sunshinelikesstarwars
Sunshine Likes Star Wars
Star Wars Sideblog (main is @sunshineisdelightful)
4019 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
journalnoturno
VAGAL
headaches-and-coffee
To Boldly Go
jmuso1-blog
Untitled
joedepescimode
Untitled
frenrjfhdjdjd
.::freckled.carrot.top::.
Text
More thoughts about Satine’s pacifism…
So I read this post the other day that suggested Satine’s period of rule was just a blip in Mandalore’s history, that she only maintained power because she’d won it in battle, and that Mandalorians were glad to return to their traditionalist ways and… it just really irked me.
Because that’s not true at all??
When we meet Satine in TCW, it’s super clear that she was very popular, and a good ruler. In only 15-20 years, she’s restored Sundari to prosperity, and is a city that appears very wealthy with a satisfied population. She herself is very invested in her people, helps directly with social and political matters. She’s managed to rebuild worlds and cities devastated by war and environmental issues.
There’s never any kind of explanation exactly as to her style of rule. Certainly she’s not a constitutional monarch but there is a prime minister and council, and regional governors, so she’s no autocrat. This suggests democracy, and her people thus voting for continued pacifist policies/leaders.
(We also only see issues/events occur that in any society would involve leaders, regardless of how much a role they play in politics)
I mean sure, it’s the capital city and we don’t really see anywhere else. And there’s also corruption, hunger, terrorism, etc.- but a lot of the latter issues are because of outside forces (galactic war and the sith) that she does remarkably well, in my opinion, to combat for several years.
So already that’s a lot of evidence to suggest pacifism/modernism was widely popular amongst Mandalorians and not just a blip.
(Also, she may have come to power through battle, but this suggests there was an incredibly strong military and public force behind her ascendancy to the throne in order to win a civil war that had been waging essentially for decades- therefore illustrating mandalorians wanted pacifism, and she didn’t just usurp her position)
Then to the suggestion they were glad to return to their military ways…
People often use the state of Mandalore in Rebels/The Mandalorian to argue that the warrior culture was a more natural and preferred one among Mandalorians.
But this isn’t what we see at all.
We return to Mandalore in Rebels like 17/18 years after we last saw it in TCW. In this time, an extremist clan and the empire have been ruling the system.
We’ve seen the scale and ability of the empire’s propaganda missions already- erasing or changing history, destroying entire races- particularly with the jedi.
Alongside a ruler encouraging/forcing his people to re-embrace their martial past, of course it’s going to appear as if Mandalorian society has returned to its ‘original’ state of violence and warfare.
And yet, even though it’s gone back to clan warfare and endless, unnecessary fighting, that’s not what the people want at all.
Even though the Mandalorians we meet in Rebels are characterised as especially traditional (clan wren allied with death watch; fenn rau fought alongside the republic and later the empire, going against satine’s political status) they are never actually fighting for a return to their martial past.
Instead, the whole storyline is about uniting Mandalorians, pushing out the oppressive empire, ending the civil wars, etc.
Sure, they want to retain more of their martial culture than Satine did, but perhaps here is where we can argue that Sundari was a bit of an exception by being so especially modernist, whereas other planets and communities still retained many elements of their warrior culture- such as wearing the armour- even if not engaging in warfare.
Again, there is a similar storyline in The Mandalorian season 3- despite the fact that this is about the most extreme group of Mandalorians. It’s still about uniting together, rebuilding their world, ending war and violence among each other, protecting each other.
Therefore, I think it’s clear that actually, even if not to quite the same degree (but then, it’s likely this would come later once the last 2 decades of military propaganda had been overcome) Mandalorians didn’t want to retain their military past, but wanted to move in a more pacifist direction.
The only thing I have some issue arguing against is what we see in TCW when Satine is overthrown, where the masses really quickly switch to supporting death watch/Vizsla.
I’ve talked here about why this may be the case but even many of my arguments on that post don’t properly explain why a city that in previous seasons we saw offering mass support for satine and prospering under pacifism, suddenly turned so against her.
Really, I put this down to TCW being, in the end, a show aimed at younger audiences, and needing to get the point across clearly and dramatically that death watch and maul had manipulated people, and that’s why it seems so out of place.
(Does anyone have more to say on this than me? I’d find other’s perspective on this, whatever that perspective is, really interesting)
Either way, it’s made continually clear that Satine’s rule was far from a blip in Mandalorian history, or that Mandalorians only ever barely tolerated her.
