[Spiderman Fanboy] 15 and it shows

[Spiderman Fanboy]

What's sad is his quote is specifically talking about the American trend to use subjective, emotional terms in the media to let people know how to feel about xyz group of foreigners.

The idea that freedom fighters are often also terrorists is probably beyond him (or 'subjective').

Dude, you don't love debates. I'm not sure you know what the word means. You're all over the place and clearly unable to examine the ideas you've accepted to be true. You just want a certain result and will contort any which way to get it.

That's wrong. Sorry.

Now, can we get back to my very long post that Ralin wasn't really directly arguing against before?

[Ralin]

Mostly I'm mocking you by pointing out the gaping holes in your logic. The rules here say that's okay. In fact, it's generally encouraged.

Whining about it isn't.

What's sad is his quote is specifically talking about the American trend to use subjective, emotional terms in the media to let people know how to feel about xyz group of foreigners.

The idea that freedom fighters are often also terrorists is probably beyond him (or 'subjective').

Dude, you don't love debates. I'm not sure you know what the word means. You're all over the place and clearly unable to examine the ideas you've accepted to be true. You just want a certain result and will contort any which way to get it.

That's wrong. Sorry.

I'm actually kinda surprised that no one else has been arguing a pro-Empire stance here and wondering how much of it is because of how stupid the kid is and how much of it is a shift in board culture/people growing and changing since I first started coming here.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Mostly I'm mocking you by pointing out the gaping holes in your logic. The rules here say that's okay. In fact, it's generally encouraged.

Whining about it isn't.

What's sad is his quote is specifically talking about the American trend to use subjective, emotional terms in the media to let people know how to feel about xyz group of foreigners.

The idea that freedom fighters are often also terrorists is probably beyond him (or 'subjective').

Dude, you don't love debates. I'm not sure you know what the word means. You're all over the place and clearly unable to examine the ideas you've accepted to be true. You just want a certain result and will contort any which way to get it.

That's wrong. Sorry.

I'm actually kinda surprised that no one else has been arguing a pro-Empire stance here and wondering how much of it is because of how stupid the kid is and how much of it is a shift in board culture/people growing and changing since I first started coming here.

I don't feel like double posting again. But just go back and read my 4th and my 5th posts on page 7 of this thread.

Now, that's want I want to debate about.

[Stark]

I tried to steer him toward successful ways to approach his end-goal, but he ignored it. Many people do see positives in the empire, especially in preference to the galaxies' series of broken democracies.

But flat out saying 'xyz evil acts are not evil because I don't want them to be' is not it.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

I tried to steer him toward successful ways to approach his end-goal, but he ignored it. Many people do see positives in the empire, especially in preference to the galaxies' series of broken democracies.

But flat out saying 'xyz evil acts are not evil because I don't want them to be' is not it.

Once again, this discussion is not moving foward at all, especially since you're not responding to my 4th and 5th posts on page 7.

[Stark]

If you take the response to your ideas and re-examine those ideas, maybe you'll find new ideas that lead to your preferred end-state.

I mean, do I have to argue towards a point I don't actually agree with just to show you how to do it?

[Spiderman Fanboy]

If you take the response to your ideas and re-examine those ideas, maybe you'll find new ideas that lead to your preferred end-state.

I mean, do I have to argue towards a point I don't actually agree with just to show you how to do it?

I found a very long article, an article that isn't just about one specific argumenet/idea, but it presents many different specific points in favor of the Empire and against the rebels. Here it goes.

Was the Empire Really So Bad? Part 3
May 8, 2012scottjenLeave a comment
Alright readers, for tonight’s update I’m going to continue to defend all-time bad guys The Galactic Empire. This time, however, I’m going to do so by pointing out how awful the Rebel Alliance truly was.

Here’s a recap of some of the key points so far: the Republic sucked and was the cause of its own demise. The transition to the Galactic Empire was actually publicly liked (as evidenced in the last few minutes of Revenge of the Sith, and the Empire, while having some bad guys up top, was doing some good. Namely, they were keeping scum like Han Solo off the space streets.

With that said, let’s look at their main enemies, the Rebel Alliance.

What Did the Rebels Even Want?

Within the first few minutes of A New Hope we’re introduced to the Rebel Alliance in the form of Vader boarding the Tantive V (yes, non Star Wars fans, I know the name of the ship off-hand) and declaring that everybody is a part of the Rebel Alliance and are traitors.


“We want the ineffectual Old Republic back!”
By all accounts, the Rebels should be our heroes in Star Wars. They stand against the empire who, we are to believe, are firmly evil and need to be taken down.

Except the only reason I can make a case for the Empire is that there were so few instances of them being truly evil outside of certain levels of leadership. All of the events in the original trilogy are in response to the Rebellion (a point I’ll get to shortly) and we’re not told any reason—from before the formation of theAlliance—to actually think the Empire is evil.

The thing is, we’re not given any reason. In fact, we know so little about the Rebels that all we know is they want to take the Empire down. We don’t know why nor are we even given a slight hint as to what happened in the two decades between trilogies.

By comparison, most organizations—no matter how small and ill-formed—know what it is they are trying to achieve. Consider al-Qaeda, who seem as nebulous in their goals as the Rebel Alliance. We know they hate westerners and have declared a jihad. That said, with some looking around you can easily find out that one of the main reasons is the idea of the Western world fronting a cultural assault on Muslims. There is more depth to that, but we know what they want and why they want it. You may not agree, but those reasons do exist and are stated. No organization, terrorist or legitimate, is going to get what they want without openly stating those goals and their reasons.

Yet, the Rebels exist solely on the concept that the Empire is evil and that everybody must fight them. Their list of reasons is minimal and the Rebels seem to assume that the Empire’s evil is self-evident to every onlooker.

Recruitment Strategy

So if the Empire was so blatantly, incontrovertibly evil then why was the Rebellion so small? Seriously.


When you’re throwing everything you’ve got at a moon-size space station, consider something more effective than two dozen hand-me-down space fighters.
At the beginning of A New Hope we see a Rebel Alliance that is tiny and falling apart. They are, by all means, on the very brink of losing everything to the Empire. If the Empire is so terrible then why are so many people staying on the sidelines? If, as we are to believe from the Special Edition endings showing multiple planets celebrating, the whole galaxy stands with the Rebels in spirit, then how is it that the Empire even stands the remotest chance of winning?

I realize the counter-argument there is that many people might not be willing to take the risk to work with the Rebels. It no doubt endangers one’s family and friends, and so not everybody would take that risk, even if they did support the “ideals” of the Rebellion on an intellectual level.

Nonetheless, let’s look at a comparison. The number of fighters that the Rebels fielded at the Battle of Yavin was around 25-30. The screencap of it from the special edition (in which Lucas added more fighters than were originally shown) shows about 25. That’s all of two-dozen capable pilots willing to fight to save the Rebellion. Make no mistake, the Battle of Yavin (as with most battles the Rebellion fought in the films) was not something they would retreat from. It was a last stand and an all-or-nothing endeavor.

And yet there are just over two dozen fighters.


“You know, guys, I’m beginning to think sending infantry with small arms against giant, armor-plated walking dogs was a bad idea.”
Similarly, the Battle of Hoth was again an all-or-nothing stand with most of the body of the Rebellion on the planet trying to escape. In the picture of this battle, you see maybe 15-20 ground infantry, plus less than a dozen snowspeeders that were put against the force of AT-ATs.

My point in all of this is very simple: the Rebellion had almost nobody fighting for it. Remember from the last post in the series that the galactic population is in the quintillions. And the force of the Rebels is maybe a thousand at the Battle of Hoth, if you were to include support personnel. This means that of the galactic population only 0.000000000001% were willing to fight with the Rebellion.

Consider the French Resistance in WW2. Plagued by similar fears that their families and friends would suffer were they to join the Resistance, the French had a fairly small number of supporters. While it’s hard to pin down exactly how many supported the Resistance in anything other than thought, it’s estimated that it was somewhere between 1-2 percent of the French population. In other words, the French Resistance had 20000000000 times more people (in proportion) fighting for them.


Remember when Leia’s ship in A New Hope was easily defeated by and fit into the docking bay of a Star Destroyer? I bet the Emperor was just squealing with glee when the Rebels decided sending a bunch of those against the Death Star was a good idea.
Before I get drowned in too much math and comparison, my point is simply thus: if the Rebels were so damned right in their conviction that the Empire was evil and it had to be taken down, how is it that their total support was absolutely miniscule? Even considering that people would be afraid to take action, one would expect a Rebellion against the Empire to be a bit bigger than it was.

