The Rebellion: heroes or terrorists?

Rebels are in the news now, this has begun to get me thinking about one particular group of rebels, not the brave men and women in libya, certainly not the rebels in 1776 but ones from a galaxy far far away and that began fighting a long time ago. If that clue wasn't enough stop reading, leave the computer and go and watch star wars (Episode IV: A New Hope will suffice). I am, of course, referring to the rebellion that supported the old republic.

Before I discuss the rebels I think it would be worth to set the scene in this galaxy. The Empire - having evolved from the old republic (an elected government with representatives of each planet) appears to be a sham democracy with Emperor palpatine acting as a dictator and Lord Vader as a military commander - though not as high ranking as you would think initially. Still this is besides the point - the key point here is that the republic that governed the galaxy for generations has evolved into a new form and the empire , though clearly evil - the Nazi similarities need not to be mentioned, plus all that black? have to be evil, is governing the galaxy and allowing normal people to go about their lives - yes they do thermal detonator innocent moisture farmers and environmental policy is not great, those normal people will likely notice no difference between when Palpatine was chancellor and when he was Emperor, at least until the Jedi and the rebels acted up.

When the rebels begin their fight against the empire they begin to destabilise the Galaxy they strive so hard to protect. Were the rebels not to exist would the galaxy far far away not be a better place for the peoples of the republic to inhabit? Take the citizens of alderaan for instance: they would be living normal, happy lives, having children, working jobs and going to schools. For them the "plight of the rebellion" is just a story on the evening news - that is until a large space station decides to come into orbit with a "princess" on board ("princess" I state as her father - senator bail organa is not king, thus how is she a princess? I digress) and their happy little world is destroyed because leia organa wouldn't give Lord Vader what he asked for - needless to say that the destruction of Alderaan was a senseless act of violence by the former jedi, but it was feasible for him to do so, and, it being feasible, should have alerted to the rebels that there was a significant chance he would. Further still if there were no rebels, who would the Empire be fighting? would there be a need for the Death Star?

This then finally leads to the two largest acts of evil against the Empire, and though I am conscious of the date that this article was posted, draws many parallels between itself and terrorist attacks - 9/11 most prominently in my mind. Two times the Empire has built a "Death Star", both times it has been filled to the brim with not only Stormtroopers (not actually Stormtroopers in the sense of specialist Germans in WW2 but just soldiers) , but pilots, engineers and as it seems to act as some sort of hub for the Empire more than a few administrative staff. So whilst the Rebellion will often justify their actions as "it prevented another Alderaan" or "it destroyed an Imperial Army" they also killed several accountants and engineers - heroic? probably not.

Then of course take popular perception into account, after the destruction of the first Death Star would Luke Skywalker be a popular icon among the galaxy's populous? no, he wouldn't . Remember the (rightful) backlash against the men and their allies who undertook the 9/11 attacks? now imagine 9/11 but a million times larger, so many men and women would've died, so many families would be mourning. It's hard to imagine that the galaxy wouldn't have some form of media, and knowing how media works in modern-day dictatorships with filtering and control that they wouldn't paint him as at least an instigator figure, Mon mothma or Leia would probably be the "Bin Laden" figure, plus it would aid the "spin" when the Empire invaded Hoth. But then doesn't Luke talk of "joining the rebellion" this suggests that there is indeed some rebel controlled media - at least on the outer-rim worlds, whether this is little more than the internet or underground media is unknown.

The rebels are, of course, the force for good in the galaxy. So how do you justify the destruction of a death star? well for a start the imperials attacked a civilian world, likely unarmed and probably unsuspecting such an attack. The Rebels attacked a military installation and destroyed a weapon,  the civilians on-board died as "collateral damage" and though regrettable is entirely necessary for the galaxy to be free from the Empire, which falls rather unconvincingly for me as the entirety collapses after the deaths of the Emperor and Vader - i doubt that such a large force wouldn't have a contingency though this is a discussion for later. 

Th final question then in answer to whether the rebellion really are heroes or terrorists is probably neither. Terrorists attack for political gain but usually attack civilians for no real bonus due to the target, the destruction of the Death Star did give the Rebels some political momentum but the target was not arbitrary, the Death Star was easily the only thing that they needed to destroy (perhaps only the imperitor star destroyer comes close). Though they were not heroic in their goals, the destruction was a horrific incident that left the Empire weakened, it also would backlash, with many innocent lives lost ( we aren't sure, at least in a new hope, whether the Empire has a "galactic service" policy) and probably turn the core worlds against them. In their initial attack on Alderaan though the Empire positioned themselves as terrorists( despite their size and political stability) , perhaps it wasn't the rebels who were the terrorists but the Empire with the response they received entirely justified. And perhaps something similar could be read into our own war on terror? but that is not for me to say.

========================================================================
I realise that today is the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and also that I have mentioned terrorists, terrorism and indeed 9/11 itself in this article, this has been drafted for at least a week and is the result of several hours of work: the date was merely a coincidence. My heart goes out to those who did lose someone that day and to all the people who have been lost since due to the ramifications of the incident. I hope that my post does not in any way make it seem as though attacks of this nature are justified , the murder of innocent civilians never is, and also does not belittle the event as that was not my intention at all. Our world will never be the same as it was before that day in September 2001.

