PDA

View Full Version : The Evil... Rebellion???



Corsec025
20 February 2003, 12:47 PM
Would someone please explain to me what was wrong with the Empire before the Rebellion?

The people of the galaxy had freedoms... they had freedom of speech, freedom of the press... they ran a free enterprise system.

The Emperor himself even allowed the Senate to stay around until the d*** Rebellion came along! Sure, the Emperor may have been a Sith lord, but what does that matter when everything is going fine?

Now let's take a look at what the Rebellion did:

It caused the Emperor to abolish the Senate
It caused the Empire to put a tighter grip on the galaxy
It caused a massive destruction on Coruscant
It killed millions of people in the poor Death Stars
It prevented Luke Skywalker from gaining true greatness
It caused innocent civilians to die
It destroyed the government
It caused the so called "dark ages" of the galaxy

The Rebellion was uncalled for! In the words of Mel Gibson, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?"

The New Republic was evil too! Look at Borsk Fey'lya, the only thing that he ever accomplished was killing a few Yuuzhan Vong!

Please reply, as I want to hear your opinions on this matter!

dgswensen
20 February 2003, 12:50 PM
I think Episode III will probably illustrate in good detail what is wrong with the Empire. Till then, it strikes me as mere speculation.

Other than that... I'd say the fact that the Empire is willing to destroy a planet and slaughter innocent billions merely to make a demonstration of their military power illustrates quite clearly they do not have the Galaxy's best interests at heart. And, as seen in Episode II, they were planning to build and use this weapon long before the Rebellion, or the Empire itself, came into being.

Corsec025
20 February 2003, 01:04 PM
Well you bring up a good point, but you must remember that it wasn't just a show of military power, Alderaan was involved in the starting of the Rebellion!

Sure, the Death Star may have an evil name, but what if the Emperor had it designed as a weapon to keep the peace?

dgswensen
20 February 2003, 01:58 PM
If you're going to hold the Rebellion responsible for killing the thousands of innocents on board the Death Star, then you cannot just magically absolve the Empire of killing billions of innocents on Alderaan. That particular sword cuts both ways. And if merely being at the location in question (Alderaan) implicates everyone who lives there, then none of the people on the Death Star are innocent, either.

Codym
20 February 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Corsec025

Now let's take a look at what the Rebellion did:

It caused the Emperor to abolish the Senate
It caused the Empire to put a tighter grip on the galaxy
It caused a massive destruction on Coruscant
It killed millions of people in the poor Death Stars
It prevented Luke Skywalker from gaining true greatness
It caused innocent civilians to die
It destroyed the government
It caused the so called "dark ages" of the galaxy



1. Abolishing the Senate was something Palpatine was probably working on from the day he got into power. It had nothing to do with the Rebellion, except perhaps that the Senate had sympathies for those in the Alliance. (I'm pretty sure its the Senate that Vader is referring when he says "There will be no-one to stop us this time!")

2: I think to obvious answer is that the tightening grip caused the rebellion, not the other way around.

3: What mass destruction on Coruscant?

4: The Death Stars caused far more deaths than the Rebels did by blowing them up.

5: Luke was a innocent farmboy until the Empire murdered his family. I don't quite see how being a farmboy is a greater destiny than becoming a Jedi Knight.

6: So did the Emperor.

7: Again, the Rebellion is a result of the Dark Times, not the cause.

Nice try, though.

Rogue Janson
20 February 2003, 02:44 PM
That's a pretty funny post Corsec, but since I can rarely resist even the hint of an argument...


The people of the galaxy had freedoms... they had freedom of speech, freedom of the press... they ran a free enterprise system.
Where do you get your information about the wonderful freedoms accorded to the people of the galaxy?
Even the economic system would better be described as oligopolistic - that is controlled by a small number of large corporations than free enterprise (and "free enterprise", being based on greed and competition is quite appealing to a Sith Lord as it is).

How about listing some of the Empire's multifarious crimes - exterminating the jedi, enslaving entire species, numerous massacres, dictatorial government, the rule by fear enshrined in the Tarkin doctrine etc etc. and, oh, blowing up a planet.

mojo1701
20 February 2003, 03:21 PM
It all depends upon point of view. To the people involved with the Rebellion, they saw the Empire as an unjust and arbitrary evil. To other citizens, they were seen as the good guys.

There are three types of governments, according to Aristotle:

1. Dictatorship - One person's words are law
2. Representative Democracy - Only Certain people have says in politics and law
3. Total Democracy - Everyone does

No system is perfect, but each has its advantages and shortcomings.

Seghast
20 February 2003, 04:57 PM
There was also an incident called the 'Ghorman Massacre' done by Tarkin. From my understanding, the Emperor applauded Tarkin's callous act, and promoted him to either Moff or Grand Moff because of it.

And if the Empire is so good, why did they murder all those Jawas in ANH? The Jawas had no way of knowing the droids were property that had been seized by the Empire.

It was also the Empire who destroyed the Jedi Knights... I'm sorry, but genocide like that doesn't strike me as a trait that a kind government should endorse.

And what about the Empire's use of slave labor? Treating all alien species as "inferior"? Are those things a good government would do if they really had the best interests of the people in mind?

Freedom of the press? No, the Holonet was largely restricted to military use only, and everything in the press was distorted via the Emperor's spin control people.

And even the Imperials called their precious battlestations Death Stars. If they had been built to keep the peace, why in God's name would they be named Death Stars? Wouldn't something like 'Shield of Palpatine' be a better name for a protective weapon?

