Lest it come across all un-OpenHeroQuesty, I'll naturally refrain from apologizing for causing this discussion; but I'd better explain.
It was more a random shot than any really well thought-out comment. Aesthetically, I just find the name 'Paris Commune' "sounds a bit daft". That's my reason, your Honour. Ideologically, I can understand why the Soviets might have wished to give reference to the 'socialist martyrdom of fellow strugglers', but... 'Paris Commune'?
To my anglophone ears it stutters (I'm also not impressed with USS Salt Lake City--too long-winded, dear boy) and as, as Graham stated, it is more associated with violent repression than any will to, or manifestation of, social victory, it is curious to name a ship of war after it. But then Soviet Russia did not fit into the existing paradigm for naming vessels after kings, victories, obscure admirals and industrial towns in Yorkshire.
Personally I'd have preferred the Soviets to name a ship Peterloo. Similar situation, better 'name'. In fact, we should probably have a ship named Peterloo...
I mean take the Royal Navy, and its Australian, Canadian, New Zealand etc. cousins. We always used to have excellently named ships. Dreadnought. Superb. Victory. Belleropohon. (not so) Invincible. Ajax. Agamemnon. Zulu. Sheffield. Okay... but in the main, no one doubted that these vessels were meant for business.
And you Colonials. We're not *especially* pleased with the names Yorktown and Saratoga, but to me at least they resonate. And you called a ship Cochrane, so we like that. Regimens of military culture always seem to include more sublime elements than logical ones!
Hmmmm... I wonder what protocols the Lunars use for naming their Moonboats, or the Uz for their Dark Fleets?
Stu.
P.S. Why Steward? :o) It's catching, you're not the only one who's using it...
Powered by hypermail