I'm trying, these days, to try and listen. to other people. especially those, who I don't want to listen to. or rather those I want to interrupt badly, with opposition, with passionately felt opposition. at a recent faculty (teachers only) meeting I realized I sometimes became what I would otherwise call 'militant' (if I wasn't myself doing it then or if I saw or believed in the opposite at that moment) in voicing my opinion. and I am not proud of that realization, or rather I'm proud of having realized it but not of what I realized about myself. and it is then no wonder, that I've had people glare at me in some such conversations, not wanting to ever talk to me again, especially when such militancy was expressed in opposition to what they were saying.

so after reading Teju Cole about the European-Muslim identity and integration crisis in Brussels (waking up after the first night of reading this as the narrator moves to Brussels from NYC, to news of the Brussels attack recently), and sympathizing with the underdogs in the story as I have a general bias toward them, I decided to give eyes to the opposite opinion. to another side of the story. and Flemming Rose so came in. after reading about a fifth or so of his book, I was shaking my head in vehemence again, almost yelling to make his one-sided story stop, dying to tell him he did not understand. that he was wrong.

and I wrote him a long letter. one of those, with links and examples to express what I was trying to say, to bring home the meaning to him, to help him see the only truth in this story. that he was wrong.

and I almost emailed him the letter. almost - I stopped only because I was hesitant to use my email address to send it, in some ways to use my identity to sign off with. I didn't know what that would entail, in the future. and yet creating a virtual identity or in other words to use anonymity to send it would be cowardice, preposterous to even think of. so I settled for middle ground, and procrastinated, leaving to a wiser future me to know better what to do here.

the very next picking up of his book that night took a sudden turn. he started explaining the why, of what he had done. the history behind the event. and isn't that where all meaning lies. I suddenly realized he was not so wrong, nor was I so sure of what was right or wrong here. it wasn't so simple anymore. and I understood a little bit.

I'm so glad I didn't send that email already. someone once told me, when you're really angry about something go ahead and write it all down, as clearly as possible, explaining as much. and then lock it up, and try reading it some days later, or maybe even better, just crumple it or tear it up and throw it away. it served its purpose while it was being written in fact, and there's nothing more sometimes that it can do.