Their martial society was a thing of the past. People were sick of it. Satine won the clan wars for a reason, and was a very effective ruler for many years until events outside her control (that frankly would have negatively impacted even the most golden ruler) meant she fell from power.
Had there not been the clone war or the sith, she would undoubtedly have continued to rule, and mandalore continued to stay pacifist.
(I also think it’s a shame we never saw more of mandalorian society during Satine’s rule. We only focus on her and other political rulers at that time, and when we later return to mandalore it’s all from the perspective of either extremists like din djarin and his sect, or again more political leaders/rulers that have an especially militaristic past.)
135 notes
·
View notes
Text
A very belated posting of a winter photoshoot of my husband and I in our Din & Omera cosplays! 😍 Photography by the lovely & talented Vanessa Darlean Photography 🌻
Enjoying spotchka out of our actual wedding chalices 💖
67 notes
·
View notes
Text
Tatooine AU with the Kenobi family (Ben, Satine & little Kai'ra) 🥰❤️
247 notes
·
View notes
Text
one thing I don't like about the criticisms of Satine's pacifism is that I've seen people assume it comes from a place of privilege. That it's Satine (who "hasn't faced hardships") forcing her will onto other Mandalorians. And that drives me bonkers because that's not supported by the text at all.
Satine came to power because of an insanely brutal civil war. Satine was there as she watched her kin tear each other apart, and that destructive violence is exactly why she's such a staunch passivist. It's quite literally what she lived through that shaped her ideals and made her want a different future for Mandalore.
And a ruler of a warrior culture being a pacifist because of the violence she witnessed is such an interesting basis for a character. Satine has such an interesting perspective as a Mandalorian, and I hate how much the fanbase casts her aside or demonizes her. With how brutal the Mandalorians were stated to be, it's only natural some people would want to move toward peace.
Satine isn't perfect, no star wars character is, but she is so much more interesting than some of y'all give her credit for. She brings such an interesting perspective to the world of the prequels, and I wish we had gotten more of her.
225 notes
·
View notes
Text
"Had you said the word..."
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
Just thought I’d deposit this quote here for no particular reason
“ The heart of this humdinger question is that the word “attachment” means one thing in the context of parenting and another in the context of Buddhist teachings. The association of the word “attachment” with parenting has its origins in the phrase “attachment parenting”, a theory of child-rearing developed by pediatrician William Sears in the 1980s. In parenting, attachment is thought to provide a foundational sense of safety and security, giving a child the courage to explore and thus learn essential facts about their world. Your concern for your children’s well-being and safety comes from a healthy, natural bonding derived from empathy, care, and love – none of which are against the dharma.
In the Buddhist world, attachment is understood as a mental factor, a psychological pattern that is a mega-cause of suffering. However, the neutral sense of the English word “attachment” doesn’t convey the potency and misery of what Buddhists mean by it. Buddhist texts use the Sanskrit word trsna, an English-language cognate of which is the word “thirst”. “Thirst” accurately conveys the sense of need that characterizes this mental state. We are thirsty for sense gratification, thirsty for experiences. Other translations of this kind of attachment are “clinging”, “craving”, and “desire”. Although it doesn’t sound human to say, “Don’t be attached to your children,” it does sound right to say, “Don’t cling to them.” (We even disapprove of overly clingy parents.)
Nonetheless, the Buddhist notion of attachment, as craving, can teach us something about parenting pitfalls. Since we can crave just about anything, it’s possible to develop a sticky clinginess to our own children. For example, we might crave their demonstrations of affection, respect, or loyalty. We can become attached to our children behaving or performing in a particular way, believing that our child should be a good soccer player, academically successful, polite to others, and so on, because we are worried about our own public image, self-worth, unresolved issues, or value as a “good” parent. This kind of attachment is primarily self-centered, serving our own needs. As many of us know from experience, staking our happiness on a child fulfilling our expectations invariably results in suffering. (Although I’m quite certain that the moment my children stop leaving dirty socks around the house, my life will be perfect.) In the final analysis of this type of clingy attachment, it’s not so much that we are directly attached to our children as we are attached to our misconception of what will bring us happiness.