The only thing good about the Empire was... uh, wait a second, lemme think... Nope, can't think of a thing.

mojo1701
20 February 2003, 05:56 PM
The only good thing about the Empire was the unity. No Squabbling senators.

Tossk
20 February 2003, 06:05 PM
What if...
:ds2:
Hey! i've got an idea for a new campaign, the rebels are massacred at Endor, Ssi-ruk get clobbered, and the vong come toa a happy death star 2, their wost nightmare, emboding all they hate, others standing in their way and technology, to the max. :thrawn: :isd: Thrawn comes in and kicks total butt, helping spearhead aleins into the empire, and then a Bothan Grand Admiral... :bothan:

Corsec025
20 February 2003, 06:13 PM
First off, thank you for all of the responses. Even so, I must make one thing clear, I never said the Emperor was good, I said that the Empire wasn't bad. (Emperor is not equal to Empire)

As to the 'Ghorman Massacre' I believe that a Rebel insurgency had started before that happened. The Emperor obviously would've applauded Tarkin, he was killing off Rebels and ungrateful fools!

As to the freedom of the press, I was not referring to the Holonet, do you consider our internet to be the only form of press? If you played with the old d6 system and owned Cracken's Rebel Operatives, you would know what I am talking about. There was this guy on Brentaal who was an editor for a popular magazine in which the Rebels sent letters with questions, kind of like those Ask Sally or Ask Anne columns that the we have, and he would provide them with an answer.

They obviously had freedom of speech, because I have never heard of anyone in jail in Star Wars for voicing their opinion (afterall, if they were voicing against the Empire they were shot ;) )

Even though several major businesses practically controlled the market, there was still free enterprise. No one stopped Chalmun from opening his bar.

Sure the slaves were one thing, but how many people in the galaxy actually knew about that?

Why shouldn't the Emperor have destroyed the Jedi knights? They themselves could have been evil, we will never know. Sure, some were "heroic" but look at them... Rebels... Maybe they were planning on taking over the galaxy themselves.

As to the Rebellion causing a mass destruction of Coruscant: Dark Empire, The X-wing Series... both show how the Rebellion was at Coruscant when millions were killed, sure the Empire might have participated but they were defending their capitol.

As to the killing of Jawas, they were thieves! The stormtroopers just gave them retribution for all of their crimes against citizens of the Empire.

Beru and Owen Lars were only assumed to be killed by stormtroopers. The only story that I recall hearing that backs up this story is the story of Davin Felth! But he's a traitor! He shot his CO in the back! He isn't just a traitor, but a coward also!

I would like you to go to TFN (theforce.net) and check out the FanFilm title "Troops". In this film Beru accidentally kills Owen and herself. How did they die? We will never actually know.

Also, for those of you involved in NJO you will understand this statement: The Empire could've repelled the Yuuzhan Vong! The Vong said it themselves! That is another situation where the Rebellion failed! Sure they were the Republic then, but with the same ideals. It has been a while since I read the book Rebel Stand, (I think that is the one) in which the Vong capture Coruscant because the Republic was trying to save Refugees! The Vong killed many more in the Vongforming of Yuuzhan'tar!

As to saying that the people on Alderaan that depends on your point of view (and I thank mojo for showing us the good of several forms of government), and your definition of innocent. As a stated before, they were involved in the formation of the Rebellion.

As to the Rebellion only being a result of dark times, you can only speculate at that.

When you say "So did the Emperor" when referring to killing innocent civilians it doesn't excuse the fact that the Rebellion.

And I think that there is one point that everyone has missed. I am not excusing the Empire, I'm just saying that the Rebellion was just as evil. Don't you agree?:raised:

LL|Jerk
20 February 2003, 06:24 PM
And you have to realize that to most of the galaxy, the Rebels were just terrorists...It's the equivalent of the Iraq/United States conflict that is brooding even as we speak.

And for the Rebellion to finally beat the Empire is the equivalent of Iraq bringing the United States military to its knees, then transforming the good old USA into the Soverign Iraqi States.

For more info on my opinions concerning the Star Wars films, see the Battle of Endor thread...

dgswensen
20 February 2003, 07:57 PM
As to the 'Ghorman Massacre' I believe that a Rebel insurgency had started before that happened. The Emperor obviously would've applauded Tarkin, he was killing off Rebels and ungrateful fools!

Do you have anything to back up this assumption, or are you basing your thesis on stuff you're just making up?


They obviously had freedom of speech, because I have never heard of anyone in jail in Star Wars for voicing their opinion (afterall, if they were voicing against the Empire they were shot )

Being shot for speaking out against the Empire does not make for freedom of speech in my book. Plus, when it comes to oppressive regimes, not hearing about people being jailed is a far cry from it not happening.


Sure the slaves were one thing, but how many people in the galaxy actually knew about that?

How many people know about it has no bearing on how wrong it is. If I murder your little sister, and no one ever finds out what happens to her, then that makes it ok?


Why shouldn't the Emperor have destroyed the Jedi knights? They themselves could have been evil, we will never know. Sure, some were "heroic" but look at them... Rebels... Maybe they were planning on taking over the galaxy themselves.

I'm sorry, but I think that's just ludicrous.


Beru and Owen Lars were only assumed to be killed by stormtroopers. The only story that I recall hearing that backs up this story is the story of Davin Felth! But he's a traitor! He shot his CO in the back! He isn't just a traitor, but a coward also! I would like you to go to TFN (theforce.net) and check out the FanFilm title "Troops". In this film Beru accidentally kills Owen and herself. How did they die? We will never actually know.

