Examples of Americentricism in Trek?

[VDCNI]

I think it has to be "Americancentric". It is written by Americans, I mean, how can it not reflect our ideals and culture? And is it so wrong for it to be Americancentric? Don't we have a right to reflect our opinions and ideals too?

And c'mon, would anybody like Doctor Who if it wasn't British in flavor? Get real!

As mentioned before, though, the difference between Trek and Doctor Who is that Doctor Who virtually wraps itself in the Union Jack, whereas Trek doesn't do that.

If Trek *is* Americentric, it isn't as blatant and obvious as Doctor Who. No one's waving the flag and imposing controversial traditions upon other races.
If Trek *isn't* Americentric, then Trek doesn't depend on American pride in order to make the brand, unlike Doctor Who which very much depends on its Britishness for its charm.

In both cases, for or against examples of Americentrism, it doesn't compare to Doctor Who.

There is a bit of a difference between Trek and Who though. Who may involve time travel but a lot of it by neccessity is set in contemporary times on Earth and since they can't afford to film across the world they have to make a virtue of the setting. Plus it's only modern Who that's really like that - 60's Who was never overtly British in the same way though it also rarely visited modern times so perhaps that is why.

Trek however is set in the future and off Earth so in theory it doesn't have to really be particularly American influenced.

That said as a Brit, Trek's American slant has never bothered me since it is an American programme at the end of the day.

 

[captcalhoun]

what Trek's rather more guilty of is human ethnocentrism. there's not enough aliens serving on these Federation starships and far too few with alien names. T'kumbra, Sitak, Sarek, Gorkon... that's about it...

 

[Sci]

It's interesting that for something considered "too American" at times, the United States apparently no longer exists in Trek. Oh, the cities and states still do, but the United States government is generally referred to in the past tense in the various Trek shows.

The US government has never been established to no longer exist; the writers have been deliberately vague about the whole thing. I see no reason to think that the US government cannot still exist as a subdivision of United Earth, myself.

The writers have only referrred to the U.S. government in the past tense in Trek, but never in the present tense.

But there again, it's never been relevant to the story in the present tense, either. After all, Massachusetts exists, but if you're examining an artifact from the 1740s Massachusetts Bay Colony, you might not bother mentioning it.

It's definitely plausible that the U.S. was among the "major nations" that fell during or after World War III as mentioned in First Contact.

It's plausible -- and in fact, I would theorize that the federal government probably ceased or virtually ceased to exist from the outbreak of World War III in 2053 to at least First Contact -- but that doesn't mean that the it was never re-established or that the US doesn't exist as a division of United Earth.

In fact, we do have one piece of evidence that the US still exists in the Trekverse: In "Affliction" (ENT), an address in San Francisco is displayed on an Enterprise computer, and its last two lines read:

"San Francisco, CA
USA"

I think it has to be "Americancentric". It is written by Americans, I mean, how can it not reflect our ideals and culture? And is it so wrong for it to be Americancentric? Don't we have a right to reflect our opinions and ideals too?

And c'mon, would anybody like Doctor Who if it wasn't British in flavor? Get real!

There's a difference between presenting a future that reflects American ideals and presenting a future where America rules and all other Human cultures seem to have virtually disappeared.

America is a multicultural place. Promoting its values is not ethnic or provincial.

Yeah, but the fact that America is multicultural doesn't mean that it doesn't have its own culture. And in fact, that arguably just makes things worse. For instance, even though Uhura and LaForge are both supposed to have origins in Africa itself (in two made-up African countries), the fact is that both were played by Americans and they had American accents. Neither one was truly African; they were African-American. (Similar to how Picard is supposed to be French, but, really, he's English.) In other words, Trek Americanize things even if it means turning them into American minority groups.

How often have we run across an African character played by an African actor? Or a Muslim character played by a Muslim character? Or an Asian character played by an Asian actor? Etc. Not that often. The vast majority of Trek characters have been European-Americans and African-Americans, and a minority have been Europeans -- and of those Europeans, they've all been either British (Bashir, Reed, Kyle), British but played by a Canadian (Scotty), French but played by a Briton (Picard), an alien but played by a Briton (Troi), Russian (Chekov), or Irish (O'Brien). In essence, Trek's idea of a multicultural Earth is to portray almost everyone as American, Russian, Irish, or British. That's not an inclusive depiction of the future, even if it tries to be; it's a depiction that very much reflects American cultural makeup and American assumptions about who is and is not important.

