Why was the Federation created?

[Sci]

Personally, I think reconciling all the differing references makes for a much more interesting universe. Retconning it all away with a wave of the metaphorical hand is just boring.

As do I. But the producers at the time, not so much. And IIRC, that was the question.

And not just that, but, for my money, there's something deeply disturbing about a Federation that's so segregated that its starships are divided by Member State. The Federation is supposed to be an integrated, egalitarian democracy where all species are treated equally, not an apartheid pseudo-democracy. The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 should no more be an "Earth ship" -- except in the eyes of ignorant non-Federates who inaccurately equate all things Federation with all things Human -- than the U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65 is a Virginian ship.

 

[Wingsley]

^ That's not what has been proposed in this thread. The notion of sponsorship to join "the Club" (the Federation Council) isn't about segregation. It's about each major member-world contributing to the Starfleet pool and fostering interstellar relationships through reciprocity. If there's one thing that was made clear from TOS, ranging from the driven nature of starship commanders to the obnoxious nature of Federation commissioners and bureaucrats, it is that, despite the high failure/mortality rate of colonies and deep space expeditions, the Federation's industriousness (especially in space exploration) is breathtakingly effective. Even when they stumble and fall, they get back up, learn from their mistakes, and "live long and prosper". These folks are something beyond driven.

The inter-relationships between Federation worlds and their constituent societies is obviously not the same as either the relationship between individual U.S. states or the U.N. It's something else entirely. Despite the trade and solid alliance between these worlds that resulted in Starfleet, they are still separate worlds in separate star systems, with very stark cultural and political differences. It isn't that the starships are segregated, it's that the member-worlds are light-years apart. Each member-world has to pool its resources and prove itself to the Federation because they are expected to contribute in order to make the collective effort continue. That explains the tensions betwen Earth, Vulcan, Tellar, Andor and possibly others. There's a (sort of) friendly rivalry there. "Journey to Babel" is a beautiful example of this. Why should they admit Coridan to the Federation? What do they offer? Something of value? Dilithium crystals! But more than that, is Coridan advanced enough to contribute to the Federation, to join "the Club"? Not so clear.

"Journey to Babel" and "Shadows of P'Jem" illustrate this What do you have to offer? atmosphere perfectly.

And this atmosphere obviously started in TOS, not post-TOS.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to work out the environmental requirements of a dozen different species? For a five mile long space station like Babylon 5, sure, not much of a strain, but for a ship that has to do more than just sit there, you've got some issues to deal with.

For that, and other similar reasons, it makes a lot more sense for the crew of any ship to be predominantly of the same species. Those crew members of other species would be chosen for their ability to tolerate the environmental requirements of the majority of the crew. A human serving on a ship full of Vulcans had better like warm conditions.

As far as the composition of the fleet, it makes a lot of sense to farm out a lot of the operations to member worlds instead of trying to maintain control over an operation that covers up to 20% of the known galaxy.

 

[Sci]

^ That's not what has been proposed in this thread. The notion of sponsorship to join "the Club" (the Federation Council) isn't about segregation. It's about each major member-world contributing to the Starfleet pool and fostering interstellar relationships through reciprocity. If there's one thing that was made clear from TOS, ranging from the driven nature of starship commanders to the obnoxious nature of Federation commissioners and bureaucrats, it is that, despite the high failure/mortality rate of colonies and deep space expeditions, the Federation's industriousness (especially in space exploration) is breathtakingly effective. Even when they stumble and fall, they get back up, learn from their mistakes, and "live long and prosper". These folks are something beyond driven.

And that's fair enough -- though I would suggest that that doesn't answer the question of why Kirk would call the Enterprise a United Earth ship, as, if part of the requirements of being in the Federation is that a Member State finance the construction of a set number of Starfleet starships and recruit a set number of officers, they'd still not be ships of that Member State but instead ships of the Federation.

