Art Culture and LGBT People: A Match Made in Heaven

It’s time for some random thoughts. There is a common stereotype that the fine arts tend to attract more gay men than other groups of people. I’m not sure whether or not this is true, but I can understand the perception. I don’t know whether it’s really so much that artistic work attracts more gay men or that it’s more of an issue of visibility, meaning that we simply see and hear more about gay men in the arts. I’ve never seen any polls or anything that has confirmed this observation, but whatever the case may be, I do think a few safe assumptions can be made. Artists in general encourage free expression of one’s creativity, and so it’s easy to see how such a freer professional atmosphere could attract gay men and allow them to be out of the closet. It’s also been my experience that female artists tend to be more gay friendly, either because they respect the diversity of expression in life (which includes one’s sexuality) or because there really are more gay men in the arts and they’re simply used to working with them. Or maybe all of the above.

The Upstate Artists Guild here in Albany, NY contains some pretty impressive artists. Recently I was strolling down Lark Street with a friend of mine on a Friday night, and we stopped in an art studio to see some work done by members of the guild. Two of my friends (both straight) are members of the guild, so I wanted to see what they had done. For the first time, I was able to appreciate art more fully than I ever had before. It’s amazing, but coming out seems to have put things in a much different perspective for me. The irony is that, growing up, I never cared much for the arts. I was always more into science, technology, history, etc. Yet as time has gone by, I’ve come to a greater appreciation for not just the arts, but for the entire culture that artists have created, which involves great tolerance for those of differing opinions and tastes. I saw such an incredible diversity of art in this gallery. The colors and the textures were done wonderfully. I especially enjoyed the landscape artwork, having always been attracted to more naturalistic forms of art. The diversity was truly remarkable, and inspiring for me to see. Expression of one’s own life and struggles in the form of art can serve as a vital outlet for people who are still closeted, or who don’t fully understand their sexuality. It’s almost cathartic in a way. It’s far too common to hear some people demean the value of art, questioning what purpose it serves. I myself once had a similar attitude, but things have changed a lot for me. I now understand that, for gay men, it can serve a great deal of purpose by giving them a freedom that they may not otherwise have found. Art can also have a positive psychological effect for ordinary people. I read a study once where certain wall colors were correlated with happier personalities. I think that Americans, whether gay or straight, need to learn a greater appreciation for the work that artists do.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Grays & Gays: LGBT-Friendly Seniors?

As I’ve probably mentioned before, opposition to same-sex relationships runs deeper among the older generations in America according to the polls. This is no surprise. But I personally have noticed something that was somewhat unexpected. The polls may not support what I’m about to say, but I’m going to say it anyway. In the various stories of LGBT people that I’ve read about, and in my own experience as well, the elderly grandparents of LGBT people tend to have less of a problem with it than their own parents do! This is especially true of grandmothers (and women in general).

Sounds strange, doesn’t it? The concept of the generation that never even spoke of homosexuality in polite company actually coming around is nothing short of miraculous to some. But upon further reflection, I came to the conclusion that such a phenomenon is not as odd as one might think. What might account for this? I speculate that the following factors may be involved:

1. The oldest Americans didn’t tend to sever their significant relationships as easily as our own parents do nowadays. They tended to stick it out even when they disagreed with their spouses. In the same way, the grandparents of LGBT people may not be willing to simply disown their grandchildren as easily as the parents of LGBT people sometimes do. This is especially true if their LGBT grandchild is either their only grandchild or the only one that they have any kind of a relationship with.

2. Some of our grandparents, if not most, lived through some very difficult times. They’ve seen it all: economic depression, world war, the turbulence of the 1960s, etc. Violent crime and drug use is something that they are justifiably angry over. Is homosexuality really something to get all worked up over compared to those other things? Of course not. Is it just one more thing that they’ve decided to adapt to? Probably so. We don’t give our grandparents enough credit for all that they’ve had to go through. If they can adapt to a digital society (my grandpa’s learning to use his nursing home’s computer) and to the modern world, then they can adapt to an LGBT grandchild.

3. In the same vein as number 2, most elderly people are conscious of the fact that they won’t be here much longer. I think this contributes to a “mellowing out” among older people, often elderly women rather than men, which I’ve seen. They may figure that it’s best not to spend their final days in anger or disappointment, but rather to spend it enjoying the company of those that they love, whether LGBT or not. They know that their LGBT grandchildren’s lives are not really something that they can change or have any control over, so there’s no point in dwelling on it negatively.

