Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Noddy, Oct 4, 2013.
You`re right, thanks for clearing that up for me and I apologize to T`girl for false nitpicking
I tend to think that old countries retain some trappings of their old cultural identities even though there is a unified government.
Also I get the impression that the government is more a providing and protective entity than a constant restrictive force in people's lives.
If you grew up in an old French village, with medieval French churches, Baroque French houses and town hall, where bakers still make the traditional bread, brewers the traditional beer, and vinters the traditional wine, you might have some notion of what being French means. Certainly, not all aspects of cultural identity are created by and enforced from up top, but are drawn from local culture.
However, that doesn't mean the being French in the 24th century is the same thing as it does today, or that it did in the 17th century. There is a greater degree of homogeneity today than their used to be, and I suspect there will be less in the future.
My take is countries do exist, but all of them gave up a certain amount of sovereignty for a world-wide government. In essence, you have the "United States of Earth," of sorts, and each nation is a state within the central world government.
So, it makes sense to me that two nations that so shaped world history still exist, just as Russia, France, Japan, and Brazil, other mentioned nations, do. It's just that by the 22nd century, those nations have learned to work together and formed a world government all nations are partnered in, rather than working alone and against each other. Basically, a utopia, where the UN actually works.
Agree. United States of Earth/United Countries of Earth
Problem with that is, once France ceased being a political unit/country, how much longer would little Le Barre continue to be "French?" We seen in the past few decades where a country has ceased to exist, broken up, that the people fairly quickly stop identifying with the former large unit.
Just because a governing body is established at the world wide level, doesn't mean the countries that assembled it discontinue to be sovereign countries.
It all has to do with how much (and how little) United Earth is allowed to do. If UE's main duty is to speak for Earth on interstellar matters, and has few other abilities and responsibilities, it could be a fairly restricted administrative body.
Nothing says that UE actually can govern the entire surface of the Earth.
Most of those entities--Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia--were created late in the process of modernization when various allegiances to smaller nationalities had already been made. On the other hand, four decades of separation between eastern and western Germans created cultural divergences, but it did not undo the sense that they belonged to what should be a single entity. Would La Barre remain French? Franche-Comté is, in many respects, very Swiss, so I doubt that the disappearance of France as a political entity would make move any further in that direction. If their sense of Frenchness is drawn from their local circumstances and culture, then they will likely continue to identify their local culture as being French.
Although the "United Earth" insignia we saw in the TOS pilot episodes was not a reproduction of the United Nations but exclusively the United Americas.
^ ¡ Viva el Imperio de las Américas !
I don't recall that logo. Do you have a link to it? I only recall the Mirror Universe logo, with the Western Hemisphere, but that was sort of retconned with Enterprise's In A Mirror Darkly.
In TSFS, a Starfleet Officer mentioned the city Lenningrad. I'd be curious to hear how the name changed back. Although in my mind the city was actually spelled Lennongrad, because Liverpool changed it's name in honor of the Beatles. If that's the case I want to know where Ringotown is located.
More Evidence the Soviet Union exists in the 24th century:
The SS Tsiolkovsky.
I've always felt that Trek took place in an alternate universe starting back somewhere before the 1960s and that in the Trek universe, the USSR never collapsed. I would assume that they were a member of the Allies against the "Eastern Coalition" during WWIII as well.
By that reasoning, the Lakota nation must likewise exist: USS Crazy Horse,USS Lakota
Likewise, the Byzantine Empire must exist: USS Constantinople
It's been speculated that the officer could be referring to Leningrad Oblast.
Um... huge difference in naming a ship after something and a plaque that says a ship was built in the USSR.
Why wouldn't countries like the US and UK still exist even in Trek's time? They're simply subdivisions of the larger whole: United Earth.
And United Earth did not cease to exist when the Federation was born (it's simply a Federation member world), so there's no reason it should happen here either. As UE is a member of the Federation, so are the US and UK and other countries members of UE.
Sure, they could exist, but as what? Nation-states? Administrative territories? What kind of projects can they pursue? What laws can they make? Saying something simply exists is weak. A better question might be what became of the US after unification, and would be it recognizable to people today?
Isn't that a novelty gift from the Tsiolkovsky Museum? I believe you can see it there now.
Probably nation-states, same as before. I'm sure they send representatives to the United Earth parliament, and have to abide by UE rules, but still exist nonetheless. Just like Federation member worlds are separate entities, but report to the Federation government.
Chekov also made reference to a Leningrad. The way things are going in Russia today perhaps they changed the city's name from Saint Petersburg back to Leningrad again.
Leningrad was also mentioned in the movie The Voyage Home.
Yes those ships exist, but where were they built?
Separate names with a comma.