Two accusations others are eager to levy - still waiting for more multicultural efforts from other countries....? You know, to give the US something to emulate, from these high-minded cultures?

And that's a completely fair question to raise. Certainly Doctor Who tends to depict a very British-centric future where everyone's either British or American -- but, there again, Doctor Who is explicitly supposed to be a story about British identity and British pride told through the POV of an alien, whereas Star Trek is supposed to be a story about human identity and human pride. Or, beyond that, Federation identity and Federation pride -- to encompass even fictional groups.

It's somewhat implied that the East Coast no longer exists. I don't recall any reference to New York, Washington, Baltimore, Charleston, Columbia, Boston, Richmond. The easternmost geographical reference from pre-ENT Trek that I can think of is New Orleans.

ENT of course does have a geographical reference to the East Coast--Florida. Of course, it was shown just to be destroyed.

I like to think everything east of the Mississippi is a nature preserve/memorial, and possibly still slightly radioactive, with no human inhabitants any longer.

um, Archer's from New York state and Trip mentions visiting New York city...

God, Enterprise could even ruin a good post-apocalypse, couldn't it?

Honestly, if the entire East Coast was that irradiated, I rather imagine that most life in North America would have been destroyed -- and that therefore most life on the planet would have been destroyed. Since the canon has established that cities like New Orleans, Paris, Berlin, etc., survived, this strongly implies that World War III was a very limited nuclear exchange -- therefore decreasing the likelihood that many major cities were exterminated.

If it makes you feel better, though, the canon has never established that New York, Boston, or Washington survived, and it has established that much of Los Angeles was destroyed by an earthquake in the 2030s. The novels have featured New York City, but the novelization to First Contact established that D.C. and the surrounding area was vaporized.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Originally Posted by C.E. Evans
It's interesting that for something considered "too American" at times, the United States apparently no longer exists in Trek. Oh, the cities and states still do, but the United States government is generally referred to in the past tense in the various Trek shows.

The US government has never been established to no longer exist; the writers have been deliberately vague about the whole thing. I see no reason to think that the US government cannot still exist as a subdivision of United Earth, myself.

The writers have only referrred to the U.S. government in the past tense in Trek, but never in the present tense.

But there again, it's never been relevant to the story in the present tense, either. After all, Massachusetts exists, but if you're examining an artifact from the 1740s Massachusetts Bay Colony, you might not bother mentioning it.

Actually, that's kind my point. The U.S. is generally discussed in only a historical context.

It's definitely plausible that the U.S. was among the "major nations" that fell during or after World War III as mentioned in First Contact.

It's plausible -- and in fact, I would theorize that the federal government probably ceased or virtually ceased to exist from the outbreak of World War III in 2053 to at least First Contact -- but that doesn't mean that the it was never re-established or that the US doesn't exist as a division of United Earth.

But it really would have to cease to exist to be under the United Earth, though. The U.S. Constitution is built on the principle of it being an independent sovereignty. To swear allegiance to another government--in this case, the United Earth--pretty much takes away the foundation the U.S. government was built upon. Even if the Constitution was modified to incorporate its fealty to the United Earth, it would still amount to surrenderring its authority as an independent nation (it really would have to do that in order for there to be a true unified planetary government, and not just another alliance of governments maintaining their own sovereignties like the United Nations).

I think a likely scenario is that the U.S. may exist solely as a geographical location, with the actual government itself long since vanished. As I said in my first post, the various cities and states still exist--which would warrant them being still being referred to as American provinces in the same way LaBarre, France would be considered a European province.

In fact, we do have one piece of evidence that the US still exists in the Trekverse: In "Affliction" (ENT), an address in San Francisco is displayed on an Enterprise computer, and its last two lines read:

"San Francisco, CA
USA"

That image is hard to see without a good high-def TV. But even so, it kind of goes back to what I said earlier.