Final note: at the Battle of Endor the Rebellion fielded an entire fleet and no doubt, by this time, their numbers had grown. I’m sure this was partly bolstered by their prior victory against the first Death Star. Nonetheless, it could be assumed that if that was the entire fleet (as again, this was an all-or-nothing gamble) at the time of the Battle of Endor, it is still absolutely miniscule in comparison to the support one would expect them to have.

The Rebellion Would Have Failed without a Farmboy

At the beginning of A New Hope (as well as in a deleted scene with Biggs, Luke’s friend at the Tosche Station), Luke discusses the idea of going away to the academy. In fact the academy he spoke of was not some Rebel-run terrorist training camp, but the academy of the Imperial Navy.


“Someday I’m going to fight with the Rebel Alliance I care nothing about in a war with the Empire that means nothing to me personally. But I’ll be damned if I won’t save the entire Alliance on numerous occasions.”
Biggs discusses this scene in more detail at the Tosche Station scene, stating that he left the academy to join the Rebellion (or something of the sorts). Nonetheless, Luke’s entire attitude toward the Rebels, before becoming so involved, was that of curiosity. Luke would have joined a traveling space circus if it got him off-planet. The fact that he got to fly a fighter with the Rebels only sweetened the pot.

But beyond that, Luke was the only hope of the Rebellion. He is shown, time and again, to be the reason the Rebels get out of their scrapes. For all of the defected personal coming from the Imperial Navy, a simple farmboy (who admittedly has the Force) manages to outperform these pilots at every turn.

The fact that Luke made his fateful shot on the first Death Star by pure luck seems to be largely ignored. For all the Force he had in him, if Han hadn’t taken the shot and confused the other TIE pilot who hit Vader, he would have been space dust before the shot went off.

The Rebels do, clearly, exist plainly on luck. They were about to fail at every turn were it not for a convenient deus ex machina in the form of a moisture farmer.

So the Rebels Win? Then What?

I think this particular point really heavily goes back to the idea that the galaxy needs a powerful influence. While the Republic sucked, it at least had most everyone unified under the same banner. Ineffectual as it was, it was still a centralized government that had some power. The Empire, too, seemed to control almost the entire galaxy worth controlling. (Would you really bother to send a garrison to Tattooine if you didn’t have to? Thought not.)


Because taking out the Death Star and killing the Emperor will certainly dissuade this ENORMOUS FLEET from blowing up the Rebels.
The Rebels, at the end of Return of the Jedi, have killed Vader and Palpatine. The entire galaxy celebrates and we’re left with a happy ending. Except for one enormous, terrible looming question: then what?

You see, nobody dared stand against the Emperor or Vader because, quite simply, you couldn’t. They would kill you easily and your attempt at a coup would be over. They wielded supreme power without the fear that they could ever (except by another force user, who they had killed) be taken down.

When the Rebels take them down, I highly doubt the Empire just surrendered and called it a day. Consider the size of the Imperial fleet when Lando and the crew in the Falcon go at it head on. In that picture alone I can count 21 Imperial-class Star Destroyers and the SSD Executor. It’s hard to say, exactly, what the fleet strength there would be considered, but keep in mind all of these ships are goddamn massive.

We do see a few of them (notably the Executor) go boom, but even as the Death Star II is destroyed there was no doubt some fleet left over. This fleet had two options: fight to the death and inflict as much collateral as possible against the rebels; or to run and get the rest of the fleet.


“Darth Vader…I want it to be known in my living will that if we are to die, the Empire should acquiesce to all of the Rebel Alliance’s demands. This is my last wish.”
You see, the key here is that the Imperial Navy is goddamn huge. It is doubtful that their entire fleet was present at this battle. In fact, this is probably just one task force within a fleet. Consider that the Emperor expected the Death Star II to be shielded for the entire time and that it was operational. That, alone, meant he wouldn’t need the whole fleet, as the Death Star could easily dispatch the Rebels.

So after Palpatine and Vader go down, you still have massive fleets roving the stars with no central hierarchy anymore. Additionally, the rest of these people in power are just plain old people, sans the force, which means there could be additional power struggles afterwards.

In one of the few times I’ll mention the EU, I’ll take note of the way they handled the galaxy post-Endor. That is to say, numerous admirals and high-ranking officers within the Imperial Fleet formed a couple splinter Imperial factions. It took the NewRepublica long time to finally take everyone down. In the end, an Imperial general with a hell of a lot of foresight, Pellaeon, brokered peace with theNewRepublic.

The reason I bring in that part of the EU is because it illustrates my point better than I could without the example. That said, the EU isn’t G-canon and we don’t know that is actually what happened.

Indeed, the Rebellion would face an uphill battle, as some planets would no doubt change allegiance right away. There were no doubt, however, many planets that would stay aligned with the Imperials. The Rebellion would have to face a difficult decision there: conquer those planets (in the name of freedom) or allow the Empire to exist and the war to continue on.

Keep in mind that the Empire is huge and galaxy-wide. They no doubt had countless other fleets and supporters. Taking down the head may leave them disorganized, but it certainly doesn’t leave them any less capable of inflicting pain or defending themselves.

In Closing

Seriously, why would a planet on which the Imperial presence consists of a few stormtroopers looking for droids celebrate this hard?
You see, the Rebellion, for all that Lucas did to portray them as heroic, had no foresight. They launched a campaign against the Empire with almost no popular support (as evidenced by their numbers), with little idea of what they actually wanted or why, and finally with no plan as to what was going to happen afterwards.

Indeed, the power vacuum left by the Rebellion’s destruction of the Death Star II and the deaths of the two Sith would be so significant that I cannot imagine the Rebellion successfully uniting the galaxy ever again.

Instead, I would imagine a galaxy in which the two major players are the Rebels and the remains of the Empire. Beyond that, however, I’d imagine every powerful mercenary band, criminal cartel and planet with a decent fleet would declare itself a sovereign nation. While the Rebels may call that freedom, without the Empire (or some central, governing body) the Galaxy would no doubt face endless border conflicts that would not be resolved until somebody had the will to re-conquer the entire galaxy.

The galaxy the Rebels want sounds more like lawlessness and anarchy than freedom.

Was the Empire Really So Bad? Part 2
May 5, 2012scottjenLeave a comment
Welcome back readers. I apologize for the long time before this post, and I hope you’ll read the post above about the coming changes to my schedule/format. But, now back to defending the Galactic Empire, or as I call it, Star Wars’ whipping boy.

The Galaxy Is in a Bad Neighborhood

Let’s get this out of the way now: the Empire did build a massive and mobile battle station capable of destroying planets—aptly named the Death Star—and they did use it. I’ll talk about that at the end of this post. I want to make clear now I don’t hope to completely defend it, but rather put it in context.

Han Solo – Lovable Crack Dealer
Anyway, problem is that we, as humans stuck on this planet, could not possibly understand the scale on which political struggles in Star Wars take place. Galaxies are huge, and with the Empire basically in control of fully half of that galaxy—with some presence on the Outer Rim planets, though not full control—you face problems that are far removed from ones with which we are familiar.

But to the sub-titular issue at hand: the galaxy is a bad neighborhood. It’s clear that gangsters, cartels and criminals are thriving. Han makes reference to the Kessel Run and shamelessly admits he’s a smuggler. Consider that again, if you will. Han Solo—one of the main protagonists of the original trilogy, as well eventually a General in the Rebel Alliance was previously a smuggler. What did he smuggle? Why, he smuggled spice, a psychotropic drug.

Imagine if you would an organization in our world who promoted to the rank of General a man who used to make his living on smuggling cocaine into the United States. Because that is, essentially, what happened with Han Solo. Now, one of the main character arcs is that Solo never really wanted that life, and that he was in debt to Jabba the Hutt, etc. I get it, he’s a guy with a heart of gold. Except that said heart of gold never had a problem with smuggling illegal drugs, and then joins up with a terrorist band.

But the real question is, in a galaxy where a General of the Rebel Alliance is getting your kids hooked on space drugs, who is trying to keep said space drugs out of their hands? The Empire. Yah, the bad guys we want destroyed were responsible for Solo’s debt to Jabba. Solo repeatedly points out in A New Hope that he was boarded by Imperials, and as a result he spaced the shipment.

