Beijinger, Resident in Imperial Center of the North. Moderate fan of Star Wars, but not a fan of the Jedi. Ask me anything about Asian culture and history, or how messed up it is for Disney to use it.
Japanese peasants with spears rushing toward US Marines….gee.. who could possibly foresee how this turns out?
Yeah, this is why when Commodore Matthew Perry showed up with his guns and his ships, the Japanese decided that they needed to end their stagnation and isolation and catch up with the rest of the world in order to survive. And boy, did they catch up!
@caripr94 It’s insane that a couple of European countries and the United States count as the “rest of the world”. The majority of the world didn’t industrialize at that time. But now that the majority of the world have factories and manufacturing industries, Western countries are showing sort of buyer’s remorse and talking about global warming and environmentalism.
Palpatine’s plan to bring his empire to fruition might seem straightforwardly simple to those who only see him as an evil mastermind striving for ultimate power. But beyond the surface, Palpatine doesn’t fit the profile when it comes to popular representation of the greedy villains whose actions are motivated simply by…evil.
The dangerous of Palpatine is not in the Dark Side, his true vileness is much more mundane than most people realize. Some may hate him because he’s a villain, but once we understand his plan – and why it succeeded – we begin to fear him for a very different, very real reason. Palpatine is an effective and terrifying antagonist because all his goals have already been accomplished in human history multiple times, and it can, unfortunately, happen again.
Sure, his main goal wasn’t all that different than most cartoonish villains, he wanted the world. Or, in this particular case, the whole galaxy. The difference is in how he accomplished it. Unlike his fellow villains, his power grab was grounded in that little word that made so many fans turn their backs to the prequels: politics.
Palpatine did not break the system with a sledgehammer to get what he wanted. He used it. From within, he learned the weakness of the political system and explored it for his purposes. However, real brilliance of his plan lies in the fact that he didn’t removed people’s agency to get his way. He offered choices (terrible choices, of course), but choices, nonetheless.
So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause. – Padmé Amidala in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
People did not applaud the rise of the empire because they were being forced to do so or because they were scared. Most of them, believed they were witnessing the beginning of something great. That the fall of the democracy could not possibly backfire on themselves.
But for us to understand the intricacies of his plans we have to understand the main weakness of the system Palpatine was trying to subvert and overtake: corruption. In the end, his success was the result of a corrupt, debilitated government ignored by an alienated population.
That, in a nutshell, is the story of the “Star Wars” prequels: the triumph of empire over democracy, facilitated by Anakin Skywalker and resulting in autocratic rule by Chancellor (later Emperor) Palpatine. […] But before filming, George Lucas studied real transitions from democracies to dictatorships — which sometimes occurred right after nations had moved to embrace democracy in the first place. He asked why “the senate after killing Caesar turn[ed] around and g[a]ve the government to his nephew?. … Why did France, after they got rid of the king and that whole system, turn around and give it to Napoleon?” He noted, “It’s the same thing with Germany and Hitler… . You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control.” The problem is “a democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody’s squabbling.” [You may hate the ‘Star Wars’ prequels – but they predicted our current political era - By Cass R. Sunstein]
@wingletblackbird@padawanlost I don’t know, after reading Michael Parenti and books on changing political orders. I think ROTS simplified the process way too much. In the case of Julius Caesar, the senators didn’t kill him because they loved democracy but because the reforms that he had proposed and initiated would cut into their established benefits. Thus, they didn’t have a problem with giving the same powers to someone who protected their benefits. In the case of France, a military leader was given supreme power because neighboring countries like Britain and Germany were trying to form a pro-monarchy coalition against them and would’ve invaded them in a weakened state.
In the case of Germany and Hitler. Oh boy. Where do we start? The peace treaty at the end of WW1 that squeezed the country dry? The economic hardships brought about by the financial crash of the 1920’s? The Red Scare promoted by all the Western countries at the time? There was a very active left-wing that wanted better benefits for workers and was calling for political and economic reform. However, such movements had shaken the established beneficiaries and they chose to side with the brown-shirts and the Nazi party, who had started out by being Anti-Communist and union busters. They regularly clashed on the streets with the paramilitary groups of the Communist Party and worker’s unions. In the Nazi party’s rise to power, many saw them as the better choice compared to the German Communist Party. By the time the events of Crystal Night came about, the Nazi party had a paramilitary group and a lot of popular support. It should be noted that Crystal Night wasn’t an executive order from the German government, it was carried out by a paramilitary group and a large group of civilians while the government simply stood by and did nothing.
