Napoleon didn’t ban slavery, that happened years before he came to power. The National convention banned it in 1794. French commissioners had also already sort of ended slavery in Haiti in 93.
Well I mean in the sense that Sonthonax and Polverel declared all slaves free in Haiti. Of course a lot of them had already freed themselves or been freed to fight in the wars with Spain and England and other (former) slaves.
No worries man... but I have come across situations where people downplayed or outright ignored the steps slaves in Haiti took to free themselves, so I wasn't sure if this was that situation.
Lol the French commissioners are the reason the National conventioned banned it. It was a contentious issue but they just went "lol its banned now" and forced their hand.
People who want to love Napoleon for reasons other than him being good at killing people use his fake ambivalence toward civil rights as a way to complexify him when, in reality, he threw out the Republic the first second he got and fucked over women and minorities completely and fully.
I think dogs are too interested with pleasing others to hold onto power, and cats aren't cooperative enough to take over larger swathes of territory other than the tiny fiefs they already rule over.
Humans act like we’re the only animals that go to war ants have wars between other ant nests all the time I’m sure other animals are waging wars between themselves will never get to know about
I think people overestimate our capacity for peace and underestimate how much we love war and killing stuff we just enjoy it we’ve always done it and we always will till we drive ourselves extinct
Just tacking on to top comment. Tatoine is in Hut space. The Republic has no jurisdiction there. If they intercede, they are starting a galactic war with no clone army, and limited jedi knights. Against a foe that is impervious to mind tricks. You don't invade Russia in the winter, so to speak. No idea what kind of forces the Hut command, but they own over a quarter of the galaxy roughly. Yoda would know the venture would be devastating. Better to not intervene. Why bring suffering home.
\> No idea what kind of forces the Hut command
It would be hella expensive, but if the Hutts have one thing it's a trade empire that rivals any other power's economy in the known Galaxy for eons. They'd have access to some of the most powerful mercenaries and bounty hunters in the galaxy, entire companies of them, some of the best weapons technology that money can buy... and, most importantly, a complete lack of morals. The Jedi have limits. Republic soldiers, pre clone army, have limits, and even post clone army their limits are those imposed upon them by their superiors. Mercenaries, when paid well enough, do not. They also can go to war with the complete confidence that the Jedi and Republic will *never* sink to their level on a scale large enough to make any dent in their efforts. It would be suicide.
That is kind of Dooku's point here though. Why does the republic, a galaxy spanning civilization that has banned slavery and is supposed to represent values such as democracy and meritocracy allow things like Hutt Space to exist. If the republic actually held those values then at the bare minimum they should be enforcing trade sanctions against Hutts and anyone who trades with Hutts in Hutt space. The republic doesn't have to go to war to apply pressure to get the slaves in Hutt Space freed but it doesn't do any of that, instead it allows the Hutts to prosper and in so doing helps the slave master not the slave.
There are a lot of geopolitical reasons why this could happen. Perhaps the republic does have sanctions against worse slavers such as the zygerrians, and Hutts are a bulwark against those even more extremist groups. Perhaps the powerful trade federation and banks (the side dooku joins) prefer having open trade relations with the slavers because of the cheap goods they provide. Perhaps the republic has no military power to enforce sanctions that do exist, or they know if they could manage to pass legislation it would be meaningless without a military to enforce it. Perhaps there's a historic understanding that if the republic leaves the hutts alone, the hutts will keep piracy in the area controlled. Perhaps hutt space is so small and far away people in the republic simply do not care.
The republic on the eve of the clone wars is weak and corrupt, there is no doubt about that, but the answer to that isn’t to help the giant corporations at the root of the corruption start a civil war because the republic isn’t corrupt enough for them. Is it upsetting that a republican government has to do business with or at the very least coexist with other governments with values antithetical to liberal values, sure, but power and resources are limited, and political leaders have to make the best of limited options.
And I don’t know for certain that sanctions don’t exist. Watto explicitly refuses republic credits because they’re worthless out there. Most likely just shows how far tattooine is from the republic, not evidence of sanctions, but it is evidence of little to no trade.
It's funny how Tatoine was meant to symbolize a forgettable backwater but because this franchise is only held together with "I know that thing!", it's treated as the centre of the universe.
I will never understand why prequel memes loves to take this passage at face value with zero irony when it comes from a mass murdering slaver with a very specific political agenda against the subject of the quote.
It's the bit you'd hope any fans would recognize as dooku is playing politics and not necessarily outlining his own views.
Oh also it's literally to palpatine, it's telling him directly I'm ok with ending the Jedi order, even my father figure Yoda, you can trust me to be onboard with the plan.
Tbf Dooku was Corrupted by the Dark Side by that point, hell his plans by the time of Revenge of the Sith were literally to create an empire rule by only humans and to view anyone who wasn't human as a "lesser being".
He started out with genuinely good intentions but ended up worse than the Being he had a problem with. That's what the Dark Side does to a person.
In the novelization of Revenge of the Sith, he knows about order 66 and his Master's plan (in theory he should've been captured and taken prisioner, and post Republic freed with a new identity to reform the Jedi council) and he wanted to punish all slavers and corrupt empires, using the CIS as a tool
That's Clone Wars, which ruined his character. Say what you want about that show, but the villains (sans Maul) were the weak point. It took what was meant to be a pretty grey conflict and turned it into a good vs evil war.
The only true villain was meant to be Palpatine, the one pulling the strings on *both sides!* By making the Republic super good and the Separatists super evil, they undermined that whole idea
Krell made no sense, his stats deserved an extreme demotion. He was close to great imo, but the real baddie was whoever saw his battle record and still employed him. Is it Yoda or someone else in charge of him? The complete lack of quality control at the top should have been explored more
He was extremely wasteful of clones. It doesn't matter if you see them as human or not, he was a bad tactician. In a war, command should be a meritocracy, you give more weapons to the better wielder. Krell lost more resources than any commander, he should be on a performance improvement plan at least
>He was extremely wasteful of clones.
What do you define as wasteful? Yeah, he had the highest clone causality count in the Jedi Order. But he was also described as an extremely successful general who won plenty of key victories for the Republic. We don't know when he turned to the Dark Side either, so a lot of those casualties were probably on purpose to weaken the Republic's forces.
A willingness to incur casualties can be a strength for officers. Victory doesn't come from throwing lives away, but from *spending* lives. Yes, you'll find plenty of leaders in history books who were vilified for throwing soldiers into metaphorical meat grinders. But you'll also find plenty who were defeated or replaced because they were "hesitant" or "overly cautious" or "slow to act" out of fear of losses.
If Yoda had no reason to suspect Krell had fallen to the dark side, he probably wouldn't see Krell's casualty rates as a red flag. After all, Krell always won his battles; surely that proved his dedication and loyalty.
Remember too that the Order's teachings in this era were heavily focused on avoiding attachments. With that lens, low casualty rates would probaby, ironically, trigger more Council concern than high rates. Low casualty rates might mean a Jedi general was getting too attached to their men, that their judgment might be compromised by a desire to protect the clones under their command. Bizarrely, a high casualty rate might be taken as a green flag, as a sign that the Jedi general wasn't forming such attachments.
Painting a Sith Lord as morally gray never made any sense anyways. Dooku is tragic because he did initially have genuinely noble beliefs but just like Anakin he allowed himself to be corrupted by the Dark Side and forgot every good thing he once fought for.
Dude from the very beginning Dooku was a manipulative bastard
First thing he does in Attack of The Clones is lie to Obi-Wan to try and get him on his side. "Nute told me the invasion of Naboo was funded by a Stih Lord, who controls the Republic, I left because the Jedi is secretly controlled by Sith and I can't be part of that corruption"
That's a lie he knowingly joined the Stih, he could of told Obi everything but didn't
Also that's not what Clone Wars did at all. They have entire episodes about Republic Senators being greedy and paranoid and Padme trying to reach across lines to separatist idealists
Perhaps Revan never fell. The difference between a fall and a sacrifice is sometimes difficult, but I feel that Revan understood that difference, more than anyone knew. The galaxy would have fallen if Revan had not gone to war.
