Hello again to the PrawfBlawg crowd. I’m pleased to be back for another little visit.
For my first post this time around, I want everyone’s help with a matter of American culture. Not infrequently, I hear about some development somewhere across the country that seems just nuts to me, but it turns out that other people whose views I respect don’t think it’s so nuts. Perhaps it’s because I grew up in Canada (unlike Dan and Paul, I’m from the good part of the country, B.C.) that I occasionally have these American cultural blind spots. (I’ve actually been a citizen of both the U.S. and Canada since birth, but this doesn’t seem to help.) I can’t tell whether I’m currently in the midst of one.
My current fascination is with the “War on Christmas.” Last year at about this time, I remember hearing a few references about this supposed conflagration, but this year the term seems far more common. Some guy at Fox News even has a book, “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.”
Now to my potential blind spot. When I read claims that there’s a War on Christmas currently raging in the United States — especially one that’s “Worse Than [I] Thought,” which I suppose means more threatening — I think it’s totally nuts. From where I sit (in Ithaca, NY, an extremely liberal place that, I suppose, should be one of the headquarters of the plot to bring Christmas down), it seems just ridiculous to think the place of Christmas in American culture is even remotely insecure. But maybe I’m just missing it. So my question: Does anyone who is not crazy really think we are currently in the grips of a legitimately threatening War on Christmas? I mean this question seriously.
Posted by Trevor Morrison on December 8, 2005 at 12:20 PM
Comments
There can’t be Christmas without a “war on Christmas.” Listen to the carols, the Gospel readings, the Shepherds’ Plays, even the secular Dickens. An innocent child in an evil world, personified by the Bad Innkeepers, King Harod, and Scrooge. Christmas is bitter cold, tracks in the snow, hunger, inhospitality, sword and flight. There really is a war on the poor. There are very bad people, armed to the teeth.
Fox News alarms about a “war on Christmas”, on the other hand, have nothing to do with blessing the poor. This defense of Christmas only promises to gratify bourgeois self pity — after the next commercial break. The Rev. Falwell peals out his changes on the necessity of the message he delivers so well. Our weaker bretheren, trapped in their costly SUV’s, want Christ put back in the retail sales industry (they don’t know the actual words to the muzak that accompanies them everywhere they go from Thanksgiving until the Last Shopping Day Before) so He can be once again the focus of their lives.
Posted by: Scroop Moth | Dec 11, 2005 12:14:43 AM
just me, sorry for not responding sooner. you bring up good points. i wish i had time to discuss them more fully. but i’m in the middle of studying for exams.
my thoughts on the subject are directed at the idea of a concerted effort against christmas and christians (i.e. war on christmas). i accept that there may be some real shift (but is the shift in the last 20 more “dramatic” than in the previous 20? or the 20 before that? and is it a function of growing equality?). i also find it extremely difficult to believe people are threatened with losing their jobs over it (aren’t there laws against that?).
i was raised in a severly catholic household. most of my family still practices (i don’t). no one has noticed or mentioned an attack on the holiday (but then again, they don’t watch FOX and CNN). however, the people i personally know who are passionate about the issue use it as covert but publicly acceptable way to express anti-semitism (but still you can choose your bigotry, it is multi-purpose tool). and that is my concern.
also, for some reason, there is a group of christians in america that needs to feel like they are being persecuted. it appears that their kind of religious expression is flat and meaningless without this notion of being persecuted. an industry has grown up around this need. politicians and preachers use this need to get rich and wield amazing amounts of power in our society. the creativity is amazing when you consider how successful this group is politically, e.g. people who identify themselves proudly (and in your face) as christian (mostly born-agains) currently dominate all three branches of the government. despite this, they still manage to work up the feeling of being persecuted. it is breath taking.
ditto for the “diversity” in law schools meme. sweet jesus. four justices on the supreme court are members of the federalist society. the AG, solicitor general, etc.
