Should the Irish be decanonized?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
Soccer/Football will be around for centuries. If I served on DS9, I would have introduced soccer to Bajor, poisoning their culture forever.
Really nee an answer?
The Federation is an obvious stand-in for the US, or anyway the best things about the US. It's manifest destiny written on the stars. We do know that French is a dead language, that English apparently is not, and there's little if any information on the continued existence of the other major languages.
Kegek Kringle said:
Really nee an answer?
The Federation is an obvious stand-in for the US, or anyway the best things about the US. It's manifest destiny written on the stars. We do know that French is a dead language, that English apparently is not, and there's little if any information on the continued existence of the other major languages.
Hmm. I agree that the Federation is obviously based in part upon a US model -- I argued as such in another thread. But I also argued that the Federation is strongly influenced by the parliamentary model; the Federation Council has far more power over executive policy than one finds in the US.
And while it's fair to say that the Federation's governmental model is based in part on the US, I'm not so sure it's fair to say that Federation culture is based on the US. Federation culture seems remarkably diverse, far moreso than American culture -- everything from Vulcan to Bolian to Trill to Humans. The Federation seems to do a much better job at preserving its Member States cultures and at not serving as a homogenizing influence than the US does.
The key issue, of course, is whether or not it's fair to say that American culture dominates Earth and dominates the Federation. The problem here, of course, is that we only really see the Federation through the eyes of Starfleet -- and, in that, through the eyes of the crews of five key starships/space stations. But Starfleet has thousands of ships, and the Federation has hundreds of worlds -- presumably with billions of inhabitants.
In short, we've really seen too litle of Earth and the Federation to really evaluate the kind of impact America has had on Earth and the Federation as a whole. Certainly the US has strongly influenced both -- though, given the presence of Minister Samuels in ENT, I'd suggest that United Earth is a parliamentary government, not a congressional/presidential one. But I don't think we can really evaluate cultural impacts, because we haven't seen enough of Earth or UFP culture as a whole.
Further, there's also the question of what constitutes "pro-US." According to Trek, the United States degenerated into extreme economic oppression in the 2030s with the Sanctuary system, and then was devestated by World War III, apparently with the government collapsing. While American Humans made key advances -- Zeframe Cochrane inventing warp drive, Henry Archer helping with the Warp 5 engine, and the United Earth Starfleet being established in San Francisco -- we don't know who was responsible for unifying the planet, who led the way to eradicating disease, who helped create a more fair and equitable world economy. For all we know, United Earth's Founding Fathers -- and Mothers! -- may have primarily been Chinese, Thia, Ugandan, and Argentine, the capital city of UE may be Mogadishu, Somalia, and UE may not yet have had a European or North American Prime Minister. There's a huge dearth of information.
It is a large part about homogenization. Take TOS: You have a multiracial crew working in harmony under the tutelage of an American alpha male. The difference between humans and Federation aliens is fairly minor, they may have different philosophies on how to personally live (Vulcans, Trill), but seem to have the same benevolent humanitarian position when it comes to Federation foreign policy.
The answer: Inductive reasoning. Find patterns in what you see, do not bemoan the lack of existence of further evidence - especially as, in this case, the evidence will not appear to thwart your conclusions. I've found it very helpful.
But there are a disproportionately large number of Americans serving in the Starfleet, an when the UFP President has not been an alien he has been an American, as has in the case of the two alien Presidents, members of his staff were Americans. There are concessions - French Captains, the capital at Paris - but the Earth of the future, and even to a greater extent the UFP, strikes me as America Writ Large. Plot machinations to one side, that's clearly what she allegorically represents.
I'm not sure I'd call the differences between Federation Members "minor." Certainly, they've learned how to live in peace and harmony -- but you have, in Tellarites, an entire culture built on argumentation and insults; you have in Andorians a culture that's built on ritualized combat; you have in Vulcans a culture that's built on the extreme suppression of emotion. Those are MAJOR differences, just amongst the founding members.
Well, it's certainly simpler, but I'm not sure I'd call it helpful. Of course, when we start talking about this, we're dealing with a problem that has always plagued textual criticism: Do you restrict yourself only to information strictly revealed in the text, or do you include extra-textual information? Someone examining Hamlet in a thesis may restrict herself to information in the text -- but there again, an actor playing Hamlet would probably not do a good job if he didn't make use of deductive reasoning and include extra-textual concepts.
My take on this is that it's generall preferable to include extra-textual information when possible. The essayist, I would argue, is doing herself no favors but restricting herself to the Hamlet text, because she might miss information that is only clear in a larger cultural context -- say, the traditional fifth question that Elizabethans would know one asks of a ghost ("Would you like to tell me something about the nature of your death?") and which Horatio never asks of the Ghost of Hamlet's Father. So I'd feel perfectly comfortable invoking, say, the Star Trek novels, or writers' comments and suppositions, or even my own hypothesis -- i.e., "If this is supposed to present a positive future for humanity, then this precludes the idea of any one nation dominating things."
No. There are a disproportionately large number of Americans serving about the Starfleet crews that have been televised.