The misfit crew of murderers, drug dealers and kids who got caught up in the wrong crowd.
In fact, when Solo, Luke and Kenobi are in the cantina in Mos Eisley they draw attention from Imperial troops after Kenobi maims a man and Solo murders someone. Those troopers weren’t there to persecute solo, they were there because there were reports of a Jedi (who everyone thought were gone) maiming people and then a smuggler murdering a bounty hunter. Nobody was wrongfully accused here. Even if Kenobi was just defending Luke, who knows if the Stormtroopers coming into the Cantina wouldn’t have said to him “Hey, that’s understandable, you just helped us apprehend a wanted man. Good job, guys!”

Which by the way, given the events of Revenge of the Sith, I’m guessing the Jedi weren’t particularly well-liked among the general populace. Palpatine played them off as traitorous and potentially dangerous to everyone’s safety. Way to go, Ben Kenobi, you’ve just managed to only do more to convince people that Jedi are dangerous. But I digress.

To recap: the main reason the Empire is portrayed as evil, beyond the obvious, is because they’re chasing after Luke (who has stolen data in the form of two droids), Kenobi (who is a renegade Jedi), and Solo (who is a smuggler). We’re supposed to think this unlikely band of allies, with all of their foibles, has the best interest of the galaxy at heart. I don’t know that I’d agree with that.

The Galaxy Might Need a Harsh Government; It Definitely Needs Some Government

“Hey guys, I was just telling Vader how a giant planet-killing space station is way more fearsome than choking our enemies one-by-aggggggggh.”
I mentioned earlier in this post that we cannot comprehend the scale of the Galaxy. I understand that some people might view this argument as a cop-out, but I think that what you have to realize is when you’re talking about innumerable citizens, things change a little bit.

America has a representative democracy, which we feel does a good job of governing us. It (generally) takes into account what the general population wants and works off of that. If something is wildly unpopular publicly, it probably won’t gain traction at the national level as any kind of law. We like that we have a voice, and I’d generally agree that I’d rather not live under a dictatorship.

However, in America we have a problem with the fragmentation of our populace. Half the country disagrees with the other half. On the level of millions that’s not too difficult to deal with. We have lots of news programs and other media outlets that hope to sway people to their way of thinking. But look back to the inefficacy of the Old Republic and tell me what was wrong with that system of government at this level.

In case you’re not sure, the answer I’m looking for is: “after untold generations, that form of representative government failed miserably.”

The thing is, when you have so many different viewpoints—keep in mind this isn’t just humans numbering in trillions, but countless alien species as well—and trillions of people to keep happy, it‘s not a stretch of the imagination that representative forms of government would be weaker.

Sometimes I like to think of this scene as Palpatine just being mad because the Rebels were stepping all over his lawn.
I understand this argument might seem weak, but consider that a galaxy this big, with this many sentient species and all the dangers I highlighted might need a stronger military presence than that we’re normally used to. In fact, the biggest support for this argument is how horribly the Republic failed. In its last years, the Republic’s weakness is precisely what allowed someone to take control and lead toward the path of dictatorship.

Imagine, if you would, a contentious issue where instead of two political parties (as we’re used to in America) we have countless political and moral views that differ quite a bit. Trying to talk it out in the senate is going to be useless. Eventually, perhaps, someone has to step in and say “this is what we need to do”. Not everybody may love it, but otherwise you end up in the situation you had with the Republic–stalemates in the Galactic Senate.

That said, the Empire is portrayed as slightly amoral, but that is only ever shown at the top levels. For example, in the very first scenes of A New Hope we learn that the Galactic Senate had just been disbanded. Wait…what? The same Galactic Senate that had existed in the era of the Republic was still around?

Now, you might argue that he did so in order to more firmly control the galaxy. But at the same time, the Rebellion was in full swing at this time and from the comments Vader made (and the fact that Leia was using her diplomatic status as a cover for her seditious acts) it would appear that Palpatine only did so to help quell the Rebellion.

Defending the Destruction of Alderaan

Galactic Population. Kinda scary how many people there are.
One question I haven’t dealt with is the Death Star. You could use the whole “Clerks Argument” that Luke is a mass murderer himself for destroying the first Death Star and that Lando is equally bad for the second one. I don‘t take that stance. Instead, I’d like to suggest, for example, that the Death Star’s destruction—given the scale of the galaxy—is minute and irrelevant.

This is the only part where I’ll probably refer to the EU at all, but there’s no way around it. EU sources estimate the galaxy at having about 20 million sentient species in about 180 billion star systems. A rough estimate suggests about 100 quadrillion beings based upon those numbers. For some scope, that’s 100 with 15 zeroes afterwards. That is 14,618,800 times the population of earth.

The population of Alderaan at the time of its destruction was about 1.97 billion people. Given the overall galactic population, the population of Alderaan was at the time a paltry .00000197% of the galactic populace. Let’s think of that destruction in terms of equivalent death of population here on earth. Out of about 6.8 billion people on Earth, killing a proportional amount would equal, get this, 135 human lives.

Compared to another weapon of mass destruction, the atomic bomb, the Death Star pales in comparison. The death toll at Nagasaki (which is considered to be conservative due to deaths from radiation, issues counting, etc) was estimated at 150,000. That means that America dropping that bomb—which keep in mind did kill civilians—was 1111 times more destructive (in scale) than the use of the Death Star.

Considering that the use of the Death Star was that “fear will keep them in line”, it makes sense that the Empire would have to demonstrate this power. Even then, I doubt that the fear of the Death Star really motivated a ton of people. It is, as far as weapons of mass destruction, pretty bad. It takes forever to deploy (the time it took to orbit Yavin and get Yavin 4 in sight was enough for it to be destroyed), it is huge and slow-moving which makes it visible from very far away. Most of all, it (probably) cost an absurd amount of money and even destroying a planet, is not the best way to go. Orbital bombardment of a planet would be cheaper, easier and just as destructive.


The Death Star, ultimate symbol of power and waste.
The Death Star is, more than anything, a symbol. It is a symbol in the same way that the atomic bomb was. It was the ace up the Empire’s sleeve, in that anybody who might want to perform terrorist acts would face the wrath of the Death Star.

Now, it’s easy to talk about this in a detached manner because Alderaan is a fictional planet. Don’t get me wrong, extinguishing almost two billion lives with one shot is pretty terrible. But when you consider that the demonstration was meant to keep rebellious planets in line—and there was no doubt that Alderaan was one of the rebellious planets—it was a small-scale demonstration of the power of the Death Star. It can snub entire populations, but losing 2 billion people versus the scale of the galaxy is a footnote, not a tragedy.

Again, it’s easy to think this way because we are detached from it—as it is fiction—but consider again thatAmerica’s use of nuclear weapons exterminated way more of the known population than the Death Star.

Anyway, friends, that is it for this installment. Look for the third installment where I look to skewer the Rebel Alliance in almost every way possible!

Was the Empire Really So Bad? Part 1: The Galactic Republic Was Awful
April 27, 2012scottjen1 comment
First, I’d like to take this time to apologize for not posting anything for almost this entire week. While I have plenty of material, I’ve been busy outside of this and found myself unable to post daily as I had previously. For that reason I’m looking at moving toward a more rigid schedule for posting so it is easier for all of you to follow this. I’ll give more details on that as they come about.

Anyway, anybody who knows me is well aware that I’m a huge sci-fi fan. They will also know that I think the Galactic Empire in Star Wars got a bad rap, mostly because any time Star Wars comes up I stand up for them. In line with my “over-thinking everything” mantra, I’ve given a lot of thought to the fact that the Galactic Empire really wasn’t as bad as it was supposed to seem. This is a multi-part argument, and it’s not perfect.

In reality, it’s a deep look at Star Wars’ forms of governments and our assumptions about them, framed by the overarching them that the Galactic Empire wasn’t as bad as we were supposed to think.

So, in what is the first part of this multi-part series, I’m going to spend a bit of time laying the groundwork for the argument in terms of some of the assumptions necessary to the arguments.

The Assumptions

The Star Wars universe is a large and complex one. While casual fans will know the original trilogy (Episodes IV through VI) and the prequel trilogy (Episodes I-III), there is much more to the universe. There are hundreds of books, comics, video games and other sources of information in the Star Wars canon.