Hmm, it seems to me your double standard is cropping up again. When it comes to the crimes of the Rebellion, the "they might have been trying something" or "the Rebels probably started it" is enough... but when it comes to the Empire, hard evidence above and beyond the obvious to make an incrimination? Sorry, I doubt Owen Lars carried around a thermal detonator just for the hell of it. Troops was a joke, nothing more.


Also, for those of you involved in NJO you will understand this statement: The Empire could've repelled the Yuuzhan Vong! The Vong said it themselves! That is another situation where the Rebellion failed! Sure they were the Republic then, but with the same ideals. It has been a while since I read the book Rebel Stand, (I think that is the one) in which the Vong capture Coruscant because the Republic was trying to save Refugees! The Vong killed many more in the Vongforming of Yuuzhan'tar!

So, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law... maybe Hitler could have nipped Saddam Hussein in the bud, that doesn't mean the world would be better off with him running it.


As a stated before, they were involved in the formation of the Rebellion. When you say "So did the Emperor" when referring to killing innocent civilians it doesn't excuse the fact that the Rebellion.

Nor should it. It's war. The only difference in my mind is that the Death Star was a military target, with a very large weapon and a heavily armed crew. Alderaan was a pacifist planet with no weapons. Big difference in ideology there, and not one that I feel can be brushed off.



And I think that there is one point that everyone has missed. I am not excusing the Empire, I'm just saying that the Rebellion was just as evil. Don't you agree?

No.

Many people like to draw a parallel between the Rebellion and terrorists. I don't see it that way; to me, it's more like the American Revolution. The people were living under an oppressive regime that threatened their basic freedoms, and they moved to abolish it and put something better in its place. Yes, to the British, they were upstarts and on the wrong side, but to any American, they should be considered heroes. And yes, they took many lives in the formation of their country, as did the Rebels, but that doesn't make them evil. Killing during war is different from murder.

As for parallels to Iraq -- I don't think the situations are at all similar, but to discuss that would probably open another whole can of worms that I don't to open -- but I don't think the analogy is accurate.

Obviously there are some things that went on before A New Hope that we aren't privy to; details about the nature of the Empire's oppression that we weren't given (mostly because they're not necessary to the story). But armed rebellions do not just crop up for no good reason. No one would fight against such terrible odds and a vastly superior foe unless their very way of life were jeopardized.

Nova Spice
20 February 2003, 08:19 PM
And I'd like to add to dg's argument:

Amen :noghri: :noghri: :noghri:

Pel
20 February 2003, 08:19 PM
Maybe the Empire wasn't all bad. But they were certainly drawn that way. :D

:tarkin:

Seghast
20 February 2003, 08:21 PM
I'll admit the Rebellion probably has a dark side to it we haven't really seen, but it pales in comparison to the cruelty and malice that the Empire commits. I seriously doubt the Rebel Alliance would ever condone the destruction of an entire planet just to make a demonstration.

Do the rebels probably commit acts that could be seen as evil? More than likely, there are some, but they're probably few and far between.

Does this make them as evil as the Empire? Not by a long shot. The Empire commits evil on a daily basis, I'd wager.

Rebels == "We're going to blow up Moff Turkey's mansion and show the Empire that we're not going to be pushed around any longer!" *insert Twisted Sister rift here*

Empire == "We're going to blow up Alderaan just to show those rebel scum that we are tired of their resistance! Plus the pacificism of this place is really starting to get on my nerves... Ensign! Commence primary ignition! Bwahahaha!"

Jim Williams
20 February 2003, 08:51 PM
I agree that the Rebellion is grounded much more safely in morality than the Empire and is not evil.

I take Tarkin as pretty much a legitimate representation of the Empire's evil and the Rebellion's moral justification for bringing about an end to tyranny (i.e, they are not evil, but righteous, which is something harder to understand now than 26 years ago).

"Fear of this battle station will keep the systems in line."

"Regional <Imperial> governors will assume control of the bureacracy."

"You would prefer another target, a military target perhaps? Then name the system." That right there acknowledges that the Empire is evil in that was willing to destroy a planet to achieve its goal...rule by Fear.

"You may fire when ready." No more d***ing words have been spoken in the course of the movies as a testament to the Empire's evil.


It caused the Emperor to abolish the Senate
It caused the Empire to put a tighter grip on the galaxy
It caused a massive destruction on Coruscant
It killed millions of people in the poor Death Stars
It prevented Luke Skywalker from gaining true greatness
It caused innocent civilians to die
It destroyed the government
It caused the so called "dark ages" of the galaxy

point 1) The Emperor swept away the last remnants of representative government that opposed tyranny. It is ridiculous to assert that the Rebellion forced the Emperor/Empire to do evil.
point 2) "The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more systems that will slip through your fingers." Sounds to me like Leia already knew that tighter grip was already plenty tight enough.
point 3) Supposition on your part. If you refer to the fighting involving the liberation of Coruscant in the X-wing series---an EU source---one must acknowledge the dreaded Krytos Disease or whatever it was called that was unleashed on the population of Coruscant.
point 4) Yes, on the DEATH Star. A military target is legitimate regardless of its size or crew.
point 5) Supposition
point 6) No. The Empire did in its efforts to crush freedom fighters who struggled to maintain a representative democracy.
point 7) Under the social contract according to John Locke, a citizen has the right to overthrow a government if necessary to secure his/her natural rights.
point 8) You're mixing up who caused the dark ages.