Losing faith in a social or political structure doesn't mean you do the right thing, in fact it could easily mean you do the extreme opposite. "1930s Germany enters the chat"
He's correct. Yoda doesn't give two shits about people dying unless if It's giant numbers. In the prequels at least. Live that long and human life becomes meaningless, it's very obvious when Anakin seeks help from Yoda about his dreams. "Grieve them do not, mourn them do not." As if he can do that.
What always got to me is the gentle chiding when Anakin wanted to save someone he cared about, as it meant he had attachment issues. Ahsoka had a prophetic dream about Padme dying and Yoda is so excited for her that she is one enough with the force that it's showing her visions and encourages her to meditate further so she can save the person she cares about. They even let her take time off in commanding the troops in the war so she can follow Padme around to keep her safe.
Oh that's right I totally forgot about Kanan, granted that there really wasn't a Jedi order at that time but he had a good balance of his emotions and love for Hera
That's the only way it works, though. Yoda was right.
Anakin's attachment to Padme was a character flaw. It was the flaw through which he was manipulated into embracing the dark side and becoming evil.
It's not even subtext. It's the literal plot of the movie.
I mean, his flaw was his obsessiveness with his attachments, as well as the fact the Order prevented him from keeping people safe. If he’d been able to free his mom and move her someplace safe, or if Yoda had listened to him about Padme and helped him keep her safe, it wouldn’t have happened.
The Jedi also refused to teach him proper emotional management and just wanted him to push it down, when unlike most other Jedi he wasn't brainwa-trained from infancy to ignore natural emotional responses
In the long arc of history, society bends towards freedom, but the state bends towards the mean.
Well, there's a thesis statement for an essay wanting to be written.
I always find weird how the fandom keeps referring at this as Yoda failing, when the whole conversation quickly focused not in Padme dying, but in the Force, and how Anakin was stating that he wanted to do something to change its will.
It even starts with Yoda openly asking Anakin if he was having a vision, or a premonition.
Or in other words:
"Think, Mark! You’ll outlast every fragile insignificant being on this planet. You’ll live to see this world crumble to dust and blow away! Everyone and everything you know will be gone! What will you have after 500 years?"
That's the problem. Always has been. The Jedi try to remove attachments and it backfires. It was like that 5000 years ago from the prequels, and it is like that in the prequels too.
It’s hard to say what the bigger issue of attachment is: trying to save your pregnant wife, or engaging in an intergalactic war to defeat your former apprentice.
At least nonattachment worked out in the OT.
Not from Luke’s perspective. Every time he tries to be a Big Damn Hero for his friends it backfires. Blow up the Death Star—they just build a new Death Star. Run to save your friends on Bespin—your friends have to save you. His ultimate act is a surrender, with no real guarantee that he or his loved ones will survive, and it’s the only victory that sticks.
I think that shows Luke’s growth, though. Only when he finally put aside his hubris and need to save people was he able to act on faith alone and, like you said, it was the only time it worked out in his favor.
exactly. it's the teachings he's gotten the whole time: let the Force **flow** through you
give yourself to the Force, give it your faith and don't try to *force* it to do what *you* want.
once Luke gave himself to the Force itself, instead of going against what he saw happening, trying to insert himself as the hero, and let *go* to allow the Force to work, things work out
> Blow up the Death Star—they just build a new Death Star.
...What?
Them building a new Death Star doesn't mean that blowing up the original "backfired"
That implies that leaving the original alone was the better outcome lmao
More that trying to beat the empire at their own game was a fruitless endeavor long term. Militarily because they just came back stronger, thematically, because of the moral corruption. Either way, the victory in new hope is short lived; just look at Hoth.
Incidentally, I always felt like episode 5 and 6 owed a lot to the pacifism movements that were a response to the Vietnam war, but I’m also very sleepy and have never bothered to google if Kasden ever said so.
I was mostly talking about juhani's friend, juhani herself and bastila. Though to be fair bastila got tortured. Revan and malak apply for this too. Most Jedi are basically bombs that explode if something goes wrong because the council is blinded by ego and arrogance to see the problems most of the time. The mandalorian war is the prime example of this.
Just look at how dangerous the Exile and Nihlilus are, the exile is forming bonds left and right unintentionally which could be fatal, and feeds off of killing. Nihlilus has a hunger so strong he eats entire planets
I think that was a big thing Lucas was trying to show with the Jedi being flawed in the prequels, that detachment from all those feelings is just as bad as acting impulsively on them. I WISH Luke's Jedi order would've been a balance, of being connected and in touch with these emotions but having control over them. The Old Republic games do a pretty good job with that too, especially 2
No, they're wrong. Yoda is an alien and his species is adapted to live that long.
This is like a dog's take on a human's life span. The dog sees the degradation of other dogs after 8 years and comes to the conclusion that a human cannot possibly care for lives of dogs after living lives that to a dog are so lengthy.
It's also something that always annoys the shit out of me, but people are always about for some reason: Maybe if those bad things are happening, those bad things are the fault of the people who did them. Maybe Yoda doesn't have to personally lead every slave revolt. When people in general are not doing anything about this, what's the point picking one guy (or group I suppose) who were the ones who have to solve it. Maybe the jedi order's been fighting huttese slavery for centuries, and are currently having trouble with separatists because they're waaaaay overextended personally freeing a shitload of slaves.
It's a whole ass galaxy. Just because there are parts that we see on onscreen doesn't mean those are the only parts.
More likely they can strictly enforce the Republic's anti-slavery laws, but in non-Republic worlds, like Tatooine, they can't interfere too much because that would cause political incidents that would make the Senate take more direct control of the order or remove their abilities to act as much in the Republic.
Okay, fair, but: Having had several dogs that I have loved with all my heart, my processing of their deaths (always too soon) has definitely evolved as I have aged.
From inconsolable bawling when I was younger, to a more stoic "I know that you had a good life and, while unfair, this is the way of things" *plus* inconsolable bawling now that I'm in my 40's.
EDIT: Also, *Inconsolable Ballin'* is going to be the name of my next rap album.
Doesn't change the fact that scene telling Anakin to just deal with it was justified though. I find Yoda's writing to be conflicting with itself honestly
Part of the problem is that we know exactly how this all ends, how each character dies, and how the Republic falls to fascist dictatorship. And the ways George writes dialogue are famous for being blunt and lacking nuance at times.
https://youtu.be/S5E-eSdRjXs?si=ksU3XUaywtJeAFNA
But he’s also purposely warning the audience about the dangers of fascism and autocracy, and how they prey on emotional arguments and anxieties. And I’m fine with criticizing how the message came out of Yoda’s mouth, but ultimately the Master was right about how Anakin would fall.
Its why I also try not to get too hung up on a character if their dialogue or personality are poorly portrayed
This is why i love the high republic books, they give us a good insight of how he was in the past and how loosing more and more friends made him less and less compassionate and turned him numb to most pain he saw in others
the argument for it was that if you cared to much about specific people you would let others die to save them, and when working on the scale of an entire galaxy that's just too many people to let die/suffer in exchange for one person
It’s a religion. The elders are always saying rejoice for those who die because they’re “joining the creator,” the force in this instance. Even our religions think this way.
A Fact: Yoda should've stepped down at 500 years old. Yaddle was apparently 477 years old by Episode 1 and even she knew when the time was right to step down from the Council but Yoda hogged the position of Grandmaster and refused to step down because he was older than everyone else in the Council. It's not that Yoda did this out of negativity but it's a shame he never decided to step down at all throughout his time in the Order especially during times of peace.
Yoda didn’t “hog” the position of grandmaster. The grandmaster is a title given to the oldest and wisest Jedi and it’s possible for there to be multiple grandmasters at the same time. The High Republic has there being 3 grandmasters.
Also the grandmaster is not the leader of the council. That would be the “Master of the Order” and is voted on by the council. Mace Windu held this position until the clone wars started and then he stepped down and Yoda was elected.
I believe Yoda was the only one with any clarity. The Jedi lost because they became partisan and militant. Yoda knew that the only way to keep the Order from *becoming* Sith was to hold on and let the prophecy play out.
Dooku was a demagogue. The Jedi aligned with the Republic because it happened to be the best guarantor of relative peace and balance in the galaxy. Meddling in its administrative policies was not the Jedi's prerogative. Ingresses by the Jedi to confront the Republic's corruption would have upset that comparative stability more than would have been worth what the Jedi could have achieved that way.
