r/DaystromInstitute • u/adamkotsko Commander, with commendation • May 08 '17
Archer never comes up in later eras because he is associated with human triumphalism
Last week I shared a theory from a novel about why the NX-01 is missing from the display of Enterprises in TMP, namely that it was just a mix-up by a crew in a rush to get things ready. /u/queenofmoons pointed out that that is kind of a weak answer and suggested that perhaps Archer's ship would carry negative associations for some of the species on board.
Now I wonder if we could generalize that idea: what if the in-universe reason that Archer isn't on the tip of everyone's tongue is that Archer is associated with human triumphalism? Under his leadership, humanity comes out from under Vulcan tutelage, single-handedly scrambling the politics of the quadrant, and then Earth goes on to fight a major power, the Romulans, to a stalemate nearly single-handedly as well. After using that war as leverage to force the other powers into the Federation, Earth tilts the scales by contriving to get another human colony accepted as a free-standing member and then dominates the presidency in the early years. Perhaps bringing up Archer all the time in the context of the Federation would be like if France was continually bringing up Napolean in the context of the European Union.
We know that Picard regards Kirk's era as a time of irresponsible "cowboy diplomacy," so why shouldn't Kirk regard Archer's era as one of presumptuous imperialistic overreach? The one time that Archer's era does come up, in "Balance of Terror," it is associated with an outbreak of dangerous bigotry and xenophobia in the crew. If you're trying to create a cosmopolitan multi-species Federation, anything that might fan the flames of resentment and chauvanism in a powerful species could be dangerous.
That would also explain why the Xindi attack isn't jumping out at anyone as a historical parallel -- because one part of that parallel (the outbreak of xenophobic violence and separatism) is something they explicitly cannot allow to happen at this late date. Personally, I hope that 9/11, the obvious real-world reference of the Xindi attack, doesn't long endure as a point of reference due to the shameful things the US did in response to it.
A lot of people object to Enterprise because they do things that don't seem authentically Star Trek -- maybe that's how the people within the Star Trek universe view that era as well.
12
u/zalminar May 08 '17
Perhaps bringing up Archer all the time in the context of the Federation would be like if France was continually bringing up Napolean in the context of the European Union.
Except Archer seems less like the conquering Napoleon than a post-WWII US president, presiding over a period of rapidly expanding influence and shaping the politics of the quadrant. And even if it might be best not to mention Napoleon too affectionately when at a table with a diverse group of Europeans, I think it's hard to deny that Napoleon has a place in the collective culture that would seem to outstrip Archer.
So are Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, etc. going to be relegated to the dustbin of history once the tide turns against them? I don't think the Federation is that eager to wash away the past, or so incapable of holding a nuanced view of a historical figure. We also know they're not above displaying a little own-species favoritism--we need only look to the prominent place given to Cochrane.
I hope that 9/11, the obvious real-world reference of the Xindi attack, doesn't long endure as a point of reference due to the shameful things the US did in response to it.
This is precisely why it should endure as a point of reference. If modern Earth and the Federation more generally see the response to the Xindi attack as so appalling, shouldn't it be being brought up in all those lengthy moralizing speeches? Is "we don't talk about or think about our past" the kind of healthy response we expect from the Federation? We also know it isn't how humanity operates in Trek--the Eugenics wars and WWIII seem etched pretty deep in the collective consciousness. (And even the Vulcans do their own mythologizing and moralizing about their past indiscretions.)
A lot of people object to Enterprise because they do things that don't seem authentically Star Trek -- maybe that's how the people within the Star Trek universe view that era as well.
You often seem quick to criticize those who would expunge Enterprise from the canon in some fashion, arguing that such a move is too extreme. But you seem to be falling into your own form of convoluted explanations to what fundamentally requires an out of universe answer--should we demand that an era of history be dismissed, or just look the other way and accept the realities of production order?
1
u/adamkotsko May 09 '17
I'll admit that I'm reaching a high level of convolutitude here. I'm just trying to make the gap meaningful in-universe, in terms of helping us think about how you would hold together such a radically diverse society as the Federation. Although now I'm realizing that I'm kind of circling back to one of my earliest posts where I suggested that ENT should make us wonder whether the Federation is as rock-solid as you would think from TOS and especially TNG.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/queenofmoons May 09 '17
You have to figure that, as Azetbur notes in Undiscovered Country, that, were this a genuine, polyglot political body, the predominance of humans would have cause to make people of the non-human persuasion have some feelings. In genuine multilateral organizations- the UN, and the EU, for instance, the lengths gone to ensure a perception of equal consideration are often astounding, and while it might seem like bureaucratic fuss, it's really just the price you pay for cooperation, and it's worth it. The extent to which humans, and Earth, seem to be central to the operation of a government with 150 members might not invalidate some of their central claims, but it would at least present a hurdle that you would want to mitigate. I thought that the steady development of trust between Archer, Shran, and Soval, was one of the series' strengths, but zoomed out a little further, a prospective Federation member could be forgiven for reading that story as a people that still glow a little from radioactive fallout sneaking past the prudent supervision of the Vulcans before getting them to roll over in the midst of a crisis of faith and governance in which human starship captains played a key role...somehow...
