Why do so many fans still think it was canon that Australia didn't want to join United Earth?

[Timo]

No. it's not clear. What evidence is there that Australia was one of the last to join the World Government as opposed to Crusher picking a country, any country, at random and she happened to say the first country that came to her mind starting with the letter "A."

What you quoted is crystal clear and cannot be argued: Australia was among those that had not yet joined in 2150. Crusher stated this historical fact in unambiguous terms. There's no squirming out of it, other than decisively taking the stance that Crusher was lying for no good reason, incapable of speaking English, or making an obscure joke.

What you say above is completely beside that point. It merely touches upon the second part of the issue: was Australia one out of a grand total of two nations to join in 2150, or out of 200? If the UE came to existence no sooner than 2150, then Australia was not particularly late to the game; if the UE existed before 2150, it means some other nations must have joined earlier, painting Australia as more reluctant to join than those others. Doesn't mean much if 187 other nations also "held back". Means a lot if just three others did.

Nuances to this: hundreds of nations remaining might still mean a more or less united Earth if those were small nations and the UE covered most of the globe and its population already. Australia represents a big swath of said globe, but might not represent much of the population even in 2150. But saying "no" for decades becomes the less likely, the bigger the players that have already said "yes" and are now looming over the others on this.

Well someone had to be the last to join

And that's the untrue thing: everybody could have joined at the same time. So, did they? The mention of a UE before 2150 might suggest not.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mage]

Crusher stated this historical fact in unambiguous terms. There's no squirming out of it, other than decisively taking the stance that Crusher was lying for no good reason, incapable of speaking English, or making an obscure joke.i

From Memory Alpha:

It was a common belief that Australia was the last state to join the United Earth Government in 2150, but Australia holding out was only used by Beverly Crusher as a hypothetical example when discussing the eligibility of the fractured planet Kesprytt with Jean-Luc Picard in "Attached".

And:

Crusher attempts to alleviate his concerns by pointing out that the Kes inhabit about three-quarters of the planet and present all the characteristics necessary for admission, even if thePrytt are xenophobic and wish to be left alone. If Australia had refused to join the United Earth Government in 2150, Crusher asks Picard, should the people of Earth have been left out of the Federation?

Look at the word 'if'. It was never stated as historical fact. Rewatch the scene if you, I tried finding it on Youtube, no succes.

 

[Timo]

It's a logical error on your part: the "if" in no way decreases the solidity of the fact that Australia had not joined until 2150, from which one of two things follows:

1) Australia stands out as a rare late joiner
2) Australia is among the major group that joined at that date and in no way stands out

That we have a choice between those two things does not remove the fact that as of 2150, Australia had not yet joined the UE World Government. There is no if or but about that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mage]

Yes, but since it was never stated as fact that Australia didn't join, and Crusher's using the 'what if', logic states the hypothetical suggestion behind is what Crusher ment, and wasn't stating historical fact.

 

[Timo]

How is that relevant? There's nothing hypothetical about Australia not having joined by 2150.

What if the United States didn't join WWII in 1941? That's a valid question, but in its formulation it reveals several facts without which the question could not be asked: that WWII took place, that the US had not joined it prior to 1941, and that the US did in fact join WWII in 1941.

Same here, on all counts. All that remains to be debated is whether the joining in question could have taken place earlier than it did. And obviously the nations could have joined the parties in question after those parties came to existence, but not before, which is the issue of chief interest here. Whether they would have joined is a complex hypothetical question; whether they could have is a matter of history/pseudohistory with a clear-cut answer, known/unknown to us.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mage]

What I ment with hypothetical, is that when Crusher brought up Australia not wanting to join, she wasn't quoting historical fact, it was a hypothetical situation. She used the words 'what if'. Simple as that.

 

[The Old Mixer]

And she said, "What if one of the old nation states, say Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in 2150?" If this suggests anything, it's that everyone joined in 2150. Australia as a hold-out is purely a hypothetical example, and Crusher is a doctor, not a historian.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Actually, @Timo, it is not necessarily the case that "as of 2150, Australia had not yet joined the UE World Government," as you said. They could have joined at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2150, for example by treaty. If that had been the case, then there was no moment of 2150 in which Australia did not belong to the World Government, yet it would still be correct to say that Australia joined in 2150.

 

[Mage]

And she said, "What if one of the old nation states, say Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in 2150?" If this suggests anything, it's that everyone joined in 2150. Australia as a hold-out is purely a hypothetical example, and Crusher is a doctor, not a historian.

