Slashdot Mirror
The Case for the Empire
fReNeTiK writes "In this amusingly controversial article over at the weekly standard's web site, we get to hear an opinion not often heard among the hordes of Star Wars fanatics out there: The rebel alliance are actually "... an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back." An entertaining read which will surely spark flame wars of epic proportions." Reader kaypro submits an MSNBC story examining the
science of Star Wars. And
Ant notes that the
Clones DVD will be out earlier than expected.
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet.
Wow, calling Pinochet "relatively benign" is about the biggest stretch I've ever heard of. Sure, beningn to the US and its economic interests, but I think any Chileans in the room will disagree.
The Case for the Empire
Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong.
by Jonathan V. Last
05/16/2002 12:00:00 AM
Jonathan V. Last, online editor
STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.
It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.
First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.
If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.
I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic
At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.
Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."
The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.
Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.
What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.
And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)
In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.
The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.
II. The Empire
We do not yet know the exact how's and why's, but we do know this: At some point between the end of Episode II and the beginning of Episode IV, the Republic is replaced by an Empire. The first hint comes in "Attack of the Clones," when the Senate's Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to deal with the separatists. It spoils very little to tell you that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. For a time, he keeps the Senate in place, functioning as a rubber-stamp, much like the Roman imperial senate, but a few minutes into Episode IV, we are informed that the he has dissolved the Senate, and that "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.
But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."
Palpatine believes that the political order must be manipulated to produce peace and stability. When he mutters, "There is no civility, there is only politics," we see that at heart, he's an esoteric Straussian.
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."
And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter." And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)
But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.
None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.
The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.
But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.
Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.
III. After the Rebellion
As we all know from the final Star Wars installment, "Return of the Jedi," the rebellion is eventually successful. The Emperor is assassinated, Darth Vader abdicates his post and dies, the central governing apparatus of the Empire is destroyed in a spectacular space battle, and the rebels rejoice with their small, annoying Ewok friends. But what happens next?
(There is a raft of literature on this point, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't speak to Lucas's original intent.)
In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."
So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.
In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.
Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.
I'll take the Empire.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
It's not like they've got to do a lot of work to create the base digital master!
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Its not slashdotted, Foo!
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
How can the Rebels be called anarchic if they are primarily people with Royal titles trying their best to establish the "Old Republic".
Besides that though, the Empire kills people at will, and they impose Draconian smuggling laws which only serve to prop up Hut gangsters.
As tiresome as a republics claims to a monopoly on 'good' can be (and lord knows we see enough of that), the only other alternative at the time is a group that claims a monopoly on 'evil', which can't possibly be any better.
While the points in this may be true, I feel that there is a very good chance that the author wished that this piece would be viewed as satrical, not a proclamation of truth. I mean, the most common analogy between Star Wars and history is that the Emipre parallel Nazi ways. Ever notice that the Empire people are always humans? What about the complete control that the emperor has, much like Hitler did during WWII. Both of these people demanded absolute power (at all times, but most specifically at times of conflict), which led to mistakes being made because they only had one specific goal. It is possible to equate Dunkurk with Yavin or Endor? Yes it is.
/. flames. :-)
So, one must look at this situation differently. I really don't think the writer meant to side with the Empire 100%, mainly because that justifies Nazi-esque policies. And if he did, well I hope he has a good time refuting all the
Its clear that the rebel alliance are terrorists.
Parallel: Imagine a bunch of heavily armed British (or even French) Monarchists waging guerilla war across th US to undo the "injustice" of the American revolution and restore the House of Windsor to power.
The whole Star Wars series is responsible for promoting and glamorizing terrorism. Somebody arrest George Lucas.
...of course, he should have been arrested for Ep 1.
"This isn't the story you wanted to read."
"Hey, what's this crap, I didn't wanna read this!"
"Move along."
"I'm gonna reload so I can get first post on the next story!"
Sent from your iPad.
Like it or not, he does put some of the points across in a clear, lucid manner. I must admit, a quarter of the way into the article sees of doubt were already being sowed into my idea of who the "good guys" are.
Of course, some points he makes about the rebel only havings plots, and no clue about what to do once the empire is decimated doesn't really hold water - i'm sure lucas would have made more installments to handle that case, but then again it probably wouldn't make for good viewing. It's a man's fantasy after all, for god's sake!
Maybe it's just a case of this guy being able to argue his way convincingly out of anything. Sure did convince me.
The Wknd Sessions - Malaysian and South East Asia independent music
"Well, they make the trains run on time ..."
Of course, they would probably be handed to the Empire after several centuries anyway...
Pinochet was a benign dictator? This man tortured and killed thousands of people. I'd hardly call that benign..
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
This article reminds me of a series of articles found on Space.com called The Phantom Heresies, a collection of speculation on why things were in Star Wars. (Because these links are fairly old, you may have to scrounge around--use Google.)
The link above discusses the powers and the arrogance of the Jedi, and why they had it coming. The cool part for me about these articles was that they reflected my views after watching The Phantom Menace after watching how mortibund both Jedi Council and Senate were in comparison to the efficient manipulations of Darth Sidious in TFM.
Was the Empire a better system? I think that a gilded cage is a cage, no matter how informative or high-class the reading material is that covers the bottom of my cage. I would side with the Rebels, lightsaber in hand if I were a Jedi.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I think it is exactly to head off this sort of criticism that AOTC has all this silly business about the former Queen Amidala having been democratically elected. This, of course, makes no sense at all (why would the daughter of an elected i.e. non-hereditary ex-"queen" be a princess?) except that it makes the rebels seem a little less totalitarian.
Sure, Star Wars is just like the American Revolution. The Americans were rebels fighting against the opressive Britans for their freedom. The reality of it is that we were rebeling against our own government. That would be like Americans now a days taking up arms and fighting against our own military and president Bush.
If the Britans had won that war do you think it would still be called the American revolution? I think it would go down in history more like The quelling of political extremists, where Britain had to restore peace to it's original form.
What about Star Wars? What if the "dark side" killed off the rebels? They would be restoring peace to the way it was before the rebel uprising. Everything's relative.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Best Slashdot Co
I'm betting he's waiting until after episode 3, to add what would be serious prequel spoilers to the second half of the "hexology", or whatever the term is ("hextet"?), since I seriously doubt it's going to be a nonology anymore.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I guess that's "relative to other mass-murdering dictators". Funny line though.
Best Slashdot Co
It's time to put my full karma load to good use....
... If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard."
I'm hoping that this article was written in jest, but in case it isn't, it needs to be addressed. The whole thing is asinine, but here are the most offensive errors.
The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.
The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states.
Episode I makes it clear that it's Palpatine who is behind the bureaucratic mess that plagues the Senate. He's trying to discredit Chancellor Velorum so that he can become Chancellor. Palpatine (as Darth Sidious) admits to this.
"The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."
But it's obvious to everyone in the audience that Palpatine's concern is an act to gain the trust of Amidala. This is just a no-brainer.
What's more, it's not clear that they [the Jedi] should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes..., but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble.
I don't understand the problem with this. Qui-Gon explains that they have a screening program that presumably recruits kids from no specific background to become Jedi. So membership in the Jedi order isn't hereditary at all. That one must possess special qualities to be a jedi isn't a problem either. You can't program computers if you aren't good at technical stuff, but that doesn't make us a Royal Swiss Guard.
As for the Jedi being blinded with arrogance, yeah I guess that's true. But if they hadn't fucked up somehow, you wouldn't have had Vader, or the Emporer, and Episodes IV-VI would just be about the Jedi council sitting around picking their noses.
If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Assuming that this is true, and Alderaan is armed to the teeth and crawling with terrorists, the indiscriminate slaughter of every man, woman, and child on an entire planet would be an act of evil greater than anything we've ever seen. Much worse than Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Stalin combined. Of course, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that his claims about Alderaan are true.
Oh yeah, and that remark about Pinochet being a benign dictator. Saying that Pinochet's rule in Chile was acceptable is like saying that a little bit of murder is OK, just not too much. How many innocent people is it OK to murder? 100? 1000? 10,000?
I'm sorry for ranting about something that isn't even a big deal, but this article is so badly written that it's offensive. This conservative fuckhead should go back to the trailer park where he belongs.