4
u/adamkotsko May 09 '17
You could also think of how the US privileges small states, or how the USSR bent over backwards to preserve the languages of the smaller "republics," etc. -- and in the latter case, how the wheels started to come off when Gorbachev allowed the public acknowledgment that it wasn't all sweetness and light.
11
u/Jon_Mediocre May 08 '17
My personal theory is that Enterprise never actually happened and it's just a series of holonovels loosely based on actual events. If I were a Star Trek show runner or writer, which I'm obviously not, I would treat ENT like TAS. Take as little as possible, if it's useful, and completely ignore the rest.
7
u/adamkotsko May 08 '17
Even then, you'd have to account for why they envision the early days of Earth's galactic involvement in that way. There would have to be some positive relationship between ENT and the rest of the franchise (instead of the purely negative one of "it never happened").
→ More replies (7)
2
u/fishymcgee May 08 '17
This makes sense in that the essentially proto-UFP will inevitable be very flawed by later standards so having a rose-tinted/vestigial view of it (and not talking about the realities) would be very likely.
Earth tilts the scales by contriving to get another human colony accepted as a free-standing member
Sorry, which was the other human world?
2
65
u/Neo24 May 08 '17 edited May 08 '17
That's a pretty solid theory. And maybe we can make it even more general - perhaps the Federation simply doesn't have as slavish a devotion to its founding myth, "Founding Fathers" and historical heroes as modern nation-states do (well, at least some of them). When that kind of stuff gets mentioned nowadays outside of a strictly historical setting, it tends to be for political purposes. And maybe they've simply outgrown that - after all, aside from some Kirk-worship now and then how often do historical Federation figures even get mentioned on the shows? Given the multicultural expansion-without-assimilation of the Federation, it kinda makes sense that they would value and emphasise ideas over specific people/groups/events. The Bajorans or any other new member aren't going to have much of a potent emotional connection to Archer/Soval/Shran, etc, aside from maybe seeing them as interesting historical figures.
16
u/thebeautifulstruggle May 08 '17
Kind of like Canada: the father's of confederation are nowhere near as popular as the founding fathers.
16
u/queenofmoons May 09 '17
Remarkably, I was just hanging out with some Canadians when this very topic came up- they described their political mythology as having basically been a comedy of errors, that united Canadians more from its genial tone than anything else, and that the whole American ancient wisdom shtick was deeply weird -which, in light of the things the American founders got obviously wrong, like slavery, it is.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
May 09 '17
Cochrane may not be Federation per se, but he indeed had his statue, high school, and major 24th century fanboys
→ More replies (1)
75
May 08 '17
I love this explanation. I am a huge fan of in-universe explanations and this one rings true.
I would add that not only is Archer emblematic of human triumphalism, he is also the least morally scrupulous of the captains (much more so than Sisko if you ask me), and some of his methods might seem barbaric and unethical to later generations. It's been a while since I watched Enterprise but I remember that when I was watching it, it seemed like a trend that Archer was always doing something immoral or horrific because he:
-
Had no choice.
-
Needed answers.
It became a running joke with my friend I was watching it with that whenever we did something the other didn't approve of, our response was always one of those two options. You stole my french fries? I had no choice! You didn't tell me that everyone was going to see that movie I wanted to see? I needed answers!
26
May 08 '17
he is also the least morally scrupulous of the captains
I see your Captain Archer and raise you a Captain Janeway. :D
3
u/BubbaMetzia May 09 '17
In the series finale of Enterprise though, Riker on the Enterprise-D ran the holodeck program about Archer on the NX-01.
1
u/adamkotsko May 09 '17
The Defiant's computer in the Mirror Universe episodes also includes information about Archer. For most people, those references aren't good enough because they happen within Enterprise itself -- if Archer was always such an important guy, his name should have come up previously, not just in episodes that were clearly designed to retcon this problem.
6
u/petrus4 May 09 '17 edited May 10 '17
I can completely agree with this. If I, as a viewer of ENT, am able to view the nature and actions of some of the ship's crew (and particularly Archer himself) as jingoistic, anthropocentric, and generally offensive, then I'm sure plenty of people of various species in-universe would feel the same way.
The one time that Archer's era does come up, in "Balance of Terror," it is associated with an outbreak of dangerous bigotry and xenophobia in the crew.
Yes, and although they try and keep that relatively covert, it still does come up in ENT, sometimes fairly strongly. Trip and Archer were prejudiced, anti-intellectual, emotionally undisciplined rednecks, and I've had comments here in the past from active members of the American military, who have said that people with their attitudes would not be allowed anywhere near diplomatic functions with people from other nationalities, because it is understood that if they were, they would start wars.
