The Missing Variable In The Black vs. Blue Lives Debate: How Pandemic Racism is Effecting All Lives.

In case you missed it, The Palm Beach Post just published a story about a man who was shot by the police while in the care of an autistic man.  Yes, the man who was shot was black.

As it turns out, I was already aware of this story before it hit local news papers.  In the next few days it is probable that the story will go national.  The reason I knew about this story before the news is because I work in the field, providing services to handicapped and disabled adults in South Florida. Thankfully, this was not one of my employees, but it just as easily could have been as the details to to story (preceding the police involvement resulting in a man being shot), is a familiar one.  A mentally challenged man with autism eloped from his facility and one of his caregivers went to retrieve him.  Apparently, both men were seen walking down the road and a witness contacted the police department reporting the two men, claiming one man had a gun.  As it would turn out, the man did not have a gun.  The only thing found was a toy truck, which likely belonged to the handicapped patient.

Here again we have another tragic story about an unarmed black man being shot by the police.  Unfortunately, things like this seem to be happening a lot lately.  Truthfully, they've probably always been happening, but modern technology has allowed for more accountability. The reason I'm writing this blog is because this instance is a perfect example of one the bigger, underlying problems in the 'Black Lives vs. Blue Lives' debate, which I feel is often overlooked.

You see, the problem is not as simple as the police being racist. That is certainly a problem, and there are certainly police officers that are racist.   But, the heart of the problem seems to be that PEOPLE in general are racist, and the police department is comprised entirely of PEOPLE.  This isn't to imply that all people are racist in the same way it is not implying that all police officers are racist.  But, to argue that NO ONE is racist is absurd.  And, if we can all agree that some people are racists it is certainly reasonable to conclude that some police officers are racists because they makeup at least a portion of the collect population of our country.

What, however, is interesting about this debate is the supporting statics.  Without bogging you down with a bunch of big numbers that you probably won't read anyways, on average our most current statics tell us that black men are approximately 2.5 times more likely to be shot and killed by police officers, than white men.  This is a staggering statistic and unequivocally shows the imbalance between white lives vs. black lives.  Yet, what is often never addressed is the statistical ratio of reported "crimes."  In short, law enforcement is more likely to receive a call or report about a black man than a white man.  Statistics suggest that black men are also about 2.5 times as likely to be reported to the police for suspicious behavior.  These numbers are rough but worthy of note as they suggest that the greater issue may be racism within the broader community, not simply law enforcement itself.  If a black man is more than twice as likely to be reported for "suspicious" behavior this implies that police officers or more than twice as likely to have to engage a black man than a white man.  This would certainly help to explain some of the imbalance in numbers.

To be clear, this in no way alleviates those police men who are taking Black Lives.  Shooting an unarmed man is unacceptable; yet, it does add another layer of complexity to the debate.  In short, the problem we are witnessing in America is bigger than just Blue Lives.  The problem is racism itself.

This most recent incident in Miami is a perfect example of what seems to be a terrible scenario.  Fault certainly lies in the police officer who decided to shoot an unarmed black man.  But fault also lies in the witness who saw a 'suspicious man carrying gun' when in fact it was simply a black man doing his job. I'm writing this blog not because I feel compelled to assuage justifiable anger against law enforcement, but rather to remind us all that law enforcement also cannot be America's racial scapegoat. We as Americans need to be outraged by the taking of black lives by law enforcement, but we also need to be outraged by the broader communities perception that because a man is black, he is up to no good or a criminal.

The Delicate Nature of Taste & The Sociological Implications of Preferential Experiences

You grew up somewhere.   Your family came from somewhere.  I don’t know where, as every person who reads this is likely to have a different answer.  But, if i was a betting man, I’d say that there is a high probability that you enjoy food that comes from where you ‘grew up.’

I personally was raised in Memphis, TN.   Accordingly, there are certain foods that I happen to particularly enjoy.  For example, I love a good pulled pork BBQ sandwich.  And, it’s not just the sandwich.  It has to have a particular style of BBQ sauce on it, which typically derives from an apple cider vinegar blend.  I also enjoy black eyed peas, and a relish that we refer to in the South as Chow Chow, which is basically a spicy pepper based relish used to top off one’s peas.  If you’re from Memphis, you know what I’m talking about.

If you’re from Texas you probably prefer your BBQ to be beef not pork. And, if you’re from the Carolinas you probably prefer a mustard based BBQ sauce… but really there is no telling for sure, as every location has its own nuances… and that’s  just when it comes to BBQ.  

This predilection for food often extends beyond just casual interest.  As I’ve lived all over America, one thing I’ve noticed is that people are very serious about “their” food.  I’ve also noticed that people always believe that their food is the best.  If you ask me what the best type of BBQ is, my answer will look exactly like my description outlined above. This is the nature of preferences.  We all have preferences and because our preferences are by definition what we prefer, to us our preferences are the best among possible options.  This isn’t rocket science; it is glaringly obvious.

Let’s be honest, we all like what is familiar… what’s comfortable.  We like our food the way mom or grandmom used to make it. No one is surprised by this.  Since living in South Florida I’ve had the opportunity to meet a great many people from Latin America and the Islands.   When I listen to them arguing over whether Cuban food is better than Colombian food, or whether Jamaican food is better than Haitian food, I imagine it must be a similar experience to them when they hear Southerners arguing over BBQ.  After all, isn’t it all just the same thing?  NO!!! It isn’t, and we’re all passionate about our opinions when it comes to our own preferences.

Similar to food, preferences extend to other aspects of culture as well whether it be art, entertainment, fashion, or beliefs.  While I spent my childhood in the South, I spent my teenage years living up north in Michigan.  My father, to this day, is a huge fan of The University of Michigan’s football team.  Even though I rarely have time to watch sports these days, I too still cheer for the Wolverines.  I always will.  It is somehow ingrained in me.  So much so, that when I find out a professional player is a graduate of the school I became an immediate fan.  “He’s a Wolverine.  Of course I like him!”  

This is actually quite peculiar when one considers it.  This is a person I’ve never met, I never will meet, and has no real bearing on my life.  But, regardless of all these facts I will still cheer for him and feel an undeniable yet completely unwarranted connection with this individual.  When  I first got wind of some of the scandals surround the New England Patriots and their all American quarterback Tom Brady, I was quick to dismiss them.  “So they’re using cameras to read other teams signals,” sounds smart to me.  “So the balls weren’t properly inflated,” they're job is to find a way to win… it’s the referee's job to check the balls, etc. etc.”  But, you see Brady is a Wolverine, or at least he was… so in my mind he always will be.  Therefore in my weird  and unfairly biased brain, he can do no wrong.  After all, he made the decision to play at The U of M! Clear his decision making skills are top notch.

Would I have been so forgiving if the team in question had a star player who graduated from Ohio State?  NO! Absolutely not!  In fact, that would just give me more reason to hate the player and the Buckeyes!  