Or it could just be a historical landmarker.

 

[Sci]

It's plausible -- and in fact, I would theorize that the federal government probably ceased or virtually ceased to exist from the outbreak of World War III in 2053 to at least First Contact -- but that doesn't mean that the it was never re-established or that the US doesn't exist as a division of United Earth.

But it really would have to cease to exist to be under the United Earth, though. The U.S. Constitution is built on the principle of it being an independent sovereignty. To swear allegiance to another government--in this case, the United Earth--pretty much takes away the foundation the U.S. government was built upon. Even if the Constitution was modified to incorporate its fealty to the United Earth, it would still amount to surrenderring its authority as an independent nation (it really would have to do that in order for there to be a true unified planetary government, and not just another alliance of governments maintaining their own sovereignties like the United Nations).

I don't think anyone's questioning that the United States must have ceased to be an independent nation. That's sorta the point of saying that it's now a political subdivision of United Earth. But just as the Commonwealth of Virginia continued to exist within the United States when it joined the Union, I rather imagine that the United States still exists within United Earth -- though I concede that it's highly probable that an extensive amendment would have had to have been passed to the U.S. Constitution to legally allow the U.S. government to surrender its sovereignty and join United Earth.

I think a likely scenario is that the U.S. may exist solely as a geographical location, with the actual government itself long since vanished. As I said in my first post, the various cities and states still exist--which would warrant them being still being referred to as American provinces in the same way LaBarre, France would be considered a European province.

I don't think that's likely at all. Planets are big, and cultural identities are strong. The idea that UE directly governs everything that affects all of Central North America seems erroneous. More likely, the US continues to exist within UE and governs its own internal affairs, leaving UE to govern things that deal with relationships between formerly independent states.

In fact, we do have one piece of evidence that the US still exists in the Trekverse: In "Affliction" (ENT), an address in San Francisco is displayed on an Enterprise computer, and its last two lines read:

"San Francisco, CA
USA"

That image is hard to see without a good high-def TV. But even so, it kind of goes back to what I said earlier.

Or it could just be a historical landmarker.

It was actually very easy to read, and I doubt that it would continue to exist as a location indicator if California was itself directly a division of UE rather than being a division of a division of UE.

 

[Cyke101]

There is a bit of a difference between Trek and Who though. Who may involve time travel but a lot of it by neccessity is set in contemporary times on Earth and since they can't afford to film across the world they have to make a virtue of the setting. Plus it's only modern Who that's really like that - 60's Who was never overtly British in the same way though it also rarely visited modern times so perhaps that is why.

I would argue that there would be some episodes (in nuWho) where even if the show was set in the far future or on an alien planet, the writers would still find a way to emphasize some British element.

But still, I agree with you that Trek and Who tackle nationalism very differently from each other. Whatever the reason may be, I don't think they can really be compared from how they convey (or don't convey) their nationalistic pride.

That said as a Brit, Trek's American slant has never bothered me since it is an American programme at the end of the day.

And as an American, I always thought Doctor Who's British slant (or rather, 90-degree angle) was cute.

"And just across the British channel you've got Great France and Great Germany."
"No, it's just France and Germany. Only Britain is Great."

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I haven't really noticed that many throughout the years. Some say that the franchise doesn't perform well overseas because it is too 'American'.

That's their problem. I don't go complaining about Doctor Who because it's too British.

It's a dopey argument anyway. I could cite all sorts of highly American Hollywood movies (does Hollywood make any other kind? I'm not sure they could if they tried) that did better overseas than domestically. The latest Indy movie, which pitted noble and brave Americans against cartoon Soviets in a totally over the top Cold War scenario: 40% domestic, 60& foreign, where the usual split is 50/50. Whatever is the problem with Star Trek's foreign BO, "Americanness" isn't it.

Personally I think it's the complicated backstory that more Americans are familiar with than foreigners are; we don't even realize how common some basic understanding of Star Trek is among Americans, even non-fans. Compare it with something like Spider-Man - which also has a complex backstory but you don't really need to know it to jump into one of those movies.

Show me another series that does multiculturalism any better.