Steve
So your argument goes like this,
Pinocchet was a monster. He terrorized the people he was asked to protect. He had no respect for their fundamental rights. You are correct that his crimes did not match those of Stalin, Hitler, or Vlad the Impaler for that matter. Last time I heard, you don't have to commit genocide to be considered a criminal.Finally, the ends do not justify the means.
Believe nothing -- Buddha
We have the sclerotic and bureaucratic republic, an empire run by some evil guys dressed in black, and a bunch of rebellious royals. I'm with Brin: Star Trek offers a more inspiring vision of the future.
Reminds me of the time I came in late on one of the Star Trek movies and missed the set up. What I saw was a bunch of handsome/cute creatures (the starship) beating up the ugly Klingons for no reason whatsoever. I came to the conclusion that this was how hollywood sees the world: the triumph of the beautiful.
From a background briefing.....
Thats a lot of benevolence.
Mmmmmm I suspect the author has been listening to CNN.
From the remember Chile website
Remember Chile
Boing boing boing....
"When comparing dictators you cant look at the amóunt of violence, since it is needed to protect the regime. You can only look at what state they left the country in."
Following that logic YOU must think that Stalin is a even better dictator than Picochet. He did afterall turn his country into an modern industrial superpower.
Face it!!! your logic is both cynical and flawed.
Think.
Information wants to be beer.
This gentleman has made what is, on the surface, a reasonably sound argument, and one that will no doubt appeal to many on this site. Yes, it is true that the Empire maintained law and order. Yes it is true that the Alliance to Restore the Republic was in rebellion against the technically legitimate government.
However, the coming to power of this government must be examined. It's head, former Senator Palpatine, engineered several diplomatic crisis and instigated a full-scale war in order to achieve dictatorial powers. He dabbled in the Sith teachings, long abhorred by the galactic public. These are not the actions of a "good guy."
I also find it interesting that he states he will not use the Expanded Universe because it was not in the movies. All well and good, except that in excluding the Expanded Universe one omits a lot of crucial detail about the nature of the Empire. The Expanded Universe was created with Lucas' blessing, and information relating to it can be found on the official Star Wars website. I'd say that this information is safe to use. Of course, it goes without saying that said information demonstrates beyond a doubt the inherent cruelty of the Galactic Empire. So there.
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
For an article that is intended to be humorous, I find it a rather try and sparkless piece. Compared to the discussion in the movie "Clerks"...
Go here and search the text for "Jedi or". Sorry, I tried pasting the funny bit from the script in here, but I have given up trying to please this damn Slashdot code about how many characters per line I use. *curses loudly*.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
In Episode IV, we didn't see from the start why the rebels were fighting, although we began to understand when Alderaan was destroyed. In Episodes I and II, Palpatine is manipulating things behind the scenes so we don't really see everything. I figure Episode III will reveal the Palpatine regime to be unquestionably evil and murderous, not just to Jedi knights and political opposition, but to the general populace.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I heard rumors that, before submitting this article, the author made inquiries with NASA about obtaining some of those bricks that they use to shield the shuttle on re-entry.
For those of you who don't read outside of the tech/SF industries, Pinochet made the news, not too long ago when spain had Britain arrest him for the kidnapping, torture and murder of Spanish nationals in Chile after his 'benign' rise to power, where he bombed the presidential pallace. After the death of Chile's elected president, he hunted down the supporters of the elected government, arresting, torturing and/or killing them ('disappearing').
If that's what he calls benign, I'd hate to see what he calls 'nasty'. It's not exageration to say that Pinochet's CIA-supported regime probably has more blood on his hands than AL Quaida (which also had CIA support).
And, as for Palpatine's lament that " "the bureaucrats are in charge now." He was in the middle of an attempt to (successfully) manipulate Padme into making a move that would give him the chancelorship (and eventual emperorship) of the republic.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
...Clones DVD will be out earlier than expected.
Well of course it will be out earlier; DVD cloning technology is vastly improved from 1999 when Phantom was delayed!
*Dodges rotten tomatoes*
By the way, you don't have to wait for the DVD, the VCD is available from most asian sidewalk vendors TODAY! Act now and you can even download it and burn a copy for yourself! Who cares if it looks like a guy with a pinhole camera...
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
Republicans are out for world domination :-)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
"NO, he did NOT in fact the soviets simply ruined russian economy"
Stalin closed down all the Soviets, or removed all of their power.
Do you have any evidence for this statement. When the Russian revolution happened, the Tsar had just managed to get millions killed in a war, millions more were starving to death. Russia had no industrial power, and was in fact an agrarian economy.
There is almost no country which has turned into an major industrial economy as quickly. What evidence do you have that the economy would "have gone faster without them"?
I'm no fan of what Stalin did, but to pretend that he did nothing at all is revisionism of the worst
sort.
Phil
Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.
I've heard that Lucas originally planned three movies, and was told that, in short, each of those three movies were too dense and complicated--that, in fact, each was worth three movies of its own. Hence, Lucas' originally trilogy becomes three trilogies.
Therefore, there is at least a plotline planned for three movies after "Return of the Jedi". And, like the author points out, this could be interesting and even topical: the newly re-established Republic trying to enforce rule of law over often very powerful and recalcitrant backwaters in the Galaxy. Unfortunately, no unified evil to combat, but I think it could lead to interesting storytelling; "Millenium Falcon Down", anyone?
Does anyone who collected all the figurines care to expand on the idea of movies 7, 8, and 9?
--
$tar -xvf
This is the mail that I sent the Standard:
I enjoyed Johnathan Last's musings on the Star Wars universe immensely, it
does rather occur to me - as a Briton - that this is something of a post
9/11 viewpoint. Here's why, before 9/11 the USA could look back with pride
on both their acheivements in WWII and (to a lesser degree) in the American
War of Independence. In both cases the US painted herself (accurately or
not) as the freedom loving opponent of the tyranny of empire. The British in
the former war and the German & Japanese in the latter. Skipping over the
nightmare of Vietnam (although this might perhaps have given a clue to the
inevitability of a 9/11-like eventuality) the Gulf War could also have been
looked at in similar terms, though it's a much tougher fit when both oil and
the incredibly undemocratic Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes enter the picture.
But where is the USA now? Undoubtedly the Empire itself. Imagine the city of
New York as the Death Star itself, and those precisely planted Boeings as
X-Wing fighters. The Force may not have been intended as a martyrs creed,
but Obi-Wan Kenobi was a suicide bomber without ANY doubt. And what an
economic weapon NYC is, certainly able to destroy a country's economy at
will - Argentina provides our best recent example.
Pretty horrible, isn't it? George Bush as the Emperor himself? Colin Powell
as Darth Vader? Rumsfeld as Grand Moff Tarkin? Surely not?
I look at the US-backed oppression in the Middle East, the oil producing
potential of Afghanistan and the recent (US backed??) events in Venezuela and I have to
wonder.
That was classic intercourse!
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
Much as I disapprove of Pinochet; and agree that on an absolute scale he is a pretty despicable character, he was relatively benign when compared to dictators. He killed thousands of people and not millions like, Pol-Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao.
Further more, nature is entirely dictatorial, kills millions of people a year, and to quote my Physics teacher 'nothing kills like the laws of physics'. Does that make Nature or Physics evil or immoral ? I would suggest that dictatorship is actually amoral, neither good or evil, it simply is.
It's Dunkirk, Scbwachkopf, not Dunkurk. Duenkirchen is it's authentic German name. You may note that life in the 3rd Reich wasn't all that bad. They had clean boulevards, virtually no crime, no racial tension among citizens except of course for the lawful tensions between citizens and undesirables, free and unrestrained capitalism (this capitalism was so capitalist that they ended up with a lot of monopolies). If only they had invested more into their highly impressive technological advantage, chances would have been they had the first nukes. In which case, you would (if you qualify, of course ;-) ) be able to enjoy all the benefits of a citizen of the 3rd Reich I listed above and more instead of having to put up with a Republic, which to put it into Senator Palpatine's words: "simply doesn't work!"
I had the same thought as you. But at least it lasted thousands of years, while no democracy has lasted even close to that time.
I noticed something in the replies posted to this point. The vast majority are in defense of the canonical reading of Star Wars. This is understandable, given the constitution of the /. community. A significant number of them are simply unwilling to let our favorite heros become the Bad Guys. This is understandable too. But at least that many are given over to a dangerous but common assumption: democracy is inherently superior to other forms of government. This is inexcusable. What Lucas has really done is appeal to a deep seated artifact of Western - especially American - consciousness, the idea that democracy and individualism are morally superior to other brands of social order.
