PT Defending Anakin and the Tusken

I don’t know if there’s an official stance of the Tusken POV. But I interpret them to be the “uncivilized natives.”

Moisture farms pop up on the outskirts of settlements encroaching into Tusken territory. The Tuskens react violently and are dismissed as beasts.

Kind of like when Americans expanded and ran into conflict with natives who were also regarded as savages.

Had a woman been kidnapped and murdered by natives on the American frontier in response to settlers encroaching on their land, and then settlers form a militia and massacre every native man, woman and child, who is at fault?

We see Tusken warriors charging Anakin as he steps out of Shmi’s tent and Anakin killing them. We don’t see the subsequent slaughter of women and children, but he confesses to it.

I take Tusken-farmer relations to be a complex issue, equivalent to native-settler relations. I take the capture and subsequent treatment of Shmi to be evil , and there’s nothing wrong with Anakin attempting a rescue and killing the warriors, but he crosses the evil line himself by killing civilians


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

All this moralizing Jedi gibberish. Had only Ripley and Hicks been there they would definitely have "nuked the site from orbit" (yes, possibly including "children"), no questions asked. No moralizing dogmatic religion in the way. They would have done what had to be done and moved on, no sleepless nights. Sometimes I really prefer a straight seek-and-destroy mission over moralizing finger-pointing would-be saints. At least they would have gotten things done. In 'Aliens' no one cries a tear over the poor little burned face-huggers. Cheers Ripley, Newt and Hicks!
Don't tell me, wrong franchise! I know that. But one is still allowed to draw parallels?

 

The "Tusken/Xenomorph parallels" are not really valid though. Tusken are nothing like xenomorphs - they ride steeds, make tents, wield tools, and can safely be assumed to reproduce normally, "the humanoid way", rather than by laying eggs in the bodies of other, living beings.

Given the aforementioned "The Searchers" parallels, it's IMO clear that Tuskens are, in-practice, aliens that are "human-equivalent" - and the killing of a Tusken child is morally equivalent to the killing of a human child.

 

I would equate them to the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island. A man named John Chau was killed when he bribed fishermen to take him to the island to preach Christianity. The inhabitants make no attempt at diplomacy and immediately act aggressive towards people approaching the island. Why? To understand would require a dialogue that they seem to have no interest in having.

According to Wikipedia several of the islanders were abducted by Europeans in the 1800s. Perhaps they have a cultural memory passed down of bad encounters with outsiders.

After John Chau was killed, is it justifiable to bomb the island and wipe them out as “savages” and dehumanize them?

Do we call them evil for their violence? Or are those in Industrial civilizations just vain and arrogant to believe we can go anywhere and do anything?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's a tough immoral world, especially on Tatooine. Being squeamish about an hostile alien species wouldn't do anyone any good, least of all the settlers. One Jedi with "moral values" wouldn't change ***t in such a harsh environment. Coruscant-softened semi-saints living in their ivory tower wouldn't impress those farmers very much. Did they ever get any help? They fend for themselves, and no preaching Jedi ever came to their rescue..... well, except one.
And the xenos may be more intelligent than humans, in a way? And is intelligence really a factor in deciding which species deserves to live?
The Alien Queen is shown several times to have at least close to human intelligence. So just wipe out the species? Ripley seems to think so, so does Hicks. So are they morally better than Anakin? I think not.
Have you seen/read Children of the Corn? ALL villains were children. So should the adults simply have stopped defending themselves and allowed to be eaten alive?

 

But what good does killing the women and children do? They’re no threat. You’re just satisfying bloodlust at that point. I’m not sure Cliegg would have cared. But Anakin and Padme who were two ivory tower individuals with time to contemplate immorality both knew it was wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How would you know they are no threat? What do you know about Tusken culture? All in the group were seen carrying guns. How can you prove "women" always have to be innocent? This isn't 1950 anymore.

He just lost his wife! He wouldn't have cared if one threat were removed from himself, Owen and Beru? Great father!!!! If I were him I would have kneeled before Anakin, maybe even kissed his hand. Maybe YOU could have survived on Tatooine better?

Yes, I'm certain the Tusken wouldn't have attacked Coruscant. That's why I focussed on the farmers and settlers. THEY had no spaceships to flee, only lousy shotguns that apparently were no match for Tusken weapons.