Posted by: a-train | Dec 9, 2005 4:30:40 PM
You want war? Here’s your war: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/12/taste_the_jolly.html
Posted by: MT | Dec 8, 2005 5:19:14 PM
Don’t mean to be a post-hog, but want to respond to Savitri on the particular point that some people should WANT to “get Christmas out of the stores and back into the churches, homes and hearts where it belongs.” I agree that many, esp. the self-described Christians who have signed up for the “War,” should instead be thrilled to detach the Christian Christmas from the secular “Xmas.” I initially wanted to avoid getting into that, though, and stick to the question of what everyone perceives is actually happening out there, before getting to the harder normative Qs about what “should happen.”
And on that point, savitri, I hear what you’re saying about the saturation still being there in Boston, with Christmas carols and so on, and about the lack of menorahs. But it seems to me that if the question is “has there been a change/dropoff,” then the Q is what to benchmark that against. And as long as these skating-rink things are not new, or newly increasing their Christian content, then at most it’s holding steady. But if in other parts of the country, there is a change, then the combo of steady-in-Boston and change-in-Virgina means a new change, no?
Posted by: just me | Dec 8, 2005 4:24:33 PM
“War on Christmas” = slow news day
If Mr. Falwell is correct that the WalMart greeter saying “Happy Holidays” is a threat to Christianity, that religion has bigger problems.
Happy Chrismukkah.
Posted by: Bev | Dec 8, 2005 4:22:12 PM
It’s not “war” it’s political correctness. Righteous political correctness, I might add. Besides Santa Claus Americans also have a thing called Establishment Claus.
Posted by: MT | Dec 8, 2005 4:21:49 PM
Re the question on measuring empirically —
I admit that I don’t have the time to do this myself, but I think that several ideas come to mind. First, as background, see the post the other day about how empiricism should not mean “stats,” but can include other collected evidence, including the dreaded “anecdotes,” to an extent.
Second, if one wants harder data: Pick a hundred school districts in Ohio or Michigan. Get the holiday concert programs for 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2005. Count the songs that are overtly Christian in each year, and see if there’s been a shift. I’d bet money that there’s a shift. I have seen this firsthand in schools in my area, and there are countless articles around the country about schools issuing “No Christ” rules, vetoing “Silent Night” and the like.
Again, let me stress that I’m not addressing the normative question about whether this is good or bad, and I’m not defending the idea that it’s a “War” or whatever. I agree, for instance, with acs’s comment above noting that a “lot of the commercial shifting is also profit driven.” And I don’t necessarily disagree with the criticism of some of the “war” talk, and Falwell, and all that.
But, a-train, I do respectfully disagree with the assertion that the shift has not been dramatic. I wonder if our disagreement is more about what’s happening out there, or whether it’s more about defining the term “dramatic.” So I’d like to ask how you’d define it. To you, are we, in absolute terms, not that far off from where we were in, say, 1975? Or would you say that we’ve changed a lot overall, but that it’s been a gradual change, and that only sudden changes can rightly be termed dramatic?
I don’t mean to be adversarial by these Qs, but I am truly curious.
Posted by: just me | Dec 8, 2005 4:11:03 PM
Little anecdotal point: I live in (liberal) Boston. There is a very prominent nativity scene on the Common. The public skating rinks, where I practice daily, are tuned to the Oldies Christmas station (from “Oh Holy Night” to “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” 24/7). (The rink guys tell me, in all seriousness, they won’t play anything else this season.) The papers are advertising “Christmas” specials at Filene’s, Shreve, and other landmark establishments (for the commercial iteration of the event ). There are about a dozen performances of Handel’s Messiah, including hugely popular sing-along ones. And the Hancock Tower lights are turned to red and green!
Further, nowhere have I seen a single Menorah, Star of David, or anything related to Hannukah – and people look at me blankly when I ask why not. There isn’t even a general acknowledgement (or perhaps knowledge) that it falls right at Christmastime this year. Equal time for another key Judeo-Christian ceremony? Maybe in Newton or Brookline.
I fail to see any diminution in the cultural markers of Christmas.