If you’re from Ohio or Michigan you may be chuckling to yourself right now… unless you’re a Spartan fan (Michigan State)… but that’s a different story…

The point being we all understand a person’s innate preferences when it comes to food, or art, or footballs players despite how irrational these preferences are upon further reflection.

Where we all get into trouble though is when it comes to race.

Uh oh… that’s right. I just used the “R” word.  You see, when it comes to race people think they have an innate ability to transcend their natures, to see beyond their biases, and to think clearly.  Because God knows… they aren’t racist!

It’s funny, I’ve never met a person whose claimed to be a racist; yet, racism clearly exists.  Somehow this equation doesn’t add up.

You see, no one wants to be labeled a racist and that’s a wonderful thing.  The problem is people are racist whether they want to be labeled it or not.  No one likes being called a liar, a thief, a rat, or an idiot either.  That however doesn’t mean they aren’t one, per se.  You see the term “racist” has appropriately gained a negative stimulus.  But, that doesn’t mean human beings have changed. It simply means the way that we talk about things has changed.  That’s an important difference.  

Where we all miss the ball when it comes to race is by thinking that we as people don’t feel more comfortable and/or at ease with people we feel, whether correctly or incorrectly, that we have more in common with.  If you throw two Michiganders in a room together they’re gonna discuss hunting, fishing, and football at some point in the evening, and they’re probably gonna have a great time doing it.  They may have been total strangers before the discussion, but they are likely to feel an affinity towards one another for no other reason than where they both grew up. It’s the same when you get two Puerto Ricans together, or two Trinidadians, or two Brazilians… or any two people who grew up in similar places adhering to similar cultural values.

Would I go out of my way to chat with a random stranger if I found out he was from Oregon or New Mexico.  Probably not, and not because there’s anything wrong with either of those places… I just don’t know much about them; I probably wouldn’t have much to say.  

What if it came to hiring someone to work beside? What if I had to choose between someone from Michigan or California.  “Well, I don’t know about the work ethic in California, but I can sure as hell tell you that up in the mitten (i.e. slang for Michigan) we teach people to work hard for their living!” What if if came to making judgment about someone allegedly committing a crime?  Would I be more willing to listen to someone who looked like me, who talked like me, who grew up in the same neighborhood as me than someone I had nothing observable in common with?  You see where I’m going with this.  A person’s preferences tend to lean towards what is familiar and known… what they are comfortable with based on previous experiences.  The first time my wife, who is of Haitian ethnicity, took me to a Haitian restaurant I was admittedly skeptical.  “What am I eating.  This looks weird?” Now I realize I love Haitian food & I eat it often, but that is because I’ve had positive experiences in the past.  What if the first time I tried Haitian food I picked a really bad restaurant or had a negative experience, would I hate or dislike it?  Oh no… I’ve just added another variable to an already complicated issue!

The problem we as Americans face is that we are willing to acknowledge our biases when it comes to everything but race.  This doesn’t seem like a step forward; it seems like a step backward.  Obviously, I’m NOT condoning racism. Yet, I do believe that the negative stimulus surrounding racial discussions has people unequipped to speak and quick to anger when their thoughts are labeled as racist. Racism is bigger than using the “N” word or allowing differing races into your community or social group.  It can be as simple as thinking that the way “your people” do things is better than the way other people do things.  More often than not, that’s how we feel when it comes to things as basic as food, isn’t it possible that the same feelings emerge when it comes to other aspects of  living?  These are things to consider.

I’m writing this blog because I want people to rethink how they think about race.  As a white male I can tell you that there have been many many occasions where I’ve been interacting with “my people” and I’ve heard them make blatantly racist statements.  They usually follow these statements by saying, “Oh, but I’m not a racist.” Clearly, there is a disconnect. When discussing the current racial issues in American law enforcement I often hear things like, “Well, look how many black men are in jail compared to white men… maybe they should stop committing crimes.”  To be sure, no one should be committing crimes, but it seems that what never gets pondered is whether or not black men enjoy the same reservation of judgment as white men.  When a white male teen is caught smoking marijuana he he’s viewed as ‘troubled.’ When a black teen is caught in the same act he is viewed as a thug or gangster.  Who are you more likely to send to prison? A troubled teen, or a thug and gangster?  See what I mean.  

When rapper Dr. Dre released his debut album “The Chronic” he established himself as a “hardcore gangster.” Here was a man who was openly expressing his criminal behavior and drug use.  The reputation Dr. Dre gained from this album , no doubt, cemented his place in the music mainstream.  But, look how differently people responded to Tom Petty’s song “You Don’t Know How It Feels,” which came out two years later and is a song that like “The Chronic” openly encourages illegal drug use.

Correct me if wrong, but Petty did not receive any “street cred” for writing that song.  He wasn’t viewed as a criminal or thug either.  Why is it okay for Petty to use drugs and openly sing about them, but when Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg do it, it is immediately associated with criminal behavior.  Is it possible that people view other criminal activities the same way? Or how about the Ben Affleck movie “The Town,” which came out a few years ago.  It’s about a bunch of murdering criminals who rob banks and commit numerous other atrocities on screen; yet the audience cheers and reveres them for their clever escapes from law enforcement.  Would audiences have responded the same way to the film if the all white lead cast was replaced with an all black one? Would white audiences enjoy watching a group of young black men commit crimes and evade the law?

I could go on for days listing examples like these and of course not every example is perfect as there are inevitably other variables than JUST race that shape our perceptions.  But, I do think it is important for all of to start thinking different about race.  Maybe in some small way this blog will help.

Thank you for reading.

101 Ways Not To Be A Racist

I am like many of you. I’m white. In case you weren’t aware, we still make up the vast majority of the population. I don’t have exact numbers, but last time I checked the national census data whites made up about 75% of the total population. Blacks came in around 13% and Asian and Hispanics made up the rest of the numbers. I imagine the Hispanic population is higher these days, but, again, I don’t have exact numbers.

The point being, white people, like me, still make up the vast majority. For this reason, it’s kind of funny (not funny, actually) that white people are so worried about the ‘dangers’ of other races in America. It’s sort of like going to watch a Yankees vs. Tigers game in Yankee Stadium and Yankee’s fans being terrified and worried about the handful of Detroit fans scattered throughout the crowd.

Many white people will argue that they aren’t afraid of black people or other minorities, but unfortunately that’s just not true. I know, I know… they’ll tell you they have black friends at work or school, they may have a black neighbor or even a black doctor… after all, they do have a black president. But in most of these cases, white’s still hold the social power in these situations and their black “friends” are only their “friends” because they have assimilated into their predominately white communities. In short, they’re still in Yankees stadium surrounded by other Yankees fans; it’s just that some of those Yankees fans are black.

However, when the tables are turned and white people find themselves in an environment where they are the minority they suddenly feel uncomfortable and scared. Don’t believe me. It’s a simple experiment. Go to an all black part of town, where you are the only white person present and hang out for the day. Most of you won’t do this… Why? because you’re scared and uncomfortable with the idea. No home court advantage, you could say. Suppose you had to live there, forever. Would you buy a gun to protect yourself and your family? Would you use that gun if you or they were threatened?

