Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays

Hi folks.

No one consulted me on this, but it seems that sometime between when I was a little boy and now, the default yuletide greeting changed from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays".

This I believe is quite foolish and tacky. I will now outline several reasons why I think we should retain the greeting "Merry Christmas".

1) Why should people get offended by such a positive greeting? It's not like one is saying "I hope you have a lousy day on December 25th". People really need to lighten up. I wouldn't get offended by someone wishing me a Happy Kwanzaa; rather, I would just be mildly amused.

2) Christmas is a civic holiday which affects almost everyone in North American society. Whether Christmas should or not be a civic holiday is another debatble point, but given that it is, 99% of Americans will have a day off, and in this sense the holiday is equivilent to Labour day or Memorial Day (Victoria Day in Canada). But no one seems to mind if you say "happy Labour Day."

3) These days, almost everyone celebrates Christmas. It's part of mainstream American culture and any majority Euro-American would celebrate this holiday. What about the minorities?
a) African-Americans: They are Christians in very large numbers, and I would posit that Black Americans are very likely to celebrate Christmas, and would much appreciate being wished a Merry Christmas.
b) Hispanic Americans: even more heavily Catholic (Christian) than Blacks, I would say that almost 100% of Hispanic Americans celebrate Christmas
c) Native Americans: not that you often see these people, but these days they have in high numbers converted to Christianity and I would suggest a good 60%, if not more, celebrate Christmas.
d) Asian-Americans: 50 years ago, probably very few of them celebrated Christmas, but the globalisation of Christmas coupled with increased Christian conversion amongst Asians (especially Chinese) would suggest that today, large numbers of Asian-Americans (and even Asian-Asians) DO celebrate Christmas.
e) Jews: Traditionally, Jews never did anything for Christmas, as they have their own holiday this time of year (Hanukkah). However, Jews are a very small portion of the US population (about 6 million out of 300- or 2%), and are concentrated mostly in the NYC area. They are also increasingly secular, having embrased aspects of mainstream American culture- including Christmas. It is likely that fully 50% of Jewish Americans, especially the younger generation, celebrate Christmas to some extent. But either way, would they really be offended?
f) Arab-Americans: Well, first of all, there is a sizeable Christian Arab population that, presumably, celebrates Christmas. In fact, only about 20% of Arab Americans are Muslims; this numbers under a half a million for the ENTIRE country.
g) Athiests: OK, well it's unsure how many they number, and presumably they don't celebrate Christmas. IN practice, however, many athiests can appreciate the hibernal (or commercial) aspects of the holiday, and don't mind keeping a Christmas celebration. But if they don't celebrate Christmas, I would imagine they wouldn't celebrate Chanukkah or Ramadan for much the same reason, and i don't think a "happy holidays" greeting would cover them any better.

So what do we have? Most Americans are of European ancestry and celebrate Christmas. The two largest minorities: African-American and Hispanic, also celebrate Christmas in vast numbers, and would doubtfully object to "Merry Christmas". A third minority, Asian-AMerican, is growing in the numbers who adhere to Christmas traditions, to the point where nowadays almost all of them probably acknowledge Christmas in some way. A fourth and oft-ignored minority, native Americans, has embraced Christianity in large numbers, and therefore presumably Christmas.
THere are only three minority groups that could be problemmatic. There are about half a million Arab-Americans who aren't Christian; 6 million Jews, of which I can assume generously that 4,5 million don't celebrate Christmas; and an unmeasured number of Athiests who don't celebrate any holiday anyway, so wouldn't appreciate any Yuletide Greeting. In short, there are about 5 million out of 300 million people (or approx. 2% of Americans) who might actually be offended by the greeting "Merry Christmas".

4) Why Happy Holdays? So, what other holidays are there? Many people would point out New Years. That's legitimate, excpet that it's a full week AFTER christmas. I mean, who says "happy new years" in early December? I figure you have a full week between Christmas and New years with which to say "happy new years", there is really no need to combine the two holidays into one greeting.
Ramadan? Except that it's a) a month long, b) not always coincident with Christmas/December, c) doesn't seem like a holiday to say "Happy _____". Would you say "Happy Lent?". Let's not forget that Muslims are a very small part of America'S population.
Kwanzaa? Ok.... well ignoring for a moment the fact that it's a rather hookey holiday. Kwanzaa is AFTER Christmas, so I don't feel like the two need to be contradictory. Also, Kwanzaa is a holiday for African Americans who are heavily Christian and presumably celebrate Christmas (as well as Kwanzaa).
Hanukkah? This is perhaps the only case. But this is only some years. Some years it's as early as late november and early december, so there need not be any conflict. After all, you don't have to worry about wishing someone a happy Chanukkah 20 days after the holiday is finished.

Basically, either people celebrate Christmas, celebrate no holidays, or once every few years celebrate Hanukkah. If they celebrate Christmas, obviously, MC is an appopritate greeting. If they celebrate no holidays during this time, HH is no better than MC (they are equally bad). If you celebrate Chanukkah, then either it's well before Xmas and does not require a seperate greeting, or someone will accidently tell you Merry Christmas while your actually celebrating Chaunkkah, but in this situation who would actually truly be offended?