Historically, representative governments have fared exceptionally poorly: Athens was simply a pretty cool city until it *established an empire* by forcing other city-states to pay tribute and fight its wars. The Roman Senate was ruled by a powerful group of aristocrats who could not deal with the social and economic realities of anything larger than a city. And even they were well on their way to regional control by the time good old Julius stepped in to fix the mess - and they killed him for it. The only historical representative government that has had any measure of success has been Britain, and the only people who could vote were wealthy landholders, and then only to create an advisory body to the hereditary king. Our own system sure as hell doesn't work. Sure, every once in a while we get to participate in the purely symbolic act of voting, but hey: do you want the puppet on the Left or the puppet on the Right? Democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be, people. When reading Mr. Last's article again, try to remember that.
Personally I have always asked myself if we know everything about the rebellion, especially who supported it. These poor rebels are hunted all the way through the galaxy by the Imperial fleet, there is no planet in the Empire that supports them openly and no central base. Yet it is not a "Grab a gun and let's go over to the palace and overthrow the king" kind of revolution. They have a quite impressive fleet of starships in Episode VI that probably takes years to build. Where are those coming from?
Maybe be the rebels are supplied by someone outside of the Empire like we try to destabilize regimes by supporting the opposition. There is mor e about this rebellion than we know ... :)
But then again I could be completely wrong. May be they are just a bunch of freedom fighters with homemade weaponry. "Come over and bring all your scrap metal, we are going to build a star destroyer in the backyard ..."
Line 9: Argument of type SIGNATURE expected.
AFAIK, Chile was ruled by a Socialist named Salvador Allende,
who was elected and was determined to reform the admittantly crumbling economy with structural changes.
Those structural changes included the nationalising of of the industrial sector (including U.S.-owned copper mines). This lead to strong oppositon of the expropriated U.S. companies, (esp. copper mining and ITT) and the US goverment.
To quote Henry Kissinger:
In the two first years of Allende's rule "Unemployment declined as the economy expanded, inflation was kept under control, and workers' incomes rose by fifty percent[...]"(John Foran, Allende's Chile, 1972)
The expatriation of US companies led to countermeasurements from the US goverment.
The U.S. ambassador to Chile probably words his goverment's stance best:
For some reason, the Chilenian economy was declining.
Despite heavy support from the US goverment for the conservative party and the economical decline, Allende's party increased its share of the votes at the next election.
The CIA was heavily involved in supporting the conservative and right-wing groups with money, weapons and training. In 1971 to 1972 several coups were attempted, when Pinochet finally succeded.
The National Security Archive of the GWU has some of the partially disclosed CIA documents.
Lastly, about the economical developement in Chile.
Between 1972 nd 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent.
Maybe have a look at "Analysis of Chilean economic and socioeconomic policy: 1975-1989 by Sherman Souther".
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
forget comparing Star Wars to the American Revolution, look at Israel vs. the Palestinians. The palestinians are a rebel alliance devoted to nothing more than destroying the "evil" empire of israel (and the united states). their interpretation of evil is anything which contradicts the teachings of their Force-like religion known as Islam. 50 years ago Israel came in and took the Palestinians' land and imposed law and order on a region in chaos. the Palestinians fought back with terrorist attacks on military and civilian targets. Israel counters with invasions, assassinations, and wholesale destruction of buildings suspected of harboring terrorists, just like Alderaan. as a challenge to all those digital junkies out there, how about trying to change the music of one of the original pics, say Episode IV? give the Empire some uplifting, majestic, patriotic music. give the rebels something sinister and treacherous. i'd like to see if that change alone would completely reverse the "moral teachings" of the movie.
"You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
Lucas' whole point about evil seems to be that evil is what happens when good can't get its act together and order outweighs freedom. Yes, the Jedi are a bunch of self-righteous pricks; that's what happens when you have an elite that doesn't necessarily have to earn its status.
No, the motives of the Rebellion aren't really spelled out. Nor is the precise reason for the existence of the Rebellion in the first place. But that's somewhat outside the scope of the movies; the simple fact is that for Tarkin to destroy Alderaan would probably be an act of insubordination if done without the direct assent of the Emperor. At the very least, Tarkin's actions would be equivalent to recreating the My Lai massacre on Hanoi. The evil here: order at all costs, and massive retribution, even genocide, as a political tool.
I don't know if Last is truly the fascist he comes off as in the article (he's probably trolling; handwaving over genocide and the like comes off as being some sort of satire), and he does make a few good points, but the fact remains that order at all costs is ultimately either stagnating or outright destructive.
/Brian
I couldn't figure out whether he was being tongue in cheek when he claimed that "Pinochet was a relatively benign dictator". Pinochet ordered the murder (with the help and blessing of the CIA) of the elected President, he had literaly thousands of supposed "dissidents" (anyone, who in the USA would just have been complaining) arrested, tortured and killed, including, without discrimination, many foreign nationals (Americans, Spanish and French citizens). This is why he is a wanted man in Spain and France. His reign of terror was only exceeded in South America by the Argetnian military Junta who murdered over 30 000 of their own citizens in the space of about ten years.
But perhaps it's funny, right? Perhaps he is one of these people who favour a "strong government" in times of emergency, irrespective of what that government is doing or the fact that he might be one of the first ones to be put up against the wall.
Being royal by inheritance certainly doesn't preclude you from politically being an anarchist. He said "royals", not "royalists".
This author characterizes some events from this movie in a, um, novel way. First, the destruction of Alderaan as the rightful putting down of a probable nest of violent rebels. From one perspective what he says is true. However, the people of Alderaan were not given a chance to declare or denounce their loyalty to the Emperor. On a planet of millions, it is reasonable to assume that their were a wide variety of opinions. Certainly some people supported the Emperor, just as others obviously denounced him. His supporters were executed as traitors for a crime they did not commit.
Second, if Darth Vader and the Emperor really wanted order, then they would not summarily execute millions of people. All governments that are worthy of the name provide their constituents with something called due process. Now, due process is not always as rigorous as it is in the United States. But in any fair government, there is always a set of rules that govern how the authorities can proceed to the decision to incarcerate or execute. Again, there was no process given to the denizens of Alderaan. Those people were executed as traitors for a crime they either did not commit or were not proven to have committed. That is something, but it is not order. Wearing the veil of government does not automatically make the Emperor's actions legal. For example, Hitler lawfully took power in Germany. In everything he did, he made sure that there was legislation, the imprimatur of legality, to support the action. However, his government lacked legitimacy. Nothing that the Nazis did should have been considered binding legal authority, because the Nazis did not have a legitimate claim to govern. Legitimacy comes from support of the governed (by, for, and of the people, remember?), not from standing up and declaring one's self emperor and thus the sole source of all legal authority. Legitimacy also comes from a certain moral authority. A government that executes its citizens like playthings, in a back room judgment about the greater good, lacks the moral authority to govern.
Third, the author characterizes Piett's promotion as a laudable example of merit rising into its own right. But we can assume then that his superior, Admiral Ozzel I think, did not rise to his lofty position through incompetence. No, Darth Vader executed Ozzel, because Vader had, to put it lightly, an anger management problem. If you ask any soldier worth his salt whether he would want to rise in rank based on his own merit, that soldier would enthusiastically say yes. But if you ask that soldier if he would like to serve in a force where field promotions were conducted by the commander-in-chief after he executed a top-rank officer for a minor mistake, that same soldier would give a resounding no. Meritocracy does not mean rewarding incompetence with execution. Nor does meritocracy mean that the rewards of life are available on the whim of one's superiors. Darth Vader's system of promotion is about as far from meritocracy as one can go.
Fourth, the author characterizes the Republic as eager to quash the separatists. Actually, the senators that we have come to associate with peace and justice (Amidala and Organa) are the main opponents of forming an army to counter the separatists. The only members of the Republic that are eager to quash the separatists are the ones under the direct influence of the guy that is funding both the separatists and the clone army in a brazen attempt (at least to the audience) to engineer a crisis that will allow him to seize total power. It's the burning of the Reichstag. First, Darth Sidious engineers the separation movement. Then, he secretly orders the construction of a clone army. Then, as Palpatine, he engineers the discovery of the separatist army. This discovery turns the separatists into something other than a bunch of systems that want small government--they become a force that is ready to attack the Replublic. Then, Palpatine is able to manipulate a weak-minded senator into pushing him into power in service of the cause of defending against the separatists. Palpatine is then able to call on the thing that he wanted all along: his army of efficient, obedient killing machines. The separatists are not earnest capitalists seeking the freedom of a laissez-faire government to bring themselves prosperity, they are dupes of a man with designs on nothing less than absolute power. By the time Palpatine is done he will have destroyed those separatists right along with the Republic.
