?" The Minbari do have some mythological angelic/spirit figures- remember when Kosh flew out of his encounter suit, everyone saw some religious-type figure of their own culture, and Lennier saw one (something with a 'V'). But I believe that these mythologies were more relevant when the Minbari was more divided. My guess is that these god-figures were localised, much like ancient Greece or Northern Europe. With the unification of the Minbari, they fell out of importance.

We have seen Delenn pray- if not to specific gods, then to whom, or what? She often spoke of the universe as a seperate entity with purpose and direction. "We are the universe trying to figure itself out" and talking about how the universe puts us in situations and "tests" us. Does she then pray to the universe? This is a difficult concept to grasp, which I guess makes sense that an alien culture would have such a different perspective of faith than we do.

Come to think of it, the Narns also don't seem to pray to specific gods. G'Kar is a follower of the "prophet" G'Quan, but it seemed that G'Quan was a military leader and philosopher. There was never mention of a G'Quan second coming or transformation or some other thing that's usually associated with a figure of his import. Basically, he was just a guy a who wrote a snazzy book that some folks dig. Heck, G'Kar even said that when a Narn comes of age he chooses which prophet he wishes to follow, as if they are not pressured to follow the faith of their parents (contrast that to human behavior!).

I think the key difference between these B5 religions and the Western religions that most of us are used to is that in B5, religion is treated as a tool to help one live his life, as opposed to being some absolute. A Christian/Jew/Muslim may enforce their beliefs on a child because they fear some kind of spiritual punishment or failure as a parent. The Narns and Minbari lack this emphasis on post-death judgement, so they are more concerned with how a person lives and what her offers to the community, using religion as a guiding force. This also ties into prayer- Delenn and G'Kar seem to use it more as a meditation and self-relfection technique than as a "Please God give me this" or "Thank you God for that" thing.

Note also that the Minbari Caste probably have a different take on religion than the Religious Caste. If they shared the Religious Caste's convictions completely, they wouldn't be so competitive and resentful of them. Their violent, aggressive practices also seem in conflict with the attitudes presented by the Religious Caste.

The Klingons, on the other hand, seem less "religious" to me, as they don't really "pray," at least not how we think of it. As a warrior culture, any religious beliefs are centered around that. They have a warriors' afterlife, reminiscent of the Vikings' Valhalla. They also venerate the supposed founder of their culture, Kales, in a similar way that Minbari treat Valen. The big difference here is that we know all about Valen, wereas I get the impression that Kales is more like a King Arthur or Moses figure, in that we're all familiar with the legends, but the actual historical figure of the man is a mystery.

The Minbari, Narn, and Klingons are very ritualistic. However, these rituals seem specifically dedicated as meditations for the self or group. We've seen various Klingon rituals, but I don't think any of them involved any God figures. They all had candles, pain tests, and violence. For example, when Warf walked through the line of Klingons who zapped him with those sticks while he shouted out declarations, he didn't do it to appease some God, but more as a demonstration of his strength and to prove to himself that he is where he is supposed to be in his Klingonish development.

My opinion is that these faith practices originated like they did on Earth, with naturalistic spirits and supernatural explanations for phenomena that pre-science civilisations did not understand. With the evolution of their cultures, the unification of their planets, and the influence of alien cultures, they direct mythological aspects of their beliefs took a backseat to a more philosophical, non-specific spirituality, with a stronger emphasis on the practical explanation for faith.

 

[Mike_G]

It's interesting to see different aspects of two different shows, but the thing is - they're two different shows. I felt that direct comparisons between B5 and Trek were as productive and comparing Macs to PCs or Fords to Chevys. Different philosophies, different crews, different views of the same issues. I always found Trek from TNG and on to be sterile for some reason. With B5 I always felt like I was watching more of a documentary than a fictional show. Yes, there are times when you can tell the overacting on both shows (don't deny it), but with B5 I felt like a "fly on the wall". We never really see the characters in TNG really "grow" (and I'm not talking about Wil Weaton growing up). The actors and writers found their stride, but did the characters GROW? Even Data really never achieved what his ultimate goal was. The writers threw an emotion chip in Data so that he wouldn't act so rigid all the time. It's a cop-out. There was SO much potential in Data and they really killed any chance of him growing as a character. Compared to B5 where we see these characters go through so many changes, I wonder what the writers and producers of Trek were thinking. Troi? No. Picard? No. Riker? Maybe. Geordi? A BIG NO. Crusher? No. Take the Londo from season 1 and compare him to the Londo of season 3 and you can see a definite change.
I, too felt that there were more humans on Trek than aliens, but I always attributed that to the show's budget. Sometimes you have to look beyond what you see. I'm sure that the producers and writers wanted more than aliens with bumps on their foreheads, but designing and implementing alien races take time and money. I never really thought of it as a detrement to the show.
I don't want to dwell too much on this because I could conceivably spend hours writing about it. All I can say is that both shows were great, both shows had their flaws, and both shows merit being watched (well, maybe not Voyager ). Enterprise lost me half way through last season. Trek is getting old. I think it's time to put it on the shelf for 10 years and come up with something new.
Mike

 

[Rex Bachmann]

The foundation of each of these two "franchises" is the hope and search for a peaceful future of "co-existence" with other sentient, highly intelligent life forms.

The source of much of the drama is, of course, the tensions between that ideal and the reality of antagonism, competition, and conflict in the universe the characters actually dwell in.

By far the most extreme examples of hostile sentient life forms found in their respective universes are two species that readily draw comparison for what their presence tells about the goals and approaches of each "franchise":

the nameless aliens of Babylon 5: Third Space : Species 8472 of Voyager (one of the best creations ever in the Star Trek world)

Comparable between these two species are the following:


(a) mystery and anonymity:

Each remains anonymous. We never find out what either species calls itself (a key among field anthropologists for insights into how a people conceives of itself and its role in the world). ("Species 8472" is, of course, a Borg designation.) For the mighty villains of the piece to retain a "nonspeaking" part---they do not "speak" directly to humans (at least not until "In the Flesh")---heightens their mystery. Such communication as they provide is all telepathic. This makes for a more interesting journey to discover their motivations and goals.