I know that this is probably not the experience of every LGBT person out there. It may not even be that of the majority, but I think there may be a grain of truth to it. I pray that affirming grandparents will continue to serve as a source of support for LGBT people. May God bless our grandparents and all of our elderly friends and relatives.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Analysis of Giovanni’s Room by James Baldwin

I recently read a gay novel by James Baldwin entitled Giovanni’s Room. It is probably one of the most interesting gay novels that I have ever read. Its main character, David, seems to represent the kinds of struggles that gay men go through, both in the 1950s when the novel takes place, and today. It is particularly useful to analyze David’s development from social and psychological perspectives and the difficulties therein. David had to confront a lot of his own personal fear and self-loathing, but ultimately he was unable to overcome his own internalized homophobia, and ended up losing his lover as a result.
David was, to put it simply, a man of his time and culture. This can be seen when he referred to his fiance Hella as “my girl,” and thinks that she would be “fun to have fun with” (p. 5). My first thought was that he was hinting at his own potential bisexuality, but then I realized that such a remark would actually not be unheard of coming from a gay man. Remember that there was a strong societal pressure for men in the 1950s to date women and marry. It is not as strong today in America, but it is still there. It would hardly be shocking for a gay man, then and now, to attempt to “go with the flow” and act like a straight man. In fact, it would probably have been dangerous to do otherwise at that time in America, since homosexuality was still illegal. Even today, many gay men marry women to hide themselves, acting under pressure from their families or religious groups. When David comments on his desire to marry Hella and his wish to have something to be “grounded to” to keep him from having “freedom” (p. 5-6), he simply reinforces his own homophobia, knowing that if he were allowed to have it his own way, that he would probably settle into a relationship with a man.
David’s first homosexual affair was with his young friend Joey (p. 8-11) when both were still adolescents. This is significant because psychologists suggest that most GLBT people have their first sexual experiences in adolescence. David was thus a typical gay adolescent. It is also important to note that David’s feelings for Joey were not conscious at first (p. 9). This is actually quite common in GLBT people. The feelings may not start out as being overtly sexual, especially while still young, but it inevitably moves in that direction, as it did for David. After sex with Joey, David experienced powerful internalized homophobia. He feared “losing his manhood” (p. 12), which I read as a reference to the stereotype of gay men as being effeminate.
David’s family situation was especially noteworthy because I think it actually reflects an old stereotype about gay men, commonly held by psychologists until the 1970s. We learn that David’s mother died when he was 5. He had a quasi-maternal figure in his aunt Ellen but he did not tend to care much for her and listened only when he thought it would please his father (p. 15-16). Many psychologists once questioned whether or not the lack of a particular parent could influence the development of homosexuality in a child. It used to be believed that a distant father and an abnormally close mother could turn a male child gay. Luckily, psychology has come a long way since David’s time, and those theories were discredited.
As David grew older, he was forced to confront his sexuality more and more. Unfortunately, he spoke of wanting to be in “constant motion” (p. 30). That is reminiscent of how people in general tend to avoid their inner problems, by staying constantly busy and never staying still long enough to confront them, which was not the healthiest way for him (or anyone) to deal with his sexuality. Deep down, David probably knew that he went to France in an attempt to run from his true nature, but ultimately he would have had to have dealt with his homosexuality no matter where he went. David probably chose France as a place of exile since homosexuality was decriminalized there with the creation of the Napoleonic Penal Code in 1791, but was still illegal in all of the U.S. after World War II.
While David was relatively free to be with Giovanni while Hella was away from Paris, when he learned that she was due to return, he propositioned a woman named Sue (p. 143-144). This may have been David’s way of trying to “straighten” himself out before Hella’s return, preparing himself for sex with her. Despite his attempt, he did not enjoy sex with Sue and wanted it to be over with quickly. He referred to sex with her as “not pretty” (p. 144), but his attitude toward sex in general was poor. Judeo-Christian tradition has tended not to look upon sex positively, and David internalized that as well. He thought of sex as impure, or dirty in some way. Given this attitude, it is hardly surprising that David was unable to develop a more positive attitude toward his sexuality.
Despite caring for Giovanni, and even claiming that he would always love him (p. 164), David could not overcome his internalized homophobia. He still believed some of the stereotypes about gay people that existed then and now. He still had a problem with the thought of homosexuality making him effeminate, which he showed when he blurred the lines between those who are transgendered and those who are actually homosexual (p. 39). He could not conceive of gender identity as being separate from sexual orientation, something that he surely never learned about in school. David also wanted a heterosexual paradigm in his relationship with Giovanni, and he could not do this in a same-sex relationship. He felt like he was the “woman” in the relationship, having believed that “men never can be housewives” (p. 128). That was part of the problem in how homosexual relationships were (and often still are) perceived, especially between men. Their relationships have been thought of as hierarchical, requiring a “top” and “bottom”, focusing solely on a particular sex act (which is not unique to gay men, nor universally practiced among them) rather than loving relationships between socially equal partners. This was probably what David saw in his relationship with Giovanni, hence his feeling like a housewife. One of them had to be the “woman” and he simply could not accept that or conceive of any other relationship model.
David’s story typified the struggles that GLBT people had to go through without any kind of societal support. Many of the elements of his struggle are still shared by gay men and women. David was a sad victim of an intolerant society that set him up to fail, but one of the worst aspects of his failure was that he never found the strength within himself to challenge any of the stereotypes about gay people. He could have contacted the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay groups in the U.S., formed in 1950. He could have spoken to more gay people and asked about their lives and experiences. If he had given Giovanni the chance, maybe Giovanni could have helped David work through his conflicted feelings. David could have even gone to live in Italy with Giovanni (Italy decriminalized homosexuality in 1889-1890), but because of his own failure, Giovanni was killed. Ultimately, David was a victim who, unable to confront his own internalized homophobia, was finally consumed by it.
The story had a tragic ending, but it should serve as a powerful wake-up call for all LGBT people who read it. Refusing to acknowledge one’s sexual orientation can have devastating psychological consequences. But unlike David’s time, there are plenty of resources to help people struggling to come out. It’s a difficult process, but it’s one worth going through.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

