Anakin slaughtering the Tusken Raiders - How wrong was it?

I simply can not believe how many on these forums have the dark side as their ally. The tusken slaughter is the time Anakin turns to the dark side so obviously Lucas is saying it is wrong. And many claim many would do the same thing. I know I wouldn't. of course I would sad and angry but just like Obi Wan wouldn't have killed anybody neither would I. Why? Because I am not a murderer like Anakin. It is not in my blood but it is in Anakin's because he is a cold blooded mass murderer.
There is no difference in killing the tusken raiders than Vader hunting down and killing the Jedi in Episode III. Both acts are only done by truly evil people.

 

Goodness me, what Anakin did was wrong no matter if the Tuskens aren't classed as human. It is still an evil act. Don't make up excuses like that.

The question really should be not "how wrong is killing the Tusken Raiders?" but "Was Anakin of the right frame of mind when he murdered the Tusken Raider tribe?"

 

What Anakin did was clearly wrong. I can understand why he did it, but it was still wrong. Especially slaughtering the innocent children.

 

"What Anakin did was clearly wrong. I can understand why he did it, but it was still wrong. Especially slaughtering the innocent children."

I agree. I can't say whether or not I'd do the same thing in his case, because:
1. Tusken Raiders don't exist on Earth.
2. My mother hasn't been kidnapped and held hostage for a month, only to die in my arms when I came to rescue her after not seeing her for approximately 10 years.

I think it's silly for anyone to say that they would or wouldn't do what Anakin did. It's not something that anyone can easily relate to. You might think that you'd have more self control, but until you've been in that situation (which I sincerely hope nobody ever has to be in), you won't know for sure what you would do.

Yes, it was wrong. I think the main reason that they were called men, women, and children is because they were bipedal, and had many humaniod features. We don't know what is underneath thouse masks. They could look similar to regular humans. It could be compared to seeing your mother killed by a pack of wild wolves. Which ones would you shoot out of anger? Obviously, the adults would probably be the first to go. It would be tragic to kill all the puppies (if that's what wolf children are called) too. Then again, how long would they survive without parental care? How easily adopted would the Tusken Children be?

Yes, it was wrong. Given the circumstances, it might not seem quite as wrong. However, Anakin is a Jedi. He is supposed to have better control of his emotions. He certainly isn't supposed to lash out at everything around him when he gets upset.

 

WARNING: LONG POST


Gah,

Threads like this are almost frightening?. No, I take that back. They ARE frightening in that there are people who will justify ANYTHING!


Son of Lucas:

First of all, your original post is full of speculation.

?They weren't people??

Yes, let us dehumanize the victim first. Reminds me of the argument used to some to justify acts of atrocity towards others. That ?Jews? were less than human ? which allowed for the death of six thousands of them. Or the idea that ?gays? or ?the mentally handicapped? are somehow less than human so we can beat them or institutionalize them without having to feel guilty for it.

Not ?people? ?Maybe. But still sentient beings, yes?


?There's been no evidence in the Star Wars movies that the Tusken Raiders are anything more than butchering savages...and not capable of becoming anything else. ?

????? And how much evidence do we have on Tuskens anyway? A few glimpses of them engaged in actions that could just as easily be construed as ?defending their territory? and yet from this you conclude that they are ?not capable of becoming anything else??


?Padme knows this.?


Speculation. We have no idea what Padme knows about Tuskans.

?Semi-sentient??

Why ?SEMI? sentient? Why the marginalization? Why do you conclude that they are only ?semi? sentient? Because you do not understand their language or motivation?


?In fact a lot of the source material indicates that the moisture farmers periodically went out and slaughtered them as a matter of course to scare them away from the farms (good move considering Shmi). ?


What source material? To what evidence are you referring? Is this drawn from EU?

?That would mean that Luke Skywalker likely did the same thing his father did at one point or another.?

Again, speculation.


?Cliegg and Owen Lars were actually on their way to slaughter some Tusken Raiders when they were ambushed. ?

Sooooooo, it is okay for the farmers to slaughter the Raiders, but wrong for the Raiders to fight back?