So before this becomes too long-winded, I want to wish my readers a Merry CHristmas.... and if you, like me, are also celebrating Chanukkah, then, Happy Chanukkah. And I don't imagine this applies to many of my readers, but happy kwanzaa, and all the rest.

Or, perhaps, I should just say "season's greetings".

On Soldier Worship

Ok, so there's something that's really really pissed me off for quite some time now. It's present in Canada too, but it's much much worse in the US. I'm talking about this cult of soldier worship.

During the presidential campaigns, the candidates (especially Republicans) say these things like: America is all about the young men and women fighting for your freedom. But it'S not only politicians: football commentators, news anchors, and even normal people driving their gaz guzzling SUVs perpetuate this cult of soldier worship. And it drives me crazy.

Don't get me wrong: I don't harbor ill feelings towards soldiers. And I would never say that I didn't support our soldiers. But I don't think it's necessary to worship, or even thank them. They are not fighting for my freedom- this is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Quite simply, my freedom would be in no way affected in the United States had no soldiers anywhere, particularly Iraq. The only war in recent times that one could even make this argument is WWII- at least then the United States was actually attacked by an identifiable enemy, and faced a continued threat of attack.

You might say, but the US was attacked: 9/11. You're right. So, maybe I can add to this the allied efforts in Afghanistan- it's a minor stretch though because the perpetrators of those attacks weren't affiliated with the Afghan government; they were a rogue group of thugs that is currently disappated, but still present.

That said, the majority of the US troops are currently in Iraq. The Iraq war was not, is not, and hopefully never will be concerned with the freedom of Americans. The US invaded this innocent country on shaky pretences. Even if we accept as beneficial the fact that Sadaam is no longer in power, the idea that this affects average Americans is a total stretch. The notion that Sadaam had any ability to attack the United States is foolish, simply given the technological abilities of the country and its geographical location. Of course, this was 5 years ago, and Iraq is currently in a state of psuedo-civil war, which was incidently caused BY the very American soldiers we're forced to worship. By removing Sadaam from power, the country was placed into a state of anarchy, and the provisional democracy has yet to taken hold in the country. Sadaam was sort of the "glue" that held a very multi-ethnic country together- even if he did so with brutal means.

Alas, it seems futile to debate the relevance of the Iraq war, since these days few people would disagree with me. What I'm debating here is the worship of American soldiers, particularly those in Iraq. So, let me put this into a more organised fashion. Here is why I believe we should neither worship, nor even THANK America's soldiers- in Iraq or anywhere else.

1) No current US military operation is actually related to the freedom of individual Americans- particularly not that in Iraq. A possible argument could be made for Afghanistan; even in the last 100 years, the only other possible instance is WWII.

2) In fact, many of America's soldiers, particularly those in Iraq, are actually RISKING the freedom of Americans. Their invasion and ensuing occupation of the country is a source of hatred to many people; whether justified or not, this hatred indisputably fuels the ideology of fundemantalist terrorists. Ideologically, the terrorists become more powerful and more likely to commit 9/11 like attacks- on US soil. Of course.... I'm not suggesting that we blame US soldiers for this- they are obeying orders. We should blame the people who give the orders.

3) It is not rare to here of rogue soldiers. Abu Grahib is the most publicised example, but how many other cases are there of American soldiers who have raped, murdered, and pillaged? I'm not proposing that this is particularly common, but I don't think it's as rare as the media would have us believe- especially since we DO know about Abu Grahib. What I want to suggest is that Abu Grahib is not an isolated situation. If this is true, these soldiers are actually a symbol of shame and disgrace; one that we, as a country, should collectively and staunchly condemn, rather then praise and laud.

4) I guess people always forget this- but soldiers are employees of the government (ie, the taxpayers) and are doing a job, for which they are duly compensated. They deserve to be thanked no more or less than firefighters, teachers, doctors, construction workers, waiters, plumbers, football allstars, Hollywood actors, and electrical engineers. If you believe that everyone should be "thanked" beyond their compensation, just for doing their job correctly (for which they've already been paid), then go ahead and thank Bob the Soldiers, in addition to Steven Speilberg and Katy Perry. Otherwise, you are perpetuating the cult of soldier worship.

5) This cult becomes an ideological tool for greedy politicians. It is used to distract people from the lunacy of the wars they seek to conduct. It is also used by politicians to create an object of mutual worship, and in so doing forge an articial social bond between them, which helps to perpetuate their own quests for power. In short, this is a brainwashing tool for uneducated individuals to help power-hungry politicians to follow their own self-promoting and self-benefiting agendas.