What many white people fail to realize is that’s how other, minority cultures feel all the time. They never get home court advantage. Not at the grocery store, not at the bank, not at the car dealership, not in courts, and not in the criminal justice system. They are always living in an environment where they are the outsider. Yet, ironically it is they who are feared. Why so scary, one might ask? Well, I don’t have the time to explore biological development, cultural constructs, or human anthropology in a blog entry, and it’s doubtful you’d want me too because it would be a lot of facts and data. And, while facts and data certainly point towards clear and present truths, people in general are far less likely to be won over by facts and data (although they’d never admit it) than they are by their up bringing or personal experiences. So, let’s set aside the facts and data, and allow me to tell you a story… a story about my up bringing and experiences. We’ll call this story 101 Ways Not To Be A Racist.

I like most white people grew up in a largely white environment. I had predominately white friends and neighbors and they were happy, healthy, and typically financially stable. But, I didn’t live in a vacuum. This is America after all. So, I had black neighbors who were doctors and at times they’d come over and dine with my family. I had black teammates, as I played basketball in the inner-city basketball leagues in Memphis, TN. Eventually my family moved up north, and I had some black friends and even had a black roommate in graduate school. In fact, my family even ‘adopted’ a young man (if you can adopt a grown man) from Sudan, who grew up in refugee camps in Africa. He was sent to America, like many other Sudanese boys, to be protected from the civil unrest in northern Sudan. We, as good white people, were delighted to take him into our home and help him get a good start on his new life in America.

Furthermore, as an adult I took on a teaching position in Brookhaven, PA. Brookhaven is a small borough between Chester, PA and West Chester, PA. If you are at all familiar with Eastern Pennsylvania or the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area, then you know that Chester is very different from West Chester. Chester is poor and primarily black; West Chester is affluent and primarily white.

Yet, because I taught at a private, classical school anchored in between these two parts of town, we were blessed with a mixing of students from both Chester and West Chester. It was an integrated school, and, for the most part, the kids got along beautifully. It was a real testament of how young people from different races and cultural backgrounds could get along and coexist.

At no point in my life did I view myself, my family, or any of my close friends as racists… look at all the examples I just gave you… clearly we weren’t racists… I wasn’t a racist, right?

Hmmm… not exactly.

You see, the last part of this story begins with my marriage. As fate would have it I married a black woman. Technically she is Haitian American and therefore West Indian, as opposed to being Black American, but either way her skin is “black,” and when people see her they see a black woman.

You would think that going into an interracial marriage would definitely solidify the, “I’m not a racist card.” I mean after all, I married a black woman! Yet, what I have learned from this experience is quite the opposite.

You see, while I had black friends, and neighbors, and even a temporary black roommate I never had my life completely assimilated with someone black. I could always go back to my white neighborhood after my inner-city basketball games or my white friends after hanging out with the black kids, etc. Now I am unequivocally linked to “blackness” because I’m married to it. And, for the first time I’m seeing and experiencing racism in a way that I never imagined or understood. More often than not that experience is indirect as I watch the way people respond to and/or treat my wife. I noticed how their demeanor and attitude changes when they meet me and see she is married to a white man. I noticed how I’m looked at and treated differently because I’m married to a black woman. I noticed how some people are scared of my wife who is probably the least scary person I know… unless of coarse I’ve made her angry in which case then she is a little scary, but only towards me. I noticed how we get followed in stores, and how women will clutch their purses when my wife walks by them.

Now for the first time in my life I’m re-seeing and re-hearing what people say. My eyes and ears have been re-opened. Peoples say racist things all the time and don’t even realize it. Often they think they are being complementary and are shocked when their comments are not met with smiles and approving nods. I myself have been guilty of this… even though I was sure I wasn’t a racist.

You see, as I’ve been writing this fun (not so fun) little blog, I’ve been being a racist. No, I haven’t shot any black men, or hung them from trees. I haven’t burned down any houses, or called them dirty names. But, I have qualified them as different from myself… different from my white neighbors, different from my white teammates, different from my white students, and different from my white roommates or family members. You see, even though I accepted them in my life, on my teams, in my neighborhood, and even into my family I viewed them as different because they were black. In short, I can accept the Tigers fans in Yankee stadium. I can be polite, not curse at them, or dump my beer on their heads, but at the end of the day… they’re still Tigers fans, not Yankees fans and therefore… from a baseball stand point, we can’t relate. (for the record I’m a Tigers fan & I hate the Yankees… we all have our prejudices). The difference in this little metaphor is of course the fact that baseball is a game. Games come and go. A person’s race is not a game. It’s not a choice. It does not come and go. It is for life, and because of this it affects every aspect of a person’s life.

If you still don’t believe me, or think I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill. Let me give you some common examples of things I hear white people tell my wife nearly every day:

“Wow. You are a beautiful black girl.”

“You are one of the most beautiful black girls I’ve ever seen.”

“I have a friend who is black.”

“One of my best friends is black.”

“You’re not even really black.”

“I’m blacker than you are”

“Oh, your husband is white? That makes sense. I’m not surprised”

… and the list goes on

In all of these types of statements a few key issues are at play. Firstly, the qualification of ‘blackness’ as different from ‘whiteness.’ Notice that they don’t say, “You are one of the most beautiful women I’ve ever met.” Ask yourself this. When you see a beautiful white woman do you say, “Wow. You are one of the most beautiful white women I’ve ever met.” No, because ‘white’ does not require qualification. When you meet a new white person do you say, “Oh, I have a friend who is white,” or, “One of my best friends is white!” ,When you go to see a movie with an all white cast do you say, “We’re going to see that new movie about white people,or that new white comedy, etc.” Are you beginning to see how absurd this is?

The second major issue is the assumption that in order for a black person to affirm and support their own race, they must also affirm and support your stereotypes of their race. How about this one, “What, you don’t eat sauerkraut? You aren’t even really white, are you?” Or, what would a white man have to do to get this response from a black man, “Oh, you’re dating a black girl. I’m not surprised.” You see, things sound a little funny when they’re flipped around. But, unfortunately it’s not funny at all. You might think these subtle forms of racism are menial, but to think that misses the point because most people don’t value things as highly if they are deemed as different. It’s true.

Sticking with our baseball analogy, a Yankees fan is likely to obsess on a bad call on the Yanks, but celebrate or, at the least, gloss over a bad call on the Tigers. It’s human nature, but that doesn’t make it right. Yankees fans value the Yankees, so every call is important… especially the bad ones. But Yankees fans don’t value the Tigers, so calls against the Tigers aren’t important, unless of coarse they benefit the Yankees. You see where I’m going with this?