The Harvey Milk Legacy: Time for a New Perspective

I recently saw the movie “Milk.” Despite the fact that the 1970s were still a relatively backward time for LGBT rights in general, I think I would’ve liked to have lived during that time in San Francisco (I certainly wouldn’t live there now; it’s become way too radicalized). I certainly would’ve liked to have known Harvey Milk. Ultimately, all I can say is that I hope Milk is proud of all that LGBT Americans have accomplished since his untimely death. In 1978, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now we have it in two states, with civil unions in a few others. Compared to the way that homosexuality was perceived in America in 1978, we’ve come a long way in the past 30 years. Gay-straight alliances are all over the place. More inclusive Christian denominations have sprung up with thriving congregations. Several states have hate crimes laws and anti-discrimination laws on the books. There’s even the Log Cabin Republicans! These instances of progress are a part of Harvey Milk’s enduring legacy. In the face of the Prop 8 disaster in California, I think Milk would have been understandably disappointed. The difference though is that he would not have resorted to vandalizing churches or scapegoating blacks or Mormons. He would have worked with all of these groups, and in fact, he even had Ronald Reagan’s support against the Briggs Initiative that would’ve banned gay teachers in California (Reagan was the governor at the time, and maybe this shows that he wasn’t quite as homophobic as some have painted him to be). Harvey Milk knew how to do battle without hatred or scapegoating. He knew how to work with diverse groups of people. He honestly and openly debated anti-gay opponents, and did not simply scream “homophobe!” whenever confronted with an anti-gay person. He used his intellect, his own life experience and the facts to back up his case. Unfortunately, some LGBT people have lost these virtues, and have reduced themselves to blaming others or self-destructive name-calling. And in doing so, they have become little better than the anti-gay forces that oppose them and their rights. We need to cultivate a new type of activist, one that includes everyone, whether old or young, gay or straight, religious or atheist, Democrat or Republican, black or white, rich or poor. This new breed of activist would be in the image of Harvey Milk; non-judgmental, inclusive of all, respectful and engaging. Once we can cultivate that mentality among LGBT Americans and their straight supporters, Harvey Milk’s legacy will live on not merely by a movie, but by our own commitment to everything that he stood for.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

A New Beginning

This morning, I am happy to say that I was able to watch a historic event unfolding. Around noon, I watched as President Barack Obama was sworn into office as America’s first black president. Even if one does not agree with President Obama’s politics, there can be no doubt that this was a historic moment for all Americans. We’ve come a long way in a relatively short period of time. About half a century ago, having a black president would have been unthinkable to many Americans, but no longer. It’s now a reality, and I’m quite proud to say that I’m an American and that this country has taken a giant step in moving past racial barriers. In a sense, this is Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream come true. Racism in any form is intrinsically immoral, and it’s about time that this country put its troubled past with regard to racism behind it. On another level, I think President Obama’s election heralds the fact that the old order is dying out. The Baby Boomers and those before them are slowly retiring or passing on and being replaced by ever more tolerant and diverse generations of Americans who are moving this country forward, despite the forces that would try to hold us back. I wasn’t too thrilled with the choice of the extremely anti-gay Rev. Rick Warren as a speaker at the ceremony, but it doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things to me. Rev. Rick Warren is just another example of a sad, backward voice that had his time in the spotlight. But President Obama’s election showed people like him that we will not move backward, but always forward. America has troubling socioeconomic issues to address, as well as dangerous enemies abroad, but I share President Obama’s confidence that we can rise to the task of dealing with each of those issues.

It’s also a new beginning for me in terms of my own life. Tomorrow marks the beginning of my first day of my last semester of undergraduate education at my college. It’s a little difficult for me to contemplate the fact that my college life will soon be coming to an end, but instead of looking at it as an end, why not look at it as a beginning? It will be the beginning of yet another phase of my life, and I look forward to moving ahead along with my country.

Family Values

A lot of times when I hear anti-gay groups or people speaking against LGBT people, whether overtly or in a more subtle way, there is an intriguing tendency to invoke something called “family values.” But their idea of family values is anything but that, in my opinion. Part of the problem though is that LGBT Americans at large have never really developed a universal ethical code of “family values” of their own (or widely communicated it). What answer can we provide to our opponents who deride us as threatening “family values?” Let me tell you what my family values are:

