Your argument is that there selection of shmi was Random? That out of 27 people they choose the one person who is connected to the most powerful Jedi in the Galaxy. Grant it, Sky walker is a common name in the outer rim, But the likely hood that they stumbled upon her on accident is not likely. It is more likely they were hired to target her, not expecting her son to come back, and kill her. The only proof is that before the scene cuts off to anakin and Padme, you see the tuskens approach him with there weapons drawn. It could be said that it was there reaction to the activation of the light saber, but it could be that they knew what they did was wrong. What do you consider to be the " evil other?" Is it the farmers? If the farmers are the evil other... do we have have proof that they continued there assaults on them after they tortured Shmi? Was this a isolated case by one clan? if that is the case.. what was there purpose to attack a bunch of farmers? What did these farmers do to provoke a kidnapping and assault on a bunch of innocent people? Abu ghraib does not show that innocents are being tortured... does not show kidnappings of women. assuming your talking about the aspect of the " evil other"... Who would be the evil other in your real life case?
This is ridiculous. What is the likelihood that out of all the junk shops in Mos Espa he could have gone to, Cliegg Lars went to the one where the mother of the most powerful Jedi in the galaxy works? What is the likelihood that out of all the times of day he could have gone to that junk shop, it was at a time when Shmi was working? What is the likelihood that out of all the women he could have been attracted to, he just so happened to be attracted to be attracted to middle-aged Swedish-looking brunettes? That's just too many coincidences, Cliegg must have been in on the conspiracy! Oswald wasn't the only gunman! 9/11 was an inside job! Can't you see the coincidences??? Except no, probability doesn't work like that. Unlikely things happen all the time, every day, it doesn't mean that there was an intentionality behind it. Over a hundred technically unlikely things have probably already happened to you today. Apparently nothing bad could have ever happened to Shmi without it all being part of a ploy to mess with Anakin, all because he's an Important Person and it's all just too much of a coincidence for a random act of violence to be perpetrated on someone who's related to him, even if that someone lives on a moisture farm surrounded by Sand People and went out for a walk alone in the morning when it was dark. Those Sand People must have been set in motion by a third party, it's not as if they'd ever independently decide to kidnap and torture a moisture farmer who inadvertently made herself an easy target, they're usually so reserved and polite. A random intruder suddenly pops out of one of their tents with an angry look on his face and ignites a laser sword. Well, that could be the reason the Tuskens drew their weapons and rushed towards him, but let's turn to our guest for an alternative view! Maybe it was weapon-cleaning time and they kept their gaffi stick polish in the torture tent next to the rope and cat-o'-nine-tails! I don't view the farmers as "evil" nor do I think they deserved what happened to them. If you can't figure out what I meant by the phrase "evil Other," complete with capitalization of a usually non-proper noun, then I don't really think there's any point in explaining it. None of the inmates at Abu Ghraib were ever charged or given a trial, so they were all legally innocent. Many of them were arrested on the flimsiest of bases. There were in fact women who were abused there, and a number of these women were most certainly kidnapped as they were being used as leverage to convince male relatives to give up information, by the U.S. government's own admission. All of this is academic, of course, because the main point of the comparison was the fact that the torturers were able to justify these abuses and murders to themselves because they viewed these prisoners as all belonging to a monolithic dehumanized group called Terrorist, and thus as deserving of their horrid treatment. This is similar to the way the Tuskens viewed the moisture farmers, wrong as those views may be.
I the best way to look at this would be: if you were on the street, you would walk over to a random person, kidnap them and torture them? that would be independent thinking... and since I highly dought you would do this, then why would the Tusken raiders do it? what more then likely happened was the term " Group think"- This means that a group of people, say NASA or the bey of pigs, decided that against the warnings of others ( NASA launched challenger in the winter, when they knew it would not work) and the result was bad. Group think thanks into account that unless someone says " don't do this" The likely hood that the group continues to do w/e they are doing is high. so maybe the tusken raiders believed that what they were about to do was OK, and since no one in the group said no, they decided to do it and the result was there death. This still takes into account that it was a hired job. Well, let me put it this way: The likely hood that you would be murdered tomorrow is slim. The likely hood that the mob will go after you, if you so happen to look at them the wrong way: is likely to occur more often. Because Shmi is the mother of the chosen one, because she is the mother of a freed slave this raises the chance that she will be a target. again if there is proof that what I said is wrong, show it and I will recant my claims. Oh no, I think you should explain what this means, I mean you did put it forth as a counter argument, it is more then likely your duty to provide a explanation to help me fully understand your argument.
For there to be a sort of reenactment in Tatooine Ghost, there would have to have been at least one witness left alive after Anakin's rage, wouldn't there?
Re-enactment? Did I miss something? Leia saw the Tusken slaughter through the Force--sort of. She got the information from Beru's sister on what had happened to Shmi, plus the information about the Tusken legend about an "angry ghost", and when she came across the area where Shmi had been tortured, she was able to sense it, sense the spot where Shmi was tied to the rack.
