The Royale. Picking one sentence to pieces.

[Myasishchev]

"The Royale"
DATA: "Is this significant, sir?" (Holds up a spacesuit on a hangar)
RIKER: "American."
DATA: "Fifty two stars sir. Places it between 2033 and 2079 AD."

What can we draw from this short scene?

Well, at least Riker recognizes the flag. How many of you would recognize a flag from three hundred years ago?

I'd recognize the British flag from 300 years ago. (Is the Union Jack the longest continually used flag, or do Spain and Portugal's flags win that?) I would recognize a ~330 year old American flag, but between the first flag and the ones prior to the admission of Alaska and Hawaii I'd be pretty lost.

Data uses 2079 AD, not 2079 CE. Indicating that "CE" is a passing fad.

Also indicating that Data doesn't know how to use "AD" correctly.

From Data's statement there was only one time period when America had fifty-two states.
In 2079 the state count rose above (or dropped below) 52.
I believe Puerto Rico is the best candidate for state number 51, any thoughts on state number 52?

Maybe Virgin Islands, maybe Samoa. Maybe Nova Scotia or another Canadian province, in the event of a Quebecois secession and breakup of Canada.

How big will America ultimately be in the future?

Much smaller. I've always interpreted the "Eastern Coalition" from First Contact to be the New English states, possibly including the coastal South. The U.S.A. that continues to exist in the West, likely centered on California, may still use a 52-star flag out of revanchist sentiment until 2079, when they change it to a 30-star flag and no doubt got rid of the thirteen (Eastern) stripes. Maybe the EC flag is just the stripes. Maybe it cautions observers not to tread upon it.

Picard indicates during "The Defector" that in the 24th century Riker is a American. Is that how Riker identified the flag?

Unlikely, since most Americans could not place dates to stars, even ones with history degrees like myself. Riker presumably identified the flag because of a borderline-autistic interest in heraldry.

The fall of Britain, meanwhile, stems not from overextension, but from becoming involved in a war in which it had no interest as a belligerent. Britain entered the First World War - which nearly bankrupted the empire - for romantic reasons pertaining to the defense of Belgian neutrality. Britain had no territorial or other imperial interest in the war, and was not obligated to become a belligerent

Britain loves it when a single continental power dominates all of Europe. That's why they never intervened against the Spanish or the French, why they concluded a separate peace with Nazi Germany, and why they stayed out of NATO.

Britain had considerable interest in protecting France, especially given that France collapsed within a couple of years the first time Germany invaded in 1870. And keeping independent Low Countries had always been a keen British interest, as well, since at least the French conquest of them.

This over and above the naval threat a triumphant Germany would have eventually posed to the UK.

 

[T'Girl]

I'd recognize the British flag from 300 years ago. (Is the Union Jack the longest continually used flag, or do Spain and Portugal's flags win that?)

Portugal's flag only goes back to 1910, however the emblem on the Portuguese flag date back to 1139.

Picard indicates during "The Defector" that in the 24th century Riker is a American. Is that how Riker identified the flag?

Unlikely, since most Americans could not place dates to stars, even ones with history degrees like myself. Riker presumably identified the flag because of a borderline-autistic interest in heraldry.

Just occurred to me that maybe Riker identified the style of the spacesuit itself as America, not the flag attached to it.

 

[RegFan]

^^^ Even with 300 years of interracial breeding (and there's a lovely phrase) that wouldn't be enough time to turn the human species into a single "race." Men will still marry the girl next door.

I wasn't saying that races should have completely vanished by the time of the 24th century series.

 

[Doug Otte]

Every empire in history eventually overextends itself, and America is no exception.

Doug

Is the former true? The two most notable examples of Empire in world history - i.e. the most broadly and thoroughly powerful empires recorded - are the Roman and British.

The Roman empire's fall cannot be traced to overextension; with two exceptions (Trajan's conquests, and the conquest of Britain, both of which took place early in the Empire's history), the Roman border was essentially fixed after the death of the second emperor, Tiberius.

The fall of Britain, meanwhile, stems not from overextension, but from becoming involved in a war in which it had no interest as a belligerent. Britain entered the First World War - which nearly bankrupted the empire - for romantic reasons pertaining to the defense of Belgian neutrality. Britain had no territorial or other imperial interest in the war, and was not obligated to become a belligerent. A series of diplomatic errors following the war (most notably involving failures to check the revitalization of Germany) weakened its worldwide position, and then the United States insisted upon the disintegration of the Empire as a condition of alliance in World War II. Faced, in Germany, with an existential threat, Britain had no choice but to accede.

