Are Tuskens All Bad?

I meet a nice Tusken Raider on one of the moons on Endor, he was a nice guy named Norman, he said he hates the bad reputation the Tusken Raiders have on many Planets, many of his people are harmless folk who travel across the galaxy.
ANYWAY after a couple of drinks one thing lead to another and he stole my Wallet with all my credits in.

SO yeah dont trust them. They are scum.

 

The trouble with the "them or us" philosophy is that it leads to a cycle of violence that can only be broken by either abandoning that philosophy, or by the total destruction of "them". Once you have killed all those that you feel are different and threatening in the outside world, schisms are likely to appear within the "us" portion. It's conform or die, don't look different, don't feel different, don't think different. You'll always have to worry that the day will come when your friend next to you will turn to you and say "What do you mean us, paleface?". There is no assurance that you will always be regarded as "us" by those that you put in power.

Leias_love_slave , morality is not a disposable concept, not if humanity wants to survive. I have begun to regard morality as a kind of racial survival instinct. Kindness and the struggle towards a greater moral stance are not signs of weakness but are necessary to the survival of our species as a whole, at least in my view.

I'm not a huge Orson Scott Card fan, I've only read two of his books : Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, but I think he has covered this territory pretty well. Has anyone else read 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.

Definitely not inhumane. I don't have any problems with them being blindfolded or handcuffled. What I was trying to say was that US can't torture them severely for information and then claim that they were being better than the Taliban leaders, so it's all okay.

Depa Billaba

 

I see Anakin's reaction as a natural response.

But mass killings of men, women and children IS NOT a natural response. Anger, grief, pain...yes. Slaughtering a village? No.

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.

Okay, so by the same token I guess that you aren't going to judge the Tuskens either, right?

Foreign, familiar...

One thing is clear. Dead Tuskens can't kill any more settlers.

Dead settler can't kill any Tuskens, and if she's female she won't be bringing any more little settlers into the world to kill Tuskens.

Foreign, familiar...

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.

That's disgusting. Last time I checked, the US isn't deliberately killing children. I mean, seriously, if the US announced a new policy saying that they were not only going to kill terrorists but, just to be on the safe side, they were going to kill their children too, then you might have a point.


Once again, I'm surprised at how accurate my last post was. I'm amazed that people take this tribal way of thinking to such extremes, going so far as to refuse to even make a moral judgement on whether slaughtering a village is wrong, simply because they identify the person who did it as belonging to their tribe.

 

Okay, so by the same token I guess that you aren't going to judge the Tuskens either, right?

Actually, Leias_Love_Slave has been applying his principles rather consistently. From the first, he insisted that "what goes around comes around." And there isn't exactly anything wrong with that. I believe that moral rules are not absolute, so it might as well be that there are no moral rules in the first place - just rules that help us survive as a species.

(That doesn't mean, of course, that I don't condemn Anakin for what he did. Whether I'm following my moral rules or my survival instinct or whatever, I think that Anakin is wrong to go slaughtering the entire Tusken settlement. I'm also dismayed at Shmi's torture. But I don't know whether I can call the Tuskens wrong for doing it without having more information on how the Tuskens live.)

Depa Billaba

 

All of those poor Tuskens .

They don't do anything wrong.

They gave Shmi a great honor . I think she know what a rear honor it was. Note: I didn't her her complain about it. Did you ?

Anakin is the one I don't understand . Even if he hadn't killed all the women and children, they would have still died. Without the brave warriors , they would have died anyway. So in a way he was showing mercy.

 

FuzzyRatt: Not commenting on the weird coloring system for now, I hope that you're joking. I hardly want to get into a debate about Anakin's mercy in killing the women and the children (the women and the children could have gone to another Tusken tribe and lived with them, couldn't they? Or they can simply keep to themselves, instead of tripping over humans). I don't know. It's sort of like a killer killing the two parents and then saying that he was showing mercy by killing the children. After all, without the parents, what were the children going to do?

Depa Billaba

 

They gave Shmi a great honor . I think she know what a rear honor it was. Note: I didn't her her complain about it. Did you ?

FuzzyRatt, I'm not certain what "a rear honor" is, but I'm sure you shouldn't talk about it on a family message board. Posting in colours is really throwing your game off. Perhaps a mod could modify your post?

 

Guys relax, Fuzzy Ratt is just making tongue in cheek posts, being that it is April Fools Day.

 

Any only S L R gets it!

Just look at the sig and thing about most of my post.

 

I think they are misunderstood, there homeworld was 'invaded' as they thought so they have retaliated.

 

I think they are misunderstood, there homeworld was 'invaded' as they thought so they have retaliated.

Like they don't already have plenty of land. I mean, Anakin had to drive through empty desert all night on Owens speeder just to reach them! All he encountered was Jawas and some dead farmers.

 

Like they don't already have plenty of land.

Yeah, and those Indians, they had plenty of land, too! Who cares that the settlers drove them out of their homeland, or that they took the good land, or that they were slaughtered if they refused to be forced out? I mean, the Indians still had plenty of land left, right? They should have been happy!

