Okay, well, here we go. Be warned, this is kinda long.

To prove that I am a complete loser, I give you all this
analysis/reworking of the Light/Dark Side situation in Star Wars that
I typed up in about 20 minutes one night last summer.... The subject
came up over dinner with a couple friends, and I went to the computer
and jotted everything down afterwards so I wouldn't forget. I'm
anything but a fan of Star Wars, but I thought the ideas here were
interesting enough that I didn't want to just forget them.

This is no great analytical essay, as I basically just wrote down
things as they came to mind, and halfway through I started inventing a
framework for a possible history of the Sith/Jedi conflict. So, if
this seems unfocused and inaccurate... well, it's definitely the
former and possibly the latter as well. I've never bothered to go
through and edit it, aside from the requisite spellcheck. I really do
write better than this normally, honest. ::chuckles::

This isn't an attempt to "explain" Star Wars as much as it is to try
to apply some logic to the universe, and flesh it out so that it
doesn't have all the philosophical depth of a 2nd grade book report.
I'm not saying that this is what the universe -is- like, I'm saying
it's what I think it should be. So, please don't jump down my throat
just because you might not agree.

Anyway, I'm babbling. Here ya go.

------------------------------

I have a few issues with the whole "Light Side/Dark Side" dichotomy in
the Star Wars universe. After age 10, it just didn't seem to make any
sense to me, and in fact seemed rather silly. When one realizes that
most of what we know about the supposed "Dark Side" and the Sith comes
from the words of Jedi, an opposing sect of Force users, it would seem
that at best we're receiving an incomplete account of what the Sith
represent, and at worst we're being fed a twisted, biased account.
Remember, history is always written by the victors, and of course the
victors would wish to paint themselves in a positive light. And so, I
offer my interpretation of the Sith/Jedi philosophies on the Force,
and the Sith/Jedi conflict based on what we can -observe- in the
films, and not what we are -told- by the Jedi.

The concept of The Force, this universal energy field, being divided
into "Good Guy Energy" and "Bad Guy Energy" seems a little silly to
me, and really doesn't hold any water. It's a downright childish
concept. The universe would certainly be a happy place if everything
were so black and white, but good and evil are subjective
philosophical concepts, not universal truths. In fact, this ridiculous
notion seems like thinly veiled propaganda that Jedi preach to scare
their students, I assume to keep them from investigating the Sith. And
it would make sense to do so, after all why would the Jedi want to
lose promising Force-adept students to a rival school? It's not like
Force-users grow on trees. The Jedi also use loaded terminology to
describe the Force. "Light" is always associated with good, and "Dark"
is always associated with evil, so naturally the Jedi would call
themselves the "Light Side" and their enemies  the "Dark Side". It's a
simple use of terminology, but that's all it takes to create a bias
from the first moment someone hears the terms. "Oh, Dark equals bad,
so the Dark Side must be evil!"

It seems to me, from what we've seen in the films, that rather than
"Light" and "Dark" the Force can be divided into Passive and Active
methods of control, along the lines of the concept of Yin/Ying.
Neither type of Force energy is inherently evil, but differ noticeably
in methods of use. And based on this division and the powers displayed
in the films, it seems to me that Jedi embrace the Passive/Soft Force
and Sith invoke the Active/Hard force. Certainly, the two sects share
certain abilities, but there are ones they do not share as well.

In the realm of "soft/passive" abilities, Jedi exhibit a level of
mental domination/suggestion that the Sith never display in the films
("These aren't the droids we're looking for", and Ben's ability to
remain unnoticed while strolling through the Death Star). They also
have a keener sense of prophecy, which, as we know, isn't terribly
accurate, but is better than anything the Sith display.

In the realm of "hard/active" abilities, the Sith display a much more
precise level of telekinesis, able to manipulate the physical world
with greater force and precision than the Jedi were shown to in the
films. (Darth Vader's ability to strangle people at immense ship to
ship distances, etc.) In addition, Sith Lords are able to manipulate
the physical world to the extent that they can actually discharge
bolts of energy from their very person, as the Emperor demonstrated on
Luke. The Sith are also significantly better in combat than the Jedi,
as Darth Maul demonstrated when tackling two Jedi at once, one of them
a Master. Darth Vader himself was only injured by Luke when Luke
tapped into what was either anger or some other great fervor within
himself, the very active energy that the Sith seem to specialize in
using.

