The Case for the Empire 752
fReNeTiK writes "In this amusingly controversial article over at the weekly standard's web site, we get to hear an opinion not often heard among the hordes of Star Wars fanatics out there: The rebel alliance are actually "... an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back." An entertaining read which will surely spark flame wars of epic proportions." Reader kaypro submits an MSNBC story examining the
science of Star Wars. And
Ant notes that the
Clones DVD will be out earlier than expected.
Questions (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides that though, the Empire kills people at will, and they impose Draconian smuggling laws which only serve to prop up Hut gangsters.
As tiresome as a republics claims to a monopoly on 'good' can be (and lord knows we see enough of that), the only other alternative at the time is a group that claims a monopoly on 'evil', which can't possibly be any better.
Points (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, some points he makes about the rebel only havings plots, and no clue about what to do once the empire is decimated doesn't really hold water - i'm sure lucas would have made more installments to handle that case, but then again it probably wouldn't make for good viewing. It's a man's fantasy after all, for god's sake!
Maybe it's just a case of this guy being able to argue his way convincingly out of anything. Sure did convince me.
Trent Reznor said it better (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, they would probably be handed to the Empire after several centuries anyway...
Re:Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Just look at the US Revolution, the people didn't really know how they were going to change the government, they just knew that they wanted (or needed) it to change. The new government was created years after the old one was overthrown, and even then people were challenging it even up to and including the Civil War (ok, yes, I know, many causes of the Civil War).
Did the old British Empire work, for the most part it did. It didn't interfere with the small farmer (like this empire), so the farmers didn't all pick a side until one came and found them. Most of the US revolution came from and began in the larger seaport cities (Philadelphia and Boston were the big ones that I can think of right away). This parallels the Empire in that the small planets, like tatoine that didn't have many cities, really wouldn't see much interferrence from the empire (unless they did something to warrent the empire getting into their buisness, as this guy is claiming).
It is very true that this Dark side is only evil when compared to the alternative (the Light side). The Dark side really doesn't do much that is 'bad'. Their main crime is trying to undermine the light side and gain power. This sounds like commercialism and capitalism (a new competitor trys to build strength while hiding from the old established corporation).
While I may not have all of my ideas straightened out, I just wanted to get some of my ideas out on the forum for dissection (and perhaps some karma in the process :) )
-CPM
Bringing Knives To Gunfights (Score:5, Interesting)
In related news... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm betting he's waiting until after episode 3, to add what would be serious prequel spoilers to the second half of the "hexology", or whatever the term is ("hextet"?), since I seriously doubt it's going to be a nonology anymore.
The Empire is the USA ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Also bear in mind that the examples I list below consist mainly of events that happened well after the films were made, so I am not really saying that GL even subconsciously made the Empire be a reflection of the USA.
US/Empire Parallels:
* Imperial treatment of captured rebels, e.g. Leia: Camp X-Ray.
* Battle on Endor: This is so Vietnam, the Imperials get creamed by the indiginous population because they know the land better, even if they have cruder weaponry.
* Destruction of Aldaraan: Nagasaki, Hiroshima. Large Explosion to cause terror against innocent civilians.
* Battle on Hoth: Seek out the rebels/terrorists in those caves/those ice-tunnels and wipe them out- all of them.
* Destruction of Death Star: WTC. Don't flame me for this, I am not trivializing this horrific tragedy or siding with the terrorists, but both the Death Star and the WTC were symbols of the supremacy of the US/the Empire.
graspee
Flame/downmod away; I am just trying to start a thread here. If people reply, even if they tell me why I am wrong, it will be interesting...
Sounds fine except for one thing (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the coming to power of this government must be examined. It's head, former Senator Palpatine, engineered several diplomatic crisis and instigated a full-scale war in order to achieve dictatorial powers. He dabbled in the Sith teachings, long abhorred by the galactic public. These are not the actions of a "good guy."