This week, our country is in a racial tizzy over the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Yet the responses from many white people are like those of Yankees fans who’ve just witnessed a bad call on the Tigers. You can celebrate it, ignore it, chalk it up as part of the game, or simply rationalize it. It is however unlikely that Yankees fans would respond the same way if the same call was made on the same play but it went against the Yanks instead of the Tigers.

What if a upper-middle class white kid from a local private school decided to steal a pack of cigarettes from the local Wawa, but instead of apprehending him, or simply giving him a stern warning and making him return his stolen goods, the police shot him, multiple times, to death. Wouldn’t that seem odd to you. What if it was your son, your brother, your cousin, or even just that kid next door? Yet, that is similar to what happened and continues to happen in America. The only difference is the lives being taken or black, not white.

Because I married a black woman I know that if we ever have a son he will be a black man. The fact that he would truthfully by half white is ignored by society because if you aren’t all white you’re black. What do you think that says in and of itself? What if when Michael Brown’s father stepped out of his home in Ferguson to find his son dead in the street… instead of it being a black man… a black father… it was a white man… a white father?

I have to now ask myself questions I never would have asked before because my sons will be black sons. And there lies the problem. I should have been asking myself these questions all along, regardless of what color my sons would be. And that’s why I’m a racist. And, that’s why you might be a racist too.

The Greatest Story You've N/ever Heard: Introductory Remarks.

Introductory Remarks:

    Everyone reads the Bible for different reasons.  Some read it from a historical perspective, some read it from a critical perspective, some read it out of obligation, and some read it because they believe it is the word of God.   Inevitably, how you approach the text will be the guiding factor of what you find there.  The Bible is a vast and complicated book.  From my personal experiences, when people set out to read or study the Bible, they usually do so because they are searching for something.  Like in all matters of life, a person will usually find what they are looking for if they are willing to search hard enough.  This is no more or less true with the Bible than any other text.

It is for such reasons that the Bible has become such a widely debated and controversial book.  It is for such reasons that there are so many different, sometimes conflicting, branches of the Christian church.  Just the number of denominations under the umbrella of Protestantism is itself staggering.  So, what does the Bible really teach us?  Is there just one answer, or are there many answers?  Is one interpretation more accurate than another?  Does one denomination or branch of Christianity hold more relevance than others?  These are all difficult questions to answer.  And, unfortunately the responses to any of these questions will depend on the person providing the answers.  For some there will only be one correct interpretation and therefore only one correct answer, while for others there may be a plurality of possible interpretations and therefore a variety of different answers.  In sum, different folks, different strokes.

Like many readers of the Bible, I grew up in the church.  So, before I even began to read the Christian scriptures on my own, my head was already filled with stories, ideas, values, and beliefs.  It is very difficult to read any text in a different light than how one was taught or trained.  Accordingly, my experience has been that those who have been taught or trained to adhere to traditional, contemporary Christian beliefs usually, whether correctly or incorrectly, read those beliefs and values into the text.  This is not necessarily a fault; it is natural and to be expected. Conversely, they often read over, or completely ignore, those passages that don’t pertain to their chosen set of values or beliefs.   Such is human nature.

Understandably, my personal journey has been an uphill battle.  But, as I’ve have grown older, as I have done my own serious scholarship, and as I have explored the writings and beliefs of other religions, I have worked diligently to read the Bible differently than how I was taught.  In some sense, my goal has been an impossible one, as I wanted to read the Bible from a completely fresh perspective… outside the confines of the dogma or doctrine I had been indoctrinated in since childhood.  This isn’t necessarily because such teachings were ‘wrong’ or even ‘ill received.’  More accurately, my ongoing effort to approach the Bible differently is predicated on the understanding that there is and always has been a plank, or blind spot, in mine own eye, regardless of either doctrine or dogma. 

Experience has taught me that real learning begins by closely analyzing one’s own faults and errors.  It is for this reason that I have worked to read the Bible ‘differently.’  Accordingly, the critical voice I offer in this book could be understood, first and foremost, as a criticism of many of my own beliefs, values, and even of the community that raised me.  Yet, what I have found from my years of teaching and studying various religions is that the ‘truth’ one finds in any one particular religion typically begins with the ‘truth’ the individual is seeking and expecting.  Knowing this I attempted to approach different religious texts with the same expectations I had when approaching the Bible.  For example, I began to read texts like The Bhagavad Gita or The Upanishads while seeking the same ‘truths’ I typically sought when I read the Bible.

The exercise was illuminating.  It was therefore only a matter of time before I began to wonder, what if I read the Bible like I traditionally read other religious texts, texts I believed were written with an intent and purpose but did not expect to provide eternal answers or divine truths. Would the Bible teach me the same ‘truths’ I already assumed it taught? Would the main characters be the same?  What would the moral of the story be? When would the story reach its climax and when would it reach its conclusion? 

Most modern scholars have learned to approach the Christian scriptures as a narrative.  As scholars have proven, the individual narratives found throughout the books of the Bible are best understood when placed in the context of the greater meta-narrative of the Bible itself.  The isolation of individual chapters, passages, and even verses often does an injustice to the original writings and can, at times, do an injustice to the greater story as well.  Accordingly, it is my goal to follow scholarly tradition and interpret all the books of the Bible as narratives in the broader context of a larger meta-narrative. Yet, even a narrative approach to the scriptures does not necessarily aim to read the Bible as purely mythic.   

To be sure, the two are closely connected and not mutually exclusive, but most Christians read the Bible differently from how they read The Iliad or Beowulf.  The reasons for doing so are obvious as The Iliad and Beowulf are traditionally read by Christians as clear examples of fictional myths whereas the Bible, on the other hand, is typically read and understood to be the greatest non-fiction myth ever complied into written form.  Yet, when all the chips fall where they may and one cracks open their Bible and starts to read, it is difficult to know where history ends and fiction begins.  After all, Jesus was known to teach in parables.  Is the truth found in these parables predicated on historical facts?  Must the Good Samaritan exist for Jesus’ parable to be true?  I think we can all agree the answer is no.  The truth lies in the story itself, not in the historical facts that do or do not surround it.

In short, what I have observed in my years of teaching is that when most people read the writings of other, opposing religions they tend to read them as fiction; they approach them with the assumption that what is to be found between the covers is not to be believed as ‘factually true’ but is still worthy of interest and general curiosity. This is interesting when one considers that, for example, the city of Troy existed, and it seems that it did once fall by the hands of the Greeks, not unlike in Homer’s story.

Well, what if I read the Bible in the same way?  I concluded that such an approach would not only expose how the Bible appears to all those living outside the teachings found within the Christian tradition, it would also expose what the Bible in fact does and does not say, regardless of history or tradition.  It is therefore my goal to take what some philosophers might refer to as a ‘phenomenological approach’ to reading the Bible. In short, my goal is to bracket off all those questions that are impossible to answer such as which manuscripts are the most accurate or which passages are to be trusted, and to instead direct my focus on questions that can be answered.  Simply put, my goal is to answer the bigger questions: what is the central story found in the Bible, and what does that story have to teach us?

