Yep - Empire bad, and product of a Sith Lord / Palpatines machinations. Rebellion good, as it opposes Empire and Emperor. Fairly clear-cut, IMO.
Is this an "Empire did nothing wrong" type of a thread? I read an article recently that discussed that a cut scene would have demonstrated that the Empire was also nationalizing and regulating all markets and economics. Here is a brief summary of the dialog: “The Rebellion is spreading and I want to be on the right side—the side I believe in,” Biggs says. “Yeah. Meanwhile I’m stuck here,” Luke responds, looking crestfallen as he explains that his responsibilities on his uncle’s moisture farm have forced him to cancel his application to the Academy yet again. Biggs has no patience for these excuses. “What good’s all your uncle’s work if the Empire takes it over? You know they’ve already started to nationalize commerce in the central systems? It won’t be long before your uncle’s just a tenant slaving for the greater glory of the Empire.” And the video:
That deleted scene is actually canon now. It was described in some new canon work, I don't remember what book.
It is obvious that yes the Rebels started the conflict but what can be easily overlooked, but maybe shouldn't be, is that they did so while the government had and was partially governed by a representative legislature. I just think it's interesting to consider that a conflict may be bad vs. bad, that one side is bad doesn't necessarily mean the one opposing it is good.
The Rebels did not start the war. The Empire started it - simply by existing at all. It deserved to be rebelled against.
I'm a secret sith/conservative really. Build a wall! I mean a Galactic barrier! I mean, er, y'know, "insert clumsy and obvious political allegory joke"
They served some function, as even the military leaders on the Death Star were surprised at Tarkin's announcement, and asking how the Emperor would maintain control without the bureaucracy.
Did the allies really start WWII by fighting the Nazis? Using the exact same logic as the OP, it could be argued that what the Nazis did was legal because they said it was.
Well he didn't! He told the stupid warrior caste to close the gun ports when...oh wait, you mean the other one. never mind!
I think the thing is, the war against Palpatine and his power structures is justified, but the Empire as a whole is still essentially the republic until ANH. But then, the whole thing is described as a civil war. Which the clone wars were too...I am surprised the droid slavery angle wasn’t pushed more actually.
I think at one point the Republic to Empire model was much more based in classical history. Vader as Caesar. If this angle had continued maybe we would have seen Amidala as Cleopatra. Of course, Palpatine doesn’t quite fit this model, particularly by the time the prequels actually come along. But it’s there...especially when Palpatine was the name of a previous deposed emperor. Palpatine is not a million miles from the name the hills where the Roman Empire started, in the name of protecting its interests. I think following the classical model more would have enriched things...this is especially true for these new sequels. Mind you, they do go a bit renaissance with things like Kylo Ren and the newfound fascination with the concept of dynastic power. Even a little with Canto Bight...maybe, the weapons sellers are to be the medici.