Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

OK, newbie here who's been reading around the forums for a while now. I checked through several pages of the archives, and I didn't see one subject from the 1st movie addressed. Forgive me if I missed it.

Anakin is supposed to be a slave correct? Now when I picture a slave I think of someone working endlessly at menial labor without pay and sometimes cruelly supervised.

Anakin was a slave who seemed to work after school for the local salvage yard. Shmi is never seen working. Anakin and mom have enough money for Ani to constuct several Tatooine equivalents of a Formula 1 racecar. And enough money to build a sophisticated droid. They also eat fresh fruit which I assume would be rather pricey on a desert planet instead of the Tatooine equivalent of rice and bread.

Wouldn't it have made a tad more sense to have Ani and mom actually be treated like slaves? Have them do hard labor under the two suns for a master who at least is verbally abusive, with attacks by Tuscan raiders always a threat. When the Naboo craft has to land in the middle of nowhere, there's an easy setup for Qui Gon and Ani to encounter each other. Then in Ep 2, have the slave owner steal Shmi back from the Lars and end up killing her, leading to a little dark side whooping from Anakin.

I think this does several things. It accentuates the underlying anger within Anakin that would arise from such an upbringing. Having been controlled rather cruelly as a child it would also explain his desire for control shown and his thirst to be in power in the following episodes.

You would still want Anakin to act like a typical happy go lucky kid for the most part so you don't hammer the audience with " this kid's gonna be a psycho Sith when he grows up". Maybe a flash of anger a little stronger than his statement to Padme that he's a person not a slave.

For a guy who had 16 years to think up how to write a story for three movies where he already knew the ultimate ending, Lucas went completely wrong on several key issues. I think this is one big one.
Any comments?

Just cause they were slaves doesn't mean they were treated badly.

Not all slave masters were the hell-bent, abusive, forceful bastards that people say they are. Majority of people who owned slaves only had 1-3 of them. Not enough to really work a field...so they did housework.

Anakin does 'house'work at the shop. Meanwhile, the racer he has being built hasn't been made from purchased parts, but rather salvaged parts from Watto's shop. If they had enough money to buy those parts, they'd live somewhere else.

Lastly, Anakin's true reason's for joining the darkside is more subtle than simply just hating people. He essentially lost his mother at age 9, and believe it or not, sees Padme as a mother figure more than a lover. He's always needed a woman's touch of some kind in his life. Shmi's death is significant. His outburst of rage afterward isn't as much so. It's simply telling us that Anakin has only one other woman in his life, Padme. When she 'turns' on him (ie, chooses integrity rather than power), he loses the last woman in his life and turns. I honestly believe had Shmi been alive, or more of a force in his life, he wouldn't have turned at all. The fact is, he WAS too old. He grew attached to his home, to his mother, and leaving it took him from his normal familiar situation to an alien world that he was only vaguely aware existed.

And the fact he's such a 'happy go lucky' kid, as you say, makes the change that more drastic, which makes it that much more dramatic. And in movie making, drama is good.

Your view of slavery seems to be based on the American model. In fact, this is more Roman, where a fair master could easily keep a relatively happy household.

The definition of a slave is that he is the property of another. That makes no automatic assumption about how that slave is then treated.

It os, of couse, still morally wrong to be enslaved.

Anakin is like Watto's R2 unit... only he can't sprout jets from his feet or extend a rod from his body to insert into a... oh, wait...

but yeah Ush is right

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your view of slavery seems to be based on the American model. In fact, this is more Roman, where a fair master could easily keep a relatively happy household.

The definition of a slave is that he is the property of another. That makes no automatic assumption about how that slave is then treated.

It os, of couse, still morally wrong to be enslaved.
1) Many, if not most slaves, were relatively well treated.
2)True.
3) Depends, if someone broke something, then he/she should work it off and pay back the owner.

ok, lets not even get into "well treated slaves". as much as i would like to tear that disgusting oxymoron apart, wrong forum.

and yeah, anakin built 3p0 and the pod racer from salvaged parts. the whole point is we're supposed to think "wow, he took watto's garbage and turned it into a protocol droid and a winning racing pod...what a genius"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your view of slavery seems to be based on the American model. In fact, this is more Roman, where a fair master could easily keep a relatively happy household.