 

Because Anakin implies as much. He comes back visibly upset and angry. Padme asks him what’s wrong and he doesn’t say anything about his mom. He says it’s that he killed all of the Tuskens emphasizing the women and children, claiming to have slaughtered -not fought - them, and then finishes by saying that he should be better than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tusken women dress differently.





Can you show me a screencap of a Tusken woman carrying a gun?

 

No, it was too dark and things moved too fast. Even if they didn't have guns they may have had other weapons. I seriously doubt they were unarmed. If they were unarmed they were just as guilty as the men. "Guilt by not trying to prevent a crime", or whatever the legal term is. They took part, passively or actively, in the prolonged and cruel torture and killing of an innocent being. They would have had dozens of ways to intervene in some way. Did they? NO. The verdict is GUILTY, punishment as chosen by Anakin the death sentence. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

 

By this reasoning you would be in favor of executing every single adult German that knew of the Holocaust.
They knew it was happening and did not take steps to stop it, so they are just as guilty.

Second, the term you are looking for is accessory.

Did the inaction of the Sand People women help the men commit this crime? You need to prove that before they could be guilty of accessory.

Also, how guilty accessories are varies.

Third, by this reasoning, Padme is an accessory. She knew that Anakin had broken the Jedi code and she comforted him and concealed the fact. So she is guilty.

Lastly, I saw something on the CNN site just a few days ago, concerning 9/11 and the aftermath.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/09/us/balbir-singh-sodhi-9-11-cec/
It had details about a man with a beard and turban that was killed a few days after 9/11 by a white man that said "He was going to go out and shoot some ***** ****" and he argued to the cops that his actions were patriotic.
The murdered man was not a Muslim but a Sikh and he was not alone, many Muslims or people suspected to be Muslim were attacked and some killed in the wake of 9/11.
A reminder what guilt by association and rage filled vengeance can lead to, the killings of innocents.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

We know from the AOTC novel that only male tuskens are normally warriors (an in-universe justification for the fact that, prior to AOTC, only "male-dressed" Tusken were seen). Perhaps they are a patriarchal culture?

Most people would say that Afghan women were not as guilty as Afghan men in "the atrocities of the Taliban" - they are the oppressed ones, forced to comply with the dictates of the men. Similar principles can apply with any other patriarchal culture.

That's why, IMO, it's reasonable to presume that Tusken women are "less guilty" than Tusken men, unless there is strong evidence to suggest otherwise.

Hence Anakin's "Not just the men, but the women (and the children)" it's clear IMO that he himself believes that his attacks on the men were more justified than his attacks on the women (and the children)

 

How about another parallel?

In the TNG episode "The Survivors", Kevin Uxbridge is revealed to be a powerful, god-like being. He lived on a planet with human colonists. The colonists, including his human wife, were killed by a warlike, violent alien race. In response, he used his powers to wipe out not just the attackers, but the entire species. Billions of them. And he knows that this was a monstrous act, no matter how much grief he was suffering, or how awful the attackers were. Just like Ani.
And Picard's reaction is the same as Padme's: understanding of the reason, but horror at the act. Neither one supports the respective actions, but neither one can render a lasting judgment. They both decide to leave each one to deal with their guilt, in the hope they'll reform. So far as I know, Uxbridge didn't kill anyone else, but Ani went on to much worse crimes.
Were they each justified in their actions? Not in my view.

 

You misunderstand once again. Not just KNEW but actively participated. That Tusken village was tiny, and anyone living there must have known what was going on. Hell, the women may have just looked on and laughed while the men tormented Shmi, maybe at the same time working on those traps which killed her rescuers, or even worse? Less guilty because of that? No way!

Right, "accessory to murder" was the word I was looking for. My question is: in what court and under which law? This is TATOOINE and no such law exists. So the executioner is pretty much the judge.