As to Charlie Brown, isn’t a central lesson of the story (which I watched a million years ago – I seem to miss it every year) that Christmas really, really isn’t about commercialism? If that’s “mainstream”, then why isn’t mainstream America saying, let’s get Christmas out of the stores and back into the churches, homes and hearts where it belongs?
And finally, as to the Narnia movie, aren’t they trying to have it both ways and market it to Christians and non-Christians, only with different packaging and selling points (two CDs and such)?
Posted by: savitri | Dec 8, 2005 3:45:27 PM
Little anecdotal point: I live in (liberal) Boston. There is a very prominent nativity scene on the Common. The public skating rinks, where I practice daily, are tuned to the Oldies Christmas station (from “Oh Holy Night” to “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” 24/7). (The rink guys tell me, in all seriousness, they won’t play anything else this season.) The papers are advertising “Christmas” specials at Filene’s, Shreve, and other landmark establishments (for the commercial iteration of the event ). There are about a dozen performances of Handel’s Messiah, including hugely popular sing-along ones. And the Hancock Tower lights are turned to red and green!
Further, nowhere have I seen a single Menorah, Star of David, or anything related to Hannukah – and people look at me blankly when I ask why not. There isn’t even a general acknowledgement (or perhaps knowledge) that it falls right at Christmastime this year. Equal time for another key Judeo-Christian ceremony? Maybe in Newton or Brookline.
I fail to see any diminution in the cultural markers of Christmas.
As to Charlie Brown, isn’t a central lesson of the story (which I watched a million years ago – I seem to miss it every year) that Christmas really, really isn’t about commercialism? If that’s “mainstream”, then why isn’t mainstream America saying, let’s get Christmas out of the stores and back into the churches, homes and hearts where it belongs?
And finally, as to the Narnia movie, aren’t they trying to have it both ways and market it to Christians and non-Christians, only with different packaging and selling points (two CDs and such)?
Posted by: savitri | Dec 8, 2005 3:44:55 PM
One data point: here in Trenton, NJ, I’ve recently heard several people grumble about the use of the word “holiday” instead of “Christmas” as in “holiday party” or “happy holidays.” The people in question are not elites but at least one of them is a college graduate. One of the people referred to “taking Christ out of Christmas,” which is a concept that makes little sense to me personally for all sorts of reasons. This idea of opposition to Christmas as a religious holiday or Christmas per se is clearly a widespread folk belief (even in a “blue” state) and which, I think, is a less extreme variant of the “War on Christmas” idea Trevor refers to. (I’m sure you could find that idea in Ithaca too if you looked in the right places … I lived there for several years.)
Posted by: John Noir | Dec 8, 2005 3:36:14 PM
I agree whole-heartedly with “just me” – but it definitely depends on where you are. I live in Virginia on the edge of DC right now, but most of my family is in the rural midwest. Visiting there over Thanksgiving, I didn’t see any of the changes that I see around here. Even here, if you go forty miles outside DC, you’re in a different state. Here, we’re explicitly told by our employers not to talk about Christmas at all. Managers with overtly religious endorsements, which would include Christmas cards (as opposed to “Holiday” cards), can be fired on the first offense. Outside of town, not so much.
In terms of the places where I’ve lived, I’ve noticed the effect even in parts of the deep south. I don’t think it’s some kind of “evil commie pinko liberal left-wingest conspiracy,” but I would allege that it has something to do with where the democrats are, even if this is merely coincidental. The places where I’ve noticed it are largely urban cities on the east coast (I haven’t spent enough time on the west coast to be objective), and some urban cities in the deep south and midwest, mainly in neighborhoods or parts of cities that had no military presence, and a large non-Christian population. Cities known for their academics are generally more noticeable in this regard, in my experience. I don’t think any of that is blame, and it probably makes sense.
To me, people choosing to worship or not to worship, or what to call their commercial non-religious event, isn’t a problem, as much as people getting in trouble over their choice to worship or the choice to include appropriate and balanced religious references in a seasonal event. My completely subjective view is that I’ve heard a lot of the latter in the last few years, including having a cousin whose public school outside of Detroit required that students not wear anything that might be taken as offensive to people not celebrating the holiday – including clothes that were red and green. However, not having paid much attention before the last decade, I can’t honestly say whether this is a trend, or a cycle, or just a trend in reporting what was already there, or a trend in my noticing and being annoyed.