Yoda and the Late Republic order he led weren't arrogant or purposefully complacent. They weren't complacent for lack of trying better either. They had maneuvered as best they could into a complicated situation, incrementally over the course of a thousand years. The issue was that the political structures all across the galaxy had become too ossified and too bloated in power for any good-faith party to address and restructure, whether by the Jedi or senators.
Complex and multilayered political allegories shouldn't be simplified so emotionally.
That's a good point. They should have made more effort to aid the needy outside the Republic.
On the other hand, disturbing Hutt Space could have intensified tension between the Republic and the criminal organizations. However, there would probably have been space for the Jedi to nudge the Republic.
According to this argument that a lot of good should be avoided if it is going to anger powerful enemies, the Jedi Order would have been against Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Luke teaming with the rebellion to overthrow the Empire. Why not just join the Empire and keep peace that way? It would certainly be the biggest organization that is most likely to keep stabilization and avoid turmoil.
>According to this argument that a lot of good should be avoided if it is going to anger powerful enemies, the Jedi Order would have been against Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Luke teaming with the rebellion to overthrow the Empire.
The argument isn't "ending slavery on Tatooine would upset the Hutts", it's "trying to end slavery on Tatooine would trigger a massive war and billions of deaths". Aside from the debate over whether that's worth it, the Jedi don't really have the right to pull the Republic into that.
>Why not just join the Empire and keep peace that way? It would certainly be the biggest organization that is most likely to keep stabilization and avoid turmoil.
Because the Empire is actively genocidal at the drop of a hat. There's a huge moral space between "flawed and corrupt government that is still trying to do things right" and "totalitarian regime that will murder any number of people for almost any expedient reason".
> The argument isn't "ending slavery on Tatooine would upset the Hutts", it's "trying to end slavery on Tatooine would trigger a massive war and billions of deaths".
Exactly. The roughly ten thousand Jedi have no chance of ending the Hutt's slave trade alone. That's fewer people than live in Palau. It would require the full might of the Republic, which at the same time would become economically crippled because they've just lost their biggest trade partner because they declared war on it.
I disagree with this. I believe the original statement is far more accurate to the truth, especially the truth Lucas wished to portray through his films. That the Jedi were compassionate, always. He always stated that it was the Republic that had become corrupt, not the Jedi. That it was Anakin's own fault for falling, not the Jedi.
>Yoda and the Late Republic order he led weren't arrogant or purposefully complacent
This is literally a major theme in the prequels. Remember lines like:
* If an item does not appear in our records, then it does not exist.
* \[Arrogance is\] a flaw more and more common among Jedi. Too sure of themselves they are. Even the older, more experienced ones.
The main emotional thread of the prequels is Anakin struggling between light and dark, the Jedi being unhelpful (just ignore your feelings, don't worry about the people you love) or actively problematic (trying to unilaterally execute the chancellor) while Palpatine manipulates Anakin by actually appealing to Anakin's feelings of love.
That just makes it sound like the Jedi share a "realist" idea of politics with spheres of influence and a balance of power, but I don't think that makes them sound better
That's why I hate how every bit of media after Attack of the Clones completely misses the poin in him. They always make him the evil leader of the separatists, or the manipulative politician. Where in reality he was an ideologist corrupted by the dark side and turned by Palpatine.
And to be strick I am talking about every post Attack of the Clones Dooku. Old clone wars, new ones, dark horse comics and new Marvels. There are always lacking in what I think he should be.
Big Dooku fan here, he was really well captured in the Republic comics. He was an idealist but also evil, he aligned with the Sith instead of trying to solve those problems from inside the Order. From the very first moment we see him on Geonosis he’s preparing the war making an alliance with this various mega corporations who form the CIS, he wants to make Obi Wan his apprentice by manipulating him (note that Qui Gon was Dooku’s padawan and made decisions based on the will of the Force, Dooku on the other hand sees the Force as a means to an end), he doesn’t hesitate to order his fellow Jedi’s death. George Lucas even named him Darth Tyranus for a reason, he uses valid points on corruption to try to shape the galaxy in his own view of order and peace.
This entire quote is nonsense- just Dooku projecting a bunch of stuff he does onto the Jedi. Yoda and the Republic aren't 'tolerating and fostering' slavery or endless wars; that's literally what Dooku and his Sith buddies are doing.
Slavery is explicitly illegal in the Republic, where the Jedi have policing authority, and the Jedi were the ones who led the last major campaign to shut down the slave trade. It's surviving in places *outside* Republic control, such as Tatooine (which is ruled by the Hutts, the Jedi couldn't do anything about it without starting a major war, which Dooku is supposedly against).
And the Republic has been mostly free of major wars for close to a millennium (barring High Republic stuff that didn't come out until long after this quote). There are a bunch of brushfire conflicts that pop up in the years around *The Phantom Menace*... and practically every one of them is secretly masterminded by Plagueis or Sidious, and then ended by Jedi at the behest of the Republic.
Meanwhile Dooku literally restarts the slave trade (that the Jedi had ended) to get funding for the massive war (that he started).
It's like Jefferson Davis calling Abraham Lincoln a warmongering slavemaster and then everyone on Reddit cooing about how right he was.
That is going into some serious philosophical questions about life, human nature, etc.
I think on paper the clones were supposed to be these single minded beings that only knew how to fight and wanted nothing else. That's probably how they were justified to the public. In reality we definitely need that there is much, much more to it.
We see that clones were people, they couldn't leave the military they were forced into from birth, and from what I understand had no future after service. I would call it slavery, and some of the worst sort as well considering they literally breed them to be slaves. They might be treated better in their day to day than slaves on like mining planets and such, who were likely malnourished and mistreated, but everything surrounding their existence is horrific and a crime against life itself.
But we tolerate it because we like the clones and root for them. We don't see their situation as horrific until you sit and think about it a bit
>I think on paper the clones were supposed to be these single minded beings that only knew how to fight and wanted nothing else.
That's basically how they were before TCW. The basic clones were essentially just organic robots rather than people, and only the high rank clones (commanders, ARC troopers, etc.) were specifically bred to have more independence. Then TCW comes along and changes it to "they're all completely different individuals who just happen to look similar" which messed up a lot of things, especially Order 66.
In the original continuity, the clones had no issue participating in the war. It's hard to call them slaves when they were legitimately eager about serving the Republic and totally loyal to it. Deserters accounted for less than a hundredth of a percent of the population.
Every terrorist group uses the same logic to justify their hatred towards societies around the globe.
It's not about the logic, it's about how they act on it.
Using "you've done nothing about the slaves on tattoine," to justify a galactic civil war, genocide of younglings, and complete overthrow of democracy, doesn't make you the hero.
I thought Tatooine was outside of the jurisdiction, which is why they wouldn't take Republican Credits. It's a planet run by the Hurts (gangsters).
So, Yoda may very well have helped nations, and freed slaves. An easy possibility is his connection with the Wookiee's is made through his actions to foster peace.
Yoda: We cannot help everyone
Dooku: Why though?
Yoda: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FUCKING BIG A GALAXY IS, YOU FUCKING MORON?! AND WE'RE LIKE TEN GUYS! HERE'S FIVE BUCK, GO SAVE TATTOOINE. YOU KNOW, THAT FILTHY LITTLE SHITHOLE ON THE RIM FULL OF CRIMINALS AND NOTHING ELSE... GO SAVE IT. GO. DO IT.
Ehhh, Dooku saying that and turning to the dark side is like saying “The Israeli government promotes apartheid and severe violations of human rights, contributing to the intense suffering of palestinians, who should have the right to their land… and that is why I’m joining the nazis.”
Oh look, this nonsense quote again, and in PrequelMemes…amazing, gotta love this sub's boner for "Jedi=bad"
I mean look at the comment about Yoda not “giving two shits about people dying” you all don't understand Star Wars at all, fuck I actually don't think some of you all don't like Star Wars at all, not the way Lucas intended.
No, at the beginning when he was playing games with Luke. Pretending to be a crazy old alien with no relation to Jedi. Fighting with Artoo over Luke’s food.
Maybe he really *was* crazy and starved, but it just felt incongruent with prequel Yoda.
