Scar's responsibility with the drought

[DGFone]

There was a topic before about whether or not Scar was responsible for the drought that hit the Pride Lands during his reign. While I do think that in the TLK universe he was indeed the one that caused it, as per the Fisher King, and I do encourage people to continue to debate about whether he did or did not cause the drought, I thought of something as somewhat of a "sequel" to this idea:

Okay so the drought hit while Scar was king. Did he cause it or not? Doesn't matter so much now. What matters is what he does. In the movie, we saw how he carelessly ruled in favor of the hyenas if at all, and basically completely failed to try and avoid famine. This neglect of duty is what caused the lionesses to become angry at him and send Nala out to find help in the first place.

So in the previous topic and elsewhere, I did come across the opinion that perhaps Scar was treated unfairly. That he is considered a bad king because of bad timing and of having to rule during a drought, while as far as we are aware, Mufasa did not have to. By that extension, Scar had to deal with a much worse situation than Mufasa had to, and therefore it's not fair to place the label of "bad king" on Scar because of this.

I personally think that Scar was a bad king in this case because his most visible policy as king made what could have been a simple drought into a horrible situation: He overpopulated the Pride Lands with predators. By allowing in too many hyenas and forcing the lion pride to tolerate their presence, the predator-prey scale was thrown off balance and the natural balance of animals shifted too far away from the equilibrium point.

When the drought hit, Scar had two binary options to chose from: He can go against the hyenas and at least force some to leave (or have the lions leave), or as we saw, he could not do anything. He shoved the problem under the metaphorical rug until it was too late, and the lionesses had no other hope but to commit the ultimate betrayal and actively work to remove him from power. So yes, I do consider it fair to label Scar as a poor king, if not for causing the drought, for failing in acting properly when it hit.

What do you guys think?

[juhouh]

The hyenas drunk all the water and ate the every single animal

Scar didn't respect the circle of life

[Carl]

The drought itself can't be blamed on him, no. But the severity of the situation was in fact because of his inaction. He could have moved the hyenas or the lionesses, or something, and he could have treated the lionesses better. But he didn't, and that's why it was as bad as it was.

[Lauren]

Obviously, Scar cannot be blamed for the drought because it was an accident caused by nature. Humans and animals cannot make nature accidents occur at any point (whether they be minor or major) since they are part of Earth's cycle and different weather factors play huge roles in them. I can see the perspective of Scar struggling much more with the drought because he can't exactly fix it on his own and Mufasa never had to deal with a drought or whatever before he died, but who's to say that he never did? We don't see Mufasa having to deal with a crisis like a drought in the movie while he had his leadership, but that doesn't mean that he ever had to deal with a problem like that in the past. He might have before Simba was born and after gaining his position as king, but at the same time, he probably didn't have to deal with a nature crisis since droughts don't come too often.

The way I see Scar's labeling as a "bad king" was the fact that he didn't even let Sarabi or anyone else give their side to the drought and at least try to listen to their ways of saving themselves and the other animals from death due to lack of resources. Scar didn't know how long the drought would last for and decided to stay at Pride Rock in order to see if things could get better sooner, but he should have at least tried Sarabi's idea of traveling with the other herds in order to survive and possibly return back home in the future if the drought vanished. He refused to leave himself and everyone else as well. Scar was way too stuck in his position as a "king" to the point where he didn't listen to anyone. It's better to leave home and go to a different environment where you have food, water, family, and a roof over your head than live at the same place where the entire environment and living conditions are at steak.

Plus, Sarabi addresses to Scar that her and the other lionesses could not find food and the herds went out of the Pridelands and immediately, Scar says that they "are not looking hard enough." How can he make that assumption about their job when he doesn't even see them try hunting in the drought conditions they are living in during that time? If all of the other herds left, then of course it would be extremely difficult for them to find food to eat. I find that very disrespectful to just immediately address that someone else's statement was false without evidence, especially since it was a queen who told that to her brother-in-law while they were in a environmental crisis. Also, if the other animals were able to leave, then why couldn't the lions leave too? It's either all the animals, plus the lions stay in the same place or go away together. It can't be half of the species groups. A leader has to care about everybody that lives under their leadership, not just a specific group.

[KentuckyWildcat]

There's a couple of ways that I can look at this, but neither one paints Scar in a positive light.

In my personal opinion, the drought is symbolic. You could almost say if was unnatural. Scar did not respect the balance of life, and his reign ushered in an evil presence that transformed the Pridelands from a place of life to one of death and despair. The drought was part of this, and it subsided after Simba took his rightful place as king.

Even viewing the drought as a random and natural occurrence doesn't vindicate Scar though. He was obsessed with gaining power, but he didn't think about the responsibilities associated with it. He expected a life of ease and adoration once he fulfilled his dream of being king, but he had no idea how to be a leader-even a tyrannical one- when hardship struck, and the pride suffered greatly as a result of his inaction.

In closing, I don't believe he's treated unfairly. He was either the direct cause of the drought, or at least exacerbated the situation with his poor leadership.

[EdtheHyena]

I saw something online last night about what Mufasa did to prevent it happening...hold on...