(b) nihilism:

Both hostile species are similar in their nihilism. Telepath Lyta Alexander, during a Vorlon-trance, speaks of the "third space"-beings as "anti-life", "a power beyond comprehension", that have already destroyed 1000's of species in their own universe and that want to destroy all (presumably intelligent, sentient) life except their own. (Actually, substitute "assimilated" for "destroyed", and it sounds uncomfortably close to the Borg.) Each represents a foe that cannot be placated or negotiated with. This basically makes for a "kill-or-be-killed"-scenario, which is "alien" particularly to Star Trek's traditional philosophy.


(c) remoteness of provenience:

Each species is characterized by extradimensionality, that is, it's not from "our neighborhood".

The nameless ones hail from "third space", as the title of the episode (a made-for-tv movie) suggests. IPX xenoarchaeologist Dr. Elizabeth Trent speculates that the gigantic artifact retrieved by the Babylon 5 fighter squadron from hyperspace may have originally functioned as a gateway between dimensions. She believes it may open into what she calls "third space", neither "normal" space, nor hyperspace. This is later confirmed independently by Lyta under her Vorlon-trance.

The Voyager enemies originate in what comes to be called "fluidic space". It is a portion of the universe filled with an organic fluid---like a giant ocean---that has given rise to Species 8472. Voyager travels there by opening some kind of dimensional portal using its deflector array, I believe. As depicted in the episode ("Scorpion" (pt. II)) it is visually stunning and effectively eery. Would that more of ST reality were to take place in such unusual places. It would shake that feeling of (over)familiarity that so often comes with many of the ST franchise episodes. Is space to be a hostile and, yes, "alien" place, or not?

However these places may be understood from the point of view of "hard science", it is clear that they are not trivially accessible by ordinary means of transport. It's not just a matter of "flying" to the aliens' home planets (à la the Klingons', Cardassians', or Centauri's). These places are somewhere hidden from the normal physical access of human(oid)s.

(d) initial contact:

In Third Space initial contact is attributed to Vorlon "error of pride". In "Scorpion" first contact is made, and conflict established, due to Borg error in judgment.

Under Vorlon trance ("an echo of what once was . . . a race memory" ), Lyta relates that it was the Vorlons that first made contact with the Nameless Ones. Wherever the Vorlons had gone they were seen as angels of light, almost gods themselves.
Eventually they came to believe it: "We brought order and discipline [to wherever they travelled in space]." They had begun to believe that they belonged to a "higher plane of existence", so they thought to "touch the face of God" (to use human terminology) by constructing a gate to the "well of souls, the source of all light". In their hubris they forgot that a door may swing both ways. They were so pre-occupied with getting out that they gave no thought to what might come in through the gate. "We made an error, an error of pride. . . ." So, they "stumbled" upon the realm of the Nameless Ones in "third space".

Species 8472, on the other hand, is a semi-accidental find of the Borg. In the latter's never ending hunt for "technological perfection", they had sought to enter the realm of Species 8472 and assimilate their culture (technology). However, this time they picked on the wrong "patsy".

Contact has been made, on the one hand, as a result of a prideful, but neutral, act, while, on the other hand, it is made in pursuit of "evil" (Actually, one might say that the Borg collective's quest for its own "technological perfection" is a totally amoral act of a species exercising its nature (arguably, by fulfilling its own "biological imperative"): which is to assimilate every intelligent sentient living thing in its path.)

Each found species constitutes a "nemesis", in the truest sense of the word, for the sentient species that has stumbled upon it. The nameless "third space"-aliens are (more than?) a match for supersentient Vorlons who had built the million-year-old gateway from which the invaders of the story emerge. Species 8472 likewise overmatches the Borg, who, without Janeway and Voyager's technological help, would go down to utter defeat and destruction, and, so, must make a (temporary) alliance.


(e) technology:

Species 8472 uses bioships that work in tandem to form devastating cascades of energy that destroy Borg cubes. (It should be noted that Voyager itself set out as a semi-organic ship, as a few people may remember.) Organic technology is something that in the B5 universe is a specialty of the Shadows and the Vorlons.

Nothing is said, I believe, about that aspect of the "third space"-aliens. The story makes it clear, however, that the forces presently coming through the gateway from "third space", which the combined armada of the White Star fleet, Minbari, and allies can scarcely handle, are but the vanguard of much more powerful and, in all likelihood, overwhelming forces just behind it.


(f) telepathy as form of communication and as weapon:

Kes, the resident Voyager Okampan, who at the time is developing her telepathic (and telekinetic) powers under the Vulcan Tuvok's guidance, receives "transmissions" from Species 8472. She discovers what has inspired their enmity and that their mission is to destroy all (presumably sentient, not microbial) life in "our universe", both as revenge for past Borg attacks on, and as defense against further potential aggression into, their realm by any sentient intelligence.

The Nameless Ones of Babylon 5: Third Space also communicate to sentients (both humanoid and Vorlon) through telepathy. In addition, they can control these species with this power.

Lyta reveals to Delenn and Sheridan that these beings are telepathic and powerful. They had modified the gate in the past in order to use it to control the sentients (Vorlons, humanoids, etc.) on this side. They had used their telepathic powers to cause renegade Vorlons to shanghai the gate and hide it in hyperspace before the Vorlon regime could destroy it.
That is exactly what they are doing in the story to the Babylon 5 station's present inhabitants.

(g) physical nature:

It is not, strictly speaking, possible to compare the physical nature of the two species. Species 8472 features 8- or 9-foot-tall three-legged purplish-hued quasi-humanoid members.

As originally presented, even the mere touch of a member of Species 8472 means for the afflicted a torturesome and horrific rewriting of (human) DNA ("Scorpion"). Yet, in the episode "In the Flesh", the Species is transformed into mock-human form, ready for sex with Star Fleet officers. In the story, Chocotay kisses one of their number in pseudo-human form, with the implication that more intimate relations are to follow. (Whether one is to infer a division of sexes here within Species 8472 remains unclear. Perhaps so, because I don't think even Star Trek, in any of its incarnations, is ready to go in the other direction---"boldly", or otherwise. Of course, neither has the rest of Hollywood, e.g., in Night of the Blood Beast (1958) or Enemy Mine (1985).) Despite coming from "fluidic space", members of Species 8472 seem to have no problem adapting to humanoid atmospheres or even to the "vacuum" of space ("Scorpion", "Prey").

