A History of Villains

I remember watching a lot of cartoons growing up. Most of which I enjoyed immensely. There is a common theme among many such cartoons. The characters are flat. The villains are villainous, the heroes heroic. You can expect the villains to do selfish evil things to reach their own means; the hero to act selflessly to the benefit of all. The heroes will stand up until the end, while the villains will flee when they're losing. I find this last characteristic especially interesting. Many such cartoons, with a story arch each episode, involves a malevolent plan by the villain. The drama is created when the hero finds them self trapped and totally overwhelmed by the villain. However, much to the heightening of drama, they will not quit. Much to the danger of others and themselves, they stick it out. They overcome ridiculous odds to defeat the villain and rise triumphant once again. The villain faced with similar odds runs off to fight another day. So the story goes.

It is interesting how we have given such a characteristic to our flat villains. They are cowardly and will not face up in a fair fight. They choose self preservation over utter defeat. While the hero acts bravely and often foolishly in an attempt to ultimately conquer the villain. Is this a good trait in our every day lives? Both hero and villain will not back down from their goals. Both won't consider a middle ground with the other. But often in these cartoons the ideals are simplistic. Either face evil or have the world conquered and surrendered to the will of an evil intellect. But when is it so black and white? It's easy to stand up against obvious injustice. But our world is plagued with gray issues and dilemmas of questionable morality. In such a world, is it necessary to fight so stubbornly for our ideals or is it better to open ourselves up to alternative possibilities and perspectives?

This, in my opinion, is a reason why history may be extremely interesting (though I might not be convinced). It is the story of real humans dealing with such ambiguous issues. Often our history depicts one side as right and the other as wrong, exaggerated at times into villains and heroes. We demonize our enemies actions. But is it really so clear? They are all stories of humans. Tales of people who were doing the best for them, what they thought was right and virtuous. But as they say "to the victor goes the spoils." And often enough, that is the hindsight to have fought with moral superiority. But who does not fight with moral superiority? Of the great villains of our time, most thought themselves doing "what was best," even if their view was ridiculously skewed. They are also the ones who are considered unable to reconcile their quarrels with others. When there was an opposite viewpoint, these historic villains utterly destroyed their counterparts. They acted in genocide, destroying those that were different. They would not compromise, would not listen. They would not back down to the point of terrible violence. They decided that right makes might; that with their "moral superiority" they could wipe away the inferior. And isn't that the worst thing you could do?

I'm not thinking of any incidents or people in particular. Obviously in some cases, the "villains" were utterly wrong and worthy of harsh condemning. But often, the heroes as well attempted to utterly abolish the alternate viewpoint. It was made so the other side did not exist. I just think in general, instead of being a hero or a villain, that it might be better to be a commoner. It might be better to be open to solutions. Obviously this is true, but it seems so hard to get through sometimes. There is a saying (paraphrasing): "All that evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing." I think this phrase holds a lot of wisdom and insight. But is also wholly black and white. It assumes that there is an evil and an obvious contrary action that will be good. I guess I'm simply proposing that we be careful thinking this. Maybe we shouldn't so stubbornly be against an opposing view. Maybe the action we need to "do" is be forgiving instead of fighting against; try to reconcile the difference. What if the thing being done is simply selfish? What if the person doing the deed is the one who actually needs help? What if I am wrong? When we act so one-sided against, neither of us learns or grows. If we voiced our opinion and talked with the opposition maybe we both would gain and become better. There is a quote I like a lot from Lincoln: "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." We are all humans. Though we see each other as villains, I think we all want what is best. Maybe I am wrong.

It's crazy to think no violence ever has to happen again. If we all saw each other as they see themselves in their own eyes, how could we ever quarrel? We can be transparent. We can agree to disagree. We can be open. We can listen. We can grow.

For myself, I think this means I need to try and be less elitist. I need to listen instead of being self-righteous and accusatory. It is recognizing not only when I am being villainous, but also not chastising others for not being heroic. Hopefully I can help us along.