"
As a king and leader, Mufasa holds a deep understanding of the forces that make the Pride Lands balanced and healthy. His duties as King of Pride Rock include managing the hunting by his own pride and other creatures, and resolving disputes over feeding and watering grounds, to ensure the land's resources are not exhausted; he also must patrol the boundaries to drive out interlopers and prevent such crimes as killing for sport"

Maybe that helps!

[Carl]

[quote="EdtheHyena"]I saw something online last night about what Mufasa did to prevent it happening...hold on...

"
As a king and leader, Mufasa holds a deep understanding of the forces that make the Pride Lands balanced and healthy. His duties as King of Pride Rock include managing the hunting by his own pride and other creatures, and resolving disputes over feeding and watering grounds, to ensure the land's resources are not exhausted; he also must patrol the boundaries to drive out interlopers and prevent such crimes as killing for sport"

Maybe that helps![/quote]

Except that droughts are caused by the lack of rain. No lion can fix or prevent a drought.

[AnnaM]

Can I bump an old-ish topic?

I agree with people who say the drought was just symbolism. It's so obvious! Why else did it start to rain so suddenly as Simba ascended pride rock? Don't you think that skull in between rocks getting washed away was symbolic of the land being cleansed of Scar's evil? The drought was just symbolic of evil reigning. Haha...raining reigning. Funny homophones!

It is possible that excessive predation was responsible for the food shortage, yet the hyenas were complaining to Scar that they were hungry--so were the hyenas really eating any more than the lions were? Or were their complaints not worthwhile because they had voracious appetites? Or were they complaining only after their excessive killing had caused the shortage? If the hyenas' predation was part of the cause for the food shortage, I think it would have been wrong for Scar to try to get even one of the hyenas to leave, because Scar promised the hyenas they would share in the rewards of him being king, and forcing them to leave would definitely be breaking that promise.

"Stick with me, and you'll never go hungry again!!!"
"I know it sounds sordid, but you'll be rewarded when at last I am given my dues."
"The future is littered with prizes, and though I'm the main addresee, the point that I must emphasize is you won't get a sniff without me!"

And Scar saw that the hyenas took this as a promise: "It's great that we'll soon be connected with a king who'll be all time adored." If he didn't intend to promise them that, he would have corrected them (not really though, as that's only what he wanted them to think).

Yet, this isn't really relevant, since Scar's reason for refusal was not keeping his promise to the hyenas but based on being in control. He wanted to be in control of others, so he wouldn't take advice. He didn't care about right and wrong anyways, so it's not like he gave one thousandth of a hoot whether he kept his promise to the hyenas or not (he only cared about maintaining their trust in him, because they helped uphold him).

My point is, the only thing Scar should have done that he didn't do was move, as Sarabi suggested. I don't think he should have gotten rid of the hyenas. Why did they not deserve to eat as much as the lions? Because one should favor members of one's species over members of another species? Hmm...Maybe that was a condition of being king: value lions over all other species.

No one cares about all the animals (including insects, which are animals) that got eaten to feed those hungry lions and hyenas. But I joke. The story has to be interpreted with apathy towards all the suffering it suggests; otherwise it would have no meaning. IRL, though I <3 herbivores/prey animals!

And by the way, SimbaObsesser, I can't help but congratulate you for your use of funny homophones: [quote="SimbaObsesser"]"It's better to leave home and go to a different environment where you have food, water, family, and a roof over your head than live at the same place where the entire environment and living conditions are at steak"[/quote]I am always on the look out for funny homophones: steak and stake. I understand this may not have been intentional, but I would even have done it intentionally, and it's funny nonetheless. I do it on accident and on purpose all the time. In fact, the lions probably could have used some steak. (And I agree with your argument about Scar's handling of the situation, as I, too, say his concern was being in control and not doing good with his power.)

[Carl]

[quote]My point is, the only thing Scar should have done that he didn't do was move, as Sarabi suggested. I don't think he should have gotten rid of the hyenas. Why did they not deserve to eat as much as the lions? Because one should favor members of one's species over members of another species? [/quote]

Actually, in nature, one does have to look out for one's own species. And not just that, but a big part of the reason the drought was as bad as it was is because there were too many mouths to feed. If all those hyenas, and the lions, wanted to live, the only way that could happen is if they were not all concentrated in one area. First take into account that there was an army of hyenas. With the Pridelands at the peak of growth of luxury, there still wouldn't have been enough for all of the lions and hyenas together.

Now take into account the fact that the drought had in fact set in and the herds had moved on. What little food remained was definitely not going to be enough for both the lions and the hyenas. They all needed to leave Pride Rock, but the thing is, they needed to go separate ways. Otherwise, all of them would starve. Scar may have promised the hyenas, but as you said, he wasn't exactly a moral character who'd have chosen to keep such a promise. His duty was to be king of the lions. Their fate rested with him. The hyenas could function without him, hyena clans have a matriarch who serves the purpose of the 'king' of a lion pride.

Put simply: Scar was supposed to take care of the lionesses. Not the hyenas. They had someone to take care of them. He pretended to want to help both, but all he did was hurt both. It's not about "lions are better than hyenas" or "hyenas are better than lions." For both species' sakes, it would have been better for Scar to break ties with them and send them away. By keeping them there, he ensured that they suffered the same fate as the lionesses, a fate neither group should have been subjected to. That is why he should have sent the hyenas off. For their own good and for the good of the lionesses.