11 ms·

I was wondering when this aspect of Star Wars would start getting batted around in the main stream. It's very interesting watching America square the never endi

I was wondering when this aspect of Star Wars would start getting batted around in the main stream. It's very interesting watching America square the never ending war on terror against our rich cultural history of glorifying rebels, particularly in light of our nation's birth. There's a reason that the Iraqi rebels were branded as "insurgents" during that war. I'd venture a guess that referring to them as rebels or any form of the word would be enough to get a Fox news employee fired. Orwell would have a field day with our modern linguistic contortions to allow ourselves to remain the scrappy beacon of individualism and personal liberty in our minds.

seren 11y ago
To be fair most founding myths are about a "hero" revolting against the current status quo : Zeus, Odin, Prometheus, Gilgamesh, etc. So I don't think this is only an "American" things, or related to individualism. But obviously Daesh is using that same proto-myth to appeal to potential recruits : be a hero fighting to overthrow an evil empire, and establish a new golden age
seivan 11y ago
Mostly becuause the insurgents in Iraq killed Iraqis and Kurds more than they killed American soldiers. Calling them rebels because some pampered ideological college twat wants to relive the anti-Vietnam hysteria they read so much about is a disservice not only to American soldiers but also Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers and civilians who got to live amidst radical jihadis who take sex slaves and commit public executions of non veiled women branded as adulterers.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  Are you implying that all the Iraqis fighting against USA just after the invasion were radical jihadist? I feel genuine curiosity because that was not my impression at the time.
RobertoG 11y ago
Well, I remember thinking that "insurgents" was an improvement from the narrative of the time, that was that they were "terrorist".
- seivan 11y ago
  They were and still are terrorists who torture the civilian population. Admiration from the liberal west won't change that.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
I cannot understand why you were downvoted. Your comment made excellent sense. I think the benefits of the empire are overlooked when compared to the romantic fantasy of rebellion. Then, in a galaxy far, far away, as now, I must wonder what alternatives may have been avoided by imperialism, such as secretarian civil wars or intragalactic economic warfare, such as the blockade of Naboo.
- wmeredith 11y ago
  Or control by organized crime like the Huts. We were shown first hand what their brand of justice looked like. brutal dismemberment at the hands of animals for entertainment's sake.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    The question is whether that was outlawed in Imperial space, or if it was tacitly given a pass for the sake of the larger order, like the CIA overthrow of Guatemala's elected government at the behest of the United Fruit Corporation.
- acqq 11y ago
  Can anybody demonstrate any advantages people of Libya have from the West supported removal of Gaddafi? As far as I understand, before it was at least peace in the land, now it's a second home of ISIS.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Gaddafi enabled state-sponsored terrorism. The West has wanted him gone for ages. In their eyes, it was better for him to be gone and have their own people safe than to have a stable Libya that could participate in terrorist activity. It doesn't justify what they did, but it is worth knowing the overthrow was not primarily done for the sake of your everyday Libyan.
    - acqq 11y ago
Aqueous 11y ago
A big difference, in fact, the critical difference, between a 'rebellion/revolution' and 'terrorism', at least between a just rebellion and an un-just rebellion, is that a rebellion attacks (or intends to attack) military targets. Terrorists attack unarmed civilians.
- scarmig 11y ago
  Can you name a rebellion or revolution that didn't target civilians? There aren't any, and I think that distinction ultimately reduces to "terrorism is what's done by bad guys, revolution/rebellion by heroes!"
  - Aqueous 11y ago
    The American Revolution was primary a fight between the Continental Army (a military) and the British infantry in the colonies. This is not to say that all of the English that were killed were military, and I'm sure you'll come back of examples of terrorism committed by the Contintental Army or associates, but the strategy of the Contintental Army was to push the British army out of the Americas. And it worked.
- kuschku 11y ago
