USS Cortez? Really?

[clever_username]

i'm not goin through 7 pages to see if it was posted, but u.s.s. malinche could be named for the volcano that was named for the woman.

edit: okay, maybe if i'd scrolled down a little on the first page i would have noticed it.

off topic alert!: i've actually been to that resort. very beautiful. and on the smaller hill in front of the volcano there's like a shrine on top of it. i was up there one night and looked back at malinche and there were all sorts of multicolored lights blinking on and off all over it. the guy i was with said they were either indian ghosts or ufo's. hrmmmm.....

 

[Sci]

And Sci once again proves my point once again. A historical white man must be perfect to be honored. We're not free to honor their achievements, even within their appropriate contexts.

I think there's a difference between saying that a white guy (of whom I am one) ought to be perfect to honor them and saying that some white guys just went too far to honor them. I wouldn't object to a U.S.S. George Washington or a U.S.S. John Adams, for instance -- nor, for that matter, to a U.S.S. Winston Churchill, even though Churchill was a very racist imperialist who did his damnedest to keep India under Britain's heel. All three of those guys did things that violate Federation principles, but all three also accomplished great things that in my view outweigh those violations.

But I think that Jefferson both went too far in the direction of policies that violate the principles the Federation is supposed to stand for, and that he didn't accomplish enough in the other direction. People tend to venerate him without justification in my view; he wasn't the guy who pushed for Independence the hardest, he borrowed most of his language in the Declaration of Independence from other writers, he supported imperialist policies against both Native American lands and British lands in what is now Canada, and he supported the impeachment of an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for political reasons. Frankly, President Jefferson just wasn't as impressive a leader as, for instance, John Adams.

And, once again, Cortez DID work to liberate the land from the Aztecs, as his Catholic mandate demanded when they discovered human sacrifices.

And in my view, he had no right to do so. What right did the Kingdom of Spain, a state that engaged in human execution and which had already engaged in a systematic campaign of slavery and mass murder on the island of Hispaniola, have to judge the Aztec Empire for engaging in human sacrifice? They both engaged in state-sponsored acts of murder, and it certainly wasn't as though the Aztecs were in any position to threaten Spain's national security.

Cortés certainly would have had the right to seek to persuade the Aztecs to abandon their practices, but the fact that they engaged in human sacrifice did not give him the right to conquer it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ More to the point, Cortez' "Catholic Mandate" wasn't triggered by the Aztec's practice of human sacrifice so much as it was the fact that the Aztecs were pagans an it was his duty to forcibly convert them to Christianity. He would have conquered them just the same if they had turned out to be scientologists.

 

[Nightfall to-Ennien]

^ He would have conquered them just the same if they had turned out to be scientologists.

Which probably would have been a great deal less controversial in the end.

 

[Kegg]

Whether or not Cortez is a specifically bad example, one can have fair reason to find fault by today's standards with most political figures and statesman of yesteryear (though particularly those famous for conquering something, as Cortez was). Which leaves us to excise all such men and women from the candidate list of potential names for starships, which leaves us with the rather incongruous position of having armed starships named Gandhi.

Yeah. I really have a bigger problem with a photon-torpedo ship named Gandhi, though I'm sure some will now jump up and say it was named for other members of the Gandhi family.

(Also: Naming a ship Ahura Mazda might bother people who don't want secular things like starships having overtly religious names.)

nor, for that matter, to a U.S.S. Winston Churchill, even though Churchill was a very racist imperialist who did his damnedest to keep India under Britain's heel.

And wanted to reintroduce public hangings to keep the Irish in their place, in a very rare pre-WWII example of him citing the Bolsheviks as a favourable example. I'm not a fan, obviously, but I don't altogether mind starships being named after him and other British heroes.

 

[DevilEyes]

Whether or not Cortez is a specifically bad example, one can have fair reason to find fault by today's standards with most political figures and statesman of yesteryear (though particularly those famous for conquering something, as Cortez was). Which leaves us to excise all such men and women from the candidate list of potential names for starships, which leaves us with the rather incongruous position of having armed starships named Gandhi.

Or, you may not name them after people at all, but use names like Defiant, Enterprise etc. instead.

Yeah. I really have a bigger problem with a photon-torpedo ship named Gandhi, though I'm sure some will now jump up and say it was named for other members of the Gandhi family.

If I actually lived in the fictional world of Star Trek, I would have a far bigger problem with the fact that an interplanetary force that proclaims its goals to be those of peaceful exploration, chooses to honor historical figures known for imperialistic exploration, conquering and enslaving other civilizations. I guess UFP officials hope that most people from other planets have no clue about Terran history.

 

[USS KG5]

nor, for that matter, to a U.S.S. Winston Churchill, even though Churchill was a very racist imperialist who did his damnedest to keep India under Britain's heel.

And wanted to reintroduce public hangings to keep the Irish in their place, in a very rare pre-WWII example of him citing the Bolsheviks as a favourable example. I'm not a fan, obviously, but I don't altogether mind starships being named after him and other British heroes.

Churchill was a product of his time, and honestly believed a British Empire was best for the world. He did not as much treat the Indians as inferior as believe Britain was inherently superior. It was a pretty common attitude at the time, and it is unduly harsh to judge Churchill by liberal 21st century standards.

None of that takes away from his achievements, and it must be remembered that everyone, including Gandhi, had bad qualities.

 

[Kegg]

Or, you may not name them after people at all, but use names like Defiant, Enterprise etc. instead.