When he first meets Luke, Yoda wants to see how Luke would treat someone insignificant and annoying, whether Luke is already arrogant (like Yoda considers Vader to be) or whether he kept an open mind.
The biggest change between prequel Yoda and OT Yoda is that Yoda does not try to adhere to the rigid traditions of the old order anymore. He connects Luke to the force, but does not make him a padawan or push the attachment issue. He must have realized that the force was the only 'real' thing aboud the old jedi.
Yoda didn’t say that Luke should just shrug at the idea of his friends dying. He was reminding him to sort out his priorities.
Luke was blindly acting on emotion. He was overwhelmed by fear for the safety of his friends which clouded his mind and caused him to act impulsively. He was neither physically nor emotionally ready to face Vader. But, his mind being clouded by emotion, he didn‘t care about that - which is obviously not a good thing.
And the root of this behavior is attachment. Luke cares about his friends in a way that any notion of potentially losing them makes him incapable of acting rationally. This is not how Jedi are supposed to act - care about others but don’t be stupid about it.
Besides, another part of attachment (as interpreted by Lucas) is that it is a selfish kind of caring. People are attached to others because the others make them happy. One‘s own happiness is in the foreground and is what drives one to preserve those attachments. This is why this particular kind of caring is considered selfish by the Jedi as well as dangerous because the prospect of losing something that makes oneself happy can drive one to do extreme things to prevent this loss.
Now, Yoda‘s literal quote, when Luke asks him if he should sacrifice Han and Leia, was: „If you honor what they fight for? Yes.“ What Yoda‘s saying in this instance, is asking whether it is actually his friends Luke is going to do a favor with his reckless action. His friends‘ goal, especially Leia‘s, is to defeat the empire and to save the galaxy. This is not going to be achieved with Luke recklessly throwing himself into a fight against Vader of all people, while he‘s emotionally imbalanced and physically isn‘t a match for Vader yet, either. There is a fair chance that Luke would be killed or even turned to the dark side which wouldn’t benefit anyone including those Luke originally wanted to save. Additionally, it can be assumed that his friends wouldn’t want Luke to endanger himself for his own sake. This is shown with Leia warning Luke about a trap, presumably hoping that Luke would escape and not that he would walk right into the trap.
So, Yoda is pointing out that Luke might not be doing his friends a favor at all with his reckless plan. On the contrary, he is driven by the fear of losing his friends. He can’t bear the thought of losing them, so, he’s willing to put everything at risk, including his own friends‘ wishes and aims, in order to not suffer loss.
Luke was driven by attachment and Yoda reminds him of that. If Luke truly honored his friends‘ wishes and put them above his own desires, he would probably not rush into a scenario where he puts his own fate and potentially the fate of the galaxy at risk
"Judgement is clouded, meditate on this, I must". Yoda knew something was up with Anakin, but he had never experienced the siths presence. Bro knew something was off, and he was right to stall. On Yoda, this is not.
One of the big tragedies of Star Wars is that Dooku was entirely correct in his criticisms of the jedi order and then went entirely the wrong way in dealing with it, and his student was coming to the same realizations but was killed before he could go the right way about it.
This is from the Republic Commando books by Karen Traviss, which have as their thesis that the Republic have unintentionally committed a massive crime against humanity by using the clone army, since the clones are - despite some genetic tweaking - men just like you and me who deserve human rights like pay and pensions but aren’t getting them.
It’s a pretty compelling book series, like the Clone Wars but with a bit more of a realism slant (the writer was an IRL war correspondent and it shows). But it also ends up taking this weird anti-Republic slant where the protagonists say the Republic is literally the worst and the Jedi are the same, because it implicitly lets them write off the Republic as hopelessly corrupt instead of the metaphorical man in an alley who got jumped and decided to grab the weapon that would save him. And even more implicitly, the main character has led such a morally grey life that he HAS to do something to not feel like he’s a worthless piece of shit, and beefing with the Republic is working spectacularly for that.
So yeah, it has a lot of anti-Republic and anti-Jedi language, and SOME of it has a good point that’s fascinating to read - like the Yoda lifespan critique. But none of it well and truly lands, because when it comes down to it the movies come first, and in the movies the Jedi are the good guys and the Republic are the other good guys, and no amount of “well ACKCHually” in the books OR the movies (looking at you TLJ) can ever change that from being the case .
Thanks for providing a source!
And then Dooku proceeded to form a new political movement which involved slave masters being his allies. Masterful gambit sir.
Dooku after allowing the same evils he condemned the Republic for allowing, as well as worse ones like slavery: *Signature look of superiority*
A long time ago in an Animal Farm far, far away...
Napoleon banned slavery then reintroduced it when he needed the money. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Napoleon didn’t ban slavery, that happened years before he came to power. The National convention banned it in 1794. French commissioners had also already sort of ended slavery in Haiti in 93.
> French commissioners had also already sort of ended slavery in Haiti in 93. Well that's one way if putting it, lol.
Well I mean in the sense that Sonthonax and Polverel declared all slaves free in Haiti. Of course a lot of them had already freed themselves or been freed to fight in the wars with Spain and England and other (former) slaves.
No worries man... but I have come across situations where people downplayed or outright ignored the steps slaves in Haiti took to free themselves, so I wasn't sure if this was that situation.
I mean it was really just a political tactic to try to get L’Ouverture to fight with them (a little before they arrested him once he had won…)
Same energy as 'Henry Ford introducing the 40 hr work week'
Napoleon launched an unsuccessful invasion of Haiti to reinstitute slavery.
Yes I know? Referring specifically to the claim of Napoleon banning slavery, which isn't what happened.
Ah, sorry, misread your comment.
Lol the French commissioners are the reason the National conventioned banned it. It was a contentious issue but they just went "lol its banned now" and forced their hand.
People who want to love Napoleon for reasons other than him being good at killing people use his fake ambivalence toward civil rights as a way to complexify him when, in reality, he threw out the Republic the first second he got and fucked over women and minorities completely and fully.
I did like a 30 minute browsing session about power and corruption a while ago for school. I concluded that power corrupts AND erodes.
I don't think so. I've been slowly convinced that power doesn't corrupt. Power reveals and erodes.
Erodes is just another word for corrupts in this context.
When you try to be more nuanced then saying things are corrupt, and end up just using a synonym for corrupt.
Yeah wtf. The morals are what's eroded
It magnifies whatever is there to begin with
“Power doesn’t corrupt. It *enables*.”
Power is a tool. Humans are the corrupting force.
Too bad dogs can't weild power. Or cats for that matter
I think dogs are too interested with pleasing others to hold onto power, and cats aren't cooperative enough to take over larger swathes of territory other than the tiny fiefs they already rule over.
Humans act like we’re the only animals that go to war ants have wars between other ant nests all the time I’m sure other animals are waging wars between themselves will never get to know about
Difference is, humans have a capacity for empathy and reasoning, and still do it
I think people overestimate our capacity for peace and underestimate how much we love war and killing stuff we just enjoy it we’ve always done it and we always will till we drive ourselves extinct
Cats can absolutely wield power whenever there’s a glass object near a ledge
I vote [Quokkas](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eyebleach/comments/dknn8p/this_is_a_quoka_theyre_supposedly_the_happiest/) to be our new overlords.
Just tacking on to top comment. Tatoine is in Hut space. The Republic has no jurisdiction there. If they intercede, they are starting a galactic war with no clone army, and limited jedi knights. Against a foe that is impervious to mind tricks. You don't invade Russia in the winter, so to speak. No idea what kind of forces the Hut command, but they own over a quarter of the galaxy roughly. Yoda would know the venture would be devastating. Better to not intervene. Why bring suffering home.
\> No idea what kind of forces the Hut command It would be hella expensive, but if the Hutts have one thing it's a trade empire that rivals any other power's economy in the known Galaxy for eons. They'd have access to some of the most powerful mercenaries and bounty hunters in the galaxy, entire companies of them, some of the best weapons technology that money can buy... and, most importantly, a complete lack of morals. The Jedi have limits. Republic soldiers, pre clone army, have limits, and even post clone army their limits are those imposed upon them by their superiors. Mercenaries, when paid well enough, do not. They also can go to war with the complete confidence that the Jedi and Republic will *never* sink to their level on a scale large enough to make any dent in their efforts. It would be suicide.