I also find it interesting that he states he will not use the Expanded Universe because it was not in the movies. All well and good, except that in excluding the Expanded Universe one omits a lot of crucial detail about the nature of the Empire. The Expanded Universe was created with Lucas' blessing, and information relating to it can be found on the official Star Wars website. I'd say that this information is safe to use. Of course, it goes without saying that said information demonstrates beyond a doubt the inherent cruelty of the Galactic Empire. So there.
~Chazzf
"Clerks", anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Go here [prohosting.com] and search the text for "Jedi or". Sorry, I tried pasting the funny bit from the script in here, but I have given up trying to please this damn Slashdot code about how many characters per line I use. *curses loudly*.
relatively benign (Score:4, Interesting)
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.
Much as I disapprove of Pinochet; and agree that on an absolute scale he is a pretty despicable character, he was relatively benign when compared to dictators. He killed thousands of people and not millions like, Pol-Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao.
Further more, nature is entirely dictatorial, kills millions of people a year, and to quote my Physics teacher 'nothing kills like the laws of physics'. Does that make Nature or Physics evil or immoral ? I would suggest that dictatorship is actually amoral, neither good or evil, it simply is.
Israel vs. the Palestinians (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Dark side was too powerfull ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The ships from Return of the Jedi that you speak of were supplied by the Mon Calamari, of Calamari, who were in open revolt against the Empire. Also visible were Corellian Covettes, comercially available, and Nebulon-B frigates hijacked from the Empire. This is a galaxy at war, there is a LOT of surplus hardware floating around. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable that the rebels could get their hands on old clonetrooper weapons.
~Chazzf
It's the music (Score:2, Interesting)
This may be over-stating the obvious, but IMHO, the story itself isn't that obvious.
Re:The Empire is the USA ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Eh, if you try hard enough you can take one thing and make it look like nearly anything else. I mean, it's like the old example of Nazi Germany not being that bad because "at least the trains ran on time."
That said, no the U.S. isn't a perfect country, not by a long shot, but it's no where near as bad as the Empire. Actually, I'd compare the U.S. more with the Old Republic, seeing as how both have a Senade that's too beaurocratic to get any real work done for the people. :)
Re:Points (Score:0, Interesting)
Perhaps the true lesson is... (Score:2, Interesting)
GJC
"War On Terror Not Over Yet", Emperor Declares (Score:5, Interesting)
"We will continue to fight these terrorists, and the rogue governments who harbor them, until the universe is safe, once and for all, and the security of the Neo-New Cosmik Order ensured."
It was one year ago today that the Death Star, perhaps the greatest symbol of the Empire's might, was destroyed in an attack by fanatic Rebels, who used small, single-person crafts to infiltrate seemingly impenetrable defenses. Thousands of mourners were on hand to remember and pay tribute to the victims and their families.
"We lost our innocence that day," reflected one mourner. "I guess we thought we were immune from the kind of violence that happens in other galaxies. We were wrong." "I lost hundreds of buddies that day," said one teary-eyed Stormtrooper. "Guys whose only crime was trying make the Universe a safer place."
Although the day was colored by sadness, the mourners found some relief in the news of a decisive victory over the Rebels. In an attack led by Darth Vader, Empire forces were able to rout hundreds of Rebels from a network of caves underneath the surface of the planet Hoth. "We're not sure we got them all," says a Vader spokesman. "There are a lot of places to hide in those caves. But we've delivered a powerful blow to the terrorist's infrastructure, that's for sure. Today, the Empire has struck back."
Initial reports are unclear as to the fate of Luke Skywalker, a hero among the Rebels, who is rumored to have delivered the fatal blow to the Death Star. Skywalker, a former desert-dweller from the planet Tattooine, became a part of the Rebellion after family members were killed. Skywalker was trained by a militant wing of the Rebels, known as "Jedi Knights." Fanatical in their religious beliefs, the Jedi Knights claim to derive their power from the mystical "Force."