Like dgswenson, I too am wondering why I took the bait. At least the Endor/Executor debate is up for grabs because of speculation that must occur (or not occur depending on the POV), but the premise of this thread seems pretty rooted around a theme...someone likes to debate/argue a point.

Rogue Janson
21 February 2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by Pel
Maybe the Empire wasn't all bad. But they were certainly drawn that way. :D

:tarkin:
Now we're risking swinging into the notorious "The Star Wars films are just Rebel Propaganda" argument.


Originally posted by mojo1701
There are three types of governments, according to Aristotle:

1. Dictatorship - One person's words are law
2. Representative Democracy - Only Certain people have says in politics and law
3. Total Democracy - Everyone does

No system is perfect, but each has its advantages and shortcomings. [/B]

Actually, technically according to Aristotle, there are six types of government, the ideal types and their tyrranical forms. The Empire is the tyrranic form of the first type (despotism), which is, according to Aristotle the worst form of government.
It could be argued that the New Republic slid into the tyrranic form of democracy , but this is the 'best of the worst' forms, so to speak.

So that's the Empire according to classical Greek philosophy. :janson:

Jedi Master Talon
21 February 2003, 09:31 AM
I'd have to say the Empire is wrong moraly you think anyone other then oure evil would destroy a plante just because one person wanted show the gov. his power. This is basically the same thing Hitler did in WWII. You think he was justified with his actions. I mean the Empire is pure evil. Their racists for god sake. Why did you even ask the question?:mad:

Tossk
21 February 2003, 04:46 PM
I stand with my point, but to the avg. citizen, the impirical propaganda makes them look good, and some probally are. If I had to pick between the sides, i'd want to go with the empire because of the cool toys, but i'd end up with the rebellion some how, either by inital choice or defection. I just think that the n. republic stunk, the "protectors" weren't so pure and benevolent, the restructuring of a second govt' in ONE century is outrageous to the citizens, used to one that spanned millennia. If the rebels could have only one later, after the Vong, but how were they to know...:rolleyes: Oy, i'm rambling again. I'll stop now.

mojo1701
21 February 2003, 05:13 PM
What I meant is 3 types of Government in 2 different forms: Ideal and Tyrannical/Corrupt.

Rogue Janson
22 February 2003, 03:03 AM
Well, anyway, the important thing is, to Aristotle, the Empire represents the worst form of government.


Originally posted by Tossk
I stand with my point, but to the avg. citizen, the empirical propaganda makes them look good, and some probally are. If I had to pick between the sides, i'd want to go with the empire because of the cool toys, but i'd end up with the rebellion some how, either by inital choice or defection.
You don't actually mean "empirical" do you Tossk?
Empirical means "verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment", it's normally taken as a guarantee of accuracy and objectivity, which is pretty much the antithesis of propaganda. :janson:

Imperial propaganda relates to Imperial control of the media and other sources of information, which is pretty tight (although in such a large galaxy exceptions inevitably occur).

Tossk
22 February 2003, 08:40 AM
*Slaps forehead*
Whups, I meant the imp. form, i'll fix that. :rolleyes: my fault!

Corsec025
22 February 2003, 01:23 PM
The point is conceded, the Empire is evil... but is the Rebellion also?

(There is no need to flare tempers, I am just promoting valuable adult argument ;) )

Tossk
22 February 2003, 02:02 PM
A matter, this is; of you; who is not I, and when.:yoda:

Corsec025
22 February 2003, 05:28 PM
What does that mean?

Tossk
22 February 2003, 07:12 PM
it means: It depends on who you are (not me, obviously.) and when it is.

edit: Doin' the bull dance, feelin' the flow! got anther rank push to B.T.L.!

Rogue Janson
23 February 2003, 04:01 AM
Is the Rebellion evil then?

In brief:

What are its aims?
To bring an end to the tyrrany of the Empire and restore a democratic Republic.
Assessment: A very good aim.

What are its methods?
War against the Empire, open and guerilla. For the most part the Rebel Alliance sticks to accepted conventions of warfare. Inevitably there are exceptions, but these are limited.
Assessment: Must be strongly justified by the aim and lack of other available methods, which it is.

What are the results?*
In the short run, increased repression by the Empire, instability, destruction and violence. As the Rebellion progresses and after the NR is established, liberation of planets from Imperial rule, democratisation and liberalisation.
Final Assessment: the rebellion's methods and short term results are unpleasant, but ultimately justified by its aims and its results.

*Foreseeable results. You can't be held responsible for a result of your action that is not reasonably foreseeable.

Ravager_of_worlds
24 February 2003, 07:10 AM
One might draw a parallel to France's 1792 revolution and the fall of Robespierre and what happens to the New Republic. I'd say that with all the witch hunting going on for "Imperial Sympathizers" that goes on, it is the equivalent of decapitating as many Royalists as possible. Many fine Imperial families followed Palpatine and instead of turning traitor on a 'benevolent' ruler they stayed true....

which brings me to a suspicion i've had for a while- why would Palpatine have a core following? He must have done something to earn the respect of the people- namely crushing the Jedi insurrection (my predictions for Episode III). However, If you look at current politics- we have a president who subsidizes SUV ownership, strips environmental regulation, wants to cap medical malpractice awards, used the same tactics as Enron/Worldcom/Etc. for his early Harken Energy, has classified all documents from his father's reign (and Reagan's) which are due because of the 20 year moratorium, supports logging as a fire prevention policy, insults our oldest ally (France supported us in our revolution and Britain burned our first white house), relegates millions of peace demonstrators as a 'focus group' (of 90%+ of the countries that voice opposition), etc. etc. etc... The point is, half this nation supports our president because he's the president and we have a war going on. Nations tend to fall when a leader is replaced during times of conflict.

