Skip to main content

Out with the bathwater. In with the baby.

It's never wise to throw the baby with the bath water, even if you didn't understand the figurative meaning of the idiom but just the literal. It fits in with a lot of events, especially of late - statues being taken down, cancel culture, objectionable history trying to be changed/addressed.

The phrase literally originates when, in days long ago with non-existent plumbing like today, water had to be brought with difficulty and used for the entire family to bathe, before being thrown out. The last one in was the baby, being smaller and easier to forget about. Hence, the phrase. The figurative meaning is that we should not end up throwing out the attached or easy-to-miss good while throwing out the bad.

This origin and meaning has massive likening to us today, as we are i.e. we are the last ones (yet) in a long line of whatever culture and values we hold. We're way younger than our ancestors when they championed it. Now, while we celebrate it, we could still have a lot of that dark, dirty water left from that process. We are literally the baby in the bath water. And the idiom asks to keep us alive. The only question is if it's possible at all to only throw out the dirty bathwater, given our identity in, and clear attachment to it.

A few questions still remain. Do we all have the privilege of having some water left to waddle in, however murky? Do all of us have the privilege of pride and dignity that would allow us to bathe at all, figuratively? Clearly, no.

In a previous article, I argue that there always only two kinds of people - those with power and those without. Those with power, somewhere along the line, gained their reputation by taking from those without power today, stealing their right to an wholesome identity so they (the powerful) can have the one they want. Anyone with power, even down all those years, is using stolen property for their benefit that's been way due to be returned.

When you talk of cancel culture, slaver statues being brought down, and history being attempted to be removed, we are talking about the fact that the bathwater we don't need comes attached with the baby. In this case, you literally cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. It's impossible because they are too attached.

I also argue that when people seize power over someone else/other people, that power becomes them and the only way to keep the baby is to keep the water. If we can't, anything else we do is futile. This time, let's call the bathwater a trail of blood, figuratively and literally (if it's the case). 

Since we can't, we'd have to do the next best thing - humble the powerful, because they aren't going to humble  themselves, give up their power and start bringing about equality. Their power may be all they have as an identity, and they've never faced or gotten used to people standing up to them. They've had it handed to them on a silver platter and innocently believe that everyone should earn their piece rightfully or, equally, be lucky to inherit it.

What we would not be trying to do is take away all they got. They can keep that. We're just gonna make sure that we cut off exclusive supply and make access to it equal. Those who want these stolen privileges can have them along with everyone else. No more profiling with bias - by police, during job interviews, with prospective tenants or or any other situation. Data on disprivilege and steps to help those individuals and communities get on an equal footing. No charity, just due. Just unlocking all those closed doors that the powerful chose to lock up and occupy inside.

But they're not going to give in easily. Even if the battle's legitimate, they're going to go berserk in rage and sound loopy, but they'll hold onto and flaunt that power and privilege for dear life, sometimes with extremely politically right honesty (the irony!). It's war, if it comes to that. The bathwater must go. The baby must stay.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Does your politics make you a pig?

Time, despite the inevitable changes, needs a few constants otherwise we lose ourselves, like manners i.e. civility, grace, respect - that age-old value that can seem really old school sometimes. The manners that maketh the man, they say. They also mark the man apart by miles from those people with lesser or, worse, none of this standard. This golden role can be offered no excuse, none at all. The problem, however, arises with the ongoing intense political age where person and politics know no boundaries. Intentional politicking usually involves supporting one side in total, including its bad parts, to avoid the fallouts of the other side(s) in total to achieve the best world possible yet. Depending on how desperate you are for that world, reason starts to fade, irrationality takes its place and you can't make out the difference between the two.  That's when you lose the manners that maketh you. Name-calling, condescending, patronizing and other collectively influenced adverse...

Anything but a headless response

When information overwhelms us, oversimplification is the order of the day - or that is the modern state that we have evolved to (if you'd like to call that modern). We are not capable of the patience of taking in, and keeping every detail, while we build a story that's truly worthy of all of them. That is the unfortunate case with how we react when we most need to, like the Nice killing.  Let's look at the information and calculate the oversimplification. We can, then, get a clearer picture and choose an adequate response.  The Information :  The adherents of extremist belief have decided that their belief ranks above humanity, enough to consider another human worthless (and worthy of death) just because they celebrate other values. One set of sacred values directly, and oppositely, clashed with another like they were sworn enemies to begin with - except that they were not.  It's just the wrong place for both to exist together. The...

...and then they came for you

Sometimes it takes what seems like the wrong punch to get the right effect by an expected person - like the recent backlash by many Muslim countries about Nupur Sharma's statements on Prophet Mohammed. Just a disclaimer though: their response is not a complete defense of what many Indian Muslims go through in a stated secular country like India - whether it is by the 1976 assertion of "secular" in the Preamble or the claim that Hinduism is anyway secular making the former unnecessary. The international response is on an equal level to how many Muslims are made to face struggles at home in India. The mirror just flipped. It's all show and no substance, just with a different name.  The countries, which registered their opposition, practice a somewhat equal intolerance of beliefs other than theirs, as does the Hindutva brigade that has been on the rise in the past few months, whose words these very countries have raised an issue with. They, both, have the same cultura...