There may be plenty of great parts of the EU--The Old Republic, many of the video games and books--but anything that can produce this doesn't deserve serious scrutiny. I mean, really.
With any discussion of Star Wars comes the necessary discussion about what part of the universe you’re taking on. For the purposes of this series, I will be using what is known as G-canon (or George Lucas canon). G-canon is, to quote from Wookieepedia, “the six Episodes and anything directly provided to Lucas Licensing by Lucas (including unpublished production knows from him or his production department that are never seen by the public).” In other words, I’m going to ignore the Extended Universe (EU) of Star Wars. Any reference to the EU is more for knowledge sake than being relevant to my arguments.

Hardcore fans of Star Wars may question this decision and question my argument for the sheer fact that I’m excluding a wealth of source material.

The thing is that the six episodes of Star Wars paint the universe in terms of a very well-defined black-and-white morality. You are either good or bad, and if you’re listed as bad in George Lucas’ universe there is no reason to question the assumption. The EU authors have to work within this universe, and often their works have no grey areas, either.

With that in mind, much of the EU taking place in the same time period of the movies ends up with authors trying to show the Empire being evil and the Rebels being heroic. Because Lucas never felt it necessary to explain why the Empire was evil, these authors have elaborated upon it in terms of policies accepting of atrocities beyond the destruction of Alderaan and policies of xenophobia.

I hope that explains why it looks like I am ignoring sources that contradict my claims. As far as George Lucas intended it, there was nothing shown beyond what is in the films to indicate the way the Empire ruled. Any additions to the expanded universe that work as “evidence” of the Empire’s evil nature is really just trying to justify unexplained claims made within the movies.

The Galactic Republic Was Shitty

With my assumptions laid out, I’d like to start with the beginning of The Phantom Menace. Say what you want about The Phantom Menace, specifically about the inclusion of all the politics in it, but those boring senate scenes do at least give us some insight into what exactly happened in the Galactic Republic before Palpatine took over.

Which is to say: precisely jack shit.


The Galactic Senate chambers. If our history is any indication, there were countless fistfights on the floor of the Senate over the millennia.
The entire point of The Phantom Menace was how inept and ineffective the Senate actually was at getting to the bottom of the problems facing its member planets. People were being murdered on Naboo—and those who weren’t being murdered were being starved—and the Senate felt that the best solution was to form a committee.

This government was, at that point in time, run by corrupt bureaucrats with no interest in the people they served. It’s a plot point that is outright stated numerous times—George Lucas never was particularly subtle—and that directly led to the downfall of the Republic.

By the time we get to Attack of the Clones some serious shit had gone down and the galaxy was in a state of civil war. The fact that the Separatists broke off meant that the Republic was failing to some extent and people felt there had to be a better way. Nonetheless, they would never have seceded from the Republic had they not felt that there were unaddressed grievances. And what was the Republic’s answer to people who disagree with the way they do things? They started a war.


Why would you guys ever trust him? His last name is the same as Emperor Palpatine. Plus he just looks evil.
Granted, the whole point here is that Palpatine was subtly (or not) manipulating both sides toward war. But, even with those influences out of the picture, we can assume there were enough grievances that these Separatists felt were unaddressed to justify their secession. It is highly unlike that Palpatine, skilled politician as he was (because George Lucas made the characters tell us, repeatedly), could have caused their secession for no reason.

Let there be no doubt in your mind, then, that there had to be issues. Consider all the scenes within the Senate’s chambers and how utterly massive that room was. Then, take a quick glance at the room and notice how many separate species were present. Within the same country we cannot get our citizenry to agree on some issues that are relatively simple. This Republic was expected to rule over its constituency when said constituents were hundreds, if not thousands, of different species.

What’s most amazing about the Republic is how long it had supposedly existed before the events of the films; it’s stated that it existed for countless generations, the entire time presumably while settling the differences of its member species in a reasonably fair manner. Whatever it was that changed, the Senate clearly went from a body that was able to take action to a group of alien species standing in a room while holding their collective dicks.

But back to the war. The Republic, again, decided that the answer to people who disagree with their way of life is to start a war, for which there was a conveniently mass-produced clone army. Of course, nobody really asked why it was necessary, but it is stated that before the clones there was no standing army. This begs the question: how did the Republic defend itself in the past? After all, without some kind of military, how can the Republic maintain order and peace from both inside and outside the Republic?


The Jedi Council is about as useful as the UN at keeping peace. Plus, they put an 18 year within their ranks. Aren't there Jedi far more deserving of a spot in that room than Anakin?
The Jedi, apparently, are the answer to this. But given how easily the Jedi are mowed down by regular ‘ol clone troopers in Revenge of the Sith, it’s hard to imagine that they could serve as the only military force of the Republic. While I have always had mixed feelings about the military, even I can admit that the thought of existing without a military is like putting a sign that says “freeGalacticRepublic – inquire within”.

Also, nobody seems to have an issue with the clone army. Seriously. I mean, I think Obi-Wan questions it for a second, but then its like he never even bothered. The ethical issues with the clone army alone should be enough to give you pause about the way the Republic works. After all, these are all clones of a dangerous bounty hunter who are specifically bred to become killing machines. Beyond that, they were genetically manipulated to age to maturity more quickly and to support the Republic unwaveringly. Riddle me this: on an ethical level, how are these soldiers any better or worse than the people seen serving in the Galactic Empire?

It’s also interesting that there is no mention in the G-canon of any kind of police force. It’s implied that the Jedi are the police, but then they are also called upon the serve as a military force. I think history has shown that when your military and police are the same, you’re kind of in trouble.


The logical conclusion to the Galactic Republic.
What all of this means is that it was only a matter of time before the Republic fell and something else rose to take its place. The logical choice of the citizens of the galaxy would be a government that was two things the Republic was not: first, capable of taking swift, decisive action to address everyday issues; second, capable of defending its citizens from any threat. The result was the Galactic Empire.

When Padme comments in Revenge of the Sith that liberty ends with thunderous applause, did it not occur to her that maybe the people knew that they were accepting a dictatorship, but figured it had to be a hell of a lot better than the Republic? Also, when Palpatine comments that the Jedi rebelled against him and attacked him, nobody in the senate was particularly shocked. I take that as an indicator that the Jedi were at the very least not a big part of everyday life and, at the worst, widely disliked. After all, if the Jedi had a public image as peacekeepers and defenders of justice and truth, don’t you think someone would have openly questioned Palpatine’s assertion that they had turned on him? Considering the way Lucas portrays them in the prequel trilogy, it’s no surprise. They’re condescending asses who sit up in their (ivory?) tower hoping they can think problems away.


Any form of government that can be brought down by this kid probably kind of deserved it, anyway.
Now, I know that there is that saying along the lines of “those who give up liberty for security deserve neither”, and in our world based upon our ethics, I’d totally agree. However, when you’re talking about ruling on the galactic scale, in terms of trillions upon trillions of people, it’s a different ball game. I am not arguing that more people justifies military dictatorships, at least not directly. But I am arguing that perhaps a system of government like a republic is not suitable when you are trying to bridge the gap between thousands of species on countless planets.

I don’t think any of you are dumb. So I doubt you’re sitting there asking “how the hell does this mean the Empire is better”. But an important part of realizing that the Empire got a bad deal in how they were portrayed is to recognize the ways in which the Republic was generally terrible (read: many). The Republic was rife with corruption, had no feasible way to defend itself from threats (except for the highly unethical clone troopers) and apparently left so much of its citizenry disenchanted with its aims that they felt no other recourse than to secede. I don’t intend on making my argument by solely saying that the Galactic Empire is bad, but the Republic was worse. I think there is genuine evidence that the Empire did more good than bad, but looking at the Republic can give you an idea of how disillusioned the galactic citizenry probably was.

[Stark]

Re-examining your ideas doesn't generally involve cut and pasting the ideas of others. That is, however, what I would expect from you.

The article you posted makes a bunch of similar errors as. I'm not surprised you agree with it - it backtracks 'responsibility' or 'cause' until it finds something it doesn't like then stops, rather than following it to the actual source (which is generally Sith Lord Palpatine) and reasoning from there. Even a discussion about pros and cons of bad decision would be more interesting than 'read this huge nerd screed I posted see I win'.

If you honestly think you 'love debate' you might want to attend a debate class. You may realise you actually don't 'love debate' at all.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Re-examining your ideas doesn't generally involve cut and pasting the ideas of others. That is, however, what I would expect from you.

