In Retrospect: What were the Tuskens Doing with Shmi?

hansen: what matters is that Anakin does exactly what he has learned to not do. 10 years of training and mental self control down the drain!

I think you're exactly right on this point (I'm learning that I have wildly irreconcilable differences with Anidanami124). Anakin is the subject here; the Tuskens are peripheral agents who only aid in Anakin's descent (hence the significance of that circular wipe which focuses on Anakin's face as the slaughter begins).

But now to expand on your point ...

Just because the Tuskens are peripheral does not mean that we aren't meant to think about them as victims, in particular the presumably innocent "women and children." Those words alone have soft, gentle, and innocent connotations. But the words are given added weight in this scene because Lucas *SHOWS* the Tusken women and children, however briefly.

We get to see a Tusken woman, and not just as a woman but as a *mother*. And we get to see exactly how small a Tusken child is. It's my feeling that these images are meant to evoke sympathy when Anakin tells Padme what he's done.

And doesn't it just make *sense* for Anakin to sympathize with the Tusken children? Sure, he's enraged because the Tuskens killed his mother, but now he has become exactly what he purports to hate: a mother-killer. But he's even worse than that, because he kills not just one mother, but every mother in the tribe.

And what about the Tusken children? When else do we see children in AOTC? I seem to remember seeing a whole class full of little Jedi children on Coruscant. If Anakin has no trouble killing Tusken children, will it be any harder for him to kill the Jedi Younglings?

The parallels are all there ... if you choose to see them.

 

If this is what people are getting out of the scene then people are not really getting the scene. Really go back and watch TPM. Watch the scene where Yoda says:

Ka-Adi: Your thoughts dwell on your mother.
Anakin: I miss her
Yoda: Afraid to lse her...I think.
Anakin: What's that got to do with anything?
Yoda: Evertying. Fear is the path to the dark side...fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to suffering.

Those lines speck voluems as what what happens in AOTC. Anakin is afeard to loss his mother. Not only that but he waers his emtions on the out side. There is a reason Yoda did not want to train him, or even Luke. It's because they both wear there emtions on the outside.

But on like Anakin. Luke come to understand what is holding back his father. What is holding him back is his fear of lossing people. Anakin lost his mother, lost Qui-gon a father type figure, he also lost Padme. When Luke comes along that all he can think about is get Luke. Then Come ROTJ Luke is willing to let go of his life to keep Palpatine from ever getting what he want's. Anakin see's this and kills Palpatine. Then when he knew he would not live. He knew he would not make it he understood that he had to let go. That even though he loved his he could not be with him. And well you all know what happens from there.

It his emtions, his love and his fear that are his weaknesses and what make him powerful.

That's what the whole scene showed. It showed that if he was trined from brith he would not do that because he would not have his emtions on the out side.

Edit: Also I did not just make this up. This is from looking up what other people have seen and reviewd about the PT. One of those come from Star Wars: The Visual Story from the web site the Talking Fierce. It also comes from looking at TPM, AOTC, TESB, and ROTJ again. And really seeing where Luke is able to let go and Anakin is not.

 

Anidanami, I honestly cannot tell if you are making a persuasive argument or not, because your grammar, spelling, and syntax are so consistently garbled.

And of course I know the scene you're talking about from TPM, but that is only a partial key to understanding Anakin's slaughter of the Tuskens.

Besides, it's abundantly apparent in AOTC that Yoda and the Jedi are incapable of perceiving things clearly ("the dark side clouds everything"; "the dark side of the force has clouded their vision") ... so why do you assert that their judgment of Anakin is the only way of interpreting Anakin's character?

 

so why do you assert that their judgment of Anakin is the only way of interpreting Anakin's character?

Because Yoda is right. Anakin's fear of lossing hsi mother becomes real. His fear, becomes that hate, which becomes that hate.