It's believed that Skywalker was specifically trained by infamous terrorist O bin Wankanobi. Wankanobi, occasionally called "Ben" and easily recognized by his bearded visage and long, flowing robes, achieved near-martyr status among the Rebels after his death last year during a spy mission. His more fervent followers believe that Wan Kenobi lives on within them today, some even claiming to hear his voice during times of duress.
The attack on the Death Star came shortly after the Empire's destruction of Alderstaan, a planet whose government was known to harbor terrorists. Responding to criticism over the total annihilation of the planet, Vader stated, "There is no middle ground in the War on Terror. Those who harbor terrorists are terrorists themselves. Alderaan was issued ample warning. The fight for continuing Freedom is often burdened by terrible cost."
The cost of this war can still be seen today in the continuing efforts to build a coalition government on Tattooine. Longstanding animosities among the planets various ethnic groups, including the Jawas, Tusken Raiders and scattered human settlers, have been an impediment to the peace process. The Empire continues to maintain a small peace keeping force until a provisional government is finally in place.
Much of the difficulty in fighting the Rebel forces stems from their lack of a central organizing structure. "They don't play by the traditional rules of war," complained one spokesman. "They come in all shapes and sizes, united only by their single-minded desire to destroy the Empire before it destroys them."
The Emperor closed his comments today by stating that "the cowardly attack on the Death Star left a deep scar on the Empire. However, we will not stop fighting until every last evildoer has been brought to justice." He paused for several moments, wiping away a tear and then added with determination, "We will never forget."
"I wish we could all just get along," said one of the mourners. "But it's hard to offer an olive branch to a cult of religious fanatics whose main tool is violence and who insist on calling us the Dark Side."
(I posted this once before, but it seemed appropriate to post it again :-)
Re:Points (Score:2, Interesting)
Leaving aside the gratuitous Pinochet reference, if that's possible, there are some extremely valid points made here.
I'm reminded of the long riff in "Clerks" [viewaskew.com] on the civilian contractors aboard the unfinished second Death Star, who certainly didn't ask for or deserve the flaming death handed to them by the rebel terrorists.
I also recall a very funny piece in a Columbia University humor rag from the early 1990s, that made the argument that the so-called Evil Empire was actually a proletarian uprising against the privileged, hereditary ruling class. And that was even before we learned that being a Jedi is a hereditary thing...Calling a galaxy-wide worker's paradise an Evil Empire was just a propagandistic attempt to win sympathy for counter-revolutionary forces.
Lucas's attempts to address this, for example by making Amidala "elected" queen (??) just don't make any sense. Are we to assume that it's just coincidence that the senate is largely comprised of royalty (Amidala and the Organa family of Alderaan, to name just two examples.) And "elected" by whom? I'd say not the teeming masses of the Republic, yearning for the gentle hand of an emperor to free them from the yoke of their capitalist oppressors!
Final point: evil or not, any "Republic" where Jar Jar gets elected/appointed/named/made senator more than deserves to be swept away.
Re:relatively benign (Score:2, Interesting)
Tyrant, when originally used in Rome, had good connotations; it implied someone with the talent and drive to step up, take control, and make things right. Simmilar in concept to the Jewish Judges in the Old Testememnt, but without divine mandate.
Tyrant (or dictator, or whatever you like) has taken on its current connotations due mainly to experience. People that garner that much power and have nothing to check them become corrupt, almost to the man. A dictatorship is, in and of itself, not evil, but the human condition is such that almost any man with a dictatorship will be.
Salon.com's "Star Wars" vs. "Star Trek" argument (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.
Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
All in all, an interesting argument that reminds me of the article mentioned in this story.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Pinochet was one of the greatest leaders (Score:2, Interesting)
There has never been a time when Pinochet, the former president of Chile, was handled fairly by the mainstream press. The Washington Post, for instance, referred to Pinochet on December 8, 1997 as "the aging ex-dictator" and as "Chile's former iron-fisted ruler." But then Pinochet was detained in England, on October 16, 1998, by an extradition attempt instigated by radical Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon. As a result, bringing Pinochet to "justice" for his alleged "crimes" became an international cause célèbre, and the media dutifully played its part in portraying the man as an arch-fiend. Nowhere, it seemed, could references to Pinochet be found that didn't include the unflattering description "ex-dictator." Taking such defamation to the extreme, the New York Times Magazine made the bold accusation in its December 1999 issue that "Not Attila nor Nero nor Torquemada were less cruel than Himmler, Beria, or Pinochet."
