Are Tuskens All Bad?

"The Star Wars Databank describes them as ?fearsome desert savages? and that they will ?attack with very little provocation?. Sounds WORSE than a rattlesnake to me. Its seems pretty clear that these things are killing machines. They kinda remind me of the creatures in the movie Alien, only without the slime. I think that maybe one of the reasons that Padme wasn?t too upset was because these critters are probably generally considered more animal than human."

Sound's like what most of the Europeans thoughts when they were subjugating the indigenous peoples of the world. Statements similar to the one above have been used as justification for genocide. While one culture might not seem as "advanced" as another this does not make one less than human. Large groups of people of so called savages were wiped out at the hands of the so called superior race. So the question becomes who really is the savage? Arent they all?
The tuskens seem to be the native sentient species on the planet and the humans(whatever they are) appear to be the settlers. Now as we have all learned people really do not enjoy having their lands "colonized" by outside forces. So you can understand a little of the anger felt by the original inhabitants. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that the Tuskens were not treated entirley well when their planet was first invaded, er colonized.
Furthermore the statements of Owen and Clieg Lars do not really have much weight behind them because they clearly are biased about the situation. Whether or not the tuskens are capable of rational thought is not in question. They can manipulate tools, use beasts of burden(whether through indoctrination or animal husbandry it makes no difference, either requires advanced knowledge unknown to any other species on earth besides homo sapiens), manipulate natural substances into tools(gaffe sticks), clothing or housing. So i would have to say that the statement that they are more like animals is one that clearly stems from a racist point of view akin to the white settlers of the age of imperialism.
So please realise how horrible you sound when you make such acccusations. These statements have been made in the past as excuses to commit genocide.

 

I agree completely, sleazo.

How I see it: Neither side is innocent in this war. Both sides have probably done some nasty things. However, innocents have gotten caught in the middle: Shmi, the Tusken women and children, and I'm sure several other humans and Tuskens, all caught in a war they don't belong to. And it's not right, no matter who was the victim. Both cases are equally wrong, and their entire side had simply been painted with broad strokes by the other side: the Tuskens consider the humans to be invaders, the humans consider the Tuskens to be animals.

And this ties back to the topic: No, the Tuskens are not all bad. The men who tortured Shmi to death: yes, they are bad, and this is clearly the intention of Lucas. But the women and children? I think the very fact that Lucas included them shows that they are not to be lumped with the men in terms of culpability. And outside the movie, see above with my comments on both sides: Cliegg would probably kill any Tusken who came onto his property (even before the incident with Shmi), but he wouldn't go raiding Tusken villages, and he is not evil. Similarly, I'm sure there are plenty of Tuskens who are content to live in peace on the dunes, as long as the humans don't come and attack them. Personally, I think the ones who attacked Luke were defending their territory against what they percieved to an outside invader (that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's right, though, but it is understandable). So, some bad settlers and bad Tuskens start, escalate, and prolong the violence, people like Cliegg and many Tuskens (and I do believe that these make up the majority) have no choice but to take a side, even though they don't go looking for trouble and innocents, and Shmi and Tusken women and children are both killed by the few who give the rest a bad name. It's a vicious cycle that will probably never end until the settlers leave or the Tuskens are exterminated, and this is why I say that both Anakin and the Tuskens who captured Shmi are equally wrong: they are taking innocents down in a war they shouldn't even be a part of.

 

Let me get this straight.

Several hundred people are captured in Afghanistan, fighting for the Taliban. Some are from Afghanistan. Some are from Pakistan. Some might be from Iran, Iraq, and Sudan. A few might be from the U.K. At least one was from the U.S.

I point out that the conditions in Guantanamo Bay are probably better than what they "might" face "in THEIR OWN COUNTRY", (whatever that country is.)

You misread my comment to mean that I'm saying that they all come from one country.

So your point in contradicting me is...

...that prison conditions in places like Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. might actually be better than a U.S. holding facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT?

Maybe you're right. Maybe the U.S. military should study the prisons in these other countries, and model their facilities after them. I wonder if the prisoners would like that?