?Look at it this way. What if there were a second species on Earth that sprung up??

How do we know it isn?t the Tuskans who are natives and the moisture farmers who have invaded their territory? This would seem to make more sense based upon the Tusken culture.


?What if that species were biologically inclined to kill humans upon contact? ?

Again, you are speculating by suggesting the Tuskans have some biological imperative to kill that goes beyond self-defense, need for food or defending territory. I cannot think of many living creatures, (aside from man) which kill for reasons beyond survival.


?The Tusken Raiders appear to be much in the same vein. Whenever we've seen them in Star Wars they've killed or kidnapped without any provocation. ?

Are you so sure of this? Perhaps there is provocation. Perhaps the moisture farmers are taking their land, stealing their water sources, invading their territory, spreading diseases?. ???? If you can speculate, so can I.

?I understand there's a thematic comparison to Native Americans (though I'd remind everyone that slaughtering Indians was once socially acceptable to the point where men became President on that basis). But these aren't Indians. They're a strange alien species that may very well have evolved to be incapable of living in peace. ?

No, they are not Indians (who prefer Native Americans, BTW) but there are parallels that can be drawn. And because it was once acceptable to kill Natives (in many lands) does not mean it was ever ?right??. Have we learned nothing from history? Or are we willing to keep repeating our mistakes merely because ?they are a strange alien species.?

And as for ?may have evolved to be incapable of living in peace? the crux here is ?MAY??. We don?t know.

And perhaps you are unaware that part of the message behind the Empire which justifies their mistreatment of people across the galaxy and the dark times is that humans are somehow more ?worthy? than the other species

 

Son of Lucas has a very good point. I do not agree with the killing of the Tusken children though. All the men is fine and if any women were to attack they would be killed too. The kids are off limits though.


We also can't moralize with the tuskens. It's like trying to negotiate with terrorists. You can't. The more you talk the more you are killed and they just laugh.

So sometimes you have to exterminate the brutes. The only thing savages understand is brute force. Anakin was wrong to slaughter the Tusken people. It was unneeded. He could have snuck away easily and if any attacked, then kill them.


But to say that Tuskens are as reasonable as humans? Thats just a farse.

 

Based on people reaction to Chewie and Han's description of him I could argue that he's just a savage. Got to go and slice up some wookie children, er puppies.

 

*Lag offers thank you to DrEvazan for pointing out it was six MILLION Jews, not six thousand. Lag *knows* this. Lag apologizes for brain fart. Lag also apologizes to the memory of the 594,000 victims she inadvertently left out. Lag was never good with numbers....*

 

I think you mean 5,994,000, not 594,000.

 

*As Lag admits, Lag is NOT good with numbers. Lag will now go beat head against wall in penitence.*

 

that was an excellent post Lag, regardless of the number mix-up.

 

I wonder what ever happened to those dog-things the Tusken's had as pets!? Did Anakin kill them to? Or did he just feed them some Tusken corpses left behind!

 

What Lagniappe said.

GL is not showing us this scene to let us empathize and think, "Poor Anakin - I'd do the same thing". He's showing us this scene to let us know Anakin is extraordinarily dangerous and out of control when provoked or 'upset'.

And it's controversial, but I don't think the scene with Padme afterwards was showing Anakin's 'remorse'. The book says he was, but that wasn't shown in the movie. He's upset, his mother's dead, he felt helpless, he couldn't save her...THAT's what he's remorseful about. On another thread I and another person pointed out that after the "I killed them like animals" line, Hayden does an extremely subtle and brilliant piece of acting. His expression goes blank, then there's just a hint of a glint in his eye - he enjoyed it! He was proud of himself for killing the Tuskens! THAT's when the Vader music starts because THAT's Vader all over. He wasn't tormented and tortured being Sidious' torpedo for the next 23 years - he HAD to have enjoyed his work - exercising the power of life and death over his victims.