The Star Wars prequels. While the OT was very American, drawing on hot rod culture, war flicks and Westerns, and had "aliens" like Han, Leia and Luke who acted more American than anyone in Star Trek ever has, the prequels blanded everything down to the point that you really can't see any clear cultural references. And that's the problem - if you don't draw on some human culture, all you get is bland grey glop. Star Wars desperately needs Han, Leia and Luke back.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think a likely scenario is that the U.S. may exist solely as a geographical location, with the actual government itself long since vanished. As I said in my first post, the various cities and states still exist--which would warrant them being still being referred to as American provinces in the same way LaBarre, France would be considered a European province.

I don't think that's likely at all. Planets are big, and cultural identities are strong. The idea that UE directly governs everything that affects all of Central North America seems erroneous. More likely, the US continues to exist within UE and governs its own internal affairs, leaving UE to govern things that deal with relationships between formerly independent states.

That would make the United Earth no different than the United Nations, a political alliance rather than an actual government. Earth would really be no more unified than before if the laws of the United Earth don't apply everywhere. It doesn't mean that a nation has to surrender its cultural identity--far from it--but I do think it requires the end of the idea of member nations and their individual governments and more of a sense of one nation, one government.

In fact, we do have one piece of evidence that the US still exists in the Trekverse: In "Affliction" (ENT), an address in San Francisco is displayed on an Enterprise computer, and its last two lines read:

"San Francisco, CA
USA"

That image is hard to see without a good high-def TV. But even so, it kind of goes back to what I said earlier.

Or it could just be a historical landmarker.

It was actually very easy to read, and I doubt that it would continue to exist as a location indicator if California was itself directly a division of UE rather than being a division of a division of UE.

That's a difference of opinion.

 

[Sci]

I don't think that's likely at all. Planets are big, and cultural identities are strong. The idea that UE directly governs everything that affects all of Central North America seems erroneous. More likely, the US continues to exist within UE and governs its own internal affairs, leaving UE to govern things that deal with relationships between formerly independent states.

That would make the United Earth no different than the United Nations, a political alliance rather than an actual government.

Um, no. The United Nations today does not govern the relationships between independent states at all. It is an intergovernmental organization of states that provides a platform for the peaceful resolution of disputes and the launching of joint ventures, but it has no legal power to actually govern anything.

I would actually consider the relationship between the US and UE governments to be akin to the relationship between a federal government and its constituent governments in a federal republic. Some issues are handled by the constituent polities, and some are handled by the central government, with the division being generally characterized by who it affects.

Earth would really be no more unified than before if the laws of the United Earth don't apply everywhere.

You need to learn more about federalism. It's not that the laws of United Earth wouldn't apply everywhere, it's that all of the formerly independent states that join United Earth would still have areas of exclusive jurisdiction in which UE could not, by its own charter, make law. Just like how, in the US, federal law applies everywhere, but there are some areas where the federal government cannot make law. The US Congress cannot pass a bill banning gay marriage because they don't think it ought to be legal in Iowa, for instance, because marriage is a state issue and several states have made the choice to allow gay marriage. Similarly, the Canadian province of Quebec has passed laws making French the primary language over English in that province, and the Canadian federal government cannot just overrule that -- it's an area that exclusively belongs to that province.

It doesn't mean that a nation has to surrender its cultural identity--far from it--but I do think it requires the end of the idea of member nations and their individual governments and more of a sense of one nation, one government.

Under federalism, you can have both. One nation composed of many nations. One government composed of many governments. It's one of the things that makes the Federation great in later Trek, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't work on an Earth-wide level, too.

It was actually very easy to read, and I doubt that it would continue to exist as a location indicator if California was itself directly a division of UE rather than being a division of a division of UE.

That's a difference of opinion.

Not really. Addresses refer to political units, not just geographic ones. "United States" is a political concept, not geographic. If the indicator was purely geographic, it would probably say "North America" after "California."

 

[Triskelion]

Show me another series that does multiculturalism any better.

