USS Cortez? Really?

[DevilEyes]

So much straw going around.

Hitler was abborent even in his time. Cortez was not. Simple as that, really. "Product of his time" means that the moral deficiencies of a person were common to people of that time. As the risk of continuing that Godwinning going on, is it really THAT hard to see the difference? Hitler and his actions wouldn't have been welcome in humanity in most periods of history. Cortez was a conquerer, yes, but also liberated what is now Latin American from the evil of the Aztecs.

To deNazify this a little, we could see a USS Julius Ceasar, but a USS Caligula would be obviously out of the question. We all know that Julius was far from a perfect role-model, particularly when applied to the moral standards of 2009. Caligula was never accepted as a hero, for obvious reasons.

Along that vein, we likely won't see a USS Pol Pot, or USS Stalin, or even a USS Lenin. But a USS Goberchev? Even a USS Kruschev could be possible. Of course, we DID get the USS Soyuz and USS Gagarin, so it's not like the Soviet Union is being ignored anyway.

Caligula is not a good comparison to Hitler at all. Caligula was an emperor by right of birth, and everyone knew he was batshit crazy. It's not like he ever had supporters in the right sense of the word, or that he represented any kind of ideology, or was adored by the multitude.

Hitler became the chancellor by legal means, he had a lot of supporters, and when you say "he was abhorrent even in his time", the next question is obviously: to whom? He was to some... not to some others. If he hadn't been popular in Germany, he wouldn't have gotten to be the leader in the first place. And not just among ordinary or uneducated people - just as there were many German intellectuals who were anti-Nazis, there were also quite a few who embraced Nazi ideology. (German medical community, for instance - and I'm not talking just about Mengele here - contributed a lot to the genocide, developing the theories about Jews as an ill, degenerate, inherently criminal and sexually deviant race, comparable to germs and parasites, who need to be "eradicated" for the health of the nation.) I am sure that many Germans would have told you back then that he was a great man, if you had asked them when he was alive - before the end of the war, Nuremberg trials, the truth about the Holocaust became known. He was also most probably not abhorrent to his allies, or supporters of fascists/Nazism in any other countries - at the time when fascism was certainly not a universally condemned ideology as it was after WW2... And before the war, you would have found quite a few Hitler sympathizers in the countries that later became his enemies in WW2. In UK, King Edward VIII was a known Nazi sympathizer, and after his abdication, he and his wife visited Germany as honored guests during WW2 and he even met personally with Hitler. US Senator Joseph Kennedy and aviator hero Charles Lindbergh were the more famous among those Americans who were strongly against USA going to war with Hitler's Germany and who were quite sympathetic to some aspects of Nazi Germany, especially since they were anti-semitic themselves (Lindbergh changed his mind years later, after a tour of concentration camps). Heck, Hitler didn't even found the National-Socialist party (German Workers' Party, as it was known) - he was its 55th member, who was impressed with party founder's Anton Drexler's ideas, and quickly became a leader because of his oratory skills. Hitler didn't invent nazism on his own (apart from changing his party's name and therefore being responsibl for the word itself), most certainly didn't invent fascism which had developed in Italiy; and as for rampant anti-semitism, that one was centuries older and much more widely spread. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Created and published in Russia in 1903.

Hitler was no fluke or anomaly, he was very much a product of his time that gave rise to fascism and nazism - and to claim that he was just a madman hated and abhorred by everyone would be to falsify history.

 

[Kegg]

There is a certain amount of flexibility that's allowed, sure. But then you have to compare the character's significant contribution to history. Lenin gave us the Soviet Union, but that's it, really. He merited very little in overall contributions. Cortez, at least, was a bona-fide explorer and warrior.

That's it?

What sort of logic is that? The Soviet Union was a big deal, and Lenin was instrumental in the creation of it. It seems sort of absurd to suggest that he didn't play an important role in history.

