PT Historical references in the prequels

It's a strange and counter-intuitive thing that those with the most to lose oftentimes seem to be the first to bail. Perhaps it's that privilege over time leads to entitlement, so that when things don't immediately go their way that sense of entitlement spills over quickly into anger and a willingness to burn it all down. I think you can also see this pattern on the part of the South in the US civil war. So many concessions had been made to the South over the years to keep them on board, from the infamous 3/5ths clause of the Constitution that meant that the slave states had more representatives than they really should have had, to the way the Senate was set up (2 senators per state regardless of population) that further gave them a disproportionate amount of political sway. And it's not like Lincoln in 1861 even had the power to end slavery, nor was that his stated goal, as at the time he only wanted to limit its spread to new states. Yet even this was so unacceptable to the South that they preferred to wage a bloody futile war rather than accept the results of the election. The great irony of history here is that in doing so, they opened the door for Lincoln to get the 13th amendment passed and outlaw slavery for good, something that would have been impossible as long as the slave states were part of the country since any constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. Sad to say, but few people in the North would likely have been willing to fight and die in a war to end slavery had the South not forced it upon them.

 

Indeed. As is said in AOTC, the Separatist movement, as led by Count Dooku, is motivated by feelings of political idealism. The people who would actually be most affected by a departure from the Republic, be it either positively or negatively, are too busy dealing with the problems of everyday life to be political idealists.

But I have to disagree with you slightly about the Civil War. God knows I don't at all mean to be a (real world) Confederacy apologist, but it is true that the end of slavery would have meant a massive economic disruption for the South on a scale we can't even imagine, and that certainly would have been bad news for your average, everyday white Southerner. That, more than anything else, is why I think so many people in the South were willing to fight and die for the Confederacy's cause. I don't think they were willing to throw their lives away just for the Platonic ideal of the cause of racial supremacy. They were willing to do it because the ideology of racial supremacy which the South used to justify slavery was inextricably tied up with very real economic issues that would have an undeniable impact on everyone, even non-slave holders. If it wasn't for that, I just don't think the rich planters would have been able to get all the other white people, especially the poor ones, on their side. Because there were actually an awful lot of people in the South who had a lot to lose. Their concerns were ignored by everybody in positions of power, both in the South and North, and I think that's why the war was able to happen.

And as you say, the North wasn't even interested in a sudden, immediate end to slavery in the first place. I think a war could have been avoided if people on both sides were better at communicating with each other. I'm not a historian, but was there ever any mainstream push in the North for a program of economic aid and assistance to the South to help them transition away from a slave economy? Before the end of the war, I mean.

Ending slavery is certainly a cause worth going to war over, but if it could have been ended without a war, wouldn't that have been better? There's certainly a lot of blame to be placed on the South, and it's very easy to do that because they were unrepentant slavers who deserve all the opprobrium and more that can be directed at them for such a thing--but I'm always suspicious of any historical narrative that just seems too perfect. What it looks like to me is that the United States was founded as a slaver nation; inherent geographic and structural factors caused slavery to largely die off in the north but not the south; and the resultant differential in economic incentives in the two halves of the country caused a split in the level of willingness of citizens on either side to question the morality of the situation. The citizens of the North weren't inherently more morally upright than the citizens of the South--they just had a lot less to lose economically if slavery went by the wayside. And I think if everybody at the time had realized that was the fundamental issue causing the divisions, the deaths of 620,000 people could have been avoided, and the iniquities of slavery abolished in a relatively peaceful manner.

This may be going on a bit of an off-topic tangent, but given the explicit parallels Lucas makes between the factions in the Clone War and the factions in the U.S. Civil War (the Grand Army vs. the Confederacy), I think it's worth pondering. Remember that the Star Wars Confederacy is an institution guilty of horrible atrocities, led by morally despicable leaders, bankrolled by wealth-obsessed plutocrats--and yet Lucas still wants us to consider that it had its own heroes just as the Republic did; and in the end even an absolute villain like Nute Gunray, at the moment of his death, admits that he would have preferred peace more than anything else.

