That's one of those things where it comes down to being aware of the audience for your fictional tale, giving them simple, clear codings to tell one society from another. A ship name that was some made-up alien word might be harder for them to recognize as an "Us" ship rather than a "Them" ship, unless it's an alien name we're familiar with like Surak or T'Pau or Gorkon (which was the name of a Starfleet vessel in canon before it was used for Klag's ship in the literature). And it's hard to get across a ship-name theme (like rivers for Danube-class runabouts and moons for Luna-class ships) if you make up alien names that the audience can't recognize as fitting the theme. Basically it's the same reason the characters speak English instead of a creole of English (or Chinese) with the primary languages of Vulcan, Andor, and Tellar. The latter is more realistic and balanced, but not as suited for conveying information to the real-world audience for the fiction.
For what it's worth, the Stargazer series gave us USS Jor'fasi, named after a Vobilite leader. The Vobilities never get mentioned outside Friedman novels (unlike the Gnalish or Pandrilites, who got promoted to full novel-verse significance), but it was still a welcome touch. Perhaps, as our in-universe excuse, the humans get to name a lot of the ships because the shipyards at Mars or Luna are the ones churning them out? Although given that Beta Antares IV seems to be an equally important shipyard, perhaps the Antarans should be naming them too? "I've spoken with the Federation Council, and I'm afraid USS Death to Denobula is not considered an appropriate name for a Federation ship. The Denobulan councilor was especially vocal on the subject". "Fine. We'll call it Defiant".
To timidly go where no-one has gone before! "We're heading back to starbase, Admiral. We encountered a strange new world and I just don't think it's wise to continue".
^Yeah, but they had to explain it. That's not always an option. You couldn't just have Worf say, "Captain, we are being hailed by the USS Flurmgrelb" and then drag the scene to a halt by having Picard reply, "Oh, yes, the Flurmgrelb, named for that great scientist from Potrzebie V."
No one ever bothered to explain the meaning behind the name U.S.S. T'Kumbra. I'm not saying writers should make every single ship out there an alien name. But seeing a few more would be nice, and I don't think we always need to hear an explanation behind it. It's enough just to see Starfleet using non-Human names to remind us that the Federation is not a Human imperium.
I love a lot of Diane Duane's books but some of her choices just come across as stupid. The Horta had just been discovered a few years earlier, was the first silicon based lifeform ever discovered, had no knowledge of technology or life on other planets. To think that one of the young would be in StarFleet in just a few years is just silly. Same with putting a mugato in New Frontier. What's next, tribbles? Humans make the best captains because the aliens are there to expose our shortcomings, reflected off of them. For instance, denying our emotions (Vulcans). Aliens are usually going to be shown as subordiate to humans because they will be showing the parts of ourselves that are our weakess. Think of the aliens as being the present day audience. The hero characters are there to teach us a lesson. This allows the message to be presented in the context of the show without getting too preachy. They're exposing the faults of aliens who just happen to have the same shortcomings as present day viewers. The Federation may not be the homo-sapiens only club that Azetbur claimed it was but she was more right than wrong.
Why? If it's a new and entirely different form of life, its young may well be able to assimilate information, receive a sophisticated education, and reach physical and emotional maturity long before a Human child might. Unless you're advocating that Starfleet discriminate against silicon-based life, anyway. 1. New Frontier is set over 100 years after TOS. 2. The Mugato in New Frontier is explicitly established to be a mutant individual who possesses sentience; all Mugatos are not so depicted. Uh-huh. Nice to know you want to introduce fantastical forms of discrimination into a fictional work that's supposed to be about equality. Sorry, but this is just called "Bad Writing." It reduces characters to stereotypes and straw men rather than actually fleshing them out. When Star Trek indulges in this sort of setup, it's Star Trek at its worst.
The entire crew of the Enterprise in TOS was human with 1/2 an exception. And what was his big revelation in TMP? That his Vulcan half pales beside his human half. Humans as usually portrayed as having the answers, even to much older, more advanced cultures. We call them arrogant and point out their shortcomings. Scenes like in Errand of Mercy where both Kirk & Kor are slapped down are rare. It's usually the StarFleeters teaching a lesson to everyone else instead of learning something themselves. It's an entertaiment show. The good guys have to win.