The core of backers fail to see anything wrong with the current regime as long as the nation still has a goal. Republicans are up in arms when it comes to States rights vs. Federal power, but with Homeland Security setup, this is more along the lines of the Gestapo as business plans go- especially the idea that a terrorist suspect needs to prove innocence, which is a huge departure from our ideals as a republic.

doubtless i have offended several right wingers, whom i'd place Nova Spice and Moridin from watching previous posts on political subjects. but i always value their point of view. What i'm getting at, is that based on whose side you are on at the beginning will dictate what kind of idea you have.

To Iraqis, they see state television which shows American demonstrators and world demonstrators. they think the world is on their side and America is headed by this evil administration determined to take their oil, rape their land and make it into Texas. They think America is currently up in arms over our president and they are counting on Americans to protect them from Bush. All because of what they see on media and the information they have been brought up in. To them, Saddam is a beloved leader, a strong man who protects them and a friend of every Iraqi family.

I'd totally argue that the movies are seen in the eyes of the Rebellion and a naive director who believes in black and white. Lucas' worldview is fairly polarized already and his work reflects that. However, what is interesting about the Star Wars phenomena... is that it isn't just Lucas's. It is all of ours as a Star Wars entertainment culture- millions of people love the films and the depictions... some of us however, can't help but root for the underdog- the Empire. In any sane universe, Luke and his terrorist friends would've been stomped out and the rebellion just another footnote in galactic history... just as in this world, few people think Saddam's 100,000+ army will do much to deter America from taking Baghdad. In places like this (the Holonet) we are free to talk about these things. I applaud CorSec025 for bringing this topic to debate.

The Rebellion- most followers are young, naive and led by career politicians... i'd liken them to 'what would have happened if Newt Gringrich had an army of montana militiamen at his disposal' Sure, they believe their freedom is being taken away from an oppressive government, but were I living in the Galactic Empire, i'd remember one thing... the Emperor was old, he will die someday, probably next week considering how much he's aged since being in office. That new guy, Darth Vader (?), he sounds promising! Clone War veteran, amputee, he doesn't take any flak from the military or governors, I'd support him any time. He's strong and we don't have to worry about any sexual misconduct! Not that we had to worry with Palpatine, but before the New Order, it sure was rampant in the Senate!

And as always, take everything I say with a grain of salt and relax. Breathe, relax and remember, "I love democracy... I will lay these powers down at the end of this crisis." :rolleyes:

Silent
24 February 2003, 07:26 AM
Eh, I figure that the Rebellion had its rotten parts and such, but it was still preferable to the alternative. The New Republic on the other hand, was much worse though still not so bad as the Empire. Sure, there are always people that will take advantadge of people's good intentions, like Borsk, but he can't hold a candle to the Emperor. Overall, I wouldn't call the Rebellion or the NR "evil", though there were evil elements in them (like that guy in the NJO who wants to use bio-weapons).

Rogue Janson
24 February 2003, 10:02 AM
What did I say about the "SW films are rebel propaganda" debate coming up?

Ravager brings up some good points about the Empire's support: the power of propaganda and the control of information and the support of "core groups".

Basically a regime always depends on some level of support from crucial groups. The most important of these is the military, which is inherently violent, undemocratic and authoritarian. In particular armed forces usually value "order" far above other objectives, making them supportive of strong dictatorial government.
Military support can usually be counted on as long the the armed forces maintain their prestige and funding (as they did with the empire) and don't suffer any serious defeats - hence we see increasing dissent in the Imperial military as the Rebellion begins to win battles.

Other core areas of support for the Empire are politicians, governors and bureaucrats who either have an ideological committment to the Empire's New Order or who profit from it (often due to corruption).

It's unclear quite how much support the Empire had from the general population. It was generally higher in the core worlds than the rim, which makes sense as these are wealthier, less diverse societies (better off people always have more to fear from change). There were exceptions however, planets such as Alderaan with a strong humanist democratic tradition or those unlucky enough to be the victims of major Imperial repression (such as Ghorman, I think that's a core world).

I don't agree with Ravager's depiction of the post-Endor era. There doesn't seem to have been a 'witch-hunt' along the lines of the French Revolution (though inevitably this would have happened in some areas). The New Republic also made large use of the Imperial era bureaucracy, apparently without subjecting it to really serious purges.

Rebel leaders do not tend to fit his depiction as 'career politicians'. The most prominent ones come from either a military background - Ackbar, Madine, Bel Iblis - or are political idealists strongly involved with the military - like Leia Organa and Mon Mothma.
In addition, the Rebellion has a strong tradition to draw upon from the Old Republic. so it isn't a revolution in the same form as the French revolution - in fact it's more like a restoration of normalcy after the interlude of the Empire. Real world comparisons are hard to think of, Weimar/Nazi/Postwar Germany is probably the best example, although it didn't have the democratic tradition of the Republic.

and who says you don't have to worry about sexual misconduct with the Emperor?

Jim Williams
24 February 2003, 01:36 PM
Ummm...


and who says you don't have to worry about sexual misconduct with the Emperor?

because we don't want to think about such things....

8o

mojo1701
24 February 2003, 01:39 PM
Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac...

Tossk
24 February 2003, 02:27 PM
Stop it, you guys are gonna make me sick, ;) Plus, the G-man will close this forum so fast, i won't even be funny...:rolleyes:

mojo1701
24 February 2003, 05:14 PM
Yeah, probably.

