Naughty & Nice: A History of The Holiday Season
Christmas may be the big kahuna of American holy days, but it wasn’t always so. It used to be a time of drunken rowdiness, when the poor would demand food and money from the rich. The Puritans banned Christmas altogether. It wasn’t until the 1820s that the holiday was re-invented as the peaceful, family-oriented, and consumeristic ritual we celebrate today.
In this episode, the History Guys examine the history of the “holiday season” in America. Has Christmas grown more or less religious? How has the holiday evolved and changed here? To what extent was Hanukkah a reaction to Christmas, and how have American Jews shaped and reshaped their own wintertime rituals?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Guests include:
- Stephen Nissenbaum, historian and author of The Battle for Christmas
- John Gibson, host of Fox News Radio and author of The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse than You Thought
- Rabbi Laura Baum, founder of ourjewishcommunity.org
- Tyrone Jones, Santa Claus impersonator at Cheltenham Square Mall
Show Highlights
Listen to individual excerpts from the show, including interviews with historian Stephen Nissenbaum, Rabbi Laura Baum, and Santa impersonator Tyrone Jones.
Web Exclusive
Listen to more of historian Stephen Nissenbaum’s conversation with 18th century guy Peter Onuf. Here, they discuss the history of Christmas in the slave south.
Further Exploration
Click here for a comprehensive list of online resources on the history of Christmas, Hannukah, and Kwanzaa.
Even Further…
- See a listing of the music used in this episode.
- Read the full transcript of “Naughty & Nice.”
27 Responses
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
-
Advent Reflection Video « HarvestBoston :
[...] to add this: I’d be remiss if I didn’t share this podcast that I’m about 3/4 of the way through on the history of Christmas in America. It debunks [...]
Quote -- December 11, 2009 @ 1:42 pm -
Naughty or Nice? | mauivents.com :
[...] “Christmas may be the big kahuna of American holy days, but it wasn’t always so. It used to be a time of drunken rowdiness, when the poor would demand food and money from the rich… Has Christmas grown more or less religious?” Hear or read it all from Back Story with the American History Guys’ segment “Naughty & Nice: A History of The… [...]
Quote -- December 28, 2009 @ 5:09 am -
Naughty & Nice: Online Resources | BackStory With The American History Guys :
[...] The following links and documents relate to the BackStory episode, “Naughty & Nice: The History of the Holiday Season.“ [...]
Quote -- December 16, 2010 @ 1:53 pm -
Santa « molike :
[...] Naughty & Nice: A History of The Holiday Season [...]
Quote -- December 27, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
In recent years, the often racist opposition to the presence of Islam in French society has lead to bans on “ostentatious displays” of religious symbols by individuals (ie the headscarf ban in public schools).
But at the same time, there is no recognition in France that Christmas trees, for example, are religious symbols. Schools display Christmas trees, and when challenged, officials and the general public will reply that Christmas is not a religious holiday, that in French society, Christmas has become a secular holiday. (It’s a bogus argument, but one that fits well with the particularly Catholic flavor of French secularism and separation of Church and State.)
My impression is that Christmas in the US retains a strong religious connotation, and that no-one would dare claim that a Christmas tree has no religious associations. Has this changed over time?
QuoteChristmas so dominates the end of the year in America that it has inspired the development of new analogous holidays. I’m thinking of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa. What can you say about how these holidays have developed alongside the expansion of Christmas?
QuoteThe “christmas” tree is not originally a christian religious symbol at all. But a prechristian germanic symbol that was upsurped by the christian church as it did all over the world with other traditional nations.
QuoteThe French opposition to headcloths, a cultural not religious tradition, has more to do with opposition to restrictions placed on women and safety than religion.
Well… there is nothing about any religious practice that cannot be tracked back to an earlier custom. Presumably the pagan custom of displaying or worshiping a tree was also in what we would call the religious register.
And the argument used against the Muslim headscarf was not based on the place of woman in society, but explicitly on “laÎcité”, which itself is based on the French anticlerical movement, leading to an opposition between religion and civil and political society.
QuoteAnd there is of course that nasty “Christ” in “Christmas”…
QuoteI was wondering if there were wide differences in the celebration of Christmas in the pre-Republic colonies? Did Catholic Maryland differ widely from Pennsylvania or Dutch New York or the Swedes in Delaware? Please Onuf me!
QuoteYes, Americans are aware of the religious history of Christmas, but I don’t think many of them have any allusions about Christmas trees being a religious symbol. They arrived with German immigrants in the mid-19th century.
Although the United States has a reputation as a religiously observant country, I think that even among the devout, Christmas is not predominantly about religion. For better or worse, it is now mostly about family, food, and material possessions. In my experience, Christmas is much more intertwined with religion in Latin countries.
