Wait a second, Admiral Kirk shoved aside Captain Decker for his own ego, and participated in the creation of an illegal device of mass destruction. He stole a starship too.
So its ok to move Indians but not the Baku?
- Thread starter GeneHunt
- Start date
Wait a second, Admiral Kirk shoved aside Captain Decker for his own ego, and participated in the creation of an illegal device of mass destruction. He stole a starship too.
Uhm... what illegal device of mass destruction was that? The Genesis device? If I'm not mistaken, that was a scientific project fully authorized by the Federation and intended for peaceful purposes.
And, whether motivated by ego or not, it seems clear that the Enterprise would have been toast had Decker's approach to dealing with V'Ger been followed. Decker wanted to take a defensive posture, wanted to try to use weapons to break free of the tractor beam, etc. Having Kirk in command saved the ship and possibly Earth, much as Uhura predicted.
True. Spock showing up did solve alot of the problems with the Enterprise's systems, as well as give them key information about V'Ger. But Kirk was still the person making the decisions, and he was the one who decided to take a very careful approach, doing everything possible to avoid appearing aggressive. Had Decker been in command, they would have taken a much different approach, which I think would have ended badly.
Also, he didn't create it. It was fully operational when he arrived and it was never implied he had anything to do with its design or building. He didn't set it off, either: Spock did.
The only reason he narrates the video in STIII instead of Carol Marcus is because Carol's character was not due to appear in the third film.
The majority of American Indians refer to themselves as 'Indians' or 'American Indians'. Even those that don't rarely prefer 'Native American'. It's a stupid term; all native-born Americans are Native Americans. 'Indigenous' is the word you want, not 'native'.
...Besides, while the ancestor of Picard might have relocated native Americans, the people of Dorvan V were native Dorvans if anything. None had probably even seen America, which may or may not have been the land of their fathers or grandfathers. For all we know, they were "third-generation" colonists, that is, colonists from a colony that was a colony of Earth.
Anyway, "Indian" is a good generic expression for "foreign". At least it was when Columbus applied it to the people of the Caribbean, or when Cook applied it to the people of the Pacific. They weren't thinking that they were talking to people from the big peninsula between the Ganges and the Indus; "India" is any place that is not Europe.
Timo Saloniemi
Anyway, "Indian" is a good generic expression for "foreign". At least it was when Columbus applied it to the people of the Caribbean, or when Cook applied it to the people of the Pacific. They weren't thinking that they were talking to people from the big peninsula between the Ganges and the Indus; "India" is any place that is not Europe.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
