Are Tuskens All Bad?

They are "bad" in the same way Boba Fett is bad. The Tuskens don't know how to be anything else except savage. They are not born evil, but from day 1 they learn to be that way; in a similiar way, Jango desenstizes young Boba. I think the Tuskens probably believe that no one else has feelings or a soul or whatever they think makes a person a person except them.

 

Say what you like about the Tuskens capturing and torturing an innocent woman, but at least it's a sign of families doing something together.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

But does that make Shmi's brutal death by torture OK?

I understand Anakin's revenge much more. For one thing, Anakin attacked people who had actually done something to hurt him--they had tortured and killed his mother. For another thing, Anakin didn't kidnap any Tusken women or children and tie them up and torture them for sport. Motives and degree of suffering make a huge difference here.

Adam: You must hold up the Mafia as a sign of "family unity" as well.

And I'm not being ethnocentric--my husband is Italian-American.

 

Yeah, in fact Anakin helped an injured Tusken once. And that time the tuskens allowed Anakin to walk away from them unharmed; something almost unheard of with Tuskens.

 

And that time the tuskens allowed Anakin to walk away from them unharmed; something almost unheard of with Tuskens.

The fact that it was unheard of for this group to let someone walk away unharmed, especially someone who had helped them out, should tell you something about the kind of people they are.

 

The fact that it was unheard of for this group to let someone walk away unharmed, especially someone who had helped them out, should tell you something about the kind of people they are.

It might also suggest that nobody had tried to help them out before.

 

I don't tend to help people out who make it a habit to torture people for sport either.

 

I'm Italian-American as well.

Except all the Mafia folks are Sicilians.

My family is from Tuscany.

Which would make me... a Tuscan.





Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Anakin_girl, you know Shmi wasn't actively being tortured at the time. I would argue that the context of those few images, taken alone, is positive--yes. If you argue otherwise, then by the same logic we should never view Anakin in a positive light, since he's probably just between blowing up worlds and massacring villages.

Also, while "genocide" might have been to strong a term, there are definite racial connotations to what Anakin did. Yes, he was just killing blindly. But after thinking about the act and having time to regain all his other senses ("I should be better than this") he still calls them animals.

 

I don't tend to help people out who make it a habit to torture people for sport either.

I must have missed the part of the movie where the Tuskens explain that they are doing it for sport.

 

soitcomestothis, you must not have the "real" edition of AOTC where there are sports commentators giving you the play by play. "Tusken #1 pokes here with a stick", "Tusken #2 kicks her and then kicks her again", "Tusken #3 is an old vet but he can still show the fans why he is regarded as one of the best tortorers of all time."

 

I must have missed the part of the movie where the Tuskens explain that they are doing it for sport.

I must have missed the part of the movie where someone explains why else the Tuskens would torture a sweet, innocent woman like Shmi.

Stop playing games, guys. You're just proving my point that you're inserting things in the movie to make the Tuskens look like sweet innocent Ewoks for the sole purpose of demonizing Anakin.

 

I'm not playing games and I'm not making the Tuskens out to be sweet or innocent; the adult males have shown themselves to be the product of a primitive, violent, xenophobic culture.

The point I'm trying to make is that they are not animals, they are sentient and have free-will and thereby have the capacity for both good and evil. I believe that children are innocent and not inherently evil, whatever their parentage. When you start suggesting that children are born evil you are moving into the bounds of a racist argument. I am not demonizing Anakin, I feel you are demonizing the Tuskens as a race in order to exuse the killing of the kids.

 

Anakin-girl, we really aren't playing games.

It's true the movie doesn't give an explanation. But in most cases, you give people the benfit of the doubt. That is, they usually have some reasoning behind their actions, even if it is flawed or based on false assumptions. We do this because they have the capacity to think, and aren't inherently evil. Why won't you make the same assumption about the Tuskens? This is certainly more reasonable than assuming they're all born some kind of masochist sociopaths.

I think, also, it comes down to this:

" Do people have the right to take revenge?'~anakin-girl

Fundamentally, I'd say no, they don't at all.