 

The_Phantom_Calamari right, I'm not saying Southerners were all inherently evil people. Most I'm sure were decent people, judged by the standards and norms of their day. And the average Northerner was probably pretty racist as well (although slavery was never a big part of the northern colonies since those were founded more by Puritan types who were more into small self-sufficient farming). Northerners probably weren't fighting for the lofty goal of ending slavery, but rather that of saving the union (or they were conscripted and had little choice). But I have to disagree that slavery could realistically have been brought to an end anytime within the foreseeable future without a war. The way things played out shows that the South as a whole wasn't remotely interested in having a dialogue or allowing the political process to play out, a process by the way that is constitutionally pretty heavily in favor of the status quo, and with which they could probably have stymied for decades any attempts to end slavery. They could have filibustered, could have relied on the congress and the courts to counteract Lincoln's mildly anti-slavery agenda, and tried to get a new president elected in four years. Certainly they could have forever prevented a constitutional amendment. But instead, even though they enjoyed plenty of advantages in the political system, they fired the first shots at Fort Sumpter before Lincoln was even inaugurated, before he had done anything that might even slightly threaten their livelihoods, because they were so incensed at the very idea of having an anti-slavery president. Yes, slavery was central to the Southern economy, and if the North had been trying to unilaterally ban slavery without any help or recompense to allow the economy to adjust, then I would be a lot more sympathetic to the Southern cause. But the North wasn't even talking about a ban on slavery, and ultimately it was the South that was so eager to jump into the war.

As for the CIS, I think it has a lot in common with the South in that they're eager to abandon negotiation in favor of starting an ill-fated war that in the end will bring about their own ruin. But was the Republic right to intervene, or should it have simply defended itself while letting them go? Should the Union have let the South secede? Should a country have the right to use force against its former citizens to maintain its borders? Sometimes it's hard to say.

 

The prequels , for the substances , is definitly better than sequels.

 

Very interesting thoughts about the parallels of the Civil War of Torib and The_Phantom_Calamari As now it is election's time (ironically in my country also) I'd like to make one more historical reference about Anakin's political views in AOTC. Many people think that even there Aankin reveals himself as supporter of the dictatorship -like political government but I disagree. The real dictatorship supporter doesn’t care for agreements, dialogues etc. The real dictatorship supporters just want to change completely the system and make a coup, etc. That's it. What Anakin has is a pragmatic, as Cryogenic said in another discussion, almost technical attitude towards politics: it works, so it is good. This pragmatic attitude is shared buy many people in real world. Yes, sometimes it makes them blind for the rising dictatorship tendencies, but it doesn't make them automatically Nazi supporters. I would say, Anakin even has a soldier’s attitude: it will brings peace and prosperity, it will end the war, so it is fine for me (beginning of Episode 3 when he is not Vader, still). One more detail: Anakin at least believes that there are honest politicians who care about their voters. What about Obi Wan and his cynical, almost anarchistic view of the political system? (is not that anarchistic means bad, but he doesn’t believe in the representative democracy at all).

 

I agree with all this. I knew some of it, but like I said I'm not as much a student of history as I should be.

Obviously the North had no interest in ending slavery, and the South overreacted with catastrophic results. That much is clear. However, they clearly thought the North had an interest in doing so. I'm interested in knowing exactly why and how this misunderstanding happened. You know, what role human psychology had to play in it.

Another good point you made is that slavery probably wasn't going to come to an end anywhere in the near future without there being a war over it. But does that mean it was a good thing that there was a war which caused so much destruction, so many deaths, and so much resentment, whose aftereffects linger on in the toxicity of our national community to this very day, just as the aftereffects of bondage linger on within the African-American community specifically? Was it a worthwhile trade? Or would it have been better to avoid the war, avoid the deaths and destruction, but have the injustices of slavery persist for longer than they would have otherwise, until the system eventually died off, as was inevitable?

It's extremely taboo to even discuss such a thing obviously, but, apart from Confederate apologists with suspect motives, it seems like no one I talk to ever seriously takes into account all the normal, average people on both sides who lost their lives forever, most of whom probably didn't truly deserve to die. Regardless of the Southern leadership's culpability in provoking a war, which seems undeniable, was the war itself ultimately the best way events could have played out? I just find it hard to so blithely write off the lives lost. But I also find it hard to write off the current and future generations of slaves who would be left to suffer in their bondage for even longer.