I could go on, but you get the point. The author has taken the Star Wars story and used it in an attempt to weave his own little tale about how big government is bad. But by glossing over atrocities such as the wholesale murder of millions of people, he reveals that what he really thinks is that he ought to be the government because he knows better than all us stupid, little people. We should all do as he says, and if we don't like it, he won't mind killing us in the name of the greater good (of which he is sole arbiter). Frankly, I'll take freedom.
He makes an interesting case, but ignores the fact that the chancellor manipulates a fake war to consolidate his power, causing the death of numerous individuals, many of them Jedi.
That's where you're wrong, and it's one of the things that was most endearing to me about the Emperor/Chancellor Palpatine. He honestly believes that he's doing the right thing, even if he's using somewhat shady methods. He didn't start a war, he put the people in a position to make a decision: let the separatists separate and then he will rule them, or have the Republic give him absolute authority to "keep the separatists in line." That was my favorite part of the movie. It didn't matter in the slightest what the Senate or the Jedi decided to do because Palpatine was going to win in the either way.
The whole thing could have just as easily been resolved peacefully if the separatists had been allowed to go their own way. Palpatine was very clever in that he was going to get what he wanted no matter how it turned out, but it was the Senate and the Jedi that made it a war. I'm not so sure how what the republic did was any different than an abusive man telling his wife/girlfriend that he'll kill her if she tries to leave him.
If it wasn't for the musical and obvious visual clues, we would have a hard time believing who was good vs. who was evil.
This may be over-stating the obvious, but IMHO, the story itself isn't that obvious.
Hmm...
A long time ago, on a message board far, far away...
It is a period of flame war. Rebel thinkers, striking from their hidden message board, have won their first victory agains the Marketing Empire of Lucasfilm.
During the battle, Rebel geeks managed to come up with a new interpretation of the Empire's ultimate weapon, Episode I, a film so boring it could put entire audiences to sleep.
Pursued by the Empire's sinister lawyers, Princess Leia races home on her encrypted email, custodian of the new thoughts that can liberate her people and restore freedom of speech to the galaxy...
To prove that imitation is indeed the sincerest form of blatant copyright violation, Lucas premiered his "film" at this week's Orange County Star Wars convention. Lucas' mother, in whose basement he has lived for the last twelve years, is reportedly proud of her son's accomplishment. However, she also felt the love story between Padmé and Anakin was forced and poorly written.
Like most fan-generated "films," George's project was not a film at all. Lucas admits that he shot everything on digital video, about one quarter the image density of standard 35mm film. While he maintains that the choice was an artistic one, the issue of cost is undeniable.
During the screening, many patrons complained of the blurry look of the film print. A defensive Lucas reminded them that it looked much better on his computer monitor.
"If you look at color retention and light response, it would have looked much better on film," offered local film buff Wes Antilles. "I would have let him borrow my Super16 camera. He's too proud to ask, I guess."
The film suffers other ills common to fan films. Even the B-movie title, Attack of the Clones, is a dead giveaway of its amateur origin.
While some critics say that story elements take a back seat to flashy special effects, it would be difficult to argue that Lucas underwrote the film. The first two thirds of the film consist of nothing but mouths moving, gums flapping.
"I've seen this kind of thing ruin otherwise promising films," says UCLA film professor Leonard Calrissian. "Independent films often turn out too 'talky' because amateur directors are often too in love with their script to cut unnecessary or forced dialogue."
The most common complaint so far is that the film is not very much fun to watch. One walks away from Attack of the Clones wondering for whom it was made. Like most independent/amateur cinema, it is likely that the movie exists mostly for its own sake.
"I've got lots of other friends who do this kind of thing," said one local independent filmmaker. "Every time I run into them, they demand that I watch their latest project. It's getting to the point where I'm avoiding people. I haven't talked to George for over a year."
Unable to pay real actors and having run out of available friends, Lucas had to create many of the characters digitally. In spite of their obvious unreality, these digimuppets do a great deal to mask the awful acting and terrible direction common to such efforts.
There is no word yet whether the owners of the Star Wars trademark and franchise will do with Mr. Lucas. Clearly Attack of the Clones violates more than a dozen heavily-guarded copyrights while creating unsanctioned and [according to some] inconsistent backstory for established Star Wars characters.
In spite of its problems, most audience members agreed that Attack of the Clones was one of the best five fan films they had seen this year. Some even went so far as to compare it with the much-loved The Lego Strikes Back from 1996. Not bad for a first effort.
Inspired by the slightly-warmer-than-luke response to Attack of the Clones, Lucas announced plans to begin work on a sequel- as soon as he can come up with a better title.
[from ridiculopathy.com]
Some English names for other peace makers are the class of ship known as the "Destroyer", air craft names such as "Vampire", "Mosquito", and "Hellcat". With a little more reflection, you will see the truth and utility of such names.
Remember the destruction of the Death Star killed many innocent sentient beings. Did you know that there was a day care center on the Death Star? No you did not! Nor did you care about all of those innocent children, just like the Oklahoma City bombing. Have you ever considered the environmental consequences destroying the Death Star had? It was a global extinction level event. A whole planet perrished. See what your petty morals get you when you fight law and order?
Feel the power of hatred, let it make you strong and one with the Emperor. Fight for what is orderly and strong.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...to use the World Trade Center to destroy innocent planets with it's massive planet-destroying deathray. I'm an American but I cannot defend my own government in these genocidal actions and I understand your point of view.
Clearly the World Trade Center was a military installation, armed to the teeth with laser turrets and weapons of mass destruction and thus was a legitimate target for the loveable ragtag group of muslim rebels.
The Vietnam comparisons are also striking, though the 1,000,000 vietnamese who died in that war may disagree about how much "creaming" went on. Also those of you who have seen the Jedi DVD extras know there is that one deleted scene where the Ewoks capture a storm trooper, starve him and pierce his eardrum with a sharpened stick of bamboo in order to get him to talk about troop movements. Clearly a parallel there.
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
Eh, if you try hard enough you can take one thing and make it look like nearly anything else. I mean, it's like the old example of Nazi Germany not being that bad because "at least the trains ran on time."
That said, no the U.S. isn't a perfect country, not by a long shot, but it's no where near as bad as the Empire. Actually, I'd compare the U.S. more with the Old Republic, seeing as how both have a Senade that's too beaurocratic to get any real work done for the people. :)
Reminds me of the time I came in late on one of the Star Trek movies and missed the set up. What I saw was a bunch of handsome/cute creatures (the starship) beating up the ugly Klingons for no reason whatsoever. I came to the conclusion that this was how hollywood sees the world: the triumph of the beautiful.
I found your comment interesting if for no other reason than I found myself counting how many humans I saw killed in Episode II. Not during the movie, but afterwards as I was reflecting on it. As near as I can tell only 2 humans were shown being killed. One of them was Padme's decoy in the beginning, the other was Anakin's mother at the raider camp. Both of them died in the arms of a beloved friend or family member.
Everyone else I saw in the movie being killed was either an ugly alien, a droid, or someone who was covered head to toe in battle armor to hide their "human-ness." Did anybody else notice this?
And before you comment about Fett's hired assasin, remember that she was a "changeling" alien, not a human.
I always thought that "Captain" was the rank he acquired after the Battle of Yavin, or shortly before Hoth, in the Rebel Army.
dinner: it's what's for beer
Actually, I just saw a History Channel special on "The Nazi Bomb". They argue convincingly that Heisenberg, leading the German efforts, didn't really *want* a bomb developed, and deliberately put forth less than his best effort. After he was captured by the Allies post-surrender, and learned of the American bomb, he took 3 days to (sight unseen) reconstruct how we had done it.
So, had Heisenberg wanted to, he probably could have built the bomb, but he was convinced himself that it was "too complex and too expensive", and so he himself convinced Germany not to push strongly on the nuclear efforts. The Germans were never serious about it, although the scientists at Los Alamos were convinced that the US was seriously behind in it's efforts (because Germany had all the means and materials at it's disposal long before we had even begun Manhatten).
