PT Why didnt Padme save Shmi from Slavery ?

Which is why, in Tatooine Ghost, Shmi was freed immediately after being bought, but was not married for several months afterward - both Cliegg and Shmi wanted to be sure that she wasn't just marrying him out of gratitude.

 

Great, but that's not established in the movies. So that query can still exist for anyone who hasn't read that book. Which is 99% of the audience.

 

The movie acknowledges that the situation could be construed that way. When Watto says Cliegg freed her and married her, Padme gives Anakin a worried look. They're both thinking this guy is why Anakin's been having these visions.

But then when they arrive at the farm it becomes clear that Cliegg is a good man and his intentions were genuine.

 

I didn't know that either and it's not necessary because it's covered in the movies that Anakin quickly comes to the conclusion that these are good people and Padme will be safe with them and that they are not lying about what happened to Shmi.

 

Being a space fairy tale, I perceive it as love that symbolically freed Shmi from slavery, If you will. Much in the same way it freed Anakin from his chains to Palpatine and his life as Vader. And in the way it's what freed Han from his stasis in Carbonite.

I don't know if this was GL's thinking, but it fits.

I like the way that it was Cliegg, it's romantic in every sense of the word. Freeing a slave out of appreciation and gratitude is great, I get it, but... well... running Star Wars themes.
I understand though if it's not as satisfying to certain scrutinies. And maybe I misinterpreted Watto's open summary, but I was under the impression they met and fell in love first, which is why he bought her and freed her. It would definitely make her feeling of being complete in her final moments all the more consoling despite the tragedy.



Now, from the left-brain perspective, my question is this; would a Republic politician even be able to buy slaves? Seems there would be a conflict of interest and a scandal waiting to happen, even if they only bought them to give them a life of freedom. I'd imagine there would always be some political rival using it as a smear tactic for the rest of their troubled career, trying to spin it into covert slave ownership or supporting the trade. Now, that's not a reason not to, but I think it would unnecessarily complicate this story. Not to mention the potential of complicating things between Padmé, the Jedi and Anakin - being that he and Padmé were friends.

Or, let's say she arranged for it in secret with a third party and it worked and nobody found out. If she told Anakin, he might've put some of the blame of her fate on Padmé's meddling and it would've been too early for that kind of tension. Or if she didn't tell him, then the story doesn't change at all (except for Watto saying "A mysterious benefactor freed her and she married a farmer") and we're back to square one.

What we got makes for the better, and more streamlined story, I think. Plus, more tragic and romantic and all that jazz.



And for some speculative consideration; people are mentioning the need for a quick conversation to cover things here. I almost wonder if at some point between leaving Tatooine and the day of the Peace Celebration, Padmé must've asked where Shmi was and if she could help, but one or more of the Jedi informed her that if Anakin is inducted into the order, Shmi's unusual situation is best left as a Jedi matter for the sake of Anakin's (read: their's & the Republic's) best interests.
If this were the case, why didn't she mention this to Anakin, you ask? "I'd like to free your mom but the Jedi say it's best I don't interfere." Well, it being a moot point might've just drove the knife in further. Best he hear it from the Jedi.
Should all this have been covered on screen? Sure, fine, but I wouldn't call the fact it's not a character betrayal, per se.
We saw on the ride to Coruscant that Padmé understood Anakin's pain and it's safe to presume she would've done whatever she could've to help, but obviously wasn't ultimately able to. And as we know she respected Anakin's dream to become a Jedi and all that entailed.

It's a sticky spot, and brings up important conversations. But I've never heard anyone else mention it before I came here almost two years ago. And isn't it interesting that it's the things Padmé did and didn't do that are still bringing up the hottest topics even to this day?


How much you wanna bet the upcoming Padmé book touches on this topic? The cost of the book?

 

I just wanted to touch on a few things:

• Yes, Shmi is more than perfectly capable of taking care of herself. I mean, she spent 6 years (from the time Anakin was 3 to when he was 9) a slave on Tatooine raising a small child. Somehow she managed to not get robbed blind at any moment, raped by intruders, or some other terrible thing. She probably takes care of the house and the food, which implies that she knows how to read and Watto certainly didn’t discourage her from reading. If she didn’t know how to pay a mortgage, there’s a little thing called libraries and books. I’m sure she could figure out the rest.

So no, Padmé is not going to have to raise Shmi like an overgrown child. Just give her a basic home and a basic job with a steady income and let Shmi figure out the rest. This notion that the moment Shmi is freed, she basically has the mental capacity of an infant is downright insulting. She wasn’t born a slave; she had a life before that was taken from her. She had what we will assume was a basic level of education. This is all we can assume as we’ve no idea where she originated from.