Hey, the US has a whole bunch of empty space too! I guess it would be OK if we got invaded. We shouldn't do anything to retaliate, because that would make us savages.

 

Yeah, and those Indians, they had plenty of land, too! Who cares that the settlers drove them out of their homeland, or that they took the good land, or that they were slaughtered if they refused to be forced out? I mean, the Indians still had plenty of land left, right? They should have been happy!

Oh, so Shmi Skywalker was driving the Tuskens out of thier homeland? Funny, they didn't show that in the movie. And the moisture farmers slaughtered the Tuskens too? That's odd, I thought it was the other way around. Unless you count Anakin slaughtering the Tuskens. But he was not a farmer.

Hey, the US has a whole bunch of empty space too! I guess it would be OK if we got invaded. We shouldn't do anything to retaliate, because that would make us savages.

The Lars family were not invading the Tuskens, they were just trying to make a living on thier own farm. Its not like the were out there taking land from people.

 

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

You're talking about various countries, right? So -
What I don't understand is this:

"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."

As I asked you before - does Afghanistan still punish by stoning, cutting off of hands etc. Wasn't that ended when the Taliban were defeated? In which case the Guantanemo bay prisoners wouldn't get those punishments , 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."

Do those countries practise stoning, cutting off of hands etc.?



g

 

>>>Gez :So, can I take it that you have no 'good reason' for Anakin's killing of the children?

Mixza: Dead mom, Dark Side, uncontrollable rage...<<<

That's not really a sentence is it.
"Dead mom" - how is that a 'good reason' for killing children? Are you saying they were guilty? Perhaps you could expand on it a bit more.

"...dark side" - that's not a 'good reason' to kill children.

"uncontrollable rage" - that's not a 'good reason' to kill children either.

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.

Ah - the wisdom of the playground.

g

 

That's not really a sentence is it.
"Dead mom" - how is that a 'good reason' for killing children? Are you saying they were guilty? Perhaps you could expand on it a bit more.

His mom was dead. Anakin was hurt and angry. He was not thinking rationally.

"...dark side" - that's not a 'good reason' to kill children.

The Dark Side was influencing his actions.

"uncontrollable rage" - that's not a 'good reason' to kill children either.

Anakin did not intend to kill the children. In fact, he did not intend to kill anyone. If you were actually watching the movie you would see that Anakin does not just walk up to the Tusken camp and start killing everybody. He sneaks in without without anyone noticeing. Why would he do that if he intended to kill them all? He was obviously capable of takeing them on. It is only after he finds his mother- and she dies in his arms- that he starts up with the killing. Therefore, his rage was unconrollable and it cuased him to slaughter the Tuskens.

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.

Ah - the wisdom of the playground.

You could say the same thing about the U.S. going to war after 9/11: Why should we fight? All the terrorists did was attack the World Trade Center. It's nothing to get upset about.

What, should the farmers have just forgotten about Shmi? "Oh well, poor Shmi. Looks like you're gonna have to find yourself another wife, Cliegg," Should Anakin?

I mean, really, what would he have been expected to do? Walk away? He was being seduced by the Dark Side. He had to give in at some point.

 

You could say the same thing about the U.S. going to war after 9/11: Why should we fight? All the terrorists did was attack the World Trade Center. It's nothing to get upset about.

There's a difference between specifically going after those responsible and nuking everyone in sight.

EDIT: Or, as RebelScumb once put it, if an inner-city gang tortures and kills a loved one, how much of the neighborhood are you justified in machine-gunning down?

 

Depends if you are influenced by the Dark Side or not.

 

...So you're justified in doing whatever you want as long as you get really, really angry first.

I don't think the word "justified" means what you think it means.

 

*shakes head*

This debate is still going on? People are still defending the Tuskens, as if they did nothing wrong?

[Han]"I'm out of it for awhile and suddenly everyone is getting delusions of grandeur."[/Han]

I think DavidVogel made the only sane post here.

Let me ask you guys this: If the Tuskens had hurt any of the movie characters that you like, say Obi-Wan or Mace, and either Obi-Wan or Mace had gone ballistic on them, had made sure that they could not hurt anyone again, would you be making these posts about how horrible Obi-Wan and Mace are? Would you be calling Obi-Wan or Mace "baby-killers"? (I mean, look what Mace did--he killed Boba's daddy! He probably set into motion a cycle of hatred that caused Boba to become a bounty hunter and kill people for years to come!)

Or would you understand perfectly why Obi-Wan or Mace got angry?

I've made all the points I'm going to make. I'm not interested in hanging around a "debate" where people are only interested in elevating the Tuskens to innocent-Ewok status simply because Anakin is the one who killed them, and who are accusing those of us who are not interested in sympathizing with them of "racism". Mr_Boba_Jango, mixza and leias_love_slave--bravissimo to you. Keep fighting the good fight and defending a heartbroken young man whose brutally tortured mother had just died in his arms. PM me if you start getting ganged up on--as you know, I can vehemently defend him, even if I get attacked myself for not having the "popular" opinion around here.