The Star Wars prequels. While the OT was very American, drawing on hot rod culture, war flicks and Westerns, and had "aliens" like Han, Leia and Luke who acted more American than anyone in Star Trek ever has, the prequels blanded everything down to the point that you really can't see any clear cultural references. And that's the problem - if you don't draw on some human culture, all you get is bland grey glop. Star Wars desperately needs Han, Leia and Luke back.

Good points. And - American movies.

I'm just a little tired of hearing accusations from people who do no better, but in fact embrace nationalistic/ethnic themes like Who and find plenty of justification for it. Whereas Americans make multicultural shows imperfectly and get reamed? Ream thyselves. [all in good sport, guys ]

There are a few reasons why Trek isn't perfectly multicultural:

• Starfleet - and the galaxy itself - is actually comprised of southern California actors.
• Star Trek is actually a show about humans, by humans, for humans.
• Aliens in fiction sometimes exist to reflect aspects of human nature - as well as help a culture to define itself, and writers to define themselves, in their own cultural contexts....
• Social norms have transformed greatly since the sixties. Society in general is far more sensitive/refined than it used to be in matters of diversity and PC. It's a kind of psychological bias to frame past situations with present experience. We don't realize our perspectives have actually changed, slowly, with time.
• Tokenism is still a matter of debate with no clear or simple answer. Some say the numbers should be balanced. Some say meritocracy. Some say judge a man on the content of his character. Each way will still be unfair sometimes. But at least people are talking about it. Ok, that's step one. Whole swaths of populations refuse to even have that dialogue, so kudos to the people on this forum, each of you!

Trek has been so successful it has escaped its national borders. Perhaps the message resonates beyond its little troupe.

I am all for diversity and multiculturalism - but not at the expense of one's own culture.

I also happen to think that pandering does little to strengthen people. Instead of feeling like victims being omitted from a successful show, instead of relating as victims, do something about it. Digital cams are pretty affordable these days.

Ah, but the call of victimization - and getting something for nothing - is quite a lure for some. Rather than create, they attach themselves to success, and suck.

There are plenty of people in this world who would exploit your egalitarian sensitivity, who would pay you lip service to that effect, but who, in actuality, have nothing but disdain for your race, and wish you and yours destruction. So while we should be sensitive to multicultural egalitarianism, we should also recognize its enemies and not be blinded by sensitivity. Even Kirk drew the line when he and his were threatened. Even Picard. Even Janeway. Even Sisko. Correction - they crossed the line.

And finally, give the franchise time. It has already crossed the female authority barrier, and the black authority barrier. Give it time.

As the wise philosopher Kahlil Gibran wrote:

You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps.
Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping.
Even those who limp go not backward.
But you who are strong and swift, see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness.

 

[Starbreaker]

Star Trek is really toned down compared to Stargate, as I have found out recently. The USA basically runs the whole universe.

 

[Sci]

I am all for diversity and multiculturalism - but not at the expense of one's own culture.

You make a lot of excellent points, Triskelion, especially this one. For the purposes of real life, I completely agree with that argument -- we need to accommodate other cultures, but not to the extent that we start damaging our own. However, I think there's something you're missing.

In the world of Star Trek, Earth's culture is supposed to be a composite culture, forged from all of the many different cultures to be found throughout the world. As a result, it is inappropriate for Star Trek to identify first and foremost with American culture. If Star Trek is seriously supposed to be about a future where all Humans are equal and all the nations of the world united in equality and brotherhood, then it has a moral obligation not to depict any one real-life culture as dominating all of the others, not to depict Earth's culture as just being that real-life culture. It would be just as wrong for Trek to depict Earth's culture as being primarily Japanese, or primarily Chinese, or primarily Indian, or primarily British, or primarily French, or primarily Kenyan, or primarily Argentine, or primarily Brazilian, or primarily Mexican, or primarily American.

Within the context of the fictional universe it depicts, Star Trek, pursuant to its advocacy of universal equality and IDIC, has a moral obligation to depict all cultures as being equals and to depict no one culture, not even the culture that the franchise is in real life created by, as being dominant over the others, or as being the "default" culture of all of Earth.

Just my two cents.