Look at ROTJ. Vader played of Lukes fear of his sister. Yoda and the other Jedi could sense and feel in TPM that Anakin's fear for his mother was really. They told him not to dwell on it. Luke did that in ROTJ. He gave into his fear, his anger, and his hate. But came short of killing his father when he saw what he could end up becoming. Anakin could not do that. Because he did not know how to let go. Luke figured out how to.

 

I just thought I should clarify that I did not mean that the death of the entire Tusken tribe is not upposed to evoke any feelings in us, I just said that it is not neccesarily the main point of the scene.

(Im my opinion of course)

 

Point taken, hansen.

Anidanami124, I don't disagree with your point that Anakin cannot restrain himself. But you didn't read my post carefully enough. My question to you was: Why do you assert that the Jedi's judgment of Anakin is the *ONLY* way of interpreting Anakin's character?

My point is, we have to look deeper than what Yoda and the Jedi say about Anakin. They're only characters within the movie, and so their perspective is limited. We, however, have a superior point-of-view and can make connections that the characters cannot necessarily make.

Will Anakin be able to kill Jedi Younglings as easily as he killed the Tusken children? Will he be able to restrain himself in the future if in an enraged state he is tempted to kill another mother? My horrifying speculation about episode 3 makes me tremble even to finish that thought ...

Anyway, to bring this thread back on topic ... I *do* think that the Tuskens raped Shmi. I know that makes me a pervert with a devastated psyche to many of you. But rape is the worst thing I can think of to have happened to Shmi, and something that would certainly send Anakin over the edge and into the dark side.

 

My question to you was: Why do you assert that the Jedi's judgment of Anakin is the *ONLY* way of interpreting Anakin's character?

My point is, we have to look deeper than what Yoda and the Jedi say about Anakin. They're only characters within the movie, and so their perspective is limited. We, however, have a superior point-of-view and can make connections that the characters cannot necessarily make.

Will Anakin be able to kill Jedi Younglings as easily as he killed the Tusken children? Will he be able to restrain himself in the future if in an enraged state he is tempted to kill another mother? My horrifying speculation about episode 3 makes me tremble even to finish that thought ...

Watch TPM, AOTC, TESB, and ROTJ again. The answer you will find is no. He will not because like I said he wears his emtions on the outside. You also do have to take what Yoda said and look at TESB, and ROTJ. There is a reason he did not want to train Luke. Just like there was a reason he did not want to train Anakin.

Anakin was to old and had to much fear for his mother. Anakin has not idea how to let go of those he loves when they die. It's not until he see's Luke willing to die does he get it. Then he is able to let go. Do don't need to go any deeper in the scene. Because we are seeing just why Yoda did not watn him trained.

Here's the thing both Anakin and Luke fear losing someone.

For Anakin it's his mother, no it's Padme. For Luke it's Leia. Anakin losses his mother. But he does not know how to act. He does not know how to keep his fear down. Because his fear has become real. That fear that of losing his mother just happened. He has no idea how to control it. Know idea why he's feeling it.

That's because Obi-wan, Yoda, Mace, etc could not really understand just how much Anakin cares. He cares to much. He fear's losing those he loves and so on.

Luke's fear was for his sister. But just before he was about to kill his father he saw what he could become. He saw that he was feeding that fear of losing which was feeding that anger, and hate.

The Tuskens hurt and killed Anakin's mother and he did not know what to do with that fear. Because no matter what the Jedi may have told him all he knew for 10 years of his life was his mother. That fear lead to anger, which lead to hate. All Anakin had to do was let go. That's the one thing he can't do though because he does not know how to. If Anakin had learned how to let go it would have been really easy for him to just walk away. Anakin never went there to kill any one. But when his mother dead and his fear became real. Well he had not idea what to do. There is someone else just like him in the EU. That person being Ulic Qel-Dorma. Ulic, and Anakin both have the problem of not being able to let go of the person they loved. They both let there fear grow into anger, and then hate. Yet it is near the end of there lives do they understand that they need to just let go.

That when they love someone so much that they need to know when to let go. Luke showed that to Anakin that. Vima showed that to Ulic.

I find it really neat just as to how much those two are alike in many ways.