By comparison, the Nameless Ones remain totally unseen throughout their episode. We see only what one has to assume to be one of their monstrous servants, a buglike creature with tentacles and monstrous grinder teeth (i.e., they're flat like a primate's, rather than sharp or fanglike). The physical form of the "third space"-aliens remains unknown. It might be inferred from the structures of the "dark city" depicted in the episode that they have a somewhat outwardly humanoid physiology.

We can perhaps make a couple of fair inferences from what is presented to us:

(1) the "third space"-aliens have some kind of social organization that would lead them to live in massive cities, like human(oid)s.
(2) Species 8472 has some kind of hierarchical social organization with leaders (such as the one who takes the form of "Boothby" (played by the late Ray Walston), the old groundskeeper at Star Fleet Academy, in "In the Flesh") and followers (as opposed to, say, a hive-mind, like the (original) Borg).

(h) activity/intent/goals:

As stated before, the two have a common goal, that of annihilating the aliens, Borg or Vorlon, who "disturbed" them in their respective home places. This is then extended to destroying man and all life in "our universe".

It becomes clear from the speech/proclamation made by Deuce, the crime boss aboard Babylon 5, who has fallen under the sway of the "third space"-aliens, what will happen if the latter do break through the gate: "I must go outside because it's calling me. They know who we are . . . . We belong to them . . . . they're coming for us. We have to open the door and let them in. Those who do not hear the call will not survive it." [emphasis added]


An aside here on B5's supersentients.

It is clear to me---and I do not know how forthcoming he has been about crediting it, because I don't read the USENET message boards and the like---that much of JMS's work in this area is heavily influenced by the work of [COLOR=]H.P. Lovecraft[/color] and his collaborators in the Cthulhu Mythos.

Several Lovecraftian motifs appear over and over in the Shadow War arc of the story:

(1) The theme of (baleful) ancient races greatly older and more powerful than man kept in exile or abeyance. JMS's "First Ones" concept harkens directly back to Lovecraft's Great Old Ones, superbeings beyond man's true ken who, for whatever reason went---or were driven---away from the Earth and its cosmic environs in time immemorial. In point of fact, when, in Delenn's narration in "In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum", the known history of the previous wars among the supersentients is recounted, there is a definite echo of one of the key mantras of the Cthulhu Mythos: "The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, the Old Ones shall be."

In a sort of odd reversal of this, Zathros, the caretaker of the Great Machine on Epsilon Eridani (or is that the name of its sun???), the planet near where Babylon 5 orbits, reveals that former Commander, now Ambassador to Minbar, Jeffrey Sinclair is the One who Was, Delenn the One who Is, and Sheridan the One who Is to Come ("War without End", pt. II). That the leadership against "the darkness" should come as a temporally successive triumvirate hardly seems accidental.


(2) These beings' exile and/or remoteness that, in very real ways, protects man from their baleful presence, coupled with the ever present threat of their return from "outside", correspond to what Lovecraft called cosmic outsideness. The reference in Third Space to the aliens' abiding in their dark city recalls the oft-repeated line in Lovecraft "In his house at R'l'yeh [a city at the bottom of the sea], dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."

(3) Oneiric interface. In Lovecraft, men are often contacted by higher beings through their dreams. Kosh's deepest, most heartfelt, and usually most informative communications to John Sheridan are transmitted through dreams. In the Third Space episode, many of Babylon 5's inhabitants, too, experience a common vision of the "dark city" in their dreams, and are mesmerized and seduced by it.

Commander Susan Ivanova, a "latent" telepath, as it turns out,
the station's second-in-command, is among them. It is through her that we, the audience, get a glimpse of it. Ivanova dreams of the alien place:

The sounds of the distant roar of thunder and an eery gigantic whirring sound occupy the dream. She finds herself in full uniform at a cave mouth which seems to have some kind of (Vorlonese?) writing on the sides of the opening. In the distance a starry night firmament is cloven by a 5-mile-high diseased-treelike (or twisted-cactus-shaped) tower set in the crater of a bowl-shaped valley. Surrounding it is an enormous village of flat (one-storey?) black houses---more like decadent, coal-dark shanties---laid out in long lanes sloping down into the valley. Old-style skylights continuously slice through the night sky. In the farther distance floats a gigantic airborne black mountain. Lightening suddenly appears and clouds roil around the peak of the tower. No one is seen in the landscape of the dark town, but Lyta, under Vorlon-trance, does tell Sheridan and Delenn: "They watch us from within their dark cities."

Vir Coto, the Centauri attaché, is present, surrounded by two seductive women who lead him away. Afterwards, a monster's tentacle (? or tongue?) reaches out of the cave mouth to grab Ivanova. She wakes screaming. Later on, Vir tells her he has had the same dream and that, in his version, she has been killed and eaten.

(I must say, as a further aside, that I find this to be the most interesting rendition of an alien city I've ever seen in film. It is not so much futuristic as it is downright spooky. It looks like a huge decaying village from some mad artist's warped mind. I'm convinced that a larger-budgeted big-screen rendering of this same concept would look truly breathtaking and incomparably astounding.)


With all their similarities, the greatest difference between Species 8472 of Trek and the Nameless Ones of Third Space lies, of course, in what each "franchise" chooses to do with its most hostile forces ever.

In Star Trek: Voyager the course of events leads de rigueur to its inevitable outcome: Species 8472 goes from totally destructive, hard-driving, implacable foe ("Scorpion"), to (near) whimpering fear-filled negotiator with---literally---a human face ("brothers-under-the-skin") that slinks along back home ("In the Flesh"), to pitiable object in an anti-hunting scenario to which humans (Voyager's crew) owe some kind of protective moral duty even at the risk of their own lives ("Prey"). The usual Star Trek ideal of conversion of enemies through negotiation wins the day. (But, doesn't it always? First the Klingons, then the Romulans(?). Can the Borg be next?)

Babylon 5: Third Space offers no such palliative. The Nameless Ones remain nameless, faceless, and implacable. They don't become "like us", and, thankfully, their mystery remains intact mainly because of it. The only hope of dealing with them comes through the use of countervailing force. They are stopped only at the last minute by a destructive force that closes their entryway into "this universe". They still await their opportunity in their dark places. . . . .