Yes, and, tellingly, that alien crewmember was the most popular character on the show. People weren't attracted to Spock because they saw him as inferior. Besides, TOS is full of inequalities that shouldn't be perpetuated in future STAR TREK stories. TOS, as originally intended when it was produced, depicts a future where men dominate and women are subordinate; where white men hold most positions of power and are depicted in the most sympathetic light; where Christianity is depicted as the dominant religion; where non-whites are mostly depicted in supporting roles: where black women answer the cosmic telephone and Asian men are the drivers. Naturally, all of these ideas have since been retconned -- because they're incompatible with the idea of actual equality for which STAR TREK is supposed to stand. There's no reason this can't extend to non-Human characters. That's a distortion of the message in TMP. It's not that his Vulcan half "pales beside his Human half." It's that Spock is a child of two worlds and should not deny one half of his heritage and only embrace another. What is right for Spock, as a person, is not necessarily what is right for Human/Vulcan relationships. Sorry, you're confusing the contents of the first two seasons of TNG with the rest of Trek. They're not "good guys" if they're right and get to dominate others because of their species.
They're the "good guys" because it's their show. By default, they're right the vast majority of the time unless there's a little twist ending. Look at Arena. The Gorn attack. Kirk gives chase and the Gorn run away. The Metron stops them and makes them fight. Kirk wins. The Metron offers to destroy the Gorns but Kirk teaches them both a lesson that he's more compassionate. The Gorn and the Metron learn the lesson but it's aimed squarely at the viewing public. The aliens are just our avatars.
Oh? I had no idea STAR TREK was supposed to possess all of the moral and thematic sophistication of an episode of G.I. Joe. STAR TREK is about people who belong to a future society that embraces the concepts of liberty, equality, justice, peace, and scientific advancement as they explore the galaxy, and about the different ways in which they meet or do not meet their own standards. It is NOT about people who are right because they are right because they are right. It is not a show where people are right because they are the protagonists; that's just another form of mindless nationalism. Actually, the point of "Arena" was that both the Gorn and the Federation had been in the wrong, and that someone had to stop the cycle of violence. Kirk wasn't "teaching them a lesson;" he was realizing that he was wrong to want to kill the Gorn captain, and that the Federation needed to show compassion and make amends for its having established a colony in Gorn space if there was ever to be peace with the Gorn. The point wasn't, "Look at me, I'm so compassionate and I'm better than you." The point was, "We've both fallen into this bad behavior pattern. I'm as guilty as you are, but it's time to stop this cycle."
The Federation didn't deliveratly establish an outpost on a planet claimed by the Gorn. The Gorn did deliberatly attack and kill the personnel. One was a mistake, the other was an act of murder. I'm not saying that StarFleet was always right, just the vast majority of the time. Take The Corbomite Maneuver for example. They encouter a buoy that says they are tresspassing. When they can't get past it or away from it they destroy it. And what do they do next? Tresspass where they have just been told not to go. Why? Because they're explorers and can go wherever they feel like. Something similar happens in Spectre of the Gun. Do these guys not believe in property rights? Or Amok Time where Vulcans are shown to be violent prisoners of age old rituals. They don't even have a concept of informed consent. Kirk was told about the fight being to the death after he'd agreed to it. He only survived because McCoy cheated. It's not like any of the Vulcans saw anything wrong with the situation at all. Very, very rarely will American television let the stars of the show be shown to be in the wrong unless they're an anti-hero, which StarFleet officers aren't.
If you're looking for a justification to perpetuate a cycle of violence, fine. If, on the other hand, you're aware that another culture might be different from yours, and that different cultures can mis-understand one-another's intentions and for ways to overcome that sort of thing, perhaps the mature thing to do is to accept that your side did wrong, apologize, and to then accept the other side's apology, too. But either way, the point of "Arena" was not "Captain Kirk teaches those silly aliens a lesson." I can only conclude from this statement that you haven't seen much American television in the past 15 to 20 years. But just a sampling of American television series where the stars of the show are often shown to be in the wrong: The Sopranos Breaking Bad Boardwalk Empire Deadwood Six Feet Under The Wire Game of Thrones Mad Men Lost The Shield
Star Trek is a network show, not HBO/Showtime that is willing to take risks. Or was the Sapranos and Deadwood on ABC friday evenings and I missed it? If trek were on HBO or Showtime then it could take the sort of risks that make for more compelling drama. Star Trek is designed to appeal to a broad audience. It's family friendly. Cable dramas rarely are. Star Trek would be on in the family hour. Most of your shows listed, even if they could be on network TV, would't be in the family hour.
There are plenty of network shows where characters are allowed to be wrong without being criminals. The title character of House, for instance, while usually smarter than everyone else in his medical diagnoses, is a totally screwed-up, dysfunctional man whose behavior is reprehensible. Indeed, the success of that show spawned a whole spate of network shows about dysfunctional, unlikeable protagonists. There's no shortage of network TV stories about the protagonists being in the wrong in one sense or another. I mean, come on, this isn't the '70s anymore. TV heroes are allowed to be fallible now.