My answers to these two simple questions are provided in the pages of this book.  Some may be uncomfortable with the idea of reading the Bible in such a way; yet, my experience is that when one approaches the text in this way the contents of the scriptures take on a new and powerful light.  One’s attention is no longer diverted by questions of doctrine, dogma, or traditional church teachings, and it is instead redirected to the message of the story itself. This isn’t to say that there isn’t a place for facts, textual accuracy, and even general historicism.  In fact, my first book The Best Bible Study You’ve N/ever Had* addressed many such problems, directly.  It is just to say that in this book, the second in my series on the Bible, such issues will be considered but will not be at the forefront of my exploration.

It is therefore worth noting: if you aren’t already aware, last year I compiled a virtual, online Bible study into a book titled The Best Bible Study You've N/ever Had.  This book was to function as the first installment of an ongoing series.  The book did well, and as a result I have produced the second volume in the series, which is the book you currently hold in your hand.   If you haven’t read my first book, The Best Bible Study You’ve N/ever Had, then I highly recommend you do, as it well help you to better understand the writing of this one.  With that said, both books were written to stand alone, and they can therefore be read independently from one another, as well.

Much of the material that I addressed in my first book may have been challenging for many readers as the conclusions I often arrived at did not always adhere to traditional, contemporary Biblical teachings, and they probably would not be welcomed in most conservative Evangelical communities.  Although, it is worth noting that my study was designed to focus on the Bible, and the Bible alone.  It therefore did not concern itself with the beliefs, teachings, or values of the Evangelical Christian tradition, or any specific Christian tradition throughout the ages.

This was intentional.  My goal was to take a ‘deconstructive’ look at the Bible in hopes that by breaking down the scriptures into ten key areas (areas based on ten basic quiz questions) I would then be able to expose many of the issues, inconsistencies, and problems found within the scriptures themselves.  Inevitably this process also exposed many of the problems found within common church teachings as well.

            The Christian Church has been around for a very long time.  It has existed in many forms and has held many different beliefs, values, and teachings throughout the centuries. Like in all cases, the church is a product of its time, and it is also a product of those who make up its body.  In sum, the church, at any point in history, only exists within the people who make up its congregations.  As its congregants go, so goes the church. This is no more or less true today than it was 500 years ago during the Protestant Reformation.  This fact alone may be helpful for some readers to remember.

Nevertheless, with any ‘deconstructive’ act the end goal is not destruction but construction.  It must be understood that any ‘deconstructive’ process moves in waves.  The building of ideas and beliefs is not unlike the building of objects or buildings. In order to build something new, or perhaps to properly rebuild something old, things must first be broken down and, at times, destroyed.  As a result, to some the initial wave, or movement, of destruction may appear nihilistic, but this is a false precept. Dismantling must occur first before rebuilding can occur, so while the first wave of deconstruction may be destructive the second wave is always constructive.

Such is the case with my first study and, in turn, my current study.  In short, my first book was written to breakdown or ‘destroy’ many of the common misconceptions people in the church hold about the Bible. This second book is being written to build up or ‘reconstruct’ what the Bible actually does have to teach us. Now that the dismantling has begun, and readers now recognize that many of their thoughts, perceptions, and beliefs about the Bible are skewed, inaccurate, or false, reconstruction can begin.  Now we can address what this story actually has to offer.

This new study, this new phase of exploration and reconstruction, shall be called The Greatest Story You've N/ever Heard, and its aim is to rebuild the Bible in hopes of discovering what its true message is. As noted above, the ‘truth’ of this message will not be grounded in church creeds, doctrines, dogma, or even in historical certainties; it will instead live within the movement of the story itself.  As the story progresses, its teachings and truths will emerge.  That is the message I hope to capture.

The Bible, the stories of the Jewish god Yahweh, and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth have all had an enormous effect on the world.  Their influences throughout history are beyond compare and even comprehension.  Yet, like all stories, these stories have gotten bogged down, watered down, and corrupted over time.  It is my hope to breathe some fresh life into them.  It is my hope that be revisiting these stories in a new (yet old) light, readers will see the real message offered by the Bible.  Some may disagree with many of the assessments and conclusions I make.  That is to be expected and welcomed.  Like in my previous book, I intend this new book to be a platform for discussion, which encourages further research and scholarship for all parties involved. 

Hopefully when readers have completed their reading of this new book they will have encountered the Bible in a new, different, and hopefully more fruitful light.  In short, it is my hope that they will have heard The Greatest Story They’ve N/ever Heard.

            Following a similar vein as last time, this book will be broken down into ten sub sections.  Each subsection will represent an individual chapter. The ten subsections are as follows:

1. The Emergence of Judaism (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)
2. The Flight from Egypt (Joseph, Moses, and Aaron)
3. Before the Kingdom (Joshua and the Judges)
4. The Coming of the Kingdom (Samuel, Saul, and David)
5. The Building of the Temple (Solomon)
6. The Diaspora & the Prophets (Jeremiah and Daniel)
7. The Second Temple Period (Ezra and Nehemiah)
8. The inter-Testament Period (1 and 2 Maccabees)
9. The First Century and The Teachings of Jesus (The Gospels)
10. The Teachings of Paul and the future Church of Christ (The Letters)

Epilogue: The Greatest Message You’ve N/ever Heard.

*My first book in this series, The Best Bible Study You've N/ever Had, which functions as part one of my project, is currently available for sale.  Please visit Amazon.com and purchase your copy today.

On Artistic Tools: Is it 'Cheating' to use a Projector or Grid System?

A recent painting where I made use of a Grid System

Today I’m going to address a topic that will only be relevant to visual artists. This isn’t to say that a non-artist can’t read this blog entry and find it informative; it is instead to say that the topic at hand is field specific. And, while I haven’t done much writing on the topic of art lately it is ‘technically’ my area of expertise, as my academic training is in Philosophical Aesthetics, and I am a practitioner of the visual arts, as well.

From my experience I have noticed that there is, at times, controversy surrounding the use and implementation of certain artistic techniques, particularly the use of tools such as grid systems or even projectors to achieve more concise layouts and designs.

Eventually someone always asks, “Isn’t taking advantage of such techniques simply a crutch, or a form of “cheating?”

Well, there is no short answer to this question, but most artist I’ve encounter don’t view such methods as ‘cheating,’ per se. Although, in certain situations it may definitely cause one to question the integrity of an artist. So, let’s look at these methods a little closer and judge for ourselves when the use of such methods may be deemed admissible.

Simply put, art is about creativity and expression. Therefore, there are no set rules on how one chooses to use their creativity or how they express themselves. Yet, I’ve never known a visual artist who doesn’t take pride in their (or others’) ability to draw or paint freehand or with the use of limited tools.

