Skip to main content

We do talk


In this city, there is a man who is driving around with a bomb. He might be your driver, neighbour, boss, husband, father or drinking buddy. But, most likely, your drinking buddy. Because, he drinks. And loves his drink.

And, he loves music. And dancing. His favourite song, for now, is not état-major. But, at some point, it was. He does not understand French, does not know what the song talks about, he just liked the shouting and clapping at the beginning of the song. It laid a good ground for showcasing dance skills.

That time he was in love with that song, he still had the bomb with him.

In his favourite drinking place, having had asked for état-major, he would dance. Sway his hips. Place his right feet there, have the hands clasped together as in some prayer, while the left feet stood rooted in the ground to give balance to the waist that would be tossed up and down as if in some dingy on a chaotic Mediterranean sea. Spectators would abound. The new ones would buy him beer.

These days, his favourite song, is little of a dance. It is more meditative. And, you guessed right – or wrong, I will not mention it.

When we meet, he comes whistling that song: the meditative one. And, he looks cheerful – like he mostly does, it seems. His hand in my mine does not feel weak, or tired. It is callous but has a gentleness to it. His grip is firm – and fatherly.

We do not talk about the friend that has us meeting. We talk about music, first, before eventually talking about the bomb he travels with.

“Yes, it is there in my car,” he says, not in any way sounding fazed or scared.

“What purpose does it serve?”

“It gives me peace. You need that peace. We all need that peace. The peace to know that you, in a way, can be some small god that can cause a storm which can rattle the actual God,” he says this with a thin smile – another of a thin thing that should have been banned apart from those plastics. Because, thin smiles are actually not smiles. They are aggressive expressions of stuff that can be communicated with care, tenderness and an actual smile – even if they are bad news.

“Does your wife know about this?”

He says she has no idea, then adds a sexist remark: you know, women.

I say, I do not know women.

He makes that smile again (thin smiles, like most other thin things, are made). Says that women just look at the surface.

“The only way she would be concerned would be if I stop providing for the children, if I sleep out, if I come home announcing that I have quit my job or announcing that I am leaving her. As long as none of these things have yet to be done, she is not worried nor curious…”

“You let her use your car?”

“All the time. She even uses it more than I do.”

“And she doesn’t wonder why the glove compartment is always locked? I would think someday she might want to get something from there and find it locked, and that happens another two times, certainly she will be forced to raise eyebrows,” I charge.

He says she does not suspect him. She knows he cannot wander and, even if he does, he would return. He loves her.

“But you know what they are saying these days?” I ask.

“They are saying a lot, on what exactly are you talking about?”

I say: on men killing themselves. It is becoming a scourge. The statistics are scary. A lot of children are being left fatherless. Families are being scarred. They are saying you, or maybe we, should open up.

“Open to who?”

I say professionals – and quickly add – or those close to us.

He asks with a sneer:

“You think men do not talk, you think we do not talk?”

I say that some talk, others – maybe even most – do not talk. I add that it is all cultural and systemic. Men, I emphasise echoing those who are saying, are taught from a young age to man-up and be cheerful. And smile. And not cry.

The expression on his face changes. It hovers between that soft kind look and that angry rude stare. He goes into a sermon:

“Man, we talk. We talk in beer places. We talk in our workplaces. We talk in our marriages. We talk on Facebook. But, who is listening? I will tell you: nobody. They only pretend to listen when one of us dies by suicide. Otherwise, all the talking, they are not listening to.”

“How is that talking done?” I ask.

“In a lot of ways. If you listen closely, you will see us men talking…”

“Maybe we should be talking more directly, more openly. Not through actions and cryptic communication…”

He is not convinced. He says even if we are to talk directly, they would not understand.

“Because,” he emphasises. “We will be talking to people who know nothing about the feeling of suicide. We will be talking to people who have been taught that committing suicide is a sin, it is shameful. They cannot just be converted in a day. Online, they will come screaming shock when they hear that we are dying to suicide. In real life, they will turn around to mock. They know nothing about this. They cannot understand us.”

“So, how is travelling around with a suicide note going to help this situation?”

“Someone will listen when they find it.”

But, he adds, that will only be after I am gone.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The hate that hate produced: the John Chilembwe story

1915 : a middle-aged man in his mid-forties stands amongst a group of his loyal followers. They are about 200. Perhaps, it is a chilly rainy night with the silence of a graveyard surrounding the church. “The white man has sat on us for so long,” declares the tall man with obviously a mild temper. “We need to do something, we need to act. We must send him packing from our land.” Possibly, the men listening to him shake their heads in unison. Others are yet to comprehend what is driving the man of God in front of them for they have known him as a quiet man for a long time. Thus, the story of John Chilembwe’s rebellion begins, in the January of 1915, years long before the wind of freedom and change begins to sweep in the 1960s. Many years before the bells of freedom begin to ring on the African continent. John Chilembwe, writes Robert I. Rotberg in a 2005 Harvard Magazine article, was not a radical man such that nobody could expect him to stage a rebellion. He appeared

What would Jesus do?

The sun was just beginning to burn the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Some weeks before, four fishermen had been fished from their trade by the carpenter’s son to be his disciples. They were now with him. Sitting on the shores of the sea they had always regarded as a home. Their past, forgotten; hope erected in the future. Jesus, for that was the name of the son of the carpenter whom the church had denounced, was busy preaching to his congregation. His voice was small, his frame was little – almost frail. The cloth he had used to wrap his body in was dirty such that in within his congregation you could hear some little whispers of people wondering what made this man believe he was the son of God and not just Joseph, the carpenter. His voice had no charisma. It lacked that magic and fire that John the Baptist (now in prison) had had in those days when he had baptized people in this very same sea, calling them of the wicked generation, calling them to turn away from their sins

DNA's feminism

The song that placed DNA on a pedestal, Mukandipepesele , was not – at least in gender relations – ambivalent. It was clear. It was a song that portrayed the world of men: a world in which they make mistakes that leave a trail of hurt – unintentionally; and, thereafter, they seek to make things right – with little success most times.   Now, he has returned. This time, his album is called Dziko la amuna . In recent years, an album has never been ambiguous as the 13 track album that DNA has released. The literal translation of Dziko la amuna is twofold: one, it is a world for males; two, like in the song that introduced him on the local music scene, it is a world of males – that invisible yet occupied space. In the song that introduces the album, Odala , there is little that relates to the album title. It is, however, in the second song that DNA takes his audience through the world of males. A world in which value is based on the monetary possessions of a man. Not his intention