 

Not to be nitpicky Knight Mical, but acting under heat of passion is not the same as temporary insanity. Acting under heat of passion is the provocation defense, where if found reduces the charge to manslaughter. The difference between acting under heat of passion and temporary insanity is that one acting under heat of passion is aware of what they are doing. They may have lost their good judgment, but they are fully aware of what they are doing. A person acting under temporary insanity either are not aware of what they are doing or no longer have the understanding of their actions. That is why insanity is a complete defense, while heat of passion only reduces the charge. Someone under heat of passion is still acting "knowingly", while someone that is temporarily insane is not.

 

Leias_Love_Slave: It's true that prison conditions in Iraq and company are substantially worse, but does that mean that it's okay for us to treat them like garbage?

Would it be okay for Bob to cut off Jane's left ear because he saved her from a sadist who was going to torture and then kill her? After all, if he hadn't saved her, she would have been tortured and killed, right? All he wanted in return was to cut off one of her ears!

Depa Billaba

 

Voluntary Manslaughter is intentional homicide committed under extenuating circumstances, which mitigate, though they don?t justify or excuse. Killing in sudden heat of passion, provocation, or without a cool mind.

Of course this Heat of Passion must be provoked by the victim and the provocation must be legally adequate. Meaning that the Provocation must be such that it would cause a reasonable man to lose his normal self control (example: violent painful blow, mutual combat, extreme assault, adultery, injuries to a third person if close relative also state of mind , great anger and if committed under the influence of extreme mental disturbance

Extreme mental disturbance could be classified as Temporary Insanity. Temporary being the key word. The sanity defense means chronic mental illness.

Though crim law is not my thing, this is my understanding and my meaning.

 

No, but it's okay to treat them like prisoners.

Where do you get the idea that they're being treated "like garbage"?

 

Your analysis is pretty good. But I don't know if extreme mental disturbance will always qualify for temporary insanity. It all depends on whether the individual is in full cognitive control or not. You could be under extreme mental disturbance, but still be aware of your actions and understand the difference between right and wrong. Temporary insanity only applies if the person was so distraught that they no longer had congnition of what they are doing or if they no longer have the capacity to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Knight Mical, are you a lawyer or in law school by chance?

 

Depa, I'm afraid that I don't understand your analogy.

My point is that these prisoners were fighting for the Taliban. Obviously, they believe in the ways of the Taliban. They believe that women should be whipped on the street if they're caught with clothing violations. They believe that a woman accused of adultery should be publicly stoned. The Taliban hung political opponents in public where their bodies were used for target practice. They must believe in these things. They were fighting in support of them.

Are you really upset that they were blind-folded for security purposes while they were being transported, or that they wore shackles? Prisoners sometimes have to be shackled. Is being handcuffed now considered inhumane?! That's what the critics are saying.

It isn't difficult for me to decide if I would rather be at the mercy of Taliban fighters, or the mercy of the Americans.

 

Whether or not the tuskens are capable of rational thought is not in question. They can manipulate tools, use beasts of burden(whether through indoctrination or animal husbandry it makes no difference, either requires advanced knowledge unknown to any other species on earth besides homo sapiens), manipulate natural substances into tools(gaffe sticks), clothing or housing. So i would have to say that the statement that they are more like animals is one that clearly stems from a racist point of view akin to the white settlers of the age of imperialism. So please realise how horrible you sound when you make such acccusations. These statements have been made in the past as excuses to commit genocide.


Oh brother. Spare me your political correctness. I find it ironic that I would be accused of racism by defending the Tuskens with an argument that they may be creatures that consider humans just another meal. I never said they were incapable of rational thought, nor did I say they were less advanced. My original hypothesis was that in the GFFA there could actually be ?sentient? creatures that are inherently dangerous to humans. I?m not talking about native Americans in 19th century USA. I?m talking about alien creatures in a fantasy movie in another universe. I seem to remember in the movie Aliens that those creatures would capture humans and glue them to the walls of their nest so that they could later be used to feed their children. Those creatures were extremely advanced, if their ship was any indication, yet they were certainly a threat to the human race. While there is no indication that Shmi was being prepared as the main course for the annual Tusken Thanksgiving celebration, it is possible that their attitude toward humans was that the humans were the ?lesser? of the two species. But then I wouldn?t want to accuse the Tuskens of being racists.