The fact that we had all the Jewish scientists here in America (and that those scientists seriously feared the Nazis getting the bomb) meant *we* did take it seriously, and went full-steam ahead.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
I'd consider taking Thrawn's Empire -- viewed from A Certain Point Of View, Thrawn is a being that commands considerable respect and is not particularly into indiscriminate destruction. I don't think he wants power, really; that was the big difference between him and that hack Daala in the novels, IMHO. He is much like a more disciplined version of Anakin Skywalker, I'd say.
:-) ) Palpatine, no, I wouldn't, because he's angling for power more than order.
But Palpatine's Empire? I guess it would depend on what I knew. If I was living within the SW universe, I might, at least initially (though I'd probably be one of the ones who silently started supporting the Rebellion after Alderaan). Outside, knowing that Darth Sidious exists and that he is (almost certainly
/brian
You know, there are a lot of posts similar to this expressing what some might consider to be "unpopular" opinions that are intended to encourage reflection, or just looking at things from a different point of view. The thing that pisses me off the most is that invariably some ignorant fuck-chimp comes by and mods it as flamebait. Why are people so incabaple of looking at the flipside? Are the readers of Slashdot such closed-minded bigots that they cannot consider a difference of opinion without modding it down?
* Destruction of Aldaraan: Nagasaki, Hiroshima. Large Explosion to cause terror against innocent civilians.
I'll take the bait on this one. I've got nothing else to do at the moment.
The o-so slight difference between Alderaan and Hiroshima can be summed up in 3 characters - WW2. WW2 included Pearl Harbor, Midway, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, Singapore, China, etc. All these events - and many, many more - occurred BEFORE Hiroshima. There were Japanese offensives, American offensives, British offensives, etc. There were many nations locked in a war to gain control of a large space (the Pacific and Asia in general), which, incidentally, none of them owned by right of habitation. Neither the Japanese, the British nor the Americans had any real claim to the Pacific space other than the one claim which has always really mattered in the end - might is right.
So to plop down Alderaan and Hiroshima together as if they were the same kind of event removes Hiroshima from a very real historical context and reduces it the banality of a Hollywood script, the script in question being Star Wars. Star Wars is great stuff, but it doesn't hold a candle to real life and real history.
But I think to use the Alderaan/Hiroshima analogy to support your Empire/US argument I think you've got to show:
1) Alderaan and the Empire were at war openly. Just because some rebels come from Alderaan doesn't mean that it is at war with the Empire.
2) Alderaan's Pearl Harbor and Midway. Those were huge battles and even after Midway it wasn't clear the US was in a dominant position. When do Alderaan's forces challenge the Empire in open conflict? They don't. OK. Assume for a minute that the rebels are controlled by Alderaan (which is not true), then you still never see them do anything but run from Imperial forces. They only fight when cornered. That is not what the Japanese did. Very different. The Japanese were a full-fledged opponent, with a native technology industry and a prior record of victory in battle. Whether you think using the bomb was correct or not, you can't argue against the fact that it resulted from a full scale war. It was used to put an end to a conflict quickly, not to stop a conflict from growing out of control.
Frankly, I don't see the people of Alderaan having threatened the Empire quite the same way the Japanese threatened the US and England. So your comparison rings hollow.
But hell, I haven't seen episode 2(?) yet so maybe it will all become clear to me...
I would consider this canon, even if it was left on the cutting-room floor:
BIGGS: I thought you were going to the Academy next term. You'll get
your chance to get off this rock.
LUKE: Not likely! I had to cancel my application. There has been a lot
of unrest among the Sandpeople since you left...they've even raided
the outskirts of Anchorhead.
BIGGS: Your uncle could hold off a whole colony of Sandpeople with one
blaster.
LUKE: I know, but he's got enough vaporators going to make the place
pay off. He needs me for just one more season. I can't leave him now.
BIGGS: I feel for you, Luke, you're going to have to learn what seems
to be important or what really is important. What good is all your
uncle's work if it's taken over by the Empire?...You know they're
starting to nationalize commerce in the central systems...it won't be
long before your uncle is merely a tenant, slaving for the greater
glory of the Empire.
LUKE: It couldn't happen here. You said it yourself. The Empire won't
bother with this rock.
BIGGS: Things always change.
LUKE: I wish I was going...Are you going to be around long?
BIGGS: No, I'm leaving in the morning...
LUKE: Then I guess I won't see you.
BIGGS: Maybe someday...I'll keep a lookout.
LUKE: Well, I'll be at the Academy next season...after that who knows.
I won't be drafted into the Imperial Starfleet, that's for sure...Take
care of yourself, you'll always be the best friend I've got.
BIGGS: So long, Luke.
Biggs turns away from his old friend and heads toward the
power station.
Just before the Battle of Yavin, Luke runs into Biggs and they gab a
bit, then Red Leader shows up and mentions that he had met Anakin,
Luke's father.
-------
Seems to me the Empire was controlling and anti-free enterprise.
dinner: it's what's for beer
This is a satirical piece that is meant to bring attention to current affairs.
There are plenty of people who are willing to trade freedom for order and security today, right in the United States and other western nations.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
who helped a lot, claiming to help an oppressed
nation (when Great Britain of the time was way
more democratic than France) just for the fun of fighting their hereditarian Nemesis just once more, eventually defeating the Rosbeefs (even at sea thanks to d'Estaing !), and contributed weapons (Beaumarchais) and money to turn a militia uprising into a full-blown independence war.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
The war against disorder, greed and terrorism have no end. Palpatine used the forces of the Universe to his advantage as any comp^H^H^H^H reasonable man would. "Engineered" a crisis you say? Bah, greedy little men without vision made that crisis, Palpatine simply used it to bring order to the Universe. It is cruel to alow people the freedom to torture each other. Only the power of the force can accomplish unity, benevolence and order.
Your message has been monitored. Consider your ways or you will pay.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
that there is no such thing as good and evil, just different points of view.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Actually the crew of the ships in Boston harbor were not harmed (not even touched in fact.) The only damage was to the tea.
Milo
"We will continue to fight these terrorists, and the rogue governments who harbor them, until the universe is safe, once and for all, and the security of the Neo-New Cosmik Order ensured."
It was one year ago today that the Death Star, perhaps the greatest symbol of the Empire's might, was destroyed in an attack by fanatic Rebels, who used small, single-person crafts to infiltrate seemingly impenetrable defenses. Thousands of mourners were on hand to remember and pay tribute to the victims and their families.
"We lost our innocence that day," reflected one mourner. "I guess we thought we were immune from the kind of violence that happens in other galaxies. We were wrong." "I lost hundreds of buddies that day," said one teary-eyed Stormtrooper. "Guys whose only crime was trying make the Universe a safer place."
Although the day was colored by sadness, the mourners found some relief in the news of a decisive victory over the Rebels. In an attack led by Darth Vader, Empire forces were able to rout hundreds of Rebels from a network of caves underneath the surface of the planet Hoth. "We're not sure we got them all," says a Vader spokesman. "There are a lot of places to hide in those caves. But we've delivered a powerful blow to the terrorist's infrastructure, that's for sure. Today, the Empire has struck back."
Initial reports are unclear as to the fate of Luke Skywalker, a hero among the Rebels, who is rumored to have delivered the fatal blow to the Death Star. Skywalker, a former desert-dweller from the planet Tattooine, became a part of the Rebellion after family members were killed. Skywalker was trained by a militant wing of the Rebels, known as "Jedi Knights." Fanatical in their religious beliefs, the Jedi Knights claim to derive their power from the mystical "Force."
It's believed that Skywalker was specifically trained by infamous terrorist O bin Wankanobi. Wankanobi, occasionally called "Ben" and easily recognized by his bearded visage and long, flowing robes, achieved near-martyr status among the Rebels after his death last year during a spy mission. His more fervent followers believe that Wan Kenobi lives on within them today, some even claiming to hear his voice during times of duress.
The attack on the Death Star came shortly after the Empire's destruction of Alderstaan, a planet whose government was known to harbor terrorists. Responding to criticism over the total annihilation of the planet, Vader stated, "There is no middle ground in the War on Terror. Those who harbor terrorists are terrorists themselves. Alderaan was issued ample warning. The fight for continuing Freedom is often burdened by terrible cost."