The article you posted makes a bunch of similar errors as. I'm not surprised you agree with it - it backtracks 'responsibility' or 'cause' until it finds something it doesn't like then stops, rather than following it to the actual source (which is generally Sith Lord Palpatine) and reasoning from there. Even a discussion about pros and cons of bad decision would be more interesting than 'read this huge nerd screed I posted see I win'.

If you honestly think you 'love debate' you might want to attend a debate class. You may realise you actually don't 'love debate' at all.

That article was so long, and it discussed so many different arguements/ideas/points, due to its length, that we could go on for many/countless pages of this discussing all of them. That article has gvien us a good discussion for later. And, now, it's time for me to eat my lunch/dinner. I'll brb in a little bit while later, too!

http://scottjen.wordpress.com/tag/galactic-empire/

That's the website that I got that article from. Mods, do I actually have to quote that article to avoid plagiarims? IDK, but at least I just cited a source over here for that article, and I admitted that that article wasn't mine, and I gave some credit.

BRB after I eat, and I'm ready to debate later!!!

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Re-examining your ideas doesn't generally involve cut and pasting the ideas of others. That is, however, what I would expect from you.

The article you posted makes a bunch of similar errors as. I'm not surprised you agree with it - it backtracks 'responsibility' or 'cause' until it finds something it doesn't like then stops, rather than following it to the actual source (which is generally Sith Lord Palpatine) and reasoning from there. Even a discussion about pros and cons of bad decision would be more interesting than 'read this huge nerd screed I posted see I win'.

If you honestly think you 'love debate' you might want to attend a debate class. You may realise you actually don't 'love debate' at all.

You pick a specific detail to argue about from that very long article.

[Stark]

That was your job before you just cut and pasted someone else's ideas. If you chose a single point instead of the menagerie you require to reach your preferred end goal, you'd probably so better.

Since you're unable to choose I'll do it for you. Where does responsibility for the civil war rest? Bear in mind this doesn't require you to repost any of your terrible justifications for mass murder. Just talk about the causes of the civil war, who the decision-makers were, what their priorities and goals were, and the consequences. Put aside your agenda.

[DaveJB]

I, for one, do not base my opinions about "who are the good guys" and "who's the bad guys", on popular culture, the opinions of the fans, or even what the book/movie itself tells me who are the good guys or the bad guys. I interpret a storyline in a very non-biased way. I interpret it however I view the story and the events that happen within it.

Oh, really? Well, even if we're just looking at the films, do you know why most people consider the Rebels to be the good guys and the Empire to be the bad ones? It's because the Empire commits atrocities against its own people, from small-scale ones like the executions of Owen and Beru and the Jawas when none of them were guilty of any crime, to bigger ones like destroying Alderaan because a couple of high-profile citizens supported the Rebels, and Tarkin thought it would be more impressive than blowing up Dantooine. The worst thing the Rebels do is get a bunch of Ewoks killed while fighting for them in the Battle of Endor, and even that's preferable to all the Ewoks being wiped out when the Sanctuary Moon was inevitably destroyed by the DS2's test firing (disregarding the Endor Holocaust argument for the moment).

[Spiderman Fanboy]

I, for one, do not base my opinions about "who are the good guys" and "who's the bad guys", on popular culture, the opinions of the fans, or even what the book/movie itself tells me who are the good guys or the bad guys. I interpret a storyline in a very non-biased way. I interpret it however I view the story and the events that happen within it.

Oh, really? Well, even if we're just looking at the films, do you know why most people consider the Rebels to be the good guys and the Empire to be the bad ones? It's because the Empire commits atrocities against its own people, from small-scale ones like the executions of Owen and Beru and the Jawas when none of them were guilty of any crime, to bigger ones like destroying Alderaan because a couple of high-profile citizens supported the Rebels, and Tarkin thought it would be more impressive than blowing up Dantooine. The worst thing the Rebels do is get a bunch of Ewoks killed while fighting for them in the Battle of Endor, and even that's preferable to all the Ewoks being wiped out when the Sanctuary Moon was inevitably destroyed by the DS2's test firing (disregarding the Endor Holocaust argument for the moment).

Alderaan's destruction and Owen and Beru's Lars were all evil, unjustifiable, war crimes. I am making no attempt to justify them. You still are missing what I'm trying to say.

Just read that very long article and you'll know what I'm talking about.

[Stark]

Come on, he says he 'interprets the storyline in a very non-biased way' when he's clearly decided beforehand to take the contrary position and just looked for ways to support it.

I'm eager to see if he can compose an actual argument to support one of his key points in isolation.

EDIT - lol no, challenge ignored. Obviously he loves debates.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Come on, he says he 'interprets the storyline in a very non-biased way' when he's clearly decided beforehand to take the contrary position and just looked for ways to support it.

I'm eager to see if he can compose an actual argument to support one of his key points in isolation.

EDIT - lol no, challenge ignored. Obviously he loves debates.

The rebels were not rebelling because of the death star. They were rebelling because of democracy and freedoms and rights being taken away.

I'm repeating myself in order to provide a certain context for my newer, more important arguements.

[DaveJB]

Just read that very long article and you'll know what I'm talking about.

That's an appeal to authority fallacy. You should be able to sum up your own argument without resorting to copy-pasting huge chunks of text.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

Just read that very long article and you'll know what I'm talking about.

That's an appeal to authority fallacy. You should be able to sum up your own argument without resorting to copy-pasting huge chunks of text.

Can we agree that the major reason of the rebel alliance's existence was not the death star? The Coreillian Treaty mentions that, the main goal of the rebels was to restore democracy, the power of the senate, and political rights and freedoms to the people. In the EU, Biggs Darklighter mentions that the Empire is taking over businesses on Tattoine, much like a communist regime would do. They probably also took away freedom of speech and other rights and freedoms with Palpatine's absolute power. The death star, which was about to blow up the rebel worlds had they never been defeated in ROTJ, including Endor, and the mon calamari planet, and mon mothma's planet Chandrila, and killing Luke's aunt and uncle, were all war crimes evil atrocities that were a response to the armed fighitng rebellion and dissent.

So, basically, I'm not trying to justify any imperial war crimes or atrocities at all! The Empire did a lot of horrible evil stuff! We can all agree on that one. I'm saying that the rebels were waging an unjust war, and, the imperial government was good, for the most part.

However, the empire had a lot of public support, for the most part. The vast majority of the imperial citizens were pro-empire, and they weren't in favor of the rebellion.

[Stark]

The rebels were not rebelling because of the death star. They were rebelling because of democracy and freedoms and rights being taken away.

I'm repeating myself in order to provide a certain context for my newer, more important arguements.

That's a fascinating argument about the responsibility for the civil war! Too bad it involves things that didn't happen UNTIL IT WAS OVER.

I particularly enjoyed the way you examined the actions of various players in context and derived possible intentions rather than simply baldly restating your previous arguments.

Too bad he turned out to be a troll, I guess. Goalposts = moved.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

The rebels were not rebelling because of the death star. They were rebelling because of democracy and freedoms and rights being taken away.

I'm repeating myself in order to provide a certain context for my newer, more important arguements.

That's a fascinating argument about the responsibility for the civil war! Too bad it involves things that didn't happen UNTIL IT WAS OVER.

I particularly enjoyed the way you examined the actions of various players in context and derived possible intentions rather than simply baldly restating your previous arguments.

Too bad he turned out to be a troll, I guess. Goalposts = moved.

Now, can you please respond to my previous post? You're just being very ad hominem now!

[Crazedwraith]

So, basically, I'm not trying to justify any imperial war crimes or atrocities at all! The Empire did a lot of horrible evil stuff! We can all agree on that one. I'm saying that the rebels were waging an unjust war, and, the imperial government was good, for the most part.

There is a complete disconnect between these two sentences. How can the imperial governemnt be good with it was doing, as you say, a lot of horrible stuff/

However, the empire had a lot of public support, for the most part. The vast majority of the imperial citizens were pro-empire, and they weren't in favor of the rebellion.

Which is why we see the entire galaxy celebrate the end of the empire in Return Of Jedi? Even in the very capital of the Empire?

Most people were not pro-empire. They were, at best, empire neutral. I think Luke's line in ANH sums it up well. 'It's not that I like the Empire, I hate it but there's nothing I can do about it right now.' People didn't join the rebellion basically because they didn't think they could do any good.

[Stark]

When I was a kid I got the impression the rebellion (at least the military organisation) wasn't well known. The politicians committing the heinous crime of not rubber stamping the Emperors policies would have been known, but perhaps people didn't speak openly about the terrorists.