In regards to the use of grids or projectors, a simple question one might ask is: “could you produce the art piece without these methods.” If one answers yes, then they are likely only using either of these techniques as a tool to enhance of expedite the production of their art. If their answer is no, then it is likely that these methods are in fact a crutch and the artist is more dependent on tools and tricks of the trade than on talent. Yet, this isn’t to say that there isn’t a time or place for the use of either of these methods.

In short, an artist should not depend on these methods in order to achieve success; instead, they should use these methods to enhance success. In the same way a talented athlete will take advantage of the most sophisticated and up-to-date training, equipment, and sports medicine to achieve the greatest outcome, professional artists should not hesitate to use the most sophisticated techniques for drawing or painting.

I have found that in most cases, even the most talented of artists will make use of both grid systems and/or projectors in certain situations. For simplicity’s sake I’ve narrowed it down to three main areas of usage. The areas are: time, size, and style.

Time: Many artists will make use of certain tools like projectors, and in some cases grids (depending on how involved and time consuming the grid system itself is), to speed along a process. Simply put it is a matter of pragmatics. The more art an artist can produce, the more art they can sell, and subsequently the more money they can make. Many artists are crunched for time and have to produce a wide body of work in a certain amount of time for a show. It is much easier to use a projector to speed things along, rather than layout each piece by hand. Accordingly, I’ve known many artists who are very talented and gifted using loose free hand skills, yet they will still take advantage of a projector for simplicity’s sake.

Size: The relative size of a piece is a key factor to consider whenever planning your layout. Inevitably, as a piece gets larger it becomes more difficult to maintain proportions, especially if the piece itself extends beyond one’s normal field of vision. Therefore, many artists won’t bother with a projector or grid for smaller pieces. But, if he or she begins working on a piece several feet in length and width (or larger), many will grid their canvass or even use a projector. From a historical perspective, the grid system is a classical tool that artists have been taking advantage of since antiquity. Long before photographs artists would use live models. If they were painting a “smaller” piece they would paint by sight on location. But, if the painting was to end up as a large mural on a wall or even on the ceiling of a chapel they would often sketch the piece from sight, grid the sketch, and then transpose the grid to a larger off site location. In this respect, the grid system has a more historical and relevant place within classical art history than does the use of photographs. Yet, I don’t know anyone who’d argue that drawing or painting from a photograph rather than using a live model is “cheating.” A projector is, however, a different story. Yet, I imagine that if digital projection was an option in the classical age some would take advantage of it too.

Style: The style of the desired art piece is perhaps the greatest determining factor as to which tools an artist uses. This is most certainly true when using grids or projectors as well. Simply put, many artists want their work to be interpretive, in which case they will intentionally avoid gridding their canvasses or using a projector so as to allow for more freedom of expression. Yet, at times artists will want to achieve ‘photo realism.’ In such cases proportions and exactitude will be of the utmost importance. In these instances the closer a drawing or painting is to the original, the better. Therefore a grid will help and a digital projector is optimal. Most photo realistic painters are now using digital projectors routinely. Therefore, their artistic skill is displayed less in the initial layouts and rather in the actual painting process, where they are blending and shading objects, etc.

Personally, more often than not, I choose to free hand most of my works. This is because I like them to have a looser interpretive quality. If however I am working on a large scale piece where I want to achieve ‘photo realism’ then I will use a grid system. I in no way feel that this is “cheating.” If anything I view this as taking a page right out of antiquity, since they too often made use of grids. As far as the use of projectors goes, I personally don’t own one. If I did I might at times use it. I have tried using a projector on a few occasions in the past, and from those minimal experiences I came to two conclusions. Firstly, I realized how much enjoyment I get from the preliminary layout work. Even with a grid there is still a lot of measurements and mathematical formulas one has to figure out before creating a grid, and I personally enjoy the process and challenge. Secondly, I was surprised at the amount of skill still required even when using projection. This is especially true when painting (verses drawing) because once one begins to apply paint to canvass they will inevitably cover over their initial layout, in which case they will still be dependent on their eye and hand for detail work. The projected layout simply gets one started on the right track.

Like all matters of art, there is no one definitive method or answer. Each person will have to make their own choices. All forms of artistic expression begin by an individual artist and their personal journey. Where the journey begins and end is entirely up to them.  

WTF Obama! This Healthcare Ain't Affordable: The Exciting News About the Financial F***ing of America!

As can be seen from my title and subtitle, from time to time I enjoy using naughty words.  Well, today I'm going to be discussing some of the naughtiest words in the current American lexicon.  Those words are Healthcare, Medical Insurance, and Obama.  But, before I get into all that 'unpleasantness' let's take a brief interlude and travel to an imaginary world where these problems don't exist.

A Brief, Imaginary Interlude...

Imagine if you will that you live in a different world, on a different earth, and in a different America.  In this America, health care isn't an issue as all people are healthy and prosperous.  They spend all the time that we normally spend worrying about medical bills doing relaxing things like watching television and lounging around the house. This counter-America is so great, and recreational activities are so 'necessary' that certain apartment and condominium complexes start to offer cable television as a free service to all their occupants.   All one need do to to receive free cable is live in their building and pay a minor 'recreation fee,' which allows them direct access to all the building's amenities.  

As can be imagined, people take great enjoyment in these amenities, and before long free cable becomes a standard expectation for all citizens renting apartments in counter-America.  Eventually all buildings offer this service to their residence.  But, unfortunately for all the apartment companies, no one is regulating the cable companies, as they are privately owned companies whose sole goal is to make larger profits for themselves.  Well, it isn't long before the cable companies start coming up with some pretty nifty packages.  Packages that include NFL Game Day, Endless Movie Stations, Pornography, On Demand Viewing and anything else you can think of.  Obviously, the more they offer the more they can charge, but no one seems to mind because as long as they are paying for their monthly 'recreation fee' the apartment complex is fronting the bill.  Years go by and this problem is never addressed.  Before long, cable companies are charging $4,000 a month for access to cable television.  It sounds crazy, but people don't care... after all, they aren't paying for it!  They get every channel they can, even ones they don't need and don't watch.

But, after a while certain people start to complain... people who don't live in apartment buildings who are being charged thousands of dollars every time they want to watch their favorite team play on Sunday.  Furthermore, apartment buildings start going bankrupt because of all the excessive television bills.  Finally people agree that something needs to be done.  Someone needs to be regulating the cable companies to stop this madness!  The government steps in and they decide that all citizens in counter-America should be able to watch TV and that people who live in apartment buildings must also pay, at least in part, to have access to cable television.  As can be expected, all the apartment renters are outraged that now they must pay double, triple, or even quadruple what they used to pay for television, as before they only had to paid a small 'recreation fee.'  If only all those non-apartment occupiers had just kept their mouth shuts and let the cable industry run reckless, charging criminal charges, and taking advantage of a flawed system.  If only...  Now, let's return to our America.

As it turns out, my wife and I don't have cable.  We aren't Amish or anything, we just decided a long time ago that the cost of a cable television bill wasn't really worth the money.  Paying over $100 a month for TV seemed ridiculous to us, so we did what many people our age are doing; we found different alternatives, like Netflix, Hulu, and stream in channels which typically cost us less than $20 a month.  We even share these services with family members to keep costs lower.