Thus, the basic separate approaches of the two outer-space sf "franchises", that is, bold discovery and adventure versus (scientific) mystery, come through in the diverse way in which these comparable alien species are viewed and ultimately dealt with.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Quote:



I still think these two are good matches for an in-depth comparison. Will nobody take up the challenge?





Mike Broadman wrote:


Quote:



Are you referring to comparing the Minbari and Klingon cultures?





A Minbari - Klingon comparison

The most vivid, and perhaps the most meaningful, humanoid interactions in Babylon 5 and Star Trek take place, in my opinion, between the humans and the Minbari or the Klingons, respectively. These are the subjects of many episodes in the respective series, as well as an important---and, in the former case, essential---component of the (back)story of their respective universes. I think they are the most comparable of all the nonhuman (humanoid) species met with in the two "franchises", as either loyal allies or fierce enemies.



Quote:



Note also that the Minbari [warrior] Caste probably have a different take on religion than the Religious Caste. . . . Our best window into Minbari religion is through the character of Delenn . . . . .





Right. Any comparison must acknowledge and depart from the fact that, in certain ways, it's "apples vs. oranges" here. Much of what we "know" about the Minbari is a function of the fact that it is mostly through members of the priestly caste that we "experience" them. Even the warrior Neroon---perhaps the
only member of the warrior caste for whom a predominantly positive image is provided---declares his "heart to be religious caste" before he dies in the ordeal of the Starfire Wheel ("Moments of Transition").


An actual close examination of the Minbari reveals that they combine features of two humanoid species of the Star Trek world: those of the Klingons (warrior prowess) and the Vulcans (philosophicality, spirituality, and mysticism).

Minbari pre-occupation with their souls seems to be the driving force behind their behavior.

What follow are some aspects of the comparison of these two, beginning with the most superficial.

(1) physical aspects (genotypic, phenotypic traits)

physical attributes:


The Klingons are dark-hued, while Minbari are pale, almost colorless, even. The Klingons are hairy while the Minbari are practically hairless. The Klingons appear, in general, to be rough-skinned, while the Minbari are, or at least appear, smooth.

Klingons have bulgy, bony forehead ridges; the men tend to be super-sized vis-à-vis humans. Even most of the women we get to see tend to be rather tall and athletic (post-TOS).
Minbari sport large bony plates on sides and backs of their heads, their ears being below the bone at the juncture of head and neck. As previously stated, they are mostly hairless, which makes Delenn seem freakish when she recombines her DNA with that of humans to grow a long mane of head hair ("A Distant Star", "All Alone in the Night", "There All the Honor Lies", "And Now for a Word", "The Illusion of Truth").

Minbari are equivalent in size to humans; however, they are much stronger than they appear. Lennier dangles Marcus(???) off the floor by the throat when the two first tangle: "We may look like you, but we are not you," he reveals.


As noted before, Babylon 5 seems to have no particular philosophical point to make and makes no attempt to have "racial" subgroupings within the humanoid alien groups that it depicts. In "The Geometry of Shadows", the Drazi divide into warring groups on the station to decide which group will rule their people for the five years to come, but faction membership grouping is based solely on the wearing of green or purple sashes, not on genetic physical differences. Star Trek, on the other hand, deliberately mingles nonwhite actors in with white actors in the depiction of alien races, the Klingons included, so there are sometimes obvious physiognomic differences in the alien groups that are recognizable to (Anglo-)American audiences, but which the fictional groups in this idealized universe do not heed. As a result, the Klingons look relatively heterogeneous, while the Minbari appear relatively homogeneous (no non-white actors in Minbari roles, as far as I can tell).

Klingons eat live food and have powerful digestive tracks ("A Matter of Honor"). They are robust (in the physical-evolutionary sense), with redundant autonomic back-up systems for medical recovery ("Ethics"). Minbari (at least, members of the priestly caste) seem to be vegetarian.

Even though it is unclear (to me) why (pure genetics???), the Minbari are readily subject to alcohol poisoning. Klingons---warriors, at least---, practically live on intoxicating bloodwine ("Apocalypse Rising").


At war, Minbari become a "race gone mad" ("In the Beginning"). Worf and Chancellor Gowron make similar comments about Klingon battle fury ("The Way of the Warrior") and the Klingons do form the fiercest core of fighters among the Allies in the Dominion War. Despite the warlike analogy of the two groups, Klingons come off as more irascible, volatile, and waspish (as, for example, in "The Emissary") and, at times, downright "superstitious" (as, for example, when Worf repeats the Klingon myth of a black hole in space that devours ships ("Where Silence has Lease")), while the Minbari seem mostly spiritually devoted, but "cool" until seriously roused to anger---"Vulcanesque", but with an edge.

Among Klingons bragadoccio seems to be part of the expected persona, part of the warrior's ethic. (A recital of one's battle accomplishments is part of meeting the eligibility requirements for becoming chancellor, or head of the High Council ("Reunion").) Priestly virtues among the
Minbari seem to require modesty. Of course, this would be an "apples-to-oranges" comparison.

The localities where these two species have developed evolutionarily are equally habitable, but not so similar. The homeworld Minbar is, as far as I can tell, mostly a beautiful cold planet with about one quarter of its surface covered by glaciers. Q'onos (a.k.a. "Kling"? See "Heart of Glory"), the Klingon homeworld, which is almost totally unseen except for a few standard city shots, is seemingly an unremarkable earthlike world.


(2) social aspects (one-on-one interactions)

Klingon sexuality is depicted as almost animalistic in its intensity and physicality ("Where No One Has Ever Gone Before", "The Emissary", "A Matter of Honor"). Klingon females may be the aggressors in sexual foreplay ("A Matter of Honor", "Prophecy").

Minbari, as depicted, are virtually sexless. (Is this only because we are allowed to see them mainly from the viewpoint of the religious caste?) I recall no mention of celibacy issues, but Delenn's mother, we find out, did become a nun---a "Sister of Valeria(?)"---sometime after her daughter's birth.

Delenn does tell us something about mating rituals, in which the female is the aggressor and has the say over sealing the bonding or mating pact ("Shadow Dancing").

No link to that is ever explicitly made in the series, to my knowledge, but for centuries the Minbari have found their birth rates to be diminishing significantly.