The cost of this war can still be seen today in the continuing efforts to build a coalition government on Tattooine. Longstanding animosities among the planets various ethnic groups, including the Jawas, Tusken Raiders and scattered human settlers, have been an impediment to the peace process. The Empire continues to maintain a small peace keeping force until a provisional government is finally in place.
Much of the difficulty in fighting the Rebel forces stems from their lack of a central organizing structure. "They don't play by the traditional rules of war," complained one spokesman. "They come in all shapes and sizes, united only by their single-minded desire to destroy the Empire before it destroys them."
The Emperor closed his comments today by stating that "the cowardly attack on the Death Star left a deep scar on the Empire. However, we will not stop fighting until every last evildoer has been brought to justice." He paused for several moments, wiping away a tear and then added with determination, "We will never forget."
"I wish we could all just get along," said one of the mourners. "But it's hard to offer an olive branch to a cult of religious fanatics whose main tool is violence and who insist on calling us the Dark Side."
(I posted this once before, but it seemed appropriate to post it again :-)
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
> Terrorists attack civilian populations for the PRIME
> reason of sowing (duh) terror.
Well, that description fits quite well the carpet bombings by the allies on German and Japanese cities, a lot of the bombing of indo-china, Korea and Vietnam and most other uses of high altitude bombings.
Going by your definition of terror, the USA are a nation with a terrorist regime.
Interesting. And maybe, you're even right.
Actually, wearing a tiara does not depend upon rank. It's traditionally associated with marriage, and you do have to be female, but Leia could still wear her tiara even if she were no longer a princess.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Battle on Endor: This is so Vietnam, the Imperials get creamed by the indiginous population because they know the land better, even if they have cruder weaponry. No, dude, they got creamed because if there's anything that would scare viewers more than Ewoks is a horde of dead Ewoks.
-- por uma vida + open source
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Just remember that it was the United States that put Pinochet in control in the first place.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Everyone else I saw in the movie being killed was either an ugly alien, a droid, or someone who was covered head to toe in battle armor to hide their "human-ness." Did anybody else notice this?
What about Jengo Fett himself? I'd say getting decapitated is a pretty sure-fire way to check him off the list. Not to mention the numerous Jedi who showed up and probably died off-screen, some of whom may have been human.
And don't forget the clones - clones are people too, you know.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Maybe I'm daft, but when I read it, I saw a lot of parallels with the awful rights-limiting, war-monging, "axis of evil" bullshit going on in the USA today.
Bush is Palpatine...
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Everyone else I saw in the movie being killed was either an ugly alien, a droid, or someone who was covered head to toe in battle armor to hide their "human-ness." Did anybody else notice this?
No. What about the large group of Jedi on Genosia? Or the fact that we see Jango without his armor on? Then focusing on humanoid forms, Jango's assistant didn't initially appear to be an ugly alien. I think you're reaching, and therefore blocked out parts that would invalidate your point. The only valid point you raise is that of innocent people dying, of which Shmi and Padme are the only two who are not militarily obligated (note Lucas' revisionist history at work, since in the first episode, Padme was the double and Amidala was the queen). But even Padme knew the risks of her job, so Shmi was really the only innocent to die.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Really? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Last time I checked, huge leaps of logic plus uncalled for rhetoric did not a fair rebuttal make.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Does this explain why so many far-left (sorry - "mainstream") journalists fawn over Castro? Remember, he also has only killed a few thousand of his own people...
Sig? No thanks, I don't smoke...
From the article:
By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.
Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
All in all, an interesting argument that reminds me of the article mentioned in this story.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
My understanding of the prophecy about the one to bring balance to the force (Anakin) is that the Empire was basically supposed to happen. The the prequels, we see that the republic has been weakened due to various elements. The "Light Side" has essentially been corrupted by thousands of years of going through the motions. Perhaps Yoda and Mace Windu are the only ones who seem to really have a full understanding of this, and what it would mean for the prophecy to come true.
What is necessary to return the "Light Side" to the proper state is that the republic needs to be returned to its roots and original purpose. For this to happen, it must be destroyed and rebuilt.
The Emperor and his regime destroy the republic, and it is Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance that rebuild it. Anakin is central to this in that he is the one who enables all of this to happen.
By becoming Vader, he helps Palpatine destroy the republic. Palpatine isn't a good guy who wants to bring order for the common good. He wants to bring order so he can rule the galaxy. By killing the Emperor, Vader fulfills the prophecy as the one who brings balance to the force. Presumably, the Rebel Alliance forms a new republic that has the restored ideals of the original. And perhance is a little wiser than the old as to not let anything like the Empire happen again.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Mod that cat up.
Let's all note that all extremist leaders kill their citizens. Thank you for speaking out against Castro.
Recently, we think he's a cool guy.
Yeah, a cool guy that still almost got us in nuclear freakin' war.
Do N*Sync count as humans? :-P
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
And Afganistan is Alderaan.
After all, they were either for the empire or against it.
-no broken link
It was heretofore difficult for me to contemplate someone being so pathetic that they took real offense at someone mischaracterizing the actions of fictional persons.
I don't take offense at the author's misinterpretation of the movies -- I don't even like Star Wars that much. What pissed me off is that he downplays the brutality of the Pinochet regime. Furthermore, he seems to be suggesting that it's common knowledge that Pinochet wasn't such a bad guy. I think this is disgusting, even if he means it in jest.
I don't know if he's kidding or not when he called Pinochet a benign dictator, but there really is a view held by some political and economic analysts that what third world countries need is a hardass dictator to whip the government back into shape. I've read articles about the "Pinochet Model." This autocrat, who seized power violently and illegally, actually has fans, at least to an extent. It seems to me that the author is one of them.
Either he's serious, and he thinks that Pinochet is a benign dictator, or he's tasteless enough to joke about murderous dictatorships. Either way, he's a fuckhead.
Steve
I'd point out that while the author claims that he would only use the movies as sources, he then throws out things like the following lines
So which is it --- Movies only or movies and the expanded universe?
From the movies, the only past we know about Han is:
He was a smuggler for Jaba the Hutt.
He dumped his cargo prior to being boarded by an Imperial vessel. Jaba's pissed about that and wants his money back or Han dead.
Han's got a big furry buddy named Chewie (what a Wookie!)
Chewie is subservient to Han with no explanation why.
Han has a fast, if somewhat unreliable, ship called The Millenium Falcon which he won from Lando Calrissian "fair and square".
That's it. Nothing about academies, nothing about Han having been a cadet who certainly did not obtain the rank of captain in the imperial navy. That information is based solely on the expanded universe.
Again, it's conjecture that the Empire runs a meritocracy but if it is a meritocracy, how did Admiral Ozzel obtain his rank? He clearly knew nothing about tactics as he dropped out of hyperspace too close to Hoth. Why are there no women, minorities or aliens of rank in the Empire? Do these people not have merits? (Yes, I know about GA Thrawn and Mara Jade but we have limited our discussion to the film-based realm)
"My fingers Emit sparks of fire in Expectation of my future labours." William Blake
So *THAT'S* how you sugarcoat the destruction of an entire planet and it's population. The Bush administration needs to hire this guy PRONTO.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I don't think I've ever read an article that more explicitly advocated fascism. Dressing it up in starwars doesn't make it any more amusing.
--locust
(note Lucas' revisionist history at work, since in the first episode, Padme was the double and Amidala was the queen)
Huh? Padme and Amidala are the same person. Her decoy was pretending to be Amidala; the real Amidala (played by Ms. Portman) was pretending to be the handmaiden Padme (although I believe Padme actually is the character's real name).
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
What about Jengo Fett himself? I'd say getting decapitated is a pretty sure-fire way to check him off the list. Not to mention the numerous Jedi who showed up and probably died off-screen, some of whom may have been human.
And don't forget the clones - clones are people too, you know.
Do you know what I find hilarious about your post? It's that you obviously didn't read any further than the third sentence of my post, even though you quoted the relevant part of it:
Everyone else I saw in the movie being killed was either an ugly alien, a droid, or someone who was covered head to toe in battle armor to hide their "human-ness." Did anybody else notice this?
The whole point was that they don't show "humans" being killed. Everything else is fair game, but when a human being is shown being killed it's always this dramatic, dying in a loved one's arms kinda thing. So much for reading comprehension I suppose.
Read the Spectre of the Past/Vision of the Future series. Spoilers ahead. Thrawn was after order and stability; he decided that the Empire was the best place to start. He'd have backed the Rebellion if he'd though it would been more likely to work.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
No. What about the large group of Jedi on Genosia?