Posted by: gawaine | Dec 8, 2005 3:05:51 PM
A lot of the commercial shifting is also profit driven. Macy’s isn’t going to tell its clerks to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” unless they think, for whatever reason, that the new message will help them sell more product. Same thing goes for all of the other commercial entities out there — so any “War on Christmas,” to the extent it exists and to the extent it happens in the commercial sphere, has to be understood not as a “liberal” assault on “traditional values,” but as a decision by a rational economic actor to increase returns.
Posted by: acs | Dec 8, 2005 2:19:42 PM
You’re absolutely right- I saw Jerry Falwell on the fair and unbalanced network, and he was angry, at all things, that someone had called it a “holiday tree” instead of a Christmas tree. Ol’ Jerry ought to look up the roots of the tree tradition, Druids, animist spirits, fornication in barren fields. Jesus would be proud. I’m glad Jerry is so focused on this important issue with his time so consumed with the pressing problems of interracial dating at his University.
Posted by: matty | Dec 8, 2005 2:02:42 PM
i live in the midwest. i went to school here. my kids go to school here. there is no war on christmas. it’s just news porn. yes, the notion of “political correctness” (i.e. being polite and/or considerate of minority groups) has had an impact on how things are phrased and presented. i disagree with “just me” about there being a “dramatic shift,” and i’m not sure how one proves or disproves such a thing “emprically”, but calling this a “liberal plot” or a “war” is, as they say in quebec, poppycock.
Posted by: a-train | Dec 8, 2005 1:35:19 PM
I’ll take a stab at explaining it.
Empirically, it does look as if America’s Christmas culture has shifted dramatically from where it was a 10-20 years ago. Let me stress that I am not addressing whether or not this is a good or bad thing, and whether it is caused more by litigation or cultural changes or whatever. But sticking to just whether something has changed, I think it has.
For decades, much of the Christmas season was far more overtly Christian, not just in the government sphere, but in the commerical sphere. The cliche things are largely true: many more schools have ordered choirs NOT to sing Silent Night, but just Frosty the Snowman. Calendars list “Winter Break,” not “Christmas Break.” Large commercial chains instruct checkout clerks to say “Happy Holidays,” not “Merry Christmas.” Trees are called “holiday trees.” These things were already happening decades ago, but they have accelerated, and have become the dominant trend rather than anomalies. My midwestern city saw a school edict a few years ago to have no Christian songs in the Winter Pageant, etc.
I just watched the Charlie Brown Christmas special with the kids. Charlie Brown is about as mainstream Americana as it gets, and this 1965 show includes Linus’s big speech reciting Scripture about the Birth of Christ. I can’t imagine a similar special being made today for a mainstream audience. In fact, the marketers of the C.S. Lewis “Narnia” movie are struggling to keep it looking secular enough to not get it pegged as a “Christian” movie — and that’s just with an allegory at best, as contrasted with Linus’s Bible-reciting.
So at one level, “Christmas” is firmly ensconced in America, as trees and Santa aren’t fading, but the Christian Christmas, which once shared public space with the “Secular Xmas,” is declining in the public sphere.
Again, I’m not saying whether this is good or bad, or what caused it, or where’s it’s headed, or anything else. But I think it is fair to say that the cultural landscape has been changed dramatically in recent years. So it’s definitely a shift, and for those who see it as a bad thing, it’s not surprising that they’re noticing and opposing more loudly. And for those who think these changes are a good thing, there may will be efforts (whether “war” or not) to speed the change along.
I guess I’d ask my fellow commenters – does anyone think things have not shifted? And is that because your part of America (geographic or demographic or whatever) had already gone to “Xmas” years ago, or because your world is still overtly Christian in its Christmas recognitions?
Posted by: just me | Dec 8, 2005 12:45:01 PM