PT "Your arrogance blinds you, Master Yoda." Is this line more significant than it appears?

Early in TCW, it was neutral. We don't know about what the state of affairs on various Separatist worlds was as of ROTS.

Certainly some plots are "Separatists invade, Republic pushes them out" - sometimes the residents are still unappreciative of being garrisoned by clones right after being freed.

Cham Syndulla: "How long before I am fighting you, Master Jedi?"

 

From the movies there is no context for those references. There is nothing suggestive in those quotes that those planets were fundamentally pro-Separatist. As I have pointed out before, when we hear what the Jedi have to say about the war it seems clear they are intent on an end to it, not on victory per sé - especially as they reach the final chapter because it has become clear that the democracy of the Republic has become corrupted (hence their talking of removing the Chancellor if he does not hand power back).

The movies in no way depict an avaricious and aggressive 'imperial' determination on the part of the Jedi.

 

Maybe on the Republic's part, though.

I look at it this way - if someone says "Paris has fallen" or "Berlin has fallen" during a WW2 movie - it should be pretty obvious that an invading force has taken that city. So why not during Star Wars?

 

To put some context on this. I was responding to the claim that Yoda (and presumably the other Jedi Generals) were guilty of an 'imperial' mindset on behalf of the Republic - hence my responding to that particularly. In terms of maybe on the Republic's part? Again, no. There isn't any reference point to make such a judgement - they are just planets referenced as having had some action or other taking place.

There isn't really any reference to an Imperial imperative on the part of the Republic so much as there is a very obvious question raised about the centralising of power into the hands of the Chancellor and his office - there is a suspicion of a power grab, of the Republic (what it stands for) being in danger from that.

Also..in terms of particularly the idea of Paris has fallen - Paris was an occupied city, the victims of invasion. It 'falling' would, surely, have been a liberation, not an invasion. So, we have no context of an invasionist, imperial imperative on behalf of the Republic.

 

In which case, a report would have been "Paris has been liberated".

A "Paris is fallen" report, would be expected to be about the invasion of France back in 1939, not post-D-day.

"Fallen" is usually used in the context of conquests, not "liberations".

 

I won't be held responsible for poor writing

Nobody would refer to a city (or planet) 'falling' to themselves. One would only reference 'falling' in terms of it being taken by the opposition. A term such as taken would be used, or have surrendered or (as you say) liberated. Because 'fallen' is a negative term. So, unless the planet had been lost to the Republic (which doesn't tie in with the idea that things are going well, as Obi-Wan says) then the terminology is...weird.

 

True up to a point - unless they're so "unconsciously" corrupted that they're using this negative terminology every time they have a win.

No need for propaganda terminology when you're the ones leading the armies, after all, and are talking amongst yourselves.

 

The Jedi and clones would seize planets (such as Umbara) for their tactical location along supply routes. Once the resistance, in this case the local militia, was conquered, clones would occupy the planet. Occupation of more and more planets expanded Republic control until the point that it became an Empire.

Obi-Wan called it what it was. Invasion.
"Remember, general Krell, the entire invasion depends on your battalion."

 

Then of course you've got Geonosis:

Obi-Wan: "What I worry about is the way this war seems to be drawing out with no end in sight."
Ki-Adi-Mundi: "Which it is why it is crucial that our invasion of Geonosis meets with success."

 

I like that Lucas used a eusocial hive species to be the builders of the instruments of war which would ultimately lead to the Death Star. That's some good symbolism there. It's also pretty funny when thinking of the Jedi as quasi Buddhist, since Buddhists don't kill bugs.

 

Just to say (to emphasise)...none of these events occur within the movies.

 

Ah, I tend to ignore everything TCW dictates about the Jedi.
Of course an argument can be made for Jabiim as well, but part of warfare is to take back occupied territories or bring down important strongholds - like Geonosis.

 

Which is kind of the point - "bringing down important strongholds" requires boots on the ground, and sometimes, garrison duty.

The Senate, after losing a bunch of worlds all at once (them declaring Separation from the Republic) decided "We're taking them back".

 

Is that invasionist though? Were Padmé and her small army invading Naboo when they took it back from the TF? I suppose, technically, you could argue that but its not really part of an Imperialist imperative.

We're shown remarkably little of the realities of the war (ie the political situation) in the movies, except in one fundamental way. The Separatist decisions are being made by a very small group. There is no Separatist 'Senate' we are shown in the movies...nor is one even hinted at. The decision to use military force against the Republic is taken by the representatives of corporate concerns, all under the watchful eye of Dooku. we know of what a TF invasion looks like - and its not pretty. In short, there is no sense from the movies that the Separatist movement is a broad-based, democratic impetus; it is clearly headed by a military-industrialist cabal that is seeking to impose its will on the planets of the Republic. Any comparison between the Separatists and the later rebels is a nonsense (and simply reflects Anakin's line to Padmé in ROTS)

After Palpatine has been rescued by Anakin and Obi-Wan, and Dooku killed, Mace approaches Palpatine regarding the fact that the Separatists are leaderless now...essentially underpinning that they (the leadership who are the war) are an irrelevance. he is esentially conveying what Padmé later says to Anakin (that leads to his outburst)....that now is the time to talk. As far as Mace is concerned (like Padmé) the war should end there and then and diplomacy begin. Palpatine assures him that the Senate will continue to vote for war while Grievious is around. Mace here shows his displeasure at that attitude from Palpatine (and ties in with his concerns regarding Palpatine and his position in the Republic) and makes clear that the Jedi will make it their focus to capture or elinminate Grievious - in other words, their aim is an end to the war; and in that an end to what Mace (I think) clearly sees as Palpatine's war-mongering.