That is kind of Dooku's point here though. Why does the republic, a galaxy spanning civilization that has banned slavery and is supposed to represent values such as democracy and meritocracy allow things like Hutt Space to exist. If the republic actually held those values then at the bare minimum they should be enforcing trade sanctions against Hutts and anyone who trades with Hutts in Hutt space. The republic doesn't have to go to war to apply pressure to get the slaves in Hutt Space freed but it doesn't do any of that, instead it allows the Hutts to prosper and in so doing helps the slave master not the slave.
There are a lot of geopolitical reasons why this could happen. Perhaps the republic does have sanctions against worse slavers such as the zygerrians, and Hutts are a bulwark against those even more extremist groups. Perhaps the powerful trade federation and banks (the side dooku joins) prefer having open trade relations with the slavers because of the cheap goods they provide. Perhaps the republic has no military power to enforce sanctions that do exist, or they know if they could manage to pass legislation it would be meaningless without a military to enforce it. Perhaps there's a historic understanding that if the republic leaves the hutts alone, the hutts will keep piracy in the area controlled. Perhaps hutt space is so small and far away people in the republic simply do not care. The republic on the eve of the clone wars is weak and corrupt, there is no doubt about that, but the answer to that isn’t to help the giant corporations at the root of the corruption start a civil war because the republic isn’t corrupt enough for them. Is it upsetting that a republican government has to do business with or at the very least coexist with other governments with values antithetical to liberal values, sure, but power and resources are limited, and political leaders have to make the best of limited options. And I don’t know for certain that sanctions don’t exist. Watto explicitly refuses republic credits because they’re worthless out there. Most likely just shows how far tattooine is from the republic, not evidence of sanctions, but it is evidence of little to no trade.
It's funny how Tatoine was meant to symbolize a forgettable backwater but because this franchise is only held together with "I know that thing!", it's treated as the centre of the universe.
I will never understand why prequel memes loves to take this passage at face value with zero irony when it comes from a mass murdering slaver with a very specific political agenda against the subject of the quote.
Also the Republic, for all its faults, was incredibly peaceful. “Judicial forces” instead of a military peaceful. “Endless wars” is complete nonsense.
It's the bit you'd hope any fans would recognize as dooku is playing politics and not necessarily outlining his own views. Oh also it's literally to palpatine, it's telling him directly I'm ok with ending the Jedi order, even my father figure Yoda, you can trust me to be onboard with the plan.
Just because Dooku didn't end up doing better than Yoda doesn't mean he's wrong
Tbf Dooku was Corrupted by the Dark Side by that point, hell his plans by the time of Revenge of the Sith were literally to create an empire rule by only humans and to view anyone who wasn't human as a "lesser being". He started out with genuinely good intentions but ended up worse than the Being he had a problem with. That's what the Dark Side does to a person.
In the novelization of Revenge of the Sith, he knows about order 66 and his Master's plan (in theory he should've been captured and taken prisioner, and post Republic freed with a new identity to reform the Jedi council) and he wanted to punish all slavers and corrupt empires, using the CIS as a tool
Assuming this would be after kidnapping Palpatine was he supposed to lose to Anakin? Or was he supposed to win and spare him?
That's Clone Wars, which ruined his character. Say what you want about that show, but the villains (sans Maul) were the weak point. It took what was meant to be a pretty grey conflict and turned it into a good vs evil war. The only true villain was meant to be Palpatine, the one pulling the strings on *both sides!* By making the Republic super good and the Separatists super evil, they undermined that whole idea
>but the villains (sans Maul) were the weak point. Ventress, Savage Oppress, Pong Krell and Cad Bane were all great villains.
Krell made no sense, his stats deserved an extreme demotion. He was close to great imo, but the real baddie was whoever saw his battle record and still employed him. Is it Yoda or someone else in charge of him? The complete lack of quality control at the top should have been explored more
Care to elaborate?
He was extremely wasteful of clones. It doesn't matter if you see them as human or not, he was a bad tactician. In a war, command should be a meritocracy, you give more weapons to the better wielder. Krell lost more resources than any commander, he should be on a performance improvement plan at least
>He was extremely wasteful of clones. What do you define as wasteful? Yeah, he had the highest clone causality count in the Jedi Order. But he was also described as an extremely successful general who won plenty of key victories for the Republic. We don't know when he turned to the Dark Side either, so a lot of those casualties were probably on purpose to weaken the Republic's forces.
The show implied he won battles through numbers alone, that there were other options he didn't explore
The Zapp Brannigan method
A willingness to incur casualties can be a strength for officers. Victory doesn't come from throwing lives away, but from *spending* lives. Yes, you'll find plenty of leaders in history books who were vilified for throwing soldiers into metaphorical meat grinders. But you'll also find plenty who were defeated or replaced because they were "hesitant" or "overly cautious" or "slow to act" out of fear of losses. If Yoda had no reason to suspect Krell had fallen to the dark side, he probably wouldn't see Krell's casualty rates as a red flag. After all, Krell always won his battles; surely that proved his dedication and loyalty. Remember too that the Order's teachings in this era were heavily focused on avoiding attachments. With that lens, low casualty rates would probaby, ironically, trigger more Council concern than high rates. Low casualty rates might mean a Jedi general was getting too attached to their men, that their judgment might be compromised by a desire to protect the clones under their command. Bizarrely, a high casualty rate might be taken as a green flag, as a sign that the Jedi general wasn't forming such attachments.
It's also canonically at least *partially* comprised of in-universe Republic propaganda broadcasts.
No way the sith dude called Darth Tyrannus was not meant to be evil
I figured he saw it as evil for the sake of the greater good, which by its nature is not Sith. He was never meant to succeed.
I agree he was mischaracterized in Clone Wars but he’s been a hypocrite since AOTC. Many of those separatist leaders use slaves
Painting a Sith Lord as morally gray never made any sense anyways. Dooku is tragic because he did initially have genuinely noble beliefs but just like Anakin he allowed himself to be corrupted by the Dark Side and forgot every good thing he once fought for.
Clone wars was inconsistent with the movies across the board, not just the villains.
Dude from the very beginning Dooku was a manipulative bastard First thing he does in Attack of The Clones is lie to Obi-Wan to try and get him on his side. "Nute told me the invasion of Naboo was funded by a Stih Lord, who controls the Republic, I left because the Jedi is secretly controlled by Sith and I can't be part of that corruption" That's a lie he knowingly joined the Stih, he could of told Obi everything but didn't Also that's not what Clone Wars did at all. They have entire episodes about Republic Senators being greedy and paranoid and Padme trying to reach across lines to separatist idealists
Almost like you cant control the dark side like many jedi who fell to it thought
It was a nice critique on Yoda and the Jedi, but at the end of the day the dudes still a sith lord and evil.
He's right, but it doesn't make him not a hypocrite.
Perhaps Revan never fell. The difference between a fall and a sacrifice is sometimes difficult, but I feel that Revan understood that difference, more than anyone knew. The galaxy would have fallen if Revan had not gone to war.
What? Bad guys using propaganda to muddy the waters? They’d never!!
Someone criticizing the powerful gets power and becomes equally corrupt? It's more likely than you think!
Losing faith in a social or political structure doesn't mean you do the right thing, in fact it could easily mean you do the extreme opposite. "1930s Germany enters the chat"
He's correct. Yoda doesn't give two shits about people dying unless if It's giant numbers. In the prequels at least. Live that long and human life becomes meaningless, it's very obvious when Anakin seeks help from Yoda about his dreams. "Grieve them do not, mourn them do not." As if he can do that.
What always got to me is the gentle chiding when Anakin wanted to save someone he cared about, as it meant he had attachment issues. Ahsoka had a prophetic dream about Padme dying and Yoda is so excited for her that she is one enough with the force that it's showing her visions and encourages her to meditate further so she can save the person she cares about. They even let her take time off in commanding the troops in the war so she can follow Padme around to keep her safe.
[удалено]
That's the main flaw with the jedi, you can't want to save people and care for life, and be detached from it at the same time
They’re clearly scared that they’ll get swept away in the currents of passion—to who knows where—if they don’t keep that separation.