Yeah and it was so wrong - I could've gotten behind him killing those two outside the tent in anger, then splitting with his mom - but not killing everyone in the camp. Men, women, children, infants, old people, innocent relatives and neighbors visiting, pregnant women too heavy to run from Anakin as he's coming after them with a lightsaber...sickening.

 

Yes, it was wrong. Killing is wrong.

But I'm with YodaJeff--I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same thing.

Would it have been OK? No. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have done it.

Lagniappe: The difference between you and me in that respect is that, one, you're a much calmer person than I am, and two, I don't hate guns.

I don't expect Anakin to sit still and meditate and draw upon the Force to calm himself after the Tuskens kidnapped and brutally tortured his mother. I expected him to go ballistic--because that's what I would have done. I feel sorry for the Tusken children, but not for the men who kidnapped Shmi, and I'm not sure I feel sorry for the women who didn't untie her.

 

Does everyone agree that it's the perfect setup for Anakin?

 

The darkside is a slippery slope and by slaughtering the Tuskens, Anakin has lost his footing.


I've said it before, killing the male members of the tribe is perfectly acceptable since they do the magority of the killing.

Though that is not the way of the Jedi. Even if it means that by killing off the tuskens he saves the lives of many moisture farmers.

Qui-Gon could have killed Watto and taken Shmi, eliminating the one of the primary reasons for Anakin's fall. Hell he could have just snuck her off, but that belongs in another thread.

 

Hell he could have just snuck her off, but that belongs in another thread.

Naw. Lucas thought of that one. They had nifty bombs planted in their skins.

 

"The tusken slaughter is the time Anakin turns to the dark side so obviously Lucas is saying it is wrong.

Of course Anakin's feelings are what made it wrong. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

The Geonosians are certainly a higher developed species than the Sandpeople.

No one particularly cared that he went through the Geonosians like a hot knife through butter after breaking into their factory. Why? Because he was under control and didn't kill with hate. Only self-defense, as is proper for a Jedi.

Yes, let us dehumanize the victim first. Reminds me of the argument used to some to justify acts of atrocity towards others. That ?Jews? were less than human ? which allowed for the death of six thousands of them. Or the idea that ?gays? or ?the mentally handicapped? are somehow less than human so we can beat them or institutionalize them without having to feel guilty for it.

Not ?people? ?Maybe. But still sentient beings, yes?

I think I acknowledged the real world disturbing aspects in my second post...specifically mentioning that dehumanization is the first step to atrocities.

For the record I'm the grandson of German Jews who got out a few steps ahead of the genocide. I don't take dehumanization lightly.

However, being a fictional species, you can't automatically place Tusken Raiders on the same plane as humans. It's just not logical given their tendency to kill everyone in sight.

By all evidence the Tusken Raiders are a roving band of murderers, xenophobic to a blind degree.

"Sooooooo, it is okay for the farmers to slaughter the Raiders, but wrong for the Raiders to fight back?"

Yes and no.

The moisture farmers would not bother the Tusken Raiders if they didn't bother them. It's the Sandpeople's aggressiveness that causes the conflict.

The ball is always in the Sandpeople's court. If they chose to stop the violence (which they likely are unable to do) than it would stop.

"Again, you are speculating by suggesting the Tuskans have some biological imperative to kill that goes beyond self-defense, need for food or defending territory. I cannot think of many living creatures, (aside from man) which kill for reasons beyond survival."

It doesn't need to go beyond those instincts. Those instincts are plenty sufficient to explain their murderous behavior.

So is dehumanizing them. Alien they may be, but that does not automatically make them monsters either.

Never said that. You just have to take this on a case-by-case basis.

 

Alien they may be, but that does not automatically make them monsters either.

No, I think kidnapping and torturing an innocent woman over a period of a month automatically makes them monsters.

 

amen

 

"...I think kidnapping and torturing an innocent woman over a period of a month automatically makes them monsters."


But again, we do not KNOW the motivation behind their actions. People are willing to condemn them as "monster" without having all the evidence in! Perhaps to them, Shmi was not innocent...

There are at least two sides here, and we only know of one POV.