So, I say again, there is no sense in which the Jedi are portrayed as supporting an invasionist, imperial imperative..or the war. Their aim is to end the war, both in their actions on Geonosis and their actions throughout ROTS. NOTHING in the movies speaks of any corruption of the Jedi.

 

I never said he did become infallible, however, he was chosen to be the one that is taught the trick of force ghosting for a reason, he is the one that is most ready of all the Jedi to endure the trials.

TBH it seems you're back tracking a little here. In your original statement you said

Yoda was not at the beginning stages of keeping his Dark Side in check. Yoda had already kept it in check and had gotten so good at it he became arrogant in thinking that he no longer had a dark side. The trial was getting him to admit that he still had a dark side, that by ignoring it (denying it) and not accepting it as a truth, he gave it power because of his arrogance.

Of course there was still learning and practicing to be had, but again that doesn't mean Yoda was at the beginning of keeping his dark side in check. The trial shows us he already had done that. Yoda already established his mastery, but, in order to attain the next level, that of the ability to become a Force Ghost, to retain his individual self after death, he had more learning, and practice to endure. Just as we see Yoda tell Obi Wan at the end of ROTS.

Yoda says he is uncertain, he doesn't say that he is absolutely positively 100% sure that no one ever wins a war. He also doesn't say whether war is at times necessary. All he says is that he is uncertain if anyone ever does win a war because of the terrible cost it takes (bloodshed). He also never says that Jedi should never fight in a war either. There is a lot of assumption, interpretation and reading into done into that little line about war, not just by you, but by many people. The context of that quote you posted is that Mace asks Yoda if he has insight into winning the war, to which Yoda replies "No longer certain that one ever does win a war I am." He is generalizing about all war, not just about the Clone War. Yet he sees a path to win a bigger war...

The path had nothing to do with Republic or it's corruption. Yoda is referring to the ability to attain his self after death. Yoda is not sure how that would play out (he has no clue about A New Hope at that point, only a very very small hint from the Force Ghosts), however he still sees it as a path. It's a path to victory over a bigger war, the war between the Jedi and the Sith. It is only after the death of the Jedi Order and the Republic that Yoda sees the actual path laid out before him (the scene aboard the Tantive in ROTS), and why he decides to teach Obi Wan, so that they may both transcend death and teach the New Hope to rebuild the Jedi Order (Pass on what you have learned).

The Empire was not a spawn of the corrupt Republic, it was a spawn of a corrupt Sith. The Sith used the corruption to his advantage. If the Sith never comes along, well then the Republic keeps ongoing, corruption and all until some other egomaniac decides to play the game Sidious played so well. However in the time frame of what we see in the prequels, it is Sidious that spawns the Empire, not the Republic. Sidious is the catalyst behind the Empire. What you are doing is jumping from "A" to "C" without having to go through "B" first.

A line that is from a time before the actual story was fleshed out approx 30 years later. However, it still has it roots and is true in that the corruption of the Republic is what allowed Sidious to gain his foothold. No Sidious, no Empire.

Again it seems you are backtracking. Your original statement was that the Separatists wanted to get away from a centrally ruled government, but, that is not true. They created their own centrally ruled government.

I get what you are saying, and I agree with you here and there, however, it seems you want to lay more blame at the feet of the Republic then that at the feet of the Separatists. It seems you are choosing to ignore a large part of AOTC where it becomes clear that the Separatists are the aggressor raising an army to force the Republic to comply when they were suppose to be negotiating, and then when we get into TCW again we are shown the tactics of the CIS is to starve out innocents in order to get them to comply. We are not shown that scenario with the Republic. Yes the Republic has to invade some planets to make sure supply lines are secured, however, they are not there to rule, simply a means to an end, an end to the war. It shows that there is a justification to what the Republic is doing because the tactics of the CIS is about expansionism through violence where as the Republic just wants to bring everyone back under the same house.

Again, the concept of secession will always be opinion based, and swayed by perception.

 

No... the Republic had no power, only Sidious did. That is the whole point of the Prequels, a point that Lucas has said many times. How does a democracy turn into a dictatorship. Democracy = Republic, Empire = Dictatorship. Many times it is an individual that does it, Hitler, Nero, and if you really know your Lucas, then you know Star Wars was fueled by Lucas's fears of Nixon's tactics, where he was worried Nixon was trying to do what Sidious was doing.

The Republic was the Senate (and vice-versa), and by the time of ROTS the Senate (the Republic) was powerless. In fact watch the scene where Palpatine announces the Empire... Padme's line of thunderous applause is ironic on 2 fronts, one the irony that the people are applauding as they watch their democracy get flushed down the toilet, but the 2nd irony is that all they could do was applaud because they had no power to vote anymore!

 

Or, as Lego Star Wars In 100 Scenes puts it:

Palpatine: "Vote for Palpatine - because you don't have a choice!"