But tbh this guys responses make me figure he's just a bot. Post too complicated? Quote it and say 'please respond to my points'.

[Batman]

Since you can't be arsed to actually address anybody's posts, why should he be required to? And I'd look up what ad hominem actually entails. You may find that it doesn't quite mean what you seem to think it means.
Also, does anybody else find those to be mutually exclusive?

So, basically, I'm not trying to justify any imperial war crimes or atrocities at all! The Empire did a lot of horrible evil stuff! We can all agree on that one. I'm saying that the rebels were waging an unjust war, and, the imperial government was good, for the most part.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

So, basically, I'm not trying to justify any imperial war crimes or atrocities at all! The Empire did a lot of horrible evil stuff! We can all agree on that one. I'm saying that the rebels were waging an unjust war, and, the imperial government was good, for the most part.

There is a complete disconnect between these two sentences. How can the imperial governemnt be good with it was doing, as you say, a lot of horrible stuff/

However, the empire had a lot of public support, for the most part. The vast majority of the imperial citizens were pro-empire, and they weren't in favor of the rebellion.

Which is why we see the entire galaxy celebrate the end of the empire in Return Of Jedi? Even in the very capital of the Empire?

Most people were not pro-empire. They were, at best, empire neutral. I think Luke's line in ANH sums it up well. 'It's not that I like the Empire, I hate it but there's nothing I can do about it right now.' People didn't join the rebellion basically because they didn't think they could do any good.

Can we agree that the main goal of the Rebellion was not to stop the death star from being used? It was to restore democracy to the galaxy. "The alliance to restore the Republic".

And, so this is more of a political storyline than a good vs. evil superhero storyline. Every revolution has its own goals. But if the majority of the popular isn't for the revolution (even Han Solo called the rebellion a revolution), then, the revolution is not a just war/cause.

And, as for public Imperial Support? I hate to double past, but I double pasted a lot of the stuff that specifically supports my claims about public support for the Empire.

Here’s a recap of some of the key points so far: the Republic sucked and was the cause of its own demise. The transition to the Galactic Empire was actually publicly liked (as evidenced in the last few minutes of Revenge of the Sith, and the Empire, while having some bad guys up top, was doing some good. Namely, they were keeping scum like Han Solo off the space streets.

With that said, let’s look at their main enemies, the Rebel Alliance.

What Did the Rebels Even Want?

“We want the ineffectual Old Republic back!”

Except the only reason I can make a case for the Empire is that there were so few instances of them being truly evil outside of certain levels of leadership. All of the events in the original trilogy are in response to the Rebellion (a point I’ll get to shortly) and we’re not told any reason—from before the formation of theAlliance—to actually think the Empire is evil.

The thing is, we’re not given any reason. In fact, we know so little about the Rebels that all we know is they want to take the Empire down. We don’t know why nor are we even given a slight hint as to what happened in the two decades between trilogies.

By comparison, most organizations—no matter how small and ill-formed—know what it is they are trying to achieve. Consider al-Qaeda, who seem as nebulous in their goals as the Rebel Alliance. We know they hate westerners and have declared a jihad. That said, with some looking around you can easily find out that one of the main reasons is the idea of the Western world fronting a cultural assault on Muslims. There is more depth to that, but we know what they want and why they want it. You may not agree, but those reasons do exist and are stated. No organization, terrorist or legitimate, is going to get what they want without openly stating those goals and their reasons.

Yet, the Rebels exist solely on the concept that the Empire is evil and that everybody must fight them. Their list of reasons is minimal and the Rebels seem to assume that the Empire’s evil is self-evident to every onlooker.

Recruitment Strategy

So if the Empire was so blatantly, incontrovertibly evil then why was the Rebellion so small? Seriously.


When you’re throwing everything you’ve got at a moon-size space station, consider something more effective than two dozen hand-me-down space fighters.
At the beginning of A New Hope we see a Rebel Alliance that is tiny and falling apart. They are, by all means, on the very brink of losing everything to the Empire. If the Empire is so terrible then why are so many people staying on the sidelines? If, as we are to believe from the Special Edition endings showing multiple planets celebrating, the whole galaxy stands with the Rebels in spirit, then how is it that the Empire even stands the remotest chance of winning?

I realize the counter-argument there is that many people might not be willing to take the risk to work with the Rebels. It no doubt endangers one’s family and friends, and so not everybody would take that risk, even if they did support the “ideals” of the Rebellion on an intellectual level.

Nonetheless, let’s look at a comparison. The number of fighters that the Rebels fielded at the Battle of Yavin was around 25-30. The screencap of it from the special edition (in which Lucas added more fighters than were originally shown) shows about 25. That’s all of two-dozen capable pilots willing to fight to save the Rebellion. Make no mistake, the Battle of Yavin (as with most battles the Rebellion fought in the films) was not something they would retreat from. It was a last stand and an all-or-nothing endeavor.

And yet there are just over two dozen fighters.

“You know, guys, I’m beginning to think sending infantry with small arms against giant, armor-plated walking dogs was a bad idea.”
Similarly, the Battle of Hoth was again an all-or-nothing stand with most of the body of the Rebellion on the planet trying to escape. In the picture of this battle, you see maybe 15-20 ground infantry, plus less than a dozen snowspeeders that were put against the force of AT-ATs.

My point in all of this is very simple: the Rebellion had almost nobody fighting for it. Remember from the last post in the series that the galactic population is in the quintillions. And the force of the Rebels is maybe a thousand at the Battle of Hoth, if you were to include support personnel. This means that of the galactic population only 0.000000000001% were willing to fight with the Rebellion.

Consider the French Resistance in WW2. Plagued by similar fears that their families and friends would suffer were they to join the Resistance, the French had a fairly small number of supporters. While it’s hard to pin down exactly how many supported the Resistance in anything other than thought, it’s estimated that it was somewhere between 1-2 percent of the French population. In other words, the French Resistance had 20000000000 times more people (in proportion) fighting for them.

Before I get drowned in too much math and comparison, my point is simply thus: if the Rebels were so damned right in their conviction that the Empire was evil and it had to be taken down, how is it that their total support was absolutely miniscule? Even considering that people would be afraid to take action, one would expect a Rebellion against the Empire to be a bit bigger than it was.

Final note: at the Battle of Endor the Rebellion fielded an entire fleet and no doubt, by this time, their numbers had grown. I’m sure this was partly bolstered by their prior victory against the first Death Star. Nonetheless, it could be assumed that if that was the entire fleet (as again, this was an all-or-nothing gamble) at the time of the Battle of Endor, it is still absolutely miniscule in comparison to the support one would expect them to have.

I think this particular point really heavily goes back to the idea that the galaxy needs a powerful influence. While the Republic sucked, it at least had most everyone unified under the same banner. Ineffectual as it was, it was still a centralized government that had some power. The Empire, too, seemed to control almost the entire galaxy worth controlling. (Would you really bother to send a garrison to Tattooine if you didn’t have to? Thought not.)

Because taking out the Death Star and killing the Emperor will certainly dissuade this ENORMOUS FLEET from blowing up the Rebels.
The Rebels, at the end of Return of the Jedi, have killed Vader and Palpatine. The entire galaxy celebrates and we’re left with a happy ending. Except for one enormous, terrible looming question: then what?

You see, nobody dared stand against the Emperor or Vader because, quite simply, you couldn’t. They would kill you easily and your attempt at a coup would be over. They wielded supreme power without the fear that they could ever (except by another force user, who they had killed) be taken down.

You see, the key here is that the Imperial Navy is goddamn huge. It is doubtful that their entire fleet was present at this battle. In fact, this is probably just one task force within a fleet. Consider that the Emperor expected the Death Star II to be shielded for the entire time and that it was operational. That, alone, meant he wouldn’t need the whole fleet, as the Death Star could easily dispatch the Rebels.

Indeed, the Rebellion would face an uphill battle, as some planets would no doubt change allegiance right away. There were no doubt, however, many planets that would stay aligned with the Imperials. The Rebellion would have to face a difficult decision there: conquer those planets (in the name of freedom) or allow the Empire to exist and the war to continue on.

Keep in mind that the Empire is huge and galaxy-wide. They no doubt had countless other fleets and supporters. Taking down the head may leave them disorganized, but it certainly doesn’t leave them any less capable of inflicting pain or defending themselves.