The inter-relationships between Federation worlds and their constituent societies is obviously not the same as either the relationship between individual U.S. states or the U.N. It's something else entirely. Despite the trade and solid alliance between these worlds that resulted in Starfleet, they are still separate worlds in separate star systems, with very stark cultural and political differences. It isn't that the starships are segregated, it's that the member-worlds are light-years apart. Each member-world has to pool its resources and prove itself to the Federation because they are expected to contribute in order to make the collective effort continue. That explains the tensions betwen Earth, Vulcan, Tellar, Andor and possibly others. There's a (sort of) friendly rivalry there. "Journey to Babel" is a beautiful example of this. Why should they admit Coridan to the Federation? What do they offer? Something of value? Dilithium crystals! But more than that, is Coridan advanced enough to contribute to the Federation, to join "the Club"? Not so clear.

Well, the political tensions in "Journey to Babel" go way beyond that. Tellar was actively trying to claim Coridan as part of their territory, even though Coridan had been its own independent world just a century before and still had its own native populace and government -- and they were doing that so that they could use Coridan's resources to prop up the Tellarite economy at the expense of other Federation Members. That sort of thing can only be described as an imperialist project, and it led to a state of near civil war in the Federation according to Kirk's opening narration. And, of course, it later turned out that the Orions were trying to encourage that sort of political chaos in order to ensure that the Federation wouldn't be able to start enforcing the law in Coridanite space and thus clamp down on their privacy.

"Journey to Babel" and "Shadows of P'Jem" illustrate this What do you have to offer? atmosphere perfectly.

No, no, no, no, no. "Shadows of P'Jem" has nothing to do with "What do you have to offer us?" "Shadows of P'Jem" is about two local superpowers -- Vulcan and Andor -- fighting a proxy war using local factions as their pawns. It's more of a sort of Vietnam War deal -- Coridan is Vietnam, the Coridanite government is the Saigon government, Vulcan is the U.S., Andor is the U.S.S.R., and the anti-government faction is the Viet Cong. It's a completely different question from that of what a free and sovereign world would be able to offer the Federation in return for membership.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Tellar wasn't trying to claim Coridan. They just didn't want the Federation to move in and interrupt their illegal mining operations.

 

[Sci]

Tellar wasn't trying to claim Coridan. They just didn't want the Federation to move in and interrupt their illegal mining operations.

"Captain 's log, Stardate 3842.4: The interplanetary conference will consider the petition of the Coridan planets to be admitted to the Federation. The Coridan system has been claimed by some of the races now aboard our ship as delegates -- races who have strong personal reasons for keeping Coridan out of the Federation."

It's not explicitly established, but the only race established to be opposed to Coridan's entry that we really get to meet was the Tellarites, who are established to be illegally mining there. So the strong implication is that Tellar was claiming Coridan as their own territory.

 

[Myasishchev]

Personally, I think reconciling all the differing references makes for a much more interesting universe. Retconning it all away with a wave of the metaphorical hand is just boring.

As do I. But the producers at the time, not so much. And IIRC, that was the question.

And not just that, but, for my money, there's something deeply disturbing about a Federation that's so segregated that its starships are divided by Member State. The Federation is supposed to be an integrated, egalitarian democracy where all species are treated equally, not an apartheid pseudo-democracy. The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 should no more be an "Earth ship" -- except in the eyes of ignorant non-Federates who inaccurately equate all things Federation with all things Human -- than the U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65 is a Virginian ship.

On the other hand, it's difficult to ignore the in-universe reality that these are different species who evolved to be adapted in somewhat disparate environments. We're not talking black and white humans, since humans are generally-adapted enough to prosper in the environment that shaped the other. The implication that it might be a matter of prejudice is definitely important enough to talk about, but segregation isn't, in Star Trek, de facto apartheid. It could stem from an empirical inability for one species to work (or live) in an environment another considers normal. This is one of the interesting things about, for example, the Titan novels--the Federation's "anthronormativity" is clearly an omnipresent logistical difficulty. And even in Titan's case, the non-humans are still designed with human physical compactness and general temperature ranges in mind. Afaik there aren't any elephant-sized aliens, or Tholian-like extremophiles, that would utterly be unable to function in a humanoid-built habitat.

Of course, in the case of Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, and Humans, we know there's no such problems involving their collaboration, so the point is somewhat academic.

 

[Timo]

Afaik there aren't any elephant-sized aliens

But if there were (say, the Denebians of Diane Duane), and they had their own ships with unique internal configurations to cope, would we really know?

