The Jedi Path. (Now you too can actually pretend with slightly more accuracy that you're a Jedi!)

Is it canon?
Do they say it's canon?
No.
Then it's not canon.
So it's not canon.
She's got it! I think she's got it!
o/~...If it's not said to be true, then it is not true...o/~
And how do we know it's not canon?
o/~...Not said! Not said!...o/~
Even if the creator...
o/~...Is dead! Is dead!...o/~
But does this apply to reality?
No! Unless you're schizophrenic.
Naturally.

 

It's written In-Universe, by a Jedi, as a refutation of the accusation. A weak one to be sure. As it stands, it's canon.

 

It's not by Lucas, so it's not canon anyway.

Oh wait, it's "C-canon", aka non-canon.

 

Well, that's fine and dandy... unfortunately it's written as an EU in-universe document addressing previous accusations against the Jedi made in the EU, in-universe.

I'm just saying it's a disturbing quote and mentality about it all. And even when the Jedi take a child into custody with parental permission... they are still woefully deficient in understanding those kinds of familial bonds. It's especially true when it comes to Anakin Skywalker and what the Jedi expected of him and how little they seem to have offered him in the way of dealing with his separation from his mother.

As an aside, does anyone else wonder if the whole "no Jedi marriage, love leads to the dark side" and the idea that Force-sensitive children are adopted into the Jedi Order at young ages seem like GL imposing his life experience upon the Jedi Order? I.E. his marriage went bad, he got a divorce and this is just part of the bad vibes ringing from that?

 

Even it if doesn't meet your standard of canon, it's still part of the overarching EU continuity.

 

Which is a perfectly fine position on its own, so there's no need to assert otherwise.

Welcome to the Lit Boards. You'll go far here.

 

N-canon is non canon. I wonder what these purists think we need to differentiate between different levels of non-canon for.

That this is one of those places where the EU diverges from Lucas.
I think a major point of the PT was that the jedi had become arrogant and hopelessly divorced from reality. Just take this as part of that theme.

 

I've always considered the concept of "canon", and arguments that inevitably spark over it, fairly ridiculous, at least from an outsider point of view. Seeking coherent structure with an entirely fictional universe will always have its problems, since the primary concern with any Star Wars product (besides bringing in cash) is to tell a story. Star Wars fans are very fond of that "certain point of view" line, which really works in this universe, as it can beat almost any continuity problem, no questions asked .

In this case, the notes in The Jedi Path might not be strictly "canon", but they do serve at least as a good indicator of what the characters think about different aspects of being a Jedi. The "baby snatchers" view point, well, as much of a cop out it is, that's all point of view as well. What with the whole "Karen Traviss" branch of SW canon, there are those in and out of the universe who either love or hate the Jedi. I can't personally understand "hating" a fictional organization, though the Old Jedi Order can definitely be a bit arrogant. I agree with Wallace, about that scene in Episode 2, with the Jedi librarian insisting that if something isn't in the archives, then it doesn't exist, her tone leaving little room for argument. The Jedi are used to being right, although maybe it's because they are generally right in the grand scheme of things.

I like the Jedi a lot, but I enjoy seeing the flaws in their order as much as the great things about them. Jedi Path sounds really cool to me because it has Luke commenting on the old ways, since I feel that overall Luke's order is far more humane (if, perhaps, a bit less efficient in terms of strength).

 

Arrogant, yes. AOTC even says that outright. Hopelessly divorced from reality? I wouldn't go that far. The Jedi were flawed; I can accept that. But if some future author wrote a book saying, "In their free time the Jedi amused themselves by drowning puppies", I wouldn't just fold it into the theme of the Jedi being imperfect. I would reject it ( its C-canonicity notwithstanding ) and fold it into the concept that EU sometimes tends to put its own spin on things.

 

hehe...interesting one

 

Yeah, the notion that the Jedi are kidnappers at once sounds like blood libel at first. But still, we see very young children in the temple in the movies.

At C-canon, which this forum deals with, The Jedi Path's explanation is weak.

To be fair, many religions have horrific elements. Hindu widows have traditionally committed suicide. Abrahamic traditions in general are quite horrible to women; "suffer not a witch to live" and all. To see Jedi having issues like this, in context...

 

Hah, that book covers issues that are perhaps worse. My point is, it's still a pretty awful passage. Regardless of whether or not the Jedi have ever actually taken children from families without consent... refuting that claim by saying "we can do that legally" and "some Masters say the mere fact of their Force-sensitivity is consent" are probably two of the worst possible things that Jedi could say.

 

Wait -- so this one passage is the source of the debate?