Worf and K'Ehleyr mate ("The Emissary") and later "wed" (informally) through Klingon ritual exchange "jlH dok . . . . maj dok" ("Reunion"). The union, though not sanctified by clergy, is recognized as valid when Worf claims his right of vengeance against her killer. The issue from this mating, Alexander Rozhenko, is recognized despite the lack of formal ceremony (by our standards). Although weddings can be elaborate (e.g., in "You Are Cordially Invited . . . "), they seem not to be what makes the marriage among Klingons.

Both cultures see rough equality of the sexes, but it is openly stated that Klingon females are excluded from serving on the High Council. (Ron Moore has stated publicly that he regrets that stipulation, and, if you look closely enough at the Klingon gathering in "Tacking into the Wind" (also written by Moore), where Gowron is killed by Worf
and Martok declared High Council chancellor by the participants, you will find, I believe, that one of them is female.)

Delenn ("Satai"), by contrast, has been groomed to be leader of the Grey Council by Dukhat before his death, but forsakes all that in pursuit of her Babylon 5/Shadow War mission.

Females are also to be found in battle-ready situations among the regular Minbari military. For instance, a female is found as second in command of the Trigati, a rogue Minbari warship, in "Points of Departure". The Minbar-based, Minbari-conceived Ranger organization (Anla'Shok) also features female members, who are trained in both technical and military ("hand-to-hand") combat skills.

Klingon battleships may include members of both sexes (at least since "Day of the Dove"). We haven't seen any female captains in the regular military (by accident?), but the sisters, Lursa and B'Etor, head a shipload of renegade Klingon warriors in "Firstborn" and Star Trek: Generations (where they are referred to as "mistresses").

One Trek episode does show that women, even of the nobility, have low, or no, standing in property ownership on their own among the Klingons. In "The House of Quark", the noble lady Grilka cannot inherit her late husband's estate, since she has no male offspring, and is in danger of losing it to her husband's brother, the heir apparent by law, until she marries Quark, her late husband's supposed conqueror and killer in combat. He then inherits the estate. This seems to show that even an alien male---here a despised Ferengi, to boot---has practical higher legal standing (under certain circumstances) than a native female, in terms of property ownership.

(3) technogical aspects

The Minbari are widely deemed to be more technologically advanced by centuries than any of the other known humanoid races, which makes them both admired and feared.

It would seem that the technology of Klingons is roughly equivalent to that of their humanoid rivals in the Star Trek universe. Klingons must have scientists and engineers, else they wouldn't have attained, nor would they have maintained, their high level of (military) technology. They do have these people. We don't see them, however. The one exception I can think of is met with in "Suspicions" (the female scientist, Kurak).

The warriors are philosophically against what they see as "luxury", which may explain the lack of certain amenities aboard their military vessels, rather than any scientific "lag". One gets no sense of such abstemiousness in planet-side scenes, where Klingons can be seen voluptuating all-out (e.g., "Redemption").


(4) societal aspects ((inter)group interactions)

Minbari culture is based on trinity.

As Delenn tells an ISN interviewer ("And Now for a Word"), the Minbari "have three basic languages, Len'au, Feek, and Audronado, which is the language of the religious caste." (Are we to infer language differences based solely on social caste, rather than by region? If so, how, then, do Delenn and Neroon speak to each other so fluently? Do they both know each other's tongue at a snap? Is there a lingua franca among them unmentioned by her? One wonders. Or, as I suspect, are the languages specialized by function, which would "be more like it"?) By contrast, Klingons have "80 polyglottal dialects" ("Broken Bow"), from which I infer one language which spans a more or less unified global culture.


familiality:

Minbari have a clan-system, about which we learn very little. The Minbari attaché, Lennier, is of the "fifth fane [?, as in 'temple'] of Chodomo(?)". (What, if anything, that may have to do with his clan, I don't know.)

Family names

None?

Klingons seem to have no family names, but (loosely speaking) only a patronymic system of the form "So-and-so, son (or daughter) of X", more or less on the pattern of modern Iceland. That works for small societies, but for galactic empires . . . ?

Minbari ???

The fact that familial names are almost negligible or nonexistent in these cultures probably has more to do with the writers' usual American dismissal of the importance of last (familial) names than with any particular cultural significance among the species depicted.

Klingon society is definitely patriarchal (men rule and may hold independent status) and patrilocal (meaning a woman marries into her husband's family and goes to live among them). Minbari society?

governance:

Klingons live by conquest and have an empire, which implies conquest of unlike peoples (e.g., the Kriosians of "Mind's Eye"). No such mention is made of the Minbari, who, though known as a warrior race, form only a "federation".

Grey Council - High Council

The Klingons are titularly governed by an Emperor (head of state), an office revived after centuries of disuse ("Rightful Heir"), and a Chancellor (head of government), first among members of the High Council, the real power in government.

Minbari are governed by the "Grey Council", made up of representatives from each caste and a leader (e.g., Dukhat), that meets and lives among the stars and deliberates and governs from outer space, rather than on the surface of the homeworld.

How members of these bodies are traditionally chosen is not explained, to my remembrance. In the everyday reality of the Star Trek universe, however, powerful Klingon interests often engage in surreptitious quid pro quo power-politics (including outright bribery) in return for "support" (e.g., in "Reunion", "Redemption", et al.).


societal organization: class/caste system:

Klingons have a nobility of so-called "great houses", but there are "commoners". Class consciousness is betrayed in General Martok's resentment at having been denied an officer's appointment early on by Kor because of his commoner background ("Once More Unto the Breach"). He seems, however, to have married "above his station", as they used to say, to the lady Sirella, and to have established his own house, despite that background ("You Are Cordially Invited").

There is a class of ascetics (monks and priests) among the Klingons, we just get to see them so rarely ("Rightful Heir"). Their agenda is strictly distinct from that of the warrior class (e.g., to wield power through their Kahless clone).

Someone must do the work of lower labor, such as still exists, but we never get to see them either. One would assume that, since it is called the "Klingon Empire", it is built on conquest and that subject peoples may well be used to perform such labor, at least off-world. (As usual, Trek glosses over, or altogether shuns, the unpleasant implications of its posited universe, so this is seldom addressed in post-TOS shows. "Errand of Mercy" finds Klingons perfectly willing to exploit the labor of subject populations, as well as exact tribute from them.)