I mean, it's not as if Starbase 11 or the presidential palace in Paris are configured for elephantine people, either. If these folks are incompatible with humans and near-humans, odds are that we would have failed to see them. It would take a special storytelling vehicle, and not just a special starfaring vehicle, to introduce an "incompatible" species such as the Medusans...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

Afaik there aren't any elephant-sized aliens

But if there were (say, the Denebians of Diane Duane), and they had their own ships with unique internal configurations to cope, would we really know?

I mean, it's not as if Starbase 11 or the presidential palace in Paris are configured for elephantine people, either. If these folks are incompatible with humans and near-humans, odds are that we would have failed to see them. It would take a special storytelling vehicle, and not just a special starfaring vehicle, to introduce an "incompatible" species such as the Medusans...

Timo Saloniemi

For whatever it's worth, we do know from Articles of the Federation that the Palais de la Concorde, the Federation's capitol building, is equipped to handle the needs of Federation Councillors and staff from such non-humanoid species as Gnalish, Sulamid, Horta, Koans, Alonis, Antedeans, Triexians, and Nasat, amongst others.

As do I. But the producers at the time, not so much. And IIRC, that was the question.

And not just that, but, for my money, there's something deeply disturbing about a Federation that's so segregated that its starships are divided by Member State. The Federation is supposed to be an integrated, egalitarian democracy where all species are treated equally, not an apartheid pseudo-democracy. The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 should no more be an "Earth ship" -- except in the eyes of ignorant non-Federates who inaccurately equate all things Federation with all things Human -- than the U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65 is a Virginian ship.

On the other hand, it's difficult to ignore the in-universe reality that these are different species who evolved to be adapted in somewhat disparate environments. We're not talking black and white humans, since humans are generally-adapted enough to prosper in the environment that shaped the other. The implication that it might be a matter of prejudice is definitely important enough to talk about, but segregation isn't, in Star Trek, de facto apartheid. It could stem from an empirical inability for one species to work (or live) in an environment another considers normal. This is one of the interesting things about, for example, the Titan novels--the Federation's "anthronormativity" is clearly an omnipresent logistical difficulty. And even in Titan's case, the non-humans are still designed with human physical compactness and general temperature ranges in mind. Afaik there aren't any elephant-sized aliens, or Tholian-like extremophiles, that would utterly be unable to function in a humanoid-built habitat.

Of course, in the case of Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, and Humans, we know there's no such problems involving their collaboration, so the point is somewhat academic.

Questions about genuine physiological incompatibilities are certainly a fair enough thing to consider. But distinctions in crew makeup made on mere physical incompatibilities are a very different matter from legally dividing ownership and command of Federation starships on the basis of Member race -- the Enterprise may be primarily crewed by Humans, and the Intrepid may be primarily crewed by Vulcans, but they should both be Federation starships, owned directly by the Federation Starfleet and answerable to the Federation government; they shouldn't be seen as an Earth ship and a Vulcan ship, owned and answerable to the Earth and Vulcan governments respectively. That really would be legal apartheid.

 

[T'Girl]

"Captain 's log, Stardate 3842.4: The interplanetary conference will consider the petition of the Coridan planets to be admitted to the Federation. The Coridan system has been claimed by some of the races now aboard our ship as delegates -- races who have strong personal reasons for keeping Coridan out of the Federation."

Coridan is Vietnam

I think Coridon might have been more like Taiwan. Should the Coridan planets be admitted into the Federation (UN)? The Coridan planets are claimed by some races- Tellar (China), races who want to keep it out of the Federation (UN), others support it's admission - Vulcan (America).

It's not explicitly established, but the only race established to be opposed to Coridan's entry that we really get to meet was the Tellarites

The Tellarites were the only vocal opposition aboard the Enterprise, there could have been other starships carrying other ambassadors to Babel. Hopefully there were also representatives from Coridan at Babel.

And not just that, but, for my money, there's something deeply disturbing about a Federation that's so segregated that its starships are divided by Member State. The Federation is supposed to be an integrated, egalitarian democracy where all species are treated equally, not an apartheid pseudo-democracy. The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 should no more be an "Earth ship" -- except in the eyes of ignorant non-Federates who inaccurately equate all things Federation with all things Human -- than the U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65 is a Virginian ship.