• Yes, not helping Shmi would make Padmé a bit of a prick because her son was directly instrumental in the liberation of Naboo and her people. The argument of why she can’t just free everyone else doesn’t hold water. I’m sure it would’ve bothered her to obstensibly ignore all the other slaves, but keep in mind the following:
—> She knows a slave, personally. She sat down in the slave’s home, ate food with the slave at her table. She even spent the night in the slave’s hovel. Basically, Padmé owes Shmi big time.

—> It’s possible she wanted to do something about it, but her political instincts told her that this would likely not generate support in the Senate. For goodness’ sake, if they couldn’t scrounge up support to assist a core world (i.e., Naboo) that was currently being invaded, what makes you think they’d give two smelly Bantha poo-doo about some backwater planet in the Outer Rim. I can’t imagine many senators would be willing to risk starting a war with the Hutts just so they could play Space!Moses/Space!Abraham Lincoln on all the slaves of Tatooine. Padmé would know this. She would understand it as plain as day: they wouldn’t give a ****. If the Hutts aren’t trying to mess with them, fine.

So could Padmé have made an effort to raise awareness? Yes, but she probably knew the Senate wouldn’t care much about it. Should she have freed Shmi (secretly)? Yes. She could’ve done that. This does not put her in a moral light of good.

• As far as Cleigg goes, I just assumed all that happened within a year or two of Anakin’s departure from Tatooine. Assuming Owen is both Cleigg and Shmi’s child, we can deduce that in this short span of time, Cleigg met Shmi, freed her, married her, and sired a child with her. Of course, my own theory that maybe Padmé knew about the whole “Cleigg marrying Shmi” deal doesn’t hold water simply because (1) she wouldn’t have acted worried/concerned when Watto informed them of Shmi’s fate, and (2) this really puts Padmé’s character in a more negative light as now not only does she apparently not bother to free the mother of the boy who saved her people, but she doesn’t bother to drop him an “FYI, your mom’s free and safe on a moisture farm — Padmé Amidala” note over the last decade?

These are my two cents.

 

Well, two things:
- Naboo is a Mid Rim world, not in the Core, and pretty close to the border of the Outer Rim at that.
- Owen isn't Shmi's son. His mother was Cliegg's first wife. Doesn't it say so in AOTC?

 

Would Shmi be part of the #metoo movement?

 

There's a difference between buying a slave & compensating an owner for removing their explosive implant & setting them free. Esp if the Naboo could do it in such a way that Watto would have no desire to buy a replacement. For example, offer him a generous relocation to a non-slave world. Give him a couple of state of the art droids to do Shmi's work. Etc. Since Watto had "lost everything" at the end of TPM this should be the easiest negotiation ever.

Even if he's the greatest bloke on the planet the movie still outs him as a slave owner. The dialogue says he purchased Shmi & then (who know's how long after) freed her & married her.

I don't see the relevance. It seems Cliegg is a decent guy but one who owned Shmi then at some point freed her & married her. The implication is he treated her well. Doesn't change the fact that their relationship began as owner/slave.

That impression would be just head-canon. Nothing in the movie hints at that. Lucas (via Watto) says that Cliegg bought her & then freed her at some point.
As I said earlier there's a far better way to have explained this without casting Cliegg as Shmi's owner after Watto. Compare:

"I sold her to a moisture farmer called Lars. I hear he freed her, & married her!"

With

"A moisture farmer called Lars met your mother & wanted to free her. He paid me to set her free, & I hear that later they even married!"

The second one makes Cliegg's good intentions clear from the start. The movie version raises the prospect of Cliegg simply purchasing a slave & then falling for her & deciding to marry her.

 

Doubt it. I don’t recall Cliegg ever saying he had any other wife. Owen explicitly told Anakin that they were step-brothers. Since Cliegg isn’t Anakin’s father, we can reasonably deduce that Shmi is their mom; only Owen actually HAD a father whereas Anakin didn’t.

 

Considering that only 10 years have gone by, Owen looks way older than ten.

Thus, the more likely answer is that while Owen says "stepbrother" he's simply meaning "your stepfather's son" - they're not actually related at all.

(Otherwise, he would have said "half-brother").

I think that was the way all AOTC tie-in media (novelisations, visual dictionaries, etc) painted it at least.

 

Aaah, makes sense. :3 I always get those two terms mixed up.

 

I've never been able to square this one . Padme owed Shmi such a huge debt I just can't believe she'd do nothing .