It's kind of similar to the dilemma introduced in Episode I. Should the Jedi have done something to end slavery on Tatooine, as Anakin thought Qui-Gon had come to do? The reason the Jedi didn't do so was clearly not because they didn't care, but because it was against their non-interventionist philosophy to enact planetary regime change or start conflicts, which would likely result in many deaths on both sides before the dust cleared. Were they wrong?

 

I was recently watching Born On The Fourth of July, when I thought of something. Anakin's confession to Padme sounds a lot like something a Vietnam veteran would say. Anakin in Episode II is just a 19-year old kid who just killed for the first time, just like the 19-year olds who served in the conflict.

"I... I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead... every single one of them. And not just the men. But the women... and the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals! I HATE THEM!"

 

We have already discussed this here: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/historical-references-in-the-prequels.50038237/page-10
but I do't think it can be compared to war crimes. The fact that this is Anakin personal vendetta makes him feel even worse in Lars garage.

 

Technically, it is not Hollywood, but that's not important. The more important thing is that this is a space opera. So, I don't think it has the ambition to re-create the reality and exactly in such delicate topic, that could be recreated only by people who suffered this (or somebody close to them). Also, I'm sorry for the cliché, but we should notice that it is space opera with Jedi (men and aliens with special abilities). So, I don't think that they even try to show something close to PTSD.
This is more the regret of Macbeth after the killing of Duncan, although the regret has different motivations: Anakin is suffering from the fact that he cannot overthrow his hate even after that ad he should to and Macbeth is regretting the purposes of the killing. The whole scene has Shakespearian taste, after all, this is the larger monologue of the Saga itself ( or at least I cannot remember some larger than this).

 

We discussed this in another thread but is important to be here: how saying the half true is very successful propaganda technique instead of just lying to people. Dooku and Palpatine used this on personal level (Dooku with Obi Wan in Episode 2 and Palpatine with Anakin in Episode 3) but it has bigger consequences in the fate of the Galaxy as it produced unrest, doubts, betrayals. Yes, Dooku didn‘t lie about Darth Sidious but he hide the fact that he is connected to him (for example) and that Darth Sidious is literally controlling the Senate. Same with Palpatine: the Sith legend was true, but Palpatine “forgot“ to explain how he knew about it, etc.
In the real world that technique is unfortunately, widely used. The last time I saw it it was in the news about the Syrian civil war: it was confirmed that in Aleppo were find provisions of food and weapons but almost no one explain who left that. If this belonged to the peaceful civilians why they needed weapons and why the food was hide in a city suffering of hunger. Etc, etc. So, telling the true or technically telling the true is not enough in many cases.
By the way, Seagoat , this was pinned... Why did you decide to un-pin it? (just asking)

 

I didn't. Not sure who did, if not Heels, but I'd assume because the pinnedness of the PT section was admittedly a bit clogged

 

It's a tough dilemma for sure. I tend to side more with the Jedi on this one, that is, when in doubt choosing non-intervention. How many terrible wars throughout history have been justified by claiming to be making the world a better place? And how often have they been successful in doing so? In World War I the generals and politicians justified the outrageous numbers of meaningless deaths by telling themselves it was a "war to end all wars" rather than see the truth in front of them, that they were fighting a stupid and destructive war that would only guarantee further violence in the decades to come. But at the same time, of course, it's a balance. At some point, if you know have the capability to stop terrible atrocities from occurring (like the Rwanda genocide) then it does become your moral responsibility. And failing to do so can cause later blowback and resentments in different ways (like how Anakin's disillusionment with the Jedi contributes to all that follows).

 

I think the metaphor of clones represents exactly this: they are seen as resources and not as real people and it shows that the Republic is not what it used to be. Not to mention the Empire in OT that doesn‘t bother to have an army of real people. But the clones are step one of this process.

 

I don't know if this has been said, but the Clone Army are like the Mamluks and Janissaries. The Trade Federation reminds me of the East India Company, so perhaps it's not surprising that Padme has a Sanskrit name. The Republic is like a mix between the EU, the UN, and the US.

 

Oh, and the Mamluks and Janissaries were northern (often Christian) boys captured or taken by the Ottomans at a very young age and trained up as soldiers.