 

[Islander]

Star Trek is really toned down compared to Stargate, as I have found out recently. The USA basically runs the whole universe.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Stargate SG-1 is set in present time and run by the current US Air Force, it's normal for it to be purely American. Atlantis, however, has a number of world-wide civilian characters even if the chain of command remains US controlled.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I haven't read the complete thread, so I don't know if this was already brought up, but:

Four out of five lead character captains (Kirk, Sisko, Janeway, Archer) were American. Five out of six if you count "The Cage"'s Pike.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I don't think that's likely at all. Planets are big, and cultural identities are strong. The idea that UE directly governs everything that affects all of Central North America seems erroneous. More likely, the US continues to exist within UE and governs its own internal affairs, leaving UE to govern things that deal with relationships between formerly independent states.

That would make the United Earth no different than the United Nations, a political alliance rather than an actual government.

Um, no. The United Nations today does not govern the relationships between independent states at all.

And neither was that said.

It is an intergovernmental organization of states that provides a platform for the peaceful resolution of disputes and the launching of joint ventures, but it has no legal power to actually govern anything.

And that wasn't said either.

In fact, that's exactly my point regarding the United Nations. It's doesn't govern anything.

I would actually consider the relationship between the US and UE governments to be akin to the relationship between a federal government and its constituent governments in a federal republic. Some issues are handled by the constituent polities, and some are handled by the central government, with the division being generally characterized by who it affects.

And this is where we disagree. I do see the United Earth as Earth's sole government, particularly after the collapse of the major nations. As I said before, the cities and various provinces prior to World War III still exist to some degree, but the idea of constituent governments is so pre-2063.

You need to learn more about federalism.

I'll just let that slide...

It's not that the laws of United Earth wouldn't apply everywhere, it's that all of the formerly independent states that join United Earth would still have areas of exclusive jurisdiction in which UE could not, by its own charter, make law.

But I don't think that was the case with the United Earth. I think the only way a true planetary government could work--in a way that every former nation could agree with it--was to surrender the notion of exclusive jurisdictions so that all will be equal. This doesn't mean that there aren't such things as regional or local magistrates and officials governing various municipalities, but they all answer to the United Earth. Nations on Earth are just geographical locations, not political entities anymore, IMO. I think the United Earth was a unique concept in government and one that was unlike any that came before it.

It was actually very easy to read, and I doubt that it would continue to exist as a location indicator if California was itself directly a division of UE rather than being a division of a division of UE.

That's a difference of opinion.

Not really.

Yes, it is, because I don't agree with it in the case of the United Earth. I know the issue is vague enough in Trek to allow different takes on it, but I just don't share your take on it myself.

 

[donners22]

While I have seen the suggestions that Trek's relatively disappointing international performance was linked to "Americentricism", I think a clear example contrary to that is Independence Day.

That is incredibly jingoistic and American-centric, yet it pulled $US511 million - nearly 70% of its total takings - from outside the US.

 

[Sci]

That would make the United Earth no different than the United Nations, a political alliance rather than an actual government.

Um, no. The United Nations today does not govern the relationships between independent states at all.

And neither was that said.

Then I beg your pardon for misinterpreting your statement, but when you argued that UE (which I defined as having the capacity to govern things that involve multiple formerly independent states and their relationships with one-another) as I described it would be no different from the present-day UN, you seemed to be saying that the state of having the legal capacity to govern things that involve multiple formerly independent states and their relationships with one-another would mean that UE is legally no different than the UN. In other words, I said that UE would have trait X, and I thought you were then saying that the possession of trait X would make it no different than the UN. I then said that the UN lacks trait X, therefore setting UE apart from the UN.

Please explain to me how a federal UE would be no different from the UN, because I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying.

I would actually consider the relationship between the US and UE governments to be akin to the relationship between a federal government and its constituent governments in a federal republic. Some issues are handled by the constituent polities, and some are handled by the central government, with the division being generally characterized by who it affects.

And this is where we disagree. I do see the United Earth as Earth's sole government, particularly after the collapse of the major nations. As I said before, the cities and various provinces prior to World War III still exist to some degree, but the idea of constituent governments is so pre-2063.