 

I think Anakin should have massacred every one in a human settlement, rather than a Tusken camp. Maybe then more people would get the point.

 

I think Anakin should have massacred every one in a human settlement, rather than a Tusken camp. Maybe then more people would get the point.

I now what the point is. And that scene is not at the poor Tusken being killed.

 

What do you think they were doing? As horriffic as it may seem they were not treating her like lady.

What would you do if you found your mother raped by "animals"?

 

anidanami -
Can I ask you to clarify something regarding Anakin's killing of the Tuskens -

1. do you think that what Anakin did was wrong?
2. Do you think that he thinks it was wrong - killing all those tuskens.

g

 

I agree with Danny_Faytonni... they were raping her.

They were animals. Pretty dark stuff.

 

What if Darth Sidious somehow influenced or had the Tuskens paid to keep Shmi alive in order to give Anakin bad dreams, so that in turn, Anakin would seek her out and slaughther the Tuskans, thus adding to Anakin's HATE and embrace of the Dark Side...just a thought

 

Great literature and movies for that matter, are meant to reflect the real world, and give us emotional insight into all kind of real things, empathy, love, hate etc. Good liturature and movies that is. And I'm sure everyone here thinks SW is good. It is a modern myth and all myth by it's very nature teaches a moral tale or a life point.

So it's sad to seem some like Anidanami, missing the point and coping out by claiming to keep 'real people' and 'fictional people' apart.

The point of good story telling is that it draws us in and allows us to use all our faculties, moral,social and otherwise. If a fantasy setting has enough reality that we can love characters in it, then it should be robust enough for us to apply moral beliefs to it and see if the actions of characters we love come up short or not. It's why satire works so well, no matter how outlandish the premise- and I'm thinking Swift and Reboleu here. It's also how SW works, otherwise the concept of good and evil really has no power.

It's more than about good and evil people- it's about good and evil actions- and how we interprate them.

So if you think something is wrong say so, and if you think it's right, say so. Don't be afraid to stand by your morals. If they're right defend them or learn to defend them. If not, change them. But don't be so obtuse as to claim a seperation between real and fiction. SW is a morality tale, we're expected to view what Anakin does as either right or wrong, and to feel or not feel empathy for the Tuskens.

But we have to be able to justify either. Yes, life and fiction are seperate, but in terms of how we view things morally, we can and must apply our beliefs.
Esp in a morality tale.

Defend what you believe, don't just cop out, fiction is where we mentally exercise the value judgements and beliefs that will be reflected in our real life. And visa versa. I will state my beliefs and justify them.
Otherwise I wouldn't expect anyone to rspect anything I said.

What does that say about you Anidanami ?

I know what it says about me, and I'm happy to defend my feelings. Why aren't you ?

BTW The Tuskens obviously did horrible things to Shimi, so the ones who did it deserved punishment- but not the women & children. And anyone who uses EU sources to claim rape should forget about it even if true I don't accept EU. And having read the TPM novel I don't remember any such statement anyhow. It may have happened but I didn't see it.

 

First don't act like you know what my beliefs aer based on moives characters. What I think of the Tuskens does not affect me in real life. Because the Tuskens are not real. They never have been they never will be. Ever sense I have watch ANH I have never liked the Tuskens. I'm not going to start liking for feelings sorry for them know. GL can't do a 180 and tell us to feel sorry for characters that for more then 20 years have been shown to be a group of people who hurt other for no reason. Unless GL is going to show me something that will make me feel sorry for them. I will take what I have learned form them from ANH, TPM, and AOTC.

What have I learned? I have learned that they are not nice people. This is not about right and wrong in the real world. That's not what the scene was even about.

2nd I stand by what I say The Tuskens are evil. Until I'm shown something from with in the movies that is where I stand. They are evil characters.

 

I think George was trying to show you. She was kidnapped, beaten and tortured.

 

I think George has a way of letting us fill in the specific blanks in situations like these. If we are younger, they were just kidnapping here and beating her up, if we are older, other potential motives might cross our minds. This does tell us something about ourselvelves. It also sparks debate about the concept of whether or not Anakin was justified in his actions against the Tusken Raiders.