 

Those creatures were extremely advanced, if their ship was any indication ...

Th aliens didn't have a ship, IIRC, they were just parasites.

 

So your point in contradicting me is...
...that prison conditions in places like Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. might actually be better than a U.S. holding facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

No
It isn't .
That isn't my point.
Is that clear? Will I need to say it again?

I never said anything about prison conditions being better in those countries as opposed to Guantanemo Bay.

THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT?

No. you're shouting at your own words , not mine.
Now I wouldn't particularly mind if you misunderstood my opinion the first time, but that isn't the case :

I pointed out that they don't all come from countries that punish in the barbaric ways you described, specifically the UK.

You said you couldn't see my point.
I repeated what my point was.

That wasn't good enough, you wanted to know why it was relevant.
So I told you why it was relevant.

But that still wasn't enough, you wanted to know why it was important.
So I told you why it was important and expanded on why it was important to know that they came from different countries.

So I think I've been pretty clear about my point, the relevance, and why it's important.

However...
you obviously feel that this is an important topic and want to continue, so guess what - we will!

You said:
"People are complaining about the way prisoners in Quantanamo Bay are being treated, yet they aren't being hung by the neck in the public square, their hands are not being cut off, they aren't being publicly stoned as they might if they were prisoners in THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

THEIR OWN COUNTRY - as in, the country they were fighting for. "

? Does Afghanistan still punish by stoning, hanging and cutting off hands? I thought that had been stopped since the Taliban had been defeated. Assuming I'm right, then the Guantanemo Bay prisoners wouldn't get the punishments you describe, right?

and:
"Several hundred people are captured in Afghanistan, fighting for the Taliban. Some are from Afghanistan. Some are from Pakistan. Some might be from Iran, Iraq, and Sudan. A few might be from the U.K. At least one was from the U.S.

I point out that the conditions in Guantanamo Bay are probably better than what they "might" face "in THEIR OWN COUNTRY", (whatever that country is.)"

You've already contradicted yourself there - does "THEIR OWN COUNTRY" mean Afghanistan or the various countries they come from? (Don't worry about it, it's easily done).

Do countries like Pakistan, Iraq , Iran have punishments like stoning, cutting off of hands etc. ?


g

 

there is no indication that Shmi was being prepared as the main course for the annual Tusken Thanksgiving celebration,


Maybe not the Tuskens but in a little film called Return of the Jedi, I seem to recall a bunch of cutise teddy bears with spears wanted to make Captain Solo 'the main course of the feast in threepio's honor'.... So other creatures looking upon humans as food sure isn't out of ther question.

 

Well in a deleted scene, a group of Tuskens were dancing around the kitchen table singing:

We feel like Shmi tonight
Fried Shmi tonight

It really was a poignant scene and Lucas really should have left it in.

 

Leias_love_slave, I feel compelled to point out that the five UK citizens who were sent back to the UK from Guantanemo Bay were all released without charge within 72 hours of getting off the plane.

If there was evidence that they fought alongside the Taliban they could have been charged with numerous offences, yet they weren't.

Sorry, but this inaccurate perception that a person must be guilty of being a Taliban solider/supporter just because the American Government has locked them up without trial in Guantanamo Bay was beginning to grate a little...


In other news, I still can't condemn a whole race based on roughly 2 minutes of screen time (and I might be overestimating that).

 

gezvader, it appears that the misunderstanding is in our interpretation of each others' words.

For example, you think my capping is shouting. To me, THIS IS NOT SHOUTING. All I was trying to do was emphasize the words. My mistake. I apologize.

I'd like to know what the disagreement is. It appears to come down to two things.

1) I said "country" instead of "countries".

If I said "All the foreign students in England with expired visas should go back to THEIR OWN COUNTRY", it might be grammatically incorrect, but my meaning would have been more clear that I was talking about more than one place, as obviously, all the foreign students in England do not come from one particular country. I thought it was already obvious that the captured fighters were from more than one country.