You mean, "Had American accents." It's not accurate to just say that any character with an American accent must actually be American. Spock has a very clear American accent, but he's obviously from Vulcan. We've seen numerous humans with American accents that were actually from non-Earth colonies.
It is, in point of fact, an accepted practice for characters of a specific nationality to be played by actors of another, without altering their accents. Sean Connery played a Lithuanian in The Hunt for Red October, but he kept his Scottish accent; nonetheless, Marco Ramius is not Scottish.
Allegorically, I'll agree. But that's not necessarily the same thing as being "pro-US" -- especially since there's the distinct implication that the United States collapsed at some point, and that its inhumane policies may have led to the near-extinction of the human race.
It's worth pointing out that the Federation was originally intended to be a stand-in for the United Nations, not the United States. However, later Trek started to introduce more US-like concepts. Some big examples are the Federation President (in 'Star Trek VI' and DS9 in particular, they are very much models of US Presidents, and not Presidents of a Council) and the fact that Starfleet traditions seem to have changed with the US Navy (the apparent dropping of Midshipman and Commodore from the rank schemes, for example).
Obviously, the most obvious thing is that nearly all the humans are played by American actors, playing Americans. And even the universal translator seems to change alien languages into an American accent/dialect most of the time. Really, though, this stems from the fact that 'Star Trek' is a show produced in American, where most actors will, of course, be American. Same as how in 'Doctor Who', a lot of the humans on distant colony worlds or space ships are British, and on 'Farscape' many Sebaceans were Austrailian (though it's worth pointing out that both of those shows have tried hard...harder than Trek...to have characters-of-the-week who are foreign...likely to help sell them to the American market, who often don't like shows where the actors speak in non-US accents).
Obviously, the most obvious thing is that nearly all the humans are played by American actors, playing Americans. And even the universal translator seems to change alien languages into an American accent/dialect most of the time. Really, though, this stems from the fact that 'Star Trek' is a show produced in American, where most actors will, of course, be American. Same as how in 'Doctor Who', a lot of the humans on distant colony worlds or space ships are British, and on 'Farscape' many Sebaceans were Austrailian (though it's worth pointing out that both of those shows have tried hard...harder than Trek...to have characters-of-the-week who are foreign...likely to help sell them to the American market, who often don't like shows where the actors speak in non-US accents).
Major Enterprise era differences. The Tellarites were argumentative in "Journey to Babel", true, but this Andorian warrior ethic is unique to that show. There were lots of tensions between the States of the Union before and shortly after foundaton, was there not?
My specialty, sir, is history, which for this kind of argument is considerably more useful than textual criticism.
This 'historical study', as it were, has no equivalent to archaeology. And we cannot doubt the veracity of the text, though we can prefer one part over the other when it occasionally conflicts.However, there is a related dramatic concern: What the Federation stands for allegorically. Insofar as this goes, one can also rely on outside accreditation if you wish.
Inductive reasoning, my friend. The televised Starfleet is all that exists. This kind of reasoning is used a lot in history: Taking one slave-owner's accounts and extrapolating them across the South, say. The difference between here and elsewhere... is that use of induction can't be criticised for taking additional evidence onboard, because that evidence doesn't exist. By what we have seen, Americans are a dominant sub-group of humans who are omnipresent in the Federation.
His mother was American. Ignoring alien accents for a moment (as that opens up a whole tin can of trouble), it's safe to assume someone with an American accent is either an American or has been homogenized into the American cultural sphere, which may be a good deal broader than its current equivalent. Inhabitants of San Francisco would not have been considered U.S.A. citizens in 1782, now they are. Manifest Destiny, as I've said, has been written on the stars.
As I believe I said earlier (but probably should have elaborated on more) the Federation represents the best of America, what it could be, and what Roddenberry believed it should be. There's a great deal of criticism of its Cold War policies in TOS and TNG.
Ambassador Shras specifically says in "Journey to Babel" that his people are a violent race, so I'm not sure why you'd say that the warrior ethic was unqiue to ENT's Andorians.
I was referring to cultural differences, not political tensions. The cultural diversity of the Federation far exceeds that of the US at any point in its history.
My specialty, sir, is history, which for this kind of argument is considerably more useful than textual criticism.
I completely disagree, because the fact that none of this is real means that new information may be revealed at any point. Indeed, instances of retroactive continuity may even be introduced -- early TNG clearly tried to establish that the Klingons had joined the Federation, for instance, but later episodes made it clear that they were not and had never been Federation Members. Textual criticism is far more useful in studying a fictional text than history.
Ah! The big conflict. "The play's the thing," as the saying goes... or is it? Is the televised Starfleet all that exists? Clearly not to those televised officers, for whom unseen characters like Charlie Reynolds are quite real.
But that's exactly why I don't think we should use inductive reasoning here, because the additional evidence could be created, or could be incorporated from non-canonical materials. Technically-speaking, of course, none of it "exists," because we're dealing with fiction.
Yes, but in evaluating a fictional construct, one should always keep in mind the larger fictional universe that the characters inhabit and the larger picture that we the viewers don't get to see.