What they did was cruel, even vicious - but personally I would want to know WHY they did it before condemning an entire species as bloodthirsty savages without a shred of worth or sentience.

"I don't expect Anakin to sit still and meditate and draw upon the Force to calm himself after the Tuskens kidnapped and brutally tortured his mother. I expected him to go ballistic--because that's what I would have done."

And again, as I and others have pointed out that YOU are not ANAKIN. And although you can identfy with him, unlike you, Anakin is a Jedi. He has had years of training in how to handle strong emotions. Thus when he gives into the impulse to act out his anger and aggression, he FAILS.

I expect him to be calm because that is what he has been trained to do...for 10 years!

If you merely expect the violence because of a situational comparision, i.e. "He should get pissed cause I would get pissed in this situation," then you are dismissing all the training he has had as meaningless.


*If* however, you make this comparision because you recognize in Anakin a tendency towards flashes of anger (which you share) and you expect this reaction because you see he suffers from an inability to control, then you comparison may be applicable. But then you must admit that you recognize the tendancy towards lack of control in Anakin even before the Tuskan incident.

I find it interesting that people are willing to "understand" why Anakin does what he does, even though they admit it is "wrong," yet often these same people are equally unwilling to try and "understand" why the Tuskans might have done what they did even though it was also wrong.



POSSIBLE SLIGHT SPOILERS FOR X-MEN.


Have any here seen the latest X-men film? A parallel could be drawn with between these two films when it comes to issues of "moonsters" verses "people."

For most of the audience, the X-men could be viewed as the heros of the tale - the good guys, yet much of the world is willing to condemn them out of fear. They see the destruction the mutants can cause and decide they are a threat and should be destroyed- including the mutant children. In the same way, Magneto and his followers condemn the humans out of fear, and consider them "mere insects" that should be squashed.

Who is right? Can they both be right? Are the mutants monsters? Are the humans insects? Are we willing to condemn a whole group based upon the actions of a few?

The same issues raised by the Tuskan Raiders are raised in the X-men series as well, but I can't help but wonder how many who are willing to completely condemn the Tuskans are generally supportive of the X-men. Why? Because we KNOW the X-men. We are allowed to see their POV and understand their motivations. Soldiers are killed, but it is justifyable because they invade Xaviers School. Right? Perhaps Shmi and the moisture farmers are seen as invaders by the Tuskans....

And I'll bet many consider what the humans are trying to do is wrong as well....even though for the humans, it is not that different from trying to wipe out the Tuskans, who are a threat to the moisture farmers.


Just food for thought.

 

Well, the discussion has expanded quite a bit, and the orginator has gotten around ot post a few more times. But since things seemed to be quieting down, let me try to lay out a few last arguments:

1. Advanced by son of lucas is the argument asking "How long do you think we would suffer a species such as that?" and "you have to admit that people would be slow to condemn others for removing this threat." The latter is a given, as is arugably the first, but I don't see where it applies. If were talking ethics (and presumably morals) then whether something is wrong or right does not depend on something as whimsical as whether we would do it or not, or how we felt about it. You could see how going by either of these philosophies (especially the former) would lead to no clear ethical code. Thus, there really inapplicable here, what we are trying to do, as you said, is reach the "points-of-view of the participants."

2. Advanced by CieSharp "its not how many you kill and how fast, its what kind of mindset you have when committing the act." Agreed to a large extent, but a completely ignoring action in favor of intention cannot be done. They should be balanced. After all, I can be as determined as I want to head north but if I trying to use a southbound highway exclusively to do it, its never going to happen. In other words, if ends doesn't justify means, your feelings certainly don't either. Though murder doesn't seem to be very serious in the Star Wars universe.

3. Advanced by Anidanami that "So again I will ask for Obi-wan, what did he do?" You acknowledged that he scared them, but find that acceptable because it wasn't his motive to harm them. However, if you're going to try and reach the POV of Anakin, Obi, et al, you should also do it for the Tusken Raiders. How did they know he wasn't trying to harm them? Is not the definition of scare "To strike with sudden fear; alarm?" And is the definition of fear not, "a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger?" What I'm saying is that if he successfully scared him, they were scared because they truly thought he was dangerous, and thus it is natural that they would respond by trying to eliminate this big dangerous, creature that was coming after them.