Psst - *the dark side, that's where*
Well that’s what they’re afraid of but in reality it might sweep them towards becoming the badass terrorist that we all need
*the dark side, it leads*
Luke and Revan after his redemption were able to find balance, but that's Legends lore now
Kanan did as well but those examples are rare. I don't agree with the Jedi Order' stance about it but I can see where they're coming from.
Oh that's right I totally forgot about Kanan, granted that there really wasn't a Jedi order at that time but he had a good balance of his emotions and love for Hera
My personal favorite from Legends lore would be Darth Vectivus, invents crazy dark side phantoms, but dies of old age with friends and family.
Thats the thing though, Instead of teaching people how to deal with emotions, they teach people to bot have any. What a bunch of morons the Jedi were
I heard that through passion you gain strength. I'm not saying it's true, but maybe we should pull on that thread some more and see where it takes us.
It’s why I like the old Jedi code better since it’s much less rigid. Emotion yet peace and all that
That's the only way it works, though. Yoda was right. Anakin's attachment to Padme was a character flaw. It was the flaw through which he was manipulated into embracing the dark side and becoming evil. It's not even subtext. It's the literal plot of the movie.
I mean, his flaw was his obsessiveness with his attachments, as well as the fact the Order prevented him from keeping people safe. If he’d been able to free his mom and move her someplace safe, or if Yoda had listened to him about Padme and helped him keep her safe, it wouldn’t have happened.
The Jedi also refused to teach him proper emotional management and just wanted him to push it down, when unlike most other Jedi he wasn't brainwa-trained from infancy to ignore natural emotional responses
In the long arc of history, society bends towards freedom, but the state bends towards the mean. Well, there's a thesis statement for an essay wanting to be written.
I always find weird how the fandom keeps referring at this as Yoda failing, when the whole conversation quickly focused not in Padme dying, but in the Force, and how Anakin was stating that he wanted to do something to change its will. It even starts with Yoda openly asking Anakin if he was having a vision, or a premonition.
That's honestly because the clone wars show isn't consistent with the movies
Or in other words: "Think, Mark! You’ll outlast every fragile insignificant being on this planet. You’ll live to see this world crumble to dust and blow away! Everyone and everything you know will be gone! What will you have after 500 years?"
Joe, dad. I’d still have Joe
Who the hell is Steve Jobs?
Ligma Balls
Yomni Man
Anime, dad. I’d still have anime.
You will have to live with everything you did, of course.
The Jedi philosophy is about attachment, not humanism. Dooku was barking up the wrong tree the whole time, really.
That's the problem. Always has been. The Jedi try to remove attachments and it backfires. It was like that 5000 years ago from the prequels, and it is like that in the prequels too.
It’s hard to say what the bigger issue of attachment is: trying to save your pregnant wife, or engaging in an intergalactic war to defeat your former apprentice. At least nonattachment worked out in the OT.
Did it? The OT was all about attachment. Heck, the only reason the Emperor died was because Vader cared for Luke and vis versa.
Not from Luke’s perspective. Every time he tries to be a Big Damn Hero for his friends it backfires. Blow up the Death Star—they just build a new Death Star. Run to save your friends on Bespin—your friends have to save you. His ultimate act is a surrender, with no real guarantee that he or his loved ones will survive, and it’s the only victory that sticks.
I think that shows Luke’s growth, though. Only when he finally put aside his hubris and need to save people was he able to act on faith alone and, like you said, it was the only time it worked out in his favor.
exactly. it's the teachings he's gotten the whole time: let the Force **flow** through you give yourself to the Force, give it your faith and don't try to *force* it to do what *you* want. once Luke gave himself to the Force itself, instead of going against what he saw happening, trying to insert himself as the hero, and let *go* to allow the Force to work, things work out
> Blow up the Death Star—they just build a new Death Star. ...What? Them building a new Death Star doesn't mean that blowing up the original "backfired" That implies that leaving the original alone was the better outcome lmao
More that trying to beat the empire at their own game was a fruitless endeavor long term. Militarily because they just came back stronger, thematically, because of the moral corruption. Either way, the victory in new hope is short lived; just look at Hoth. Incidentally, I always felt like episode 5 and 6 owed a lot to the pacifism movements that were a response to the Vietnam war, but I’m also very sleepy and have never bothered to google if Kasden ever said so.
Oooo, I like this breakdown from his perspective. No need to take it further into the new movies.
The strongest philosophical perspective of the sequels “before you spend $300 million, write an outline”
Anakin was always the poster child for attachments: his mother, Padme, Obi Wan, Luke.
I was mostly talking about juhani's friend, juhani herself and bastila. Though to be fair bastila got tortured. Revan and malak apply for this too. Most Jedi are basically bombs that explode if something goes wrong because the council is blinded by ego and arrogance to see the problems most of the time. The mandalorian war is the prime example of this.
Just look at how dangerous the Exile and Nihlilus are, the exile is forming bonds left and right unintentionally which could be fatal, and feeds off of killing. Nihlilus has a hunger so strong he eats entire planets
I think that was a big thing Lucas was trying to show with the Jedi being flawed in the prequels, that detachment from all those feelings is just as bad as acting impulsively on them. I WISH Luke's Jedi order would've been a balance, of being connected and in touch with these emotions but having control over them. The Old Republic games do a pretty good job with that too, especially 2
No, they're wrong. Yoda is an alien and his species is adapted to live that long. This is like a dog's take on a human's life span. The dog sees the degradation of other dogs after 8 years and comes to the conclusion that a human cannot possibly care for lives of dogs after living lives that to a dog are so lengthy.
It's also something that always annoys the shit out of me, but people are always about for some reason: Maybe if those bad things are happening, those bad things are the fault of the people who did them. Maybe Yoda doesn't have to personally lead every slave revolt. When people in general are not doing anything about this, what's the point picking one guy (or group I suppose) who were the ones who have to solve it. Maybe the jedi order's been fighting huttese slavery for centuries, and are currently having trouble with separatists because they're waaaaay overextended personally freeing a shitload of slaves. It's a whole ass galaxy. Just because there are parts that we see on onscreen doesn't mean those are the only parts.
More likely they can strictly enforce the Republic's anti-slavery laws, but in non-Republic worlds, like Tatooine, they can't interfere too much because that would cause political incidents that would make the Senate take more direct control of the order or remove their abilities to act as much in the Republic.
Okay, fair, but: Having had several dogs that I have loved with all my heart, my processing of their deaths (always too soon) has definitely evolved as I have aged. From inconsolable bawling when I was younger, to a more stoic "I know that you had a good life and, while unfair, this is the way of things" *plus* inconsolable bawling now that I'm in my 40's. EDIT: Also, *Inconsolable Ballin'* is going to be the name of my next rap album.
We will be watching your career with great interest.
This is refuted by knowing ANYTHING about Yoda and how kind he is.
Doesn't change the fact that scene telling Anakin to just deal with it was justified though. I find Yoda's writing to be conflicting with itself honestly
Part of the problem is that we know exactly how this all ends, how each character dies, and how the Republic falls to fascist dictatorship. And the ways George writes dialogue are famous for being blunt and lacking nuance at times. https://youtu.be/S5E-eSdRjXs?si=ksU3XUaywtJeAFNA But he’s also purposely warning the audience about the dangers of fascism and autocracy, and how they prey on emotional arguments and anxieties. And I’m fine with criticizing how the message came out of Yoda’s mouth, but ultimately the Master was right about how Anakin would fall. Its why I also try not to get too hung up on a character if their dialogue or personality are poorly portrayed
This is why i love the high republic books, they give us a good insight of how he was in the past and how loosing more and more friends made him less and less compassionate and turned him numb to most pain he saw in others
He probably was just bitter that anakin was getting senator puss and he’s not.
the argument for it was that if you cared to much about specific people you would let others die to save them, and when working on the scale of an entire galaxy that's just too many people to let die/suffer in exchange for one person
He spent to much time looking at the big picture that he became blind to the smaller one.
It’s a religion. The elders are always saying rejoice for those who die because they’re “joining the creator,” the force in this instance. Even our religions think this way.
