Why Christmas Should Be More Commercial

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Why Christmas Should be More Commercial

(from capitalismmagazine.com)

By Leonard Peikoff (December 8, 2000)

Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic"; the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously.

In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest nation in history. The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading American outlet for this feeling.

Historically, people have always celebrated the winter solstice as the time when the days begin to lengthen, indicating the earth's return to life. Ancient Romans feasted and reveled during the festival of Saturnalia. Early Christians condemned these Roman celebrations — they were waiting for the end of the world and had only scorn for earthly pleasures. By the fourth century, the pagans were worshipping the god of the sun on December 25, and the Christians came to a decision: if you can't stop 'em, join 'em. They claimed (contrary to known fact) that the date was Jesus' birthday, and usurped the solstice holiday for their Church.

Even after the Christians stole Christmas, they were ambivalent about it. The holiday was inherently a pro-life festival of earthly renewal, but the Christians preached renunciation, sacrifice, and concern for the next world, not this one. As Cotton Mather, an 18th-century clergyman, put it: "Can you in your consciences think that our Holy Savior is honored by mirth? . . . Shall it be said that at the birth of our Savior . . . we take time . . . to do actions that have much more of hell than of heaven in them?"

Then came the major developments of 19th-century capitalism: industrialization, urbanization, the triumph of science — all of it leading to easy transportation, efficient mail delivery, the widespread publishing of books and magazines, new inventions making life comfortable and exciting, and the rise of entrepreneurs who understood that the way to make a profit was to produce something good and sell it to a mass market.

For the first time, the giving of gifts became a major feature of Christmas. Early Christians denounced gift-giving as a Roman practice, and Puritans called it diabolical. But Americans were not to be deterred. Thanks to capitalism, there was enough wealth to make gifts possible, a great productive apparatus to advertise them and make them available cheaply, and a country so content that men wanted to reach out to their friends and express their enjoyment of life. The whole country took with glee to giving gifts on an unprecedented scale.

Santa Claus is a thoroughly American invention. There was a St. Nicholas long ago and a feeble holiday connected with him (on December 5). In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore (and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's physical appearance and personality, came up with the idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys in the kids' stockings, then goes back to the North Pole.

Of course, the Puritans denounced Santa as the Anti-Christ, because he pushed Jesus to the background. Furthermore, Santa implicitly rejected the whole Christian ethics. He did not denounce the rich and demand that they give everything to the poor; on the contrary, he gave gifts to rich and poor children alike. Nor is Santa a champion of Christian mercy or unconditional love. On the contrary, he is for justice — Santa gives only to good children, not to bad ones.

All the best customs of Christmas, from carols to trees to spectacular decorations, have their root in pagan ideas and practices. These customs were greatly amplified by American culture, as the product of reason, science, business, worldliness, and egoism, i.e., the pursuit of happiness.

America's tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent. But the spiritual must start with recognizing reality. Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate — and really, underneath all the pretense, that is what it does celebrate. It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.

Dr. Peikoff was Ayn Rand's associate for more than 30 years. He taught philosophy at New York University, Long Island University, Hunter College, the University of Denver and the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 21, 2000

Answers

I had sworn off posting for awhile...but this piece has drawn me out. I love the opportunity afforded me when a writer forces me to re- evaluate my positions on issues. Peikoff isn’t looking to push buttons with this essay, is he? Well, he certainly fingered a few of mine.

The freedom and prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest nation in history.

He's kidding, right? Happiest is a completely subjective state based upon comparative assessment. This guy has a major league set of balls. To make a statement such as this is reckless. Tattoo "Egotist & Proud of it" on Peikoff’s forehead.

Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic"; the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously.

There was until recently a sign along one of our main roads containing a black background with the following printed in white lettering:

You know that Love Thy Neighbor thing? I meant that. – God

No mention of church affiliation or religion anywhere on the sign. A simple reminder for those who of us get lost in our day-to-day hardscrabble fight for existence to give consideration to others in all our dealings. Every time I drove past it I felt a nudge, a push back to my heart center. A smile would break upon my face. And I'd say out loud - "Thank You" - to whomever paid for that sign.

More later as time permits.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 21, 2000.


Rich--

I was going to post this article with a title "For Tarzan" but never got around to it. Tarzan had previously run a thread something about "how should atheists accomodate the Christmas/Hannakah season?"

No Tarzan, I don't think you're into consumerism just because you're an atheist. Probably you detest Consumerism. But this article does relate to your thread on an atheist Christmas. Ayn Rand detested altruism, whether religion based-based or secular-based.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 21, 2000.


It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.

My experience is Christ has, by and large, been removed from Christmas, as it is practiced by those around me. Fine with me. I'm not Christian and I don't celebrate Christmas. What I see in the author's statement is a lack of balance. Does the heart play a role in this man's life? Is there no room in his world for unconditional love? I agree that selfishness is our species prime motivating force. I realize that self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent is anathema to the rational-living, & as taught in Christianity (to the best of my knowledge) solely a guilt-based endeavor. I view it as selfish-service & the highest of activities which rewards the giver and the recipient alike.

Peikoff takes shot after shot at Christianity, as practiced by our society in general, in order to offer the reader a stark contrast from his views. But he need not gloss over the good elements while putting to death the rotten aspects. Unless of course his aim is to create an environment which best shows the superiority of his philosophy. ;) He'd make one helluva politician, eh?

What curdles my cream regarding holidays such as Christmas is that MY idea of gift-giving does not allow for expectation of the gift by the receiver. The existence of expectation destroys the beauty of the act, IMO. The gift is no longer a gift, but a duty. I refuse to participate in this charade.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 21, 2000.