I don't have the book with me, nor have I read it. But the in-universe writer's intention here sounds fairly ambiguous. He doesn't even seem to be taking a side. It also seems like this passage has been taken out of context, and that there was more to it; either a passage leading up to this statement or something qualifying it afterward.

As it is, we know that the Jedi are, in some respects, kidnappers -- that's G-canon. And this fellow here even stands by the fact that it's "technically false." Then he makes some equivocal statement afterward that he takes no side in.

So why are busting out the cannon canon for this?

 

That's literally the entire passage. It's like number 2 in a list of "myths about the Jedi."

 

Hah, that book covers issues that are perhaps worse. My point is, it's still a pretty awful passage. Regardless of whether or not the Jedi have ever actually taken children from families without consent... refuting that claim by saying "we can do that legally" and "some Masters say the mere fact of their Force-sensitivity is consent" are probably two of the worst possible things that Jedi could say.

I've seen worse from religion. I mean, remember, when Christians first came to America, they defined humans in terms of their relationship with Adam (and therefore their shame of their bodies, their concept that they were inherently evil, etc.). By that logic, Indians were straight from the uncanny valley. Add on the inherent cosmic horror of learning the world was far older than 6000 years, and...you get the idea.

 

So, about the baby-snatching thing, even though this happens in:
Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force
The LFL-reviewed and approved Jedi Path (read the end-notes where he talks about Lucasfilm asking Mr. Wallace to remove or change certain things)
The Holonet News webpage
The Clone Wars animated series, in which Lucas is a hands-on advisor and has clearly said no to several ideas
... it "diverges from Lucas"? It seems the evidence points the other way. I'm just sayin'.
And here's an excerpt from Wallace's endnotes:
http://geekosity.blogspot.com/2010/12/endnotes-for-star-wars-jedi-path-part-4.html

Anyhoo, about the book. While unfolding maps and fiddling around with Jedi coins and reading about 6 armed Jedi battlemasters, it made me feel like a kid again. I'd been a huge Star Wars fan from around age 5 until 2002, when I kind of left it all behind. My girlfriend got me the Jedi Path for Valentines Day and it brought back a huge flood of good memories and warm feelings from a simpler, more creative time. It brought me back to Star Wars. I've fished out an old Jedi costume, which is now on a mannequin in my house. I built my own lightsaber and holocron, I've purchased and re-watched all the movies (and pre-ordered blu-ray), started re-reading the books... and while it's been devastating to my wallet, it's boosted my mood and re-lit the pilot light in the creative part of my brain. I now have something fun and fascinating back in my life that I had forgotten all about, and I have Daniel Wallace and his beautifully presented, exceptionally written piece of work to thank for it. I love this book.

 

To be fair, they did a pretty good job not learning that.

 

In Jedi Apprentice, TPM, and Clone Wars cartoons, its not kidnapping--its done with parental consent. And Jedi Apprentice made it clear parents have a choice of yes or no.

Even in the Paxan case, there was technically parental consent, although the recruiter failed to mention the fact the child would not be allowed further parental contact. This seems to be an instance of different behaviors in recruiting style, since other parents were made perfectly aware of the outcome. Now mind you, in the cases where the full consequences were not made known to the parent, I'll grant you that ETHICALLY I would consider that kidnapping, legalese not-withstanding.

The HNN instance is noted in-article as being a departure from the norm, since the parent was assumed dead at the time.

 

Well, part of cosmic horror is going insane, and creationist beliefs in spite of a mountain of evidence are...pretty crazy.

 

In TPM, Qui-Gon asked for parental consent. I'm sure they all *ask* for parental consent and it is implied that it is often given. We don't know what Qui-Gon would have done if Shmi said no.

I don't know about the Jedi Apprentice book so I cannot comment on that.

In the Clone Wars series it's never explicitly stated either way, but it is implied that they are taken without consent. The Rodian mother didn't want to give up the child, but behaved as if it was inevitable and she didn't have a choice (even before mind control). Dave Filoni also said the Jedi kept the children after they were abducted.

I'm sure the Jedi try to convince the parents to take their children. As seen in the Clone Wars cartoon, it seems the Jedi and the parents know of the force-sensitive children at a very young age, possibly at birth (maybe through the force, maybe through blood tests) and the Jedi don't take them until around age 2. The Jedi have 2 years to talk to and convince the parents. After two years, if the parents say no, if the Jedi see it necessary, they have the legal right (and to them, the moral authority) to take the child. We don't know how often this actually happens. For all we know, the Jedi may often CHOOSE to let the child stay with the parents, but there is a precedent for taking one if necessary.
We have a paragraph in this book that says there is a misconception that the Jedi are baby snatchers. American social workers have the same stigma. They take children from unfit parents that are unwilling or unable to properly take care of their children. If you have a 4 year old bouncing around the house, throwing tables and chairs through walls and hurting people, you are unable to take care of your child. To the Jedi, it's in the best interest of the child, the family and the community to remove that child. And there's a risk that child could grow up and fall to the dark side if not properly trained.