 

"I think, also, it comes down to this:

" Do people have the right to take revenge?'~anakin-girl

Fundamentally, I'd say no, they don't at all."

We also don't have the right to take revenge from a legal standpoint as well. Killing in revenge is not a justifiable homicide and will land you in jail. Legally, the only justification for killing is in self-defense.

 

It's true the movie doesn't give an explanation. But in most cases, you give people the benfit of the doubt.

In most cases? Am I to assume Anakin is the exception? You're certainly making him out to be. I have yet to see you guys give him the benefit of the doubt.

That is, they usually have some reasoning behind their actions, even if it is flawed or based on false assumptions. We do this because they have the capacity to think, and aren't inherently evil.

So if the Tuskens have some reasoning behind their actions, such as they just feel like torturing an innocent woman because that's what they do for fun, it's OK and they aren't inherently evil because they have the capacity to think--but if Anakin kills for revenge, then he's a psychotic sociopathic baby-killer?

" Do people have the right to take revenge?'~anakin-girl

Fundamentally, I'd say no, they don't at all.

I disagree to a point. I don't know if you would call it a "right" to take revenge, but I think it's understandable to do so. I am not a "turn the other cheek" kind of person--those type of people end up doormats. And my mother is worth going to jail for.

What did you expect Anakin to do? Just walk out of the camp with his mother's body and let the thugs get away with what they did? You're asking him to be super-human if you do that. The Tuskens would never pay--there was no law on Tatooine. That is also why you couldn't expect him to call the police.

Or did you expect him to go up to each Tusken and say, "Excuse me--were you one of the ones who killed my mother?"

And for those of you who would like to bury your heads in the sand and shove the halos further on the Tuskens' heads in order to further your theory that evil ol' Ani was picking on the poor wittle innocent Tuskens, this is from the novelization:

She wasn't seeing much with her eyes. Caked and swollen with the beatings, they would hardly open. She wasn't hearing much with her ears, for the sounds around her were harsh and threatening, relentlessly so. And she wasn't feeling much with her body, for there was nothing there but pain...

Annie was her comfort, her place to hide from the pain the Tuskens had, and were, exacting upon her battered body. Every day they came in and tortured her a bit more, prodding her with sharp spears and beating her with the blunt shafts and short whips. It was more than a desire to inflict pain, Shmi realized, although she could not speak their croaking language. This was the Tusken way of measuring their enemies, and from the nods and the tone of their voices, she realized that her resilience had impressed them...

"Mom," Anakin breathed again, and his legs weakened beneath him. The room was lit by dozens of candles, and by a shaft of pale moonlight, streaming from a hole in the roof, illuminating the figure of Shmi, tied facing against a rack on the side of the tent. Her arms were outstretched, bound at bloodied wrists, and her face, when turned to the side, showed the weeks of beatings...

He cradled her head and kept repeating her name softly, and finally, Shmi's eyelids fluttered open as much as she could manage through the swelling and dried blood.

"Annie?" she whispered back. He could feel her wheezing as she tried to speak, and he knew that many of her ribs had been crushed. "Annie? Is that you?"

So tell me again why we should try to "understand" the Tuskens? You mean the same reason we should try to "understand" Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden?

No thanks, especially considering you guys aren't willing to give a modicum of the understanding to Anakin that you're willing to give to these thugs--once again proving my point.

They deserved to be decapitated with Anakin's lightsaber. They're lucky they came into contact with him--I would have chopped off their legs and arms before their heads if they did that to my mother.

Oh, and for those of you who don't think the novelization is canon? If you go strictly by the movies, we d

 

So according to you, the two options are:

1. I think Anakin is the most wonderfulest human being ever for slaughtering those evil baby Tuskens, with their sinister heathen savage ways.

or

2. I think Tuskens are the best species ever, and Anakin should have just told them to apologize for what they did. Oh yeah, and I hate Anakin, since it's perfectly normal to have strong feelings towards fictional characters.

Can I choose none of the above?

I'm going to put this in bold so my post can't be misinterpreted: I do not think the Tuskens are happy creatures of light and sugar and [insert cliched straw man here].