2) I thought you were asking for an example when you asked "What country?"...

...so I gave you one. Afghanistan. If I thought you were asking for a list, I would have given you a list. Did you expect a list or an example?

If we both agree that the prisoners that were captured in Afghanistan are from several different countries, then that's one thing we agree on.

If we both agree that in SOME of these countries, radical, brutal treatment of accused people was still going on even as the war was ongoing, then that's something else we agree on.

If we agree that in SOME other countries of origin, prisoners are treated more humanely, then that is a third thing we agree on.

Am I still on track?

So what are we in disagreement about? I'm not being sarcastic. I'd really like to know.

 

JenX, your point is valid. I was generalizing. I can't say that every single prisoner in Guantanamo Bay is PROVEN to be a Taliban fighter, just as another person cannot say they're all innocent. I can only say that they were suspected, and taken into custody to be processed.

I will say that if the five U.K. citizens were released within 72 hours of getting off the plane, then obviously they were treated better than some of those punished at the hands of radicals in countries like Iran, Iraq, etc...

...which was my point.

What I'm saying is, the complaints I've heard about their treatment sound petty. Eyes covered to prevent cross-communication, shackles during transport. Those are reasonable precautionary measures, not mistreatment.

I'm reminded of an Iranian friend who now lives here in Canada. He has described to me in detail how he was tortured in his own country, by his own government. His story is hard to hear.

When I think of my friend, it's hard to get choked up because someone's handcuffs were too tight.

 

This debate is rapidly becoming less and less sane with each post.

 

What I'm saying is, the complaints I've heard about their treatment sound petty. Eyes covered to prevent cross-communication, shackles during transport. Those are reasonable precautionary measures, not mistreatment.

I'm reminded of an Iranian friend who now lives here in Canada. He has described to me in detail how he was tortured in his own country, by his own government. His story is hard to hear.

When I think of my friend, it's hard to get choked up because someone's handcuffs were too tight.

The only one of the UK citizens to speak publically has complained that he was repeatedly beaten, repeatedly drugged, and subjected to mental torture. He says others were treated far worse then he was.

And that's on top of being held for two years without trial (and without knowing if you'll ever get a trial, since you can't talk to friends, family or a lawyer).


...to link this back to the topic at hand, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a tendency amongst many people to demonise that which is foreign, whilst downplaying the bad side of that which is familiar.

Foreign countries torture people. We know this because people who have been freed tell us so.

Our own (familiar) countries treat people better. They don't torture people, and the people who say they do are just liars. Even when we lock people up for years without trial, that's ok, because it isn't as bad as the treatment they would recieve elsewhere.

See what I'm getting at?

In the case of the Tuskens and Anakin, the Tuskens are the foreign. The films tell us next to nothing about them, so it's easy to condemn them for what (some of them) did.

Anakin would be the familiar. When he does something wrong we can find mitagating cicumstances beyond the obvious fact that his mother was the victim of a horrific ordeal. We can look at his life as a slave, the lose of parental love, manipulations of Palpatine, etc etc etc.

The problem with this is that it leads some people to reject the mere idea that the reverse can also be true. To merely entertain the possibility of mitagating circumstances which contributed to the Tuskens actions leads some people to scream blue murder. Likewise if you ignore the factors that mat have led Anakin to do what he did.

 

In this thread, I'm seeing a similarity in the way some people criticize Anakin, and the way some people criticize the United States...

...just as I see a similarity in the way they sympathize with and defend the Tuskens the same way they sympathize with those that hate the United States.

I relate to Anakin's anger, and I relate to the anger many in the United States feel. People are tribal by nature, and 9/11 has made that clear to me.

 

Huh?

Leias_love_slave, don't beat around the bush. If you have a specific point to make, or an argument to counter, then do it.

All that your last post has done is side step the issue, conflating seperate arguments whilst avoiding arguing the specifics.

I'm glad that relate to the anger Americans felt after 9/11. So do I. But all your last post has done is illustrate my point. You equate crticism of Anakin with criticism the US, marking both Anakin and the US as the familiar. You then equate those hostile to the US with the sympathetic to the Tuskens, marking them both as foreign. And then you admit to reacting to the two on tribal terms.

