Blogcritics: Comments on We The People

Comment by bhw

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:19:37 EST

Aha! I think this might be what Andy was talking about in Denver: the mayor had announced that, next year, he was going to change the usual "Merry Christmas" sign to say "Happy Holidays," and people whined about it, so he wimped out. Seeking to avoid an emotionally charged battle, the mayor reversed a decision to remove the lights spelling out "Merry Christmas" from a city holiday display. Mayor John Hickenlooper said Thursday that his office was flooded with complaints after he announced he would remove the message next year and replace it with the inclusive "Happy Holidays." "I didn't even think twice about it, and it's perhaps my inexperience as an elected official," said Hickenlooper, who took office last year. "To have it veer off in this other direction, where so many people felt being deprived of this tradition, was certainly not what we intended." The poor bastard. He tried to put up an inclusive sign, and the Christians pouted that *their* tradition was being lost. Of course, they don't seem bothered that other people's traditions are being ignored, but I can't say I'm surprised. Jesus would be proud.

Comment by Steve S

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:43:49 EST

oh, I see, I concede your point then, that wasn't what I was thinking of. By tolerant, I meant at that moment,. of pc-ness. When those intolerant people say pc things, at that moment they are exhibiting tolerance. Exhibiting behavior that does not match their thoughts. I exhibit tolerance all the time that way. To me, if a person who hates gay people, is nice around me, but then goes votes against me, he exhibited tolerance around me and with his vote showed a non-acceptance of me. Tolerance is all I ask for, because I believe that my rights aren't supposed to be put to a vote anyway. Since my rights are put to a vote, it would be great, but unrealistic to have acceptance. My rights should be guaranteed by the principles of this country, and all I should need from people is tolerance. Then afterwards those that do not have acceptance can go fuck themselves.

Comment by Mike Kole

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:53:54 EST

Steve S, you asked for an example on PC language as considerate, but not tolerant, much less accepting. Most people are savvy enough to not use derogatory terms with regard to gay people. That's PC. But I certainly do not regard those people as tolerant, because they can be savvy enough to say the correct things when in public, and then go and vote on measures to deny the ability of sam-sex couples to confer benefits upon one another. I guess to me there is a much finer line between tolerance and acceptance than you have. They are essentially the same to me.

Comment by bhw

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:54:27 EST

I think the issue here is that something has changed. It used to be that Christmas, as the favorite holiday celebrated by the most dominant religion in the country, was "celebrated" by our local governments and civic organizations in a domineering fashion and to the exclusion of all other religions and holidays. The good old days were great when Christian holidays were promoted by our local governments and civic groups, no matter that small detail about tax money going to support these promotions. Or no matter that the communities were made up of people from diverse backgrounds who didn't necessarily want to see their town officially celebrate one religion's holiday while ignoring theirs, as if those people themselves didn't even exist. Now things have changed, and people who are used to having their local community support their beliefs as the defacto "community standard" don't really like change, particularly when it levels the playing field, thereby dropping them down a notch. Christmas has not been cancelled. The Grinch has not arrived to steal it away in the middle of the night. Families are still free to celebrate the [obscenely marketed and commodified] birth of the world's savior in their homes, churches, and yes, even during city parades. All that has happened is that a private organization has decided to create a seasonal parade that tries to include the entire community, rather than favor a large segment of it. And that's a problem because the majority now must share top billing with the minorities. Bah humbug.

Comment by Steve S

Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:23:20 EST

I don't have a problem with the word Christmas in a parade. Should an organzation choose to be all-inclusive by being non-specific, I support them too! That doesn't mean I'm anti-Christmas! It doesn't mean they're anti-Christmas either! It means they get together with a bunch of different people, celebrate their city, then go home and celebrate Christmas. Again, what is the big deal?

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:06:32 EST

Andy, I'll join you in Denver to protest the right of a private organization that is hosting a parade to banish the word Christmas from the parade floats [if it's true] if you'll join me in NYC next March to protest the right of a private organization hosting the parade to banish gays from the event. Deal?

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:58:35 EST

I tolerate Christmas very well, particularly when I get everything on my list.

Comment by andy marsh

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:57:15 EST

Everyone wants tolerance but no one wants to tolerate Christmas.

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:01:58 EST

I've always thought of being PC as being one who would say what is supposed to be the correct thing to say even if contrary to your beliefs. yes, when it runs contrary to your beliefs, you tolerate it. That does not mean acceptance. It means tolerance. All that I ask for, no more. That is my definition anyway. I don't believe that just because people use politically correct language that they are tolerant people. Can you give me an example or an analogy? If someone is considerate of others (pc), then they are exhibiting tolerance. Not acceptance.

Comment by Mike Kole

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:55:28 EST

Steve S, I've always thought of myself as very tolerant, and yet I've never thought of myself as being politically correct. I've always thought of being PC as being one who would say what is supposed to be the correct thing to say even if contrary to your beliefs. On the flip, I don't believe that just because people use politically correct language that they are tolerant people.

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:47:38 EST

Andy, politically correct means being tolerant of others. Someday you should do a blog as to why you are against that. If it's a private organization, that's a whole different realm, as bhw points out. I'd venture to say there are more private entities that are non-pc than pc, let alone ones that you perceive to go overboard.