Minbari have a tripartite caste system: priest (religious), warrior, worker. I don't believe that it is ever said explicitly, but the religious caste seems to have practical command of the others. It is the priestly caste that orders the eleventh-hour halt to the war against Earth on the verge of complete Minbari victory. The various castes have a theoretical balance of power in the Grey Council, yet Delenn restores it after the Shadow War and has the singular(?) power to appoint an extra worker-caste representative, to the outrage of the warrior caste.


religion and esoteric beliefs:

Mike Broadman wrote:


Quote:



The . . . Minbari lack . . . emphasis on post-death judgement, so they are more concerned with how a person lives and what her offers to the community, using religion as a guiding force.






Quote:



The Klingons, on the other hand, seem less "religious" to me, as they don't really "pray," at least not how we think of it. As a warrior culture, any religious beliefs are centered around that. They have a warriors' afterlife, reminiscent of the Vikings' Valhalla.





In "Prophecy", T'Greth, the leader of a prophetic Klingon cult on a "generational ship" wandering the so-called Delta Quadrant, prays to Kahless and leads B'Elanna Torres to do so as well.

Each of these cultures has a virtually godless religion. Worf tells (his son, Alexander?), that the Klingons at some point in their history "killed" their gods ("Firstborn"?). Note further that Delenn says that the deceased Minbari military leader Branmer is to take his place among the "gods" ("Legacies"), which implies that [COLOR=]Minbari[/color] do, in fact, have them, though they remain unnamed and uninvoked.



Quote:



One way, IMO, of understanding a religion is by asking the question, "Who do they pray to?" The Minbari do have some mythological angelic/spirit figures---remember when Kosh flew out of his encounter suit, everyone saw some religious-type figure of their own culture, and Lennier saw one (something with a 'V'[Valeria]). But I believe that these mythologies were more relevant when the Minbari was more divided. . . . . We have seen Delenn pray---if not to specific gods, then to whom, or what? She often spoke of the universe as a seperate entity with purpose and direction. "We are the universe trying to figure itself out" and talking about how the universe puts us in situations and "tests" us. Does she then pray to the universe? This is a difficult concept to grasp, which I guess makes sense that an alien culture would have such a different perspective of faith than we do. . . . . Delenn and G'Kar seem to use [prayer] more as a meditation and self-relfection technique than as a "Please God give me this" or "Thank you God for that" thing.





The precept of Roman do ut des 'I give that you may give' is considered by some in the comparative study of religions more characteristic of "pagan nature religions"---where, in fact, the term "religion", which itself has never been adequately defined, may not even apply---than of supposedly "more advanced" religions, like those of the Western Abrahamic traditions or the major international religions of South Asia and the Far East.

The Minbari are obviously past their "pagan" period already since the advent of Valen ("a Minbari not born of Minbari") 1,000 years before. He is more like their Muhammed (the ultimate prophet) than their Christ ("God" in the flesh).

Minbari religious and spiritual belief revolves around their concept of the soul (a "nonlocalized [and nonlocalizable] phenomenon"). They see the "soul" as the conscious expression of a sentient ambient universe awakening to its own existence, which applies to other beings as well, e.g., as mentioned in the demise of the Vorlon ambassador Kosh ("Interludes and Examinations").
And the consciousness of the universe itself is, of course, a recurrent Babylon 5 theme that also transcends the Minbari. Besides its being mentioned here and there in the cryptic sayings of Kosh, one finds it in the speech of Jeremiah, the leader of some Babylon 5 cultists who believe that being devoured by a monster is just another way for the self to become recycled within the universe ("Grey 17 Is Missing").

Among the Minbari, souls are seen to migrate into new bodies at rebirth on this plane of existence. Klingons, on the other hand, have an elaborate concept of the afterlife. Their souls, or spirits of the dead, are believed to go to an otherworldly afterlife, in Sto-Vo-Kor (place of honor) or in Gre'thor (place of dishonor and, presumably, torment) ("Devil's Due", "Barge of the Dead").

The dead body is seen as an empty shell to do be disposed of expeditiously, in conjunction with a howling ritual at the exact (perceived) moment of death that supposedly announces the coming of the individual's spirit to the realm of the dead ("Heart of Glory", "Reunion")).

Minbari carefully dispose of dead bodies ritually ("Legacies"); and believe that their "unborn souls" pass into newborn human bodies at the moment of their birth (and that humanity is, therefore, their future).
Consequently, they honor and support telepaths, people who can put them "in touch with their inner selves" (as well as others on spiritual journeys; see, e.g., "Grail") and fear soul-hunters, beings who capture the souls of the dying at the very moment of death ("Soul Hunter"; River of Souls), pretty difficult for a "nonlocalized phenomenon", but . . . .

This is more like the contrast between an open-system model and a closed-system model. In the closed system of the Minbari, everything is recycled into this universe, this plane of existence (transmigration leading to
reincarnation). The Klingons' open system presupposes other, usually "higher", planes of existence to which the spirit-soul-conscious essence-identity can escape (e.g., the afterlife in Sto-Vo-Kor), and, sometimes, from which it can return (e.g., Kahless's return in "Rightful Heir").

This is a counterintuitive reversal. Though no hard and fast rule exists, it is often the case that cultures that believe in an afterlife elaborately preserve the physical dead body in preparation for that next life (e.g., ancient Egyptians, traditional Christians, etc.), whereas cultures that believe in re-incarnation have much less reason to preserve bodies, since these are not expected to be used ever again.

In a funerary fiasco, Delenn steals the body of Branmer, an honored commander, to blunt the warrior caste's moves to use his body as a travelling public war symbol,
due to its lingering resentment of the priestly caste's order to surrender when the Minbari military had been on the verge of annihilating humanity in the Earth-Minbar war ("Legacies"). This breach of protocol, blamed at first on unknown human culprits, could have led to further war between the two species. Later, Delenn reveals her culpability and threatens the warrior caste with what she knows in order to put down their warlike intentions.


Quote:



They also venerate the supposed founder of their culture, Kales, in a similar way that Minbari treat Valen. The big difference here is that we know all about Valen, wereas I get the impression that Kales is more like a King Arthur or Moses figure, in that we're all familiar with the legends, but the actual historical figure of the man is a mystery.