Seriously, why would a planet on which the Imperial presence consists of a few stormtroopers looking for droids celebrate this hard?
You see, the Rebellion, for all that Lucas did to portray them as heroic, had no foresight. They launched a campaign against the Empire with almost no popular support (as evidenced by their numbers), with little idea of what they actually wanted or why, and finally with no plan as to what was going to happen afterwards.

Indeed, the power vacuum left by the Rebellion’s destruction of the Death Star II and the deaths of the two Sith would be so significant that I cannot imagine the Rebellion successfully uniting the galaxy ever again.

Instead, I would imagine a galaxy in which the two major players are the Rebels and the remains of the Empire. Beyond that, however, I’d imagine every powerful mercenary band, criminal cartel and planet with a decent fleet would declare itself a sovereign nation. While the Rebels may call that freedom, without the Empire (or some central, governing body) the Galaxy would no doubt face endless border conflicts that would not be resolved until somebody had the will to re-conquer the entire galaxy.

The galaxy the Rebels want sounds more like lawlessness and anarchy than freedom.


The Galaxy Is in a Bad Neighborhood

Let’s get this out of the way now: the Empire did build a massive and mobile battle station capable of destroying planets—aptly named the Death Star—and they did use it. I’ll talk about that at the end of this post. I want to make clear now I don’t hope to completely defend it, but rather put it in context.

Han Solo – Lovable Crack Dealer
Anyway, problem is that we, as humans stuck on this planet, could not possibly understand the scale on which political struggles in Star Wars take place. Galaxies are huge, and with the Empire basically in control of fully half of that galaxy—with some presence on the Outer Rim planets, though not full control—you face problems that are far removed from ones with which we are familiar.

But to the sub-titular issue at hand: the galaxy is a bad neighborhood. It’s clear that gangsters, cartels and criminals are thriving. Han makes reference to the Kessel Run and shamelessly admits he’s a smuggler. Consider that again, if you will. Han Solo—one of the main protagonists of the original trilogy, as well eventually a General in the Rebel Alliance was previously a smuggler. What did he smuggle? Why, he smuggled spice, a psychotropic drug.

Imagine if you would an organization in our world who promoted to the rank of General a man who used to make his living on smuggling cocaine into the United States. Because that is, essentially, what happened with Han Solo. Now, one of the main character arcs is that Solo never really wanted that life, and that he was in debt to Jabba the Hutt, etc. I get it, he’s a guy with a heart of gold. Except that said heart of gold never had a problem with smuggling illegal drugs, and then joins up with a terrorist band.

But the real question is, in a galaxy where a General of the Rebel Alliance is getting your kids hooked on space drugs, who is trying to keep said space drugs out of their hands? The Empire. Yah, the bad guys we want destroyed were responsible for Solo’s debt to Jabba. Solo repeatedly points out in A New Hope that he was boarded by Imperials, and as a result he spaced the shipment.

The misfit crew of murderers, drug dealers and kids who got caught up in the wrong crowd.
In fact, when Solo, Luke and Kenobi are in the cantina in Mos Eisley they draw attention from Imperial troops after Kenobi maims a man and Solo murders someone. Those troopers weren’t there to persecute solo, they were there because there were reports of a Jedi (who everyone thought were gone) maiming people and then a smuggler murdering a bounty hunter. Nobody was wrongfully accused here. Even if Kenobi was just defending Luke, who knows if the Stormtroopers coming into the Cantina wouldn’t have said to him “Hey, that’s understandable, you just helped us apprehend a wanted man. Good job, guys!”

Which by the way, given the events of Revenge of the Sith, I’m guessing the Jedi weren’t particularly well-liked among the general populace. Palpatine played them off as traitorous and potentially dangerous to everyone’s safety. Way to go, Ben Kenobi, you’ve just managed to only do more to convince people that Jedi are dangerous. But I digress.

To recap: the main reason the Empire is portrayed as evil, beyond the obvious, is because they’re chasing after Luke (who has stolen data in the form of two droids), Kenobi (who is a renegade Jedi), and Solo (who is a smuggler). We’re supposed to think this unlikely band of allies, with all of their foibles, has the best interest of the galaxy at heart. I don’t know that I’d agree with that.

The Galaxy Might Need a Harsh Government; It Definitely Needs Some Government

“Hey guys, I was just telling Vader how a giant planet-killing space station is way more fearsome than choking our enemies one-by-aggggggggh.”
I mentioned earlier in this post that we cannot comprehend the scale of the Galaxy. I understand that some people might view this argument as a cop-out, but I think that what you have to realize is when you’re talking about innumerable citizens, things change a little bit.

America has a representative democracy, which we feel does a good job of governing us. It (generally) takes into account what the general population wants and works off of that. If something is wildly unpopular publicly, it probably won’t gain traction at the national level as any kind of law. We like that we have a voice, and I’d generally agree that I’d rather not live under a dictatorship.

However, in America we have a problem with the fragmentation of our populace. Half the country disagrees with the other half. On the level of millions that’s not too difficult to deal with. We have lots of news programs and other media outlets that hope to sway people to their way of thinking. But look back to the inefficacy of the Old Republic and tell me what was wrong with that system of government at this level.

In case you’re not sure, the answer I’m looking for is: “after untold generations, that form of representative government failed miserably.”

The thing is, when you have so many different viewpoints—keep in mind this isn’t just humans numbering in trillions, but countless alien species as well—and trillions of people to keep happy, it‘s not a stretch of the imagination that representative forms of government would be weaker.

Sometimes I like to think of this scene as Palpatine just being mad because the Rebels were stepping all over his lawn.
I understand this argument might seem weak, but consider that a galaxy this big, with this many sentient species and all the dangers I highlighted might need a stronger military presence than that we’re normally used to. In fact, the biggest support for this argument is how horribly the Republic failed. In its last years, the Republic’s weakness is precisely what allowed someone to take control and lead toward the path of dictatorship.

Imagine, if you would, a contentious issue where instead of two political parties (as we’re used to in America) we have countless political and moral views that differ quite a bit. Trying to talk it out in the senate is going to be useless. Eventually, perhaps, someone has to step in and say “this is what we need to do”. Not everybody may love it, but otherwise you end up in the situation you had with the Republic–stalemates in the Galactic Senate.

That said, the Empire is portrayed as slightly amoral, but that is only ever shown at the top levels. For example, in the very first scenes of A New Hope we learn that the Galactic Senate had just been disbanded. Wait…what? The same Galactic Senate that had existed in the era of the Republic was still around?

Now, you might argue that he did so in order to more firmly control the galaxy. But at the same time, the Rebellion was in full swing at this time and from the comments Vader made (and the fact that Leia was using her diplomatic status as a cover for her seditious acts) it would appear that Palpatine only did so to help quell the Rebellion.


Anyway, anybody who knows me is well aware that I’m a huge sci-fi fan. They will also know that I think the Galactic Empire in Star Wars got a bad rap, mostly because any time Star Wars comes up I stand up for them. In line with my “over-thinking everything” mantra, I’ve given a lot of thought to the fact that the Galactic Empire really wasn’t as bad as it was supposed to seem. This is a multi-part argument, and it’s not perfect.

In reality, it’s a deep look at Star Wars’ forms of governments and our assumptions about them, framed by the overarching them that the Galactic Empire wasn’t as bad as we were supposed to think.

So, in what is the first part of this multi-part series, I’m going to spend a bit of time laying the groundwork for the argument in terms of some of the assumptions necessary to the arguments.

The Assumptions

The Star Wars universe is a large and complex one. While casual fans will know the original trilogy (Episodes IV through VI) and the prequel trilogy (Episodes I-III), there is much more to the universe. There are hundreds of books, comics, video games and other sources of information in the Star Wars canon.


There may be plenty of great parts of the EU--The Old Republic, many of the video games and books--but anything that can produce this doesn't deserve serious scrutiny. I mean, really.
With any discussion of Star Wars comes the necessary discussion about what part of the universe you’re taking on. For the purposes of this series, I will be using what is known as G-canon (or George Lucas canon). G-canon is, to quote from Wookieepedia, “the six Episodes and anything directly provided to Lucas Licensing by Lucas (including unpublished production knows from him or his production department that are never seen by the public).” In other words, I’m going to ignore the Extended Universe (EU) of Star Wars. Any reference to the EU is more for knowledge sake than being relevant to my arguments.