True. And that's Star Trek's preferred attitude to Hero Ships - Enterprise, Voyager, Defiant.

If I actually lived in the fictional world of Star Trek, I would have a far bigger problem with the fact that an interplanetary force that proclaims its goals to be those of peaceful exploration,

I meant the absurdity of the whole thing, I should have been a trifle clearer there. I just find the idea of warships named after pacifists sort of amusing, not unduly troublesome.

Churchill was a product of his time,

So was Cortez. The point is? If we want to use the 'by his time' excuse we can get away with a lot, and even that can be contested - my point about hangings is that this was a rather extreme stance to take at the time. Which is why it wasn't done.

But again I'm not particularly bothered by it, though I do find this argument interesting.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

In my own personal fan-writings, one of the hero ships is the USS Ronald Reagan. One of my personal hero's and the greatest modern president.

 

[Sci]

In my own personal fan-writings, one of the hero ships is the USS Ronald Reagan. One of my personal hero's and the greatest modern president.

I would argue that President Reagan's diplomatic, military, and economic support for Latin American military dictatorships like the mass-murdering Argentine junta would make him an invalid candidate for Federation celebration.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

I disagree.

He did nothing in Latin America but continue the US policy of no further communist nations in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Vance]

Oh the other hand, I'm also sure that Sci would support a USS Johnson, USS Roosevelt, USS Carter, USS Clinton, and USS Obama. That's why I said, this is all very thinly transparent - a failure to recognize true historical accomplishments in order to further contemporary politically correct world views.

The legitimate reason for a USS Cortez was explained. You may still disagree with that assestment, as is your right, but the facts are now on the ground and not really in dispute.. anything else is your political bias showing.

 

[Neumann]

^ More to the point, Cortez' "Catholic Mandate" wasn't triggered by the Aztec's practice of human sacrifice so much as it was the fact that the Aztecs were pagans an it was his duty to forcibly convert them to Christianity. He would have conquered them just the same if they had turned out to be scientologists.

$cientology must be destroyed!!!

 

[Sci]

I disagree.

He did nothing in Latin America but continue the US policy of no further communist nations in the Western Hemisphere.

No, he aided a dictatorship that murdered upwards of 30,000 people using the battle against Communism as an excuse. The United States could have taken plenty of ways to prevent Communism from spreading in Latin America without helping the perpetrators of the Dirty War.

Oh the other hand, I'm also sure that Sci would support a USS Johnson,

Nope. He tried some great stuff, but the Great Society programs failed and he bears responsibility for the lies of Vietnam. Maybe name a shuttle aboard the U.S.S. Martin Luther King Jr. after him in honor of his role in getting the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed, but I wouldn't support naming a ship after him.

USS Roosevelt,

Yes, with reservations. Getting the U.S. out of the Great Depression and leading us through World War II against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire makes him worthy of a ship (just as leading the U.K. against the Nazis makes Churchill worthy of a ship), though the Japanese-American internment order shouldn't be forgotten even as we celebrate what he did right.

USS Carter,

I wouldn't object to it, but I don't think he accomplished anything significant enough to warrant it, either.

USS Clinton,

For his under-appreciated work trying to prevent international crises from developing, I'd probably approve. I'd have some reservations, though -- not the least of which would be that I think his unwillingness to risk American lives on the ground in Kosovo led to a lot of unnecessary Kosovar deaths.

and USS Obama.

We'll see. Insofar as he deserves acclaim for having been the first African-American U.S. President, and insofar as he's made strong efforts to dismantle the neo-imperialistic attitudes that have characterized U.S. foreign policy, sure. We'll see if the choices made during his presidency outweigh those accomplishments in the long run.

The legitimate reason for a USS Cortez was explained. You may still disagree with that assestment, as is your right, but the facts are now on the ground and not really in dispute.. anything else is your political bias showing.

Of course we all have political biases. No one's claiming they don't. The question is, would the Federation's political bias allow for a ship to be named after a given person? I can't believe that the Federation's political biases -- which I would regard as being anti-imperialist and anti-mass murder -- would allow ships named after Hernán Cortés, Christopher Columbus, or Ronald Reagan.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

I would NOT be in favor of an FDR Carter Clinton nor Obama ship name.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I would NOT be in favor of an FDR Carter Clinton nor Obama ship name.

For any specific reasons?

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

FDR: Completely ignored the constitution and did much to destroy it.
Carter: What in God's Red Vulcan did he ever do? And his middle east policy was horrid.
Clinton: He was a custodian president, and didn't do that well. His foreign policy was also horrific.
Obama: he hasn't done a damn thing, in fact what little he has tried to do has been less than constitutional and costly in American lives.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I know there's only been one mention of the USS Roosevelt in Trek, but anyone who has a problem with FDR having a ship named after him could conceivably rationalize the ship as being named after Teddy instead.

Indeed, we really don't know which one it was, do we? Perhaps it was both.

Me, I don't really care which president they pick. I wouldn't have a problem with a ship named after Obama or Clinton, even though I never voted for either. This wishy washy hand wringing political correctness is getting way out of hand.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

I like Teddy, but I too have issues with him.
FDR, if you could separate the horrid GD constitution violating president with the WWII commander in chief I would like that.

 

[Sci]

This wishy washy hand wringing political correctness is getting way out of hand.

Is saying that the Federation shouldn't name ships after people who committed acts of aggressive war and mass murder or after people who helped those people really "wishy-washy hand-wringing political correctness?"