Lit Ignorance is Bias: The Diversity Manifesto

That being said, Zabrak are classified as near-humans, even in new canon, which means they descend from baseline humans, so...

 

The color(s) and two-toned nature of their skin kind of separate them from regular zabraks though.

Mostly assumptions, I believe? All the discussions I've heard here or on Tumblr seemed like it, at least. The most expansive ones posited that the Nightbrothers were descendants of Zabraks modified through magic and genetic engineering so that they could reproduce with the human Nightsisters, with the Zabrak being "chosen" because they're one of the sturdiest species in the galaxy.

The Nightsisters of TCW in general are weird. That's how you know they were Lucas' idea.

 

In Legends, it was Star Wars Insider

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ever...about_the_Nightsisters_but_Were_Afraid_to_Ask

that confirmed that the Dathomirians were the result of hybridization between Zabrak and humans. According to the links on the Dathomirian Legends page.

The newcanon hasn't (yet) specified that, going by Wookieepedia - instead Wookieepedia calls Dathomirians "a subspecies of Zabrak".

 

Oh my god. How can you fail so epically at symbolism? Not even the developers of the newest Deus Ex were that bad!

Also, an "aliens first" organization in the Star Wars universe just doesn't feel right. But then again, neither does a "humans first" organization.

 

Isn't this what this thread is about?

Ideally it would be 50 50, but really it's now no, aliens first!

 

I find it reductionist and annoying in the way it makes things aliens wanting to be equal with humans is as bad as The Empire enslaving aliens and committing genocide.

Then again, I think human supremecism works fine in SW.

"Where are you taking this...thing?"

 

Anyone knows how Mas Amedda was able to remain Grand Vizier under the Empire?

 

Palpatine isn't racist. You're all disgusting Muggles to him.

 

Something along the lines of "He's a credit to his race."

 

So, just so we're clear, people who promote diversity and are against oppressors are as bad as Nazis by that symbolism.

Gotcha.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ryerson-renaming-counterpoint-1.4210803

He had me convinced Ryerson University should be renamed

until he said to change it to a Aboriginal name.

 

I've been following the tumblr of a 22 year old EU fan who is reading some of the Legends books that came out in the 1990s for the very first time and her reaction to the Diversity Alliance was priceless.

 

I'd all but managed to wipe those guys from my memory, and I'd be perfectly happy if things had stayed that way.

 

I agree with that post 100%.

 

That is a really good point. I am sure glad I never read that book. it reminds me a lot of why I dislike Charles Xavier in the X-Men franchise.

 

The newcanon's Saw Gerrara also has an element of "becoming almost as bad as the Imperials by using extreme methods", it must be said.

And Stackpole's Wedge's Gamble had an alien rebel movement who were willing to murder humans for being "bigoted" on decidedly thin evidence - Gavin nearly got killed by one. He ended up dating her later though - Asyr.

 

Chuck's a lot less moderate then he appears -- he is basically leading a militant camp that would make Malcom X say he's going a bit too far.

 

I would go the opposite. I feel Chuck does not go far enough. He essentially wants equality on the terms of the oppressor. i mean comic Chuck is better (though more messed up with how he uses his powers) but dont even get me started on movie Xavier.

I am so turning this into an X-Men thread

 

You know that was not my take of the Diversity Alliance. It was more along the lines of “hate begets hate”, "being oppressed don't mean you have the right to become the oppressor", "just because some of a group are bad don't mean they all are and you don't have right to strike back on all of them", “the ends don’t justify the means” and “sometime the public face of an organisation is not its actual face”.

 

And those are all valid messages - but you really aren't seeing how the way that particular storyline tried to get them across was terribly tone-deaf and problematic?

(To say nothing of how their banner is almost literally a k****ing Nazi flag - was that ever one of the things I had managed to wipe from my memory)

 

Mind you, I don't think the Diversity Alliance was Kevin J. Anderson and his wife's attempt at high art either. KJA was always good at just making bad guys for the sake of bad guys.

 

I have not read the story but from what I can tell the problem is not that people are against hate begets hate but rather that it essentially boiled down human oppression of aliens to being that those that where angry where going to far. Now even if they where in the context of the story I think we need to explore WHY so many stories of oppression will have a group that is crossing a line in fighting back. So often we just try to have someone like Erik or the extremists that the diversity alliance are, or the bajoran that kills the Cardassian at the end of "Duet". Why do we like to create a picture of people like Xavier who never get violent with their oppressors unless actively and like to have everyone who reacts with force be nothing but extremists?

I think the big reason is that unintentionally we want to reassure ourselves that the people we may have stepped on with colonialism are totally fine with us and are on our side and anyone who is still angry must just be a monster. Thing is throughout history change for minorities and the oppressed only comes through some form of violence or revolution. I am not saying that is always needed but I feel like in most cases we either make the enemy faceless evil like the Empire or just extreme humans like say Senator Kelly in the x-men comics so revolution is ok. We always try to perpetuate this idea that once the facless evil oppressors are gone then everything is fine and no one is still (even unknowing) profiting from the oppressed., Like with the x-men we show the mutants who fight back as being extremists and often make them that and the story sticks to Chuck's entire thing of waiting for equality and peace on the terms of the oppressor and portray anyone who is upset with that idea as just as bad as the oppressor.

I know this is a loaded topic and I am trying not to get super into my own politics but I feel like the issue stems from this need to validate to oneself that bygones are bygones and social issues either dont exists or are the fault of faceless evil and not a broken evil system that we thrive upon.

end rant

 

I mean, this is very likely true - the first YJK arc had the Second Imperium, the third had Black Sun, so I think it's totally believable KJA just wanted to use different flavors of villains each time - but I don't think it really lets the books off the hook either. It's still a problematic plotline whatever the intent.

 

"oppressed turned villains" may be problematic - but it has precedent.

The Yevetha of Black Fleet Crisis were even more unpleasant in some ways, once they got out from under the thumb of the Empire.