Hardcore fans of Star Wars may question this decision and question my argument for the sheer fact that I’m excluding a wealth of source material.

The thing is that the six episodes of Star Wars paint the universe in terms of a very well-defined black-and-white morality. You are either good or bad, and if you’re listed as bad in George Lucas’ universe there is no reason to question the assumption. The EU authors have to work within this universe, and often their works have no grey areas, either.

With that in mind, much of the EU taking place in the same time period of the movies ends up with authors trying to show the Empire being evil and the Rebels being heroic. Because Lucas never felt it necessary to explain why the Empire was evil, these authors have elaborated upon it in terms of policies accepting of atrocities beyond the destruction of Alderaan and policies of xenophobia.

I hope that explains why it looks like I am ignoring sources that contradict my claims. As far as George Lucas intended it, there was nothing shown beyond what is in the films to indicate the way the Empire ruled. Any additions to the expanded universe that work as “evidence” of the Empire’s evil nature is really just trying to justify unexplained claims made within the movies.

The Galactic Republic Was Bad

With my assumptions laid out, I’d like to start with the beginning of The Phantom Menace. Say what you want about The Phantom Menace, specifically about the inclusion of all the politics in it, but those boring senate scenes do at least give us some insight into what exactly happened in the Galactic Republic before Palpatine took over.


The Galactic Senate chambers. If our history is any indication, there were countless fistfights on the floor of the Senate over the millennia.
The entire point of The Phantom Menace was how inept and ineffective the Senate actually was at getting to the bottom of the problems facing its member planets. People were being murdered on Naboo—and those who weren’t being murdered were being starved—and the Senate felt that the best solution was to form a committee.

This government was, at that point in time, run by corrupt bureaucrats with no interest in the people they served. It’s a plot point that is outright stated numerous times—George Lucas never was particularly subtle—and that directly led to the downfall of the Republic.

By the time we get to Attack of the Clones some serious stuff had gone down and the galaxy was in a state of civil war. The fact that the Separatists broke off meant that the Republic was failing to some extent and people felt there had to be a better way. Nonetheless, they would never have seceded from the Republic had they not felt that there were unaddressed grievances. And what was the Republic’s answer to people who disagree with the way they do things? They started a war.



Let there be no doubt in your mind, then, that there had to be issues. Consider all the scenes within the Senate’s chambers and how utterly massive that room was. Then, take a quick glance at the room and notice how many separate species were present. Within the same country we cannot get our citizenry to agree on some issues that are relatively simple. This Republic was expected to rule over its constituency when said constituents were hundreds, if not thousands, of different species.

What’s most amazing about the Republic is how long it had supposedly existed before the events of the films; it’s stated that it existed for countless generations, the entire time presumably while settling the differences of its member species in a reasonably fair manner. Whatever it was that changed, the Senate clearly went from a body that was able to take action to a group of alien species standing in a room while holding their collective dicks.

But back to the war. The Republic, again, decided that the answer to people who disagree with their way of life is to start a war, for which there was a conveniently mass-produced clone army. Of course, nobody really asked why it was necessary, but it is stated that before the clones there was no standing army. This begs the question: how did the Republic defend itself in the past? After all, without some kind of military, how can the Republic maintain order and peace from both inside and outside the Republic?


The Jedi Council is about as useful as the UN at keeping peace. Plus, they put an 18 year within their ranks. Aren't there Jedi far more deserving of a spot in that room than Anakin?
The Jedi, apparently, are the answer to this. But given how easily the Jedi are mowed down by regular ‘ol clone troopers in Revenge of the Sith, it’s hard to imagine that they could serve as the only military force of the Republic. While I have always had mixed feelings about the military, even I can admit that the thought of existing without a military is like putting a sign that says “freeGalacticRepublic – inquire within”.

Also, nobody seems to have an issue with the clone army. Seriously. I mean, I think Obi-Wan questions it for a second, but then its like he never even bothered. The ethical issues with the clone army alone should be enough to give you pause about the way the Republic works. After all, these are all clones of a dangerous bounty hunter who are specifically bred to become killing machines. Beyond that, they were genetically manipulated to age to maturity more quickly and to support the Republic unwaveringly. Riddle me this: on an ethical level, how are these soldiers any better or worse than the people seen serving in the Galactic Empire?

It’s also interesting that there is no mention in the G-canon of any kind of police force. It’s implied that the Jedi are the police, but then they are also called upon the serve as a military force. I think history has shown that when your military and police are the same, you’re kind of in trouble.

What all of this means is that it was only a matter of time before the Republic fell and something else rose to take its place. The logical choice of the citizens of the galaxy would be a government that was two things the Republic was not: first, capable of taking swift, decisive action to address everyday issues; second, capable of defending its citizens from any threat. The result was the Galactic Empire.

When Padme comments in Revenge of the Sith that liberty ends with thunderous applause, did it not occur to her that maybe the people knew that they were accepting a dictatorship, but figured it had to be a hell of a lot better than the Republic? Also, when Palpatine comments that the Jedi rebelled against him and attacked him, nobody in the senate was particularly shocked. I take that as an indicator that the Jedi were at the very least not a big part of everyday life and, at the worst, widely disliked. After all, if the Jedi had a public image as peacekeepers and defenders of justice and truth, don’t you think someone would have openly questioned Palpatine’s assertion that they had turned on him? Considering the way Lucas portrays them in the prequel trilogy, it’s no surprise. They’re condescending asses who sit up in their (ivory?) tower hoping they can think problems away.


Any form of government that can be brought down by this kid probably kind of deserved it, anyway.
Now, I know that there is that saying along the lines of “those who give up liberty for security deserve neither”, and in our world based upon our ethics, I’d totally agree. However, when you’re talking about ruling on the galactic scale, in terms of trillions upon trillions of people, it’s a different ball game. I am not arguing that more people justifies military dictatorships, at least not directly. But I am arguing that perhaps a system of government like a republic is not suitable when you are trying to bridge the gap between thousands of species on countless planets.

I don’t think any of you are dumb. So I doubt you’re sitting there asking “how the hell does this mean the Empire is better”. But an important part of realizing that the Empire got a bad deal in how they were portrayed is to recognize the ways in which the Republic was generally terrible (read: many). The Republic was rife with corruption, had no feasible way to defend itself from threats (except for the highly unethical clone troopers) and apparently left so much of its citizenry disenchanted with its aims that they felt no other recourse than to secede. I don’t intend on making my argument by solely saying that the Galactic Empire is bad, but the Republic was worse. I think there is genuine evidence that the Empire did more good than bad, but looking at the Republic can give you an idea of how disillusioned the galactic citizenry probably was.

[lPeregrine]

The rebels were not rebelling because of the death star. They were rebelling because of democracy and freedoms and rights being taken away.

And because of the Empire's policy of brutally crushing any dissent (summary executions of anyone vaguely suspected of disloyalty, massacres of peaceful protesters, etc) and openly using a policy of rule through fear of even more brutal retaliation. Please stop ignoring the fact that the Empire was NOT a kind and benevolent government that only did what it had to do to prevent the rebellion from destroying everything.

[Spiderman Fanboy]

What all of this means is that it was only a matter of time before the Republic fell and something else rose to take its place. The logical choice of the citizens of the galaxy would be a government that was two things the Republic was not: first, capable of taking swift, decisive action to address everyday issues; second, capable of defending its citizens from any threat. The result was the Galactic Empire.

When Padme comments in Revenge of the Sith that liberty ends with thunderous applause, did it not occur to her that maybe the people knew that they were accepting a dictatorship, but figured it had to be a hell of a lot better than the Republic? Also, when Palpatine comments that the Jedi rebelled against him and attacked him, nobody in the senate was particularly shocked. I take that as an indicator that the Jedi were at the very least not a big part of everyday life and, at the worst, widely disliked. After all, if the Jedi had a public image as peacekeepers and defenders of justice and truth, don’t you think someone would have openly questioned Palpatine’s assertion that they had turned on him? Considering the way Lucas portrays them in the prequel trilogy, it’s no surprise.

\Now, I know that there is that saying along the lines of “those who give up liberty for security deserve neither”, and in our world based upon our ethics, I’d totally agree. However, when you’re talking about ruling on the galactic scale, in terms of trillions upon trillions of people, it’s a different ball game. I am not arguing that more people justifies military dictatorships, at least not directly. But I am arguing that perhaps a system of government like a republic is not suitable when you are trying to bridge the gap between thousands of species on countless planets.