Your logic is flawed. She basically only found out about the executions in a "campfire story" told by Anakin, something that happened in the past, could be true could be untrue or exaggerated. If she was right with Anakin at the camp she might have tried to prevent him. After that the case was history, which court would she have gone to? Is murder per se illegal on Tatooine? Not in my impression. Han??? That leaves what? The senate? Would they honestly be concerned with a non-issue like that? I seriously doubt it. The Jedi Council? Padmé was no Jedi, and I have no idea how much she agreed with the Jedi Code. It would have been an internal matter within the order. Did she have a particular reason to snitch on Anakin? We have no evidence that she was conform with the Code.
So the real question is, what law applies, and what law should Padmé have turned to, even if she wanted to snitch? They were on their own on a lawless planet, where Republic formalities and niceties didn't exist. There are no "commandments" in SW such as "thou shalt not kill".

 

A gang of men has abducted someone and taken them back to their hideout, take them downstairs and murder them.

The significant others of the murderers are on the first floor unarmed and with kids. They clearly know what’s happening but they don’t report it, aren’t armed, aren’t helping, they’re simply present.

The police kick the door down. Are they at liberty to shoot and kill every man, woman and child or only those armed?

Arguments about Tatooine justice are irrelevant as Padmé and Anakin come from the heart of the Republic and are holding to the sense of right and wrong that they developed there. And obviously what Anakin did left him disturbed and angry with himself.

Nobody was coming to arrest Anakin under Tatooine law. It’s doubtful anyone cared about dead Tuskens. But Anakin did, Padme did, Qui-Gon did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, Anakin is a Tatooine native (his sense of justice just might be slightly different from what he has been indoctrinated on Coruscant), while Padmé comes from Naboo. Why should Tatooine justice be irrelevant? The event takes place ON Tatooine, so falls under Tatooine "law", even if it's nonexistent. Or maybe the Hutts should have been consulted? I'm sure Jabba would have shown great sympathy for a few dead annoying Tusken .
How would you feel if you were caught with a joint in Thailand and got the death sentence? Not very amused I assume? SW is the same as our world. The law of the country where a "crime" has been committed has the final say. There is no universal justice, as we clearly see in SW as well.
Try protesting publicly against Chairman Xi in China. Good luck not getting arrested or even executed. The Marines won't bail you out, trust me.
"Justice" is what the country's government says it is, period. Same goes for outlaw planets like Tatooine.
But keep the arguments coming. I'm quite used to playing the role of "devil's advocate" by now.

 

Anakin probably didn't want to be expelled from the Jedi Order. I don't think he was afraid of Tattooine law. He did tell Padme. Maybe he was thinking she would report it. Not blaming Padme at all btw. He did tell the head of the Senate as well lol, who also did nothing. Was probably how Anakin rationalized it.

 

Me getting arrested for breaking a law of another country is completely different than someone doing something they believe to be amoral in a lawless society. When Shmi was abducted Cliegg mentions going to look for her. He doesn’t call a local constable. It’s frontier justice. Anakin likely didn’t break any law because there’s no law likely in existence, but his moral compass tells him it’s wrong independent of what the law says. If someone picked a fight with me in a foreign country and it escalated into me needlessly killing them because they’ve enraged me, I might feel like I did something wrong even if the local government doesn’t care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That was exactly my point. Frontier justice rules on Tatooine. Anakin might still have felt guilt but that was more because of his Jedi indoctrination, not his own heartfelt emotions. He was torn between his own rage and grief and Jedi teachings. That conflict was what ultimately tore him apart emotionally and attracted him to the dark side. It was his inner conflict and struggle that confused him so. Ultimately the dark side won of course.

 

You make stuff up, you have no proof that they took any active part, that they looked on or did anything.
So if we keep this to courts and legal matters, your made up evidence carries no weight.
At most you can argue that they knew about it.
Consider, Shmi was in a tent, not tied to a pole in the middle of the camp and out in the open, which could give support that she was hurt in view of others.
So the Germans in WW2 fits exactly, you argue that those that just knew what was going on deserve to die. Going further, what about the wife to one of the camp guards, that makes lunch and dinner for him? Should she also be killed? You seem to think so.

Plus what about the children? Could a child of one year do anything for Shmi or have any chance to stop what happened? If you argue that they should be spared but all the adults killed. What chance does that leave those kids? They have no one to care for them so it is essentially death.

Again you assume that no law exists on Tatooine or any courts. The Huts rule the planet and are likely not that concerned with legal matters but that does not mean that the planet is ruled by anarchy.
They would not want that as total chaos is bad for business.