I learned that there’s a difference between procedural democracy and true democracy. In the former, you have all the institutions and go through all the motions, but at the end of the day, the policy-making isn’t up to the people. I got some great quotes from the non-fiction books that I’ve been reading. Just wait until I post them.
The problem isn’t that the Senate is constantly squabbling, but that the senators are constantly squabbling for themselves and the benefits of their political sponsors. It’s not that they can’t agree on what’s best for the people, but rather they’re not thinking about what the people needs at all. By that sense, the government is no longer democratic in policy-making decisions. The Senate stopped being an institution for democracy long before the dictator arose. A hollow shell of procedural democracy, which is democratic in name only. It’s not that they needed more control, it’s that they don’t want to lose their money and power. They don’t want reforms or a change in policy direction even though the majority of the people would like to see that. Even though the people are actively suffering because of the poor decisions in policy-making. Thus, we see on the political landscape of today, all this posturing and theatrics.
Now, if we were to design the setup for an AU based on history and more realistic conditions. I would say put Anakin somewhere on the far left side of the political spectrum, let him be the violent revolutionary who’s more than willing to bloody his hands for the sake of change. Put Padme on the moderate left, someone who wants change but is only willing to do so through peaceful means of reform. Put Bail Organa and the Jedi Order in the middle right, people who want to preserve the status quo and unwilling to let go of their established benefits. And Palps on the far right.
I’d argue Anakin was probably closer to Palpatine on the political scale (and I’m not sure I’d call Padme moderate left, probably further left than that, like Hillary Clinton-level leftist, and she was a radical. Sure, maybe not a violent revolutionary like Che, but certainly someone who doesn’t exactly adhere to more ethical ways of pushing her agenda. The reason why I say this is because the viral marketing for AOTC indicated that Padme herself was not above doing unethical behavior just to prevent a military from being created). And the Jedi I’d actually list as being more far left (and yes, even the far left were unwilling to let go of the status quo. Just ask Lenin, where he promised a huge amount, yet immediately revoked those promises once in power. They even had a similar mentality to him as well, especially the whole “no morality except for what we decide at the current moment, which will change the next moment” thing. And there’s also evidence that Karl Marx, the guy who influenced him, made similar practices as well, and he explicitly derived his Communist views from that of Robespierre’s Reign of Terror.).
As far as your analysis, you’re definitely close to the mark, especially with the explicit references to Ancient Rome, France, and Germany. However, the French bit itself is only halfway there. See, the French during that time also were going all radical in trying to get rid of literally any trace of the old order, including especially Christianity. They also believed in just killing everyone they can find as their way to ensure collective freedom per Rousseau’s statements, even Sade’s statements. Hence we got stuff like Vendee. Ironically, the whole reason why Napoleon gained power is precisely BECAUSE the lawless anarchy of the Jacobins and similar groups disturbed several of the surviving populace. Also, the Brownshirts weren’t “anti-Communist” per-se, they just didn’t like the fact that Russia was helming the Communist party instead of themselves (meaning they were more anti-Soviet than anti-Communist. Basically factional in-fighting like with the Stalinists and Trotskyites.). Actually, if anything, they otherwise agreed to the same “ideals” the Communists did (in fact, what ultimately got Ernst Rohm executed was him, partly in response to Hitler ultimately not letting him run Germany’s army, giving a strongly worded speech that heavily implied he adhered to similar views of Marxist-Trotskyites more specifically.). Heck, the 1920 and 1925 platform for the Nazis also indicated, if anything, they fully supported trade unions.
@otnesse Hilary Clinton is exactly the kind of central left neoliberal politician that I was thinking when looking at Padme Amidala’s politics. Bail Organa is central right because the old AOTC novel had him supporting the military creation act. Average old “chicken-hawk” of a senator who never expected the war to spread into the core worlds.
If you read some of the works by people like Michael Parenti, Chris Hedges and Michael Hudson. Heck , even Joseph Stiglitz and his “people, power, profits” book is a good book to turn to. You will see another angle of analysis on the political spectrum and historic events. The Germany references was based on the books “Blackshirts and Reds” and “Contrary Notions” by Parenti.
The argument for Nazi/Fascist being the same as Communism is often touted by Western historians but that doesn’t make it true.
The books that I cited make a pretty good argument for them not being the same at all. The main difference being are you using government funds to supplement the corporates or the people? The millions of serfs in Russia was promised freedom and they got their freedom. They also got land, a home, education and actual salaries. Their life expectancy and standards of living were rises significantly. I would say Lenin did pretty good by them. Of course, if you focus solely on the upper-middle class like those described in Doctor Zhivago, you would see total chaos and disruption of their living standards. Well, they’re not the ones without freedom or bread prior to the revolution. Same issue with the peasants versus landlords in China during the ROC period.