The definition of a slave is that he is the property of another. That makes no automatic assumption about how that slave is then treated.

It os, of couse, still morally wrong to be enslaved.

American slaves were not always treated tha tway. Alot of them had fair masters who were kind people.

more of this bullshit about fair slavemasters.
do you people even think about that? please STFU

Originally posted by PVS
ok, lets not even get into "well treated slaves". as much as i would like to tear that disgusting oxymoron apart, wrong forum.

and yeah, anakin built 3p0 and the pod racer from salvaged parts. the whole point is we're supposed to think "wow, he took watto's garbage and turned it into a protocol droid and a winning racing pod...what a genius"

You have such a set view of everything, and it's incredibly negative.

Countrary to what you'd like to believe, there were well treated slaves in Roman times, and oftentimes it was in their benefit to be "bought" by a patron family who could pay for their lifestyles. In a civilization where everyone was two weeks away from starvation, such a system worked and flourished. So the problem here is that you are projecting your bias onto the situation and viewing it in a negative light.

PVS welltreated Slaves is not an oxymoron...and I don't really know why you react so aggressve.

But anyways actually what Obidad said sounds like a better story...i didn't like that scenes at all...they just weren't realistic, or good for the further path of the movie.

Originally posted by PVS
more of this bullshit about fair slavemasters.
do you people even think about that? please STFU

Bullshit? I'm guessing you've never heard of the Romans or of many slavemasters in the south who taught the blacks how to read and some actually paid them? I think that deserves a pic.

NOOB? Dude, PVS has been here for over a year.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
NOOB? Dude, PVS has been here for over a year.

Ya ,but saying STFU noobs cuz he's wrong, I think that's pretty noobish, don't you agree?

General Clarification:
n00b: Dumbass, troll, etc.
Newb: Short for newbie, as in "newly being".

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
You have such a set view of everything, and it's incredibly negative.

Countrary to what you'd like to believe, there were well treated slaves in Roman times, and oftentimes it was in their benefit to be "bought" by a patron family who could pay for their lifestyles. In a civilization where everyone was two weeks away from starvation, such a system worked and flourished. So the problem here is that you are projecting your bias onto the situation and viewing it in a negative light.


you are an ignorant screwball if you would dare argue that it was humane in any way to own another human being. thats all i have to say to you. good day sir

Originally posted by Hornyman
Bullshit? I'm guessing you've never heard of the Romans or of many slavemasters in the south who taught the blacks how to read and some actually paid them? I think that deserves a pic.

NOOB? did mr. 5/05 just call me a n00b???? thats so cute
and since you just love your little pictures, here's one you should take heed to:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/HEAD_ASS.jpg

Originally posted by PVS
you are an ignorant screwball if you would dare argue that it was humane in any way to own another human being. thats all i have to say to you. good day sir



NOOB? did mr. 5/05 just call me a n00b???? thats so cute
and since you just love your little pictures, here's one you should take heed to:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/HEAD_ASS.jpg



Wow. That's just great. You find so many different ways to get aronud the issue at hand.

Yeah, he's a regular debater.

Must have issues to act out like that.

Like this kid.

Originally posted by Hornyman


Wow. That's just great. You find so many different ways to get aronud the issue at hand.

derp derp derp

the 'issue' is anakin's slavery. you know....the topic?

you people should be slaves for your ignorance.
well treated slaves that is.

I think the best part was I wasn't even trying to argue it was humane or moral to own another human being... I was simply trying to make sure our friend PVS here knew the difference between abusive slave owners and non-abusive. Obviously, he just makes general assumptions.

Originally posted by Hornyman
Alot of them had fair masters who were kind people.

thats the point i was arguing. "fair" and "kind"
but you dont care do you? just interested in pecking as always


obviously, janus just likes to talk about people he follows around and flames in the third person, because he's completely full of himself.

oh i can sense your vigorous typing of yet another flame

PVS this and PVS that....i cant wait

Originally posted by PVS
thats the point i was arguing. "fair" and "kind"
but you dont care do you? just interested in pecking as always


obviously, janus just likes to talk about people he follows around and flames in the third person, because he's completely full of himself.