  > Terrorists attack unarmed civilians. One of the most striking stories my grandmother always told about WWII (she was born in '34) was how, when she walked to school, very often US fighters shot at the children walking there. There was no way this was a mistake – they were still children, the road only led to the school, no one else was walking there at the time. And still, every few days fighters shot at them, and they had to jump in a drainage canal, or similar to hide. Seeing your friends from school being shot by fighters in front of your eyes can hurt a child a lot. Many old people here still hold a grudge towards the allies, despite all the amazing things they did after the war to rebuild. But if attacking civilians is the measure, then the US is a terrorist state. And has been for decades. ---------------- EDIT: I’m not saying the US is bad, or good, I’m trying to say there is no "good" side in a war. No one in a war is innocent. There is a side that gasses jews, and a side that nukes civilians. There is a side that bombs hospitals, and a side that blows themselves up at a concert in Paris. There’s a side that massacres disabled people, and a side that shoots children. We can’t compare, or even weigh up the sides against each other, and doing so would miss the point. But we can’t say "only terrorists kill civilians".
golergka 11y ago
I have a slight hope that may be, just may be, this will result with people stop using labels and actually digging deeper to the substance of each issue. Especially if they try to pass moral judgement and assign such labels as "good" and "bad" go very complex situations.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> There's a reason that the Iraqi rebels were branded as "insurgents" during that war "Insurgent" means about the same thing as "rebel" and has no more negative connotation in modern American English usage (which is why the name is frequently applied to, and embraced by, perceived underdog political campaigns,)
cwyers 11y ago
Insurgency is a specific word with specific meaning -- it's an attack against a recognized authority (in the modern context, recognized typically means recognized by the United Nations) by a party not recognized (again, in the modern parlance, by the UN) as a belligerent. In Iraq, the insurgency didn't hold territory, for instance, or have any of the other trappings of a state actor in a military conflict. Counter-insurgency tactics are very different than a straight-up fight in a civil war. It's not Orwellian to use words to describe the things the words are intended to describe.
- unclesaamm 11y ago
  This loses meaning when we realize that the US is a huge force behind defining who is "recognized" or not anyway. Also this doesnt change the fact that during the American Revolution, the British were much more "recognized" in the international space than America -- so why were we rebels and not insurgents? But let's not over glorify the terrorists either. I think Naomi Klein said it well that if you had to choose on a deadly multiple choice questionnaire between American imperialism and fundamentalist terror, the correct answer is "none of the above."
  - cwyers 11y ago
    Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. The colonies behaved like a nation-state during the Revolutionary War -- they had ambassadors to multiple European nations during the conflict, for instance. The American revolutionaries also raised an army, for instance. They wore uniforms, etc. Similarly, during the Civil War, the Confederacy was not an insurgency and we didn't treat it as such.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. Diplomacy is much more nuanced. While you might or might not be recognized in the official sense, there's a broad spectrum or relationships and attitudes that imply recognition. E.g. there are players that are not official, but nethertheless have relationships with state players, and are thus recognized for discussions, negotiations, etc.
vdnkh 11y ago
>Orwell would have a field day with our modern linguistic contortions As much as I like NPR, they're consistently guilty of this. I have never heard the Confederate flag called a "battle flag" before the whole fracas around getting it banned.
- vectorpush 11y ago
  > I have never heard the Confederate flag called a "battle flag" before the whole fracas around getting it banned. This is just a coincidence. I've heard the confederate flag referred to as the battle flag for years and almost exclusively by those who support (or are at least sympathetic to) flying that flag. With that stated, I agree that NPR is guilty of "linguistic contortions" but I can't think of a single news source that isn't guilty of it. If you can think of some exceptions, I'd be genuinely interested in a recommendation.
- chrisoverzero 11y ago
  Irrespective of what you have ever or never heard, the pattern commonly flown -- and the pattern over which there was controversy -- is the pattern of a battle flag[0]. The national flags of the Confederacy were different, though some of them incorporated that pattern. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Battle_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_State...
- apozem 11y ago
  That is literally what it is- the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It is most technically accurate (and will slow down angry calls from readers who trying to correct you) to call it a battle flag, regardless of common usage.
jhallenworld 11y ago
Well I think a lot has to do with the role of religious fundamentalism. American Revolution? Not so much.. Daesh? It's everything. Now for Star Wars.. is Jediism a religion? The 7th most popular faith in the UK according to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9737886/Jedi-religion-most-popular-alternative-faith.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9737886/Jedi-religi...
presidentender 11y ago
Bravely register your drone and wear your seatbelt, free individual!