Comment by andy marsh

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:42:19 EST

Spin it any way you want. It's still PC BULLSHIT!

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:31:10 EST

The organization sponsoring the parade is Denver Civic Ventures, Inc., the arm of a non-profit "business organization that creatively plans, manages and develops Downtown Denver as the unique, diverse, vibrant and economically healthy urban core of the Rocky Mountain region." DCV: DENVER CIVIC VENTURES, INC. (DCV), the Downtown Denver Partnership's charitable public purpose corporation, mobilizes resources to implement civic design and development initiatives to enhance Downtown Denver's business, cultural and residential environment. I don't see any mention of an affiliation with the public offices in Denver. If it's a private organization, it's free to organize the parade and the parade's rules any way it wants.

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:10:53 EST

"where it includes" shoud read "where it excludes"

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:09:11 EST

It's advertized as an "international procession to celebrate the cultural and ethnic diversity of the region." No mention of holidays at all? Maybe that's why there are no mentions of specific religious days. Is an indian spiritual group a religious symbol? I don't know. Spirituality is not the exclusive realm of religion. Perhaps someone pulling one of the Santa floats is a preacher. I don't see where it includes people of faith from showing up. Will the indians be having a float advertising a holy day? That would be more synonymous to me. Is christianity that offensive? This requires it's own blog and a more lengthy response than I can give it right now. At face value, christianity is not offensive. Since Christianity is the predominant religion that people are continually trying to foist into the public sphere, there is going to be a pushing back. PC BULLSHIT! That's all it is! It's unfortunate that you believe that a community that wants to include all citizens is pc bullshit. I'm certainly glad the city doesn't see it your way.

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:06:54 EST

The purpose of the parade, as stated on the website: "the parade is proud to present an International Procession to celebrate the cultural and ethnic diversity of the region." Says nuttin' about religious diversity. A. Why is it a problem to have a secular parade? B. Are you sure nobody can have a float that says "Merry Christmas"? Can the bands play Christmas songs? Etc.

Comment by andy marsh

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:57:39 EST

it's not supposed to be all about them. It's supposed to be all about EVERYBODY! You're gay, you wanna march in the parade, that's fine! Why can't someone have a float that says Merry Christmas? The same as another group having one that says Happy Hannakuh! Hell, the Jehovah Witnesses could have one that says Have a Nice Day! Whether you like it or not, Christmas is ONE of the holidays that this season is about. My understanding is that there are indian spiritual groups marching in this parade. Is that not religious? It's advertized as an "international procession to celebrate the cultural and ethnic diversity of the region." I guess there are no christians in that region of the country. Is christianity that offensive? Get this, I DON'T GO TO CHURCH! But this is wrong! I bet the "regional" employees will take that friday before Christmas off. PC BULLSHIT! That's all it is!

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:42:12 EST

Final thought about the parade, Andy, now that I understand better. It isn't a Christmas parade without Christmas as has been claimed. It is a non-denominational holiday festival. You should go back to your source and ask them how they got the assumption that it was supposed to be all about them.

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:16:34 EST

My comment 59, in bringing gay marriage into it was because Andy said that they are having a Christmas parade in which they couldn't celebrate Christmas. But they are celebrating Christmas, they just aren't using one word. It is an issue to which I can relate. It's a discussion (the difference between marriage/unions) that I have had with Andy before. Although in that case, he said it was butter/margarine.

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:08:35 EST

I got two different topics going here, and when I get going on one, my energy can carry over to another. Mix in frequent breaks having to deal with a constipated toddler and I can get really confused. Personally, I don't care if the word Christmas is used in public or not. Conservatives who favor unfettered capitalism changed it's meaning long ago. :-) Although, if a community wants to be sensitive to all holidays of all faiths at a given time, I'm all for that too. It sounds more compassionate. It looks like a great Christmasy parade.

Comment by Joe

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:57:47 EST

Ah, I misread Steve and was confused because it appeared to me that he was arguing that it had all the trappings of Christmas so the word wasn't really important. (I'm fairly non-religious, so I don't get particularly hung up on the whole issue.)

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:50:46 EST

The significance of a word. I think many gays would trade Andy his "Christmas" parade for everyone else's "marriage" instead of "civil union."

Comment by Joe

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:45:48 EST

Ok, so how does this relate to gay marriage, again?

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:37:35 EST

Oh, and a lot of the non-religious Christmas symbols aren't really secular. They're pagan.

Comment by bhw

Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:36:13 EST

Sorry, Joe, I wasn't actually responding to you in my comment about Christmas parades being a must-have. That particular part was for Andy. I should have been more clear. I agree with you that the parade focuses on the commercial aspects of Christmas, but I think that's a reflection of society at large, too. But it *is* a Christmasy parade, even without the word Christmas attached to it. I don't see how you can avoid seeing the Christmas symbols, even if they're secular Christmas symbols. I think a "holiday" parade is more appropriate for towns to offer, anyway. There is more than one major holiday at this time of year, and a "holiday" parade is more inclusive to the overall community, at least in name. And I defninitely think it's inappropriate for a town to sponsor an obvious religious parade. That's not to say that local religious organizations can't sposnor their own, as Steve pointed out. But the town parade should be religion neutral. This one in Denver seems to be trying to do that.