1. Respecting the rights of all LGBT people, regardless of who they are.
2. Encouraging stable, monogamous lifelong relationships (whether its called marriage, civil union, etc.) among same-sex couples and discouraging a culture of promiscuity and one-night stands that is psychologically and, in my opinion, spiritually unhealthy.
3. Encouraging the adoption of children who need stable, loving homes, especially those children that are not adopted as often (i.e. those with disabilities, etc.). The American Psychological Association has already found that children raised in LGBT families are just as healthy as those in straight families.
4. Establishing shelters to take in homeless people in these difficult times, especially LGBT youths who have been ejected from their homes by homophobic parents (but everyone is welcome).
5. Taking a strong stand against the abuse and molestation of minors by anyone, and working with police authorities to root out child molesters and other threats to our children. Even those of us like myself who do not have children need to take a stand, because we all have a collective responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
6. Caring for our elderly friends and relatives. Let us not forget our LGBT seniors. They had to endure through tougher times than I have ever known.
7. Encouraging the formation and patronage of spiritual homes, such as churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. that are friendly and inclusive to all people, gay and straight alike.
8. Discouraging racism, sexism, ageism and other forms of unjust discrimination, especially in the next generation.
9. Maintaining strong ties with supportive family members, and not excluding the possibility of anti-gay relatives coming around one day. It can happen, and we should keep our hearts open to it. We all need forgiveness. In the meantime, give your family members a call or send a card every once in a while. It can mean a lot.
10. Cultivating a strong, solid work ethic and contributing positively to those professions that LGBT Americans tend to be drawn to, such as the arts.

Those are my family values. Of course, there’s a lot more to all of it, but it’s about time that we wake up and understand that the religious right need not have a monopoly on family values. We need to reclaim family values from the religious right. Not only will this help to neutralize their chief accusations of us as a threat to family values, but it will enhance our own sense of self-worth and dignity as Americans and as members of an even larger family: the human family.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

The Almighty Dollar

OK, time to get back to some LGBT issues, although some would say that my previous post about Alexander the Great would count as one! Anyway, I was volunteering at the local soup kitchen this morning and noticed, to my dismay, that more people were there than usual. At first I thought that it was because of the winter weather, but one my fellow volunteers gravely informed me that the economy’s downturn was causing more and more people to show up. She has access to the official records of who lives at the shelter (it’s not just a kitchen, but also a temporary living area), so I believe her. I’m doing this service in order to fulfull a requirement for my degree program. I actually felt a little guilty, knowing how good I have it compared to what I was seeing all around me in the shelter. It is during this time that all Americans must be especially judicious about how they spend their money. The power of money cannot be underestimated. In fact, the power of the American LGBT dollar is very strong as well, and all LGBT Americans should be especially careful about where they spend their hard-earned money in a time when US companies are not required under federal law to refrain from discrimination against LGBT people (although state laws can offer such protection, depending on which state one resides in). Now, more than ever, the LGBT community can demonstrate its power by refusing to patronize companies that, as a matter of official policy, discriminate against LGBT people. That being said, we must remember that the conduct of individual employees doesn’t necessarily reflect a company’s policy, which is why we shouldn’t boycott a company because a particular low-level employee supported Prop 8 or something like that. But if the CEO or the Board of Directors did, then that’s fair game. Luckily for us, there are ways to determine which companies are good for the LGBT community to patronize, and which ones are not.

Here we have a link to the Human Rights Campaign’s corporate sponsors. They include a diverse group of companies which support this LGBT rights organization, from airlines to credit companies. Also here is the Human Rights Campaign’s corporate equality index for 2009, which lists companies by their LGBT-friendliness record. Not surprisingly, my very own New York and California contained the most LGBT-friendly companies. Admittedly, the HRC equality index is some heavy reading but it’s well-worth it to know which companies support us and which ones don’t. In fact, some of the right-wing blogs I’ve been monitoring have been getting pretty angry over the fact that some LGBT people are choosing to flex their financial muscles. Some hate blogs and websites are actually listing pro-gay companies in order to help their followers know which ones to avoid. We must be doing something right if the anti-gay forces in this country are adopting our tactics!

It is important to know which companies to avoid, but it is of course equally important never to stereotype a particular company. Simply because a company sells religious items or has a Christian name is no reason to assume anti-gay policies are in effect. Nor is it appropriate to assume that because members of a specific religious group own a business that they, or the business, are automatically anti-gay as well. It’s easy to make assumptions, but it’s intellectually lazy, and in my view immoral, to do so. Do your homework and research the company’s policies and leadership. The one thing that the LGBT community must avoid at all costs is descending to the level of our opponents. They love it when we do that.

What is absolutely essential above all else is to spread the word, not only to LGBT friends and relatives, but to straight allies as well. Don’t be afraid to tell the truth if you are asked why you won’t go to a certain store or restaurant (assuming you’re out of the closet). Publish lists at your workplace (if that’s allowed) and in public wherever you can legally do so.

One more thing to consider is not just the company, but also the location. While northeasterners like myself enjoy going down south for some warm sunny beaches during the cold winters, some (if not most) southern states are pretty backward when it comes to LGBT rights and attitudes. Virginia is probably the worst, banning not only LGBT marriages in their constitution but also civil unions, domestic partnerships and essentially any kind of legal protections for their LGBT residents. South Carolina has a lot of hate groups (see the Southern Poverty Law Center’s intelligence report for more details). Don’t go to these states if you can avoid it. Tourist dollars are something that the LGBT community can use to promote equality. Better yet, if you are able and willing, vote with your feet and pack up and take you money to friendly states, and not those that enshrine bigotry into their laws and constitutions. While this is not the best strategy for everyone (it’s easy for me to say since I live in a gay-friendly state), the more people that do that, the better. If enough LGBT people left California, you can bet that the state would feel the effects. If nothing else, it will be a powerful personal statement to make if you can do it. Come on up here to the northeast if you can. New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine are all beautiful and gay-friendly areas that would love to have you.