My flexibiliy comment really refers to the lack of ironclad boundaries. We don't have an agreed list of 'good' or 'bad' guys in history, and whether or not certain major figures fall into one or the other category (or in this argument, whether they're important or inconsequential) is something we could hash over to no end and little point.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

cortez conquered people armed with sticks, I don't think he should be celebrated as anything. vastly overrated

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think he was was more interested in "thars gold in them thar hills" than "what's over that hill?"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If I was lame enough to Gary Stu my own personal tastes into historical figures revered by the Federation, the USS Ronald Reagan would be the third ship of the Oliver North class prison barge.

Well, North has been mentioned (indirectly) twice on Trek, and neither in a good way:

- In "Encounter at Farpoint", when Q appears as a Marine, he wears a uniform and insignia identical to North's.

- ST VI. Colonel West. Get it? "West"/"North"....

 

[Myasishchev]

You know, you see people named North, West, and East, but you hardly ever hear of a Mr. South.

 

[Kegg]

Nothing a quick googling won't fix.

 

[Vance]

What sort of logic is that? The Soviet Union was a big deal, and Lenin was instrumental in the creation of it.

At the end of the day, the Soviet Union was a cancer on the history of mankind. Lenin, as its creator (and offered literally nothing else to the world), should be celebrated for that? Just because it's important in history doesn't automatically make it good, after all.

Perfect should not be the enemy of good, nor should all things be celebrated just because nothing can be perfect.

 

[Kegg]

At the end of the day, the Soviet Union was a cancer on the history of mankind. Lenin, as its creator (and offered literally nothing else to the world), should be celebrated for that? Just because it's important in history doesn't automatically make it good, after all.

All I'm saying is it's important in history. You can't really trivialize him next to Cortez in that regard; and who is to say that the Soviet Union was evil but the Spanish Empire was not? (You, of course, and I, and anyone who utters: But such is the internet.)

 

[Horga'hn]

At the end of the day, the Soviet Union was a cancer on the history of mankind.

Not that Yuri Gagarin was significant or anything.

 

[Vance]

Not that Yuri Gagarin was significant or anything.

I knew that as soon as I said that, I could count on someone to defend the Soviet Union... And since you're willing to do that, I guess Cortez, et al, are all right then.

Happy Thanksgiving, comrade. :P

 

[Horga'hn]

Glory for great strength of Mother Russia, capitalist swine!

Seriously, I realise that the Soviet Union was not exactly Utopia but the implication that it offered nothing positive to mankind whatsoever is just plain dishonest.

I mean, come on. The first man in space? The first space station? I find it difficult to believe that these would be disregarded by our space-faring descendants on the basis of the USSR's flaws.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

While I understand the controversies of throwing myself into a debate about modern politics, I do tend to Horga'hn that the Soviet Union at least had a contribution to history that the Federation would recognize (and now here is where I try to steer away from modern politics). One thing the Federation certainly honors are early space pioneers. The NX-class, for example, is named after the space shuttles. Therefore, it would certainly make sense that Soviet cosmonauts would have ships named after them. Now if you want to say that there's no USS Lenin or USS Stalin, that would certainly make sense (Stalin, definitely, has too much of a controversy, although there have been plenty of historical state builders who are recognized as long as enough time has passed since their death).

 

[DevilEyes]

Not that Yuri Gagarin was significant or anything.

I knew that as soon as I said that, I could count on someone to defend the Soviet Union... And since you're willing to do that, I guess Cortez, et al, are all right then.

Happy Thanksgiving, comrade. :P

Gagarin literally went where no man had gone before.

Cortez did not. Neither did Columbus. They just went where some other people already lived to conquer the land for the Spanish monarchy and exploit its resources.

 

[UssGlenn]

Cortez did not. Neither did Columbus. They just went where some other people already lived to conquer the land for the Spanish monarchy and exploit its resources.

hold it, right on Cortez, not quite on Columbus. The place he arrived had people but the journey to get there (across that wide part of the Atlantic) had never been done before.

 

[DevilEyes]

Cortez did not. Neither did Columbus. They just went where some other people already lived to conquer the land for the Spanish monarchy and exploit its resources.

hold it, right on Cortez, not quite on Columbus. The place he arrived had people but the journey to get there (across that wide part of the Atlantic) had never been done before.

All right, Columbus should get the credit for the journey, but not for "discovering" America, as they used to say. But I still don't see what Cortez did that 24th century Federation would particularly need or want to honor him for.

