posted
Recently, I learned that one of the starships in Star Trek is named after the Santa Maria, Columbus' flagship in 1492. I began to think about the reasons that the creators of Star Trek would want to name a ship after a ship of a man who decimated an entire tribe of Native Americans. There seems to be an affinity for the Spaniards since the first series-a shuttlecraft is named Columbus. And in later series, there have been two ships named Santa Maria, a ship named Cortez, and a ship named Malinche. The Spaniards who came to America were the first European settlers to practice genocidal warfare against the aborgines who inhabited these lands. Centuries later, the creators of a sci-fi show are honoring these people by having their heroes, a flagship of one of the heroes, and the concubine of Cortez on the names of their ships. And further, in this same sci-fi franchise, genocide is seen as a necessity when the future of an entire nation is threatened. (I do know that the creators allowed the characters to find a cure. This cure was used to heal a friend of theirs. If Odo wasn't a friend of theirs, would they have found the cure and saved 'him' and his race?) My concern is that the writers and producers of Star Trek are condoning genocide on limited grounds-national necessity-and condemning genocide when national necessity was not threatened ("Remember", "Memorial"). For those who watch the shows, will they receive the message that genocide can be used as a means to preserve nation and self? And what does this say about us as a people? This is my concern.
posted
I don't think the producers/name-choosers put that much thought in it, they just wanted some cool, deep names. As for condoning genocide, it's not something to be proud of, but in total war any group would prefer the total obliteration of the other side rather than it's own...
------------------ And by the way, I faked all the orgasms.
Leslie Nielsen, in "Room With A View With A Staircase In A Pond"
posted
You have to remember that ST is still a commercial TV show, so a USS Columbus is commercially more attractive than, say, the USS Xiuhtechutli (Mayan God of Fire).
posted
Well, the name "Columbia" is dervied directly from "Columbus"...
------------------ "If the rope is a quarter of a Zeuslength in size, then the Defiant shalt most naturally be seven times the thirty-second part of a Zeuslength?" -Boris Skrbic, 27-Sep-2000
posted
I also wondered about this at one time, too, especially with the Cortez. However, not very many people know that the real Cortez was a butchering conquerer; he certainly was never portrayed in that light when I learned about him and other conquistadores back in elementary school. Conversely, I'm pretty sure that we will never see a U.S.S. Hitler or a Stalin-class starship either, simply because EVERYBODY knows how hideous those men were. I came to the conclusion that there isn't any ulterior motive with starship naming, and that most of these names are randomly applied unless there's a specific reason for the name. I'd bet that if Brannon Braga had his way, I'm sure every ship in Starfleet would be named after a city in Montana.
Of course there's always the cop-out that "Cortez" or "Malinche" is referring not to who we think they are, but to some fictitious future people in the ST universe with the same last names. Yeah, right...
------------------ Homer: "Weaseling out of bets is what separates man from all the other animals...except the weasel."
[This message has been edited by Dukhat (edited September 28, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Dukhat (edited September 28, 2000).]
posted
Why fictitious? It's not as if the dude who sailed to SA was the ONLY Cortez EVER born. And wasn't there a Malinche somewhere in Trek? That guy that was wounded and subsequently died in "The Ship", maybe? Dying in an operation like that might just warrant a ship named after you. Especially with 'Fleet's thousands of ships, as they gotta get names somewhere.
And for all we know, the Columbus could have been named after the city in Ohio.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
posted
Good grief, the breast-beating self-flagellation of PC rears its ugly head.
Perhaps to make up for it, we can name a ship the USS White Oppressor, or something.
Geez, I mean shese ships are named for explorers. Jerks, maybe, but still explorers. Sure, we need some ships named after Zheng He (China to Africa, Arabia, and India, 1405-1433) and other folks like him, but of course, the USA people whom the show is primarily made for might not find those names as easily recognizable (or pronouncable).
It's not a deliberate attempt to render irrelevant what happened to the Native American populace.
And virtually everyone sensible outside of Section 31 found their actions as reprehensible as we did. Sure, the Federation Council may not have wanted to give the Founders the cure, and that was wrong, but the reason is understandable. They were scared. There was a good chance that they were all going to be wiped out at any time. And in that situation, one rule applies: "Better you than me."
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited September 28, 2000).]
posted
I've got an urge to go listen to "Politically Correct" by SR-71 ...
