So much for our petty differences being erradicated in the Star Trek future

sparkthatbled

I was watching the Voyager episode "Threshold" when i noticed this line from Janeway:

Well, good luck, Mr. Paris. If this works, you'll be joining an elite group of pilots. Orville Wright, Neil Armstrong, Zefram Cochrane - and Tom Paris.

I stopped for a second and thought "Shouldn't that be Orville Wright, Yuri Gagarin, Zefram Cochrane and Tom Paris?"




I wouldn't be rewatching old episodes to the point of over-analysing them if there was some good quality new Trek around...

nyarlothothep

Well he did land on the moon but she should've mentioned Gagarin aswell, the Federation is basically the US in space so it's not unexpected that it's Anglo-US centric.

Cookie_Monster

And what about Wilbur?
Or Mayweather - first warp 5 wasn't he?

davefromcanada

It absolutely should have been "Orville Wright, Yuri Gagarin, Zefram Cochrane and Tom Paris". It was a list of first flights, not a list of some first flights and a landing someplace. If they really, really, really, wanted a list of only people from the USA they could have used Chuck Yeager instead, as it would've been more appropriate anyways.

I like Star Trek, but every time they show their amerocentric side it irks me. It seems to go against the thesis of the franchise, and more annoyingly, the writers probably don't even realize they are doing it.

degrassinoel

Surprised Chuck Yeager wasn't mentioned in that either - first man to break Mach 1

Indricotherium

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Well he did land on the moon but she should've mentioned Gagarin aswell, the Federation is basically the US in space so it's not unexpected that it's Anglo-US centric.

Is it?

I feel it has much more in common with aspects of the Soviet Union, and British Empire, than it does with the United States.

Indricotherium

Indricotherium wrote: »

Is it?

I feel it has much more in common with aspects of the Soviet Union, and British Empire, than it does with the United States.

No it doesn't and all your lonely posts to the counter don't prove otherwise

Indricotherium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it doesn't and all your lonely posts to the counter don't prove otherwise

On face value, which is as deep as you appear to interpret what is played on screen, the federation is an egalitarian, peaceful, democratic, socialist paradise.

Nothing could be further from the United States.

I don't think a single one of those terms could be applied to the United States.

Indricotherium

Indricotherium wrote: »

On face value, which is as deep as you appear to interpret what is played on screen, the federation is an egalitarian, peaceful, democratic, socialist paradise.

Nothing could be further from the United States.

I don't think a single one of those terms could be applied to the United States.

Yet, as usual you use a potentially good argument to further your tiresome view of the Federation as an all consuming/assimilating conquering military empire. The comparison to the British Empire or Soviet Union is immediately telling of where you wish to drag the discussion.

Makes one wonder if you even like the show and Roddenberry's repeatedly stated ideas

Myrddin

Indricotherium wrote: »

On face value, which is as deep as you appear to interpret what is played on screen, the federation is an egalitarian, peaceful, democratic, socialist paradise.

Nothing could be further from the United States.

I don't think a single one of those terms could be applied to the United States.

I agree, but you seem to delight in portraying the impression that the Federation is a malevolent, totalitarian regime by citing a handful of bad examples, while ignoring the plethora of examples that point to the contrary. The narrative of Star Trek is quite clear, Roddenberry's vision was one where mankind has put its differences aside, eradicated war, hunger, and poverty, and headed out into the stars - not for conquest, but in peace, exploration, and diplomacy. Yes there are examples where this vision is put to the test, and others where it is broken entirely by a selfish/rogue officer, or hard decisions to be made like the Cardassian DMZ (which was to diffuse a war), but there's countless more examples in canon which dictate otherwise.

You actually miss the bigger message of the stories I find, by applying faulty assumptions, ignoring contrary evidence, and pushing a seemingly anti-social agenda on top of what's being shown on screen. Don't bother throwing examples at me of the evil Federation, because we've been there before, I genuinely believe you miss the point in many of these stories (they're usually to give a cast member something to fight against, portraying the human condition type stuff).

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

Makes one wonder if you even like the show and Roddenberry's repeatedly stated ideas

In fairness, he's absolutely spot on...when you watch the mirror universe episodes

endacl

*nerd hat on*

They shouldn't really have referenced Armstrong at All. Although all three crew were 'pilots', and supremely qualified, experienced and capable ones, on the Apollo 11 crew, Aldrin was the LM pilot, and Collins was the CM pilot.

Armstrong was the mission commander. His role was not to 'pilot', although he undoubtedly did.

Indricotherium

endacl wrote: »

*nerd hat on*

They shouldn't really have referenced Armstrong at All. Although all three crew were 'pilots', and supremely qualified, experienced and capable ones, on the Apollo 11 crew, Aldrin was the LM pilot, and Collins was the CM pilot.

Armstrong was the mission commander. His role was not to 'pilot', although he undoubtedly did.

At the very least she should have mentioned a woman pilot.

endacl

Indricotherium wrote: »

At the very least she should have mentioned a woman pilot.

The obvious choice did go and get herself lost...

IvySlayer

In the Enterprise intro is there any footage of Russian achievements? That always annoyed me!

Also why didn't they just all go back home using the warp 10 thingy and then the Doctor could have restored them from the lizard things they turn into?

Indricotherium

endacl wrote: »

The obvious choice did go and get herself lost...

Valentina Tereshkova?

degrassinoel

endacl wrote: »

The obvious choice did go and get herself lost...

after she made history a few times..

But yeah, she wouldn't have mentioned Earhardt as she got her own episode in voyager anyway, she didnt get lost, she was abducted by rock 'n roll lovin' aliens

Indricotherium

degrassinoel wrote: »

after she made history a few times..

But yeah, she wouldn't have mentioned Earhardt as she got her own episode in voyager anyway, she didnt get lost, she was abducted by rock 'n roll lovin' aliens

I wonder what the probability of bumping into stuff from earth is if you just fly off randomly into space. Quite high in ST world.

degrassinoel

billions to 1 would probably be optimistic - but it makes for a decent storytelling adventure

Antar Bolaeisk

IvySlayer wrote: »

In the Enterprise intro is there any footage of Russian achievements? That always annoyed me!

Also why didn't they just all go back home using the warp 10 thingy and then the Doctor could have restored them from the lizard things they turn into?

There's some non-American references, Da Vinci's drawings, the small boat and the HMS Enterprize (maybe the ISS), nothing Russian however that I could see. Everything else is very American centric.

There's also only one reference of a woman, that being Amelia Earhart.

DubTony

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

And what about Wilbur?
Or Mayweather - first warp 5 wasn't he?

Mayweather hadn't done it yet. Well - he had. But he hadn't.
You see. There's the problem with doing prequels, right there.

Indricotherium wrote: »

Valentina Tereshkova?

Amazing that the Star Trek people missed Jacqueline Cochran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Cochran

Maybe it's too corny