Valen united the Minbari, Kahless the Unforgettable the Klingons. Each is a quasi-mythic figure, much like Rurik the Dane among the historical Slavs or King Mena ( = Greek Menes), the legendary first Pharoah of the ancient Egyptians, uniters of their respective cultures and founders of their respective historical states.

Valen's background is eventually revealed to the B5 audience. I'm not sure how great a proportion of the whole Minbari populace is then let in on the secrets revealed about him---and them. Their leaders are fervent to keep this information "hush-hush" throughout the series. My impression is that the figure of Valen remains a mystery to the vast majority of Minbari still by the end of the story.



Quote:



The Minbari . . . and Klingons are very ritualistic. However, these rituals seem specifically dedicated as meditations for the self or group. We've seen various Klingon rituals, but I don't think any of them involved any God figures. They all had candles, pain tests, and violence. For example, when Warf walked through the line of Klingons who zapped him with those sticks while he shouted out declarations, he didn't do it to appease some God, but more as a demonstration of his strength and to prove to himself that he is where he is supposed to be in his Klingonish development.





A prominent feature of both these cultures is the use of the ordeal. Disputes are often settled, truth decided, or decisions made through oaths---but, oaths sworn to whom?---, accompanied by trial by personal combat or torturous endurance (such as Worf's Rite of Ascension in "The Icarus Factor", mentioned here, or the "pagan" (pre-Valen-era) Starfire Wheel ordeal used to decide leadership among the Minbari ("Moments of Transition")).


Ethics: Honor, Duty, Sacrifice

The highest honor for warriors is to die in battle ("Today is a good day to die.", etc.) This practically ensures an honored place in Sto-Vo-Kor for Klingon warriors à la the Vikings and Valhalla, as Mr. Broadman points out.

"All that remains now is honor and death." With this communication, the rogue warship Trigati, loaded with renegades from the Earth-Minbar war that had never surrendered, causes itself to be destroyed in order to revive the tensions between humans and Minbari ("Points of Departure").

Trek is inconsistent here. It is a dishonor to be taken prisoner in battle. For survivors, there is no return home, but the alternative is not always death ("Birthright").

Rangers (Anla'Shok), who serve primarily as scouts and spies, are, nevertheless committed to die in battle as well, to never retreat or give up. A commander who does not live (or, rather, die) by that precept is subject to disbarment ("Meditations on the Abyss"; Legend of the Rangers).

Outwardly, both Minbari and Klingon cultures seem to be what some "Western" anthropologists call shame cultures, ones whose members put a premium on "face" (attainment, maintenance, or loss of (public) honor), which is "other"-centered (simplistically put: "What will people think of me?"). The characters we get to know, however, also display quite a bit of plain old (so-called) "Western" guilt, which is "self"-centered (simplistically put: "How can I live with myself?"). The conflict between the two is often what drives the drama (e.g., the "death-before-dishonor" dilemma in "Ethics"). Of course, in reality the two almost surely are not mutually exclusive.

• Who will bear the responsibility (and the shame) for the treason at Khitomer (even though the higher-ups know who is really to blame)? ("Sins of the Father")
• Will Worf "marry" K'Ehleyr and dishonor their descendents for 6(?) generations to come because of his "discommodation"? ("Reunion")
• Delenn berates the Grey Council for giving lip service to prophecy while ignoring its current implications when it seems to be coming true all around them. Will the council hold steadfast to its supercilious non-interventionism or be broken for the sake of the war effort? ("Severed Dreams").

Klingons despise traders and money-lenders (e.g., the Ferengi, "House of Qark"; "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places", where Qark's financial expertise is called upon, but his skill is the object of scorn by the same people he aids). They hold many of their enemies, such as the Romulans, Borg, and Jem'Hadar to "be without honor", which comes across as some kind of generic insult (like calling someone a "pinko", "commie", or (nowadays) a "liberal" in American society).


The ideals of honor and the reality of politics, governance, and privilege collide, however:

The Klingon High Council has concealed the truth about the treason surrounding the Khitomer disaster in hopes of preventing a civil war. The responsibility must be borne by someone, why not a(n innocent) dead man (Worf's father, Mogh)? ("Sins of the Father") It is Ezri Dax's listing of the many corruptions of the Klingon Empire to Worf that emboldens him to challenge Gowron's ruinous military tactics against Dominion forces (when a wounded and hospitalized General Martok will not, out of misplaced loyalty) and leads to the chancellor's death by combat at the hands of
Worf. ("Tacking into the Wind").


In Babylon 5, the priestly caste leaders have kept the truth about why they had halted the war against Earth at the zero hour from both the warrior caste and the rest of Minbari society for fear of the destruction of their civilization. The deceptions and the resentments lead to open caste warfare, just short of all-out civil war ("Lines of Communication", "Rumors, Bargains, and Lies", "Moments of Transition").

The Minbari government, presumably the Grey Council, votes against trying the Dilgar war criminal, Jha'Dur (a feline-looking combination of Josef Mengele and Heinrich Himmler), through its temporary representative on the Babylon 5 Council, Lennier, because of its own part in the cover-up of her being sheltered by the militant warrior caste known as the Wind Swords after the Dilgar War ("Deathwalker").

"Minbari do not lie." But lying to save the honor of another seems to be permitted, e.g., by Delenn to save fellow ambassador Londo Mollari's honor and by Lennier in an act of self-sacrifice to save the honor of his clan from the machinations of his fellow clansman, Ashan, who's tried to "frame" Captain Sheridan for the murder of a Minbari. Delenn later explains to him, "You must understand, Captain, that there is no greater honor among my people than to serve. They work for generations to create a legacy, a tradition. In the service of their clan, they are ready to sacrifice everything. Their individuality, their blood, their life" ("There All the Honor Lies").

Worf's acceptance of "discommodation" reflects this same sense of sacrifice for the greater good. K'mpec, the leader of the High Council, tells him approvingly that his heart is "truly Klingon", or some such ("Sins of the Father").


"Minbari do not kill Minbari." Supposedly, no Minbari has killed another in a thousand years (i.e., since the advent of Valen). If true, it is the epitome of a marvelous bit of social cohesion over the centuries. (But it is a byword that begs the question, against whom have the Minbari become such fierce warriors in all that time?)

