 |
(For the girl who sometimes runs away
when she's angry.
That's better than some forms of
torture. Love you – 22 July 2014)
|
If they didn't believe that you loved
them,
they'd never leverage with “If you
loved
me...” Because that phrase is
laughable
in the absence of your love.
No Jew ever tapped Hitler's shoulder
to say, “If you loved us, you wouldn't
treat us this way,” because he would
return, “That is true. Quite true.”
And any child who wants a toy
will plead, “If you loved me, you'd
want to see joy on my face,” because
love's impulse is to say “I do! I
do!”
So when someone says “If you
loved me” to you, ask them this:
“If someone handed you a glove,
and said, 'This is not to warm
your hand; place it on mine,'
would you feel, in that
moment, it was your
hand or theirs that
hand or theirs that
they loved?”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker is capable of recognizing someone who truly loves him and someone who is using him to get something by simply “leverag[ing] with ‘If you loved me…’” (2). If someone loves you, he/she would complete actions and give without needing to be asked, and the speaker shows he is aware of this tactic through his analogy to a Jew and Hitler. The Jew should not be proposing “‘If you loved us, you wouldn’t / treat us this way” (6-7) because it is apparent that Hitler does not care for them at all. The concluding question about whether or not “it was your / hand or theirs that / they loved?” after placing the glove in the speaker’s hand, proposes the important difference between self-satisfaction and caring for someone else. The self-satisfaction comes from the “someone” who begins to love his own hand for acting selfless, but with a conceited connotation, by keeping the speaker’s hand warm, whereas the “someone” giving the glove to the speaker out of care and truly loving “your hand” over their own, brings selflessness to a more positive light.
ReplyDelete