.

 

Well, she really owed Anakin the debt. But regardless, it doesn't change the central point: Buying Shmi's freedom means Watto replaces her with another slave and makes a profit. So far, no one has substantively addressed this point. It's quite odd.

 

Because the question is
Why didnt Padme save Shmi from Slavery ?
not
Why didn't Padme end slavery?

So your question is not the "central point". It is barely periphery.

 

I'm not asking why Padme didn't end slavery. I'm asking why she would directly contribute to someone else being put into the exact position she's rescuing Shmi from.

 

Because she isn't going to end slavery. But she can help somebody that directly helped her. The idea that somehow pretending you shouldn't help those that helped you because "it's the system, man" is the talk of somebody that has yet to become a part of the "real galaxy".

 

Even if she is buying a slave to free it. She is still buying a slave witch some might frown on.

 

Only if she forces Shmi into marriage.

 

From what we have seen it looks as if there was a slave population in place and little off world influx of new people into the system.
This is speculation of course, but it seems likely that after enough time a stable system of slave familes would exist as opposed to off world acquisition.
So Padme probably would not have as great an inpact of makung someone a new slave but a change of ownership at a locail level.

 

It's not about "ending slavery." I have no idea why you keep coming back to that line. It's about not directly contributing to its propagation. Clearly, Shmi's situation is bad enough that you think it warrants Padme removing her from it. Yet you want Padme to perform an action that will put someone else into that very same terrible situation, while injecting even more cash into the slave trade. Why exactly do you disagree with UNICEF and Human Rights Watch that that's a bad thing?

Also, cool it with the personal insults. This is an Internet discussion board where people discuss Star Wars for fun. You'd do well to keep that in mind next time you're thinking of accusing somebody else of not being a part of the "real galaxy."

e:

I doubt that that's the case. The Hutts control a vast criminal empire. I would imagine they're constantly doing business with other planets and raiders and bringing new slaves into the system. Any influx of excess cash into the system serves to prop up the system, no matter how small an amount, and that's a very morally questionable thing.

Even if that were not the case, the facts as they stand as of Episode I are that Shmi has made peace with her situation and has found a way to cope with it. There's no way of knowing if Watto's next slave would greet their new position as an improvement of their prior circumstances or a worsening of them. Accepting that this is fundamentally unknowable, it is morally preferable to simply leave things as they are rather than to risk making them worse.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

 

No, an owner can free a slave. The Naboo can do a deal with Watto where he agrees to free Shmi.
Did Qui-Gon buy Anakin as a slave? No.

The best way to repay that would be to help his mother.
Didn’t Shmi also help her? She gave the Queen shelter & allowed her child to risk his life in the race.

No, you keep pushing the false claim that Watto must without any doubt buy another slave to replace Shmi. This is the excuse you keep using. It’s an incredibly weak one. It follows that you must be in favour of an attempt to free Shmi in a way where Watto would not need another slave. Is that true? There are plenty of ways for the Naboo to arrange that. Watto was down on his luck & had lost everything. There is no excuse for not attempting this.

Also, you keep avoiding criticising Qui-Gon for “irresponsibly” freeing Anakin. And trying to free Shmi. The bet QG made would see Watto keep the entire Boonta Eve winnings. If he hadn’t made a lot of side bets on Sebulba he could’ve purchased replacement slaves. Where is your judgment of QG?

 

You posted a link describing a situation wherein every slave owner within a system was paid money by the sovereign entity in charge of that system simultaneously as it compelled them to divest themselves of their slaves, after which point the possession, trade, and sale of slaves within that system was made illegal.

Do I really have to explain the many, many differences that exist between the two scenarios that are being compared? Because if I have to...I mean, I will.

e: (And honestly, such payouts were pretty morally bankrupt in the first place. But I guess it beats a war.)

 

You had already made the argument that Shmi was a "good" slave that had succumbed to her position.

1. Well, now Watto has to role the dice that he will hit the jackpot again. This will add to his slave expense bottom line, making expansion of slavery within his sphere of influence to drop.

2. Watto will sell Shmi from a position of weakness. He will not get much for her. He isn't one to wait for the best deal considering he's been left in considerable gambling debt. This makes the probability of his buying another slave unlikely. So if he does manage to buy a bargain basement slave, see #1

3. If he doesn't sell Shmi, she will most likely be seized as an asset toward his debt. What are the odds she will have the "great setup" you mentioned?

Your scenario is highly flawed. And in fact, it kind of promotes slavery by treating those bound into slavery as just people that should have fled a little faster.