PT Historical references in the prequels

Haha, oops, good catch. I must admit I was (lazily ) going off of my >10 year old memories of reading about the Civil War. I must have been thinking of the fact that many of the states had already seceded several months before the inauguration, even though of course you're correct that the first shots weren't fired until after.

Appreciate the explanation of the Southern mentality in the years running up towards the war. It's of course understandable how the incorporation of free states like Oregon and California into the union was perceived as a direct threat to the South's ability to maintain the status quo. I still stand by my original assertion though that the decision to secede/fire the first shots of the war was a short-sighted one born of entitlement and arrogance (much like the seperatist leaders in AOTC). Entitled, because they thought they were owed an equal share of power despite being an ever-dwindling portion of the population whose practice of slavery was gradually becoming less and less accepted by the mainstream; and arrogant, because they discounted the likelihood that such a war would bring about their people's own ruin. And while "States' rights" was the justification for secession, they had not been so keen on those only ten years earlier with the Fugitive Slave Act that required northern states to respect southern state slavery laws.

Even though it was becoming clear by 1860 that the numbers were turning against them, which indeed in the long run did pose a threat to their way of life, I think if they had chosen to work through the political system instead of seceding they could have successfully kept the practice of slavery running for quite some time (Lincoln himself was not even advocating an end to slavery, despite being an anti-slavery president, and they could have kept the threat of secession in reserve as a trump card), and eventually secured favorable terms for a transition out of slavery. And by that time, advances in technology likely could have softened the blow of losing slavery. I think, though, that they had unfortunately become too reactionary/stuck in their ways to be willing to even contemplate such an outcome. In that way they remind me a bit of the Spartans, another heavily tilted slave-owning society that became so rigidly conservative that over the course of a few centuries they went from the most powerful and respected state in Greece to little more than an out-of-the-way tourist destination for the Roman elite who wanted to observe their odd customs. Perhaps something about being an imbalanced society like that, or the constant fear of slave rebellions, makes a society rigid to the point it has trouble adapting to changing times.

 

While in this thread the problem of the slavery and its traces in PT was discussed vastly I would like to emphasize on some details regarding the discussion about Shmi potential liberation after TPM (I mean not what the Lars did but what could be done by anybody in the Republic).
Let‘s begin with the less possible person who could (i.e. could not) liberate Shmi and that is Padme. Why? Indeed because she is queen (and later Senator) her intervention in Tattoine internal affairs would mean only one thing: war. Is not that she couldn‘t try to buy it as ordinary citizen (if Watto agrees at all) but in this case the laws of the Republic would stop her because participating in the slave trade even with noble motives is participation in acts of slavery, i.e. crime (the funny thing as The_Phantom_Calamari noticed in another thread is that Qui Gon didn‘t do that, he won a bet and the consequence was Anakin‘s liberation). This means that anybody in the Republic could officially try to liberate Shmi in the way Clieg Lars did (buy her) even if he/she had the means and even if Watto agree with that (because it was obvious that Qui Gon tried after selling the pod but Watto was too angry of all these losses to permit it). The only way could be direct intervention by the Republic government, but paradoxically this couldn‘t be an option as such pretention could only be based on the fact that she is mother of one Republic citizen (Anakin) but as the internal rules of the Jedi Order practically exclude this connection between mother and son, such pretention couldn‘t be claimed. The only way would be some unauthorized (I mean officially by the Council) secret operation just to take Shmi from Tattoine or something like that but the only Jedi who could do that was killed in the end of TPM.
While all these options are not explicitly shown in the movies, I think they are clear enough but maybe not for everybody. Maybe many fans just don‘t realize that paradoxically the antislavery legislation put restrictions even to those who want to see the slaves free.

 

Rewatching the prequels I still consider these rich cultural, historical and political references one of their biggest strengths. Yes, it is a galaxy far away but they help it look ... familiar to viewers.

 

I think that I heard somewhere that Lucas said that the whole concept of palpatine and his political rise to emperor was based off Richard M Nixon.

 

More lik Caesar. It is commented earlier in this thread.

 

I feel like TPM's plot comes off more confusing than it needs to be because Lucas put himself in awkward writing spot when he wanted to keep Palpatine's identity. So, he couldn't have a scene where Palpatine explains his plans to someone(possibly Darth Maul) without exposing his identity. In the movie's defense, the movie is called ''Phantom Menace'' but the movie does rely on the mystery plot way too much even by the standard.

 

As TPM is discussed again, I would add the slavery problem as social and historical reference. In my opinion TPM shows briefly yet very clear what is to be a slave. Is not necessary to be put in chains or be tortured or beaten. Simply is to be treated as property: as object and not as real person. That's why "I'm a person and my name is Anakin" is one of the crucial sentences of TPM and and the story of Anakin himself. Anakin wants to be identified as person and not someone's other live droid who do some tasks for the owner.
Watto to is not the worst owner, by the way, but that doesn't make the slave .. well less enslaved. He/She is still someone who cannot go where he/she wants and even cannot avoid doing things that doesn't want to do. Like for example working all day long while being only 10 years old or going to races that are dangerous even for adult human. Yes, the horrible consequences of the slavery are shown in a subtle yet very distinctive way.

 

I agree and I would add a small detail: actually there are chains but as they are invisible and most people kinda ignore them.
The tracker put in the slave's body is sort of hi tech chains. Is even worse as they can blow you up when you flee which is unthinkable if the slave had a real chain. Some things are even more cruel exactly because they are more subtle.

 

Agreed. I also don't mind that the historical references were simplified to not bog the trilogy down.

 

this is brilliant video I think that discuss especially the politics in PT in detail. I'll post it here also to revive a little this thread as there are some good finding about the historical references here. I disagree with the author in a small detail: the escapism doesn't mean to detach from real world comepletely but to see our world in a way it can be if it was possible. So it is possible for a movie to be escapist and rich in political and cultiral allusions in the same time.