War criminals who have a change of heart

[Glom]

I was reading this article about the morals of Star Wars. I was kind of intrigued by the guy's suggestion that the redemption of Vader was questionable.

This got me thinking about Teal'c. He's basically a war criminal who had a change of heart. Should his prior trangressions go unchallenged? Well they don't. In the first season episode 'Cor-ai', SG-1 travels to Cartago, a planet routinely used by the Goa'uld for the harvesting of hosts. Indeed, one prominent citizen, Hano, recognises Teal'c from when he led a raid years ago, because Teal'c killed his father. He then demands justice.

O'Neill wants to spring his friends and subordinate, but Hammond refuses to give the necessary support saying that since the Bursa were demanding a war criminal be brought to justice for crimes against them, it was morally ambiguous for the SGC to interfere.

All along, Teal'c was willing to submit to whatever punishment the Bursa demanded, including death, in order to give retribution to Hano and as a means of atoning for his crimes, that he admitted freely.

Teal'c did plead guilty from the outset. It was only a fortunate turn of events that saved Teal'c at the last minute. Daniel's most convinving argument was that while his death may give satisfaction to the Bursa and a sense of justice served, it will not inevitable change the fact that Hano's father is dead. But if Teal'c was allowed to live, he could go on fighting the Goa'uld and save the lives of many humans oppressed by them. In effect, he was proposing a life sentence of fighting to eliminate this oppression from the galaxy.

It was quite a thoughtful episode, which, while having the obligatory happy ending, posed a lot of questions about the consequences of Teal'c past.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Good Stuff.

I've always liked David Brin, he's Definitely my Favourite Author.

If you liked that Article, you should check out his Web Site, www.davidbrin.com

It's quite Interesting.

[dgruss23]

Glom: I was reading this article about the morals of Star Wars. I was kind of intrigued by the guy's suggestion that the redemption of Vader was questionable.

Good article. He's right on logical grounds about Lucas's message, but I think he overrates the issue. Who cares? Its entertaining and that's what its supposed to be. I don't think school children are developing their morality based upon Star Wars:

"Gee Dad, if they could forgive Vader for killing all those people then ..."

Just don't see that happening. Relax Brin!

But I do like his suggestions as to how Lucas could save his story in the final movie. We had a thread on that a while back.

[gethen]

I agree with degruss23. One of the most irritating things in my world is the person who takes something intended strictly for entertainment value, and turns it into a soapbox topic. Of course, I'm drawing a distinction between the guy who things "snuff" films are entertainment, and the friend who actually thinks that Hollywood is promoting "godlessness" by filming movies about witches or wizards. Sometimes we try to read way too much into a simple action story or a fantasy. I do like David Brin's writing quite a lot, but I disagree with him when he tries to make Star Wars into some kind of political statement.

p.s. Why are there ads for colitis information at the bottom of this page? I find this most disturbing.