Yet, it was under Pinochet's leadership that an incipient Communist dictatorship in Chile was stopped cold, preserving a balance of power in the Western Hemisphere favorable to the United States. At a minimum, he spared the United States the unpleasant experience of having to fight another Vietnam war. Rather than suffer excoriation at the hands of the media, this man should be honored as a hero. Indeed, upon his return to Chile following his March 2nd release from captivity, throngs of supporters joyously greeted their former president; and the 84-year-old Pinochet, clearly invigorated by the reception, gamely and defiantly waved his cane in the air to the cheers of the onlookers. Upon his arrival at the Military Hospital, more than 8,000 supporters greeted him. Nevertheless, many fallacious statements about Pinochet and his years in power continue to emanate from his enemies on the Left, enemies who have never forgiven the man who foiled their statist plans. Here are facts to answer their fallacies.
Fallacy #1: Pinochet was a dictator.
The Washington Post notwithstanding, prior to his Gestapo-style, midnight arrest in a London hospital the night of October 16, 1998, the media ordinarily (and properly) referred to Pinochet as "former President" and, in worst cases, as "ex-strongman."
Almost by magic -- and in violation of usual journalistic practice -- the term "ex-dictator" began to crop up in news stories. By the end of October, rare was the news report which did not identify him as "the former dictator," usually with the modifier "brutal" before "dictator."
It is a matter of no mean importance to repeatedly portray a government leader as a "dictator." Eventually, the proposition is accepted without question. It is then only a question of which evil deeds he committed -- after all, isn't that what dictators do, commit evil deeds?
Was Pinochet, in fact, a "dictator?" Not if words have any meaning, he was not. According to the Oxford Encyclopedia English Dictionary, a dictator is "a ruler with (often usurped) unrestricted authority." Pinochet never possessed "unrestricted authority."
The government Pinochet headed was "authoritarian," and, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick pointed out years ago, there is a very real and important difference between an authoritarian government and a dictatorship. In an authoritarian regime, most people are free to live their lives, unmolested by the government. In a dictatorship, there is no freedom. Pinochet himself once described himself as a "dictator" -- but in the classic, Roman sense: A man who rescued a tottering country from collapse. That is precisely what Pinochet and his colleagues did in Chile, beginning in 1973.
Pinochet came to power at the head of a four-man military junta -- composed of the commanders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Carabineros (para-military national police force) -- who, together, staged the Sept. 11, 1973 revolution. In 1980, Chileans voted in a plebiscite -- by a two-to-one margin -- to approve a new Constitution, and with it the continuance of military rule for eight more years, during a carefully phased transition back to democratic government. Pinochet then became a constitutional president, under the very same constitution which has remained in force ever since, including under two democratic governments. Jose Toribio Merino Castro, head of the Chilean Navy, led the newly created legislative branch. The third branch of government, the judiciary -- though generally favorable to the aims of the Pinochet government -- remained independent throughout military rule.
The "Pinochet Constitution" was the most carefully crafted in the country's history. Many people, including two ex-Presidents, helped draft it. Later, following his defeat in the 1988 plebiscite which the military government planned, organized, and staged exactly as it had said it would, Pinochet agreed to negotiations with the united, center-Left opposition, which led to 54 amendments to that Constitution. He did so even though the military were still very much in power. Eighty-five percent of the Chilean people voted in favor of those changes, further legitimatizing that Constitution.