But you weren't arguing, you were just stating your opinion and insulting anyone who disagreed. You cannot say with any degree of certainty that there were slaveowners who -weren't- fair or kind or both, because you don't know. And since you don't have any proof, you are relying on a generalization and popular opinion on slavery and calling it the truth.

And as for "following you around and flaming you in the third person", you must be incredibly full of yourself. I don't follow you around, much to your dismay, and my interest in this thread began long before you showed up to give use your two cents. And remember who started the flame war here... Oh wait, that would be you, huh?

you finished?

ok, let me be brief: i dont care what you think of me. lets just get that out of the way.

anyway, human beings being owned as property and thus denied basic human rights by default is neither fair nor kind. if you cant see that, then i pity you. not in a "i dont like you" kind of way, but genuine pity.

thats all i have to say. have your last nonsensical word and that'll be the end of it.

go on then...

So you're basically saying that anyone who either a) owned of slavery or b) approved of slavery could be neither kind nor fair, even if in other fields of life?

Wow, talk about narrow minded.

Well, of course, slavery as a whole is a terrible thing, something that should never be supported. And PVS, if you read carefully, no one here supported slavery. They merely took what you said about "everyone who possessed slaves was terrible" and corrected it; they may have used the service that was slavery, but that does not automatically put them in the category of the cruel, disgusting, prejudiced masters that too many beings were.

Originally posted by Darth Faunus
Well, of course, slavery as a whole is a terrible thing, something that should never be supported. And PVS, if you read carefully, no one here supported slavery. They merely took what you said about "everyone who possessed slaves was terrible" and corrected it; they may have used the service that was slavery, but that does not automatically put them in the category of the cruel, disgusting, prejudiced masters that too many beings were.

Exactly.

"everyone who possessed slaves was terrible"

dont misquote me. its no way to prove a point.

i merely stated that slavery was in no way "fair" and "kind".
just because someone didnt face abuse, doesnt make it ok.

and yes, it DOES automatically make them prejudicial bigots to be slavemasters. to own another human being is to believe that you are better than them, above them, more human than them.

ffs i can believe im actually arguing this. this is just disturbing.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
You have such a set view of everything, and it's incredibly negative.

Countrary to what you'd like to believe, there were well treated slaves in Roman times, and oftentimes it was in their benefit to be "bought" by a patron family who could pay for their lifestyles. In a civilization where everyone was two weeks away from starvation, such a system worked and flourished. So the problem here is that you are projecting your bias onto the situation and viewing it in a negative light.

This was what I said, to which you replied:

"you are an ignorant screwball if you would dare argue that it was humane in any way to own another human being. thats all i have to say to you. good day sir"

Initially, I thought you were saying well-treated slaves could not exist. To which you apparently thought I meant slavery was humane. We were both wrong on those assumptions. Fair enough for you?

Originally posted by Darth_Janus

"you are an ignorant screwball if you would dare argue that it was humane in any way to own another human being. thats all i have to say to you. good day sir"

correct

Originally posted by Darth_Janus

Initially, I thought you were saying well-treated slaves could not exist.

i did say that. they dont exist and never did. the very act of owning a slave is the commiting of a grave injustice. you seem to think that since they didnt abuse them, then it was ok. well im saying it wasnt. maybe those people didnt know that what they were doing was evil, but it was. the evil: denial of basic human freedom.

i hope thats clear enough, because thats what i believe down to my core. i hope that suits your pallet, because i wont compromise that view just to avoid a conflict.

Never asked you to compromise your view, but at least try not to distort mine. There is a difference between well-treated slaves and poorly treated slaves; it's that issue that made this thread pop up. And you are seeming to make no distinction between the two when there is... I'm not arguing either case is morally right. They're not. But I am arguing that there is a difference and to stereotype everyone who believes in slavery or practices it as evil is a bit too simple.