NATO member's ships belong to to the fleets of their respected nations, UN peacekeeping forces belong to their various militaries. American national guard units belong to the state governments, even when they are called up for national service they deploy as units, discreet commands. Coalition forces in Iraq would often have their own separate operating areas.

During the episode Court Martial everyone in the bar scene and the court room were humans. Except Spock. All of Kirk's superior officers were Humans. We never saw a non-human Star Fleet admiral until TNG, suggesting at least that in Kirk's time Star Fleet was a human organization. And again, other member would have their own ships too. Perhaps it was a matter of sovereignty, maybe the member worlds didn't want the central government to have it's own fleet.

Each member-world has to pool its resources and prove itself to the Federation because they are expected to contribute in order to make the collective effort continue.

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't the Federation have to prove (continuously) to it's members that it could prove them with what they can't obtain individually? Security, trade, exploration, discourse, knowledge, growth. Potential new members too, the Federation has to sell itself, show that membership is a move forward, many possible new additions might already be a fair size multi-system republics/empires/commonwealths in their own rights. They would have to balance what they would gain vs how much sovereignty they would lose.

 

[Sci]

Coridan is Vietnam

I think Coridon might have been more like Taiwan. Should the Coridan planets be admitted into the Federation (UN)?

No no no. I said that Coridan is like Vietnam in the ENT episode "Shadows of P'Jem," not the TOS episode "Journey to Babel."

And not just that, but, for my money, there's something deeply disturbing about a Federation that's so segregated that its starships are divided by Member State. The Federation is supposed to be an integrated, egalitarian democracy where all species are treated equally, not an apartheid pseudo-democracy. The U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 should no more be an "Earth ship" -- except in the eyes of ignorant non-Federates who inaccurately equate all things Federation with all things Human -- than the U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-65 is a Virginian ship.

NATO member's ships belong to to the fleets of their respected nations, UN peacekeeping forces belong to their various militaries.

NATO and the UN are a defensive alliance and an intergovernmental organization, not federal republics in their own right.

American national guard units belong to the state governments, even when they are called up for national service they deploy as units, discreet commands.

Yeah, but the Federation Starfleet is the Federation Starfleet. As I noted above, the Enterprise was never called an Earth ship (except by ignorant non-Federates) after the writers created the UFP -- it was an obvious retcon. Thereafter, it was always the "Federation starship Enterprise," not "the United Earth ship Enterprise."

And of course, the ultimate evidence for that is found in the films. In ST4, the Enterprise is established to have been Federation property (not United Earth property), and Kirk and Co. stand trial before the Federation President. In ST6, the Federation President is giving orders to Starfleet, not the United Earth Prime Minister. And in DS9's "Paradise Lost," the Federation President is referred to as Starfleet's commander-in-chief.

During the episode Court Martial everyone in the bar scene and the court room were humans. Except Spock. All of Kirk's superior officers were Humans.

Seemingly. On the other hand, any number of them might have been members of non-Human species that look like Humans -- Ardanans, Argelians, Betazoids, Ullians, or any number of other Human-like species known to the Federation. And you're also overlooking the fact that any number of Humans we encounter in Star Trek can be from worlds that declared independence from United Earth and then joined the Federation as separate Member States in their own right -- Humans from Alpha Centauri and Mars, for instance, who may have no real connection to Earth at all except for it being another Federation world.

And on top of that, there's the fact that Spock's status as a Vulcan was never commented upon as being unusual or requiring a unique legal status for him as it would if he were in the armed forces of a foreign state. Furthermore, we know from "Court Martial" and "The Immunity Syndrome" that the Constitution-class starship U.S.S. Intrepid was crewed almost entirely by Vulcans yet had no separate legal status -- it was simply another Federation ship, not a ship of the Vulcan government. And we saw numerous non-Humans in Starfleet in TMP, set only two years after TOS -- and we saw numerous non-Humans in Starfleet in ST09, even in the scenes set aboard the U.S.S. Kelvin, which was set decades before TOS.

Bottom line: All the canonical evidence indicates that the Federation Starfleet is comprised of officers from many species and that it answers to the Federation, not to Earth. The fact that we saw mostly Humans or Human-looking officers in TOS does not constitute evidence that Starfleet in TOS was a United Earth organization.

And again, other member would have their own ships too.