Repeat: I do not think the Tuskens are innocent, and I do not think Shmi is an evil woman who got what was coming to her.

Third time's the charm: I do not hate Anakin and love the Tuskens, since I am not the sort of person who acts as if these characters are real people who would get offended by what we are saying.

Now, with that out of the way: What Anakin did was appalling. Yes, I said appalling. I'm guessing that makes me an "Anakin-hater" and "Tusken defender", but whatever.

Is revenge OK? I'd say no. However, it is a very normal human response. Two caveats, though: 1. Anakin is not a normal human. He is a Jedi. He is supposed to be above such things. 2. No matter how justified killing the men was, killing innocent women and children is wrong. To deflect the obvious rebuttal, yes, it was wrong to kill Shmi too. Very wrong. That doesn't mean that Anakin can go slaughtering willy-nilly.

And yes, Anakin is a baby-killer. He killed babies. I'd say that's enough criteria to be called a baby-killer, wouldn't you?

 

Is revenge OK? I'd say no. However, it is a very normal human response. Two caveats, though: 1. Anakin is not a normal human. He is a Jedi. He is supposed to be above such things.

So in other words, he's supposed to be a saint?

Why aren't you applying criteria even close to that to the Tuskens? Why are they not required to act like saints?

And yes, Anakin is a baby-killer.

What was that about not having strong feelings towards fictional characters?

I don't tend to call someone a "baby-killer" unless I have strong feelings of hatred towards that person, or in this case, character.

And where does it say he killed babies? I saw no babies in the film. I'll check the novelization again, but I didn't see any babies mentioned there either.

What Anakin did was appalling. Yes, I said appalling.

According to someone who expects him to be a saint, I guess so.

And what the Tuskens did was...what? I missed that. Oh, right...because you never said anything negative about what the Tuskens did, other than they were "not innocent".

I'm guessing that makes me an "Anakin-hater" and "Tusken defender", but whatever.

Tusken defender yes. You defended the Tuskens, that makes you a Tusken defender, right?

Anakin-hater...well, you called him a baby-killer, didn't you?

 

They deserved to be decapitated with Anakin's lightsaber. They're lucky they came into contact with him--I would have chopped off their legs and arms before their heads if they did that to my mother.

I completly agree with you. What Anakin did was completely understandable. If any of you like SW novels and read Tatooine Ghost by Troy Denning, you'll recall that even Han Solo said he understood it and might have done that same thing in Anakin's position.

What I'm saying is, they were not born evil. They are evil because evil is all that they know. Thay are a savages. That is not thier fault; they just are. Look at Darth Vader. He tortured lots of people, but we all know he wasn't born evil.

Oh, and for those of you who don't think the novelization is canon? If you go strictly by the movies, we don't see Anakin kill any children. Maybe he didn't.

Yeah he did. He admitted it to Padme.

Movie Script:
PADMÉ: Annie, what's wrong?
ANAKIN: I... I killed them. I killed them all. They're
dead, every single one of them...
ANAKIN focuses on her like someone returning from far away.
ANAKIN: Not just the men, but the women and the children too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals... I hate them!

Not that they didn't bring that onto themselves. I am not sideing with the Tusken Raiders I'm totally on Ani's side as far as this issue is concerned. Even more so since reading Tatooine Ghost, which by the way, I think is a great book, even if you are not an EU fan. If anyone here has not read it, you should. Part of it has a lot to do with this topic. I am just saying that no one is born evil.

 

That one line of the script is really all we have technically. The way some people talk, you'd think Anakin went to a Tusken Day Care Center and chopped up some kids for fun. Yes, he said the women and the children, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the camp wasn't men.

And I love Tatooine Ghost.

 

So in other words, he's supposed to be a saint?

Well yes, he's supposed to be. That's one of the key tenets of the Jedi Order. Whether that's a good system or not is anyone's call, but if you're in the order, you should be expected to obey the rules.

Now, it's important to note that I'm not condemning him for the slaughter of the men. What he did there was understandable, and most people in that position would probably do it. However, that doesn't mean he was supposed to do it, though.

Why aren't you applying criteria even close to that to the Tuskens? Why are they not required to act like saints?

