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

[stardream]

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.

Australia held out in an alternative timeline.

 

[Timo]

...I guess the only facet of this left to argue about is whether the World Government really came into being in 2150, or possibly at a later date.

In theory, it might be that Australia joining in 2150 was a necessary step in the establishing of the World Government in 2160, right in time for such a thing to be included in the membership requirements of the United Federation of Planets. Crusher would then wonder whether the World Government would have come to be even if Australia was a late joiner, rather than the unification pioneer she historically was (among with the other old nation states covered by Crusher's "say").

In such a scenario, United Earth would be unrelated to the World Government as such. Perhaps the UE always was but a bit player only representing the western countries and their seemingly very American Starfleet and Military, while the eastern countries had allied under the aegis of Glorious Empire of All Earth, the in-betweens as the European Hegemony over Our Planet, and the southern ones as the One Global Nation?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Shawnster]

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.

For someone that, in my opinion, has a reputation for taking every word in Trek as the sole arbiter of fact, without any room for inference or interpretation, you seem to be inferring and interpreting a bit on this point, Timo. It's quite... fascinating.

Your US/WWII premise is flawed because you are specifically cherry-picking an event that we know happened and using it as a basis for a hypothetical question. This is not a valid comparison because we do not know for historical fact Australia held out of joining the world government until 2150.

You're ignoring the definition of the word "say" in Crusher's comment.

assume something in order to work out what its consequences would be; make a hypothesis.
"let's say we pay five thousand dollars in the first year"
synonyms: suppose, assume, imagine, presume, hypothesize, postulate, posit
"let's say you'd just won a million dollars"

So, in light of this definition, let's reword Crusher's comment. "What if one of the old nation states, say (suppose, assume, imagine, presume, hypothesize) Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in 2150?"

According to the definition of the word, along with the grammar of the sentence, Crusher was pulling Australia out of her butt. She was saying "Let's pretend, assume, suppose Australia was the country to hold out." Australia was a hypothetical choice, not one based on historical events.

Or, maybe it was. The statement is not clear.

I like this idea that the world government went into effect Jan. 1, 2150 at 12:00am GMT. All the nations that signed aboard the world government all became members at that time. Kinda like the 13 colonies were all states at the same time upon the Declaration of Independence. Australia, and the other nations, all may have voted months or years before to join and the treaty of new government simply didn't go into effect until 2150. Nice idea!

 

[drt]

For someone that, in my opinion, has a reputation for taking every word in Trek as the sole arbiter of fact, without any room for inference or interpretation, you seem to be inferring and interpreting a bit on this point, Timo. It's quite... fascinating.

Your US/WWII premise is flawed because you are specifically cherry-picking an event that we know happened and using it as a basis for a hypothetical question. This is not a valid comparison because we do not know for historical fact Australia held out of joining the world government until 2150.

You're ignoring the definition of the word "say" in Crusher's comment.


So, in light of this definition, let's reword Crusher's comment. "What if one of the old nation states, say (suppose, assume, imagine, presume, hypothesize) Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in 2150?"

According to the definition of the word, along with the grammar of the sentence, Crusher was pulling Australia out of her butt. She was saying "Let's pretend, assume, suppose Australia was the country to hold out." Australia was a hypothetical choice, not one based on historical events.

Yes. It's the "say" that makes Australia a hypothetical. If she said "what if Australia failed to join", then it's clear they were the holdout.

 

[1001001]

Threads like this?

This is why bullies take our lunch money.

 

[Timo]

Your US/WWII premise is flawed because you are specifically cherry-picking an event that we know happened and using it as a basis for a hypothetical question. This is not a valid comparison because we do not know for historical fact Australia held out of joining the world government until 2150.

False. There is no significance to whether the events are fictional or factual. The question itself always establishes which parts are to be taken as fact and which are to be speculated upon.

You're ignoring the definition of the word "say" in Crusher's comment.

False. Its only "definition" there is to establish that Australia was but one out of multiple possible old nation states that could have refused to join. Australia and those other nations all would by the wording of the question belong to a group that did decide on membership no sooner than 2150. The "say" in itself does not decrease the odds of Australia having been among the holdbacks.

So, in light of this definition, let's reword Crusher's comment. "What if one of the old nation states, say (suppose, assume, imagine, presume, hypothesize) Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in 2150?"

It is the same comment; nothing has changed.

Australia was a hypothetical choice, not one based on historical events.

Ah, but here comes the beef: it does not matter whether Australia "really" joined or did not. This is irrelevant to the issue of whether Australia might have held back, or even to whether she did "in fact" hold back. Because the very fact that Australia was still in a position to make a choice as of 2150 is the decisive thing - from this we already learn that Australia must have been among the last to make the decision (which the wording unambiguously establishes as having been a "Yea, we'll join", of course). That is why Australia qualifies for "possibly holding back".

It is after this that we move to step two and wonder whether making the choice at such a late date was exceptional or common, i.e. whether Australia (or any other random country out of Crusher's list) really influenced the issue in practice.

An alternate second step would be to surmise whether Crusher would choose a nation that in fact was on the verge of saying "Nay, we won't join", or a nation that definitely wasn't, or a completely random nation. If we knew Crusher well enough, we could home in on the psychologically most likely option of those three. But we don't.