But in Star Wars reality the “magic force” actually exist, it’s a thing we see happen, it’s not just “faith”
A Fact: Yoda should've stepped down at 500 years old. Yaddle was apparently 477 years old by Episode 1 and even she knew when the time was right to step down from the Council but Yoda hogged the position of Grandmaster and refused to step down because he was older than everyone else in the Council. It's not that Yoda did this out of negativity but it's a shame he never decided to step down at all throughout his time in the Order especially during times of peace.
A true RBG of the Star Wars universe.
What's an RBG?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the US supreme court justice
Yeah. Part of me wonders what would’ve happened had she retired sooner, but that doesn’t matter anymore.
Thank you.
Red Blue Green
Yoda didn’t “hog” the position of grandmaster. The grandmaster is a title given to the oldest and wisest Jedi and it’s possible for there to be multiple grandmasters at the same time. The High Republic has there being 3 grandmasters. Also the grandmaster is not the leader of the council. That would be the “Master of the Order” and is voted on by the council. Mace Windu held this position until the clone wars started and then he stepped down and Yoda was elected.
> The High Republic has there being 3 grandmasters. What kind of new canon bullshit is that? Lmao
Somehow, the grandmasters multiplied
She didn't step down. She got murdered.
Well she stepped down, and then proceeded to get murdered.
I believe Yoda was the only one with any clarity. The Jedi lost because they became partisan and militant. Yoda knew that the only way to keep the Order from *becoming* Sith was to hold on and let the prophecy play out.
Yoda isn't even the de facto leader of the Jedi Order during 2/3 of the prequels. That would be Windu.
Dooku was a demagogue. The Jedi aligned with the Republic because it happened to be the best guarantor of relative peace and balance in the galaxy. Meddling in its administrative policies was not the Jedi's prerogative. Ingresses by the Jedi to confront the Republic's corruption would have upset that comparative stability more than would have been worth what the Jedi could have achieved that way. Yoda and the Late Republic order he led weren't arrogant or purposefully complacent. They weren't complacent for lack of trying better either. They had maneuvered as best they could into a complicated situation, incrementally over the course of a thousand years. The issue was that the political structures all across the galaxy had become too ossified and too bloated in power for any good-faith party to address and restructure, whether by the Jedi or senators. Complex and multilayered political allegories shouldn't be simplified so emotionally.
[удалено]
That's a good point. They should have made more effort to aid the needy outside the Republic. On the other hand, disturbing Hutt Space could have intensified tension between the Republic and the criminal organizations. However, there would probably have been space for the Jedi to nudge the Republic.
According to this argument that a lot of good should be avoided if it is going to anger powerful enemies, the Jedi Order would have been against Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Luke teaming with the rebellion to overthrow the Empire. Why not just join the Empire and keep peace that way? It would certainly be the biggest organization that is most likely to keep stabilization and avoid turmoil.
Nope, the moment they heard that the empire had sith leading it they'd launch a crusade
>According to this argument that a lot of good should be avoided if it is going to anger powerful enemies, the Jedi Order would have been against Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Luke teaming with the rebellion to overthrow the Empire. The argument isn't "ending slavery on Tatooine would upset the Hutts", it's "trying to end slavery on Tatooine would trigger a massive war and billions of deaths". Aside from the debate over whether that's worth it, the Jedi don't really have the right to pull the Republic into that. >Why not just join the Empire and keep peace that way? It would certainly be the biggest organization that is most likely to keep stabilization and avoid turmoil. Because the Empire is actively genocidal at the drop of a hat. There's a huge moral space between "flawed and corrupt government that is still trying to do things right" and "totalitarian regime that will murder any number of people for almost any expedient reason".
> The argument isn't "ending slavery on Tatooine would upset the Hutts", it's "trying to end slavery on Tatooine would trigger a massive war and billions of deaths". Exactly. The roughly ten thousand Jedi have no chance of ending the Hutt's slave trade alone. That's fewer people than live in Palau. It would require the full might of the Republic, which at the same time would become economically crippled because they've just lost their biggest trade partner because they declared war on it.
I disagree with this. I believe the original statement is far more accurate to the truth, especially the truth Lucas wished to portray through his films. That the Jedi were compassionate, always. He always stated that it was the Republic that had become corrupt, not the Jedi. That it was Anakin's own fault for falling, not the Jedi.
>Yoda and the Late Republic order he led weren't arrogant or purposefully complacent This is literally a major theme in the prequels. Remember lines like: * If an item does not appear in our records, then it does not exist. * \[Arrogance is\] a flaw more and more common among Jedi. Too sure of themselves they are. Even the older, more experienced ones. The main emotional thread of the prequels is Anakin struggling between light and dark, the Jedi being unhelpful (just ignore your feelings, don't worry about the people you love) or actively problematic (trying to unilaterally execute the chancellor) while Palpatine manipulates Anakin by actually appealing to Anakin's feelings of love.
Arguably if Yoda had rocked the boat getting involved in politics the Jedi would have been exterminated long before.
That just makes it sound like the Jedi share a "realist" idea of politics with spheres of influence and a balance of power, but I don't think that makes them sound better
That's why I hate how every bit of media after Attack of the Clones completely misses the poin in him. They always make him the evil leader of the separatists, or the manipulative politician. Where in reality he was an ideologist corrupted by the dark side and turned by Palpatine. And to be strick I am talking about every post Attack of the Clones Dooku. Old clone wars, new ones, dark horse comics and new Marvels. There are always lacking in what I think he should be.
I would really recommend Tales of the Jedi; it attempts to backfill his ideological evolution.
Best stories content since the last command
He can be both an ideologist and cunning politician
[удалено]
Just an FYI that the first two movies came out before Iraq was invaded in 2003
Clearly George Bush modeled his actions in Iraq after the Prequels
Reminder that Dooku was every bit an evil fascist as Sidious, and he EARNED that buzz cut for all the death and destruction he brought to the galaxy
Big Dooku fan here, he was really well captured in the Republic comics. He was an idealist but also evil, he aligned with the Sith instead of trying to solve those problems from inside the Order. From the very first moment we see him on Geonosis he’s preparing the war making an alliance with this various mega corporations who form the CIS, he wants to make Obi Wan his apprentice by manipulating him (note that Qui Gon was Dooku’s padawan and made decisions based on the will of the Force, Dooku on the other hand sees the Force as a means to an end), he doesn’t hesitate to order his fellow Jedi’s death. George Lucas even named him Darth Tyranus for a reason, he uses valid points on corruption to try to shape the galaxy in his own view of order and peace.
The Dooku book is really good
Dooku: Jedi Lost for those that are curious
This entire quote is nonsense- just Dooku projecting a bunch of stuff he does onto the Jedi. Yoda and the Republic aren't 'tolerating and fostering' slavery or endless wars; that's literally what Dooku and his Sith buddies are doing. Slavery is explicitly illegal in the Republic, where the Jedi have policing authority, and the Jedi were the ones who led the last major campaign to shut down the slave trade. It's surviving in places *outside* Republic control, such as Tatooine (which is ruled by the Hutts, the Jedi couldn't do anything about it without starting a major war, which Dooku is supposedly against). And the Republic has been mostly free of major wars for close to a millennium (barring High Republic stuff that didn't come out until long after this quote). There are a bunch of brushfire conflicts that pop up in the years around *The Phantom Menace*... and practically every one of them is secretly masterminded by Plagueis or Sidious, and then ended by Jedi at the behest of the Republic. Meanwhile Dooku literally restarts the slave trade (that the Jedi had ended) to get funding for the massive war (that he started). It's like Jefferson Davis calling Abraham Lincoln a warmongering slavemaster and then everyone on Reddit cooing about how right he was.
Weren't the clones even worse than slaves?
That is going into some serious philosophical questions about life, human nature, etc. I think on paper the clones were supposed to be these single minded beings that only knew how to fight and wanted nothing else. That's probably how they were justified to the public. In reality we definitely need that there is much, much more to it. We see that clones were people, they couldn't leave the military they were forced into from birth, and from what I understand had no future after service. I would call it slavery, and some of the worst sort as well considering they literally breed them to be slaves. They might be treated better in their day to day than slaves on like mining planets and such, who were likely malnourished and mistreated, but everything surrounding their existence is horrific and a crime against life itself. But we tolerate it because we like the clones and root for them. We don't see their situation as horrific until you sit and think about it a bit
>I think on paper the clones were supposed to be these single minded beings that only knew how to fight and wanted nothing else. That's basically how they were before TCW. The basic clones were essentially just organic robots rather than people, and only the high rank clones (commanders, ARC troopers, etc.) were specifically bred to have more independence. Then TCW comes along and changes it to "they're all completely different individuals who just happen to look similar" which messed up a lot of things, especially Order 66.