Because they're not Jedi. See above. Jedi are by nature held to a higher moral code. Now, that doesn't mean what the Tuskens do to Shmi is OK because they're held to lower standard, but let's look at a comparison:

Some guy starts insulting and harassing you. You get irritated and punch him. If you are a

1. Jedi: you shouldn't have done that. Letting your anger get the best of you is never a good thing.

2. Normal Human: that punk deserved what was coming to him.

3. Tusken: see #2.

Same scenario, except you kill him instead:

1. Jedi: that was wrong. You let your anger take control, and you killed a man for a minor offense.

2. Normal Human: see #1.

3. Tusken: see #1

A group kidnaps and tortures your mother. You kill all the men:

1. Jedi: you shouldn't have done that. Remember that whole "anger getting the best of you" and "dark side" thing?

2. Normal Human: they'll never mess with the colonists again.

3. Tusken: they'll never mess with the Tuskens again.

Same as above, except you kill the women and children as well:

1. Jedi: Totally wrong; that "anger controlling you" thing, plus the fact that you killed innocents.

2. Normal Human: See #1.

3. Tusken: See #1.

As you can see, Jedi are held to a higher standard than Tuskens, or even normal humans. So what Anakin did was twofold: a) he acted in a way unbecoming of a Jedi, by taking revenge. This is nonetheless understandable. b) he acted in a way unbecoming of a decent human being, by killing innocents. This is inexcusable. (Disclaimer: And so was torturing Shmi! And so was torturing Shmi! And so was torturing Shmi!)

According to someone who expects him to be a saint, I guess so.

No, according to someone with a sense of ethics, killing innocent women and children is wrong. Bad. Doubleplus ungood. Appalling. Not cool. Whack.

And what the Tuskens did was...what? I missed that. Oh, right...because you never said anything negative about what the Tuskens did, other than they were "not innocent".

Not innocent = they did a bad bad thing. I thought that was rather clear. And yes, those phrases above that I used to describe Anakin's little killing spree apply to what the men (and only the men) did.

What was that about not having strong feelings towards fictional characters?

I don't tend to call someone a "baby-killer" unless I have strong feelings of hatred towards that person, or in this case, character.

Anakin-hater...well, you called him a baby-killer, didn't you?

I wasn't aware that stating the facts made me a hater. Does saying "Obi-Wan used the dark side to defeat Maul" make me an Obi-Wan hater? Does saying "Qui-Gon tried to trick Watto out of a hyperdrive unit by paying him worthless credits" make me a Qui-Gon hater? Those are two of my favorite characters, even!

And where does it say he killed babies? I saw no babies in the film. I'll check the novelization again, but I didn't see any babies mentioned there either.

In a harsh environment, the average life expectancy would be pretty low. Thus, plotting out a normal curve to describe Tusken age distributions indicates that for a tribe that size, it's more than likely that htere was at least one baby there. And if that doesn't work for you, how does "child-murderer" sound instead?

They are evil because evil is all that they know. Thay

 

Whether that's a good system or not is anyone's call, but if you're in the order, you should be expected to obey the rules.

I disagree. Dumb rules are made to be broken. And if expecting a human being to be super-human isn't a dumb rule, I don't know what is.

People should be expected to be human beings, not super human--Jedi or not.

Because they're not Jedi. See above. Jedi are by nature held to a higher moral code.

Anakin was not raised a Jedi--he was raised on Tatooine, like the Tuskens. He should not be subjected to this double standard.

No, according to someone with a sense of ethics, killing innocent women and children is wrong.

Are you saying I have no sense of ethics?

I don't know why you Tusken defenders always concentrate on the women and the children. Maybe if you focus on what the men--most of the tribe--did, you'd understand.

Does saying "Obi-Wan used the dark side to defeat Maul" make me an Obi-Wan hater? Does saying "Qui-Gon tried to trick Watto out of a hyperdrive unit by paying him worthless credits" make me a Qui-Gon hater?

Neither of those are nearly as hate-spewing as calling someone a baby-killer.

