Bleeding Hearts call Anakin a mass murderer

Anakin is by definition a mass murderer. He killed many sentiment beings in under 24 hours (if he had killed them over time he'd be a serial killer) and he slaughtered the defenceless. He is a mass murderer, and you can't argue that fact- you may understand his reasons (I know I do) for doing it and you may agree with him but that doesn't mean he didn't do something morally wrong. GL wanted you to empathise with him and at the same time realise that it is a tremendously evil thing to do.

Lucas himself has said that with the PT he was trying to understand how someone turns evil- people aren't born that way (innocent little Ani) so how do they become people like Hitler, Stalin, Atilla? The do it in small steps- this was one of his first steps to becoming Vader and becoming evil. the PT is about the descent into hatred and evil, the OT is about being redeemed by your children- he's a big believer than the sins of the fathers are redeemed by the children.

The only issue I have with it is Padme's lack of reaction. While she may have understood his reasons don't you think she would have been a bit (actually a lot) perturbed by his actions at the same time? Lucas dropped the ball there, he took a very powerful scene and lessened the impact by the lack of reaction from Padme.

 

the_darke,

your points are correct. Anakin is most definitely a mass murderer. Though, one thing to keep in mind. A serial killer isn't just about time, but MO. Serial killers usually kill in the same way and tend to have certain targets, usually women who fit certain descriptions,they have a sort of "plan". Certain things they did. For instance, Jack the Ripper always killed hookers, and always mutilated their corpses, though the details varied. The commandants of Hitler's camps were mass murderers for instance, not serial killer, though their murders took place over a fairly long time.

Anyway, back to the point. I don't think anyone would argue that what Anakin did is understandable in a way. It's easy to emphathise with him. What seperates me from OBI-WAN and his supporters is that I still say "Yeah, he was hurting. Yeah, they're violent savages. Yeah, his mother died in his arms. He had a rough childhood. But guess what? He's still a murderer." Essentially, if I had caught him, assuming I had the power, I'd put him on trial for murder. I'd feel for him, but still.....he's a murderer. Pure and simple. I think had he left it to the ones who attacked a case could be made for self-defense. Had he only attacked the ones responsible for killing, a case could be made that it was some kind of frontier justice. He crossed the line, and I think it's clear. I'm just mystified that people don't understand this and it truly makes me wonder about today's society. I AM starting to see where we get the mentality that leads to not taking responsibility for one's own actions.

 

"That argument is weak. Many Native Americans were peaceful and established trade with white settlers. We don't see Tuskens doing that, do we? Tuskens are better compared to human parasites. They do nothing but harm to human(oid)s."

But we see the jawas doing that. This isn't science fiction per-se.

Tuskens repersent the more violent nomadic natives. Jawas the peaceful ones that trade and what not.


Quit comparing them to indians?
Um...hello? Where do you think GL got the idea in the first place?

They're in the desert...the Lars are settlers and farmers that live near what is basically a trading post. There are violent 'savages' and peaceful natives they trade with and live in relative peace with.

Tatooine *IS* the old west.

The tusken's are not animals, but men. They appear so you can't see their faces, and can't understand them. They appear to be mindless savages. But they're not. We see them as the settlers do, the settlers do think of them as monsters. Anakin refers to them as men, women, and children as another poster pointed out. He knew what he did.

And he violently slaughtered every one of them with hatred and out of revenge.

 

We really shouldn't be arguing this because the moral ambiguity of Anakin's actions and the internal conflict it creates are the very point of having it be in the story. We are supposed to both empathize and condemn Anakin, and it is meant to demonstrate his potential for great, consuming evil.

 

I am having trouble comming up with a good argument for this debate, but here i go.

Morally, both were in the wrong, and two wrongs dont make a right. Aniken did kill lots of sentiants, to the point that he was a mass murderer IMHO. The Tuscans should not have done what they did, but does anyone deserver what happened to them?

I think what i am trying to say is that although the Tuscans were in the wrong, that does not make it right that Aniken should kill them all.

The tuscans did prove themselves a threat as well. They were the ones who attacked and tourched others. In a way, it could be seen as something akine to killing a rabid dog? However, that was not why Aniken killed them all.

Look, if Aniken was meant to have justification for killing the Raiders, then it sort of negates the whole dark side thing. You know he is supose to kill lots of people in an evil way? Maybe the Tuscans had it comming, but no one has the right to act in the way Aniken did.

 

Call me morbid, but I wanted to see Anakin kick a little more Tusken raider ASS!! Maybe not showing him kill the women and children, but at least they could have shown a few more being killed while trying to put up a fight! How bad-ass would it have been if after Anakin killed the first three Tuskens, he used the force choke on a whole group of tuskens running towards him. Then maybe a couple more with his lightsaber, making it more of an action sequence.

 

oh, and....I agree with OBI-WAN

 

Although I doubt it, I hope the DVD extends that scene. In the ATOC novel, Anakin demonstrates unprecedented command of the force. It would really be cool to see it. That scene will demonstrate the extent to which Anakin really is a powerhouse.

...at one point, after he killed about 15 of them, the rest began to run from him in terror. He tracked them down (using force-speed) and hacked them up. Five or so of them run into a hut to hide from him so he force-threw an enormous boulder onto the hut and crushed them all. ...vulgar display of power. I want to see it.

I will not ever concede that this was murder. It was an act of war on Anakin's part; a counter-attack in a feud begun and perpetuated by the Tusken Raiders. It is a feud that cannot be resolved with negotiation. I don't consider the Tusken Raiders to be "humans" thus their deaths cannot be classified as "murders." I'd let PETA handle the prosecution on that one. If I was forced to debate this under the pretense that the Tuskens are to be given 'human-rights,' I would call the women and children collateral damage in a war.