And, yeah, I do understand the words coming out of your mouth. Chris Tucker SNL thing, right?

Ardent
24 February 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
What did I say about the "SW films are rebel propaganda" debate coming up?

Star Wars IS Rebel propaganda. That's what makes it such a classic movie. Not only is it true high fantasy, but it's told from the perspective of the underdog (yes, the Rebellion was the underdog).


Rebel leaders do not tend to fit his depiction as 'career politicians'. The most prominent ones come from either a military background - Ackbar, Madine, Bel Iblis - or are political idealists strongly involved with the military - like Leia Organa and Mon Mothma.
In addition, the Rebellion has a strong tradition to draw upon from the Old Republic. so it isn't a revolution in the same form as the French revolution - in fact it's more like a restoration of normalcy after the interlude of the Empire. Real world comparisons are hard to think of, Weimar/Nazi/Postwar Germany is probably the best example, although it didn't have the democratic tradition of the Republic.

Your friendly neighborhood editor has arrived! Bel Iblis was actually Corellia's senator following the departure of Senator Solo (speculation, speculation?! It's more or less assumed this was either Han's father or mother) around the same time Palpatine put forward the New Order. Also, Mon Mothma never allowed herself to be "strongly involved" with the military. She remained more or less separate from the Rebellion proper in order to continue her diplomatic career (in the service of the Rebellion, I'm sure). Princess Leia is a fair example of a politician-in-arms, as would be Lando Calrissian. MOST of the Rebellion's leadership is drawn from a military core, however. General Dodonna, Commodore Tallon, Admiral Ackbar... But most of the New Republic's leadership is drawn from the political core: Borsk Fey'lya (accorded his position mostly through Mon Mothma's vouching on behalf of the Bothan spynet), Senator Pwoe... These are, more or less, the same senatorials the Old Republic/early Empire had. The same corrupt senatorials. This may be where R_o_W's supposition about the witch-hunts and skewed leadership of the New Republic is based. Frankly, I'm not about to argue with him there, there's very little redeeming about Star Wars politicians.


and who says you don't have to worry about sexual misconduct with the Emperor?

I certainly don't! There are heirs out of the air all over the EU. Apparently Palpatine was not only frisky (don't even want to know how...probably the power of the Dark Side), but promiscuous too. The difference between Pally and Billy is that Pally can just kill the reporter who threatens to break the story. Billy couldn't. ;)

Ravager_of_worlds
24 February 2003, 05:26 PM
Rebel leaders do not tend to fit his depiction as 'career politicians'. The most prominent ones come from either a military background - Ackbar, Madine, Bel Iblis - or are political idealists strongly involved with the military - like Leia Organa and Mon Mothma. -Posted by Rogue Jansen


I don't know, I think Mon Mothma would qualify as a career politician, and Borsk Feyla, and Garm Bel Iblis, Bail Organa and the other defecting senators. Notice we don't hear what happens to the senators... we just know its been dissolved, nothing more. I'm thinking they were all sent home for 'political corruption' lingering from the Great Purge by obstructing Palpatine from doing what is 'best for the galaxy'

As for my parallel to the French Revolution- i think of the rebellion as a bunch of idealists who wanted change from an oppressive government, then succumbed to petty bickering and gridlock from multiple parties. the only time anyone does anything is when 'heroes' (or vigilantes) take matters in their own hands... which happened in the Revolution of 1792- multiple parties and the fall of the dream. If there's anything i can give the NJO authors for, it's accurately describing what happens when the new regime moves into power.

Here's a speculation i have on the Vong Invasion as an aside; the Imperial Remnant comes to save the day and the military gains back what it needed, the power and might of the Imperial War machine, only lying dormant for so long under the watchful eye of Palleon (who can't love this guy?)

the witch hunts i'm alluding to are inevitable- who doesn't think that wookie gangs patrolled the streets of nar Shadaa and Coruscant just looking for some noble imperials to molest and rob? who doesn't think that some 'hangings' occured? Many of the New Jedi took order into their own hands, i don't think they're alone. Without the Empire, there is a huge power vacuum and every little pirate gang and independent government sets up shop again. Do you honestly believe that the fictional races wouldn't have fictional ethnic cleansing?

The important thing is, that we are debating. So many people have a one sided view of the Rebellion, we want to. We want our side to be good, virtuous and powerful because we're the good guys. but what happens when you figure out.. that maybe we're the bad guys? It certainly happened to several hitler youth, and New Order's supporters and I'd suggest that several Rebellion era 'heroes' know they aren't all spit, polish and glory... but they want to believe they are good because they've just turned traitor to the legitamite power. Palpatine didn't twist the arm of the senate to gain his power, they voted him the special powers. these senators were the elected officials of the Republic and they sold the republic to the highest bidder- which was the Sith.

And as for the 'racial prejudices of the empire'- i'd point to the death of Alderaan as a counter argument- it was nearly 100% human, which was a den of the rebellion/terrorist activity. I'm pretty sure that several Palestinians want to see Israel destroyed and several Israelies would like to see the Palestinians lined up, shot and thrown in the Negev desert. the thing is, both sides think its right- it depends on which generation is at hand.

and thank you Rogue Jansen for your candid and well thought remarks. I agree that Post Nazi Germany might be a better overall image of Post Endor... but i think the spirit is from 1792... and the realities could be drawn from any real world conflict. It's just that so many people like to draw the connection between Hitler and Palpatine just as people want to draw a connection between Sauron and Hitler... I might suggest a better comparison, in the spirit of this thread, is to compare the rebel leaders with revolutionary leaders such as Robespierre, Cromwell, Saddam (he overthrew the king), George Washington and crew, etc. However we value or color them historically, they all share the same attributes; they believed in what they were doing and figured out how to profit from it.

and yes... the G-Men are everywhere... maybe even spreading false propaganda to lure young star wars fans who support 'the rebel terrorists' to profile us better... :rolleyes:

Tossk
24 February 2003, 05:37 PM
I'm talkin' about Grimmy, the mod. and see the sig. thread I started in the SWRPGNetwork forum:
*Shameless Plug* (http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11544)

Grimace
24 February 2003, 06:07 PM
I'm talkin' about Grimmy, the mod

Well...yes.... I would. So keep things on topic and clean please.