You should admit it IS possible for people who are otherwise good to have bad moral judgment on singular issues. Many people who advocate good will and even religion advocate the war in Iraq. They may be good people outside of that decision, but in that regard they show flawed logic. That's not making them entirely bad people; it's showing that people can believe in contradictions, even if they shouldn't.

And lots of people even today believe in contradictions of sorts, they just don't recognize them as contradictions. Not everyone is introspective and enlightened enough to question the moral grounds of their actions or the actions of others. For many, what the society thinks must be right for some reason or another. It's sad but true.

So my point is that while slavery itself is evil, not every person who practiced it was inherently evil. It would be like saying war is evil, thus every person who fights is evil.

Originally posted by PVS
maybe those people didnt know that what they were doing was evil, but it was.

Sir, I am sorry to bother you. However, I think that the point, this being the only crucial point, is that perhaps the ignorance of those people, or any other number of variables, having to do with the time. Thus, if a man is taught that owning slaves is all right and he still treats them in a manner befitting of a human being, then that man is ignorant of his crime. Not every man can see past the morals of the time and realize that something that is being done as a common practice is wrong - not all men question the right and wrong of their society like that. Eventually, people did, but those who did not can't be blamed for transcending the morals of all other men of the time. They can't be blamed for not being visionaries. If someone is raised to think that slavery is acceptable, then he can't be expected to question that - it is good if he does question whether that is right or wrong, but some people just take such things at face value - if their community says it's okay, it's okay by them, and they think nothing more of it. There are millions of men like that today. They cannot really be condemned for that quality. That, I think, is really the point, Mr. PVS, sir. No offense meant to you, sir, but I think that it is less personal than it is (or should be, when discussed nowadays about slavery in the past) objective.

I hope that that does not sound ignorant in any way, sir.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
So my point is that while slavery itself is evil, not every person who practiced it was inherently evil. It would be like saying war is evil, thus every person who fights is evil.

thats all well and good. but i never implied that slaveowners were inherently evil. i said that by owning another human being, they are DOING evil. i also made a point to stress that they may not have been in the mindset to acknowledge that it was evil. observe:

Originally posted by PVS
maybe those people didnt know that what they were doing was evil, but it was. the evil: denial of basic human freedom.

but is that even an issue to bother with? that way of thinking can be stretched to it's extream. for example: SS troops murdering jews didnt know that they were doing evil. they were following orders and reacting to brainwashing and a genuine feeling that what they were doing was right. so does that make it ok? does history give a shit whether they were good people deep down? do you give a shit? whatever the intentions or perspective of those commiting evil are superficial. common sense tells us that they were commiting evil in the simple act of owning a human being. so many of them were good people who didnt know any better. fine. not that i ever argued that, but fine

Well, this has gotten a bit off my original topic, but that's cool. Maybe I didn't explain my point very well initially, but if you're going to make Anakin a slave in the movie, show some scenes that make him look like he actually is a slave.

Sorry people, but a person with no money is not going to be able to build a racing machine capable of competing with the best in the galaxy. Maybe Watto had some stuff laying around, but enough to build that fast of a machine? Not to mention the tools, the machine shop, and the jet fuel needed to run the thing. All of this stuff is available to a slave???

Storywise, I still say that Anakin needed to take some mental abuse from Watto feeding his disdain for those in power. Watto could have seen him racing a Tatooine equivalent of a go kart and decided to back him financially in the pod racing. He was doing so miserably that Watto would gladly bet his freedom with Qui Gonn.

obidad, its all about effect.
we are supposed to be amazed by anakin's abilities.
not only is he the only human who can race a pod, and a child also,
but he created that winning pod with NO money and nothing more than scrap
parts. its SUPPOSED to be unbelievable, thats the whole point. anakin is the galaxy's ultimate prodigy.

and he is also supposed to be the sweetest kindest child possible, to stress the idea of the path to the darkside. the idea that nobody is trained enough to resist it. fear turned anakin, so it can turn anyone and everyone.

