Labels

I've never really been happy with labeling people for as long as I can remember. If you categorize people I think it is much easier to make opposition or have blind disagreements. Of course, we usually find the disagreement first then categorize but that doesn't make it any better. To put this topic into more real terms, I am talking about labeling individuals according to beliefs, race and other grey areas. In my opinion, acceptable labels are nationality and occupation. At least with those labels there is something definite and usable. If I only have one sentence to introduce myself as generally as possible, I think that the most honest and efficient way to do it would be: Raymond Bentson, an American Linguist. If I put on other labels about myself, then I think that I would feel like I'd have to explain about each one because I can't fully agree with labeling myself as "a Conservative" or "a Liberal" for example.

If I were to say I'm a conservative, I just couldn't agree with that. We need to be progressive and advance our society. The whole sense of any conservative organization is that we should retain old beliefs and traditions. Those who can't change and won't change are foolish and are more or less saying that they refuse to grow. I can't agree with that and I think this is also a very weak way of thinking. It takes courage to admit that you need to grow and improve. When a tradition is bad and out of date then we need to drop it and move on. And as we learn more and more we should be constantly updating ourselves. Tradition is fun but not at all necessary.

I also refuse to label myself as a liberal even though the meaning of the word is much more agreeable. I don't agree with the pretentiousness that I see from this group so it's hard for me to want to endorse it. They seem so quick to be "politically correct" that they seem to miss the point. If you get so caught up in protecting your label that is opposed to another label then you can entirely miss the point of what it means to be liberal. Which, from what I can understand, is to treat everyone equally and fairly, don't play favorites and don't discriminate against others because of miniscule differences like race, gender or sexuality. I agree with that mentality but I don't agree with the political party that seems to represent it. What's worse is to say whether I'm a republican or a democrat, which I truly think hurts our country to have such a ridiculous black and white situation. They are both bad parties, in my opinion. It is always like picking the lesser of two evils which is never a good way to go about labeling oneself. "Yeah, this one is evil but still less evil than that one. So... I'll join that group!" This is why I won't pick either one, if they are both evil then I will reject them both.

Now, this can be said for race and sexuality as well. Don't get race confused with ethnicity, though. Ethnicity refers to one's heritage, family origin and history. Race is biologically nonexistent, anyone who studies biology knows that. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is a very important factor to consider when dealing with travel, culture, and sometimes health. Sexuality must be understood properly as well and it is all to often misunderstood. It is wrong to think of there being only 3 options: hetero, homo or bi. Sexuality is a sliding scale, everybody has their own individual sexual desires. I am mostly heterosexual because my preferences sexually are towards women. That doesn't mean that I am sexually attracted to all women, just the ones that I find desirable. I am not sexually attracted to men yet I can appreciate when a man is attractive. If I were homosexual, I wouldn't necessarily be  attracted to every man I see. That is preposterous to assume. Therefore, in my opinion it is equally as unfair and unjust to discriminate sexuality as it is race in a political arena. If this is new to any of my readers then I strongly encourage you to study about human sexuality from a non-bias source. There are many sources with strong biases and agendas out there, so please research carefully. I would provide a link for a reference but I got this information from my medical classes in college and my materials are at home in the states.

Another label that has bothered me since a very young age has been religious affiliation. I never understood why I had to say which kind of Christian I was. Sure, there are differences between the sects but we all basically have the same information and agree in general. Catholics don't have some secret information that only they are allowed to see and the same with Lutherans or Methodists. Mormons have even more information but they still want to evangelize and convert people, to whom they will show their information. But the important thing to remember is that none of it is proof. I was in the Assemblies of God since I was little and we had our beliefs which were a little bit different from other denominations. The differences were in the interpretation of scripture, not in the provision of evidence. So how could I possibly assert that my interpretation was more correct than another person's? I couldn't so I never actually became a member. The only reason that I went to that church was because my family attended. I found it to be enjoyable and I love the people there but that doesn't have any bearing at all on the validity of one's beliefs. When I moved to Germany I was required to state which division of Christianity I was. It actually made me quite irritated, I thought that it was none of their damn business. I went to church a few times in the little village and I realized that I was making no progress in pursuing truth by way of church anyway. They tell nice stories, most of which are not exclusive to the bible anyway, and some of the more deplorable parts talk about murder and genocide in the name of God as if it were a good thing. I took a step back and realized that I really needed to prove to myself why I could even call myself a Christian. What was my reasoning? So I got to the bottom of it and found nothing. So my label was found improper and had to be removed. But just because I removed that label doesn't mean I stopped looking for answers. I believe it is foolish to ever think that you have all of the answers.

Now, I have presented myself with a problem: I don't like labels when it comes to categories that I don't feel comfortable squeezing myself into. I don't like the general terms, "conservative" or "liberal" so socially I must consider myself moderate.  I don't like labeling race but socially I must consider myself white. Sexuality is far more complex than simply 3 categories but society needs me to identify myself as heterosexual. I can't agree with any of the world's religions so I am nonreligious, not agnostic because I have certainly been able to reasonably conclude that none of the world's major religions are true. There are labels for everything but I feel rather uncomfortable with most of them. I am simply and complexly Raymond Bentson, an American Linguist. If you want to know more then get to know me, don't judge me according to shallow and generalizing labels. That is ignorance and will lead to misunderstanding.