Wouldn't want me to turn from :yoda: to :vader:

Oh...and I AM everywhere. :D

Tossk
24 February 2003, 06:16 PM
I knew me and Rav. were right, BTW, what's that knocking on the door?

Uh oh, Aiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!

You won't take me without a fight! *ignites saber and acts like a kung-fu Yoda/Neo*:sabersml: :yoda:

Rogue Janson
25 February 2003, 04:14 AM
I defer to Ardent's more accurate descriptions of Alliance leaders but my mind isn't changed. The point is that in general the politicians who came out of the Rebel Alliance are generally efficient, moral and good. It's only with the emergence of a new (or resurgent) political class as the NR develops that corruption and infighting begin to cause serious harm. (Incidentally, while Ravager & Ardent think, correctly, the films have a pro-rebellion bias, I think the NR and particularly NJO books have an anti-democratic bias.)

I also agree that in places 'witch-hunts', revenge attacks and other unpleasant things went on targetted at former imperials and that these were a predictable consequence of the rebellion. I do think, judging from the literature, that these were comparatively limited. And you could point to the problems with Imperial senators in the New Rebellion and say that it was wise to exclude Imperial politicians for a period.

Ultimately though, the evils caused by the Rebellion have to be compared to those it prevented by ending the rule of the Empire. And, accepting the NRE's problems, you also have to ask yourself the question could the Rebellion reasonably be expected to do any better preventing them?

Ardent
25 February 2003, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
It's only with the emergence of a new (or resurgent) political class as the NR develops that corruption and infighting begin to cause serious harm. (Incidentally, while Ravager & Ardent think, correctly, the films have a pro-rebellion bias, I think the NR and particularly NJO books have an anti-democratic bias.)

I'll back that opinion, Janson. The NJO saga is very much anti-republic, at least in my opinion. A representative government is what it is...on many planets the populace has little say in anything, while the Republic itself is merely a tool for planets to influence each other. The New Republic did very little to change that. I have a feeling the Galactic Alliance will be more akin to a representative democracy (sort of like Britain, Canada or America's) than a republic. So the saga may actually end up being pro-democracy and anti-indecision. ;)


I also agree that in places 'witch-hunts', revenge attacks and other unpleasant things went on targetted at former imperials and that these were a predictable consequence of the rebellion. I do think, judging from the literature, that these were comparatively limited. And you could point to the problems with Imperial senators in the New Rebellion and say that it was wise to exclude Imperial politicians for a period.

Many former Imperial senators did eventually regain their senate seats, though. Leads to speculation about the strength of a government that can't maintain it's memberworld standards for more than a few years.


Ultimately though, the evils caused by the Rebellion have to be compared to those it prevented by ending the rule of the Empire. And, accepting the NRE's problems, you also have to ask yourself the question could the Rebellion reasonably be expected to do any better preventing them?

Unfortunately, what evil the Rebellion quased can only be speculated on. The key point is that the Rebellion was, in general, composed of morally-stable and just people, while the Empire was composed of morally-compromisable (whoa, there's a compound word for ya) and self-serving people. Not everyone will fit the archetype, of course, because nothing is ever exactly black and white, but I'd say it's a very strong archetype.

Corsec025
25 February 2003, 04:20 PM
I think that we are all forgetting one thing... The Empire was formed by the Republics own free will. Jar-Jar (the dumb @$$ that we all know he is) brought forth the idea of awarding the Empire "special war time powers". The New Republic on the other hand took over by force. How is that untyrannical? They stole the government, they killed to get the "Republic" back... and yet what do we see? Evil people placed in charge of the government. Look at them: Viqi Shesh... a Vong spy. Pwoe... why did he get to take over after Borsk committed suicide? Afterall, he tried to kill all of our favorite "heroes" by assigning Wedge to the defense of Borleias... Speaking of Borsk... he had a bomb in his office! He was planning to commit suicide all along! He was planning on destroying part of the Imperial Palace with him! He would kill his own citizens for the sake of going with a BANG! He just got lucky that some Vong were in his office when he finally did it.

Main Idea:

Empire=Citizens backing

New Republic=Farm boys Destroying The Government as we know it

Jim Williams
25 February 2003, 04:31 PM
The Empire was formed by the Republics own free will.


Empire=Citizens backing

These are both suppositions.

Point 1 above was largely (I mean, I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it) due to the deceit of a Sith Lord tricking senators by playing on their fear and doubts. "But who would have the courage to propose such a radical amendment?" "If only Senator Amidala were here..." Trick, trick. I can't believe Mace and Yoda blew their Sense Motive checks on that one, but I'm positive that's just a taste of the manipulation Palpatine is capable of.

Point 2 is nowhere conclusively proved or figuratively led to. The Emperor dissolved the Senate and swept away the last remnants of the Old Republic, not the citizens of the Galactic Empire.