In fact, I think you are the one with the biased analysis by focusing solely on what they say in speeches instead of what they do and the political decisions that they made. You also focus too much on the domestic issues of a single country and a single time-point instead of the bigger picture and international events at that moment. You need to string those events to form a bigger picture. You also need to look at material substance and the economy.
Ethical and unethical are moral judgments, something I don’t think has a place in historic analysis of politics and the economy.
Okay, here's a (kind of) crossover question for you:
Imagine if Anakin (pre-Vader) came to Earth in the late 20th or early 21st century found out about LOTR and Tolkien's other Middle Earth books, and learned at least the basics about them. How then do you think he would like them? Would he consider the setting too low-tech for him or would he be intrigued by all the epic adventures, complex and/or heroic characters, magical phenomena, and deep, uplifting themes about friendship, love, kindness, humility, and the importance of nature?
Its always interesting to think where he would be placed in Middle Earth. Technology aside, I think it is a setting he could take to.
However, it pays to remember the philisophical basis of Tolkien’s world is different. It is not dualistic like Star Wars, with pantheistic Force and a light/dark side. It is monotheistic: Ilúvatar is the supreme being and the one with the most power. There are things the Valar cannot do, and do not know that only He does. No being can be equal to Him. He is the source of all good, and all evil is in opposition to him.
All beings, including Sauron only have their power because of him. Gandalf only has his power because he is a Maia, and retains it because of his faithful service to The One. There are no Force Ghosts in Tolkien’s world, because the souls of men lingering upon the earth after death would be an abberation contrary to Ilúvatar’s design.
I understand that George Lucas is something of a Tolkien fan, so Anakin would probably be one as well. I think maybe his favourite character might be Túrin Turambar or maybe Isildur.
Piggy backing on the question, I hope you guys don’t mind. If so, I can start a new thread.
Is the concept of the Force in Star Wars actually pantheistic? I have my doubts on that. It seems rather monotheistic to me when characters say things like “the will of the Force”. The narrative often seems to suggest that there is a will of the Force, much like that of a monotheistic God. And only the Jedi follow it, whereas the Sith goes against it. The will of the Force is followed only by using/joining the Light side and anyone who doesn’t follow the Light will die a horrible death. It seems rather monotheistic to me.
It’s not really the pantheistic world-view of Yin/Yang and East Asian philosophy. The moral absolutism of both Jedi and Sith would be seen as perversions of the Force if you truly equate it to the concept of Taiji in I’Ching and Taoism.
@tragicfantasy-girl@thsle Perhaps a clarification of what I meant by Yin/Yang pantheistic religion is necessary for a fruitful discourse on the subject. In the Ancient Chinese belief system, the Taiji is the source and culmination of everything, the sky, the earth and humans. Yin and Yang are the two basic components of the Taiji, from which stems the five elements and eight hexagrams, representing different natural elements. Both Yin and Yang are worthy of worship in this belief system. Yin represents darkness, shadows, the Earth, the moon and the night. Yang represents light, the Sky, the sun and the day. Yin also represents death, while Yang means life. Both the Sky (Yang) and Earth (Yin) have grand temples dedicated to them and annual rituals take place to pray to both elements. Us humans simply survive in the world, constantly trying to seek a balance between the two.
That is not the case in how the Force is depicted in either the OT or PT. The Jedi only believes in the Light side of the Force and thinks the Dark side needs to be completely vanquished for the Galaxy to be at peace. The Sith only believes in the Dark side of the Force and thinks the Jedi has to be completely destroyed. There is a sense of absolutism and monotheistic beliefs in both schools. Yes, some sects of Force users in the EU believe the Force is like a rainbow or whatnot, but that doesn’t change the monotheistic views of the Jedi and Sith Orders, which is the main theme of the GFFA universe.
You keeping an eye on Disney’s new version of the Old Republic? The High Republic series? Set a couple thousand years before the prequel trilogy, it seems to be another series of existential crises (judging by the book summaries on Amazon at least). At this rate, they’re just piling up one war after another and it’s starting to look like Kenobi was flat-out lying when he talks of a “more civilized time” in the Republic’s history. I don’t know about you, but I grow tired of the war content. Why can’t they think of something else?
TBH though the idea that there were no wars for 10,000 years or some such nonsense has always seemed like an absurd one to me, so maybe Disney are doing something plausible for once!
Even if it isn’t very original. I do know what you mean about the lack of original content in a lot of media content now.
