In this chapter, "A Knife in the Dark," Strider leads Frodo and company through the wild towards Rivendell, their current destination. Along the way we hear stories and begin to understand the deeper complexities of Middle Earth (and Strider). The company comes to rest at Weathertop, a high hill that has served as a watch tower in the past. They get a lay of the land from it, and then decide to camp there. They also find some firewood nicely piled. But Black Riders are spotted. Sam tells Strider they should leave. Strider says, "There is still hope," he said, "You are not alone. Let us take this wood that is set ready for the fire as a sign. There is little shelter or defense here, but fire shall serve for both. Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, and fear those who wield it."
"Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things." There is nothing inherently evil about fire, nor even destructive. A fire can be used as both a shelter [from cold] and a means of defense. In our time, coal and wood burning are a way to make energy, which can be used for all sorts of things. But fire can also be used for evil, such as arson. It's a tool - there is no morality attached to its existence.
Gandalf's quote from above deepens this idea - applying it to people, not things. In battle, the Free Peoples are just as fierce as Sauron's armies. We can call the Free People's 'determined' and 'brave' and 'clever,' and the hosts of Sauron 'stubborn' and 'reckless' and 'manipulative,' but the latter words denote a morality. To Sauron, the Free Peoples are stubborn in fighting him, reckless in sending Frodo with the Ring into Mordor, and manipulative by pretending the Ring is elsewhere (as Aragorn will in Return of the King). Gandalf and Sauron are both dangerous to their foes. But we tend to see Gandalf as being dangerous when he needs to be, and Sauron as just being dangerous. The text, with the exception of a few quotes from wise characters, also reinforces this. Sauron exists only to bring harm to the world - Gandalf can also do fireworks.
Thus we come to the application to our world. We know our community, our city, our country very well. We are aware there are layers. But "other" nations do not earn this sort of discerning view. Here I don't even mean just enemy nations, though certainly there is that. For example, we may believe Al Qaeda exists only to destroy the West. More than that, our culture teaches that. While there may be strength to be earned in building a community around an 'other' that is antithetical to our own, there are obvious moral problems.
More learned folk may realize Al Qaeda must have some constructive goals, even if those goals are not known to us. Even if those goals might not see constructive to us, they believe they are being constructive. In college I went to an event sponsored by the Chabad House (A very religious sect of Judaism) which encouraged students to marry Jewish women or else Judaism will cease to exist. But as upset as I was by that idea, they thought they were doing the right thing. They thought their ideas were constructive.
But even outside of our enemies, we do this. We can know the faults of our society and we may in fact despair at them. We see other societies or nations and don't see the same problems, and so we long for them. In doing so, we similarly gloss over the faults in that society. We are used to a set of problems and because we don't see that exact set of problems we assume there are no problems. This is best applied to dating: it is very easy to become focused on the faults of our current partner, and so when we meet someone new without those faults we assume there are no faults. Of course, we can all realize this is ridiculous. But even the wiser of us, when we are with someone and meet someone who is not wrong in the same way, there is a moment of "Ah! If only so and so was like this person!" We may eventually realize that's a useless thought, but there is always that moment.
Humanizing the 'other' usually refers to the enemy. We need to see our enemies as human beings. This is true. But we also need to see our heroes, as those who seem faultless, as human beings. Here's a visual:
Evil-----------------------------------Humans-----------------------------------Perfect
If we view someone as evil, we must raise them up in our mind and realize that we are only seeing their "dangerous" side. They are not this way to their families. If we view someone as perfect, we must bring them down in our mind (off the pedestal, as it were) and realize this person, by definition, has faults.
I realize, looking at the above spectrum, that I have put 'evil' on one side with 'perfect' being its opposite. But imperfect does not equal evil, nor does good equal perfect. But I can't figure out another set of words to use. Our heroes are perfect and our enemies are evil. I'm sure there is a whole other post exploring that idea, but for now I'll leave it at this: Perfect means there is nothing more that needs changing. If one is evil, therefore, a lot of change is required on their part before one stops being evil. But usually the burden of change is put upon the evil person. A lot of change is required on YOUR part before you stops being evil. Let's flip that. If we view someone as evil, WE must stop viewing them as that. A lot of change is required on OUR part so that we don't see them as evil. Everyone, not just the "good guys," enjoys fireworks.
No comments:
Post a Comment