Thank you! I was looking for that quote, couldn't find it online fast enough.

 

[The Old Mixer]

@CorporalCaptain quoted it upthread.

 

[Mage]

Seriously?? Dude, I feel stupid now.....

 

[DertyNerdy]

The Aussies kept their sovereignty for as long as they could...good on them

The rest probably handed it over to the New World Federation Order without the mandate from the people, you know a bit like it is now with the EU.

 

[Timo]

when Crusher brought up Australia not wanting to join, she wasn't quoting historical fact, it was a hypothetical situation.

But by doing so, Crusher established that Australia had not joined by 2150, which is the only thing that matters: since Australia was in a position to choose between joining and not joining (no matter how hypothetical - perhaps the MACO were holding plasma guns against the heads of the entire government?), we can now debate whether she was in a unique position to do so, i.e. whether she was holding back.

Actually, @Timo, it is not necessarily the case that "as of 2150, Australia had not yet joined the UE World Government," as you said. They could have joined at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2150, for example by treaty. If that had been the case, then there was no moment of 2150 in which Australia did not belong to the World Government, yet it would still be correct to say that Australia joined in 2150.

That much is true, yes. It then just becomes the case of "as of 2149, Australia had not yet joined the UE World Government", with the rest of the argument remaining identical.

The rest probably handed it over to the New World Federation Order without the mandate from the people, you know a bit like it is now with the EU.

There was this European Hegemony thing ("The Price") going at the time, supposedly. So the number of political entities joining in 2150 and giving up their sovereignty might have been something like six anyway, with Australia and, say, Ethiopia just about the only traditional nation states in the entire lot.

Anyway, it's never about the mandate from the people: voting wasn't even invented when most of the nations of today were decided upon.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mage]

But by doing so, Crusher established that Australia had not joined by 2150, which is the only thing that matters: since Australia was in a position to choose between joining and not joining (no matter how hypothetical - perhaps the MACO were holding plasma guns against the heads of the entire government?), we can now debate whether she was in a unique position to do so, i.e. whether she was holding back.
Timo Saloniemi

Look at the quote that was posted a few posts above this one. Everyone Crushers says is hypothetical. If I were to now say that, what if the US never joined WWII, it doesn't suddenly make it fact..... There is nothing in the way she said it that makes it a fact.

EDITED TO SAY
Just for shits and giggles, I just had my girlfriend (who teaches English in Dutch highschool) look at Crusher's exact quote from above. Her first reaction was, and I quote: "The sentence fragments 'what if', 'say' and 'had' all indicate that this is an event in the past tense that did not in fact take place, but might have."

 

[Timo]

You don't seem to understand anything about the nature of "what if"! The way the US/WWII question was posed by me, there was no avoiding of the related facts. The way you pose the somewhat different question still leaves no wiggle room about the US and WWII existing and the US joining WWII. For each "what if", there's only a certain number of things left to fiction and a certain number of things consequently asserted as fact so that the fiction could be considered in the first place.

So no, not "everything" Crusher says is hypothetical. That would be absurd, and would simply make Picard roll his eyes: "What? What is this 'Australia' you speak about? What 'World Government'? There's no verb 'to join' in the English language! Earth doesn't actually have 'years', and surely you understand that the number 2150 doesn't exist for real. Perhaps you should go and lie down and pop some of those pills of yours?"

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mage]

You don't seem to understand anything about the nature of "what if"! The way the US/WWII question was posed by me, there was no avoiding of the related facts. The way you pose the somewhat different question still leaves no wiggle room about the US and WWII existing and the US joining WWII. For each "what if", there's only a certain number of things left to fiction and a certain number of things consequently asserted as fact so that the fiction could be considered in the first place.

So no, not "everything" Crusher says is hypothetical. That would be absurd, and would simply make Picard roll his eyes: "What? What is this 'Australia' you speak about? What 'World Government'? There's no verb 'to join' in the English language! Earth doesn't actually have 'years', and surely you understand that the number 2150 doesn't exist for real. Perhaps you should go and lie down and pop some of those pills of yours?"