I'm unclear where the idea of overextensive doom originates. Could it be from Alexander (his empire collapsed largely because he purposefully named no successor), or from Eastern empires of some nature? It's not my impression that the Chinese Empire was destroyed by overzealous expansion. A case could be made for Spain, but its decline resulted from attempted political unification with another major power (France, through a French claim on the Spanish throne), not overextension in the usual sense. Could this all stem from Napoleon and the Axis mistakes in World War II?

Very interesting post (and the responses after it). You obviously have much more historical knowledge than I do. I'm basing my knowledge on a book I read years ago. I'll look it up when I get home and post the title, etc.

Perhaps I should have used the word "most" instead of "all." However, by "overextend," I meant with resources generally, and not just territory.

For example, isn't it true that, in the examples you gave, that the empires by that time had already spread themselves so thin, and had been beset by so many challenges (various indigenous revolts, other encroaching empires, exhausted natural resources), that the causes you noted were just the final straw?

Thanks,
Doug

 

[Timo]

I don't agree that the wording implies Australia joined the World Government in 2150 and not earlier. I read it as indicating that the year 2150 was a significant one for the World Government, but with no more detail than that.

Yet Crusher makes it clear that in 2150, some nations had the option of either joining or not joining, and that if even a single nation didn't join at that point, Earth would be in a situation similar to KesPrytt, in danger of being disqualified from UFP membership because of divided rule. Both these aspects are quite implicit in this statement, or at least I can't imagine any interpretation where they wouldn't be present.

It may indeed be that all nations joined in 2150, even though many had committed themselves to joining long prior to 2150 and some sort of a United Earth framework was already in existence without this joining thing. However, the idea that Australia made its decision about joining in 2150 sharp is very clearly presented in Crusher's statement. Crusher may be making a false statement for greater effect, but if not, then Australia didn't join before 2150. The only truly unknown factor is what "joining" means; that, and perhaps whether other nations had joined before 2150 or not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Alrik]

BEVERLY
Think about Earth -- what if one
of the old nation-states, say
Australia, had decided not to join
the World Government in twenty-one
fifty? Would that have
disqualified us from being a
Federation member?

I don't see where the confusion is coming from. From this statement, Crusher is telling us the World Government was formed in 2150. Keep in mind, Picard didn't correct her, so this must be the case. As far as Australia, she was just using it as an example. She just as easily could have said Canada, France, China, or any other country. The point to her statement was that in 2150 they all joined, but what if one hadn't, would that have changed things.

Now just because all Nation States must have joined the World Government in 2150, that doesn't mean that there wasn't an earlier body of unifying government. So that leaves plenty of room for the United Earth Government. Perhaps the United Earth Government is where all of the bugs were worked out over time and once everyone agreed that they had things pretty much the way it was going to be, they all agreed to create the World Government in 2150.

 

[T'Girl]

Yet Crusher makes it clear that in 2150, some nations had the option of either joining or not joining, and that if even a single nation didn't join at that point, Earth would be in a situation similar to KesPrytt, in danger of being disqualified from UFP membership because of divided rule. Both these aspects are quite implicit in this statement, or at least I can't imagine any interpretation where they wouldn't be present.

Given that Earth was one of the founders of the Federation, having one of Earth's nations not participate in "the Word government" most likely would not have excluded Earth from the very organization it itself was instrumental in forming. The events of the series Enterprise seemed to make clear that not only was Earth one of the founders, but was in fact the primary driving force that brought the Federation into existence.

If one (or more) of Earth's nations had chosen not to join the World government, most likely what would have happen was this would have establish a precident that a world could join the Federation without there being a all enclusive world state, that not all nations on a globe surface had to join the Federation for others on the same globe to do so.

Beverly: "Would that have disqualified us from being a Federation member?"

No, it wouldn't have, and perhaps Beverly was trying to make the point that it shouldn't disqualify KesPrytt neither.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Maybe San Francisco secedes from California and becomes its own state. That might explain why it eventually becomes so important in the United Earth, and later the UFP, government.

Hell, a lot of folks would be more than happy to see San Francisco secede and become its own COUNTRY.

Even with 300 years of interracial breeding (and there's a lovely phrase) that wouldn't be enough time to turn the human species into a single “race.” Men will still marry the girl next door.

It would probably take several thousand years of interbreeding on a global scale to eliminate racial distinctions. I believe that was postulated (though not specifically mentioned in the dialogue) in the 2002 remake of The Time Machine, in which the Eloi people were dark, rather than the fair-skinned blond Eloi of the 1960 film.