Originally posted by PVS
thats all well and good. but i never implied that slaveowners were inherently evil. i said that by owning another human being, they are DOING evil. i also made a point to stress that they may not have been in the mindset to acknowledge that it was evil. observe:



but is that even an issue to bother with? that way of thinking can be stretched to it's extream. for example: SS troops murdering jews didnt know that they were doing evil. they were following orders and reacting to brainwashing and a genuine feeling that what they were doing was right. so does that make it ok? does history give a shit whether they were good people deep down? do you give a shit? whatever the intentions or perspective of those commiting evil are superficial. common sense tells us that they were commiting evil in the simple act of owning a human being. so many of them were good people who didnt know any better. fine. not that i ever argued that, but fine

Thank you for acknowledging me, sir. Much appreciated. However, I do think that the ignorance is an issue. The Nazis who murdered Jews were either very easily brainwashed or maybe bad people, but I can't have any idea what was going on in their minds, so I won't try to think about it. The benefit of the doubt is extremely important here, I think, because, for example, the Nazis who fought on the front line were not, I think, necessarily bad men. They often, I believe, did not know that Jews were being slaughtered, and they were just fighting for their country - they cannot be generalized into the group of vindictive men in Germany because they fought for a cause they perhaps did not understand. Your example of the SS troopers who killed Jews directly is more connected to the slaveowners who were in fact cruel, though sometimes people can be bred to believe that another race is below them, and if they can't see beyond that simply because of their lack of perceptivity, I don't think they should be condemned. I think a more useful approach would be to see what caused them to act like that and then make sure it never happens again rather than simply punishing them and making them more and more into negative, disrupting anomalies. However, this is controversial and only speculative, so, again, the benefit of the doubt is important: to a slaveowner, owning slaves might have been as natural as keeping a dog is to me. I don't think they thought of slaves exactly as they did their peers. If, in fifty years, dogs are found to be sentient and take over the world, I don't want to be condemned for "owning" a dog. Then my name would be stained, and unjustly so. I just don't think any group, no matter what their purposes, should be generalized in its entirety.

Thank you again for considering my point, sir. Peace be with you.

but you're not seeing the point

the point is this: nobody knowingly does evil.

'evil' is pretty objective in the face of history, but to the individual it is subjective. in nazi germany, they thought that the ends justified the means.
so, they thought that however brutal they were, they were ultimately doing good. obviously they were being evil, but they didnt KNOW it. you and i cannot fathom the idea of murdering innocents and feeling good about it, so we call them evil, the same as you nor i could ever imagine owning another human being.

so back to the point which started all this: slavery was neither fair nor kind.
a slave who is not beaten is still a slave. people argue that they were treated kindly by not being beaten. thats like saying i'm a kind person for not beating you. how is not beating someone an act of kindness?

Originally posted by PVS

What about Thomas Jefferson? Stephen Ambrose has an excellent commentary on him in "To America", and says that while he despised the institution of slavery he still kept slaves. Thus he was a coward, yes, but he still knew what he was doing, and knew that it was wrong. Sorry mate, but that statement doesn't hold up.

he disagreed with it, but it doesnt necessarily mean he viewed it as 'evil'.
you made that deduction, not him. he could have viewed it as negative, outdated, but not something so disgusting and evil as we view it today.
they subscribed to the idea that white people were more human than black people. jefferson began to object to slavery, but he didnt believe in equality.
so the core of such an evil mentallity was not realised, only the symptom, which was slavery.
and yes, he was a coward and a hipocrite...just to spiral more off topic

"Although he himself was a slaveowner, he believed that slavery was an evil that should not be permitted to spread . In 1784 the provision banning slavery was narrowly defeated. Had one representative (John Beatty of New Jersey), sick and confined to his lodging, been present, the vote would have been different. "Thus," Jefferson later reflected, "we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment.""

SOURCE: http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/tjefferson.html

what i need to know is this: did he own slaves at the time of that statement?

He owned them until he died.

so he must have found a way to dellude himself.
either that or his statement was simply politics as usual and he had no
such belief that slavery was evil...i know...perish the thought of a lying politician.

its a philosophical topic with no final answer. i believe that nobody knowingly does evil, and if they ever do, they are delluded into thinking it is for a greater good and that evil "must be done", so ultimately it is an act of good.