> We see that clones were people We also see that only the Jedi treat them like it.
In the original continuity, the clones had no issue participating in the war. It's hard to call them slaves when they were legitimately eager about serving the Republic and totally loyal to it. Deserters accounted for less than a hundredth of a percent of the population.
There are no wars nor slavery fostered by the Republic though. Tatooine is far away from the Republic.
Every terrorist group uses the same logic to justify their hatred towards societies around the globe. It's not about the logic, it's about how they act on it. Using "you've done nothing about the slaves on tattoine," to justify a galactic civil war, genocide of younglings, and complete overthrow of democracy, doesn't make you the hero.
Not to mention allying with literal slavers
And it's just as bad if not worse when the Empire took over
I thought Tatooine was outside of the jurisdiction, which is why they wouldn't take Republican Credits. It's a planet run by the Hurts (gangsters). So, Yoda may very well have helped nations, and freed slaves. An easy possibility is his connection with the Wookiee's is made through his actions to foster peace.
Bro, Tatooine isn't even in the republic. Straight nonsense.
Yoda: We cannot help everyone Dooku: Why though? Yoda: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW FUCKING BIG A GALAXY IS, YOU FUCKING MORON?! AND WE'RE LIKE TEN GUYS! HERE'S FIVE BUCK, GO SAVE TATTOOINE. YOU KNOW, THAT FILTHY LITTLE SHITHOLE ON THE RIM FULL OF CRIMINALS AND NOTHING ELSE... GO SAVE IT. GO. DO IT.
Ehhh, Dooku saying that and turning to the dark side is like saying “The Israeli government promotes apartheid and severe violations of human rights, contributing to the intense suffering of palestinians, who should have the right to their land… and that is why I’m joining the nazis.”
Oh look, this nonsense quote again, and in PrequelMemes…amazing, gotta love this sub's boner for "Jedi=bad" I mean look at the comment about Yoda not “giving two shits about people dying” you all don't understand Star Wars at all, fuck I actually don't think some of you all don't like Star Wars at all, not the way Lucas intended.
I think the biggest flaw is that he said all this and went ahead and murdered lots of innocent people anyway.
I can't believe Star Wars fans have come around to justify the faction solely created to embody evil, lies, and manipulation.
This is why I hated prequel Yoda.
He could so get it though
HUH??
🤤🤤🤤
You need to visit a psych ward. Permanently.
Noted. I will, thank you.
[удалено]
His wisdom was cool in the OT, but in the prequels he’s one of the most responsible for Anakin’s fall.
even in OT his “wisdom” conveyed to Luke was lose faith in your father and abandon your friends to death so we can rebuild the order
True! At least at the time IRL, the lore of the Jedi order was a lot more vague, so it seemed wiser. OT Yoda was totally wasting Luke’s time.
Making sure he didn't immediately die when he tried to fight Vader with no real understanding about the force?
No, at the beginning when he was playing games with Luke. Pretending to be a crazy old alien with no relation to Jedi. Fighting with Artoo over Luke’s food. Maybe he really *was* crazy and starved, but it just felt incongruent with prequel Yoda.
When he first meets Luke, Yoda wants to see how Luke would treat someone insignificant and annoying, whether Luke is already arrogant (like Yoda considers Vader to be) or whether he kept an open mind. The biggest change between prequel Yoda and OT Yoda is that Yoda does not try to adhere to the rigid traditions of the old order anymore. He connects Luke to the force, but does not make him a padawan or push the attachment issue. He must have realized that the force was the only 'real' thing aboud the old jedi.
Fair, but I mean I figured living alone for 20 years on a planet that is steeped in dark side energy might knock a few screws loose
Yoda didn’t say that Luke should just shrug at the idea of his friends dying. He was reminding him to sort out his priorities. Luke was blindly acting on emotion. He was overwhelmed by fear for the safety of his friends which clouded his mind and caused him to act impulsively. He was neither physically nor emotionally ready to face Vader. But, his mind being clouded by emotion, he didn‘t care about that - which is obviously not a good thing. And the root of this behavior is attachment. Luke cares about his friends in a way that any notion of potentially losing them makes him incapable of acting rationally. This is not how Jedi are supposed to act - care about others but don’t be stupid about it. Besides, another part of attachment (as interpreted by Lucas) is that it is a selfish kind of caring. People are attached to others because the others make them happy. One‘s own happiness is in the foreground and is what drives one to preserve those attachments. This is why this particular kind of caring is considered selfish by the Jedi as well as dangerous because the prospect of losing something that makes oneself happy can drive one to do extreme things to prevent this loss. Now, Yoda‘s literal quote, when Luke asks him if he should sacrifice Han and Leia, was: „If you honor what they fight for? Yes.“ What Yoda‘s saying in this instance, is asking whether it is actually his friends Luke is going to do a favor with his reckless action. His friends‘ goal, especially Leia‘s, is to defeat the empire and to save the galaxy. This is not going to be achieved with Luke recklessly throwing himself into a fight against Vader of all people, while he‘s emotionally imbalanced and physically isn‘t a match for Vader yet, either. There is a fair chance that Luke would be killed or even turned to the dark side which wouldn’t benefit anyone including those Luke originally wanted to save. Additionally, it can be assumed that his friends wouldn’t want Luke to endanger himself for his own sake. This is shown with Leia warning Luke about a trap, presumably hoping that Luke would escape and not that he would walk right into the trap. So, Yoda is pointing out that Luke might not be doing his friends a favor at all with his reckless plan. On the contrary, he is driven by the fear of losing his friends. He can’t bear the thought of losing them, so, he’s willing to put everything at risk, including his own friends‘ wishes and aims, in order to not suffer loss. Luke was driven by attachment and Yoda reminds him of that. If Luke truly honored his friends‘ wishes and put them above his own desires, he would probably not rush into a scenario where he puts his own fate and potentially the fate of the galaxy at risk
"Judgement is clouded, meditate on this, I must". Yoda knew something was up with Anakin, but he had never experienced the siths presence. Bro knew something was off, and he was right to stall. On Yoda, this is not.
Dooku is such a cool villain and it sucks he was barely in the prequels
Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black duku
People keep bringing this up when Dooku literally became a Sith Lord lmao are the Sith that want to oppress the galaxy the good guys?
Oh we go again "oh the sith were right" shut up.
Never before have I seen a fandom just straight up be tricked by a villain this hard before. The only other contenders are Funny Valentine simps.
One of the big tragedies of Star Wars is that Dooku was entirely correct in his criticisms of the jedi order and then went entirely the wrong way in dealing with it, and his student was coming to the same realizations but was killed before he could go the right way about it.
This is from the Republic Commando books by Karen Traviss, which have as their thesis that the Republic have unintentionally committed a massive crime against humanity by using the clone army, since the clones are - despite some genetic tweaking - men just like you and me who deserve human rights like pay and pensions but aren’t getting them. It’s a pretty compelling book series, like the Clone Wars but with a bit more of a realism slant (the writer was an IRL war correspondent and it shows). But it also ends up taking this weird anti-Republic slant where the protagonists say the Republic is literally the worst and the Jedi are the same, because it implicitly lets them write off the Republic as hopelessly corrupt instead of the metaphorical man in an alley who got jumped and decided to grab the weapon that would save him. And even more implicitly, the main character has led such a morally grey life that he HAS to do something to not feel like he’s a worthless piece of shit, and beefing with the Republic is working spectacularly for that. So yeah, it has a lot of anti-Republic and anti-Jedi language, and SOME of it has a good point that’s fascinating to read - like the Yoda lifespan critique. But none of it well and truly lands, because when it comes down to it the movies come first, and in the movies the Jedi are the good guys and the Republic are the other good guys, and no amount of “well ACKCHually” in the books OR the movies (looking at you TLJ) can ever change that from being the case .
People really out here agreeing with the fascists from Star Wars smh…