Well, if it means all the women will end up looking like Samantha Mumba, I say let's start mixin’ it up right now!

Even if a yellow guy marries a blue girl, it may turn out that the couple will undergo genetic therapy to ensure their kids won't be sickly green but, if possible, even more radiantly yellow and blue than their parents...

Hey, what's wrong with being green?

. . . Also indicating that Data doesn't know how to use “AD” correctly.

Any intellectual geek knows that A.D. (anno domini) means “In the year of our Lord,” so technically we should say "Such-and-such happened A.D. 2150," not "Such-and-such happened in 2150 A.D." But almost nobody says it that way.

As for using AD rather than CE, the abbreviations CE (Common/Christian Era) and BCE (Before the Common/Christian Era) are used today primarily in academic and scientific circles. The vast majority of the lay population still uses AD and BC. Of course, that could change as Western Christian culture becomes less dominant in the world.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Maybe Data is a Christian. Like Kryten from Red Dwarf, he believes in Silicon Heaven.

 

[STR]

Every empire in history eventually overextends itself, and America is no exception.

Doug

Is the former true? The two most notable examples of Empire in world history - i.e. the most broadly and thoroughly powerful empires recorded - are the Roman and British.

The Roman empire's fall cannot be traced to overextension; with two exceptions (Trajan's conquests, and the conquest of Britain, both of which took place early in the Empire's history), the Roman border was essentially fixed after the death of the second emperor, Tiberius.

The fall of Britain, meanwhile, stems not from overextension, but from becoming involved in a war in which it had no interest as a belligerent. Britain entered the First World War - which nearly bankrupted the empire - for romantic reasons pertaining to the defense of Belgian neutrality. Britain had no territorial or other imperial interest in the war, and was not obligated to become a belligerent. A series of diplomatic errors following the war (most notably involving failures to check the revitalization of Germany) weakened its worldwide position, and then the United States insisted upon the disintegration of the Empire as a condition of alliance in World War II. Faced, in Germany, with an existential threat, Britain had no choice but to accede.

I'm unclear where the idea of overextensive doom originates. Could it be from Alexander (his empire collapsed largely because he purposefully named no successor), or from Eastern empires of some nature? It's not my impression that the Chinese Empire was destroyed by overzealous expansion. A case could be made for Spain, but its decline resulted from attempted political unification with another major power (France, through a French claim on the Spanish throne), not overextension in the usual sense. Could this all stem from Napoleon and the Axis mistakes in World War II?

Very interesting post (and the responses after it). You obviously have much more historical knowledge than I do. I'm basing my knowledge on a book I read years ago. I'll look it up when I get home and post the title, etc.

Perhaps I should have used the word "most" instead of "all." However, by "overextend," I meant with resources generally, and not just territory.

For example, isn't it true that, in the examples you gave, that the empires by that time had already spread themselves so thin, and had been beset by so many challenges (various indigenous revolts, other encroaching empires, exhausted natural resources), that the causes you noted were just the final straw?

Thanks,
Doug

Historians love tracing calamitous events back hundreds of years to some insignificant decisions. Case in point, if you asked a random Roman a generation before the fall of Rome what the future of the empire was, you would not get an "end is nigh" speech. Fact is, if not for any number of decisions, or random chances, Rome might be a modern power. Had the emporer's not abused the Visigoths, the Goths wouldn't have sacked Rome to begin with. If Flavius Aetius had ascended to the throne, rather than be murdered, Rome might have had competent leadership able to head the Goths off. Had just one more emporer decided to marry outside of the family, the empire might not have been left alone in Aetius' hands vs. Emperor Cletus Appalachian IV. Any one of those decisions alone could have altered history.

In no way, from the smallest event to the grandest, is history predetermined. It's random chance and the occasional resource exhaustion or technological revolutions that kills empires. The domino effect that is the center of thousands of overwritten books is hindsight bias rather than the reality of an unlikely chain of events that through chaos aligned into a perfect storm.

One Caveat in my argument there, the "grand cause" argument isn't just a weakness of historians. Humans in general don't like the idea of random chaos undoing nations, great works or leaders. Hence the ever present "9/11 Truth" and JFK conspiracy fans.

 

[Non-Beard Riker]

Britain loves it when a single continental power dominates all of Europe. That's why they never intervened against the Spanish or the French, why they concluded a separate peace with Nazi Germany, and why they stayed out of NATO.