If the Force actually functioned along the lines of a "Good/Evil"
dichotomy as the Jedi claim, then I have to imagine that far more Jedi
would have fallen to the "Dark Side" over the years. First of all, if
a single blow struck in anger turns one to the Dark Side (as is
claimed) then one would have to be practically enlightened before one
entered combat. Jedi have certainly killed and maimed their share of
people in fights, unless we are to assume that Jedi only fought droids
before Luke and Obi Wan showed up. And would not the feeling of anger,
the desire to kill, be enough to sway one to this "Dark Side"? Or does
the Force operate like our legal system, where you can think all the
dark thoughts you want as long as you never act on them, otherwise the
Force Cops come and arrest you and place you on the "Dark Side"?
That's nonsense.

In all the films, the only Sith we are exposed to are Darth Vader,
Darth Maul, and Palpatine. It is fairly certain that Palpatine is a
power-hungry tyrant, however this in no way means that all Sith are
power-hungry tyrants, anymore than Hitler can be used to claim that
all German politicians are genocidal maniacs. And as for the hatred of
Jedi, the Jedi themselves admit to exterminating the Sith, so I have
to imagine that most Sith would like to return the favor. It's easily
conceivable that Palpatine was driven mad by his desire for revenge,
and not simply because he followed Sith teachings.

Darth Vader certainly had little problem killing people who failed
him, and he faithfully served the Emperor's agenda, but again we have
no reason to equate this with Sith teachings. In fact, he couldn't
have been introduced to such teachings until he became Palpatine's
student, having previously been instructed by a Jedi. Doesn't this
imply that his "evil" was a product of his own psyche, independent of
what Force school he studied?

And then we have Darth Maul, the third Sith, who I think truly proves
this point. If the Sith teachings created evil people, then every Sith
Lord would be evil. However, Darth Maul demonstrates no such evil.
Sure, he looks like Satan, but I think we can safely say that we
should judge people by their actions rather than their looks, since
we're not 2 years old anymore. Maul's actions demonstrate no tendency
towards evil. In fact, the only emotion he does demonstrate is loyalty
towards the Sith and their cause, and if anything I find that
commendable. And, with what the Jedi did to the Sith, I believe their
cause is just. Or do we believe that any dominant organization is
good, simply because it's dominant, and any underground, oppressed
group is evil? No, I don't think so. Yes, Maul killed Qui-Gon, but
that doesn't make Sith Lord evil anymore than it makes Obi-Wan evil
for killing Maul. They are on opposite sides of a conflict, they
fought, people died. Nowhere does the film demonstrate that Maul
killed because he's evil, but Obi-wan killed because he's good.

Looking at these three Sith, we see no evidence that what the Jedi
call the "Dark Side" makes you evil, or contributes to an evil
mindset. Two of them could easily be just as "evil" without the
benefit of Sith teachings, and one displays no evil tendencies at all.
There is no more proven, concrete evidence of a connection between the
Sith and Evil than there is between violent movies and school
shootings.

We cannot equate the Jedi with Good, either. In the first three films
we find out that the surviving Jedi masters, rather than actually
aiding the Rebellion, simply hid themselves in the most desolate areas
they could find. In the new film, the Council couldn't be moved to
investigate the report of a possible Sith Lord. Neither did they take
any offense at the attempted murder of two Jedi peace negotiators
(which is akin to America sending an ambassador to negotiate peace
between two warring nations, and then taking no action when one of the
sides attempts to kill the ambassador at the table. Excuse me?).These
aren't "good" actions, they're passive ones, so the idea that "Jedi"
equals "Good Force Users" isn't necessarily true. The "goodness" of
any given Jedi is a matter of that individual's personal beliefs. The
only Jedi to take any kind of good action, or action period, in the
newest film was one who was rebelling against the Jedi Council and its
decisions, defying their passive philosophy.

And how about genocide? Wiping out all of the Sith is certainly a dark
act, whether or not the Jedi killed them all face to face. Was Stalin
blameless for the 10 million people he ordered killed, simply because
he didn't actually kill them himself? I think it's safe to say that
the orchestration of such an act is enough. To wipe out an entire
religious sect (which I think it's safe to equate the Sith to)
requires more than killing all the teachers. You'd also have to
eradicate anyone with knowledge of Sith teachings, such as their
families, students, etc. Otherwise, the Sith would still be around,
even if just a minimal presence, and the Republic at large, not to
mention the Jedi themselves (who instead seemed shocked and
disbelieving at the notion that Qui-Gon had encountered a Sith Lord)
would still be quite aware of their existence. As it stands, few
people even know who the Sith are, and the Jedi Council isn't even
prepared to believe a Sith Lord still exists. How could that be
possible unless every last trace of them was wiped from the galaxy?