You have talked about legal terms and "guilt", so you have made the argument about legality, courts etc.
If you throw all such stuff away and Anakin can do as he please then guilt does not enter into it. It was revenge, plain and simply. Someone hurt Anakin and he hurt them and he kept on hurting anyone he could find. If they had anything to do with it or not did not matter. He killed until he ran out of people to kill.
Vengeance in one word.

No my logic is quite accurate, there is a legal term, "Accessory after the fact" which means that a person learns about a crime after it has happened. This fits Padme to a T.

In ANH, Tatooine is under the control of the Empire so do you think murder is legal in the Empire?
That the "cops" in Mos Eisley are not too bothered by shootings only shows that they are corrupt or complacent.
Also your impression is not fact. Want to argue it is legal, prove it.

Anakin is guilty of mass-murder, possibly small scale Genocide. He also works for the Senate and has considerable power and authority. They SHOULD care that one of their keeps of the peace did this.
They likely do not but again, corruption or complacency.
As for the Jedi Order, they would definitely care and since simply abandoning a mission is expulsion worthy, mass-murder would likely carry an even stiffer punishment.

Anakin is part of the Jedi order and he would need to follow their rules and code even in places where the local law does not make certain actions illegal. Murder is wrong to the Jedi, do you really think they would think it ok for a Jedi to commit multiple murders on a planet where murder is not a crime?
So Padme SHOULD have suggested to Anakin that he tell Obi-Wan, not just due to what he did but more importantly that he lost control and went kill crazy. Anakin has a lot of power, if he were to loose control like this again, there could be many more deaths.
If she does and Anakin refuses then she should consider telling Obi-Wan. Not an easy action but staying silent is also an action.

Since you argue that simply knowing about a crime and not taking action is worthy of death, your unwillingness to condemn Padme is a massive double standard.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

I don't really get why anyone would make this about local laws, or even galactic ones. That's missing the point entirely. The story that GL tells transcends that as it's a story of morality that goes to the core of who we are as human beings; as spiritual, luminous beings. It's about right and wrong - not legal and illegal - and it explores that territory in a way that doesn't always give us explicit answers but clearly suggests that, for example, revenge is wrong.

As noted earlier, it's also strongly hinted that as far as Anakin was concerned, the men were the real perpetrators. The only thing the women and children did wrong in his view was being part of the tribe.

Most importantly, it's clear that Anakin knows what he's done is wrong - and there's nothing in the film that suggests it's not. Padmé says it's human to be angry, but that's just acknowledging that his anger is understandable. That's all.

 

I like to show some comparisons to the "real" world. What is going on in Afghanistan is our real horror: Sorry, couldn't find more graphic pics.

Spoiler: trigger warning

This is real atrocity, not this (Anakin's executions). Do you know some girls were skinned alive just for being born female?

I call that the worst kind of torture and atrocity. This pales by comparison:


In this world we are all whining about a fictional character taking revenge? Seriously??? I know it's SW and a fictional story.... but shouldn't there be SOME kind of distinction? Can SW really be totally removed from real-world atrocities?
So yes, I continue to be devil's advocate and do what the thread's title's purpose was, defending Anakin and the Tusken. Feel free to attack me for my opinions however.

 

We're not attacking you. The logic of what you're saying, however, is flawed.
First of all, the title of this thread refers to the OP. It does not say "In here, you're supposed to defend Anakin's actions".
Secondly, yes we are discussing a fictional scenario. One that is a reflection on real life issues. That is the implied and universally accepted premise of many discussions around here.
Thirdly, one atrocity being worse than another doesn't make the other right.

 

Honestly, I think even Frank Castle/The Punisher would be disgusted with Anakin. I mean, sure he’d be by Anakin’s side killing all the men. But the women and children? Did he ever kill kids, even those related to the people he was trying to kill? I don’t recall him ever doing that.

 

I don't recall him doing that. But after all he's not Darth Vader, and the scenario is different. In SW there are different species and yes, the dark side of the Force. Too many factors are different. Castle didn't really turn evil, while Anakin did. Lucas felt that in order to fully turn to the dark side you have to do something really evil. He felt killing children was the best way to show that. I didn't write the story by the way, just trying to give some explanations. Maybe Lucas should have given an interview explaining why Anakin killed Tusken children and Jedi younglings? Then we wouldn't have to speculate.