MANY years ago, I came across a passage which read, “The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.” At that time, I thought it served as the fitting analogy for that particular period. Whichever way one looked at it, the reality was, people from all walks of life, had then looked at the coming presidential elections as a great opportunity to finally veer away from the usual crop of traditional politicians in the slate and in their place, vote for a fresh replacement or any hard–nosed contender, as long as this aspirant (or aspirants) wasn’t “trapo.”
As history had penned it, the people’s more popular clamor had won through, despite everything the opposition had hurled to prevent it. Giving credence to the saying, one might say the majority clamor for change was clearly that of the caravan, while the barking dogs in the adage represented those who barked loudly against it, preferring the status quo where an unpopular ruling system clung to power.
Flash forward six or more years. As what can only be described as wheels turning, a complete reversal of roles has taken place. A return to power by the once-vanquished, be it through political twists and turns and deft maneuverings, has all but diminished what once was. At this, if we were to return to that old saying and apply it again to the present condition, the roles of the caravan and the doggies, too, may be upturned.
However, I wish it were as simple as that. There’s no such one-plus-one-equals-two in the dynamics of human interaction. No matter how one may try to generalize it, there will never be an accurate representation, because every case is different. It may only seem like history is repeating itself in the general sense, but in the nitty-gritty, clearly, there are and will be differences.
To veer away from it all, the real take may as well be this: it matters not who plays the acting role of dogs or the caravan, because that’s not the important thing. Truth no.1 is, as always, there will always be two sides (or more) fighting each other, and no. 2, both sides will contend they are fighting on the side of the good. Ergo, no one admits to being on the opposite side, which is evil. As this is always the case, how, therefore, does one discriminate between the other?
As Simon Sinek, an American author and inspirational speaker, said in a podcast, if we start with the basic knowledge that everyone believes they’re on the side of the good and no one admits to being evil, we should shift our perspectives and stop labeling people we don’t agree with as evil. Instead, ask where they are sourcing their versions of good from.
The dog and caravan tale might still be applicable as being descriptive of any two opposite sides, but looking more into their intent is much better than just being the agitated neighbor roused up by all the ruckus.
