According to TNG, Earth only became officially United a year before Enterprise's first season, so it makes sense countries would still have their own militaries in the lifespans of the characters.
Let's not forget that as of the Enterprise era, there was (or had been the generation prior) a Royal Navy, indicating that Earth was not yet completely united and that at least the UK was a sovereign entity fielding armed forces.
In truth, that always seemed like another one of those little 'continuity issues' to me, but it's right there on screen in the episode "Silent Enemy."
Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but I remember the first time I saw that episode when I was a kid I made a similar conclusion based on the fact that my teacher at the time had actually told my class Alaska used to be a Canadian province before "the Americans bought it."
Anyway, when I was watching the episode, the part where Ben said Riker was Canadian, my mother was in the room, and she said "I didn't know Riker was from Canada." I said he was from Alaska, and my mother said Alaska isn't part of Canada. I then suggested "maybe the Americans gave Alaska back in the future?" My mother then wanted to know what the hell was I even talking about so I mentioned what my teacher said and ended up missing the rest of the episode as my mother delivered a lecture on the history of Alaska.
Even to this day, I still hate that particular teacher.
Also, I like to imagine that the U.S. and other historical settler-colonial states would have ceded land back to indigenous nations en mass before the establishment of United Earth.
Yes, thank you, I'm well versed in the history of Alaska now in a manner my ten year old self wasn't.Russia sold Alaska to America in 1867.
There was a decades long border dispute, but Russia and America never agreed that Britain or Canada actually had a leg to stand on when claiming to own Alaska.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/did-alaska-ever-belong-to-canada.html
The United Earth according to Bev was founded in 2150.
Enterprise started in 2051.
There may have been a Royal Navy in 2150, but there might not have been a Royal Navy in 2051.
I thought it was in Ecotopia.There is still a Seattle, but it's in Cascadia.
When Prussia united the German states into the Second Reich, they kept their kings and initially their own armies. A United Earth may gradually phase national armies and navies out, or retain them as local defense forces.
Except there's still internal threats. The existence of groups like Terra Prime indicates there's still internal security problems on Earth after the formation of United Earth.The army in peacetime is a method of dealing with unemployment.
It cuts down crime.
The army in wartime is a method of dealing with unemployment.
It creates vacancies
Um...
No scarcity, no poor people, no crime, no need for an army, unless there's some people who really like synchronized marching more than sleeping in til noon.
If the Native Americans did not give up their land, Earth was not United, and the World Government could not have been formed in 2150,
Except there's still internal threats. The existence of groups like Terra Prime indicates there's still internal security problems on Earth after the formation of United Earth.
"Give up" in what sense? I've been speculating about the possibility of Native American nations regaining territory from the United States and then joining United Earth as co-equal polities of U.E. alongside the U.S.
In other words, if I were to use the Republic of Lakota as an example, the org chart could go:
United Earth
|
--------------------------------------
↓ ↓
Republic of Lakota United States of America
↓ ↓
Crook County State of Maryland
↓ ↓
Town of Sundance Montgomery County
↓
City of Takoma Park
With the Republic of Lakota and the United States as co-equal sub-polities of United Earth, instead of going:
United Earth
↓
United States of America
↓
State of Wyoming
↓
Crook County
↓
Town of Sundance
I mean, that's an argument for the existence of a United Earth equivalent to the FBI or MI5 moreso than for the persistence of national armed forces.
Well, 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 as a Federation member?
None of the existing Lakota tribal governments support the proposed republic, and they were not consulted about the proposal.[1][2]
According to one scholar, "the declaration of independence by the Republic of Lakotah in 2007 has been largely ignored by the US, as well as by the UN and its Member States."[3]
SNIP!
Another question a supposedly progressive, positive depiction of a better future needs to contend with is the question of Native American sovereignty. There's a movement for Native American Nations, called Land Back, to reclaim some or all of the lands that were conquered by European powers and then by the U.S. during the 1500s-1800s. Maybe the United States still exists, but it's much smaller than it is today because it has ceded significant territory back to the Nations it conquered and oppressed. A map of 23rd Century North America might include the Republic of Lakota, the Cherokee Commonwealth, the State of Aztlán, and/or other Native American governments that are co-equal with the United States under the United Earth government.
In my head cannon Joining the world government means losing your sovereignty.
Because there's a council of assholes in France that can veto any decision you make about your people or your land, while demanding taxation in the form of resources or labor, and you no longer have the authority to stop immigration or eminent domain, so a bunch of white people could be shipped in to live with you, and they could start strip mining your national parks, and you can't stop them because you gave away your sovereignty.
Also I think because of over population, there are trillions of humans in the 24th century,
there's a threshold of usefulness that if you do not clear, you're deported to a colony world, and then forced to live in a mansion with a 10 thousand hectare ranch.
As much as you may want to make a special case for the native Americans, there's also the Aboriginal Australians, and most of Africa and the Pacific in the same boat where there are millions of people wondering why they are indigenous yet have no power,
and joining he world government wouldn't change that if they are only given one vote to any important matter decided upon between 2 hundred nation states, Mars and the moon.
I looked up the Lokata Proposal.
The people behind this was a political group with no power, that thought the existing tribal governments should be abolished, because they wanted power.
The whole thing was imaginary and unrecognized.
Well, we know that at some point, the Amerind people decided to colonize worlds for their own purposes, as colonies of the Federation.
SISKO: But that doesn't mean we should just give up and roll over.
BASHIR: If we fight, there will be over nine hundred billion casualties
I guess the question is, would the US still have it's own local leader under a United Earth? A Governor maybe?
United Earth has a President as head of state, and (if MINISTER Nathan Samuels is any indication) a Prime Minister as head of government.
As for the USA: I see no particular reason to assume it’s ceased to exist. It’s simply part of a larger whole. I mean, United Earth still exists as a Federation member world (just like any other); same story here.![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.