The Ohio Naval Militia has its own ships, too. That doesn't mean that the United States Navy answers to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Each member-world has to pool its resources and prove itself to the Federation because they are expected to contribute in order to make the collective effort continue.

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't the Federation have to prove (continuously) to it's members that it could prove them with what they can't obtain individually? Security, trade, exploration, discourse, knowledge, growth. Potential new members too, the Federation has to sell itself, show that membership is a move forward, many possible new additions might already be a fair size multi-system republics/empires/commonwealths in their own rights. They would have to balance what they would gain vs how much sovereignty they would lose.

It's probably both, really. Worlds aspiring to join the Federation have to prove that they'd be able to meet the UFP's needs and standards, and the Federation would have to prove that it meets their needs and standards.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Someone probably just thought "United Federation of Planets" sounded nicely like "United States of America." It's not even clear that when it was first conceived that it represented a union of human beings with other species; the other planets in it may have been thought to be colonial worlds.

Forbidden Planet featured a "United Planets", and there was no indication in that film that any intelligence other than human beings had been encountered in the cosmos (there was an excised scene in which "Doc" Ostrow explicitedly said as much.

 

[Sci]

Someone probably just thought "United Federation of Planets" sounded nicely like "United States of America." It's not even clear that when it was first conceived that it represented a union of human beings with other species; the other planets in it may have been thought to be colonial worlds.

Though that raises the question of why the writers chose to change the Enterprise's governmental authority to "United Federation of Planets" from "United Earth" (which was established in "The Corbomite Maneuver"). What's insufficiently American-sounding about "United Earth?"

 

[Wingsley]

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't the Federation have to prove (continuously) to it's members that it could prove them with what they can't obtain individually? Security, trade, exploration, discourse, knowledge, growth. Potential new members too, the Federation has to sell itself, show that membership is a move forward, many possible new additions might already be a fair size multi-system republics/empires/commonwealths in their own rights. They would have to balance what they would gain vs how much sovereignty they would lose.

Well, "Journey to Babel" seemed to show us an atmosphere that was the opposite of that. Here's Coridan, being victimized by the Tellarites, wanting to join the Federation. And it seems that Kirk is worried about "open warfare" might "break out between the delegates before the conference begins". Smells like rivalry between Federation member-worlds.

 

[Wingsley]

Someone probably just thought "United Federation of Planets" sounded nicely like "United States of America." It's not even clear that when it was first conceived that it represented a union of human beings with other species; the other planets in it may have been thought to be colonial worlds.

Forbidden Planet featured a "United Planets", and there was no indication in that film that any intelligence other than human beings had been encountered in the cosmos (there was an excised scene in which "Doc" Ostrow explicitedly said as much.

As far as the creative roots of the TOS "Federation", I tend to agree.

 

[Myasishchev]

And of course, the ultimate evidence for that is found in the films. In ST4, the Enterprise is established to have been Federation property (not United Earth property)

Btw, though, isn't that totally freakin' odd? Why is the president presiding over a judicial proceeding? Shouldn't that be, you know, a judge's job?

I mean, I suppose he might have the authority to effect the results we've seen (pardon Kirk and company--if presidential pardon is a power of the office--and then demote Kirk as the commander-in-chief of Starfleet) but the setup is odd, with the legislative and executive branches holding court.

Also incidentally, no mention of Spock needing a special legal status to be part of Earth's Starfleet contingent would be necessary. Spock is almost certainly a UE citizen by birth. Just sayin'.

Anyway, although I'm not sure an EU-like setup in TOS would necessarily be a bad or demonstrably incorrect interpretation, and it could be pretty interesting, I do tend to agree with your conclusions.

 

[Wingsley]

^ The notion of United Earth sponsorship does not conflict with established fact of the Enterprise being a Federation starship. In TOS, the Enterprise would simply be one of Earth's contributions to the fleet.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Okay, howzabout this:

The starships themselves are Federation property, but they're operated by the respective member worlds' own space programs. The crew complement is up to the operating authority, with the condition that the crew operate as Starfleet personnel.

