Daily Kos

The Real History of XMAS in America

Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:55:34 PM PDT

The following NY Times article has interesting historical data on XMAS in America.  The Puritans, the christian right of their day, for instance did not celebrate XMAS.

This Season's War Cry: Commercialize Christmas, or Else
By ADAM COHEN
Published: December 4, 2005
Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the commercialization of Christmas. They're for it.
The American Family Association is leading a boycott of Target for not using the words "Merry Christmas" in its advertising. (Target denies it has an anti-Merry-Christmas policy.) The Catholic League boycotted Wal-Mart in part over the way its Web site treated searches for "Christmas." Bill O'Reilly, the Fox anchor who last year started a "Christmas Under Siege" campaign, has a chart on his Web site of stores that use the phrase "Happy Holidays," along with a poll that asks, "Will you shop at stores that do not say 'Merry Christmas'?"

This campaign - which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk radio - is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks for powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when Christians are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia and slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores that sell "holiday trees."

What is less obvious, though, is that Christmas's self-proclaimed defenders are rewriting the holiday's history. They claim that the "traditional" American Christmas is under attack by what John Gibson, another Fox anchor, calls "professional atheists" and "Christian haters." But America has a complicated history with Christmas, going back to the Puritans, who despised it. What the boycotters are doing is not defending America's Christmas traditions, but creating a new version of the holiday that fits a political agenda.

The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from Saturnalia, the Roman heathens' wintertime celebration. On their first Dec. 25 in the New World, in 1620, the Puritans worked on building projects and ostentatiously ignored the holiday. From 1659 to 1681 Massachusetts went further, making celebrating Christmas "by forbearing of labor, feasting or in any other way" a crime.

The concern that Christmas distracted from religious piety continued even after Puritanism waned. In 1827, an Episcopal bishop lamented that the Devil had stolen Christmas "and converted it into a day of worldly festivity, shooting and swearing." Throughout the 1800's, many religious leaders were still trying to hold the line. As late as 1855, New York newspapers reported that Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist churches were closed on Dec. 25 because "they do not accept the day as a Holy One." On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was recognized in just 18 states.

Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore's "Visit from St. Nicholas" and Thomas Nast's Harper's Weekly drawings, which created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders' worries that the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920's, the retail industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off the "Christmas shopping season."

Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while clergymen tried to keep commerce out. A 1931 Times roundup of Christmas sermons reported a common theme: "the suggestion that Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background by materialism." A 1953 Methodist sermon broadcast on NBC - typical of countless such sermons - lamented that Christmas had become a "profit-seeking period." This ethic found popular expression in "A Charlie Brown Christmas." In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown ignores Lucy's advice to "get the biggest aluminum tree you can find" and her assertion that Christmas is "a big commercial racket," and finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.

This year's Christmas "defenders" are not just tolerating commercialization - they're insisting on it. They are also rewriting Christmas history on another key point: non-Christians' objection to having the holiday forced on them.

The campaign's leaders insist this is a new phenomenon - a "liberal plot," in Mr. Gibson's words. But as early as 1906, the Committee on Elementary Schools in New York City urged that Christmas hymns be banned from the classroom, after a boycott by more than 20,000 Jewish students. In 1946, the Rabbinical Assembly of America declared that calling on Jewish children to sing Christmas carols was "an infringement on their rights as Americans."

Other non-Christians have long expressed similar concerns. For decades, companies have replaced "Christmas parties" with "holiday parties," schools have adopted "winter breaks" instead of "Christmas breaks," and TV stations and stores have used phrases like "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" out of respect for the nation's religious diversity.

The Christmas that Mr. O'Reilly and his allies are promoting - one closely aligned with retailers, with a smack-down attitude toward nonobservers - fits with their campaign to make America more like a theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian prayer in public schools.

It does not, however, appear to be catching on with the public. That may be because most Americans do not recognize this commercialized, mean-spirited Christmas as their own. Of course, it's not even clear the campaign's leaders really believe in it. Just a few days ago, Fox News's online store was promoting its "Holiday Collection" for shoppers. Among the items offered to put under a "holiday tree" was "The O'Reilly Factor Holiday Ornament." After bloggers pointed this out, Fox changed the "holidays" to "Christmases."