4. Advanced almost universally by those that argue the killing itself wasn't wrong is the argument that, "Shmi, Cliegg, and the moisture farmers are innocent." However, in the OS description posted by Andanami, they are clearly referred to as "Tatooine colonists." They clearly haven't made an agreement with the Sand People to settle there, since they have no positive contact with them. Therefore, they are squatters/invaders/tresspassers. There presence is unwanted, and they have decided to ignore the owners of the land, and stay their anyway, using up resources on a planet where there are precious few. This makes all of them not innocent, as it is not unnatural to deal with tresspassers. Again, not to say that anyone likes what they did to Shmi and the rest, but simply that the Tusken Raiders have some justification for it.

5. Advanced by son of lucas "Sand people are aliens incapable of peaceful relations with humans [. . .] Why aren't their Tusken Raiders running around Mos Eisley or Mos Espa if that is the case?" In response, let me say that they very well could be. All we've seen is Sand People in traditional grab, and we have no idea what they look like underneath. For all we know, the majority of the people seen in Mos Eisley and Mos Espa could be "civilized" Sand People who have disavowed "the old ways." However, its not even permissible to use this argument, since they might simply have an aversion to city life.

And "its the Sand People's agressiveness that causes the conflict." Perhaps, but the first one to use physical agression isn't always the on to blame, correct? After all, according to most there are provocations that justify the use of force. It could be aruged land snatching would be one of them.

Finally, "they are roving murderers." They are roving, yes. They

 

Ok I thought about and I think I'm just going to stay out of this. I don't want to get amd at any one and say something that I should not. So I will bow out of this thread.

 

Don't leave! We'd love to hear you're oppinion.


The problem is that we don't have very much evidence on the tuskens. All we have is information pointing to the fact that they cannot share the vastness of tatooine with any one but themselves.

They are xenophobic and naturally violent.

Thats why they must be kept in check with force or else they'd be killing every one for the hell of it.

Take a look at the podrace. Every one was having fun watching the race but the tuskens just had to take pot shots at the podracers.

Sure its only one example but theres no proof of them being nice to any one but their own.


NO GENOCIDE, they are native-tatooinians.

 

"The problem is that we don't have very much evidence on the tuskens."

You hit the nail on the head. We *don't* know, so we should not be so swift to condemn them.

"They are xenophobic and naturally violent."

You admit we don't know much about them, yet you make this conclusion???

"Thats why they must be kept in check with force or else they'd be killing every one for the hell of it."

Why "for the hell of it"? Can't you even conceive of the possiblity that they may actually HAVE some underlying motivation beyond pure innate malice? Some rational motive for their actions?

"Take a look at the podrace. Every one was having fun watching the race but the tuskens just had to take pot shots at the podracers."

But is it not possible the Tuskans see the podracers as destroying their environment, as invading their space, as trepassing on sacred grounds, as frightening their children? I can think of many reasons they might have hostile feelings against the Podracers.

"Sure its only one example but theres no proof of them being nice to any one but their own."

Actually, we have never necessarily seen them being nice to their own either - but again, we have never been allowed to see things from their POV.

In the Tuskans, I see a great opportunity for GL to caution us about the dangers of making blanket assumptions about others based only upon limited information....

However, I am not sure he really thinks things through quite so deeply, so chances are the Tuskans really are nothing but simplistic savages used as a convenient plot device...one dimentional and easily dismissed.

Ah well... I still think they make an interesting case for considering the true message of "differing points of view."

I would like to assure all readers that I do not, in any way, condone what the Raiders did to Shmi any more than I condone what Anakin did to the Tuskan's village. However, I believe that if we should strive to at least understand the WHYs behind Anakin's motivations, we should also strive to understand where the Tuskans are coming from...and why they might have acted as they did.

Maybe they are simply killing for the pure enjoyment of it, but we can't know that for certain with the information we have been given.