Timo Saloniemi

I was editing my post when you replied. Take a look at it again.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

It was purely a hypothetical counterfactual with regard to Australia or another nation-state not joining in 2150. It is fairly clear that by the end of 2150 all the nations-states including Australia had joined this World Government. @Timo's point though, which is a good one, is that it is not entirely clear whether the entity known as the World Government—capitalized as a proper noun as per the script of "Attached," not merely a generic term—existed at all before 2150, which it could have.

In "Up The Long Ladder" Picard cites the European Hegemony, "a loose alliance formed in the early part of the 22nd century" as "the first stirrings of world government." (That's the line as he says it in the aired episode. The script in fact says "it was the first step toward a world government," making it seem that it was not here intended by the writer to be a proper noun. But the way Stewart actually delivers it, when taken in context of "Attached," makes it possible to interpret it as "World Government.")

Hypothetically, the Eurpoean Hegemony could have combined with some other nations in, say, 2140 to form this so-called World Government, with the rest joining it over the next decade until the last of them (among which was Australia) did so in 2150. This would not contradict anything. It is not explicit in the dialogue of "Attached" that all nation-states joined the World Government together at the same time, in 2150. (That may very well have been the intended meaning, but there's enough wiggle room to interpret it a different way.) Again, that's what @Timo has been trying so hard to get across.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Oh, and the other thing he very rightly pointed out earlier is that there are some references to "United Earth" which significantly predate 2150. I posted a summary and some thoughts about that matter in another thread, which I'll just quote here rather than typing them up all over again, because I'm falling asleep. Please forgive the repetition of some of the information above.

There are some other interesting little tidbits scattered through TNG on this subject.

As per "Encounter At Farpoint" there were the New United Nations by 2036, abolished by 2079 along with "all United Earth nonsense" according to Q's "very, very accurate" simulation of one particular "post-atomic horror" court of that year, location unspecified but appearing Asiatic. (The "more rapid progress" that led to this would appear to be Q's cynical way of referring to WWIII—the script establishes his appearance earlier in the episode as a drug-controlled soldier representative of such as that of "a military officer from the mid 21st century wars"—a decade after which there were "few governments left" as per First Contact. Perhaps Q's kangaroo court was affiliated with the Eastern Coalition also mentioned there?)

In "The Royale" it is implied that the United States of America and NASA existed at least up to the same year, 2079, so it would seem that might have been one of the "few" that survived the war (albeit likely not with extensive infrastructure intact).

Then in the early 22nd century came the European Hegemony, a "loose alliance" which represented "the first stirrings of world government" according to "Up The Long Ladder." (Given the other references to some earlier form of abolished "United Earth" we could interpret that Picard specifically meant the particular world government—intriguingly capitalized as a proper name, World Government, in the script to "Attached"—that would culminate in the United Earth of the 2150s.)

Yet we do have the United Earth Space Probe Agency launching Friendship One in 2067. (It may well also be the same "Space Agency" that launched S.S. Conestoga to Terra Nova a couple years later, by which time Earth colonies already existed on the Moon, Mars, and some asteroids within the Solar system. Of course, it's possible that some of the latter were private ventures like the Orpheus Mining Colony established just over two decades later. One wonders into which category the S.S. Valiant falls as well.)

I suppose it could make sense in light of Troi's FC line, "it unites humanity in a way no one ever thought possible when they realize they're not alone in the universe," that such activities were at the forefront of the recovery from WWIII while certain other areas lagged behind. Perhaps the name needn't be taken to imply that there yet was any government called "United Earth" at the time of its initial establishment, but rather as simply denoting a lack of national distinctions in its aegis, like its predecessor the International Space Agency that launched Ares IV in 2032 (as contrasted with NASA, which cooperated with the ISA on that mission but was still independently launching its own in 2037 with the Charybdis). Perhaps UESPA was an organization that sought to draw together and pool the resources of whatever remnants of the national space programs survived the war along with Cochrane's new technology (and probably with some reserved and reluctant aid from the Vulcans as well). In other words, maybe UESPA didn't follow from a United Earth at all, but rather the reverse.

 

[stardream]

I think some held onto the idea because it was refreshing to see some other country apart from the USA causing problems.

What if The Republic of Texas had decided to remain independent? Would the USA still exist? Is that a fact?

 

[Nyotarules]

Only trekkies can argue about a fake historical incidence...
And what if Australia in the TNG Star Trek universe joined UE in 2150 what is the big deal if they chose to hold out? ENT retcon that there was no Federation in 2150 anyway. So even if they did not join UE in 2150 there was no Federation for Earth to worry about joining.