Originally posted by PVS
but you're not seeing the point

the point is this: nobody knowingly does evil.

'evil' is pretty objective in the face of history, but to the individual it is subjective. in nazi germany, they thought that the ends justified the means.
so, they thought that however brutal they were, they were ultimately doing good. obviously they were being evil, but they didnt KNOW it. you and i cannot fathom the idea of murdering innocents and feeling good about it, so we call them evil, the same as you nor i could ever imagine owning another human being.

so back to the point which started all this: slavery was neither fair nor kind.
a slave who is not beaten is still a slave. people argue that they were treated kindly by not being beaten. thats like saying i'm a kind person for not beating you. how is not beating someone an act of kindness?

True. I completely recognize that point. However, my point is not about whether people are evil or not, but that they can't be blamed because of their ignorance. If it is brought to a personal level, then all the objectivity is lost. However, I agree with what you said here, at least in a manner of speaking.

well then i must go back to my original points again:

-slaves were in no way treated kid nor fair.
the act of not beating someone is not kind nor fair,
just less evil than an abusive slave owner...which i'm stickin to

-the people at the time were not aware of the evil they were commiting due to social conditioning. so, they would honestly believe that since they didnt beat and mutilate and starve their slaves, they were fair and kind people. perhaps they were mostly good people indeed, but they still committed evil in the action of owning slaves, and those slaves were trated cruelly and unkindly just by being in the state of slavery...by being owned...by being forced to be subserviant to a "master race". same as i've said before.

-anyone TODAY (and on this thread) who would subscribe to the idea
that slaves were treated fairly and do not see the tragic irony in that
statement are worthy of pity...which i still adhere to

Originally posted by Darth L. Dipsit
True. I completely recognize that point. However, my point is not about whether people are evil or not,

i never said they WERE evil, just that they unknowingly commited evil and victimised slaves simply by enslaving them. most of the points visciously argued against me here are based on such assumptions. i never made that point.

observe my original point which caused such a fuss:

Originally posted by PVS
ok, lets not even get into "well treated slaves". as much as i would like to tear that disgusting oxymoron apart, wrong forum.

and i stick to that. its an oxymoron. they were perhaps "not physically abused" slaves...i guess...but what the hell does that matter?

Originally posted by PVS
well then i must go back to my original points again:

-slaves were in no way treated kid nor fair.
the act of not beating someone is not kind nor fair,
just less evil than an abusive slave owner...which i'm stickin to

-the people at the time were not aware of the evil they were commiting due to social conditioning. so, they would honestly believe that since they didnt beat and mutilate and starve their slaves, they were fair and kind people. perhaps they were mostly good people indeed, but they still committed evil in the action of owning slaves, and those slaves were trated cruelly and unkindly just by being in the state of slavery...by being owned...by being forced to be subserviant to a "master race". same as i've said before.

-anyone TODAY (and on this thread) who would subscribe to the idea
that slaves were treated fairly and do not see the tragic irony in that
statement are worthy of pity...which i still adhere to

This is all true, though I have one discrepancy: the original argument. My perception was that your original argument was that all slaveowners were bad people. With that, I disagree - what you have said about the slaves and the idea of slavery, however, I think, is true.

Originally posted by PVS
and yes, it DOES automatically make them prejudicial bigots to be slavemasters. to own another human being is to believe that you are better than them, above them, more human than them..
thats the only quote which comes remotely close to me calling all slavemasters 'evil' but misses the mark entirely. they were prejudicial in that they felt that slaves were less human than them and that they thus had the right to own and oversee them. they were bigots for the very same reason. did they know that they were? probably not in most if not all cases. doesnt change the fact that they were.

other than that, the idea that i called them "evil" is just the result of irrational overly presumptious posters who like to put words in my mouth to help them 'win' their arguement. as a result, others read those repeated assumptions and mistakenly accept them as my position in the debate.