I don't agree with that at all. As I noted above, it's an established practice to have actors using one accent playing characters of entirely different nationalities. It's also more than possible that we we now call an "American accent," for instance, may be encompassed by multiple ethnicities -- American-descended colonists, for instance, who may strongly reject the "American" label for ideological reasons. And then there's the distinct possibility that what we're hearing are simply nonrealistic representations of fictional accents, especially when taking alien characters into account -- and I reject your assumption that they should be ignored. How many times have we seen Cardassian characters talking amongst themselves in American Midwestern accents? Obviously a scene with Dukat and Damar talking to one-another shouldn't be taken as evidence that Cardassians speak in US accents. Why should we presume that the American accents we hear are any more accurate for all Humans than we do for aliens?
Aaaah, okay. But then that raises the question of why the Federation Council has so much more power than the US Congress over executive policy? Doesn't that suggest the possibility of a combination US/Westminster system? And if that raises the possibility of combined systems, doesn't that imply that the Federation is not so much America -- though clearly inspired by America -- as it is the ideal form of constitutional liberal democracy (at least, ideal according to the creators)?
Yes, a violent, passionate race. That doesn't equate to being warriors. One could say yes, in retrospect, they may be so - which might explain the increasing absence of both Andorians and Tellarites in the 23rd and then 24th centuries.
Alright. The cultural divide between North and South was a bit more tense. The divisions between the various branches of Protestantism, some who had made a given state their state religion, was also pretty culturally opposing.
Quite. And if any of that forces a re-evaluation, then re-evaluate we do. But at the moment, we have a historian's wet dream: Only one series of accepted texts whose authority is paramount.
Not when we're treating it as 'real'. I acknowledged the difference in my earlier post. Looking at themes and writer's intent, et cetera, yes, textual criticism. Trying to analyze the Feds as if they were a real political body? That's different.
It's the only part of it we can analyse. Like the historian using a handful of sources and extrapolating them on a wider canvas. What makes this different is that there are no other sources, and the source we have contains the only reality.
Could be created? Yes, I concede that. Incorporated? If Paramount changes its canon policy. But neither of these things have occured, and so what we are dealing with at present is a very static environment insofar as documents are concerned. Inductive reasoning, it is true, needs only one exception to be proven wrong: But I'll wait for that exception before I revise my theory.
If one is not to write any theories because of the development of new evidence, history would be a wasted disicipline... and I'm on firmer ground here than I ever can be with real history.There's little evidence of that kind of activity. What we do have is a lot of humans with American accents and American names compromising the bulk of seen inhabitants of the Federation. One can construct elaborate rationalisations, but the simplest solution remains the most obvious and internally consistent.
I believe in administrative terms the UFP is meant to be a descendant of the United Nations. Presumably, this is the UN as apotheosised as the World Government many of its detractors have feared.
Yes, structurally it is the ideal constitutional liberal democracy. A more obvious 'un-American' attribute is the total replacement of capitalism with a quasi-communistic money-less society.
It's kind of a liberal American utopia.
Honestly, I would find it very, very sad if all languages on Earth except English should die out. It's a great language, but so are all the others, and losing so much diversity would be terrible. Poor humanity.
I don't believe it, either.
I don't believe it, either.
Can we also decanonize Italians who look like Mexicans?
Or, indeed, that there is no technical device within the universe of the show translating things for us, anymore than we're seeing actual documentary footage from the universe of the story. Rather, like the existence of the omniscient, omnipresent camera, and like sound in the vacuum of space, the fact of the characters' English is simply a literary device used to tell the story.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
The language the crew of the NCC-1701 spoke was specifically called "English" by 20th century natives Captain John Christopher and Khan Noonien Singh in - respectively - Tomorrow is Yesterday and Space Seed. The signage on the hulls of Starfleet spacecraft also strongly suggests that English has become the lingua franca of the UFP.
TGT
^
It is also noted that the inhabitants of the Roman planet speak perfect 20th century English in "Bread and Circuses".
In "Spectre of a Gun", the Melkotsian speaks to the crew in their native language - while Spock hears it as Vulcan and Uhura as Swahili, Kirk hears it as English. Uhura has to relearn English to be conversant with the crew in "Nomad", and sonic weapons are used to attack the spaceborne Enterprise in "A Taste of Armageddon" (thus suggesting sound really does exist in space by Star Trek's reckoning).
It is also noted that the inhabitants of the Roman planet speak perfect 20th century English in "Bread and Circuses".
In "Spectre of a Gun", the Melkotsian speaks to the crew in their native language - while Spock hears it as Vulcan and Uhura as Swahili, Kirk hears it as English. Uhura has to relearn English to be conversant with the crew in "Nomad", and sonic weapons are used to attack the spaceborne Enterprise in "A Taste of Armageddon" (thus suggesting sound really does exist in space by Star Trek's reckoning).
I was scrolling through this thread, just waiting for Finnegan to show. And he did.
(Not a Romulan, mind you--a leprechaun afer Irishin' up one two many shamrock shakes with a wee bit o' the Jameson's.)