As I said, there is a tendency amongst many people to demonise that which is foreign, whilst downplaying the bad side of that which is familiar.

I also said that some people scream blue murder when the argument is reversed, when we scrutinise the familiar in the same way we scrutinise the foreign.

I must admit, I didn't expect the evidence of this to arrive so quickly and completely...

 

"His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village."

"The scene of the Tusken Raiders is the first scene that ultimately takes him on the road to the Dark Side...I mean, he's been prepping for this, but that's the one where he sort of...is doing something that is completely inappropriate."

[later]"...because of that, and because he was unwilling to let go of his mother -- because he was so attached to her -- he committed this terrible revenge on the Tusken Raiders."
-- George Lucas, AOTC commentary (don't ask me why I had access to the commentary)

It's pretty clear that Anakin doesn't come out of this a complete innocent, despite Padme forgivng and comforting him. Yes, something horrible did happen to Anakin, but George even says the "justice" that Anakin took into his own hands was wrong.

 

Yes, something horrible did happen to Anakin, but George even says the "justice" that Anakin took into his own hands was wrong.

Yeah, of course it was wrong, but just because Anakin did a bad thing doesn't make him a bad person. Personally I'm on his side. The Tuskens started it.

 

JenX, I can see that you relate to those angry about 9/11 by the concern you've expressed for those on the receiving end of America's response to 9/11.

Is that clear enough?

My point? Sometimes you have to choose a side. And do what is best for you and your 'tribe'. And sometimes that means getting dirty.

Am I beating around the bush?

I see Anakin's reaction as a natural response. Personally, I'm not judging whether it is good or not. His mother and the other settlers are part of his 'tribe'. And he got dirty. One thing is clear. Dead Tuskens can't kill any more settlers.

You don't see the similarity that I do? The United States is responding to 9/11 and maybe they'll get dirty. And I feel safer for it.

 

"Oh brother. Spare me your political correctness. I find it ironic that I would be accused of racism by defending the Tuskens with an argument that they may be creatures that consider humans just another meal. I never said they were incapable of rational thought, nor did I say they were less advanced. My original hypothesis was that in the GFFA there could actually be ?sentient? creatures that are inherently dangerous to humans. I?m not talking about native Americans in 19th century USA. I?m talking about alien creatures in a fantasy movie in another universe. I seem to remember in the movie Aliens that those creatures would capture humans and glue them to the walls of their nest so that they could later be used to feed their children. Those creatures were extremely advanced, if their ship was any indication, yet they were certainly a threat to the human race. While there is no indication that Shmi was being prepared as the main course for the annual Tusken Thanksgiving celebration, it is possible that their attitude toward humans was that the humans were the ?lesser? of the two species. But then I wouldn?t want to accuse the Tuskens of being racists"

Well i am glad to see that you are incapable of understanding what i mean. I never meant them to be humans, i compared their plight to the plight faced by the indigenous peoples of the world. Do you understand that this is the same way people viewed the native ameicans? Though i am glad as a person who follows political correctiness that you called them native americans(sarcasm). What you failed to grasp was the relationship between the two peoples, the ruling and the subjugated. You called them animals and you described them as less then human. This is that attitude that i described, a racist attitude, dangerous to "humans". If i am not mistaken the Ewoks were more then ready to bbq the whole lot of the main characters of the OT. Do you view them the same way? Would you give them the same chance as the tuskens?
Its all a matter of a certain point of view isnt it?

Secondly they had no ship, third if all "creatures" that were dangerous to the human race were exterminated then we wouldnt have any sharks, bears, lions, tigers, tigers, mosquitos, duck billed platypus' ect.... would we.

So maybe you could think outside your own boundaries and not worry about political correctness and try to comprehend what it is like to live thorugh others eyes you might get what im saying. But you never will cause you are trapped. SO please continue on your destructive path to the dark side.





However if GL didnt think it was bad to massacre the tuskens, would that be the first time in the trilopy where vaders theme reared its head?