On an international level, for those of you who can afford to travel, spend leisure travel dollars going to gay-friendly countries like Canada and Western Europe. If Asia is your thing, Thailand is LGBT friendly. For those of you who enjoy safaris, South Africa, a country once shrouded in the bigotry of the apartheid era, has gay marriage now! If you’re like me and you love the tropics, I’d go for Mexico (Cancun) but avoid Jamaica at all costs. It is viciously homophobic. Same-sex contact is still illegal there and the environment is not good for LGBT people in general. Even Amnesty International has cited Jamaica for appalling LGBT-rights abuses. Ultimately, it is best to consult an LGBT travel agent for more info about the best places to go.

We all have the power to make a difference. Our economic choices, whether reflected in where we do business or where we travel and even make a living, all have consequences, for better or worse. Boycotts can and do work. All we need to do is to get the word out and get coordinated. Get on mailing lists and above all else, talk to people. The momentum is moving in the right direction. All we need to do is move with it. God bless you all.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Alexander the Great: The Death of a Legend

This is a report I wrote on one of history’s most famous figures. While scholars still debate over whether or not Alexander was heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, he still left a lasting impression on the Western world. I think, personally speaking, that it’s probable that he was homosexual in orientation, or at the very least bisexual, given his deep relationship with Hephaestion (there are hints that their relationship was sexual at some points in the primary sources). I wrote a paper regarding the circumstances behind his death, and in defense of a relatively new theory as to how he died. Enjoy!