Thus, plotting out a normal curve to describe Tusken age distributions indicates that for a tribe that size, it's more than likely that htere was at least one baby there.

So in the Tusken canonization process, we're using hypothetical mathematical equations now?

So if I kill 10 murderers and one nice grandmother, that makes it OK because a majority of my victims were bad guys?

Why didn't the nice grandmother untie Shmi if she was so nice?

 

Anakin will become the most evil Sith because of this...

In TPM, Palpatine said to Darth Maul... "Wipe them out all of them."

So far we have not heard Palpatine say that to Anakin, he already knows his role.

The Tuskins are brutal, that is bad in our society but may be acceptable in their society.

Still, a good Tusken... is a dead Tusken!!!

 

I don't know why you Tusken defenders always concentrate on the women and the children. Maybe if you focus on what the men--most of the tribe--did, you'd understand.

If you would only take that chip off your shoulder and read the title of this topic Are Tuskens All Bad?, maybe you would understand why we are focusing on the non-violent members of the tribe.

 

Remember the (slightly paraphrased) line about many of the truths we cling to depending largely on our point of view.

Well, here's yet another one...

Now that the prequels are in the process of being made, what was originally the first time we see tusken violence, upon luke, now comes after a human has slaughtered a large number of tuskens.

What we see in AOTC makes reference to a large group of moisture farmers being slaughtered by tuskens.

The chances are that the view of the humans held by the tuskens is exactly what the tuskens think of the humans: They are trying to take what belongs to us.

My point of view on this particular hyper real situation presented by star wars is not who is the monster, and who is the victim, but that hatred breeds hatred. Not who struck first, but whether our actions perpetuate the hatred around us.

The tuskens are capable of appearing like monsters to the humans, who want to to make a living, feed their families, etc. And vice versa.

Because monsters don't exist. In the scene of the Tusken slaughter Anakin skywalker behaved like a monster for reasons we can sympathise with and we can believe it is possible we might contemplate the same type of action given the same reasoning.

We can never know if WE would have, or would have not done the same, but in Lucasspeak, I think accepting that it's a possibility is an acceptance of the possibility of a dark side within us, which we are therefore more likely to master.

To demonise, caricature as monsters and therefore less deserving of life the culture of others we don't understand, and who don't understand us is ignorance. Ignorance is the source of hate. Time and time again people demonstrate their hatred of what they do not understand, because they feel threatened by it. They're afraid of it.

Fear leads to anger, and all that jazz.

Are all the Tuskens bad?

We'll never know from the movies, since we only get the viewpoint of those that hate them.

I think that from the films we can take the idealistic statment that hate leads to hate, that in the end, conflicts lose what originally caused the trouble and over time degenerate into a level of inbred hatred that loses why the argument started and accepts the hatred of a particular 'enemy' as something expected of a people, A situation that can be summed up with the following conversation:

Why do you hate them?

Because they hate us.


Look at real world conflicts and tell me that's not true.

Are all tuskens bad?

Ask the same question of any real life race of people the history of your people tries to tell you that you should hate by justifying that hatred with a variation on 'they want what we have, and if we don't defend it, they will take it'.

Tribal conflict on a desert planet. Or, in a wider sense, the essence of war distilled into a very simple form that even a child should be able to understand.

Children do understand this concept. They learn hatred from us.

Who do you hate? Do you have a reason to hate them? Or is the hate the product of what those around you tell you to think?

If you automatically assume all tuskens are bad because of what they do in the films, you miss the point of the way lucas tells stories.

Social groupings, the ability to make shelters, the ability to survive in an otherwise inhospitable environemnt.

Not the behaviour of monsters. A monster is a symbol of the potential for rage within every one of us, under whatever circumstances would bring that out of us.

Humans kill tuskens as a way of trying to stop them raiding. Tuskens terrorise and torture as a way of making the humans afraid of them. NOT because either side ARE monsters, but because BOTH sides PERCEIVE the others as monsters. They're afraid of each other. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

A symbiotic circle. Of Hate. Perpetuated by both sides, who demonise each other.

Incidentally, I think if anyone did to my mother what was done to Shmi I would want them dead. But since that isn't the case,