And how many of those Jedi were a) human, and b) shown dieing on-screen?
Or the fact that we see Jango without his armor on?
Yes, but he also dies with it on. For all intents and purposes, he's not being depicted as human when he dies.
Then focusing on humanoid forms, Jango's assistant didn't initially appear to be an ugly alien.
Not initially, but when they got to the club Anakin made it clear that she wasn't human. And when she died it was made very clear that she wasn't human. I even pointed that out in my original post on the matter.
I think you're reaching, and therefore blocked out parts that would invalidate your point. The only valid point you raise is that of innocent people dying, of which Shmi and Padme are the only two who are not militarily obligated
I don't think that I'm reaching at all, and I've certainly not raised any points related to innocence. I think that Lucas deliberatly left out scenes depicting human death because in some people's minds it's OK to kill someone if they aren't human. I imagine that all the Stormtroopers wear body armor head to toe to dehumanize them. Sure some people will say that it's for protection, but it sure doesn't provide any protection from a blaster rifle. Notice the complete and utter lack of blood in the deaths of these characters? Heck, even the monsters in the arena don't bleed when you cut or kill them. Sure there was lots of implied death, and plenty of dead bodies, but how many actual humans were depicted dieing? I'll go watch it again tonite, but I'm pretty sure that there are only those two.
good points - Do you remember how many humans died in Episode 1? were there any at all? The robot attack force was a cop out on the potential violence rating had they been stormtroopers I think.
jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
What struck me most while reading this is just how much of the same sort of logic is used to analyze the affairs of our own planet, with similar conclusions as to what is "good" and "evil".
* Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
Yes, most certainly yes. Most people are far too stupid to be entrusted with running a state. Watch that bit on Leno where he asks folks easy questions. Who lost the American Civil War? Here's a hint: it wasn't the East. Take a look at any of a number of tests and surveys which conclusively demonstrate that the average American, Briton, Frenchman or German is a moron.
# `Good' elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
Brin slants his statement. But it is true that men should act according to their judgement. I use the instance of the law. The moral man neither obeys nor disobeys the law; it is as nothing to him. He does that which is moral, and does not do that which is immoral. Legality doesn't enter into the equation.
Certainly, if the moral thing he does is illegal, he will be apprehended, tried, convicted and punished. But that does not prevent him from doing it.
# Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
Any amount of sin can be forgiven, period. We know this to be true.
# True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
There's a reason that men have kings and lords. We can breed dogs (for looks, intelligence, speed, whatever)--certainly we can breed men.
* Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.
Can it be denied? Anger can become hatred, and that can quite easily become evil. It may be necessary to destroy a man, but it is never necessary to hate.
There are two types of people in the world: Star Trek people and Star Wars people. Star Wars people are realistic: there is good, and there is evil (well, actually, there's good and lack-of-good...). Star Trek people are utopian twits who think we can all just get along and denying man's fundamentally fallen nature.
I'm still inclined to think Coruscant ought to look more like Hong Kong (or perhaps Times Square) than it does, but maybe they've got really strict zoning ordinances governing signage such that an occasional 7-foot tall ad is legal but billboard-sized ads are not.
I play Nerd-Folk!
I suspect this has alot more to do with PG-13 ratings than it does with it being "okay" to kill someone - the most extreme scene I can think of is when Obi-Wan dismembers that giant mantis-thing. Everything else is very bloodless and clean - even the decapitation of Jango, which should have been messy and horrible even with the "clean" cuts lightsabers are supposed to make.
The article says: The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
I think that's a hard argument to make. In the 3 films that come after the empire, we never get a chance to see what the daily life of an average, law-abiding citizen is like. The films mostly follow the rebel alliance, which hides out on remote/uninhabited planets. Check out the different settings used in the movies:
Tatoonine: A remote outer rim planet, where the Empire doesn't really have any control (nor do they want it).
Hoth: Apparently the only creatures that live here are tau-tauns and those Sasquatch things.
Bespin: The only "normal" place shown in the 3 movies. We don't really see the Empire's presence here. However, it must be really bad: Lando turns over his best friend to Darth Vader just to get the Empire to leave him alone.
Endor moon: Nothing here but Ewoks, and they probably deserve whatever punishment the Empire can dish out.
Alderaan: Destroyed by the Empire as part of a negotiating tactic with Princess Leia.
I doubt this guy really thinks the Empire is better than the Rebel Alliance. He might be turned off by the more egalitarian and liberal ideas espoused by the Rebels, but to make the stretch and claim that the Empire is a force for good is deeply disturbing. Star Wars may be an imaginary universe, but The Weekly Standard certainly is real, and it has a real effect(albeit a small one) on political discourse in the United States. If the editors of a major magazine think the Empire is ok, it casts great doubt on their analysis of events in the real world.
-Mike
Yeah, I guess a good idea for a hit game would be:
.... why did you chicken out here?"
Resident Eeeeeeeeeeewok!
I am replying to all the posts above too, since I wrote the original Empire/USA comparison.
"* Destruction of Death Star: WTC.
I didn't chicken out- it seems that people took my post to be critical of the USA, hence all the flamebait mods, (though of course one idiot had to mod it redundant, and bizarrely I got email notification of a +1 insightful that doesn't show up).
Actually I was not being critical of the USA; my post was meant to be read in the light of the article, which proposed that we view the Imperials as the good guys.
"Clearly the World Trade Center was a military installation, armed to the teeth with laser turrets and weapons of mass destruction and thus was a legitimate target for the loveable ragtag group of muslim rebels."
OK, so there was this criticism above, that WTC was not a military installation, as well as the point that Ewoks didn't torture Stormtroopers, and that when Aldaraan was destroyed it was not at war with the Empire.
OK, so I admit that my parallels meet a good way before infinity (!), but you also have to consider that while we don't see Ewoks torture Stormtroopers (a point designed to evoke pity for the USA), we don't see Stormtroopers rape Ewok women and torch populated villages to the ground. (Now, on this point, you can see me being critical of the USA, I was not before...) My point is just that no comparison can be 100% or the 2 things being compared would actually only be one. Maybe I should have said "similarities" instead of parallels, (though mathematically, similarity implies more correspondance than parallel...)
" Nazi Germany not being that bad because "at least the trains ran on time."
That wasn't Nazi Germany- it was the reguime of Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky- I forget.
"You know, there are a lot of posts similar to this expressing what some might consider to be "unpopular" opinions that are intended to encourage reflection, or just looking at things from a different point of view. The thing that pisses me off the most is that invariably some ignorant fuck-chimp comes by and mods it as flamebait"
Arigatou Gozaimasu!
"there is no parellel between the US and the empire. The original trilogy came out in the late 70's and early 80's. How the fuck could he have made a parellel with the events of september 11th. You are a dumbass sir."
You didn't read my post, did you? You FAIL this test, I say you FAIL this test!
I said in my original post:
"Flame/downmod away; I am just trying to start a thread here. If people reply, even if they tell me why I am wrong, it will be interesting..."
I am happy to have achieved this, yet saddened as always by the unskillful moderation. I don't mind the karma hit but I object to my post being at zero because fewer people will see it...
graspee
Princess Leah wasn't the deposed queen of the Galaxy. She had an honorary title from her adopted planet of Alderan, which was noted particularly for its neutrality. Kind of like Switzerland. Of course if you carry bombs in ambulances --I mean battlestation plans in counsellor's ships-- you can't expect that neutrality to be honored.
Wait, isn't that what Bush is doing?
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I suspect this has alot more to do with PG-13 ratings than it does with it being "okay" to kill someone - the most extreme scene I can think of is when Obi-Wan dismembers that giant mantis-thing. Everything else is very bloodless and clean - even the decapitation of Jango, which should have been messy and horrible even with the "clean" cuts lightsabers are supposed to make.
I wondered a bit about that myself, but I'm not sure that's the case. I recall that in the Mos Eisley Cantina in EpIV when Kenobi cuts off that creatures arm it is shown lying on the floor bleeding.
Are we talking star wars - or what. The article is attached to the wrong thread of comments. The Title of this should be "Benign Dictators or not - Slashdot readers want to know"
From the He's-really-a-tyrant dept.
Editors - please fix.
Cuba is hated by the US because it appears to demonstrate that small-scale Communism can in fact work fairly well, and need not neccessarily be brutal and repressive to function. Cuba is a success story that the US would very much like to just erase.