The death of Alexander the Great marked the end of one of the most famous figures in history. Alexander the Great brought Greek culture and language thousands of miles from its origins on the Greek mainland, brought down the Persian empire and revolutionized military science. At the young age of 32, he fell ill and died. It is still a mystery as to his exact cause of death. Many theories have been proposed, ranging from deliberate poisoning, to malaria. Yet of all the illnesses that have been proposed, there is one that few scholars or doctors ever considered until just recently. Given his symptoms, campaigns and lifestyle choices, there is a good possibility that Alexander the Great died from the infamous West Nile virus.
The best way to chart the path of Alexander’s illness is to begin with all of the surrounding factors that may have affected Alexander’s health just before his death. Alexander was known to engage in wild drinking parties, and has even been described by some scholars as suffering from alcoholism (Romm, p. 168). During his time in India, Alexander was seriously wounded in the chest and, based on the description of the wound as spurting “blood and breath,” (Romm, p. 142) suffered a punctured lung, a wound that he was lucky to have survived. It is reasonable to suggest that Alexander’s mental state was also less than satisfactory at the time of his death, given the relatively recent death of his lifelong friend, and possible lover, Hephaestion.
Next, one must consider all of Alexander’s known symptoms. Alexander’s symptoms have been variously described as an escalating high fever, thirst, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, thirst, early back-pain, weakness with a few periods of energy, delirium, loss of speech, paralysis and finally death (Marr, p. 1600). Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the primary and secondary sources that give us Alexander’s symptoms, which occurred over the course of approximately 11-13 days. Arrian tells us that on the first night of Alexander’s illness that he had been drinking heavily when he came down with a fever. On the next day he was taken out on his bed to perform sacrifices to the gods and to give orders to his men, but spent most of the day sleeping. On the third day he did the same, in addition to eating some food, with the fever persisting. On the fourth day he continued to give orders, and on the fifth day he was still relatively well but was now in a constant fever. During that evening his condition worsened, and by the sixth day he was becoming increasingly weakened. His condition remained unchanged for the next two days. By the ninth day he was seriously ill and lost his ability to speak. His high fever persisted until his death about 2 days later. Like Arrian, Plutarch tells us that Alexander lost his ability to speak toward the last few days of his life. He specifically denies that Alexander had any abdominal or back pains, claiming that such assertions by other authors were just melodramatic fabrications. Plutarch also mentions that the fever was very high. Aristobulus maintains that Alexander’s first symptoms were fever, extreme thirst and delirium. Admittedly, it is difficult to tell whose version of Alexander’s final days is the most accurate, but for the purposes of this paper all symptoms mentioned by primary and secondary sources will be considered in formulating a hypothesis as to what killed Alexander. There are many theories as to what specific illness or substance could have caused Alexander to develop these symptoms.
Some scholars and doctors have proposed that Alexander may have died due to poison. It should first be noted that the majority of poisonous substances do not cause fevers . Most of the relatively few poisons that can cause fevers were not available in antiquity. The very few that were, include plant salicylates, ergot mycotoxins and alkaloids like strychnine. Paul Cartledge proposed that a small dose of strychnine, a naturally occurring substance known in antiquity and still used today, may have been used to kill Alexander (Cartledge, p. 215). Strychnine has been used in medicine since ancient times, often as a stimulant, and is indigenous to parts of India. Its effects were well known and reflected in the Latin scientific name of the tree that strychnine comes from, strychnos nux vomica. This roughly translates as “nightshade nut that causes vomiting,” referring to its potent emetic properties. While Alexander undoubtedly had his enemies, Cartledge’s assertion is almost totally baseless. First, strychnine is extremely bitter (Engels, p. 224). It is very unlikely that it could have been given easily to Alexander without him noticing it. Even if it had somehow been given to him, or if he had perhaps ingested or inhaled it accidentally, he would not have been able to lay down in bed easily, since strychnine causes agonizing muscular spasms and convulsions. Also, even if the strychnine had been given to Alexander in extremely small doses over a long period of time, the subsequent fever would have been very mild (perhaps even close to a normal temperature), certainly not like the high fever described by primary sources. Also, the symptoms would probably not have come on as suddenly as they did in Alexander’s case. Finally, a fever caused by the aforementioned salicylates and ergot mycotoxins would not be a high, constant fever like the one Alexander had (Marr, p. 1599).
Arsenic has also been suggested as a possible poison used to kill Alexander. It can be rendered practically tasteless, making it easy to slip into food or liquids. It would account for Alexander’s weakness and paralysis, and his supposed gastric symptoms, but it must be ruled out for several reasons. Arsenic poisoning does not cause fever. Short-term arsenic poisoning would be fatal within a day or two, and arsenic would cause much more violent and unusual symptoms than the ones described. Finally, arsenic was apparently not precisely isolated until 1250 CE, and it is thus unlikely that it would have been used in antiquity as a poison (Lederer, p. 1).
Some drugs have been known to cause fevers, but like poisons, they are also relatively few and are ones that were unknown in antiquity, such as chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics, antipsychotics, etc. Opium withdrawal can cause fever and it was prevalent in the Orient, as it still is, but none of Alexander’s other symptoms suggest opium withdrawal (Beers, p. 594).
Food poisoning has also been considered as a possible cause of death. Salmonella, botulism and other forms of food poisoning are all caused by either infectious agents or the toxins produced by them. While food poisoning can cause fevers and would not have been a surprising occurrence in antiquity, it would not have been responsible for some of Alexander’s other symptoms. Salmonella symptoms do not normally last for more than 3-7 days, and the symptoms are usually confined to the gastrointestinal tract (i.e. vomiting, etc.). E. coli food poisoning does not normally cause a high fever. Botulism could account for Alexander’s gastric symptoms and weakness, but its neurological symptoms are usually limited to muscle weakness and breathing difficulties, not the delirium that Alexander was said to have experienced. In fact, the victims of botulism poisoning are generally quite lucid. Also, botulism does not usually cause fever. There are literally dozens of other forms of food poisoning, but most are generally characterized by vomiting, diarrhea and other gastric symptoms rather than the high fever and neurological symptoms noted by primary sources.
On the first night of his illness, Alexander was drinking heavily. It is thus not unreasonable to ask whether his alcohol consumption had anything to do with his illness. Although some of Alexander’s symptoms were similar to that of an alcohol overdose, fever and abdominal pain are not among the symptoms of such an overdose. Dr. Charalambos Sbarounis, M.D. suggested alcohol-induced pancreatitis (Sbarounis, p. 295-296), given Alexander’s abdominal pain, back pain, high fever, thirst and mental deterioration. Two similar theories put forth include the possibility of similar alcohol-induced diseases, specifically hepatitis and ruptured stomach ulcers (Mackowiak, p. 69-70). Another theory suggests the possibility that Alexander drank so much that he actually ruptured his esophagus (Battersby, p. 86). While these four theories are quite plausible considering Alexander’s lifestyle of heavy drinking, they generally fail to account for Alexander’s severe weakness, loss of speech and his eventual paralysis (Mackowiak, p. 70). Also, they do not account for the unusual symptom of Alexander’s brief period of energy. In fact, Alexander was well enough in the beginning stages of his illness to bathe, talk to his generals and perform sacrifices to the gods (Romm, p. 169). These four illnesses tend to cause excruciating pain relatively quickly, especially perforated stomach ulcers and esophageal ruptures , and they would have left Alexander unable to function in his day-to-day duties, which he seems to have done at least in the beginning.