Klingons revel in killing, period. In fact, advancement aboard ships through overthrow and assassination is considered "honorable" under certain circumstances (mostly display of "weakness" on the part of superiors).


Interesting though they may be dramatically as characters, it should be noted that, overall, there is little support in the reality of comparative (human) anthropology for the predilection each "franchise" has for liberally mixing the advanced science (the technological) with the persistent and pervasive spirituality (the mystical) that is shown by each of these species. These tend to be mutually exclusive, as high spirituality tends to inhibit external inquiry and independently verifiable observation (the basis of "Western" science), and vice versa. Strict daily ritual protocols, such as those practiced among the
Minbari, tend to get in the way of scientific discipline. (All the evidence available on screen demonstrates that scientists are not a separate group from, but, instead, number among, the religious caste members.)


(5) functional aspects: the roles of the Minbari and the Klingons in their respective universes

As previously stated, the driving force behind the major Minbari activity in the Babylon 5 story is the wish to join with their "other half", the humans, the repository of their transmigrated souls.
Following one of Babylon 5's recurrent themes, as an "advanced race", they take on the function of nurturers and teachers of a "less advanced race"---here, the humans--- even to the point of sharing advanced technology ("Rising Star", A Call to Arms). Their role seems to be that of a more intimate version of the one the Vulcans have been cast in in the Star Trek franchise (as technology lenders or as core co-founders of multispecies interstellar alliances).

Although reluctant and often recalcitrant, the Klingons eventually "succumb" and become a Federation ally (as predicted by the Organians in "Errand of Mercy"), but not a Federation member. On the surface at least, there is no suppression of their autonomy. Some Klingons want no part of this alliance. Among others, Toral, the upstart illegitimate (but legally acknowledged) son of Worf's slain enemy, Duras, who is seeking to become head of the Klingon High Council while still a minor ("Redemption"), asks whether the Klingon Empire has become the "lap dogs of the Federation". A similar attitude is evinced by other Klingon conspirators allied with the Romulans (e.g., in "The Mind's Eye", "The Drumhead").

In Star Trek: TOS, the Klingons served as the chief opposition, the antithesis, and "Cold War"-era archrival of the Federation ("Errand of Mercy", "A Private Little War", "Friday's Child", "The Trouble with Tribbles", "Elaan of Troyus"), in fact, the "bad boys" of the Milky Way. This role is made all too obvious in The Undiscovered Country, particularly in the case of the character General Chang, who opposes and plots against Chancellor Gorkon (whose name is reportedly based on that of the final Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev) and his peace initiative with the Federation.

Post-TOS, Klingons seem to exist to perfectly demonstrate the ST philosophy of conquest through negotiation. ("If we just sit down and talk with these people long enough, they'll become just like us! Who wouldn't prefer to be human?") ST6: The Undiscovered Country shows their transition from chief enemy to (sometimes uneasy) ally.

In point of fact, the Klingons switched roles with the Romulans between TOS and TNG. In the original series, the Klingons were brutal and ruthless. For instance, they spied on each other ("Errand of Mercy"), as well as on the Federation ("The Trouble with Tribbles") and others. Sabotage was one of their favorite tactics. (Think "quadrotriticale"!) The Romulans, though always depicted as power-hungry, were originally an "honorable" race, in the sense of having a code of ethics and trying to live and die by it ("Balance of Terror", "The Enterprise Incident"). In TNG they take on the role of unscrupulous schemers, seldom willing to risk a frontal assault/confrontation (e.g., in "The Mind's Eye", "Redemption", "Unification")---much like the Centauri in the B5 universe---, while the Klingons become "tamer" and honor-bound.

In short, each of these "franchises" offers its audience a kind of palliative, a "comfort-zone" prospect for our future (both as a paradigm for dealing with each other here on earth and dealing with extraterrestrials in any future outer-space encounters with sentient and highly intelligent life). In the Minbari the audience is offered the prospect of a literal and intimate "oneness" with an alien race, while the Klingons present us with the prospect of attaining lasting (literally) "universal peace" and accord with even the fiercest competitor species on our own terms.

Makes ya feel "goooood", don't it?

 

[Roberto Carlo]

I wrote a piece a few years ago in which I compared these two shows. In my mind, the most important contrast is their respective treatment of religion. Not just "spiritual" matters, but actual religion: rituals, beliefs, etc.
Trek, especially TOS, was basically a religion-free zone. Before you jump me, I know that the subject came up, most famously in the fifth movie. But, for the most part, religion in ST was a problem or obstacle to be overcome, not part of what made good people good.
B5 was very different. People's beliefs, including Christianity and Judaism, were explored and explained and people's beliefs were depicted as being at the heart of who they are and what they want. As a Christian, I still cry when I see the episode "Passing Through Gethsemane." I once told a conservative audience that thought that Christianity always got a bum deal on television to watch that episode. I can name other examples: "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars" with its homage to "The Canticle of Leibowitz," "The Rocks Cried Out," the one where Ivanova sat Shiva. JMS is an atheist, or so he says, but he is very respectful of religious belief -- a pattern that has carried over to Jeremiah.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Rex, your spoiler of Neroon's fate should probably include his declaration of faith.
Personally, I'm not putting any spoilers because I'm assuming people have watched this stuff
already- so readers have been warned.

Interesting though they may be dramatically as characters, it should be noted that, overall, there is little support in the reality of comparative (human) anthropology for the predilection each "franchise" has for liberally mixing the advanced science (the technological) with the persistent and pervasive spirituality (the mystical) that is shown by each of these species. These tend to be mutually exclusive, as high spirituality tends to inhibit external inquiry and independently verifiable observation (the basis of "Western" science), and vice versa. Strict daily ritual protocols, such as those practiced among the
Minbari, tend to get in the way of scientific discipline. (All the evidence available on screen demonstrates that scientists are not a separate group from, but, instead, number among, the religious caste members.)

It could be different for an alien culture. You want to see aliens who are different than human- well, there you go. The Minbari relationship between technology, spirituality, mysticism, and society is not like anything on earth, despite the fact that, creatively, it borrows from human societies (ie, India).
By the way, thanks for resurrecting this thread. I've been watching both the TNG season 5 and Babylon 5 box sets. It's great to revisit these classic episode. Next up for viewing: Signs and Portents.