 

Just to clarify: the Mamluks are more connected to Egypt. The Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire were not Northern, but Christian boys (most of them), that were converted to Muslim with their training. My point is that not all Christians lived in the North of the Ottoman Empire. But that as nothing to do with the Jedi training that is based on some talent /abilities. The Janissaries' recruitment was not always voluntary (form parents' part), and I could even say, it was practically involuntary, as existed the devşirme system that is kind of obligation to the state. Without entering in details, I should say that the rights of the people who lived in the Ottoman Empire were defined by the religious background and the Christian lived hard times in the Empire , especially if we speak for the Ottoman Golden ages where the Janissaries , or the special forces of the Ottoman governor also lived in their splendor. As descendent from such Christian nation who was invaded by the Ottoman Empire, I can assure you there is no so much in common, except the early training. Also all the Janissaries were obviously men , recruited in their childhood. Also, the Janissaries were more like the Samurai: completely loyal to their sultan and the Jedi Order is serving to the Republic which is different enough.

In the movies is never alluded that the children are recruited involuntary, also the Jedi are peace keepers, not soldiers (and that was one of the big deviations form their path during the Clone wars), but of course the Republic society was based on peace not on war glory. I think this model of early recruitment even can be referred to the Buddhist monasteries, where the apprentices enter too young and are trained to be monk and soldiers, although I think the structure of the Jedi Order and its position in the society, including its sad end looks more like the Knight Templar Order as was discussed above. The only difference I see is indeed in the recruitment of the Knight Templar which is completely different (all the Knight Templars were recruited as adult men).

 

Interesting observations. The clone army looks indeed as slave army as the clones are not accepted as real living beings but as tools of war. Their fierce loyalty and their desire to fight to end, not thinking about the immanent death in the movies is implanted genetically not only by training and referring to the Mamluks ad the Janissaries, is achieved by kind of brain washing and changing the religion. Maybe also reference could be found with the Rome legions that were also loyal, dangerous soldiers who despised death and wanted only to fight more ad more. But yes, the ethical problem about using real life beings as tools of death is one of the key problems in PT, although many fans tend to ignore it.

 

You're right it is. I guess what I was trying to say was that the Clones filled the same kind of function as Janissaries and Mamluks: highly trained slave soldiers loyal to the Person In Charge. In Star Wars I think the Clones are being managed by the Jedi but are loyal to Palpatine, in a way that is tragically not their fault. It's a real moral mess they have by the end of AOTC, made worse by the fact that not even the Jedi notice, except Yoda.

BTW, I'm a history undergrad, so I'm reeeeeeaaaaaaallllllly enjoying this thread. And since, Tonyg, you obviously come from Eastern Europe, probably in the Balkans, where they may have had an elective monarchy, can I guess: you're Hungarian? (You don't have to answer if you don't want to).

 

Bulgaria. Hungary is a little in the West , I mean from the Balkan peninsula. Although we are now Republic, in the end of 19th century till the beginning of the WWII we had such eligible monarchy: indeed a service and not a title. I'm glad that you are enjoying the thread. I'm fascinated how many historical references have the prequels; that's why I made the thread. In the same time, very often this is mentioned as their weakness (too much politics and so on) but is actually one of their great strengths.

 

Here's a (by no means comprehensive) list of historical references and parallels in the PT:

• Tatooine reminds me of nothing so much as the Barbary Coast - rather fitting, seeing as it was filmed in Tunisia and named after a Tunisian town. The Barbary Coast was the Moroccan Coast, infamous for highly competent maritime privacy, slave trade, and having Bedouin nomads in its hinterlands for a thousand-odd years. Sound familiar?
• Jedi Knights. These guys are defo based on the Knights Templar, but their relationship to the government reminds me of the Catholic church in general in the 9th century or so. They're technically independent, and whether or not they should have the final say over secular government or not is becoming a concern, but they haven't consolidated their absolute power, sovereignty, and autonomy over secular powers just yet. The way they work with government is to act as practical and spiritual advisors to Heads of State and Government, and their advice is generally followed. They also have a reputation for do-gooding and military power, as the Catholics did.
• Clones. Fulfill a similar role to slave armies
• Podracing is chariot racing
• Blockade of Naboo. For some reason (although it's probably no coincidence), this reminds me of the Intolerable Acts in America in the 1760s and 1770s. It's also similar to the Berlin Blockade, although it got resolved very differently.
• Trade Federation. East India Company and VOC. The East India Company may not have held a seat in Parliament per se, but it had pretty strong influence before 1857.
• Elective Monarchy. Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, England (yes, really. Parliament is supposed to choose the monarch, but it was too lazy to do it every time, so they just stuck a system in place which elects people 'automatically' according to succession law). The ancient Scots may have done this too. Technically, this fits some of the Roman Empire - the Senate would choose the Emperor.
• Separatist Crisis. American Sectionalism (irreconcilable divergence of interests in a union), Secession, and, more recently, Brexit.
• The Republic. This is an interesting one. As far as I can tell there is only 1 chamber (the Senate), plus 'the Courts', a la the American Supreme Court. But the really interesting bit is when the highly-educated Padme is shocked that slavery exists on Tatooine, and implies it's part of the Republic before Shmi shuts her down. Obi-Wan also refers to Tatooine as being ruled by the Hutts. The only explanation I can think of to explain this is to say that, in some capacity, the Tatooine is nominally in the Republic, but is de facto run by gangsters. So I think it's either a system of 'We speak for all the people of the galaxy' or some kind of EU where current heads of government are left in charge and are responsible for the implementation and enforcing of Union Law.
• The Takeover of the Republic is Hitler, Caesar, Napoleon, and Trump. Oh, and a bit of 'General Secretary' Stalin as well, who dogsbodied his way to the top. These kinds of things happen all the time.
• Order 66 is basically religious and ethnic persecution everywhere, which happens so often I'm not going to list them all.

 

Order 66 was most like the "Night of the Long Knives". When the SS took out the SA.

 

As we mentioned the Knight Templars, indeed the sad end of the Order looked as the Great Jedi Purge. The guy who is mostly responsible for this is called Philip the Fair, known also as the Iron king of France. He organized this purge, I reead somewhere that his agents opened secret letters in exactly the same day as they were instructed.
The Order indeed became too powerful and too independent, even from Rome. So it became dangerious for many, also Philip was in great financial debt to it.
More can be found here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

 

Well if I may add...

Another issue that the South had a problem with was the breaking away from the traditional pairing of new states where it was a 1 free state and 1 slave state pairing as started by the Missouri compromise. Further nervousness started to come about as also with the Missouri compromise no slaves states would be allowed above the 36 degree 30 minute parallel inside the Louisiana Purchase (post Missouri).





With the northwest territory already off limits to slavery and now everything above the noted parallel, the slave states saw a not so friendly trend starting to appear. This effectively limited the slaves states ability to expand at the same rate as the free states and would eventually mean their equal balance in the Senate would start to deteriorate.

The 3/5's law, while giving the slave states more representation than they were entitled too, didn't always mean they controlled the House. It is a fact that in 1819 the House passed laws stopping the creep of slavery into the Northwest territory and actually freed the slaves that were there. However, the bills failed in the Senate where the slave states were able to stop the bills because of the equal seats.

The Senate was, if my memory served me right, the real problem as it was the stop gap for any laws that the slave states saw as against their interests that got through the House. So when the Slave States saw they were being boxed in, and denied equal access to expand their states, they saw their ability to stop future anti-slavery laws in the Senate start to disappear. As the years went on, the tradition of pairing free and slave states stopped, and 4 free states were admitted in the union between 1850 and 1861, and zero slave states. This was of obvious concern to the Slaves States that felt they needed equal balance in the Senate to stop any legislation that got through the House.

With Lincoln becoming President, they believed that they had no more options to try and create a more equal balance in the two houses. The inevitable push to abolish slavery became a reality to them.

Well... Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th, 1861, and the attack on Fort Sumter was on April 12, 1861...

The South's reaction, their Secession after Lincoln's Presidential victory in 1860 and the firing on Fort Sumter that started the Civil War weren't, necessarily, knee jerk reactions. As I pointed to above, they believed their rights, their states rights to slavery had been slowly under attack for many years prior to Lincoln. What Lincoln represented was a further escalation, the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

South Carolina was the first state to secede, and in their declaration is this paragraph:

They saw the writing on the wall, their way of life had been under attack for quite a few years, and once Lincoln was elected, they saw no recourse. Lincoln represented further denial to them of the half and half number of states they enjoyed over the years that gave them equal representation in the Senate and the tilted representation in the House...

 

Let's bring back March 4th inauguration day! Because it's cold on January 20th!