seren 11y ago

To be fair most founding myths are about a "hero" revolting against the current status quo : Zeus, Odin, Prometheus, Gilgamesh, etc. So I don't think this is only an "American" things, or related to individualism. But obviously Daesh is using that same proto-myth to appeal to potential recruits : be a hero fighting to overthrow an evil empire, and establish a new golden age

seivan 11y ago

Mostly becuause the insurgents in Iraq killed Iraqis and Kurds more than they killed American soldiers. Calling them rebels because some pampered ideological college twat wants to relive the anti-Vietnam hysteria they read so much about is a disservice not only to American soldiers but also Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers and civilians who got to live amidst radical jihadis who take sex slaves and commit public executions of non veiled women branded as adulterers.

RobertoG 11y ago
Are you implying that all the Iraqis fighting against USA just after the invasion were radical jihadist? I feel genuine curiosity because that was not my impression at the time.

RobertoG 11y ago

Well, I remember thinking that "insurgents" was an improvement from the narrative of the time, that was that they were "terrorist".

seivan 11y ago
They were and still are terrorists who torture the civilian population. Admiration from the liberal west won't change that.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

I cannot understand why you were downvoted. Your comment made excellent sense. I think the benefits of the empire are overlooked when compared to the romantic fantasy of rebellion. Then, in a galaxy far, far away, as now, I must wonder what alternatives may have been avoided by imperialism, such as secretarian civil wars or intragalactic economic warfare, such as the blockade of Naboo.

wmeredith 11y ago
Or control by organized crime like the Huts. We were shown first hand what their brand of justice looked like. brutal dismemberment at the hands of animals for entertainment's sake.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  The question is whether that was outlawed in Imperial space, or if it was tacitly given a pass for the sake of the larger order, like the CIA overthrow of Guatemala's elected government at the behest of the United Fruit Corporation.
acqq 11y ago
Can anybody demonstrate any advantages people of Libya have from the West supported removal of Gaddafi? As far as I understand, before it was at least peace in the land, now it's a second home of ISIS.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Gaddafi enabled state-sponsored terrorism. The West has wanted him gone for ages. In their eyes, it was better for him to be gone and have their own people safe than to have a stable Libya that could participate in terrorist activity. It doesn't justify what they did, but it is worth knowing the overthrow was not primarily done for the sake of your everyday Libyan.
  - acqq 11y ago

Aqueous 11y ago

A big difference, in fact, the critical difference, between a 'rebellion/revolution' and 'terrorism', at least between a just rebellion and an un-just rebellion, is that a rebellion attacks (or intends to attack) military targets. Terrorists attack unarmed civilians.

scarmig 11y ago
Can you name a rebellion or revolution that didn't target civilians? There aren't any, and I think that distinction ultimately reduces to "terrorism is what's done by bad guys, revolution/rebellion by heroes!"
- Aqueous 11y ago
  The American Revolution was primary a fight between the Continental Army (a military) and the British infantry in the colonies. This is not to say that all of the English that were killed were military, and I'm sure you'll come back of examples of terrorism committed by the Contintental Army or associates, but the strategy of the Contintental Army was to push the British army out of the Americas. And it worked.
kuschku 11y ago
> Terrorists attack unarmed civilians. One of the most striking stories my grandmother always told about WWII (she was born in '34) was how, when she walked to school, very often US fighters shot at the children walking there. There was no way this was a mistake – they were still children, the road only led to the school, no one else was walking there at the time. And still, every few days fighters shot at them, and they had to jump in a drainage canal, or similar to hide. Seeing your friends from school being shot by fighters in front of your eyes can hurt a child a lot. Many old people here still hold a grudge towards the allies, despite all the amazing things they did after the war to rebuild. But if attacking civilians is the measure, then the US is a terrorist state. And has been for decades. ---------------- EDIT: I’m not saying the US is bad, or good, I’m trying to say there is no "good" side in a war. No one in a war is innocent. There is a side that gasses jews, and a side that nukes civilians. There is a side that bombs hospitals, and a side that blows themselves up at a concert in Paris. There’s a side that massacres disabled people, and a side that shoots children. We can’t compare, or even weigh up the sides against each other, and doing so would miss the point. But we can’t say "only terrorists kill civilians".