It does seem that my arguments about "Shmi having a hit on her" seems to be unsupported by any evidence that we do have. I have checked for information and none of them states that anyone ordered a hit on her. My arguments are therefore invalid as far as that segment goes. So sorry for the mud slinging... without any proof to support my claim.
@anakinfansince1983 Just checked - it's on page 399, told to Leia by Kitster. Phew, was getting a bit worried there!
Damn. Someone figured it out. *goes behind large tree and beats his ears off it for a while* I should add, for the sake of completeness, that my ostensibly "undisguised" self is also an act, and one I find considerably less compelling. It's mostly an attempt to be polite. *thinks* Actually, that would still be canon.... *** And I, uhh, generally figured it was because Aurra Sing had given them some money to do it, becuase, you know, some badly-disguised guy with a Scottish accent had contracted her to do just that...? Sorry, couldn't resist the metatextuality.... -- The Imperial Ewok
Anakin wasn't wrong to kill the Tuskens. He saved a lot of innocent people from their continued murderous spree. They'd massacred dozens of people for no real reason. And then cowardly enough, torture a helpless old woman to DEATH. They didn't torture they murdered her and Cliegg who died from his injuries the farmers that set out to find Shmi and many others. IMO? Scrooom.
Have anyone heard of the fundamental attribution error? The definition-" The fundamental attribution error occurs when we overestimate how much another person's behavior can be explained by dispositional factors. It reflects failing to adequately consider the role of some situational factors that may affect a person's behavior" (http://www.psychologyandsociety.com/attributionerror.html) And a Example "Imagine you are taking a college course. You observe that there is a student in the class that has been very quiet during the entire term. The student does not even talk during the class discussions. You conclude that the student is a very quiet and shy person. In this example, it is possible that we may wrongly assume that the student's quiet behavior reflects his or her personality, and we may fail to adequately consider some situational factors that could explain the student's behavior. For example, we may not consider that the person may find the course very boring, or the person is experiencing difficulty and does not feel like talking in class." (http://www.psychologyandsociety.com/attributionerror.html) I believe that this will help clear up the air a bit Applied this to anakin: 1- We don't know what made him snap and kill all of the Tusken's besides the fact that he just found his mom barley alive. 2- we don't know if he had a Psychotic break.( and yes you can be deemed " mentally unfit" if your have a Class one prognosis's according to the DSM) 3- We are assuming he is a evil person, without knowing the full story of what happened.
I wasn't assuming Anakin was generally a evil person, all i said that his actions in murdering innocents were evil.
Not relevant anymore. ok so i need to re-read this novel because i might not remember how Anakin really felt. But leaning on the over all content ( movies and other novels) Anakin does not seem real remorseful to me. I think he would justify his actions if pushed.
Anakin seemed remorseful in the TCW movie, and I hear in the novel. However, he was far from remorseful in the Republic comic with A'sharad, to the point where he even says that he would do it again. As sadistic as it is... it's a pretty awesome line. Of course, he'd matured a bit by TCW, Man, all this neat "good and evil" classification is giving me bad Terry Goodkind flashbacks... I've never been a fan of the notion that any one person can be neatly classified as good or evil, particularly since our notions of morality have changed so much over the course of history. Even the most terrible individuals tend to see themselves as good; there's a reason Satan is an infinitely more interesting and appealing character than God in Paradise Lost. That said, I'm not really willing to classify Anakin or the Tuskens as evil, even if they're both clearly capable of some truly reprehensible acts. I know Star Wars is built on the whole "light side vs dark side" premise, but too often I feel it's an excuse to simply things. The only truly evil person in Star Wars is Jar-Jar Binks.
As far as the TCW film goes, all I can tell for sure is that Anakin doesn't want to talk about it. This doesn't necessarily come off as remorse; it can be interpreted as being more about Shmi.
Matured by TCW, certainly; but been hardened and coarsened by all the killing - even more so! Leaving aside Anakin's actions on that one night, the conflict between human Moisture Farmers and Tuskens had obviously been going on for a very long time (centuries, probably millennia) in a feedback cycle of atrocity followed by counter-atrocity. Which is the reason I can't understand why two fully trained Jedi (Sharad and A'sharad Hett), both of whom had a foot in both camps, couldn't have acted to mediate. That, after all, is the Jedi job - ending conflicts! Even comlink conversations with the Moisture Farmers would have been a start, enabling them to (at least) learn the Tusken viewpoint. Instead, both Hetts seem to have simply joined in the mindless blood-letting! 'Rant for the Day' was brought to you by Mobile Broadband.
See, if they would have just been able to find an HK droid, they would have been able to sit down and work out their problems. Too bad they stopped making them.
yeah too bad lol I do think there is real evil in this world. I think humans can truly be evil. While it might not always be that black and white, there is true evil in the world, and i think humans tend to have wickedness in our hearts. If you were to remove consequences , we would find out how many good people we truly have. not many.
Is there such a thing as a person without any wickedness, though? I mean, sure, the best of us suppress it well, though sometimes it just sorta slips out...