However, given the presence of a fever, it can be assumed that Alexander indeed suffered from some type of infection. There were plenty of illnesses in the Middle East that could have afflicted Alexander. Among them are malaria, typhoid fever and others.
Malaria has been proposed as a possible cause of death for Alexander. It was well known in antiquity, and often referred to as pyretos , the Greek word for fever (Borza 1979, p. 102). It was feared by soldiers who had to march through marshy areas, where the female mosquitoes that transmit the disease were prevalent. Several years prior to his fatal disease Alexander had a mild illness characterized by a fever, cramps and insomnia (Romm, p. 47). It is possible that this illness could have been a type of malaria caused by plasmodium malariae, which can actually remain dormant in the bloodstream for years before reactivating (Beers, p. 1031). The stress of Hephaestion’s death, repeated injuries and drinking parties could have been more than enough to bring the disease out of dormancy. Malaria is consistent with some of Alexander’s symptoms except for abdominal pain, which is not a normal feature of malaria (Borza 2000, p. 25). Although some forms of malaria can cause a continuous fever, Alexander’s travel history makes it probable that he would have been exposed to a type of malaria called plasmodium falciparum. This is important because one of the distinguishing features of this type of malaria is the unusual fever pattern. With this type of malaria, the fever actually comes and goes in recognizable cycles. Alexander’s persistent high fever reduces, although not completely eliminates, the probability of malaria as being his cause of death.
One theory accepted by many scholars and doctors is that Alexander perished from typhoid fever. The evidence for this assertion is quite persuasive. Typhoid fever could explain most if not all of Alexander’s symptoms, but one problem with typhoid fever as being a cause of death is the timing of the symptoms. In the cases where typhoid fever has proven fatal , death has usually occurred by the end of the second week, but the neurological signs (such as Alexander’s delirium and eventual paralysis) generally occurred in those who managed to survive after three weeks (Marr, p. 1600). Assuming that the primary sources were correct in noting how long it took for Alexander to die, the points at which the symptoms manifested themselves during the illness seem inconsistent with a normal case of typhoid fever. The neurological symptoms occurred too early.
While typhoid fever is a stronger possibility than malaria, there is one other disease that doctors and scholars never considered until recently. Before the late 1990s, scholars and doctors usually paid little attention to an interesting event recorded by Plutarch. Prior to entering Babylon, Plutarch reports that Alexander saw a flock of crows or ravens attacking each other and then dropping dead in front of him. Although any flock of birds could have demonstrated this behavior for a variety of reasons, the fact that the birds were ravens or crows makes one explanation for their behavior stand out. This behavior as documented by Plutarch is exactly how crows and ravens infected with the West Nile virus would behave (crows and ravens are more susceptible to the West Nile virus than most other types of birds).
One cannot be entirely sure that Plutarch did not add this incident for dramatic effect, but it would fit in perfectly with an outbreak of the West Nile virus in Babylon similar to the one that occurred in the United States in 1999. Several mosquito species in present-day Iraq, where Alexander became ill, have been suspected of spreading this virus, and these mosquitoes tend to become active in the spring when the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flood. This would make Babylon’s location between the two rivers the perfect area for West Nile virus to appear. The West Nile virus, like many others, comes and goes in mammals over time due to fluctuations in the number of mosquitoes and changes in the virus that can make it more or less transmissible to animals and humans. Over 80% of people infected with West Nile virus never show any symptoms at all, with another 19% showing only mild, flu-like symptoms that end within a week or less (Huhn, p. 656). This shows how outbreaks of this virus can affect thousands of people, yet relatively few actually become seriously ill (Tsai, p. 767). This could explain why no such illness was reported among Alexander’s soldiers or any of the residents of Babylon. Even if no one else in Babylon had been infected with the West Nile virus, that does not necessarily mean that Alexander alone could not have become infected. In fact, it is more typical of the West Nile virus to infect a small group of people, or even a single person, at first rather than large groups of people all at once. Typhoid fever, malaria and other diseases would probably have affected large numbers of Alexander’s men and the Babylonians in general, and we have no record of any such outbreaks of illness at the time of Alexander’s death. In less than 1% of infected individuals, usually the elderly, young children and those with compromised immune systems, the virus can cause deadly brain inflammation (encephalitis). This is specifically what Alexander may have, in fact, died from, since he showed neurological signs (i.e. loss of speech, delirium, etc.) in addition to all of the other symptoms of West Nile virus. Although acute pancreatitis was previously ruled out in and of itself, some victims of West Nile virus can actually develop pancreatitis in addition to other complications (Perelman, p. 1150). Therefore, Alexander could have died from a combination of both West Nile encephalitis and pancreatitis.
The West Nile virus, as well as resulting cases of encephalitis, can cause a high fever (which could easily result in the thirst Aristobolus describes), loss of appetite, sudden body pains (such as a headache), disorientation or delirium, back aches, weakness and paralysis. In fatal cases, the time between the onset of symptoms and death varies widely, from several days to several weeks (Huhn, p. 657). The symptoms of West Nile encephalitis match Alexander’s symptoms relatively well.
In an attempt to discredit the theory that Alexander died from West Nile virus, Dr. Mackowiak points out that the West Nile virus is rarely fatal in otherwise healthy individuals (Mackowiak, p. 72). While this is true, Mackowiak makes the false assumption that Alexander was a perfectly healthy individual at the time. Alexander had a habit of consuming large quantities of alcohol, and had in fact done so right before his illness occurred. Recent clinical studies have suggested that heavy consumption of alcohol suppresses the immune system significantly, predisposing one to develop various infections that one might not normally develop (Roselle, p. 1-6). It would also mean that Alexander, once he became infected, would have a much more difficult time fighting the virus. One must also remember that Alexander had been constantly fighting for years, and that his occupation as king must have been very stressful indeed. The terrible shock of Hephaestion’s death should also be remembered, since the loss of a life partner or a spouse (whether or not Alexander and Hephaestion’s relationship was ever homosexual, E. N. Borza asserts that Hephaestion essentially functioned as a de facto “spouse” to Alexander) can have deleterious effects on one’s physical health (Borza 2000, p. 27). Alexander’s personal habits, his job and his personal life ensured that he was by no means a healthy young man when he became ill.
Scholars and medical doctors have spent years trying to discern exactly what killed Alexander. One can never be sure that our primary sources accurately documented Alexander’s symptoms, or the amount of time it took for him to die. However, if the primary sources were in fact accurate, then a good case can be made that Alexander died from encephalitis caused by the West Nile virus. It is interesting to consider that Alexander the Great, who defeated powerful enemies during his life, may have lost his final battle at the hands of a microscopic enemy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Selincourt. New York: Penguin Classics, 1971.