------------------ Jeff's Webcam *** From the dawn of toys we came, living secretly among your cherished treasures, moving through the toy chests, until the time of the Gathering, when those who remain will battle for the prize. In the end, there can be only one ... LEGOLANDER! *** Gore/Lieberman 2000
posted
One might want to think of this in the 24th century context. Perhaps by that time, Columbus' exploits are no big issue? After all, people generally don't associate Queen Victoria or Julius Caesar with the misery they wrought when they no longer have to live with the consequences. A world "de-Columbized" by all the good we see in TNG might not care much about what went wrong back in the early 1500s and plagued us until the mid-2000s, if it's all in the distant past.
Note that a major starship is also named after the Soviet general Zhukov, the man who won WWII in Europe. Considered controversial at best, Zhukov probably had far more lives on his conscience than ol' Chris (although most of those were by proxy of Stalin and his "strategic decisions", of course). It can also be argued that Zhukov was elemental in the creation of the Soviet sphere of influence in Europe, and thus to blame for the eventual fates of East European nations.
But Zhukov also beat Hitler (or at least the forces lead and symbolized by Zhukov beat those lead and symbolized by Hitler). What *would* a 24th century historian think of him? Would Zhukov and Churchill and Bismarck and Victoria and Columbus and Genghis Khan pale in comparison to some post-20th-century nefarious figure and thus be rehabilitated or forgotten?
That apart, Santa Maria IMHO is a perfectly good ship name, unless the catholic faith for some reason has been demonized in the 24th century. And one could argue that the ship should be named "USS Ship Named Santa Maria" if the vessel of Columbus were to be indicated - just like the USN can't have a ship named USS Corpus Christi but must use "USS City of Corpus Christi" to avoid religious controversy.
posted
I have read your posts and I thank you for your opinions. Some responses I have. First, I am not in favor of political correctness. I think the movement is an overreaction to the criticisms uttered by minority communities in our country. Second, I am troubled by the responses I have received on this forum and at another forum. I feel that there is both a moral and legal obligation that people should take to resolve differences of opinion over an issue or issues. Genocide is not a way to resolve differences. The process is a means to erase the differences and an ethnicity ("race") without solving the issues. From reading the responses, I feel that some of you feel that genocide can be a solution. My mother and I were having a discussion about the Shoah ("Holocaust"). My mother is of the opinion that the Shoah will be remembered by communities and nations for centuries to come as a terrible tragedy not to be repeated. I am of the opinion that the Shoah will be remembered by the Jews, just as they remember the destruction of the Second Temple and the dispersal of their people from Israel, for this is a very personal and emotional event for them. Furthermore, I feel that the non-Jews of the world will come to remember less the events of the Shoah, just as they don't tend to remember the destruction of the Second Temple or the dispersal of the Jews, and will allow a second Shoah to occur. This Shoah may involve the Jews or another ethnicity. After reading the responses, I feel that the process of community forgetfulness is occuring. In several hundred years, there may be yet a ship bearing the name Stalin or Hitler. The community who built those ships will view the men as heroes just as the Mongolians view Genghis Khan as a hero or the Romanians view Vlad the Impaler as a hero. This is a natural process of humanity. There have been many ethnic cleansings in the past, of which I am sure that many are not recorded, and there will be many in the future. And I fear that if humanity does travel to the stars, that humanity will do genocide in the spirit of planetism or some other cause. Star Trek, by depicting a future society of humans, does argue that humans will conduct genocide in the spirit of galactic nationalism and will celebrate men who were responsible for the deaths of thousands and whole ethnicities.
My concern is simply this-Star Trek accepts genocide as a natural progression of humanity's need to survive and that those who did the criminal act should be praised for attempting to save the nation. And if another nation of non-humans engages in this activity, they are criminals and should be tried for their crimes. If you notice at the end of DS9, the Federation scientists who grew the virus against the Founders were never caught and tried as war criminals. Instead, the female Founder was tried as a war criminal for the war and the deaths of tens of millions.
I heard that Star Trek reflects our society. In this instance, I agree. Recently, our nation had the oppurtunity to sign a document that would have created a war crimes tribunal at the UN. We declined. Our country is very willing to try international war criminals for their alleged abuses of human rights in war, yet when faced with abuses by the military and other agencies of the US government will dismiss the charges as trivial and say that the event is a result of national necessity. This is not true for all events, just a majority of them.
posted
Did you, by any chance, watch Independence Day?
Would you condemn (Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum's characters) for their actions aboard the alien mothership, which almost certainly ended with the annihilation of the alien species? Even though the operative motive was preventing the genocide of our OWN?
Is a FAILED attempt at genocide (and remember not one Founder is known to have actually died) morally equivalent to the real thing on Cardassia? Possibly, I don't know.
Is surrender to an obviously genocidal species (The Founders, or have we so quickly forgotten the Quickening virus) preferable? I doubt it.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Printer-friendly view of this topic