In the novelization for TPM, there was a scene where Watto told Anakin to make a trade with some Jawas in the desert. On the way back, he came across a lone Tusken Raider who was trapped by a huge boulder that had fallen on his legs. Anakin, being the nicest boy in the galaxy, manages to free the Tusken Raider and he decides to make a camp for the night so the Tusken could get some rest. In the middle of the night, the rest of his tribe finds the camp and after seeing what Anakin had done, they decided not to attack or rob him, and simply left with their wounded friend.

After this, Anakin's Mom is kidnapped and tortured to death by them and it begs the questions: should Anakin have helped the Tusken Raider 9 years prior? Should Anakin see the Tusken Raiders as more than "Animals" as Cleigg put it? Was he justified in slaughtering the entire Tusken tribe?

One might say that it was justified, because the very nature of the Tusken way of life, which encouraged this sort of thing as a "right of passage", was inherrently "evil".

Others could say that if he could have gotten her out of there without killing the Tuskens, he should have done that, and then reported their actions to the Jedi Council, and the Republic and proceed from there. They might go on to say that killing them simply lowers Anakin to their level.

Anakin himslef says "I know I'm better than this."

 

Or perhaps George was using the dialogue and visuals to let you know - she was kidnapped, beaten and tortured. No conspiracy theories. It is one of the plot points that is at face value.

Kind of like his establishing that Anakin had no father. Yet the conspiracy theories continue, even though George has said multiple times, "No, I meant what I wrote. There is no father."

Some of this is just not rocket science.

 

It is one of the plot points that is at face value.


I can agree with that, no conspiracies whatsoever. However, the point is that GL here used Tuskens as Anakin's first severe action that is against the Jedi way of life, but not really that simple at the same time.

What are Tuskens? What redeeming qualities do they have? They walk like men but "vicious monsters" as Clieg put it. Did the women ever assist Shmi in any way, did they support what the men did? What is to become of their children? Will they grow to be vicious monsters? Anakin in his fit of rage, did the wrong thing, but how would we react? Its not as easy to figure this out. But as a Jedi?

Just some thoughts.

 

Anidanami : "First don't act like you know what my beliefs aer based on moives characters."

Rest assured I'm not judging your beliefs based on movie characters cause I don't know what they are ! You seem unable to articulate them in any form and just rely upon holding your hands over your ears and going 'not real, not real,not real', when presented with a chance to express them in ideas form through the story we're all discussing !

" What I think of the Tuskens does not affect me in real life."

I think it does, given that you either feel empathy for the Tuskens or you don't based on your *idea* of them as good or evil. There are lot of real people you will never meet and will never affect you. They will effectively be as real or 'unreal' as fictional characters. But you will still have an opinion on them based on that *idea*. That is what I mean when I say fiction gives us the opportunity to practice our mental or moral faculties. Hey I'm not even saying you're wrong not like the Tuskens at this point - just to drop the silly idea that how we react to fiction has no bearing on our attitudes in the really world.
What else do we apply when presented with fictional situations ?

"What have I learned? I have learned that they are not nice people. This is not about right and wrong in the real world. That's not what the scene was even about."

Then you miss the whole point and the point of the saga. The scene WAS about right and wrong, and the act was wrong, that was why it was his first step to the darkside. Those are GL's words not mine - are you going to argue with him too ?

"GL can't do a 180 and tell us to feel sorry for characters that for more then 20 years have been shown to be a group of people who hurt other for no reason."

Sure he can, it's called good and complex story telling. And he's not asking you to see killing the guilty men or perhaps not even the women as wrong, just the children.He's not asking you to see ALL Tuskens as good, just to have an understanding that not all the Tuskens were guilty and that revenge is not a good thing taken too far.
Anakin himself says his actions were wrong, why does he do this? Because he too knows what he did was excessive and driven by hate

"2nd I stand by what I say The Tuskens are evil. Until I'm shown something from with in the movies that is where I stand. They are evil characters."