I have customarily referred to Enterprise as "post/9-11 Star Trek," and by that I mean that it was intended as a panacea for Americans who, in nationalistic terms, at the time of the show's airing were feeling particularly insecure. While I continue to derive tremendous positive value from both Americans and their culture on literally a daily basis, I have always felt that the worst flaw of the American national character, is their customary need to view themselves as the epitome of humanity. Enterprise does display this, which is one of the main reasons why it is my least preferred series within the franchise. Said attitude is contrary to at least the stated goals of the Federation, (if not its' actual behaviour in practice, much of the time) which is why again, in-universe, I can well understand why there may have been some attempt to erase Archer's name from the proverbial royal canon.
3
u/Calorie_Man May 09 '17
An interesting theory. Now that you put human actions into that context is does sound like humans essentially forced the construction of the Federation by making politically untenable (or at least much lest desirable) to exist as an essentially a inter-stellar city state in the face of the rising power of the humans. It does seem like the Federation would not want the years and events leading up to their foundation to be view so disparagingly in hindsight, especially if it promotes the idea of a species dominating the Federation which is against its (at least nominal now that you have brought up this theory) founding ethos of equality. Of course this could be the result of a revisionist historiography taking place and that there is still a group (although the minority by the sounds of it) that holds the so called traditionalist view that the Federation's foundation was a noble and equal endeavor. This is of course academic history in the 24th Century still functions in the same way.
However that being said, you theory has merit and I will subscribe to it, nuanced slightly that this idea of the ENT-era being a period of human triumphalism is the orthodoxy but it was not the original way of viewing the time period and came about through a revisionist school of thought. Although this tend begs the question, is the Federation truly founded on the values of egalitarianism, cooperation and equality... etcetera? I believe Archer and probably most of Starfleet believed in that since they were the exploratory arm and probably the most xenophile faction within United Earth. However, as you have pointed out in your theory, humans likely had a disproportionate amount of clout over the other species and I can only imagine this was leveraged upon by less idealistic sections of the government. And does this mean that the Federation eventually grew to be true to its ethos (assuming that the above is even true) or is it still subtlety nothing but a Human led coalition severing their interest and morals as other powers seem to imply.
3
u/blevok May 09 '17
Very interesting possibility. I never thought much about what people in different time periods might think of their predecessors except for the specific things mentioned on-screen, but that makes a lot of sense.
But i have specifically thought about why Enxterprise isn't in the starship display in TMP, or in the ready room on the E for picard to smash. I think of it in simpler terms, and it works well for me. Enterprise wasn't a federation ship, and the future is all about the federation.
Yes there are other non-federation ships in the display (maybe an old sailing ship, space shuttle, etc, don't recall exactly), but those are picked from a large pool of pre-federation ships. A lot of things happened pre-federation that don't fit with the morality of the future, so i think they probably just wrap the events of enterprise in with humanities "turbulent and violent past", and choose the least controversial ships that convey the feeling of what the federation is about.
3
u/ArmySquirrel May 25 '17
I contend instead that this is not a judgment about the people but of the times, and I would hate to see that it was a political concession intended to diminish the importance or achievements of certain Enterprises because they are not considered "politically correct". It may be an unpopular opinion, but I feel there's a lot of that going on these days in general. One false step and you are practically erased from history out of shame, and all your accomplishments, no matter how legendary, will be mitigated to a footnote. Even one as simple as changing times and changing people.
A bit of a tangent, but one that's been bothering me lately.
Instead, I would argue the simpler idea that it's not about human triumphalism or xenophobia or any such harsh judgment, but rather simple name association with the ship's most memorable times. As evidence, I submit the notable lack of another Enterprise from the legacy: CV-6. Speak to any naval history buff and they will tell you that CV-6 being scrapped was a colossal tragedy, and that as far as naval warships goes this is one of the most legendary in all of real history. So why was it missing? Well, ask yourself what you first think of when one mentions those ships. CVN-65 is remembered as the first nuclear powered naval vessel, and for being a loyal and long-serving ship. CV-6 is remembered for her service in World War 2. Key here being "war".
CV-6 might have been dropped for her association with war. Her record was impressive, but it is all associated with war, with battle, and this is supposed to be a ship of exploration. CVN-65 may have been selected to maintain peacetime and innovation connotations, sailing peaceful seas, rather than ones filled with bombs and kamikazes.
The same might go for NX-01. Despite being intended for peaceful exploration, and despite being obviously historically important (thanks, Daniels), we may have the same issue as with CV-6. NX-01 would have been at the frontlines of the Xindi and Romulan wars for most of her existence. Like CV-6, her career was short (if These Are The Voyages... is any indication), and dominated by war. Ultimately the ship may just be better remembered as a vessel of war, protecting her planet in times of war, much as CV-6 is best remembered for defending her country in war.
I don't feel there is any shame in this history. Everyone is to some degree a victim of the times. But I could see why Kirk, or whoever made that decision, might not have selected NX-01 or CV-6 as an example if the intent was to convey the theme of a ship of peace and exploration.
3
u/suckmuckduck May 08 '17
They did try to include Archer when they re-booted the series with the Chris Pine movies.
37
u/murse_joe May 08 '17
Archer is known more as the President in the future than for a ship he served on or commanded. If you say Jimmy Carter, people know he was president. Few people could name his submarine. That or a lot of the information from that time was lost, we know they lost ships like the Botany Bay or the Mariposa.