I would argue that the fundamental problem with this notion is that the sheer amount of work involved in running an entire planet, with the sum total of all of its local, provincial, regional, and continental problems, would, plain and simply, overwhelm the United Earth government unless the UE government is so large that it is effectively undemocratic and unresponsive to constituents' desires. There's a reason that unitary democratic states tend to be small and homogenous, but the large and heterogeneous democratic states tend to be federations -- no one government can cope with that level of work and still be small enough to be responsive to the citizens. The really large unitary states tend to be dictatorships.

You need to learn more about federalism.

I'll just let that slide...

Fair enough if that seemed insulting, and I apologize. But, you know, you replied to the suggestion that UE is a federal republic by arguing that that would mean that UE law doesn't apply everywhere, which is not what federalism entails at all. Your statement strongly implied that you did not understand the legal concept of federalism.

It's not that the laws of United Earth wouldn't apply everywhere, it's that all of the formerly independent states that join United Earth would still have areas of exclusive jurisdiction in which UE could not, by its own charter, make law.

But I don't think that was the case with the United Earth. I think the only way a true planetary government could work--in a way that every former nation could agree with it--was to surrender the notion of exclusive jurisdictions so that all will be equal.

I strongly disagree. To begin with, continuing the existence of all the formerly independent states a divisions of UE with their own exclusive jurisdictions ensures that none of them will feel threatened, as though the UE government is going to overwhelm them and force them to do things they don't agree to all the time; in other words, federalism ensures that the relevant parties view themselves as still being important and worth of existence politically and thereby ensures their continuing consent.

Further, all of the formerly independent states -- I'll call them UE sub-states, for the purposes of my argument -- all of the sub-states would be equal. They'd all have areas of exclusive jurisdiction, but they would also have to respect one-anothers' decisions, absolutely, and they would all be equally subject to federal law.

This doesn't mean that there aren't such things as regional or local magistrates and officials governing various municipalities, but they all answer to the United Earth.

I think I understand what you're saying, but, again, you seem to be arguing from a premise -- that federalism means the constituent governments do not answer to the central government -- that is erroneous. Even within federalism, the decisions made by the constituent polities have to be consistent with the law established by the central polity. That's why, for instance, the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot declare Methodism to be the official religion of the Commonwealth -- it would be inconsistent with the federal constitution's First Amendment, even if the Virginia Constitution was amended to make it okay by Virginia law.

Yes, it is, because I don't agree with it in the case of the United Earth. I know the issue is vague enough in Trek to allow different takes on it, but I just don't share your take on it myself.

Yeah, but in the case of the address, you are literally having to make something up to justify your presumption that the USA doesn't exist anymore -- that an address that uses a legal, political term, "United States of America," is actually referring to geography. This makes no sense. The USA doesn't exist as a geographic unit; it is a federal state, not a geographic location. That's why Hawai'i can be part of the USA without being anywhere near North America. Your argument would be far stronger in my view if the address line had read "America" rather than "USA."

 

[C.E. Evans]

Um, no. The United Nations today does not govern the relationships between independent states at all.

And neither was that said.

Then I beg your pardon for misinterpreting your statement, but when you argued that UE (which I defined as having the capacity to govern things that involve multiple formerly independent states and their relationships with one-another) you seemed to be saying that the state of having the legal capacity to govern things that involve multiple formerly independent states and their relationships with one-another would mean that UE is legally no different than the UN. In other words, I said that UE would have trait X, and I thought you were then saying that the possession of trait X would make it no different than the UN. I then said that the UN lacks trait X, therefore setting UE apart from the UN.

Please explain to me how a federal UE would be no different from the UN, because I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying.

You did misunderstand. I said from the start the United Nations was a political alliance--or more accurately, an international clubhouse--not an actual government. It's actually because the United Earth has the power to govern that makes it different from the United Nations.

I would actually consider the relationship between the US and UE governments to be akin to the relationship between a federal government and its constituent governments in a federal republic. Some issues are handled by the constituent polities, and some are handled by the central government, with the division being generally characterized by who it affects.

And this is where we disagree. I do see the United Earth as Earth's sole government, particularly after the collapse of the major nations. As I said before, the cities and various provinces prior to World War III still exist to some degree, but the idea of constituent governments is so pre-2063.