I like this idea that the world government went into effect Jan. 1, 2150 at 12:00am GMT. All the nations that signed aboard the world government all became members at that time. Kinda like the 13 colonies were all states at the same time upon the Declaration of Independence. Australia, and the other nations, all may have voted months or years before to join and the treaty of new government simply didn't go into effect until 2150. Nice idea!

I rather like to think this is exactly how it must have happened, too - but this then directly means that the United Earth that apparently predated 2150 was not the World Government, not even a preliminary stage thereof. Which is fine and well, because we hear of UE (or at least UESPA) in the 21st century already, while the European Hegemony in the 22nd century, much later, was still credited as "the first stirrings" towards the World Government.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tenacity]

while the eastern countries had allied under the aegis of Glorious Empire of All Earth, the in-betweens as the European Hegemony over Our Planet, and the southern ones as the One Global Nation?

And Timo, don't forget the "New United Nations." What if Australia hadn't joined the world government, which of the many "world" governments was Beverly speaking of?

 

[Jedi_Master]

Threads like this?

This is why bullies take our lunch money.

Someone should as Jason Nesbitt about this at the next TechTronics Super Store opening. I am sure he would be willing to help.

 

[Garak]

WTF is an "Australia" anyways?

 

[Jedman67]

WTF is an "Australia" anyways?

It's a type of drink, I believe.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Weirdest line... As I said in another thread - We're a nation of joiners, not separatists.
UE would have to be into some seriously evil shit for Australia not to want in.

This is true but because of the convict past and general shit stirring way of presenting ourselves other people can see Australia as larrikin rebels. Nothing could be further from the truth though, Australia would be falling over themselves to join up. We are sheep.

 

[uniderth]

Threads like this?

This is why bullies take our lunch money.

Yes, but they'd take our lunch money even if we were arguing about REAL history.

Let's face it, Trek fans are all just uncool nerds...except for me of course. *wipes nose with sleeve and adjusts glasses*

 

[Lance]

It's all down to a poorly worded section of the Chronology, which suggested it may have been the case (but never actually said as much.... fans simply filled in the gaps themselves.) There's no evidence to support it on the TV show or movies at all.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

For someone that, in my opinion, has a reputation for taking every word in Trek as the sole arbiter of fact, without any room for inference or interpretation, you seem to be inferring and interpreting a bit on this point, Timo. It's quite... fascinating.

You've got it completey backwards. What @Timo has a reputation for, in my opinion, is identifying and pointing out where there are loopholes in what is seen and said, and making use of them to suggest creative alternative interpretations that go beyond (and sometimes even directly against) the likely intent of the text, without actually contradicting anything in it as presented. In effect, he seems to enjoy reminding us that the "facts" are more flexible and open to interpretation than we think, and that the most obvious or straightforward interpretation is not always the most interesting or "correct" one.

In this case, he is pointing out that even though it is clear that Australia did join the World Government in 2150 and was not the only nation to do so at that time, it is overly reductive to say this means Australia did not hold out longer than any other nations before doing so. And he is right.

 

[Nyotarules]

This is why Vulcans held humanity back for 100 years.

Australia- We'll only sign up if we can ship our prisoners to Mars and sing 'Waltzing Matilda'

UE - Deal

Ambassador Solkar - we cannot let these illogical Terrans leave their solar system. Imagine the chaos to the quadrant

 

[Shawnster]

You've got it completey backwards. What @Timo has a reputation for, in my opinion, is identifying and pointing out where there are loopholes in what is seen and said, and making use of them to suggest creative alternative interpretations that go beyond (and sometimes even directly against) the likely intent of the text, without actually contradicting anything in it as presented.

I choose to believe we're saying the same thing, only from opposite sides. Kinda like two sides of the same coin. Maybe that's just my head canon.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I choose to believe we're saying the same thing, only from opposite sides.

Looking at things as absolute "without any room for inference or interpretation" runs entirely contrary to the spirit of @Timo's explorations, in my experience.

 

[Tenacity]

Australia would be falling over themselves to join up

Try this from another direction, there was a proposal for a world government, but nations were hesitant, someone had to be the first to join. A very small handful of "old nation/states" (including Australia) were the first to join, and provided the leadership for others to follow.

If any of the limited number of initial nations hadn't joined, then the entire idea could have collapsed.

What if one of the old nation states, say Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in twenty one fifty?

 

[Timo]

Exactly - Australia (or another nation state from the lot of unknown numbers) can be one thing or another, as long as her decision really would have made a difference. The factor favoring Australia (or one of the others) being a potential opponent to World Government rather than a pundit who gets the ball rolling is the timing: Earth supposedly is quite united in ENT already, at least in terms of top government.

Sure, there's Royal Navy which supposedly would have remained a career option for Reed ("Minefield"). But then again, there's Royal Mail today, despite the royalty not getting any royalties any longer... For all we know, United Earth has a Royal Navy and a People's Republic Army despite having no nations, these duties having been dished out to those willing to take them on.

Or then Reed continuing the family tradition would not have involved a career in the now defunct Royal Navy, but in its successor organization the UE Naval Command.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[drew]

<iframe width="1366" height="768" src="

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>