inspiral blog

This week, the much-anticipated third instalment of the Star Wars films hits screens in Australia. It has been called the ‘darkest’ of all the Star Wars films, with Anakin Skywalker, father of Luke Skywalker, the hero of Episodes 4, 5 and 6, turning to the dark side and becoming Darth Vader. The theme, says George Lucas, creator of the series, is the transformation of a democray to a dictatorship.

What is fascinating is the parallels drawn by Lucas himself, as well as the many who have watched it, to the US under George Bush. This was picked up in an article in the Age today. Here is an excerpt:

‘Much of the dialogue revolves around the transformation of a democracy into a dictatorship, and a politician’s use of a fabricated war to increase his hold on power.

At one point in the film, Anakin Skywalker, the Jedi who becomes Darth Vader, even warns, “You’re either with me, or you’re my enemy.”

The phrase echoed Bush’s ultimatum made in 2001 in which he said “Either you’re with us or you’re against us in the fight on terror.”

Lucas told reporters that when he wrote the original Star Wars at the end of the Vietnam war he wanted to explore the issue of how a democracy turns into a dictatorship.

“When I wrote it, Iraq (the US-led war) didn’t exist … (but) the parallels of what we did in Vietnam and Iraq are unbelievable.”

He acknowledged an uncomfortable feeling that the United States was in danger of losing its democratic ideals, as in the movie.

“I didn’t think it was going to get this close. I hope this doesn’t come true in our country.”

Although he didn’t mention Bush by name, Lucas took what sounded like another dig while explaining the transformation of the once-good Anakin Skywalker to the very bad Darth Vader.

“Most bad people think they’re good people,” he said.’

I suppose Lucas’ acknowledgement of the parallels is more stark for me given the way storytellers usually distance their stories from real life events – JRR Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ being the prime example. Despite people’s suggestions that the story was an allegory of Hitler and World War 2, Tolkien insisted the entire work had its own internal structure with no reference to real events. He even makes a plea in his introduction not to construe the book as anything but fiction. To me that makes Lucas’ statements all the more fascinating. I’m not too sure what to do with it, except to say that it gives a greater degree of license to using pop culture as allegory.

On other global justice issues, I came across this cartoon by Leunig in the Age today. With 2005 being pushed as the year to make poverty history, it speaks volumes on exactly what is needed – for people to care that poverty is destroying lives and to stir into action to defeat it.

I saw “The Corporation” a couple of weeks ago (it’s a Canadian documentary that traces the history and pathology of corporations), and on it one of the interviewees (Naomi Klein? I can’t remember) asked the question, “When did we invent the idea of wealth being privately owned?” What an extraordinary question, especially considering how deeply entrenched the idea of ownership is in our culture. I don’t think I had ever really confronted that question before, even though as Christians we’re told to think of our possessions as being borrowed from God, rather than owned by us. Even with that view, there is still that element of “I’m borrowing it from God.” The fact is, though, that this idea of privately owned wealth is a relatively recent phenomenon. Our ancestors thought of the world as (at the very least) shared, and therefore had a sense of their responsibility to others to be prudent in their use of it; indeed, the aboriginal people thought of themselves as being owned by the land, not the other way around.

And let’s face it, anything we have has been taken from the earth, which we by definition cannot own – it existed before we came and it will exist after we leave (hopefully). It strikes me that if we actually changed out mindsets to this more ancient idea, it would be revolutionary in the way the earth is “used”. The whole concept of a few owning a lot and the majority owning little or nothing would be ridiculous, which would mean we would see the wealth the earth gives us distributed more equitably. Sustainability would be a much higher priority, since the earth is shared not only with those alive now, but with future generations too. Security on our homes would be less of a priority. I mean, I know all these things sound like crazy pipe dreams, but it shows how much of our society is based on this mistaken assumption that individuals can own wealth that they are not responsible to anyone else for. No wonder there is so much exploitation of the earth and so little in the way of equitable distribution of resources.

It’s a hard thing to do, to change your mindset to recognizing that everything you think you own is, or should be, shared with the rest of the world, so I don’t for a moment assume it’s easy. It’s a challenge, though.

We were talking as a group last week about the seemingly mundane topic of the legalities of photocopying when Anthony brought up an extremely challenging thought of Gandhi’s – that the means by which you achieve something must be consistent with the ends. That is, you can’t advance your cause in any way that compromises the way you want it to end up looking, no matter how effective it might prove. It is an argument popularly used by advocates of non-violence (of which I am one)- that is, that peace (or at least the absence of war) cannot be achieved by violence or conflict.

The instance that immediately sprang to mind for me was Iraq. Is it even possible to achieve peace in those circumstances through the use of violence and force? At best, I think it lacks integrity; but at worst, it could be argued that it’s impossible in practical terms. I’m interested, though, in what others think. is there any situation in which the ends justify the means? Is it ever ok to compromise your principles in order to get somewhere you want to go? Is there an instance where that does not amount to hypocrisy?

The great thing though that I have noticed this week about living with that thought in mind is that it changes your everyday behaviour. Things you would have considered before to be justifiable – that little white lie, that “no-one will ever know” thought – are no longer acceptable. And since integrity is something I strive for (even if I rarely achieve it), it’s been a useful way to look at my actions.

It strikes me that Jesus lived like that. Not that he was a doormat, he stepped up to the plate when he needed to. But he was consistent, and while in his time it may have looked like he failed (and possibly even in our time), as Christians we have to say strongly that he didn’t.