Wrong. Their doctrine was "balance of power". not "power of one". The continental forces should neutralize their powers.

Britain had considerable interest in protecting France, especially given that France collapsed within a couple of years the first time Germany invaded in 1870.

But France declared war on Prussia, not the other way round. They wanted to stop the German states from uniting into a big country.

This over and above the naval threat a triumphant Germany would have eventually posed to the UK.

The Germans never really tried to rival the UK fleet, they just wanted to build a moderate one to protect their colonies. The Britains feared the sheer and still growing economic power and the fact that Germany became the leading power in science and military. Even without the Great War.

So they went to war to restore the "Balance of Power" by reducing Germany's power. There was never any chance Great Britain would've stayed neutral.

 

[CmndrSela318]

"The Royale"
DATA: "Is this significant, sir?" (Holds up a spacesuit on a hangar)
RIKER: "American."
DATA: "Fifty two stars sir. Places it between 2033 and 2079 AD."

What can we draw from this short scene?

From Data's statement there was only one time period when America had fifty-two states.
In 2079 the state count rose above (or dropped below) 52.
I believe Puerto Rico is the best candidate for state number 51, any thoughts on state number 52?

My guess for states 51 and 52 would be Washington D.C. and Peurto Rico. My guess for which one might have dropped out to become a nation of its own would be Peurto Rico. Or they may not have dropped any. Instead they may have later added Canada, Cuba and Mexico. That's my theory.

 

[Myasishchev]

Britain loves it when a single continental power dominates all of Europe. That's why they never intervened against the Spanish or the French, why they concluded a separate peace with Nazi Germany, and why they stayed out of NATO.

Wrong. Their doctrine was "balance of power". not "power of one". The continental forces should neutralize their powers.

Between the winky smiley and the repitition of counterfactuals, it is perplexing that the facetiousness went unnoticed. Obviously Britain, at least since the time of the Spanish Armada, and at least until the fall of the Soviet Union, attempted to maintain a power balance on the continent. And this is why they intervened against Germany, as they had intervened against French aggrandizement about a billion times...

Britain had considerable interest in protecting France, especially given that France collapsed within a couple of years the first time Germany invaded in 1870.

But France declared war on Prussia, not the other way round. They wanted to stop the German states from uniting into a big country.

...like I was saying, as they (the British) intervened against French aggrandizement like clockwork, until the Germans pounded them (the French) into the ground during the Franco-Prussian War, instantly dethroning France as the great continental power (and hence great continental threat). The point made above is to highlight France's weakness.

This over and above the naval threat a triumphant Germany would have eventually posed to the UK.

The Germans never really tried to rival the UK fleet, they just wanted to build a moderate one to protect their colonies. The Britains feared the sheer and still growing economic power and the fact that Germany became the leading power in science and military. Even without the Great War.

Tirpitz disagrees. The German naval buildup was specifically aimed at creating a Kaiserliche Marine of sufficient size to deter Britain from risking the preeminence of the Royal Navy, and hence Britain's global power; that's what "protecting German colonies" means.

Against whom would the Germans be protecting their colonies, if not the United Kingdom? France? You don't need an expensive fleet to fight France...

The counter-buildup that the Brits engaged in following the passage of the Kaiserreich's Second Naval Bill extended the timeframe that Tirpitz foresaw would be necessary to create such a fleet, and the KLM never met Tirpitz' critical threshold for deterrence. Frankly, Tirpitz was also always pretty much wrong, because I think he misread Britain's priorities, and Britain would always likely have been reluctantly prepared to sacrifice the RN on the altar of a free (that is, disunited) Europe. He also discounted the efficacy of the far blockade. But rivalling the UK specifically was always the German objective.

So they went to war to restore the "Balance of Power" by reducing Germany's power. There was never any chance Great Britain would've stayed neutral.

Of course they wouldn't.

My guess for states 51 and 52 would be Peurto Rico and Washington D.C.

This is good. I want to change my answer to this. I totally blanked on DC. I wonder what the state would be called? I suspect simply "Columbia." Edit: the wiki article on the DC statehood movement indicates that "New Columbia" is the usual choice. That "new" is a bit unnecessary; I mean, the whole damn pair of continents could be referred to as Columbia, and there is no "old" Columbia in the sense that there is an "old" York or Jersey. Is it to differentiate it from British Columbia? I think I can tell the two apart. The state of Colombia? The Columbia Basin? This is very, very bothersome.

 

[CmndrSela318]

My guess for states 51 and 52 would be Washington D.C. and Peurto Rico.