Ardent
25 February 2003, 04:43 PM
Corsec, you may not be aware, but I just sold you 1,000,000 gallons of liquified bantha poodoo. You probably don't want all that liquified bantha poodoo. Heck, you probably can't use it even if you wanted to. But you bought it. Why? Because I fooled you into buying it. Whether or not this upsets you is entirely up to you, and if you're fine with it (for whatever reasons) then I'm fine with it. But if you're like the Rebels, you'll want to get me back to pulling the nerf-hide over your eyes. It's really just that simple. ;)

mojo1701
25 February 2003, 04:51 PM
I like to see the Empire as Nazi Germany. There are close parallels. If you know about the Nazis and Hitler, then I don't need to elaborate. If you want me to, respond or PM me.

But that was probably intended by GL.

LL|Jerk
25 February 2003, 06:37 PM
You're right on that one, mojo1701. I recall that very topic being brought up in the "Battle of Endor" thread.

And Ardent, you totally lost me on your last post. what in the world were you talking about lmao :D

Ardent
25 February 2003, 07:07 PM
It was alliteration. Showing how most people simply bought what the Emperor sold them. The Rebels didn't. Doesn't make them wrong, just means they didn't want to buy his world picture.

You can draw as many parallels to the real world from Star Wars as you want. The number of possibilities is almost infinite. The Republic becoming the Empire parallels Roman civilization. The YV invasion parallels the barbarian invasion...whatever. It's all there, if you want it to be. But that's all speculation. GL knows what he was thinking, and he hasn't really deigned to be totally straight with the community about that...because everyone knows a film is what you take from it, not what the writer/director puts into it.

Rogue Janson
26 February 2003, 04:31 AM
Actually Palpatine's takeover of power via the senate is one area of SW that (I think) makes a particularly good comparison with Weimar/Nazi Germany. One of the questions we often got asked when I studied Germany was "was Hitler's takeover of power legal?" to which the answer, inevitably was "partly".

So Palpatine gains the position of Chancellor with a free vote in the senate - although bear in mind it's packed with his cronies. But it's on the back of a crisis that he himself has manufactured.
He forms a Grand Army of the Republic (I presume this parallels the taking of emergency powers, that sort of thing) with a senate vote, but it's to respond to a separatist crisis that he has orchestrated.

These are just the two most blatant examples of Palpatine manipulating the senate and maintaining a democratic, legal facade; we can imagine that there were any number of smaller overt and covert examples as he rose to power.
And of course we don't yet know the events leading to Palpatine's eventual elevation to Emperor, so we can only speculate about them for now.

Oh yeah, please differentiate between the Rebellion and the New Republic because they're different things (in particular the former can be discussed referencing only the films). Technically this thread is about the Rebellion and while I'm sure discussion of the NR is fine, try not to blur the two. (Or start a new thread if you really want to lay into the NR.)

Nafai
26 February 2003, 05:13 AM
Forgive me for not seeing this thread earlier, and for being brazen enough to not read all four pages, but has anyone mentioned that the Empire:

a) conducted and condoned slavery
b) was oppressive and hateful to all non-human species

I think those two crimes alone cry out for Rebellion.

dgswensen
26 February 2003, 08:47 AM
Yes, it has been mentioned -- and glossed over -- more than once.

Corsec025
27 February 2003, 01:34 PM
Jimmy... Jimmy... Jimmy...

The thing that you are not understanding is that Palpatine, even if he did use Sith powers to control Jar Jar, still had the backing of other senators.

Oh, and Ardent what are you talking about?

Jim Williams
27 February 2003, 02:23 PM
Corsec, Corsec, Corsec...

First, as I've told another, you can call me Jim or Jim Williams or nothing at all as that is my nickname here. Got it? Good? I find your use of Jimmy patronizing which I'm sure was your intent. There are other boards where you can do that.

As to your post, :rolleyes: the backing of senators is not

The Empire was formed by the Republics own free will.
Empire=Citizens backing

Rogue Janson
27 February 2003, 03:07 PM
You really don't seem to have addressed anybody's counter-points Corsec, either Jim's or mine, so there's no need for that tone.
Ardent is talking about pretty much the same thing, that Palpatine tricked people into supporting him, both the Senate and other groups. (I think he means allegory when he says alliteration though.)

To reiterate my point: the legal, democratic backing of the senate is essentially a facade, hiding Palpatine's primary methods, violence, bribery, deceit, etc.

Ardent
27 February 2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Rogue Janson
Ardent is talking about pretty much the same thing, that Palpatine tricked people into supporting him, both the Senate and other groups. (I think he means allegory when he says alliteration though.)

To reiterate my point: the legal, democratic backing of the senate is essentially a facade, hiding Palpatine's primary methods, violence, bribery, deceit, etc. [/B]

Doh, thank you Janson. I was slightly intoxicated when I wrote that post, and I goofed on my terminology. Apologies to everyone confused.

KagatoIII
14 March 2003, 07:24 PM
Also Ol' Bob Palpatine's term was up two years before AOTC and had stayed in power because crisses kept comming up and it wasn't a good time to have a new leader come to power. (kind of like what happened with New York's mayor after 9/11) And for some reason I don't think Bob is going to be voted Emperor I see it more like this:

Bob: We have just got word that our army has just defeated those evil sepertists. They have been very loyal to me, unlike those traitorous jedi dogs, and have arrived back here with my good pal, Mr. Vader. Oh, by the way because of everything I've done, and not done, I'm now the Emperor for life. Any one have a problem with that? No.... Good.