Leftists like to make much of the pro-government slant of the courts. In that slant, the courts mirrored virtually the totality of the non-Marxist leadership of Chile. (It would bear noting, also, that no one describes the U.S. courts as anti-democratic, even though their rulings are often at odds with the values of an overwhelming majority of American citizens). The real beef of the Left is that they don't like the way the courts ruled.
Fallacy #2: The Chilean military snuffed out democracy for the purpose of simply seizing power for themselves.
Salvador Allende Gossens, the world's first freely elected Marxist-Leninist President, came to power in 1970 with only 36 percent of the vote, a mere 40,000 votes (of three million cast) ahead of the candidate of the Right. The Christian Democrats finished a poor third -- but then threw their weight behind Allende in exchange for a worthless set of "guarantees" he signed.
By mid-1973, even the Christian Democrats could see that Allende was leading their country into a long night of totalitarian rule. Former Chilean President Eduardo Frei Montalva, once a supporter of Allende and a man who played a major role in Allende's rise to power, admitted as much: "Chile is in the throes of an economic disaster ... a veritable catastrophe no one could foresee would happen so swiftly nor so totally...." It was, he said, "a carnival of madness."
In a private meeting with a top business group, 60 days before the end of Allende's rule, Frei said: "There is nothing I or the Congress or any civilian can now do. Unfortunately, the only way out of this problem is with rifles.... I advise you to take your concerns to the commanders-in-chief of the Armed Forces...."
By the time the end did come, the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General, and the Chamber of Deputies had all declared Allende outside the law. A million Chileans, one-third of the labor force, were on strike, demanding that Allende resign.
It was only then that the military acted, responding not to an appetite for power, but to the clamor of their fellow citizens. Indeed, even the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation -- which investigated human rights abuses with a decidedly anti-military bias -- said in its report: "Until their decisive intervention in September of 1973 ... the Armed Forces stayed aloof from the crisis." In the immediate aftermath of that "decisive intervention," all three living ex-presidents of Chile said the military had saved the country.
The Christian Democrats published a statement, a few days after the coup, in which they said, "to tell the truth, we admit that what has happened was, mainly, the consequence of the economic disaster, the institutional chaos, the armed violence and profound moral crisis to which the deposed Government had brought the country.... The evidence demonstrates that the Government of Allende, moved above all by the zeal to conquer total power, by whatever means ... was preparing a terribly merciless and bloody auto-coup, for the purpose of plunging the country into a communist dictatorship."
Fallacy #3: Pinochet led a "bloody coup."
Actually, fighting during Pinochet's intervention lasted only four hours -- mainly because Allende's huge para-military forces ran for cover, and because of the awesome precision of the Air Force attack on the presidential palace: All 19 rockets hit the target. Allende committed suicide with an AK-47 rifle given him by Fidel Castro. Not more than 300 or 400, including attackers, died in the fighting that day, from one end of Chile to other.
Yet, rare is the media report which does not refer ritualistically to the "bloody coup" which overthrew Chile's "democratic government." It was not bloody. And Allende's government had long since ceased being "democratic" when it fell during Pinochet's coup.
Fallacy #4: Hundreds of thousands of victims were arrested and tortured in the days after the September coup.
According to an ABC News "fact sheet" distributed on the World Wide Web and entitled "The Story Behind a Dictator," Pinochet arrested and tortured "approximately 180,000 individuals from various Latin American countries during the first year of his dictatorship according to Amnesty International and other human rights commissions." In truth, Pinochet moved to rid the country of armed terrorist organizations, including many trained by two dozen East German Stasi agents who arrived in Chile only two weeks after Allende took power and who were joined soon after by Soviet and Soviet-bloc experts in murder and mayhem. Pinochet moved to rid the country of a growing para-military force, including many trained by Cuban General Patricio de la Guardia Font, who bragged about his role in training Chilean para-military groups during his 1988 show trial in Havana. Pinochet also moved to rid the country of 15,000 men and women who were in Chile illegally, many of whom were detached from underground Communist organizations operating in other South American countries.