Battersby, Cameron. “What Killed Alexander the Great?” ANZ Journal of Surgery 77 (2007): 85.

Beers, Mark H., editor-in-chief. The Merck Manual of Medical Information: Second Home Edition. New York: Pocket Books, 2003.

Bosworth, A.B. “The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda.” The Classical Quarterly 21 (1971):112-136.

Borza, Eugene N., et al. “Some New Thoughts on the Death of Alexander the Great,” The Ancient World 21 (2000): 22-30.

Borza, Eugene N., et al. “Some Observations on Malaria and the Ecology of Central Macedonia in Antiquity.” American Journal of Ancient History 4 (1979): 102-104.

Cartledge, Paul. Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past. New York: The Overlook Press, 2004.

Engels, Donald. “A Note on Alexander’s Death,” Classical Philology 73 (1978): 224-228.

Huhn, G. D., et al. “West Nile Virus in the United States: An Update on an Emerging Infectious Disease,” American Family Physician 68 (2003): 653-660.

Lederer, William H., et al. Arsenic: Industrial, Biomedical, Environmental Perspectives. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983.

Mackowiak, Philip. Post Mortem: Solving History’s Great Medical Mysteries. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 2007.

Marr, John, et al. “Alexander the Great and West Nile Virus Encephalitis,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 9 (2003): 1599-1603.

Moulopoulos, S.D. “A Mysterious Death,” The New England Journal of Medicine 339 (1998): 1248.

Perelman A. and J. Stern. “Acute Pancreatitis in West Nile Fever,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 23 (1974): 1150-1152.

Plutarch. The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert. New York: Penguin Classics, 1973.

Plutarch. The Life of Alexander the Great. Translated by John Dryden. New York: Random House, 2004.

Quintus Curtius Rufus. The History of Alexander. Translated by John Yardley. New York: Penguin Classics, 1984.

Romm, James, ed. Alexander the Great: Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Quintus Curtius. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2005.

Roselle, Gary A. “Alcohol and the Immune System,” Alcohol Health & Research World. Winter 1992: 1-8.

Sbarounis, Charalambos N. “Did Alexander the Great Die of Acute Pancreatitis?” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 24 (1997): 294–296.

Tsai, T. F., et al. “West Nile Encephalitis Epidemic in South Eastern Romania,” Lancet 352 (1998): 767-771.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com All Rights Reserved.

The Virtue of Health

First, let me say Happy New Year to everyone! May this new year bring you all of the blessings you need. I thought a good topic to do a blogpost on was a resolution that I made for this new year of 2009. I made a resolution to dedicate myself to getting healthier in general. Believe it or not, I see good health as a spiritual virtue insofar as one can control one’s habits. God tells us that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that we must care for ourselves as best as possible. I have a list of things that I’ve decided to do for the new year to help keep myself healthier, and I urge others to do the same:

1. Stop drinking all soda, including diet soda, and don’t eat white bread (eat wheat bread). None of that stuff is good for you. I’ve only stopped drinking diet soda over the past few days, and I already feel better. I don’t eat white bread to begin with, but it’s not good for anyone really. Reduce your salt intake as well.
2. If overweight, join Weight Watchers like I did. If you stick to the program, it can work wonders. Don’t do things like Atkins that can cause your body too much trouble.
3. Work on getting more sleep, but not too much. To readjust your sleeping patterns, try melatonin or a temporary sleep aid, but be careful since some of them can become addictive. Consult a doctor first.
4. Take a multivitamin, along with fish oil (with your doctor’s permission of course).
5. Pay attention to your dental health. Brush along the gumlines, floss and use mouthwash. I read a study that suggests a possible link between the plaque on your teeth and the stuff that clogs our arteries.
6. If you smoke, work on quitting. Your doctor can help you find ways to do that, such as nicotine patches or gum, as well as certain prescription drugs like Wellbutrin. If you are an alcoholic, look into Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar program. If you chew tobacco, work on stopping that too. Not only are those habits expensive, but they are dangerous as well.
7. Drink at least 32 oz of water a day.
8. Use Aveeno lotion for rashes and dry skin. It works on me.
9. DON’T use antibacterial soap or anything with triclosan in it. Some scientists think that could be contributing to superbugs like MRSA. Use regular soap instead. In the same vein, don’t take antibiotics unless you really need to (if it’s not a bacterial infection, antibiotics will do no good), and if you do, finish the whole bottle unless told otherwise.
10. Stop drinking coffee and caffeinated beverages. You’ll suffer withdrawal symptoms, but it’ll be worth it in the long run.

Good health habits are virtues not only because they can help us be healthier and thus happier, but because they also benefit other people as well. When we care for ourselves, we can inspire others around us to take care of themselves. Less hospital visits can also reduce insurance premiums and other shared costs, which is a good thing given our economic situation. America is not a very healthy nation right now. While we have great health care and technology, we have high rates of obesity, heart disease, cancer and other such problems. America needs to collectively work on making itself a healthier nation, not only for our own sakes but for the sake of our friends, families and our children, and all those who love us.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.