No one is saying all the Tuskens were innocent, certainly not some of the adults. But it is about Anakin doing something wrong and starting his path into the darkside.

" This is not about right and wrong in the real world. That's not what the scene was even about."

But it certainly IS what the scene is about. Why do you think alot of people use themselves as examples on this issue. "If Tuskens killed my mother...", they say.
On something clearly as emotive as this and with a good story, people and that includes you Anidanami, give clues away on their real world beliefs and feelings.

It's the point of fiction, trying to elict a 'real' response from a story, at least emotionally and mentally.

If I were to talk about the love in SW between Anakin and Padme, you'd be quick to say how love is a good thing, and how you could see yourself similarly in love.
Only when it has negative connetations do you balk and run under the 'it's not real blanket'. Please.

If fiction doesn't elict a response that in *some way*
echo's our real feelings and beliefs in has failed.
These can both be positive or negative.

And I don't think SW has failed, do you Anidanami ?

SHB JR

 

You said you did not want to Judeg me and you did just that.

 

But I did not judge your beliefs.
What, are you reacting to the fact I took your post apart and addressed each point? That Iasked you to justify your opinions ? It's what this kind of thing is all about!

Of course I judged your ability to explain yourself and make sense, but that's what you do when you discuss things with people.

See if they can justify their reasons for thinking what they do. If they can, even if you don't agree with them, you can respect them. If they can't, well why should you take anything they say seriously?

So I'm not judging YOU per se, but how you express what you feel. Everyone does it all the time.

It's called discussion and debate.

Don't feel aggrieved, or personally 'attacked' just learn to respond on more than one level.

SHB JR

 

I think it does, given that you either feel empathy for the Tuskens or you don't based on your

This is Judging me. This is what I feel:

I think George was trying to show you. She was kidnapped, beaten and tortured

I agree with Grilled-Sarlacc. Shmi was kidnapped, beaten, and tortured. There for from what I have seen and learned about The Tuskens in ANH, TPM, and AOTC they are evil. I'm not going to after three movies start to feel something for characters that were never shown to be good.

Again:

Or perhaps George was using the dialogue and visuals to let you know - she was kidnapped, beaten and tortured. No conspiracy theories. It is one of the plot points that is at face value.

Kind of like his establishing that Anakin had no father. Yet the conspiracy theories continue, even though George has said multiple times, "No, I meant what I wrote. There is no father."

I agree with Grilled-Sarlacc. Anakin has no father. And the plot point of Anakin kill the Tuskens was because they had killed his mother. They are evil. If there was any deeper meaning there. Then it had very little to do with The Tuskens. It had more to do with Anakin and what Yoda said about him in TPM.

The Tuskens are evil they have been shown that way in three movies I take it at face value.

 

The act was "wrong" but would any of us have acted differently?? Thats the whole point. To make you associated with the character. I would have done the same thing Anakin did most likely. Especially if you have the powers of a Jedi. It didn't take years of planning.......10 minutes you've killed everyone.

Sometimes the path to the darkside is the road more traveled......hard to see.

 

Sure the Tuskens were being "evil". Does that mean they should die?

Anakin becomes "evil" when he slaughters the Tuskens. Does that mean he should die?

You may say that in Anakin's case, it was justified.

But then again, considering the problems between the moisture farmers and the Tusken Raiders, perhaps the Tusken's feel justified in killing the settlers. Perhaps the settlers would just shoot at them on sight like wild animals.

This would be similar to the way the American Indians were treated by the settlers from Europe. The settlers came into their territory, and then started killing them on sight in the name of "self preservation". Occasionally, the Indians, feeling a little slighted by this, would conduct raids on the settler emcampments and kill some of them.

At what point does the killing become justified?

Is it only when you (or the main character) get slighted? Were the Tusken's in the right to kill back? Were the settler in the right to pre emptively kill the Tuskens as they settled Tatooine?

In my opinion, it has to stop somewhere.