 

[Sci]

So much straw going around.

Hitler was abborent even in his time. Cortez was not.

Tell that to his victims.

Simple as that, really. "Product of his time" means that the moral deficiencies of a person were common to people of that time. As the risk of continuing that Godwinning going on, is it really THAT hard to see the difference? Hitler and his actions wouldn't have been welcome in humanity in most periods of history. Cortez was a conquerer, yes, but also liberated what is now Latin American from the evil of the Aztecs.

Dude, replacing one oppressor with another is not any form of "liberation."

I'm not arguing whether or not Hernán Cortés was as evil as Hitler, because it doesn't matter. Where-ever we want to put him on the scale of relative evil, the simple fact remains that the values Cortés stood for are values that the Federation has rejected, and that the Federation would only name a ship after him if they had somewhere along the line forgotten what he had done to the Aztecs (or had the history of what he did suppressed).

To deNazify this a little, we could see a USS Julius Ceasar,

I could not! A man who undermined Rome's constitutional republic and replaced it with a perpetual dictatorship? And Caesar wasn't even typical of his time period -- plenty of Romans opposed his rule and his undermining of the Roman constitution, which is why he was assassinated. And all that is to say nothing of his genocidal wars.

Not that Yuri Gagarin was significant or anything.

I knew that as soon as I said that, I could count on someone to defend the Soviet Union... And since you're willing to do that, I guess Cortez, et al, are all right then.

I'm not aware of Yuri Gagarin committing any human rights abuses, and certainly none on the scale of Cortés's.

Cortez did not. Neither did Columbus. They just went where some other people already lived to conquer the land for the Spanish monarchy and exploit its resources.

hold it, right on Cortez, not quite on Columbus. The place he arrived had people but the journey to get there (across that wide part of the Atlantic) had never been done before.

Yes, it had -- by the Vikings, and by numerous isolated groups that managed to make it to the New World. (There's a reason they keep finding Roman boats off the shores of South America.) What Columbus did that was new was, he managed to spread word of his journey throughout all of Europe and thereby inspire other Europeans to follow.

 

[UssGlenn]

Cortez did not. Neither did Columbus. They just went where some other people already lived to conquer the land for the Spanish monarchy and exploit its resources.

hold it, right on Cortez, not quite on Columbus. The place he arrived had people but the journey to get there (across that wide part of the Atlantic) had never been done before.

Yes, it had -- by the Vikings, and by numerous isolated groups that managed to make it to the New World. (There's a reason they keep finding Roman boats off the shores of South America.) What Columbus did that was new was, he managed to spread word of his journey throughout all of Europe and thereby inspire other Europeans to follow.

I was aware of the vikings, they crosses the North Atlantic via Iceland which was why I specified the part of the Atlantic that Columbus crossed. However the Romans in South America is completely new information to me. After some quick Googling, you have a link to those roman shipwrecks? The evidence sounds a bit less conclusive to me.

 

[Sci]

hold it, right on Cortez, not quite on Columbus. The place he arrived had people but the journey to get there (across that wide part of the Atlantic) had never been done before.

Yes, it had -- by the Vikings, and by numerous isolated groups that managed to make it to the New World. (There's a reason they keep finding Roman boats off the shores of South America.) What Columbus did that was new was, he managed to spread word of his journey throughout all of Europe and thereby inspire other Europeans to follow.

I was aware of the vikings, they crosses the North Atlantic via Iceland which was why I specified the part of the Atlantic that Columbus crossed. However the Romans in South America is completely new information to me. After some quick Googling, you have a link to those roman shipwrecks? The evidence sounds a bit less conclusive to me.

Pick up a copy of Lies My Teacher Told Me.

 

[Vance]

Seriously, I realise that the Soviet Union was not exactly Utopia but the implication that it offered nothing positive to mankind whatsoever is just plain dishonest.

I already said that I could see a Gagarin and Soyuz (and, indeed, we already do), but that's different than honoring Lenin, nae? You can't point to Lenin specifically and say "here's some positive stuff about him!" since, well, there really isn't all that much... or Stalin.. Kruschev you can get into some debates about, though.