Skip to main content

star wars - Is the Rebellion really good?



The Rebellion seems to me to be just as bad as the Empire. They may not have the true evil members like Palpatine, Vader, etc. But it seems that they consistently engage in tactics that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of soldiers. Soldiers that are probably just serving under the idea that it's their duty to protect against the terrorists that call themselves The Rebellion.


So, since it seems that the Rebellion's modus operandi is to just destroy as much Imperial equipment and manpower as possible, how can they consider themselves to be good and just?



Answer



The Rebellion cannot be truly good, and the Empire cannot be truly evil. They are concepts. They are political entities which act towards each other, and in response to each other.



Some might say the Empire is evil because of how it came about - it deposed a thousand generations of tradition and history, replacing it with a government that began as a constitutional monarchy, and migrated towards a pure monarchy. The Empire also was reportedly biased against non-humans.


The Empire isn't evil, because the Empire is a collection of people. Some of those people were evil, true. But I'm sure the same could be said for the Rebellion. In any guerrilla force, engaged in asymmetric warfare, you will find anarchists who simply want to burn anything tied to the 'establishment' and psychopaths who simply want to kill.


Since the Rebellion is best defined as "those who oppose the Empire and seek the restoration of the Old Republic" they don't get an automatic 'good pass', as the Empire isn't evil. Instead, we must consider their actions.


By and large, the Rebellion restricts its offensive strikes to military targets. They do not seem to engage in widespread terror attacks or in attacks against the civilian infrastructure. In this way, they are good. They choose to limit their effective choices for reasons both practical and moral.


That said, their goals may SEEM laudable, but are they really? Let's look at the Old Republic, and its guardians, the Jedi. The Old Republic had no standing military. The Old Republic was governed by a massive Senate. The Old Republic had no method of extending its reach.


The Old Republic outlawed slavery, ensured equal opportunities for non-humans, and provided for personal liberties. The Empire was known to use slavery in some instances (notably with POWs). The Empire was discriminatory against non-humans (though evidence for this is sparse in the movies, it's made much more clear in the Expanded Universe). The Empire was totalitarian, squashing personal liberties in some cases.


It would be easy to look at this and declare the Old Republic superior to the Empire...but I don't think it's that clear-cut.


The Old Republic was not a good government. The Senate was overly large, fractured into many hostile factions, and strongly influenced by corrupt corporations. When a veritable GENOCIDE was being committed by one of the Republic's worlds against another, the Senate did NOTHING. When a group attempted to leave the Republic, they were opposed with military force. At the drop of a hat, the Republic overturned most of its oldest laws to deal with a short-term threat.


The Old Republic also seemed to have economic problems - Republic credits were worthless on Tatooine, which is presented similarly to a third-world country. Watto, presented as a shrewd businessman (though with a gambling problem) was completely dismissive of Republic Credits - they were completely worthless to him. I cannot imagine that a shopkeeper in Egypt, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or any other similar country refusing to accept a US Dollar or Euro. This indicates to me that the Republic currency was extremely weak. Watto runs a business, which relies on buying and selling, yet was unwilling to exchange an uncommon hyperdrive (which, given it is the only one on the market, is unlikely to be in demand on the planet) for Republic Credits. He didn't say, "Wait, let me check the exchange rate" or "Wow, I'd sure like that strong currency, I'll gladly take it!", he dismissed it.


Palpatine manipulated the system, twisted some events, and played people like a fiddle to gain power, true. That said, he COULD NOT have done so if the system hadn't been open to manipulation, had people willing to support his causes (NONE of the Seperatists were in on the whole plan, every planet which attempted to secede did so because of legitimate grievances or promises of a better situation for their people if they succeeded).



The Jedi were even worse. Consistently in the prequel novels and the movies, the Jedi act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. They are shown to consistently kidnap children from their families, to raise them as Jedi. These children are brainwashed thoroughly, denied their families, taught to ignore their emotions, and taught to kill.


Given what they sought to restore, then, I don't think you can characterize the Rebellion as 'good'. In fact, in the Expanded Universe (which is now Legends canon, not the new Disney canon), the New Republic which the Rebellion formed after Endor lasts less than twenty (war-filled, economically shattering) years before collapsing.


At least, under the Empire, slavery was by and large eliminated, a united galactic economy emerged, piracy was brought to heel, and the space trains ran on time.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF

harry potter - What is the difference between Diffindo and Sectumsempra?

In the Harry Potter books, Diffindo is called the 'Severing Charm' and it’s most commonly used to cut ropes and the like. However, in the last book Hermione uses it on Ron but misses, creating a 'slash in his jeans' and his knee gets cut, causing him to 'roar in pain'. We've only seen Sectumsempra used once on screen when Harry directly uses it on Malfoy in the sixth book, but there it's mentioned that he is 'waving his wand wildly'. Wouldn't Diffindo, if used in such a fashion also cause a similar effect? Similarly, if it was able to cut Ron, it would also be able to, say, chop off an ear (George's)? In that case, how are these two spells different, except for Sectumsempra seemingly used exclusively to hurt humans? Answer While Diffindo and Sectumsempra both can be countered by other spells, Diffindo is far more easily countered. Reparo, a relatively common spell, can completely reverse its effect when used once. “He pulled the old cop...