golergka 11y ago

I have a slight hope that may be, just may be, this will result with people stop using labels and actually digging deeper to the substance of each issue. Especially if they try to pass moral judgement and assign such labels as "good" and "bad" go very complex situations.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> There's a reason that the Iraqi rebels were branded as "insurgents" during that war "Insurgent" means about the same thing as "rebel" and has no more negative connotation in modern American English usage (which is why the name is frequently applied to, and embraced by, perceived underdog political campaigns,)

cwyers 11y ago

Insurgency is a specific word with specific meaning -- it's an attack against a recognized authority (in the modern context, recognized typically means recognized by the United Nations) by a party not recognized (again, in the modern parlance, by the UN) as a belligerent. In Iraq, the insurgency didn't hold territory, for instance, or have any of the other trappings of a state actor in a military conflict. Counter-insurgency tactics are very different than a straight-up fight in a civil war. It's not Orwellian to use words to describe the things the words are intended to describe.

unclesaamm 11y ago
This loses meaning when we realize that the US is a huge force behind defining who is "recognized" or not anyway. Also this doesnt change the fact that during the American Revolution, the British were much more "recognized" in the international space than America -- so why were we rebels and not insurgents? But let's not over glorify the terrorists either. I think Naomi Klein said it well that if you had to choose on a deadly multiple choice questionnaire between American imperialism and fundamentalist terror, the correct answer is "none of the above."
- cwyers 11y ago
  Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. The colonies behaved like a nation-state during the Revolutionary War -- they had ambassadors to multiple European nations during the conflict, for instance. The American revolutionaries also raised an army, for instance. They wore uniforms, etc. Similarly, during the Civil War, the Confederacy was not an insurgency and we didn't treat it as such.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. Diplomacy is much more nuanced. While you might or might not be recognized in the official sense, there's a broad spectrum or relationships and attitudes that imply recognition. E.g. there are players that are not official, but nethertheless have relationships with state players, and are thus recognized for discussions, negotiations, etc.

vdnkh 11y ago

>Orwell would have a field day with our modern linguistic contortions As much as I like NPR, they're consistently guilty of this. I have never heard the Confederate flag called a "battle flag" before the whole fracas around getting it banned.

vectorpush 11y ago
> I have never heard the Confederate flag called a "battle flag" before the whole fracas around getting it banned. This is just a coincidence. I've heard the confederate flag referred to as the battle flag for years and almost exclusively by those who support (or are at least sympathetic to) flying that flag. With that stated, I agree that NPR is guilty of "linguistic contortions" but I can't think of a single news source that isn't guilty of it. If you can think of some exceptions, I'd be genuinely interested in a recommendation.
chrisoverzero 11y ago
Irrespective of what you have ever or never heard, the pattern commonly flown -- and the pattern over which there was controversy -- is the pattern of a battle flag[0]. The national flags of the Confederacy were different, though some of them incorporated that pattern. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Battle_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_State...
apozem 11y ago
That is literally what it is- the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It is most technically accurate (and will slow down angry calls from readers who trying to correct you) to call it a battle flag, regardless of common usage.

jhallenworld 11y ago

Well I think a lot has to do with the role of religious fundamentalism. American Revolution? Not so much.. Daesh? It's everything. Now for Star Wars.. is Jediism a religion? The 7th most popular faith in the UK according to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9737886/Jedi-religion-most-popular-alternative-faith.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9737886/Jedi-religi...

presidentender 11y ago

Bravely register your drone and wear your seatbelt, free individual!