Let's take the case of the Intrepid, and suppose that Vulcan, for whatever reason, decided to secede from the Federation. The crew would have the option of leaving Starfleet for reinstatement in Vulcan's space service, and the Intrepid itself would have to be returned to Starfleet custody (or Starfleet would have to be reimbursed for the Intrepid, which would undoubtedly be immediately renamed something much more Vulcan). Likewise, if Earth pulled out, the crew of the Enterprise would cease to be a Starfleet crew and become UESPA personnel and would have to find themselves a new, non-Starfleet ship.

That work for everyone?

 

[Sci]

And of course, the ultimate evidence for that is found in the films. In ST4, the Enterprise is established to have been Federation property (not United Earth property)

Btw, though, isn't that totally freakin' odd? Why is the president presiding over a judicial proceeding? Shouldn't that be, you know, a judge's job?

Or a Starfleet judge, to be specific.

Yeah, that is a weird setup. I always assumed that it was done that way because between the Klingons screaming for Kirk's head and the exposure of the Genesis technology, Kirk's court-martial was considered such an important event that the President was required to attend. Perhaps this is the result of a non-Earth judicial tradition that the Federation adopted -- maybe the Andorians or Tellarites had a tradition of especially important judicial events being presided over by the head of government or head of state?

Also incidentally, no mention of Spock needing a special legal status to be part of Earth's Starfleet contingent would be necessary. Spock is almost certainly a UE citizen by birth. Just sayin'.

Would he be? I mean, my father was from Michigan before moving to Ohio (just like Amanda was from Earth before moving to Vulcan), but that doesn't mean that I inherited Michigan citizenship. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, my father lost Michigan citizenship upon moving to Ohio. Is it probable that Federation Member State citizenship laws would resemble those of sovereign, independent polities, or is it probable that movement between Member States would be so common that citizenship would be contingent upon where you are currently residing?

Anyway, although I'm not sure an EU-like setup in TOS would necessarily be a bad or demonstrably incorrect interpretation, and it could be pretty interesting, I do tend to agree with your conclusions.

Thankee.

^ The notion of United Earth sponsorship does not conflict with established fact of the Enterprise being a Federation starship. In TOS, the Enterprise would simply be one of Earth's contributions to the fleet.

Then we're back to square one: Why would Kirk have called it a United Earth ship when asked who he and the crew are working for? If the Enterprise is still a Federation starship and it was simply sponsored by United Earth -- and, by the way, how would the Federation get away with preventing making Member States fund the construction of these ships without allowing those ships to answer to the Member State governments rather than the Federation government? -- then logically Kirk would call it a Federation starship rather than an Earth starship.

That's why I say we should just acknowledge that the introduction of the Federation in "A Taste of Armageddon" was a retcon and that we should just pretend he says "Federation" when he says "Earth."

Edited to add:

Okay, howzabout this:

The starships themselves are Federation property, but they're operated by the respective member worlds' own space programs. The crew complement is up to the operating authority, with the condition that the crew operate as Starfleet personnel.

First off, you're being self-contradictory. If the ship is operated by the respective Member State's own space programs, they can't be operating as Starfleet personnel. Starfleet is a Federation institution. You can't be operating as Starfleet if you're actually local, anymore than you can be operating as a Navy officer if you're actually from a State Defense Force; even today, you have to transfer from the regular Army or regular Air Force to a National Guard before you can be in the National Guard.

Even assuming the local space programs would do that, though: Why would the Federation do that? How could they possibly ensure a cohesive, loyal interstellar space force if its ships have divided loyalties? And why would they allow the military of the United Federation to be divided in who they work for?

That would be like the United States Navy allowing its ships to be operated by the State Defense Forces rather than having them all answer to the U.S. Department of the Navy.

The idea of the Federation's Starfleet being so divided in its legal setup is disturbing to me. You can't build up loyalty to the Federation if a crew's loyalties are divided like that. Ultimately, if you're the armed forces, you can only fly one flag at a time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Though that raises the question of why the writers chose to change the Enterprise's governmental authority to "United Federation of Planets" from "United Earth" (which was established in "The Corbomite Maneuver"). What's insufficiently American-sounding about "United Earth?"

It simplified the question of Kirk's jurisdiction over all those colony planets that they visited. Who says that "United Earth" gets to order people who've settled on and built an independent society on Omicron Ceti III? At least an interstellar Federation introduces some ambiguity there.