Riiiiight. That explains why they are still to this very day trying to swim or float over in all sorts of little boats. You have words that say that Cuba is great.
I have the refugees, the people still trying to flee Cuba, and the whole history of almost starting WWIII as your answer to the claims of Cuban superiority.
If Cuba is such a prosperous, free, and open society why is it that they cannot leave the country and come visit the USA?
But hey! Why would anyone even want to see the rest of the world if Cuba is as great as you say it is?
Well, yes. You see, the problem is that we live at the beginning of a new century, when the idealists come out of the woodwork with their (usually) fanatical ideals of utopia and order.
Happens all the time.
Face it, the Empire (and, by your argument's extension, the American Empire) is efficient. Just as the Nazis were efficient.
So long as you fit in, it's a great place to live. Just don't have any ideas that challenge the order of things and you'll get along fine. Unless we deem you inferior, in which case you'll become our (insert one) slaves, serfs, or servants.
Lucas is warning us against ourselves. In fact, with amazing prescience, he warns us against the imposition of an elitist centralized growing bureaucracy, as we see evidenced in both Bush regimes (and Reagan), and encourages us towards democracy, smaller government, and true capitalism and away from despotism, growing government, and crony capitalism (a la Bush).
But will we heed the message? Or, as we frequently do, will we allow it to be subverted against ourselves, as the very program named Star Wars was used in a Machiavellian manner to destroy the USSR while producing nothing.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Agreed, Pinochet is bad, and the fact the author chose him as an example suggests poor understanding of certain historical and political facts. But there is the grain of a good point here: it is possible to have a fairly benign dictatorship which is not brutal, not cruel or power-mad, and generally tries to improve the lives of most of the citizens. Singapore would be an admittedly imperfect, but acceptable example of this. Certainly better than the Pinochet regime.
I'm the stranger...posting to
"a galactic civilization - spanning god-knows how many cultures and people with a HUGE communication lag - would almost require an emperor to even move."
Huh? What lag are you talking about? Even from halfway across the galaxy, people do real-time holographic video conferencing in Star Wars all the time.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
That sounds more or less consistent with Thrawn (and I did read Zahn II, both volumes -- nice save on the Luke/Mara relationship, I thought, if a little desperate to retrack a long-ignored plot thread). I think he was an interesting case; though evil in an expedient sort of way, he mostly just perpetuated existing evils rather than creating new ones. Is that good necessarily? No, but he was neither a zealot nor a madman.
/Brian
I think it was more that he accepted the evils as a necessary side effect, and would have dealt with them in the fullness of time, once general order and stability was in place. You can see this in Pellaeon's handling of the Remnant.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
terrorist
Your analogy is flawed. The definition of a freedom fighter depends on which side you're on, not what their actions are. Saying that a terrorist is someone who attacks specifically civilian targets is disengenuous, and something I'd expect of the Bush administration or a Slashdot troll (the parent could be either or both). Terrorists will naturally favour civilian targets because it is the easiest way to achieve the goals defined in the definitions I just provided, however it is not a requirement of the definition. I wouldn't even suggest that terrorists with worthy goals don't target civilians, because that depends largely on the situation.
As Dr. Spork said, until you define "terrorism" shut the fuck up.
Incidentally, moral relativism tends to be the sign of an intelligent mind uncertain and doubtful of the uncompromising opinions imposed on it by a lazy and spoiled society. As D John Tennant put it, The difference between those who are wise and those who are not is that the wise believe themselves to be fools [ie, are doubtful of the certainty of the values they themselves hold], and the fools believe themselves to be wise [ie require something other than themselves to classify as foolish, such as moral relativism, since by their definition a wise person should not have such deep doubts about anything].
Dunno, I could be wrong. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, so I don't know everything there is to know. I just always felt that the Force was independent of human politics.
So, they definitely HAVE to be made homosexual, because:
- Armies nevertheless always tend towards homosexuality. This is why the Dune emperor Leto II had his army of fish-speakers exclusively female...
- Having scores of identical homosexual soldiers solve one of the biggest military problems: coping up with sex urge. Having soldiers go down on prostitutes brings a lot of V.D. problems. Having all identical soldiers having sex upon themselves simply eliminates the V.D. problems.
- It neatly solves logistical problems, since you can have two or more soldiers sleep in the same bed.
- Likewise, they certainly don't mind that, in the shower, other soldiers see their weenies and have a kick out of it!!!
- Gay soldiers don't procreate, so their minds are freed from concern for their offspring, so they can merrily march to slaughter.
- And they don't worry for their lovers because since they are all interchangeable, they know that their lovers will be taken good care of.
- Gay soldiers won't also go and rape women of other worlds. They'll probably not rape men either because they have ready access to themselves.
- Spartan elite troops were exclusively gay, so that they could demonstrate bravery in front of their lovers (but of course, having clones would mean that by all being identical, they would not have to boast to others).
But all this rises a few questions:The Sandinistas did not engage in any sort of mass murder or terror. They fought a revolution. You're getting your data from the flat earth society. Fidel Castro has some human rights violations to his name, but nothing like Pinochet's - or the Argentine and Brazilian juntas of the 70's, for that matter, who were also acting as our Bulwarks against Communism.
BTW, have you ever been to Santiago? I doubt it.
But what would the Republic/Empire be about? Obviously, here we have a multiracial universe where it only seems that Lucas' antropocentric tendencies would make humans more prevalent. (Or could there be Wokiee, or Huttese versions of the same story where humans would be the oddball alien in the cantina?).
So, what would a pan-racial government be? Here, we're talking about different planets whose indigenous inhabitants would be fare more different than simply having extremely thick, wavy blue hair on humanoid shapes... Those different races would have differing needs so trade would really be minimal, and interracial interactions would be rather exceptional. And even when several races would be in close contact, their physical needs as well as their cultural aspirations would be so disparate as there would be room for everyone.
But for those to be drawn under a common government... Surely that common government would certainly not stoop down to order about the minutiae of every planet's life; that would be best handled by the planets themselves, if only because of the ludicrousness of having one race decide for another... So, obviously, a pan-galactic interracial government would simply serve as a regulator of interplanetary/interspecies interaction. As such, it would mostly only regulate commerce, communication and ensure fairness.It is also likely that within such a government, influence could also be based on commercial volume, so the Trade Federation would certainly not need to invade Naboo in the first time, as Naboo would certainly not have been able to legally tax trade routes.
Such a government would rather be streamlined and general, whose regulation would be more oriented towards procedure to solve conflicts once the major interactive guidelines are laid-down than actual regulation of process.
Therefore, it is doubtfull that Coruscant, the capital, would rise to trantoresque proportions as depicted in the movies, as well as the government would be paralyzed by squabbles to the point of not being able to arbiter a mere trade dispute...
Well, I boycotted "Pulp Fiction" - for an entire week.
By now it's grown clear that Quentin Tarantino has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how talkative the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look. Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
This is just the beginning of a long list of lessons pushed by Pulp Fiction.
Possibly the most pernicious idea Pulp Fiction tries to sell us is the idea that Jules Winnfield could be redeemed by an act of divine intervention, diverting the gun blasts from hitting him and his cohort Vincent Vega. Divine intervention is an idea that has always been an instrument of oppressors, as if saying that the suspension of the laws of physics was a sign from God that He wanted one side to win.
Finally, the fact that Jules is spared the consequences of his actions by turning his back on his old ways plays into a disgusting morality that goes back at least two thousand years in the West, one that we should have hopefully grown out of by now: the idea that people can change their ways. No. As any moral person can tell you, once a bad person, always a bad person. Would you forgive Churchill his surliness and alcoholism simply because he led England out of its darkest hour? Is George Wallace to be trusted simply because he tells us he has changed his mind about racial integration? Of course not! Yet this same kind of moral about-face is something that Tarantino expects us to believe from his gangster epic.
People expecting a more realistic treatment of organized crime and its toll on law-abiding society should check out my new book, Mob People, about gangsters in the 30th century. Chapter one is available for preview on my website.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Um, you seem to attempting to view and present Nihilism as a dangerous loaded, certainly insulting word.
1) I don't.
2) Compared to the sum of human knowledge, the quantity that *is* valuable is vastly less than the volume of noise.
2) You apparent failure to appreciate the difference between an absolute and relative position is rather nihilistic its self.