I have to admit, there are times when I'm a little unsure whenever a Star Trek movie or TV show depicts the United States of America or the United Kingdom of Great Britain as still existing well into the future era the Trek shows occur in, when it also seems like most other current governments have been replaced by new ones. What makes so many writers so sure the USA and other Western governments will still be going strong in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries?
USA and UK surviving into the Trek era
- Thread starter Noddy
- Start date
I doubt many of the writers really care whether the uk or us would actually survive into that time period.
Though you do make me curious, as I don't off the top of my head recall anything other than the British flag in STID that suggested either country really survived beyond the 21st century. What kind of examples are you thinking of?
Though you do make me curious, as I don't off the top of my head recall anything other than the British flag in STID that suggested either country really survived beyond the 21st century. What kind of examples are you thinking of?
Kirk is from Iowa, Riker is from Alaska, Janeway is from Bloomington, Indiana. The United States exists at least as far as geography is concerned.
Picard is from France, so there is another country explicitly mentioned by name. Canada was also mentioned.
I don't think they are. Most of Trek tried to simply stay away from Earth as much as possible, with TNG occasionally dropping hints about large regional states (like the "European Hegemony") leading eventually to "world government." The implication in most of what we do see is that nations haven't entirely stopped existing but have gathered together under the Federation umbrella. But it's all kept pretty vague AFAICS.
IIRC, Hoshi was teaching at a language school in Brazil during the Enterprise pilot, with the country being mentioned by name.
Also during Enterprise, Reed stated that Britain stiil retain a naval force, suggesting that it was still a sovereign entity.
Per Beverly, (in a hypothetical) Australia still existed in the year 2161. She didn't seem to be referring to the continent, but to the country.
Picard said that Riker (who was from Alaska) and George Armstrong Custer (who was from Ohio) were "countrymen." This suggests that the United States, in some form, remains a nation in the 24th century.
Also during Enterprise, Reed stated that Britain stiil retain a naval force, suggesting that it was still a sovereign entity.
Per Beverly, (in a hypothetical) Australia still existed in the year 2161. She didn't seem to be referring to the continent, but to the country.
Picard said that Riker (who was from Alaska) and George Armstrong Custer (who was from Ohio) were "countrymen." This suggests that the United States, in some form, remains a nation in the 24th century.
Last edited:
Per Beverly, (in a hypothedical) Australia still existed in the year 2161. She didn't seem to be referring to the continent, by to the country.
Sorry for nitpicking, but the continent is not called Australia. It`s called Oceania.
I think the Star Trek universe has countries, but a ruling body on top of that. Kinda like the US works today with states and the federal government. And more to the point as history shows the likelihood of the same countries existing as they are today, for so long, is unlikely. Especially when you consider all the conflicts that occurred on earth like WW3 and the eugenics wars.
"World War III itself ultimately lasted from 2026 through 2053, and resulted in the death of some 600 million Humans. By that time, many of the planet's major cities and governments had been destroyed." (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/World_War_III)
You know, Styria still exists, even thought the Holy Roman Empire doesn't. So does Cappadocia, even without the Ottomans. The existence of Rome does not imply the Roman Empire yet reigns. So I'm not sure how good an evidence mentioning Iowa or Alaska might be towards showing the continued existence of the USA.
I have my doubts about WW3 starting in 2026. We see the year 2032 in VOY "One Small Step", and the Charybdis launched in 2037 according to TNG "The Royale", and if they were able to fund big space missions like those, I don't think there could have been a full-on global war going on.
I don't recall any character from what is now the United States actually identifying as being from the United States. From individual states and cities, yes, but there's no evidence that the US still exists in Star Trek's 23rd or 24th centuries.
As for those states and cities, I don't see any particular reason to think the names would change in 300 years. They might, but I wouldn't take it as a given that they will. It's not really a very long time, in the grand scheme of things.
As for those states and cities, I don't see any particular reason to think the names would change in 300 years. They might, but I wouldn't take it as a given that they will. It's not really a very long time, in the grand scheme of things.
Sorry for counter-nitpicking, but the continent on which the country of Australia lies is called... Australia.
Oceania is a REGION that contains the continent of Australia and many surrounding island.
I would have to agree that geographic names in and of themselves don't necessarily mean anything. The only examples so far that would seem to really imply anything is the Union Flag and the description of Riker being 'countryman' to historical Americans, and the flag could easily be nothing but local nostalgia.
I think it may also be wise to consider that - even if there are governments in the 24th century which share the same names as modern govts., that doesn't necessarily make them 'the same governments'. In fact, the history of Trek's WWIII would seem to suggest that most old governments were completely destroyed.
Maybe when the united earth government was formed after First Contact, it was just deemed most convenient (or least objectionable) for the regional and local subdivisions of the new government to be based on and named after the old independant nations.
I think it may also be wise to consider that - even if there are governments in the 24th century which share the same names as modern govts., that doesn't necessarily make them 'the same governments'. In fact, the history of Trek's WWIII would seem to suggest that most old governments were completely destroyed.
Maybe when the united earth government was formed after First Contact, it was just deemed most convenient (or least objectionable) for the regional and local subdivisions of the new government to be based on and named after the old independant nations.
Beat me to it, but you are correct when people talk in terms of OCeania, they generally mean Australia, New Zealand at least from a geo-political view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oceanian_countries_by_population
I think it's pretty much this.
Nations have been pretty much reduced to local townships, IMO.
I think some of you are overthinking this and missing the point.
Picard is from 'France' as is stated in the show....however that does not mean 'France' in the modern sense. It is simply a region, a geographical area. NOT an independent, autonomous body.
As David.Blue rightly says, many areas still exist and are referred to....but they are no longer part of the old body. For example, Bavaria was once a Kingdom....now it is merely a province.
Picard is from 'France' as is stated in the show....however that does not mean 'France' in the modern sense. It is simply a region, a geographical area. NOT an independent, autonomous body.
As David.Blue rightly says, many areas still exist and are referred to....but they are no longer part of the old body. For example, Bavaria was once a Kingdom....now it is merely a province.
This is how I've always interpreted it, since the TOS days. The names are just easy to use descriptive references for the characters (and us) regarding former political boundaries within the one-world government.
Not much can be read from toponyms: they get recycled and reused. Consider the following:
The Roman town of Londonum collapsed entirely, but was refounded in the 9th century. There is no continuity between Londonum and modern London
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not a nation dominated by the Massachusett Indians. Nor is Iowa dominaed by the Ioway.
Some names describe dominant geological features that would likely remain regardless of the political situation: Mississippi and Missouri, Rhineland.
Some names will fall into disuse, even if a continuity can be drawn between regimes, like Zaire.
ETA: many European cities have a "street of the Jews" where, in fact, no Jews live. It merely memorializes the location of the ghetto.
The Roman town of Londonum collapsed entirely, but was refounded in the 9th century. There is no continuity between Londonum and modern London
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not a nation dominated by the Massachusett Indians. Nor is Iowa dominaed by the Ioway.
Some names describe dominant geological features that would likely remain regardless of the political situation: Mississippi and Missouri, Rhineland.
Some names will fall into disuse, even if a continuity can be drawn between regimes, like Zaire.
ETA: many European cities have a "street of the Jews" where, in fact, no Jews live. It merely memorializes the location of the ghetto.
You`re right, thanks for clearing that up for me and I apologize to T`girl for false nitpicking
