A shower thought I had. Non-Christians have appropriated an important Christian festival and stripped it of all religeous meaning, and because of their cultural dominance, this has become the primary association. Anyone else see a similarity?
Why do you think non-Christians did that?
I don’t know about most people, but I believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and Smokey Bear.
The War on Christmas isn’t a real thing, and Christians appropriated pagan traditions long before non-Christians did. Speaking as a non-Christian, I explicitly don’t celebrate the birth of Christ, so I’m not appropriating anything from Christianity.
I also think the words “cultural appropriation” get thrown around too loosely and too often. It’s also treated as a bad thing in all cases when it is a neutral term that may or may not be bad depending on the context.
Considering that, as Spice_Weasel pointed out, Christians were the ones who imported various long-standing winter-festivity customs from other traditions to incorporate into their religious celebration in the first place, they’d hardly have a leg to stand on in complaining that those customs are being “re-appropriated” by non-Christians.
Your analogy is also fatally flawed by the fact that Christians themselves have constantly promoted, encouraged and frequently enforced formal recognition of the Christmas festivity in official celebrations/holidays for entire societies, irrespective of individual belief or religious affiliation.
That’s not how cultural appropriation works. Now, if Christmas were instead kept as a strictly intra-faith family or community observance among practicing Christians, that would alter matters. If non-Christians came along and peered into the lighted church on Christmas eve and said “hey these bizarre exotic customs look like fun, let’s have a late-night party on Dec. 24 and call it ‘midnight Mass’, and let’s have ‘nativity’ costume parties with ‘sexy Mary’ and ‘sexy angel’ and ‘sexy camel’ costumes, whee!!”, then Christians might meaningfully complain about the “cultural appropriation” of a sacred observance that they have cherished privately as unique to their own religious identity.
But as it is, with the origins of many “secular-Christmas” practices long pre-dating Christianity itself, and with Christians having spent millennia demanding that their Christmas celebration (with or without its various pagan-derived winter-merrymaking trappings) should be publicly and communally observed throughout their entire society by Christians and non-Christians alike? Any Christian claim of “secular Christmas” constituting cultural appropriation would be complete bullshit. You’d be laughed out of cultural-appropriation court, if such a thing existed.
You have to be a Christian to believe for even one second that the religious meaning has been stripped from Christmas. You have to be a Christian to believe for one nanosecond that non-Christians have cultural dominance.
Those outside the faith are now rolling on the ground in bitter laughter that a Christian could say something that is as far from truth and reality as a Trump speech. Just like the last several million times that Christians have whined that instead of owing 99.9% of the culture, they may have slipped to owning 99.8% of it.
You know what? This is, ironically, cultural appropriation of being the victim of racism, or sexism, or homophobia, or anti-semitism, or all the other isms so thoroughly dominated and disseminated by Christians. It’s a pile of ugly on top of ugly.
Answered in one. People raised in Christianity are the ones that created the secular aspects of Christmas. Whether they are religious or not, the vast majority were/are Christian.
Cos they used to be Christians and enjoyed the feasting, gift-giving and spending time with family parts.
Yeah, but there are no pagans left around to complain about it.
I’m surprised to hear you say that. I thought it was always considered a bad thing by those who invented and use the term.
Or a non-American. Actual religious Christians are definitely not dominant around here.
As far as gotchas go, this one is pretty weak.
Yup, and modern-day Christians have been indefatigably promoting secular aspects of Christmas in order to encourage its continued public observance.
When the ACLU points out that US municipalities can’t publicly display, for example, Christmas nativity scenes on government property because of separation of church and state, do Christian congregations say “Ooh, good catch, we’ll just stick to having Christmas decorations on our homes and churches instead”? Nope, they just double down on municipal Christmas trees and colored lights and snowflake banners and evergreen wreaths to make the town look “Christmassy” in a not-specifically-religious way.
Yeah, IME the distinction generally drawn is between “cultural appreciation” (good) and “cultural appropriation” (bad).
But in the UK you also don’t have official separation of church and state, right? On the contrary, you’ve got an official (“established”) state church. So am I right in thinking that you can and do have state-supported religious-themed Christmas displays irrespective of the proportion of “actual religious Christians” in your population?
Is it bad that I want a Sexy Mass Party now?
There are cultural descendants of pagans, reclaiming their cultural heritage of a Christ-free winter festival, however. That’s the opposite of cultural appropriation.
If the non-Christians were trying to mess with the uniquely Christian aspects (like the “sexy Mary” costume" suggested above) you might have a point. But they seem to be pretty much focusing on the lights and presents and food, all of which are rightfully their cultural heritage, appropriated by Christians.
I can only speak for myself. As a white American Zen Buddhist I can say my thoughts about this are pretty nuanced. I treasure the influence of one culture upon others. I think the difference is when that culture is exploited for monetary gain or social capital, particularly if the culture being appropriated from has been shut out of opportunities for progress. But even then, it’s a case-by-case judgment call, and I would rather just get on with creating a system that offers the exploited culture more opportunities rather than fixating on the appropriation.
Yes, and every town puts up Christmas lights (in Leicester they put the same lights up for Divali, too, so there’s nothing stopping them supporting other religions as well) and they can put up religious displays if they want. But we still get Christians complaining that it’s all commercialised and everyone has forgotten the true meaning.
What do you mean by cultural descendants of pagans?
That’s a refreshingly positive view.
I’m pretty sure it would be considered solidly blasphemous, but hey, I don’t make or enforce the rules.
Well, serves them right for restoring the monarchy, eh? When the Lord Protector was running the show, his parliamentary ministers didn’t stand for any of that feasty frolicky caroly gifty merrymaking “carnal and sensual delights” Christmas bullshit, no siree! If it weren’t for the Restoration y’all might still have December 25 as a day of Christian fasting and exhortations to repentance, just as the Calvinist God intended. Sad!
War on Christmas = Strawman attack to bolster Christian political/social power.
I’ll invite you to my next Cancer and Lingerie Night.
Too late, you missed it.
So there is an upside to having a monarchy!