Lars,

Eve started a thread many months back regarding altruism. It's a very important issue and I learned a few things via that thread. I had thought I was a bit flakey (silence in the peanut gallery) in my view that selfless service is an unhealthy way of going about helping others.

I serve others motivated by selfishness. That is, service to others makes ME feel good. This is why I do it. I would almost term it a symbiotic relationship between myself and those whom I serve. Not the best term for it, but perhaps you can gauge my meaning. I feed off the love of service. The act nourishes me, strengthens me, allows me to experience the link which is so often invisible to my senses - that which binds all of creation together.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 21, 2000.


I feed off the love of service. That was poorly worded.

Correction: I feed off the love generated through service to others. It is that love which is, in my estimation, one of the most valuable products of the relationship. The roles of Giver & Receiver merge.

Time to time I think of the great Bob Marley. I hear him in my mind's eye saying "I and I", as contrasted with "you and I". There is no separation. We are one.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 21, 2000.



I'm not a big Ayn Rand fan personally, though the essay you posted was interesting.

I don't have a problem with other people celebrating Christmas, but since it is a religious celebration (whether pagan or Christian) I do not wish to participate.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 21, 2000.


>> But the spiritual must start with recognizing reality. <<

To my eyes, Dr. Peikoff appears to be a rigorous materialist. If he is, then he doesn't accept "the spiritual" as having any meaning outside of "the material". Consequently, "reality" and "the material" would be identical.

If you do not accept this view of "reality", then you should not accept the minor premises that flow from this major premise.

>> Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate <<

This is a non-sequitor. Life requires proximity to the sun. Life requires carbon. Life requires electromagnetism. A celebration requires meaning.

If, unlike Dr. Peikoff, you find meaning in something other than "reason, selfishness, capitalism", then feel free to disregard his rather illogical conclusion.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 21, 2000.


"A celebration requires"....???

Massive amounts of beer,rum,tequila,herbal remedy,music,a few good people who like to have a great time and waalaa,poetry in motion.

PARTY!!!!!!!! : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 21, 2000.


I'm sorry if this essay offended any of you. I just wanted to show something that I knew would be controversial, yet something I agreed with -- to some extent, anyway.

For now I want to say that, although I do agree with a lot of what Peikoff says in general, I think he could have emphasized a major part of what Christmas is, which is the sheer joy in giving and showing our love for and good will towards one another -- which IS selfish, as you point out, Rich -- but that's all to the good.

My view of Christmas is reflected pretty well by the final scenes in "A Christmas Carol" -- (see the 1951 version with Alistair Sim) -- I mean the pure, unadulterated JOY in living and giving that became such a huge part of Scrooge exemplifies the true Christmas spirit as well as anything I can imagine. I cry every time I see those final scenes.

But you've gotta see THAT version.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 21, 2000.


Not offensive to me, Eve. Essays are meant to communicate the writer's opinions AND draw the readers into measured consideration of the opinions expressed, as well as their own views on the issues addressed. Therefore I consider it to be a success.

I am saddened - transmuted into quiet chuckling - at the cold, pompous tone with which the author wrote the piece. It speaks volumes as to his depth of compassion. He wears his heart (get out your microscope) on his sleeve.

Let him create a new holiday for the celebration of all that is worldly. Why cry that Christmas was usurped and that Christ should be removed from it? Because the author wanted to kick Christians as a group, bruise them at their very core - Christ - and stand triumphantly with his foot on their heads beating his chest.

Hmm. Perhaps my coffee has been spiked...

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 21, 2000.



Rich-

I think you're reading a little too much into this essay. I don't think it's pompous to talk about the early Puritan opposition to Christmas and I don't think that advocating reason, selfishness and capitalism equates to a lack of compassion. However, I do think it is suprememly hypocritical to advocate hijacking a religious holiday. It was wrong when the Christians did it and it would be wrong for other religions, too. Still, I don't think he does this out of a desire to humiliate Christians but out of an urge to free people from what he sees as the bondage of guilt and mock spirituality.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 21, 2000.


BTW, does anyone here believe with Dr. Peikoff that life requires capitalism? Raise your hand.

I mean, capitalism has proved to be an effective method for organizing an industrial economy. Its efficiency has increased productivity and material well-being. It is sometimes a mixed good, but clearly a good thing on the whole.

But if life requires capitalism, then logically life could not exist until after capitalism existed. This seems to put the cart before the horse by a few billion years.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 21, 2000.


Whoops, I misspoke. It was wrong when Christian co-opted holidays, it's wrong when other religions do it, and it's also wrong when the non-religious do it as well.

Anyone want to talk about the rise of prominence given to Hannukah in relation to Christmas? It's not that significantly religious holiday, and yet it seems to get more and more prominant every year.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 21, 2000.


Tarzan,

One glaring mistake, IMO, in an opinion piece is to write as if one is expressing the views of everyone. Everyone. The author commits this error time and time again. This smacks of an ego way out of kilter. Quite frankly, taking this stance as he does pisses me off. Peikoff does not speak for me. I haven't signed over the rights to express my views to him. So he lost oodles of credibility points in the very first paragraph.

I do very much agree with your last statement, Tarzan. I just don't like it when a writer props them self up by stepping on the backs of others. This wasn't a case of wholesale slaughter of all things Christian, however (admission that I sometimes read too much into things).

Brian, my hand is raised. Do I believe life requires capitalism? Uh, no. I do need a hall pass to take a leak. What? You’re not hall monitor this week? Oh, sorry.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 21, 2000.


You should pull this artilce form here as it is a copyright violation.

-- Mark (mark@NOSPAMcapitalismmagazine.com), January 09, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