 

**Shakes head**

Wow anakin_girl are you still making broad and inaccurate generalisations?

This debate is still going on? People are still defending the Tuskens, as if they did nothing wrong?

Right, since you "left", WHO has said that the Tuskens did nothing wrong? And if one person is allowed to defend Anakin, self confessed child slaughterer, what's wrong with another person defending the Tuskens?

Let me ask you guys this: If the Tuskens had hurt any of the movie characters that you like, say Obi-Wan or Mace, and either Obi-Wan or Mace had gone ballistic on them, had made sure that they could not hurt anyone again, would you be making these posts about how horrible Obi-Wan and Mace are?

Well, you presume that people criticising Anakin don't like the character, which is necessarily true.

But to answer your question, if Mace or Obi Wan had slaughtered an entire village of men, women and children, then YES, I would say how horrible they were.

Would you be calling Obi-Wan or Mace "baby-killers"?

You know something, anakin_girl, the only person I have ever seen use the term "baby-killer" is YOU.

Weird.

Or would you understand perfectly why Obi-Wan or Mace got angry?

And once again, you make a simple error of reasoning. One can understand why Anakin was angry yet still disapprove of what he did.

I'm not interested in hanging around a "debate" where people are only interested in elevating the Tuskens to innocent-Ewok status simply because Anakin is the one who killed them, and who are accusing those of us who are not interested in sympathizing with them of "racism".

What a ridiculous, inaccurate piece of straw man bashing. If you want to quit the debate, feel free. I think this thread can manage quite well without the presence of posters who feel the need to deliberately misquote the position of those that disagree with them.

 

I'll ignore the attacks on me as a person and will answer this question:

And if one person is allowed to defend Anakin, self confessed child slaughterer, what's wrong with another person defending the Tuskens?

Plenty is wrong with it.

1. The Tuskens kidnapped Shmi, tied her to a pole and tortured her to death simply to test how strong she is. That is in the novelization. That is not what Anakin did. Anakin wouldn't have killed anyone had they not brutally tortured his mother to death first. Therefore, he is not the cruel person. The Tuskens are cruel.

2. I'm the only one who used "baby killer"? You just used "child slaughterer".

WHO has said that the Tuskens did nothing wrong?

The people who are comparing them with the Native Americans and are saying that since Shmi was on their land, they were right to kidnap her.


Do you like Anakin's character, or not? I've been given no evidence from your posts to show that you do, so your comment about people who are attacking Anakin no necessarily disliking him doesn't apply in your case.

I may or may not "leave" the debate--it depends on whether I want to allow the people who insist on attacking me every time I open my mouth, to win.

 

I'll ignore the attacks on me as a person...

Which should be easy since I didn't make any...

Plenty is wrong with it.

1. The Tuskens kidnapped Shmi, tied her to a pole and tortured her to death simply to test how strong she is. That is in the novelization. That is not what Anakin did. Anakin wouldn't have killed anyone had they not brutally tortured his mother to death first. Therefore, he is not the cruel person. The Tuskens are cruel.

No, you haven't understood my point. I'm not talking about what is wrong with the details of the argument, I'm talking about the the idea of making an argument at all. What I mean is, if one side can argue its position, then surely the other side should be allowed to.

2. I'm the only one who used "baby killer"? You just used "child slaughterer".

Yeah, I did. Child slaughterer is not the same as baby killer. Wow...I'm kind of surprised I needed to point that out...

"WHO has said that the Tuskens did nothing wrong?"

The people who are comparing them with the Native Americans and are saying that since Shmi was on their land, they were right to kidnap her.

Well, I've seen one person compare them (sort of) to Native Americans, but even that person didn't say that the Tuskens did nothing wrong (and I'm still looking for the people who say that the Tuskens have an Ewok level of innocence)

Do you like Anakin's character, or not? I've been given no evidence from your posts to show that you do, so your comment about people who are attacking Anakin no necessarily disliking him doesn't apply in your case.

Oh...please, not again. How many times have you asked me whether I like Anakin? How many times have you suggested that a personal dislike of the character is what motivates my posts? How many times have I answered this question?

But, I'll say it again in the hope that it sticks this time. My feelings about Anakins actions with regard to the Tuskens has NOTHING to do with me feelings about Anakin as a character.

And the fact that your generalisation may fit some of the people doesn't make it any better. It is still an inaccurate generalisation.

And, funnily enough, I have NEVER, NOT ONCE brought up an individuals personal feelings towards a characater as a means of countering their argument. Yet you continually do it, even after being warned (repeatedly) by mods about it.

 

Well, apparently, the creator of this scene, George Lucas, disagrees with you anakin_girl. (This was posted two pages ago)

"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

The people (or in this case Tuskens) who committed the crime should definitely be punished. No one is arguing that. (And yet you STILL accuse people of making every Tusken seem like an angel) But I cannot understand why you would think it's understandable to atone for the death of innocents by killing more innocents.