The groups removed by Pinochet were not lacking in firepower. Former president Eduardo Frei spoke after the coup of the discovery of "armament superior in number and quality to that of the Army, armament for 30,000 men...." Frei also noted the boast of a Communist Party leader: "the generals have found only a small part of the arms we had...."
In any case, the total rounded up by Pinochet was much lower than 180,000. In 1974, a self-styled "International Commission of Jurists," which was sent by the World Council of Churches and was strongly biased against the Pinochet government, reported that only a third of the supposed 180,000 were actually arrested, mostly from the ranks of those described above. Of those arrested, most were quickly released.
Fallacy #5: Pinochet was part of "Operation Condor."
According to the same ABC News article quoted above in Fallacy #4, Pinochet is "accused of being part of an organized plan of repression called 'Operation Condor,' which was allegedly implemented by the military regimes of Chile, Argentina and Uruguay in the 1970's and 1980's." The truth is, Operation Condor lived and died in the space of three years, all of them in the 1970's. It was set up to combat the very real threat of coordinated Communist subversion and terrorism in the member countries. Some of the methods used were brutal -- and therefore reprehensible -- much like the tactics employed by the Communists it was directed against. As for Pinochet's involvement, no evidence has ever been presented by anyone to show that he even knew about it, much less was party to it. Even the Argentine leftist who put Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon up to investigating "Condor" is on record as saying that Pinochet did not know anything about it.
Fallacy #6: The "dictatorial" Pinochet was "ousted" by free elections.
Pinochet was not "ousted" any more than any other candidate in free and open elections is "ousted." Pinochet voluntarily relinquished power in 1990. The 1988 plebiscite ending military rule was an explicit part of the planned and systematic return to democratic government -- a plan designed and executed by Pinochet's military government.
Fallacy #7: Pinochet has life-long immunity from prosecution in Chile by virtue of his position as senator-for-life and is covered by an amnesty for crimes committed before 1978.
Senatorial immunity does not shield Pinochet from prosecution, and indeed, a move is already underway in Chilean courts to lift Pinochet's immunity. Such a move would allow the ex-president to respond to the 61 (at last count) charges already filed against him. As for the famous amnesty, of the 2,053 persons pardoned under it, 1,475 were Leftist extremists while only 578 were military men.
Fallacy #8: Pinochet and the military epitomized evil.
From the very beginning, the mainstream media -- echoing the chorus of vilification emanating from academics, churchmen, entertainers, and politicos around the world -- divided those in the Chilean drama into those who walked in darkness and those who walked in light.
Those who walked in darkness were the military and anyone associated with them. The anointed were those who opposed Pinochet -- no matter how much blood they might have on their own hands, no matter how much guilt they bore for the failed attempt to convert Chile into a second Cuba.
British writer Robert Moss, an expert on Chile (and author of one of the best books on the Allende years), put it this way: "It was boy scoutish of them, but the soldiers who overthrew Salvador Allende thought that they had earned the gratitude of the American people, and of the West in general. For one thing, they had prevented the transformation of Chile into a sort of Latin American Czechoslovakia, complete with Soviet bases.... Alas, how little these soldiers understood the mood of the times in Washington or London...."
Another British author, David Holden, wrote: "Salvador Allende died a lucky man. In life he was a failure. Both his policies and his country were shattered long before the end. But in death, he achieved success beyond his dreams. Instantly canonized as the Western world's newest left-wing martyr, he became overnight the most potent cult figure since his old friend, Che Guevara...."
In the spirit of the times, a "distinguished" American professor predicted: "the Chilean military will haul the nation back to the Stone Age, where a primitive and simplistic warrior village will be bedded down for a long sleep, awaiting the fantasied attacks coming from every direction." The attacks did come, but the military led their battered nation, not into a Stone Age, but into a Golden Age -- a Golden Age never before witnessed in Chile, and perhaps not, either, in all of Latin America.
Nor did the attacks ever let up. Not even as Pinochet helped Chile create the most successful economy in Latin America while leading the country back to democratic rule.