Similarly, over the past year I have been without health insurance.  I'm a young healthy guy, and I rarely go to the doctor.  I knew that with the new healthcare system starting in 2014 I wouldn't have the option to go without insurance in the future, so I decided to opt out for the year to save some extra money.  After all, if I'm not using the services, why pay a monthly premium?  Well, much to my dismay I ended up requiring a hospital visit a few months ago.  As it turned out, I wasn't sick; I was as healthy as ever, but I had developed a few kidney stones.  Because kidney stones are so painful I was immediately rushed back to a room in the local emergency room.  I was given a CT scan confirming that there were three stones logged in my kidneys, a morphine drip for the pain, and some fluids to help flush out the stones.  All in all I was in the ER for a little over an hour, I never saw or spoke with a doctor, and was released after the pain subsided.  

Seeing how this was my first visit to an ER uninsured, I was wondering what the bills would look like.  Well, let me tell you.  According to my bill the total charges for this visit were $7,668.51.  I was not given an itemized list of charges, but so far the hospital is charging me $783.35 after adjustments, and the doctor who I never actually saw or spoke with is charging me $1,595 for... well, for being in his presence, I guess. I'm told I will also be receiving a radiology bill for the scan, which I can only assume will be several thousand dollars as well.  Obviously, this is very troubling.  But, it is also very illuminating.  As a person who is normally insured, I typically had no idea what doctors and/or hospitals were charging my insurance company upon my visits.  Honestly, I didn't care... I was insured!  Wanna order some blood work? Go ahead, I'm insured.  Wanna do a CT scan? Go ahead, I'm insured.  Wanna use designer drugs that are 10 times the cost of the alternative? Why not... I'm insured.  

Even more fun is how they never asked me if I wanted scans or blood work done and at no point did they discuss the cost of these procedures, even though I told them I was uninsured and they knew I would be paying out of my own pocket for these services.  Can you imagine going to Walmart to buy school supplies for your kids and there not being any prices listed on anything!?  You just pick everything you want and then they bill you $8,000 later!  Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else?  You see, the medical industry is behaving criminally, and we as Americans not only allowed it, we created it and encouraged it!

But, now things are changing.  This criminal behavior is being called out by all those who don't have insurance, those who see what the actual charges look like and are expected to pay for these services out of their own pockets.  It is being called out by those who don't have a $25 copay or a small deductible.

This is, understandably, a very upsetting situation! But, what is perhaps even more troubling about the America we all currently live in is the people who are most upset by this fiasco are not the poor people who have had to pay these ridiculous fees in the past; No, it is instead the very people who created the problem itself, i.e. the people who have had coverage in the past and therefore allowed the medical community to bill their insurance companies criminally large charges, who are now being held responsible.

Now that everyone is seeing what the not so affordable Affordable Care Act looks like monetarily, they are upset and rightfully so!  They are correct, the fees they are expected to pay are too high and are completely unreasonable.  But, what they aren't understanding is that the reason the fees are now unreasonable is because they have allowed a private industry to take advantage of an imperfect system, and they have not only allowed it but they have encouraged it through their own behaviors and actions.

So, what's going to happen now?  Well, probably a lot of things, and it is certain that this mess won't be fixed anytime soon.  Yet, I can tell you a few things that will start happening immediately once these new plans do go into affect.  For starters, people won't go to the doctor unless they really really need to.  Once they have those high deductibles which mean those visits will be coming out of their own pockets they will start finding cheaper more creative and arguably more healthy alternatives to their own medical needs.  Got high blood pressure? Stop eating steak for every meal and start eating something green.  Anxious about the mother-in-law coming into town? Put down the Lorazepam and have a glass of wine.  Having weight issues? Go for a jog.  Injure your ankle? Put some ice on it.   Get the point?  This isn't to suggest that all medical needs are as elementary as these examples, but if we are all honest with ourselves then we know that the average American has become too dependent on the medial industry to solve their basic problems.

In short, the reason the medical industry can behave as it has in the past is because insured people didn't have to front their own bills.  Now, at least in part, they do, and now, at least in part, they will.  And, as a result, all people are going to start finding other ways to stay healthy instead of depending on the medical industry to dictate their well being.  Eventually, over time, the medical industry will have to adjust too.  If they want people to continue to pursue their services they will find a way to make their services more affordable to everyone, while still churning out a steady profit...  because if the medical industry doesn't come up with a creative solution someone else eventually will.  After all, there is no need to charge $100 for a pill that cost them nickles and dimes to manufacturer.  There is plenty of money to be had, and in the future medical profits will eventually be based on affordability not marketability, and when that day finally does arrives it will be a huge step forward.

But... yes, the current situation definitely sucks!  And it is probably going to suck for a long long time.  But, let's be careful not to blame the poor people for pointing out the problem that we, the negligently insured, have created.   If we and the medical industry had been responsible from the beginning these problems would not exist.  It's going to take time for things to work themselves out, but recognize the problem for what it is.  Don't blame others for a problem you helped create. 

Please Stop Misusing The Phrase 'Orwellian!'

Orwell's classic novel: Animal Farm

I imagine that just about everyone gets as annoyed as I do when people start having political discussions, especially when said discussions are, like most, unproductive and acerbic in tone.  The truth is when most people talk politics they resort to hyperbole.  They attempt to make their point by appealing to extremes that are both irrational and illogical. 

Honestly, I do not fashion myself as an overtly political person. I couldn’t describe or explain the ins and outs of the various processes our elected leaders work through on a daily bases.  Nor could I articulate how bills are written or passed, who is directly involved, and what the immediate implications of such changes do or do not mean. Yet, what I can do is offer a broader, philosophical explanation of the basic tenets of different political belief structures. 

Some may disagree, but my feelings are that when it comes to politics in our country… most people have lost sight of the bigger picture.  They use a lot of tag lines they’ve heard on television, they make outlandish accusations, and/or they may discuss certain ‘hot topics’ or ‘key issues,’ but they rarely address how their political position fits in the grander scheme of things. 

Sticking with poplar convention, let’s begin by exploring extremes and then work our way back to more practical discussions.  In America, people tend to talk about their political position by evoking the terms ‘right’ or ‘left.’  What they tend to mean by this  is that they lean towards a conservative position if they identify with the ‘right,’ or they lean towards a liberal position of they identify with the ‘left.’  However, the more important issue, which requires exploration, is: what does the political ‘right’ and the political ‘left’ look like on a grander, global scale, and how does that relate to the  ‘right’ and ‘left’ in America’s current political climate?