Ah, Disney beat you to it. They had already changed the definition of “no wars” once. They say there were, in fact, smaller planetary disputes and regional wars did exist. BUT nothing as big the The Clone Wars that engulfed the entire galaxy and posed an existential crisis to the Republic like the separatists had. In that same kind of voice when they say the World Wars were never before seen in the history of mankind? It’s stretching the truth a bit, but not a flat-out lie.
The problem is, now their walking back on that claim as well by introducing new Galaxy-wide wars. Now it’s looking like Kenobi is one of those people who intentionally forgot the Thirty-years War when they talk about how horrible WW1 was in European history? Or those people who claim Russia is the first country to fight a war in Europe since World War 2? Yugoslavia just happens to slip their mind when talking? Lol, it’s funny to watch these people at times
It’s ironic to see you, of all people, ranting unstoppably against Amazon Galadriel, when she is just like Anakin Skywalker. I thought you liked the insufferable, spoiled warmongers who had no regard for anything but their own desire for revenge, and thus allowed themselves to be twisted by the villains of their respective sagas. Galadriel was just as groomed by Sauron in the series as Anakin was by Palpatine, but because she’s a woman, you hate her. Typical Stanakin hypocrisy.
In your incessant, dictatorial, rageful rants telling me which character I can and cannot like you seem to have lost sight of your own position. (I seem to recall your friend agoddamn didn’t take too kindly to being told which characters they can and cannot like. Nobody does.)
Am I supposed to love ROP Galadriel and give her a free pass on everything because she’s female? I mean, I guess the answer is yes, because SW fans give characters like Bo-Katan a free pass on the grounds of their gender and affliation to a certain male.
I would put you right on one point though: Galadriel was no more “groomed” by Sauron than you were. She knew him for a few weeks out of thousands of years of life, and one of her first acts was to demand he tell her were he was from so she could go invade the the place. He actuallly stopped her murdering Adar, although she still confessed to him her weird murder fetish in which violence turned her on anyway.
Conclusion: She was a genocidal maniac without Halbrand/Sauron around. That was just her natural inclination.
Imma not giving her a free pass because she happens to have a vagina: and because I’m not depraved like you are. Apparently, you think guilt and personal responsibility should be determined by a person’s genatalia. Female psychopath = good in your twisted ideaology.
Weirdo.
Fascinating, you could write a book on logic fallacies and the failures of literacy and education in America just by observing these fans on their blogs.
I guess that’s the problem you get with letting star-fantasy fans read Tolkien. You retarded Star Wars fuckwads aren’t ever able to keep up with a text more complicated than “See Spot Run”
Nonny, sweetie, I was a Tolkien fan before I ever got into Star Wars fandom. I read Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion long before I was even interested in Star Wars, and will keep on doing so for for the rest of my mortal life.
Though if you have a problem with SW fans getting into Tolkien, you might want to have words with Payne and McKay- those protégés of J.J.Abrams- for basing Haladriel on Reylo and giving Galadriel a Rey line before talking about the 3 Elven Rings bringing balance to the Force.
At the moment though, it is more funny to watch you get angrier and angrier.
The latest bad take on Amazon’s Rings of Power is, “Rings of Power doesn’t contradict Tolkien’s canon, because there is no such thing as canon.”
I’ve seen more and more Rings of Power fans claiming that the show doesn’t go against canon because there are different versions of canon anyway, between The Silmarillion and the History of Middle-earth, and The Silmarillion wasn’t published by Tolkien, but by his son. They’re basically saying, “Canon? What canon?” And I just… No. The idea that “the show doesn’t go against canon because canon is so wishy-washy anyway” is SUCH a false argument to make.
Yes, Christopher Tolkien edited and published The Silmarillion after his father’s death. And yes, there are multiple conflicting versions of stories in The Silmarillion and HoMe. But that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as being faithful to Tolkien’s stories. A lot of the choices Amazon has made in the show are completely wrong and would be wrong in any Tolkien adaptation.
The characterizations are totally off base. For heaven’s sake, Hobbits wouldn’t abandon their own people on a journey. Elrond wouldn’t swear an oath like that. And the Númenoreans don’t hate Elves because Elves are stealing their jobs, they envy them for their immortality—it’s kind of the main theme of the Akallabêth. And, in the show, Galadriel—whose people were literally victims of the First Kinslaying—tries to steal a boat??? I mean, hello??????? Amazon hasn’t even tried to stay faithful Tolkien’s characterizations. Yes, adaptations usually take liberties with the source material, but holy shit.