But, why would the Jedi want to eradicate the Sith, if they weren't
really Evil? Let's look at it this way- In a Galaxy-spanning Republic,
we have this powerful energy source called The Force. This Force can
only be wielded by a tiny percent of the population, granting them
amazing abilities. Within this Galactic Republic, there are only two
sects which teach people how to harness and use this energy, the Sith
and the Jedi. Should one of those sects disappear, then the other now
has a monopoly on controlling the most powerful individuals in the
Galaxy. The power of such a monopoly is now the ultimate motivation.
Why did the Catholic church violently repress all other forms of
religious/philosophical expression in Europe for over a thousand
years? Same reason. In fact, the historical state of the Catholic
Church in Europe seems to be a rather good analogy for the Jedi. It
has high ideals on the surface, but in practice seems more concerned
with its own social and political power.

Another reason for the Jedi's actions could also possibly have been
that more force-sensitive youths joined the Sith than the Jedi. After
all, youth is inherently more attracted to action rather than
passivity. How many children do you know who meditate rather than play
sports? Do more teenagers go to Ozzfest or the latest performance of
the Philharmonic? The Jedi would lose more and more students to the
Sith's opposing philosophy, and would possibly begin to fear dying out
through lack of new blood. This could easily have been one of the
things that sparked the Jedi's actions. In addition, with the Sith
being more adept in combat, the Jedi might fear the Sith simply
because the Sith knights could overpower them in a one on one fight.
Also, Sith could garner more public devotion due to their martial
prowess, protecting local areas, being military heroes, etc. Much like
the Knights Templar were adored in Europe before the Church feared
their growing influence and orchestrated their defamation and
destruction, with false charges of heresy, conspiracy, and the like.
The general public inherently fears Active energy more than Passive.
We like soldiers when they're fighting our country's enemies, but
popular culture is quick to label them violent, mindless drones when
they're not, and most mothers certainly wouldn't want their daughters
dating a soldier. We search people attending rock concerts, but not
ones attending more mellow musical performances. The majority of
people equate lively/passionate/active with dangerous, and that's an
easy bias to manipulate people with, as U.S. politicians well know as
they fan the flames on the current anti-rock, anti-video game fervor.

It would certainly be easy enough for the Jedi to manipulate the
government into siding with them, and creating an atmosphere of hatred
and panic against the Sith. The Nazi government of W.W.II Germany was
able to do this, as was the Catholic church in the aforementioned
Knights Templar example, and they didn't even have access to
Force-sensitive people who could implant mental commands/suggestions
into key members of the populace and government.  So, the Jedi Council
sat in the capital and pulled the Republic's strings until the Sith
were wiped out. And, according to the newest film, the Capital is
where they operate out of, apparently pursuing their political agenda.

Another odd thing about the Jedi- they refuse to train a potentially
powerful force user because he's too old at 10 years of age. Sure,
Yoda babbles off a few vague Jedi buzzwords, but they don't hold
water. Every sentient being in the universe is capable of potentially
experiencing anger or fear or hate during their life- that's certainly
no valid reason, because otherwise the Jedi would never be able to
train anyone. And to say that he senses fear in Anakin- Well, gee, no
kidding? He's just been torn from his mother and the only home he's
ever known to be tossed right into the middle of an interstellar
conflict. If he didn't feel fear, Anakin would have to be insane. So,
the only concrete objection from the Jedi council is "He's too old."

A 10 year old is too old to train? Excuse me? The only reason to
refuse someone 10 years old as "too old" would be because he is too
old to fully indoctrinate in Jedi propaganda. Apparently, the Jedi
only train people if they can be immersed in the Jedi mindset from
their earliest formative years, so that there is no competition from
parental or societal ideas, or any other dissenting form of thought. A
10 year old would be perfect otherwise- it is around this time that a
person begins to mature mentally and is able to begin the process of
adult thinking and problem solving. Anyone younger would typically be
too undisciplined to train, and would be unable to understand
complicated instruction. So, unless the Jedi are afraid of
brainwashing techniques failing, there is no excuse to refuse Anakin
on the basis of his age, especially as powerful a force-user as he
appears to be.

So, in addition to my belief that the "Good/Light Force" and "Bad/Dark
Force" division is false and doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny, I
believe there is far more to the Sith/Jedi conflict than is explained
to us in the films. Based on the evidence, I not only believe that we
aren't seeing the whole story, but what we are told is an active
disinformation campaign promoted by the Jedi.

Of course, another option is that I simply need to get a life (which
I'd probably have to agree with).

Christopher Kallini