Simply put, the most extreme position one can adopt on the political ‘right’ is fascism and/or totalitarianism.  In both cases, the ruling elite are a small minority.  It may be a select group of individuals or it may be one person, such as a king or dictator, who controls everything and everyone. This is what ‘small government’ would look like at its most extreme.  Many people get confused by this.  Most modern Americans I interact with seem to think that ‘small government’ means less government.  This is not necessarily true, however.  ‘Small government’ actually means the government is ruled by a very small group of people.  It does not guarantee that the government's power and control will actually be any less; it just means that the people wielding the power and control will be fewer in number. In short, it means less people with more power. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the most extreme position one can adopt on the ‘left’ is communism. Unlike fascism or totalitarianism, communism’s goal is to distribute the power to as many people as possible, so no one person or group of people holds more power than others.  At its most extreme, communism’s aim would be to eradicate government altogether, as all people would have equal power and everyone would rule themselves.  Accordingly, ‘big government’ actually means a government controlled or run by a large group of diverse people… the larger and more diverse the better.  Again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the government will have more power or less power; it just means that the power is distributed on a greater scale to a greater number of people.

These two positions represent the hyperbolic extremes that many Americans toss around in coffee shop conversations.  Not only are such comparisons extreme, they are also typically very misguided.

Since the election of President Obama and the advent of many of his policies (such as his healthcare initiative), many Americans (particularly those who identify with organizations on the ‘right,’ such as The Tea Party) have started throwing around the phrase ‘Orwellian.’  The premise of such language is grounded in the literary works of British author George Orwell.  Orwell wrote allegorical novels about the fascism that often develops out of failed socialist governments.  The nuances of this point are however often overlooked by the general public, and they will therefore require some unpacking.

For starters, it may be helpful to address where the American political system sets in the broader spectrum of political extremes.  As we all know, America is a democratic country founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that all people deserve equal rights under the ruling court of law.  America is also a capitalist country that believes in a free market economy, where all people can buy, sell, and trade goods equally regardless of race, gender, or social status.

What this means is that America is a liberal country.  Its government falls on the left end of the political spectrum, as its basic premise and underlying ideologies are founded on the supposition that power should be distributed equally to all citizens.  In short, if you are an American and you believe in democracy you are a ‘leftist’ or political liberal.

However, when Americans use such terms they typically operate from a much narrow frame of mind.  Americans are known elsewhere for being xenophobes and their concept of politics rarely moves beyond America, itself.  Accordingly, when they speak about the political ‘right’ and ‘left’ they typically do so in terms of the narrow margin that exists between the two primary political parties that exist within their own democratic government.  Yet, as noted, even the most ‘right winged’ of conservatives in America still falls on the liberal or ‘left’ end of the greater political spectrum.

Now that we’ve clarified that, let’s take a look at the writings of George Orwell so that we can explore what the phrase ‘Orwellian’ actually means.

 

George Orwell

As alluded to above, Orwell’s writings were written as allegories for the socialist government of the Soviet Union.  As a result many readers assume that the conclusions that Orwell reaches and the criticisms he raises throughout his books are reflective of socialist governments, in general. Unfortunately, this is a gross over simplification and complete misunderstanding of his texts.

Socialism is a governmental system that operates on the left end of the spectrum.  The basic concept behind socialism is that communism is a difficult governmental system to achieve when power has already been limited to certain governmental parties.  Accordingly, in a properly functioning socialist system the government, which would and should be compiled of a large body of diverse people, would distribute power to the masses as equally as possible so that equality would exist on a greater scale. 

The end goal would of course be to distribute power so well that all people are equally provided for and then the government, itself, could dissolve.  In short the goal of socialism is to eventually develop into a perfectly functioning communist government.  There is of course no guarantee that this would ever happen.  Truthfully it is unlikely that it ever would, but it is important to understand the guiding trajectory nonetheless.   

If you’ve read Orwell’s books then you will remember that the distribution of power is a central theme.  Let’s use his book Animal Farm as our example.

In Animal Farm you have a farm filled with various types of animals, all of whom are in the service of the family who runs and owes the farm.  In this allegory, the farmers represent the government in control of the masses.  The masses are of course represented by the animals.  What we have at the onset of the book is an example of a fascist system of government, which is on the far ‘right’ of the political spectrum.  In short, we have a small group of individuals (human farmers) controlling the masses (the animals) and wielding power as they so choose.

As a result of this totalitarianism, the animals become dissatisfied.  Unrest develops, and the animals revolt.  The animals decide that power should be shared by all, and therefore the farmers need to be removed from power so that the animals can distribute the power among themselves.  This is the movement away from fascism (‘right’) to socialism (‘left’).  Yet, what people seem to miss is that the story doesn’t end here.  What makes Orwell's literary world ‘Orwellian’ is his critique of ‘human’ nature (displayed in both humans and animals in Animal Farm), which is manifested through the misuse of power once it is obtained.   

Truthfully, a socialist government never develops in Animal Farm, in the same way that a socialist government never truly develops in the Soviet Union.  Instead, what you have is the hope or promise of a socialist government. While those wielding the power may refer to their government as 'socialist,' it clearly is not as power is never distributed to the masses.  It instead continues to be a fascist government because those who are given the responsibility to distribute the wealth and power never do so; they keep it for themselves.  This is clearly portrayed in Animal Farm when the pigs take power of the farm and start to behave just like the farmers.  By the time the book reaches its conclusion the pigs are no different than the farmers and the farm is in an equally miserable state.  In short, nothing has changed.  The 'government' ruling the farm has not changed... only the people (or pigs) in power have changed.  Fascism still rules supreme on Animal Farm. 

In short, the dystopian societies at the heart of Orwell’s writings are fascist governments (the extreme ‘right’), not socialist governments (the ‘left’).  It is true that the fascism found in both Orwell’s novels and in the actual Soviet Union resulted from the collapse, failure, and misuse of socialism.  This however is not necessarily the fault of socialism itself, but it is rather a very clear example of how individuals in power misuse power for their own person gain.  It could be argued that Orwell believes that socialist systems will inevitably collapse into fascism as a result of ‘human’ corruption. That is to say, it could be argued that in Orwell’s world all government officials will inevitably misuse the power they have. This seems to be the message found in Animal Farm as the pigs become as corrupt with power as did the human farmers. Nevertheless, attempting to compare the democratic government of America and its decisions to provide social programs to its citizens to the hyperbolic collapse of a socialist system, which results in the fascism of Orwell’s dystopian writings, is not only to misunderstand the political spectrum, it is also to misunderstanding the writings of Mr. Orwell.   

Now, for the sake of argumentation and clarity, if people really wanted to use the term Orwellian correctly in reference to the current administration in office, the recent scandals involving surveillance and the collection of personal data would be an excellent place to start.  Recent reports suggest that the FBI has been using surveillance drones on U.S. soil and that the NSA has been compiling 'meta-data' from people's emails and computers to track terrorism.  In such instances the government is removing people's freedoms, i.e.  the right to personal privacy, for their own agenda.  It could correctly be argued that this recent development is 'Orwellian' in nature.  But to use the term Orwellian in reference to things like socialized medicine, etc. is entirely incorrect.