This is good. I want to change my answer to this. I totally blanked on DC. I wonder what the state would be called? I suspect simply "Columbia." Edit: the wiki article on the DC statehood movement indicates that "New Columbia" is the usual choice. That "new" is a bit unnecessary; I mean, the whole damn pair of continents could be referred to as Columbia, and there is no "old" Columbia in the sense that there is an "old" York or Jersey. Is it to differentiate it from British Columbia? I think I can tell the two apart. The state of Colombia? The Columbia Basin? This is very, very bothersome.

Maybe "New" is to distinguish it from the South American country Columbia.

 

[Doug Otte]

This is good. I want to change my answer to this. I totally blanked on DC. I wonder what the state would be called?

CC = Chocolate City!

Now, before somebody pounces on this "politically incorrect" post, you should know that black District residents proudly call it "Chocolate City."

Doug

PS Actually, if it becomes a state, the "City" part would be confusing. Never mind.

 

[T'Girl]

My guess for states 51 and 52 would be Peurto Rico and Washington D.C.

This is good. I want to change my answer to this. I totally blanked on DC. I wonder what the state would be called? I suspect simply "Columbia."

As a American citizen I would perfer that the District of Columbia never became a state, two senators and a repersentative from such a small population. What I think should happen is the majority of the curent DC should be made a part of Maryland (like what happen to the other one-third of DC in 1846, it became part of Virginia), with the core city of Washington remaining a special federal reservation.

The city of Washington would also be part of the state Maryland, but not administered by that states capital. This would allow the resident of the current DC to vote in elections and do the other thing they'd be able to do if DC became a state.

 

[STR]

As a American citizen I would perfer that the District of Columbia never became a state, two senators and a repersentative from such a small population.

It would be better than Wyoming, do you recommend stripping its statehood?
DC=599,657
WY=544,270

Both figures estimated as of July 2009.

 

[Myasishchev]

My guess for states 51 and 52 would be Peurto Rico and Washington D.C.

This is good. I want to change my answer to this. I totally blanked on DC. I wonder what the state would be called? I suspect simply "Columbia."

As a American citizen I would perfer that the District of Columbia never became a state, two senators and a repersentative from such a small population. What I think should happen is the majority of the curent DC should be made a part of Maryland (like what happen to the other one-third of DC in 1846, it became part of Virginia), with the core city of Washington remaining a special federal reservation.

The city of Washington would also be part of the state Maryland, but not administered by that states capital. This would allow the resident of the current DC to vote in elections and do the other thing they'd be able to do if DC became a state.

I understand these concerns, but it's still the most plausible 52d state, because it's an actual U.S. territory (not in the legal sense) and the one besies PR with the highest population. Virgin Islands 100,000, Samoa 65,000, Guam 178,000, and DC as noted with a cool half million. Also totally Anglophone.

Maybe "New" is to distinguish it from the South American country Columbia

Colombia.

 

[CmndrSela318]

Maybe "New" is to distinguish it from the South American country Columbia

Colombia.

Okay, I admit it, I screwed up the spelling. I just spelled the country's name the way I pronounce it which is: Columbia. Besides, I didn't have a world map to look at to be sure I was spelling it right.
Oh well. Learn something new everyday. I just learned the correct spelling of a South American country: C--o--l--o--m--b--i--a. TY Myasishchev.

 

[SpyOne]

1) There were, of course, no US flags 300 years ago for me to recognize. I am pretty quick to spot one from 1959 (the flag only had 49 stars between when Alaska joined in January and when Hawaii joined in August.
2) The use of AD versus CE might be taken as an artifact of translation: the universal translator, when rendering what Data said into 20th century American English, used the most common calender notation of the time.
3) That much is certainly true.
4) Or, possibly, the Untied States ceased to exist (or adopted some other flag) in 2079.
5) Kashmir. Iraq. I agree with others that Guam is a pretty good choice. Or the Canadian Maritimes (based on a long scenario where Quebec secedes, leaving the maritimes physically separate from the rest of Canada, with whom they share little interest anyway).
6) We have now gone longer without adding a new state than at any time in our history. I think we have gotten far too used to the idea that the number is static. This club is accepting new members, and we should be encouraging people to fill out an application.
7) It certainly gives him an advantage. I would expect Riker to know more about US History than Picard, and Picard to know more about French History than Riker. In elementary school, we learned the history of our town from it's founding to the present. I learned FAR more about the town's history than either of my parents knew, because they had moved to the town as adults. An Andorian raised in New York will thus learn more US history than one raised in Paris.