In the real world, I don't think I'd agree with anyone recruiting babies and training them in a secret government-affiliated cult. And I don't think I'd agree with anyone using mind control to get whatever they want (Qui-Gon could have potentially financially ruined Watto by forcing him to take Republic credits, for example). I'm not sure I'd agree with an unelected, expansive and uber-powerful task force that works for the government, but doesn't answer to the government or the people. Or the military being led by what is basically a private organization. Or giving these people the power to arrest.
But this is fantasy. Mind tricks, lightsabers and force powers are cool, so it's ok.

 

In Yoda: Dark Rendezvous Dooku was angry that his parents had given him to the Jedi instead of keeping him which he thought they could have done. His status was, I think myself personally, special as an apparently only heir to rich aristocrats who might have been able to do quite a lot of very public protesting if they would have wished to keep him.

To me personally, this raises the question would the Jedi be less likely to take a child if he/she/it would be the only child? I don't mean Force prodigies, but less talented individuals, like Scout below - could it be a decisive factor when they are not sure whether or not take the child to be trained?

The case of Scout in the same novel shows that the Jedi don't take all Force sensitive children to be trained. In her case, the Jedi "recruiters" thought that her connection to the Force was too limited and wouldn't have taken her if her poverty stricken parents wouldn't have begged them to do so, as the parents saw it as her only way to escape the poverty they lived in.

 

Thanks for the discussion -- this is exactly the type of thing I was hoping to spark with that passage. I love the Jedi and think they're a force for good. But everything has shades. This section was called "Myths About the Jedi" and that's what it presented, public myths. But in the official denials you can start to see the gray.

Keep in mind that the text in The Jedi Path was written a thousand years before the modern era. That's a huge blanket disclaimer. The Inquisition is an element of the history of the Catholic Church, but not really a relevant element for 500 years. Yet it is relevant when discussing the history of the church or when seeking to draw parallels with other, more modern elements that may or may not be fair comparisons. Like any large organization with a history going back centuries, the Jedi Order would have lots of things in its past that its critics could cherry-pick in order to help tear down the organization. So would the Republic. That fact is something that I enjoy retroactively setting up (see also the Pius Dea Crusades) because I think Palpatine would have played on a lot of these historical failings in order to turn the tide of public opinion against the Jedi and the Republic in order to rally people behind the "fresh start" of his Empire.

Regarding the baby-stealing claim, I was specifically reacting to (1) the Baby Ludi story from HoloNet News, (2) the Mace Windu story from Star Wars Tales, and (3) the backstory of Lorn Pavan from Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter. All three imply that, in at least a few cases, there are parents who don't want their children raised by the Jedi. In all three cases, the Jedi resisted the call to give them back.

Do I agree with that? No, but if the Jedi believe it (or at least some of the Jedi believe it), then what's their rationale? Could it make sense and is it internally self-consistent, without making them eeeeeeevil? My rationale, as posted earlier in the thread (thanks!), was:

1) The Force is strong with these children, and if they aren't trained they will be a danger to themselves and others (including their parents).
2) The Force has CHOSEN these children. To ignore the opportunity to train them would be an act of defiance against the will of the Force.
3) Emotional commitments can lead to selfishness and favoritism. Jedi should aspire to serve all citizens of the galaxy equally.
4) Many families would be acculturated to the idea that having a Force-strong child is a great honor. On many planets I can imagine neighborhood block parties being thrown to welcome the Jedi Master who has arrived to claim the child.

I really, really like the example of Child Protective Services mentioned above. To someone like Morrit Ch'gally, the in-universe writer of this section, parents who neglect to give their children proper guidance and training in the Force are guilty of criminal neglect. Ch'gally would think of himself as Professor X, and of the Jedi Temple as serving the same function as Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters.

Dan

 

The main problem, IMO, is the very idea that 1) it is absolutely necessary to separate a child from its family for the sake of this institution on the shaky claims that emotional commitments can lead to selfishness and favoritism. Especially since the Jedi position on detachment/non-attachment is largely utilitarian rather than, like in many esoteric traditions, spiritual. Their primary concern is how a family may or may not conflict with a Jedi's duty and/or the possible outcome of a villain exploiting the Jedi's family for one reason or another and the chance said Jedi might fall to the dark side. Firstly, if any other soldier can do his duty and obeys orders despite having parents that brought him up, a wife and children a Jedi Knight surely could. Secondly, the mere fact of the Jedi Order imposing their own organizational structure as surrogate family, fellow younglings