QuoteActually, in 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that the Christmas tree is a secular symbol, at least in contrast to a creche and in a particular context. See [a href=\http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0573_ZX.html\ rel=\nofollow\]Allegheny County v. ACLU[/a]. It’s a legal fiction of a fairly risible type, I think.
QuoteNew Englanders made a point of not observing Christmas, believing it not to be Biblically based, up to the Revolution. Anglicans in those colonies in turn made a point to observe it with dinners, closed shops, and church services. Nissenbaum’s BATTLE FOR CHRISTMAS offers more detail on this cultural tension.
QuoteI thought this archived Virginia Vignette might be useful for the show.
Who were Belsnicklelers and Shanghai-ers?
December, 2007 Topics: Religion
At least as early as the 1850s, many German residents of the Valley of Virginia celebrated the Christmas season with the unique custom of “belsnickeling.” The tradition’s origins are murky but the name comes from the Germans of the Palatinate region where Belznickel, or Saint Nicholas, brought small gifts for good children. In the Valley of Virginia, this evolved into bands of costumed adults wandering on foot or horseback from house to house during the day or night, making as much noise as humanly possible. Belsnickelers disguised themselves with improvised masks. The trick was for the residents to guess who was behind the costume. Customs varied from community to community, and the practice was not appreciated among the Brethren, the Mennonites, and others who did not observe Christmas for religious reasons. Sometimes the Belsnicklers unmasked after the guessing, sometimes they were served spirits or food. In some areas the practice was restricted to Christmas Eve; in others it went on for the twelve days of Christmas. Belsnickeling, and a similar custom called Shanghai-ing which was practiced in Scots-Irish communities south of Winchester, declined in the twentieth century and finally disappeared after World War II.
Excerpted from Four Centuries of Virginia Christmas, Mary Miley Theobald and Libbey Hodges Oliver, Dietz Press, Petersburg, VA, 2000 (http://www.dietzpress.com/)
Brought to you by Encyclopedia Virginia at the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.
QuoteI have to wonder if my family’s tradition of a low-key Christmas – focusing on church and family with gifts but not as the focus – goes back to our New England Puritan roots, leavened with some Quakers and Scots-Irish Presbyterians.
It feels like there are two Christmases in the United States now – the religious holiday and the secular holiday. When did the secular gift-giving extravaganza evolve? It is with the post-World War II rise in disposable incomes and baby boom?
QuoteI grew up in the 50s and 60s in a very conservative protestant community where the attempt was always made to emphsize the xtian mythology and associated religious beliefs at christmas time. At the same time, in the 50s and 60, secular society was fertilizing and growing the materialistic, aquisitive spirit that was not lost on my age group.
As visions of sugar pumbs and bicycles and trainsets danced in our head, we woke up xmas morning to a stern prerequisite – oatmeal and interminable prayers and religious pronouncements came before any access to the xmas tree.
This had two effects – heightened, bursting anticipation of what lay under the tree, soon followed by disappointment with the discovery of very practicle new pairs of socks and a set of pencils.
The family of one of my friends had what I think was the solution: they established a “Special Day” in the middle of July on which to exchange gifts. Xmas was reserved solely for its religious connotations.
Even today, I feel somewhat schizophrenic about xmas, usually preferring to skip it. Is it a day in which the most relevant question is “WHAT DID YOU GET?” Or, is it a day to revisit some of the wiser teachings of that fellow for whom the holiday is named?
I still cannot reconcile the two.
QuoteFrom “Of Plymouth Plantation,” Governor William Bradford’s history of Plymouth, Massachusetts from 1620-1647. Below is the last paragraph from the chapter for 1621:
“And herewith I shall end this year. Only I shall remember one passage more, rather of mirth than of weight. On the day called Christmas Day, the Governor called them [ie, all able-bodied hands] out to work as was used. But the most of this new company [that is, new arrivals to the colony who did not consider themselves Puritans] excused themselves and said it went against their consciences to work on that day. So the Governor told them that if they made it matter of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed; so he led away the rest and left them. But when they came home at noon from their work, he found them in the street at play, openly; some pitching the bar, and some at stool-ball and other such like sports. So he went to them and took away their implements and told them that was against his conscience, that they should play and other work. If they made the keeping of it matter of devotion, let them keep their houses; but there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets. Since which time nothing hath been attempted that way, at least openly.”
In my edition of Bradford, this passage has a little annotation by the historian and editor S.E. Morison that “Puritans objected to the celebration of Christmas as a pagan revelry.”