In that case, I have no further qualms on this issue. I am glad that could be resolved civilly. Thank you for hearing me, sir. As to Janus and Jabar, they're really good guys - honestly, I don't think they meant to put words into your mouth and it's a shame if it felt like they did. However, it is good that such a peaceful resolution was made, and I am glad that you were so patient with me.

Sorry to take up your time, sir.

and then there was world peace

What you're REALLY not going to like, PVS, is that there's also a phenomenon known as willing slaves ... today. Well, there are unwilling slaves too, albiet not in America ... or at least we don't CALL them slaves. We call them "employees." And the lowest class of slaves we call "inmates," the majority of whom are poor African Americans who couldn't afford expensive lawyers to defend them. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But I digress.

The point is that there is, in fact, a subculture of people who were born legally free but have chosen to consider themselves the property of others, regardless of whether it's legally recognized as such. It's an interesting and complicated thing, but without going too deeply into a discussion of human nature in general, at the very least one thing is made clear by that phenomenon, at least to me:

There were probably always -- throughout history -- slaves who didn't object to their status. Not because that made them somehow morally superior (or vice-versa) but simply because some people have more dominant natures, while some have more submissive natures. And some have VERY dominant natures, while others have VERY submissives natures.

Of course, there were always those who did object, too, and even those who finally rose up and cast off their chains, or at least attempted to -- something we'd all like to imagine, as we sit in the air-conditioned comfort of our homes, that we'd have been able to do as well. Yet very few of us would have had the nerve.

And then of course how individuals were treated in any given instance would have made a lot of difference, too. I know you want to argue that there's no such thing as a well-treated slave, but that's kind of a silly stance to take. How else would you differentiate between a well-fed, clean servant with access to creature comforts and someone who's whipped and fed moldy scraps?

But what it comes down to is that human nature isn't so black and white as you think it is, and people come in all kinds of flavors ... including a few that would positively blow your mind, my friend. You can denounce people who like things you don't think they should like if you wish, but you can't will them into nonexistence just because you don't like the fact that they do exist.

And none of that has anything to do with believing that forced slavery is a positive thing. I don't believe it is and never said otherwise. And after all, that's one of many reasons I despise my current government and the corporate masters who own its people. If you don't think the power they wield today is a form of forced slavery, then you don't know what slavery really amounts to.

I think I've just disrupted world peace. Sorry. Will whirled peas suffice instead?

I would just like to say a few things, firstly, PVS please change that Aviator because that clown is freaking me out.

Secondly, PVS you're right, slaves in any way, shape or form are being treated unjustly just by being slaves.

On original topic, I think that the story played out pretty well, it was from the innocent fear of a nine year old slave that sprouted darkness. Anakin's slide to the Dark Side could not have been more dramatic and indeed tragic as it was.
From wanting to help people, to wanting to stop them from dying, to wanting to control their fates, to wanting to control everything is Anakin's life story.

And as for building the Pod from scrap, that has already been explained by someone else but I'll just say it again so we can stop talking about Nazis, Tom Jefferson and Romans. It was to show that Anakin has abilities beyond normal conception.

That's it.

And PVS, I wasn't joking about that clown, I hate clowns, they give me nightmares, and that creepy mutant freak thing is reminding me of this movie I watched one time when I was 6, I'll never forget it.

the only thing that i thought was weird was that, for being a slave and supposedly not liking it, Anakin and his little slave pals said 'Yippie' quite a bit. i am not saying that little slave children are not allowed to be happy, but i would think they had more time to think of better words to describe their happiness, other than 'yippie.'

maybe its because the poor little slave boys don't get many happy moments(although the movie showed a bunch). who knows. that just kinda bothered me. lame i know!

Maybe it's 'cause the writers let their 7 year old children write for them.

Originally posted by PVS
its a philosophical topic with no final answer. i believe that nobody knowingly does evil, and if they ever do, they are delluded into thinking it is for a greater good and that evil "must be done", so ultimately it is an act of good.

Excellently put, I totally agree.

*and then there was a hiatus, all there was was a smile on his face and a gleam in his eye, he had done it, the boy knew that KMC would be safe. A broken yet powerful voice was heard, and through those four words, everyone knew that it would be okay "let there be peace"*