The parenting notion of attachment as bonding can also teach us something about parenting potential. In fact, the Buddha himself urges us to create the “bonds of fellowship”, as taught in the Sangaha Sutta. Through generosity, kind words, beneficial help, and consistency in the face of changing conditions, he said, parents sustain a favorable, respectful relationship with their children. In other words, parenting is dharma practice. Far from trying to detach ourselves from our children, our relationship with our children is an amazing ground on which we can practice attunement, the gift of creating safety, generosity, aid, and unconditional love. This in turn develops our capacity to feel the same bonds of fellowship for the children of others – and for others as once-children. In the end, we are called to discover the bonds of fellowship we have with all beings. “ - Sumi Loudon Kim
384 notes
·
View notes
Text
I don’t think some people realize why the gray jedi thing pisses some of us off so badly.
Imagine you like lord of the rings and you decide to look around the fandom.
And it turns out that 10+ or something years ago someone wrote a piece of fanfiction where they rewrote the rules for the ring. So instead of it only having one master and corrupting everyone else that tried to use it, it sometimes chooses to take a new master if it feels the person is worthy of it. And therefore this author’s self-insert OC can now use the one ring in all its glory without getting turned crazy.
This fanfic gets published (as some fanfics do) and most of the fandom has read it and loves it.
Now, when you (someone who has only dealt with canon works written by Tolkien) see this fic you go… huh. That’s nice, but it goes against the very point of the books and the lore tolkien created. So while it’s a good fic I’m not going to interact with it.
But then people keep harassing you for taking about/ writing the one ring the way tolkien wrote it to begin with.
And they SWEAR that this is the Actual lore of the one ring, and that YOU are wrong. Which is completely insane to you, because FRODE TOOK IT TO MORDOR FOR A REASON. There is only one lord of the ring!! That’s literally the name of the series that’s what it’s about!! If what the fandom was insisting about was possible, there would be no plot. In the original books.
This is why we are so upset over gray jedi!! Bc if it was possible to use the dark side but still be a good guy then wtf is wrong with Anakin? Why the fuck did Darth Vader fall to the dark side? Why did Luke struggle so much? If you can have your cake and eat it too why are the movies so fuckin long?? Why did Luke fail against Vader in Empire? what lesson did he learn in Return? Why would the movie be called Return of the Jedi if Luke had not learned the Jedi ways????
You can write OC’s as gray jedi all you want but when you start forcing it into canon it literally ruins the movies!
#anti gray Jedi#anti grey Jedi#sums up my opinion nicely#STRONG side-eye to written material for Star Wars
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
love how the armorer was like *sigh* 😔 unfortunately grogu cannot swear to the creed bc he can't speak. also he's an ORPHAN. he has NO PARENTS. since he has NO GUARDIAN around to give me permission to swear him in, i cannot add him to the song. oh if only he had A MOTHER OR A FATHER. this would be possible if he wasn't FATHERLESS. this poor ORPHAN BOY. if only there were someone around to ADOPT HIM.
like she was so tired of din dancing around adopting that boy. ADOPT HIM ALREADY DAMN IT.
9K notes
·
View notes
Text
well… i was told to tweet like star wars was real and i couldn’t help myself
840 notes
·
View notes
Text
thought about this again. kind of amazing how we’re all just chasing ways to duplicate how this scene makes us feel, either in life or in art.
22K notes
·
View notes
Text
Dude the Jedi are literally one of THE most fascinating and inspiring good guys / heroes / protagonists I’ve seen in a story and so is their whole philosophy and their teachings. There’s so much depth and sense to them and what they do and why. You can literally learn such useful lessons through them, adult or child.
So I really don’t understand all this anti Jedi nonsense and this idea that we need to be super critical about them and blame them, because apparently the villains / antagonists deserve to be put on a pedestal and excused for everything they do (*cough* murder, genocide, slavery, etc.) because they sad at times with a at times sad backstory.
And the fact that even writers within Star Wars feel like that, instead of taking the Jedi as they are and have always been meant to be perceived as, is so saddening.
It doesn’t take long to take the time, especially as a writer, and look into the Jedi's origins and what GL wanted to tell with his story, especially in terms of evil and good and the concept of balance and being in control of yourself specifically your darkest and most negative characteristics and emotions.
And this whole idea of Jedi being arrogant just because they strive the be the best version of themselves is getting so annoying. Like come on, that’s just your envy and insecurities shining through.
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
the safest place
71 notes
·
View notes
Photo
ok wait this shit turned out better than expected, considering i havent drawn real people in a looooong ass time. 💀
9K notes
·
View notes