I just asked a question about SG-1 but it's not showing up when I went to check for answers. Maybe this should go to META but I can't post there.
I closed and deleted that question. You have a history of asking questions about black sci-fi characters with racist undertones, and we don't accept racism here.
I also migrated your question over to Meta. You should post a comment to this detailing the issues you have when trying to post to Meta, as everyone is supposed to be able to post to Meta.
To fully elucidate my issues with your questions, here are the specific problem areas with your questions. From this question:
Even if the two races were at peace for however many years, there is always a chance that they would revert back to their primal instincts and lose sight of the responsibilities at hand - I wouldn't think they could be trusted.
Firstly, the Federation is composed of dozens, if not hundreds of different species, so the 'two races' is ridiculous. Secondly, to my knowledge there isn't an instance of Klingons 'reverting back to their primal instincts' (besides that terrible TNG episode where everyone on the Enterprise "devolved"), but there is a black stereotype of them being little more than scary animals:
Democrats and white supremacists in the South began a political response to Radical Reconstruction, claiming that freed slaves would steal jobs after migrating North, create an economic burden on whites, and threaten white society with their purported savagery and barbarism. While before the American Civil War, black slaves had been depicted as childlike and inferior beings, happy in their captivity, white supremacists now insisted that freedom would drive blacks towards crimes of theft, murder, and the rape of white women. To support these claims, newspapers would publish articles bolstering the image of black brutality to frighten and reinforce racist assumptions in white Southerners.
Admittedly, my knowledge of Star Trek is pretty concentrated in TNG and onwards. I'll spend some time rewatching TOS this weekend. Next up is this question about the X-Men's Storm:
[G]iven the large number of mutants in the X-Men universe, it seems that Professor Xavier could certainly do much better. Storm really doesn't fit in with the team very well.
Are her abilities really so extraordinary they justify her presence at the forefront of the X-Men adventures? Does she actually provide other benefits?
This one is probably the least problematic. It beats me how she "doesn't fit into the team very well" besides her being one of the handful of non-white female characters (someone who knows modern X-Men, please correct me). Looking at the in-universe biographies, nothing jumps out at me about Storm that makes her not fit in. They all have pretty traumatic histories, with their day to day lives in the present basically being a living hell. Admittedly, looking at the original team there's a pretty blatant lack of diversity there, but I know that in the decades since they've constantly grown and changed up the team.
Your 3rd question being one about why would Teal'c be trusted:
SG-1 is the premier Stargate team, and I would presume is the one that makes first contact? is Teal'c really the impression they want to lead with? His physical appearance is obviously off-putting, and he doesn't try to hide it. When SG-1 travels to other planets, the people there really don't like his kind.
Plus, he doesn't seem very smart. While he's pretty good with a staff weapon, it's fairly inferior compared to a P90, an I'd just presume they could get a trustworthy marine grunt to do what he does.
First paragraph manages to run the gambit from implying Scary Black Guy to veiled mentions of "his kind". Second paragraph just flat out calls him dumb, where the show depicts him as often very useful when it comes to countering Goa'uld and Jaffa tactics. Also, he needs that staff weapon, as it's the weapon of his people (link has a nice callback, with a mention of Worf).
For some reason, you're pretty obsessed with asking about why people trust or value black characters. If it wasn't endemic to your first 3 questions, and bolstered by some pretty blatant racism, it probably would have been acceptable. Since your response to my initial version of this answer was so rote, I have little reason to think it wasn't on purpose.
I can't see the Stargate question, but both of the other 2 questions that are being discussed here strike me as really bad questions:
The comments about Storm could apply to pretty much any member of the X-Men - they're pretty much all outcasts and have trouble fitting in to the team somewhere along the way. Being able to control the weather strikes me as being a more unusual power than optic blasts, amazing agility, wings, and many others.
The question about Worf is covered extensively in the show - his background, how he was raised by humans, went to the Academy, etc. The whole question is loaded with false assumptions and deserved to be closed.
I don't see either of these as being racist on their own. In particular, I've never thought of Worf as being "black" and it's always a bit of surprise to see Michael Dorn in another movie or show (e.g. on Castle). I just think of Klingons as being swarthy and he's just a typical Klingon.
I'd close them just as bad questions, but I can see why a pattern of bad questions about black characters (or characters portrayed by black actors) would be shut down faster.
EDIT: Now that the Stargate question is undeleted, yeah, it's a pretty bad question.
- Can't trust him because he's a traitor: tons of dramas make use of a good-hearted bad guy switching sides. I haven't watched enough SG-1, but I'm sure they gave a reasonable explanation.
- Makes a bad impression on first contact: countered by the good impression given by showing that the "bad guys" are not all bad, not all one-dimensionally evil.
- Not many talents, easily replaced: I haven't seen enough of SG-1, but in the episodes I have seen, and on lots of SG-Atlantis episodes, it's the "marines with P-90s" that are useless. So this really seems like a false premise.
I initially pointed out in chat that the question being discussed seemed to have racist overtones. I also pointed out that I remembered that the users other questions were very similar. I will come out and say right now, I am one of the last people to jump up and say, "this is racist." I think racism is patently foolish, and not worth the time to respond to or get upset over. It does not belong on a professional site, in any way, shape, or form, however.
From a personal side, I am ethnically Jewish. I have studied Jewish history, and spent a large amount of time in school projects studying the Nazi movement, including reading modern neo-Nazi propaganda. The three questions being discussed read exactly like neo-Nazi propaganda against Blacks and Jews. One could argue that asking if Teal'c is qualified to be a member of SG-1 because "people react negatively to his appearance" is not a racist question. However, I just want to say this: would it be accepted if the question asked, "Why is Obama allowed to be President? His appearance has to be off putting to those he encounters in other countries." That is exactly the type of thing you will be confronted with, if you go to a neo-Nazi website, and read their filth.
The fact that three questions have all had the exact same gist to them, and they were pointed at three obviously qualified characters who all happen to have dark skin, sounds alarms in the mind of anyone who has dealt with racism firsthand.
I have decided to try and appease both sides here, and to take the valid points from the question, and edit them in such a way that hopefully no one can see any racial tones in them, specifically in relying more on facts and removing unsupported analysis of his actions. The question is valid, even if some of the text is not. Hopefully everyone can be happy with my edited version of it, otherwise we can have this conversation all over again.