To summarise: I believe that soldiers are normal people, like you and me. They are susceptible to the physical and psychological risks which accompany military operations. I absolutely believe that they deserve just compensation for their duties; I also believe that they receive just compensation for their duties. Beyond they, I believe they deserve nothing. I will not offer them my worship, nor my thanks. I wish them well; I hope they can see their families soon; I hope their overseas assignment could finish soon; most of all, I hope for their individual mental and physical well-being. Beyond that, I will not thank them anymore than I would thank Zidane. They should be treated as normal people. Those who commit crimes should be judged by a normal court of law. Those who slack off should be appropriately reprimaded. Those who excel should be rewarded and encouraged. I don't care to hear about this achievements during Monday Night Football, or the 6 o'clock local news.

On Feminism

Feminism... what a strange issue to write about, especially considering that I'm a guy. I want to set something straight from the start- I have NO problem with feminists or feminism, except what I outline below. Personally, I support complete gender equality, and in my everyday interactions I see women as very much my equals.... different, by equal. I believe sincerely that any woman can accomplish anything that any man can, and vice versa, with the only exception being chidbirth (unless you're like that one guy who used to be a woman and still got pregnant....).

So what's my problem?

First thing.... a lot of times there's a double standard. Let me clarify. Do a survey of the women you know- see how many of them want to be considered as equals. My (non-feminine) intuition would suggest that almost all women DO want to be treated as equals.... and quite reasonably so. In no way would I ever advocate anything less than complete equality for women, and with women outnumbering men in universities these days, women are certainly aiming high.

Yet these very women.... most of whom are ambitious and want all the same opportunities as men.... often have a double standard, especially when it comes to men. Most women- I would posit somewhere between 7 and 8 out of 10- want a man who is a) taller than her, b) willing to make the first move, and c) will pay on (at least) the first date.

Sames reasonable, right? After all, it's always been like this- at least in modern western culture. But why IS this unreasonable in a feminist era?

A) Taller than her = Any girl claiming to be feminist, or wanting to be treated as an equal who insists that her man be taller than her is at best shallow and at worst hypocritical. You might say, but men ARE on average taller than women.... and this is certainly true. But that isn't to say that every man is taller than every woman- obviously this isn't true. And, as opposed to something like level of physical fitness, a man's (or woman's) height is something over which he has little, if any, control. So- we make the assumption that height is UNLIKE weight in that it is pretty much uncontrollable. Women may naturally be attracted to taller men becuase they believe such men are more able to provide them with protection..... fair enough, but that really throws the whole feminist thing out the window, eh?

B) Willing to make the first move = Now, I'm not saying that a man shouldn't be willing to make the first move in the mate-finding process, rather I'm saying that any woman who wants to be treated equally (I'm avoiding the use of the word feminist becuase I think it may have connotations among some ppl), should be willing to take the first movie. Purists would say it's the man's role to do this. Surely it was 100 years ago, but at this time women couldn'T even vote in the US! I think men should make the first move in a patriarchal society, but in a feminist era, this has to go out the window.

C) Pay on the first date = It is my opinion that in almost all walks of life, whoever initiates a certain meeting (let's use the convenient example of a dinner) should pay. This is simple etiquette- the person who asks is putting the asked person on the spot, and the latter may or may not have the means to pay for the dinner; it ought to be the responsibility of the person who initates to cover. I would make an exception to this for friends who go out on a regular occasion.... but with respect to a date, I certainly think that the initator should pay. Of course, it just so happens that usually the initator is a man, and in this case, the man absolutely should pay. But as I said, times are changing, and it is no longer fair for women to force men to make the first move all the time.... and in the case that the woman invites the man, she should pay. Of course, the guy should still offer at least twice to be polite, but she should not let him pay. Otherwise it's a glaring double standard, especially in an era when women typically make as much or more than men (I cite as two examples: my stepmother made more than my dad at the end of their marriage; my mother makes more than my stepfather).


My 2nd problem... the transition has not been made yet. I believe I can categories girls in three rough categories as to where they fall in what I will call "the feminist continuum".

The first category is the traditionalist. Women in this category are old-fashioned, and are willing to have the man in control- he is expected to provide and she is expected to listen. It seems ridiculous, but I think it may be more common than you might think.

On the other extreme is the feminist. This is the woman who believes in complete equality- that a woman can do anything, from becoming president, to playing professional ice hockey, to working in contruction. They also believe that chivalry is dead, and men are not expected, and are infact discouraged from holding the door, etc.

The middle category is where I believe most women fall, and is as I described above: somewhere awkwardly in the middle. Another way to describe it is: having her cake and eating it too.

Now I said my first problem with this feminist revolution is that middle category.... the second problem is the existence of these three categories. The fact is one cannot distinguish these categories on the first impression, and it has become ambigious what the proper role for men is.

Where do I stand? I'd say anywhere but in the middle. If it is my calling to step up and take the lead, then so be it. But, we live in the 21st century and times have changed. I believe that any given woman is as capable at anything as any given man. That includes things of physical strength, and many women have proven that they are capable of being stronger than most men. That includes national leadership, as many women heads of state have done quite well and proven themselves worthy for the position. There is no question in my mind that women are equal. But, not to sound viscious, now that they've gotten their equality, they need to be more responsible for it. Otherwise, they will just be "equal plus", which isn't really equal at all.