 

I think that the fact that you don't see Anakin killing all of them makes the scene much more powerful and disturbing.

For a good view of how Star Wars is kind of like the old west, watch "Dances With Wolves". There's a group of Native Americans who are alot like the Tuskens, the Pawnee.

 

to my understanding, in the comic book (WHICH I READ BEFORE I SAW THE MOVIE WHICH TOOK OUT A LOT OF THE FUN IN IT; A MISTAKE I SHALL NEVER MAKE AGAIN...ON ANY MOVIE) padme is comforting anakin. she says, "anakin, to be angry is human." anakin replies, "but to be a jedi is to control it." anakin was deeply saddened by his mother's death AND for killing those people. i do think he is justified but he has been called to be a better man than that. i have sympathy for him but at the same time the jedi law can't be ignored.

QUESTION, DO YOU THINK YODA KNEW WHAT ANAKIN WAS DOING AT THE TIME. I KNOW HE SENSED IT BUT DOES HE KNOW THE SPECIFIC DETAILS??????

 

Tuskens of course are not animals, neither terrorists, communists, nacis or I don't know... (to tell the truth they are a bit like the old Indian tribes) On Tatooine it is not a crime to kill some Tuskens - I'm sure no one will hold him responsible - only himself.

I kept thinking watching that scene the first time that it was Lucas again "lifting" the basic imagery of a movie, like he has done before.

One of the movies listed that Lucas lifted for Star Wars was The Searchers with John Wayne. The shocked, horrored look on Luke's eyes, the columns of smoke blowing into the wind at the Lars homestead is very reminiscent of a similar scene in the early part of The Searchers.

Watching Anakin jump off a ridge, and come into a Tusken teepee, reminded me again of a scene LATE in The Searchers. In the Searchers, the hero is breaking into an Indian encampment. He is dropped off a small cliff (doesn't jump, obviously). A dog is barking in the distance and the bad Indian chief throws a rock at the dog. the hero cuts into the back of a real teepee, and rescues his sister.

The Indians back then were considered savages, like these Sandpeople are considered now. But they use tools.

 

"Only the worst bleeding heart, communist liberals..."

the same ones who cried the loudest for Jar Jar's demise and who's ideals led to the founding of the Anti-Jar Consortium?

 

OBI-WAN, it does not really matter whether or not you think Tusken Raiders are human or non-human. Anakin himself clearly thought they were human. How else would you explain the line "they are like animals"? Not "they are animals". Moreover, he then says that he not only killed the men, but the women and children. Even though many people of Tattoine consider them to be savages, they still call them "Sand People", don't they?

The only part of your argument that I partially might buy is that it was an act of war, not murder. However, although it may be generally accepted that "collateral damage" to defenseless (comparatively speaking) women and children in a wartime situation would not necessarily be equivalent to murder, I imagine that if someone killed those same women and children deliberately, using hand-to-hand combat (sword, or lightsaber, or whatever), the vast majority of people would consider the action not only heinous, but murder.

Addendum: When I use the word "human" in this post, I do not mean "homo sapiens" in the literal sense. I only use the word in contrast to "animal", to refer to sentient beings that are logical and have emotions.

 

Hey 0Bl-WAN, when do you get the Klan robes back from the dry cleaners? The Grand Dragon keeps coming around wondering where you were these past few meetings...

Y'know, people have justified lynch mobs and holocausts by calling their victims "animals" who were "lower life forms" that supposedly made life worse for no one else and contributed nothing. Those are exactly the type of people and thoughts you are defending.

 

I got tired of reading all the BS by page three so here's my take on it:

A) The Tusken Raiders have the ability to make fire, shelter, weapons (gaffi sticks), and can operate more complex weapons (rifles). They have tactical savvy (single file, yadda yadda) and mechanical ability (their dust masks). This is about about on par with early Europe. Consider the Vandals. These were tribes that wandered around looting, pillaging, abducting. As were the Mongols who swept in and handed mEurope it's ass. Lower life forms? Right.

B) Sure, they're super- violent, but look where they live. In a desert. If you lived in the damn desert with what they had you'd damn sure wanna keep it. They seem to detest outsiders, but so have many of our cultures in days gone by.

C) I'm proud to live in "commie liberal" Canada. And I also find it amusing that Castro has outlasted, what, 5 presidents now?

Anyways, OBI-WAN, you need to chill, big time.

 

"LordMelkor, I wouldn't justify killing Bin Laden's children. On a side note, I would personlly slash their throats if given the opportunity. But let's not get boggled down in semantics."

Man, you are frigging loony toons...

http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/imagelib.nsf/main/wounded_afghani_child.jpg/$file/wounded_afghani_child.jpg

 

OBI-WAN,

I have done alot of thinking on your post, and each of your replies. In all honesty, I am beginning to suspect you're a teenager. I'm not trying to be offensive, but I see a certain immaturity in your posts, that generally comes from a lack of experience in the world. My biggest clues are your rationalizations of Anakin's actions, as well as your focus on the "bad @$$ness" of his way of doing it in the novel.

EVEN if you call Anakin's actions part of a war (which is inherently false, as a war is between nations.) What he did crosses the line even in a war. He'd be tried as a war criminal and executed in pretty much any civilized country. Why? Because of the women and children. They weren't collateral damage. Collateral damage is generally an accident committed while attacking legitimate targets. He methodically hunted each and every one of them down and killed them in hand to hand combat. Believe me, in any civilized nation, he'd be tried for his crimes. Stop trying to rationalize his actions away and face the facts.

 

Okay, this is getting out hand and pretty soon its going to get ugly. I'm closing it now before things get to bad.