Tags: Fox News, War on Christmas (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 16 comments

  •  Nicely done. So the counter-framing ... (none / 1)

    ...here should be how the Dobsons and O'Reillys are eagerly yanking Christ out of Christmas and replacing it not with the Greek "X" so beloved by headline writers, but with another symbol altogether:

    Merry $$mas.

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:18:07 PM PDT

  •  Christmas Holiday (none / 0)

    The Random House dictionary lists a definition of holiday as Holy Day.   The whole "fight" is a a contrived way to get attention from the media by spreading hate and discontent instead of embodying the spirit of Christmas which is peace and love.  The loud complaints are the worst offenders (who would love me to mention their names in print again) but God loves them anyway so celebrate your Holy Days and Merry Christmas to all.

    Fight for Democrats in 2008 or the Republicans will continue to follow us home into our private lives.

    by Gram E on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:23:36 PM PDT

  •  It is worth noting that in Dickens' classic (none / 0)

    A Christmas Carol, the baby Jesus, churches, and pretty much all things religious are absent. In fact   the story has always seemed to be a cross between a Buddhist text and something from Karl Marx - I think of Ignorance and Want as not that far from "the specter haunting Europe," stylistically.

    In the midst of collecting such stray thoughts, I ran across a classic unkown to me. For the ultimate Buddhist analysis of A Christmas Carol, read  The Scrooge Sutra by Corax.

    What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

    by melvin on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:30:13 PM PDT

  •  Good blog! (none / 0)

    How telling that they have so little respect for the truth that they even lie about the history of Christmas.

    They are sooooooooooooooooo pathetic!

    God, I miss Paul Wellstone.

    by Naniboujou on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:37:43 PM PDT

    •  Well, no... not lie. (none / 1)

      To lie, they'd have to know that what they were saying wasn't true, and I don't think they do, at least most of them. Their version of the past is at the end of a long long game of 'telephone'; it would be more accurate to call it urban mythology than history.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

      by Canadian Reader on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:34:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks For Posting This (none / 0)

    I was thinking this story needed retelling a day or two ago, and might not have gotten around to it.

    Christmas is and always has been a holiday for boisterous pagan inclinations to flourish on the fertilizer of a societally acceptable excuse.

    But whether you agree with that assessment or not: It's the conservatives who want to kill it.

  •  Not just about commercialization (none / 0)

    I think they are also looking for "victimhood"--the idea that everyone should feel sorry for them b/c they are being discriminated against. They want to pretend they are really oppressed and deserving of "special consideration" such as Supreme Court rulings that allow for Christmas displays, recitation of prayers at public meetings, etc.  After all, if it works for African-Americans, Asians, and everyone else, why not them?

    Think of it as affirmative action for the majority.

  •  It is obvious to me that (none / 0)

    this whole "Stealing Christmas" thing is a diversionary Rove tactic meant to further polarize us as a nation and to make liberals out to be the devil.  

    As a Christian with a brain, I ain't falling for it guys, and neither will most of the sane people in America.  Get thee back to the drawing board.

  •  O'Reilly's War on Christmas (none / 0)

    There are very few - if any - American families that want to exchange their own traditions for the angry rants of Grinch O'Reilly.  Why let the pet peeves of an irascible lout ruin a perfectly good family celebration?  

    This shouting squalling insistance that there is a War on Christmas seems no more than a cynical political attempt to stir up "the base". Liberal or conservative, Christian families are likely to find it offensive. All the countless beautiful cards throughout the years that we thought of as Christmas cards that happened to say Season's Greetings are now to be regarded as what? Evil? Demonic? My Grandma's card with the glittering snow scene that said Happy Holidays is satanic??

    Makes you wonder what they'll be screaming come Easter!  

    The Fink wants to be a King!

    by teresab on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 09:22:55 PM PDT

Permalink | 16 comments