Henry Kissinger, no "right-wing extremist," observed nine years after the coup:
No radical revolution, no matter how bloody -- one thinks of Cuba, Iraq, Algeria, many African states, Vietnam's occupation of Indochina, Khomeini's Iran -- has confronted the worldwide press campaign and the global indignation evoked by the clumsy authoritarians of Santiago. Was its crime in its methods, or in its position on the political spectrum? Was its sin the lack of civil freedom, or the abandonment of the leftist embrace? Why is the argument so widespread that left-wing governments ... are supposed to be moderated by economic assistance while conservative governments like Chile's must be reformed by ostracism? The Socialist government of Sweden cut off aid to Chile on September 13, within forty-eight hours of the coup, before its implications could possibly be known. Had it ever acted with such alacrity, or at all, against left-wing tyrants? Indeed, it had lavished aid on Hanoi through the Vietnam war and afterward....
The systematic demonization of Pinochet that began immediately following his removal of Allende in 1973 prepared the way for his midnight arrest in England a few decades later. By then, the world was willing to believe just about anything about this man. But, truth be told, Pinochet was no latter-day Lycurgus, transforming Chile -- like that ancient Spartan lawgiver had done to his unfortunate city-state -- into a socialistic nightmare. Instead, he was more like a composite of the Athenian sage Solon, whose laws, as Robert Welch said, "foreshadowed and prepared the way for all republics of later ages," and the Athenian authoritarian Peisistratus, whose firm guidance prepared Athens for the rule of Solon's laws rather than the rule of men. It is because of this that today the intellectual heirs of Lycurgus seek the destruction of Pinochet.
On a side note, I think the author of the article misses the point that the rebels in 2 are different from the rebels in 4 and that the rebels in 2 are the SAME people as the Empire.
Re:relatively benign (Score:3, Interesting)
Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet.
--
When I first read that sentence, I honestly thought it was sarcasm. Then I became a bit disgusted when it wasn't. Things cannot be good or evil by themselves; people can. Just because Pinochet couldn't round up millions like Stalin or Hitler did, doesn't mean he didn't do the same thing with death squads and 'mysterious dissaperances'.
Dictatorships can be good or evil. The Romans (pre-Empire) had a good dictatorship system - a man was voted emergency powers for six months. The example is Cincinnatius, who was asked while he was working on his farm, went, won a war, gave up his powers, and returned to his farm, all in the span of a week or so. He forwent the other five months of his powers, didn't kill any of his countrymen, and defended Rome. Hitler, of course, is an evil dictator, and I don't particularly think I need to give examples.
Re:Points (Score:1, Interesting)
2) George Washington won battles by meeting with the general or whatever, and agreeing on a date to fight. And then sneaking into their camp the night before and slitting their throats. Call it what you will
Additional logic erros (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd point out that while the author claims that he would only use the movies as sources, he then throws out things like the following lines
So which is it --- Movies only or movies and the expanded universe?
From the movies, the only past we know about Han is:
He was a smuggler for Jaba the Hutt.
He dumped his cargo prior to being boarded by an Imperial vessel. Jaba's pissed about that and wants his money back or Han dead.
Han's got a big furry buddy named Chewie (what a Wookie!)
Chewie is subservient to Han with no explanation why.
Han has a fast, if somewhat unreliable, ship called The Millenium Falcon which he won from Lando Calrissian "fair and square".
That's it. Nothing about academies, nothing about Han having been a cadet who certainly did not obtain the rank of captain in the imperial navy. That information is based solely on the expanded universe.
Again, it's conjecture that the Empire runs a meritocracy but if it is a meritocracy, how did Admiral Ozzel obtain his rank? He clearly knew nothing about tactics as he dropped out of hyperspace too close to Hoth. Why are there no women, minorities or aliens of rank in the Empire? Do these people not have merits? (Yes, I know about GA Thrawn and Mara Jade but we have limited our discussion to the film-based realm)
Parallel logic (Score:2, Interesting)