I would argue that the fundamental problem with this notion is that the sheer amount of work involved in running an entire planet, with the sum total of all of its local, provincial, regional, and continental problems, would, plain and simply, overwhelm the United Earth government unless the UE government is so large that it is effectively undemocratic and unresponsive to constituents' desires. There's a reason that unitary democratic states tend to be small and homogenous, but the large and heterogeneous democratic states tend to be federations -- no one government can cope with that level of work and still be small enough to be responsive to the citizens. The really large unitary states tend to be dictatorships.

Which is why in some instances, the idea of a unified planetary government is more unrealistic than warp drive, but if we are indeed to accept the idea that Earth did develop a planetary government, then we also have to accept the idea--IMO--that these issues were either worked out or nullified, either as a result of World War III destroying the old world order, or first contact with extraterrestrials, or both. It's a difficult concept to really accept, because it implies a mutual, worldwide letting go of political systems and beliefs that we've been familiar with and has been in place for centuries, if not millennia.

It's not that the laws of United Earth wouldn't apply everywhere, it's that all of the formerly independent states that join United Earth would still have areas of exclusive jurisdiction in which UE could not, by its own charter, make law.

But I don't think that was the case with the United Earth. I think the only way a true planetary government could work--in a way that every former nation could agree with it--was to surrender the notion of exclusive jurisdictions so that all will be equal.

I strongly disagree. To begin with, continuing the existence of all the formerly independent states a divisions of UE with their own exclusive jurisdictions ensures that none of them will feel threatened, as though the UE government is going to overwhelm them and force them to do things they don't agree to all the time; in other words, federalism ensures that the relevant parties view themselves as still being important and worth of existence politically and thereby ensures their continuing consent.

Further, all of the formerly independent states -- I'll call them UE sub-states, for the purposes of my argument -- all of the sub-states would be equal. They'd all have areas of exclusive jurisdiction, but they would also have to respect one-anothers' decisions, absolutely, and they would all be equally subject to federal law.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

This doesn't mean that there aren't such things as regional or local magistrates and officials governing various municipalities, but they all answer to the United Earth.

I think I understand what you're saying, but, again, you seem to be arguing from a premise -- that federalism means the constituent governments do not answer to the central government -- that is erroneous.

No, I think we're splitting hairs over a question of the scale or degree of federalism in the United Earth. I'm actually coming from the view that there was a new world order after World War III resulting in a smaller number of nations in the world after 2063--either through attrition or through the formation of larger "super nations" that cover Europe, Asia, North America, Africa, etc., and that the United Earth is comprised of these rather than over 200 smaller nations.

Yes, it is, because I don't agree with it in the case of the United Earth. I know the issue is vague enough in Trek to allow different takes on it, but I just don't share your take on it myself.

Yeah, but in the case of the address, you are literally having to make something up to justify your presumption that the USA doesn't exist anymore -- that an address that uses a legal, political term, "United States of America," is actually referring to geography. This makes no sense. The USA doesn't exist as a geographic unit; it is a federal state, not a geographic location.

I think what really started our disagreement is that I do think that the USA mostly exists as a geographic unit in the world post-2063, and that the larger state would be "North America" (of which USA is just one nation among many) within the United Earth. By listing a place as being in the USA, it's just another way of pinpointing where a place is within North America.

 

[Admiral Pike]

The fact that most people in the world today are non-white, and they predict over 50% of the US will be non-white in 100 years

Um, that's an understatement, to say the least, cause they predict that over 50% of the US will be non-white in no more than THIRTY YEARS.

So I basically agree that at that point in the future there should be A LOT more asians and hispanics, especially if Starfleet is based in San Fransisco, and with so many asians into the maths and sciences, I've always pictured realistically that starfleet would be mostly asian.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think part of the problem of suggesting that it was simply World War III destroying the old world order is that Earth didn't unify for almost 100 years afterwards. The implication from Demons/Terra Prime is that the war compelled people to work towards a united Earth, but it still took long enough of a time that they could have reestablished the old world order if they wanted to.