A problem for heroes

Before I begin this post I'd like to add something, recently I have been playing a fair few stealth based games. This caused a problem for me, most of these offer two paths to success - the standard video game pathway : murder everyone in sight in anyway possible, and their special method - ignoring everyone and leaving no trace , some offer a third route - in-capacitation, this would seem to be the best of both worlds and in a game sense it is. However from a heroic standpoint none of these options really works.

Killing - this has the most obvious problems associated with it, it's flat out murder - most category 1 heroes denounce either violence or killing - Batman's famous "only rule" springs to mind. This is usually because they either do not want to kill innocents who were only following orders or simply to keep themselves above the criminals and villainy that they stand against. But besides the point it shouldn't need explaining why heroes shouldn't kill the faceless goons.

Ignoring guards - this would seem to be perfect for a hero, surely without anyone seeing them the hero can achieve their goals, no-one need be hurt so everyone wins! you'd think but no. What would happen should a rent-a-cop be on the job when Sam Fisher or Solid Snake decide that what they want is super-dooper secret documents from an office in their building and under their watch they get by and steal them? It would almost certainly lead to them being fired from that particular job. No biggy though right? they've left the employment of an evil villain and have gone onto more legitimate work - well what if they were unskilled and this was the only job they'd had and being fired made it more difficult to find work later? what if they had a family to support and without the regular income of the labour they struggled through - children possibly getting bullied for being poor.  In short it has ruined their lives, whilst not intentional a sequence of events has ruined this person's livelihood and in the short term their lives.

incapacitation is left then,  this must be the one heroes use? no guard can be blamed should they be unconscious after the eponymous hero has made his way through the base. well the thing is, being unconscious for more than a few moments takes a large amount of force, this trauma would cause the guard great physical stress - this would lead to possible mental damage and/or serious disability. and, due to the reasons mentioned above, would completely change the lives of the guard and their family members, almost certainly for the worst as they are unable to  find work as they once were able to.

In short the biggest problem for the hero, never mind those who favour stealth is the common or garden rent-a-cop. The super-villains are easy to deal with as they often act out of knowledge and with motive, the high ranking officers do the same. The grunts however may not have prior knowledge - often you can overhear them discussing theories about what they are guarding, working towards or looking for - showing just how little knowledge they have of their roles, this lack of knowledge and differing motives - often looking only for a wage means that a true hero cannot approach these guy in all good conscience, saving the world will just have to wait a little longer.

classifying a hero

Heroes are all unique, some are the strong figureheads of their universe - see Captain America, Superman and, to an extent, Duke Nukem (ala Duke Nukem forever), others fight from the back in relative obscurity and act alongside a strong team of followers - see BJ Blascowitz and Nathan Hale and some still are heroes purely by the perspective of the viewer - every character in every war film/ game or book.

So because of this variation it would seem impossible to categorise them all, however all heroes do have shared themes and areas of common ground with the ways they are presented and also the ways in which they act.

Category 1, the "Alpha Hero" - these are the pure heroes, they can never do anything but good, face all challenges with bravery and courage, defend the weak etc. In essence these are the archtypical heroes they are, in all senses of the word "good". Eg Superman

Category 2, the "Hero by perspective" - these are the characters that, whilst saving the world or defeating a villain commit acts that if it weren't for their role in the medium  would not be revered in the same way due to the actions that they have undertaken Eg Gordon Freeman

Category 3, the "Gray hero" - these are heroes that are treading the line between good and evil, they are not anti-heroes persay as their actions are often intended to be good though they commit acts of "evil", Eg Kick-Ass

Category 4, the "Anti-hero" - these are the full-blown anti heroes, they do act for a greater good, but do only to achieve some personal goal, their methods are similar to the "Gray hero" but often taken to an extreme. Eg Batman

Category 5, the "Normal hero" - these are the people that are not special or treated specially - they are normal men and women who do great things, EG - real-life heroes, or background characters

Category 6, the "Supporting hero" - heroes that enable others to do great things - the inspirers of great deeds that they themselves cannot do. Eg the master jedi Yoda and Obi Wan

there are of course some heroes that do not fit any of my above categories(if I find any I will add some more)  and some that fit multiple ones as well.

Heroes wanted. Causes optional.

Heroes, protagonists, main characters: these are all the characters that we as an audience feel for as we indulge in any one of many media. Each hero has their own caste of followers - each has a group of people willing to follow them (both in their respective media and also in our real world). It is this inspirational quality of our heroes that brings them above normal men (and indeed women), this quality that makes small children want costumes of superheroes, makes adults watch films about a teenage wizard and makes every person present feel empowered  by a rousing speech before a battle.

Heroes stand apart from the rest of humanity (or whatever race they have chosen to defend) and by standing apart they do what none of us would dare - they show us the power of pure spirit and the strength of a human character.

What, you may be asking yourself, is the purpose of this ultimately "pro-hero" waffle? well as a start it was to post the first thing on this here blog. But it was also to raise a valid point, the villains may have more power, the people may have more freedom and the world may not always need saving but it is heroes that we all have  wanted to emulate, heroes that we all have wanted to meet and it will always be heroes that people will want to create.

And if none of this applies to you, well then you are probably of a villainous mind and so should instead check out http://villainoustendencies.blogspot.com/