And the very framing of fundamental issues is completely wrong. In the show, going to Valinor is portrayed as some sort of reward for valor in battle, which is not how it works in Tolkien’s books. The show also compressed the entire Second Age into a much shorter span of time, which is absurd and completely goes against what Tolkien wrote. The show glosses over the First Kinslaying, of course (I know it’s because they don’t have the rights, but it’s still their fault for mangling the story and themes), which makes it seem like the return of the Noldor to Middle-earth was some sort of righteous war, and it wasn’t. The list goes on and on.
And they can’t get basic details right, either. Obviously, the short-haired Elves are one example of this; so is the emblem that resembles a Fëanorian star on Galadriel’s armor. And it’s astounding how poorly the showrunners seem to understand the nuances of Tolkien’s names and constructed languages.
Tolkien was a linguist, and the languages he invented were extremely important to him and to his stories. So what did Amazon do? They completely ignored the internal logic of Tolkien’s secondary world. In The Silmarillion, Ar-Pharazôn banned Quenya in Númenor—but Amazon’s version of the character names his son a Quenya name. In the show, characters call Galadriel “Galadriel” even in Valinor, despite it being a Sindarin name given to her by her husband, Celeborn. It is anachronistic and inaccurate to refer to her by that name before Celeborn gives it to her, especially during the Years of the Trees when she didn’t even speak Sindarin. The show also gave one of the hobbits a Dwarven name, Nori, for no apparent reason. There are many more examples like this.
Amazon has also invented some things out of thin air that have no basis in Tolkien’s works at all. I understand that they had to invent original characters and storylines for this show. Inventing original characters could, in theory, work alongside canon instead of contradicting it, even though those characters aren’t found in Tolkien’s books. But mithril containing the light of a silmaril? What? And what’s with that weird bit where Amazon Elrond and Amazon Celebrimbor are talking about the silmarils and they say Morgoth cried when he looked at them and almost repented??? What the hell??? It makes no sense.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. The people who created this show have many many, many choices that completely fly in the face of Tolkien’s characterizations, worldbuilding, languages, and themes. (I haven’t watched Rings of Power and I don’t intend to, but this information is widely available if you read reviews and episode synopses.)
The show is also poorly written and ugly to look at, but that’s beside the point. The point of thispost is just to say that no, just because there are multiple, conflicting versions of canon in The Silmarillion and HoMe doesn’t mean Amazon gets free reign to trample all over Tolkien’s stories. There is such a thing as making a faithful Tolkien adaptation, and this isn’t it.
^^ agree with this, though I’d rather hope it made people more interested in The Silmarillion and other canon First and Second Age material. There are already plenty of Hobbit fans, but the Silm has never quite had that level of popular appreciation (outside of the actual Tolkien fandom, that is).
Same here: another SW prequels fan. I don’t hate the sequels but I am just - meh- about them. Disney and a lot of sequel fans though act like there is something wrong with the prequels and with what Lucas did in them, purely because they don’t like the stories he gave us. They keep acting like they did so much better: like Kylo Ren made the most amazing sacrifice ever for the one he loved but Anakin/Vader was just selfish. Er…..nope.
TROP annoys me for so many reasons, and one of these is the absurd attacks on Peter Jackson by people trying to defend Amazon. Like excuse me? Amazon making a show with a diverse cast does not suddenly absolve them of all their tax evasion, the disgusting mistreatment of workers, their health and safety record, etc etc etc. But all the fans are now praising them to the heavens as the good guys whilst lambasting PJ for things that would not even make Jeff Bezos blush. Its that and the fact that Amazon have specifically used the diversity: the one thing they did get right: as a platform from which to attack not only Jackson but also Tolkien himself.
Shouldn’t any work of art be able to exist and stand on its own merits? If your work is only holding up because you attack or tear down everything else then you have not created a good work of art. If your painting is only being liked because someone destroyed all the Picasso and the Monet and the Turner paintings that does not mean you are a great artist.
Then were all the attacks on that The Silmarillion. Certain RoP fans have said it is a “shit story” and others have basically said it is too hard to understand. It is almost as if they don’t want people to read it, The Unfinished Tales or anything beyond The Lord of the Rings.
I wonder why. One can only hope the series will, even incidentally, result in more people cracking upon The Silmarillion instead of being put off. If they are anything like me, who tends to be a non-conformist and a bit of a rebel who likes to read books I am told not to that might just happen.
@tragicfantasy-girl Come on, you gotta face the truth. Many of these people who hang out on Tumblr, writing insulting asks as anons probably won’t be picking up a book anytime soon. They’d sooner just write a long rant on their phone.