If Bradford’s text later became a source of holiday tradition for later Americans — and note that his famous description of the first “thanksgiving” comes two chapters later (1623), it is very interesting to see an early American Christmas at such odds with our “most wonderful time of the year” formulation of the holiday. What gives? Didn’t Andy Williams read his William Bradford?
QuoteTraditionally, the liturgical Twelve Days of Christmas run from the Nativity (25 December) to the Epiphany (6 January). In the secular celebration, the Christmas season itself lasted well into January and February, when the festivities blended into the pre-Lent carnival.
Today, we have preserved the two months of partying, but it has shifted from the old mid-December through mid-February. Now we see holiday displays going up already in September and October, office Christmas parties in November, and a constant drone of schloky music. But the more distressing part is that the same displays come down and the music stops on 26 December, when the traditional celebration is only beginning.
When did this great time shift happen?
QuoteDavid -
Your question is a perfect set-up to an interview we’re recording today with Stephen Nissenbaum, author of a fascinating cultural history from a few years back called “The Battle for Christmas.” Short answer is that the Puritan impulse to ban X-Mas was no match for the consumer revolution, which reached its fevered pitch in the early 19th century and gave birth to Santa. For the longer answer, tune into our show, when it’s completed. Or just track down the book! It’s a great read, highly recommended by all of us. Thanks for writing.
QuoteYour take on Chanukah, looking at it from a secularist view, did a disservice. In most of your ‘casts you seem to look at the other side. In this case you did yourself a disservice.
In reality, Chanukah is tied as one of the _least_ important holidays in the Orthodox Jewish calendar. It is _*not*_ the Jewish x-mas. It is not based on a lie, as the rabbi you spoke to feels.
For more, better, and clear information from the Orthodox view you can look at http://www.aish.com/h/c/
QuoteIt is revealing that the author from the post promoting Aish calls modern scholarship “a secularist view.” The author uses the term as a pejorative and suggests that a historically accurate approach to understanding the evolution of Judaism is a “disservice.” I would suggest that the true disservice is when folks, in an attempt to maintain their religious perspective, deny the evidence and ignore history. If someone wishes to maintain their Orthodox perspective, that is their prerogative, but they should not suggest that theirs is the authentic approach to Judaism.
Robert B. Barr, Rabbi
QuoteCongregation Beth Adam
I am enjoying listening to this podcast, which I happily found because iTunes twittered about it today. However, I was a little disappointed on a history podcast to hear the theory that the 4th century church chose Dec 25 to compete with previously existing observations advanced as if it were proven fact. I know that this idea is hugely popular with an historically untrained public, and it certainly makes a great, intuitively plausible, and colorful story. However, there are serious problems with the actual evidence for it, and it has been viewed with skepticism in the academy for a few decades now. There is much better historical evidence for a far less novelistic theory, which maintains that this date and the other contemporaneous “Eastern” date for Christmas in the East (Jan 6) were both arrived at purely by computation. A recent treatment of this theory that’s readable by non-specialists can be found at
Quotehttp://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp
Thanks, Beth. I put your challenge to our interviewee, Stephen Nissenbaum, and here’s what he had to say:
“I appreciate Beth’s comment about the reason why Christmas was placed on Dec. 25 by the fourth century Church. The article to which she links represents an effort to challenge the claim that the Church selected the Dec. 25 date in order to appropriate the Roman Saturnalia—in effect, to insulate Christmas from the possibility of pagan origins and to reclaim it for Christianity. This article points out that Dec. 25 happens to arrive exactly nine months after March 25, the approximate date of Jesus’ crucifixion. From that point, the article argues that certain early Christian theologians believed that Jesus was also conceived on that same date (March 25), so that his nativity would indeed have occurred on Dec. 25.
It’s an interesting idea—and one that is necessarily just as speculative as the Saturnalia theory. To the best of my knowledge, there is simply no direct evidence about the motives of the Church for placing Christmas on Dec. 25. Personally, I am not persuaded by the article Beth offers us. But in any case, I’ve always been inclined to think that there’s another reason altogether for the late fourth century decision to place Christmas in late December, and it is the reason I gave in my BackStory interview. Let me quote my words from that interview: ‘Christmas took place during a season when there was, at least for males in an agricultural society, not a lot of work to be done. It was also a season when there was plenty of fresh food and fresh alcoholic drink. So it’s a season of excess, of letting go.’ To be sure, that doesn’t offer anything resembling a religious reason for the decision to place the nativity on Dec. 25; but at least it disentangles Christmas somewhat from the “charge” that it originated in pagan rituals.”
QuoteA caller asked why Easter, a more important Christian holiday, has not developed to the same commercial level as Christmas. Your answers were insightful; however, another possible answer is suggested by the comments early in the broadcast regarding the winter solstice. At that time the men in an agrarian society had little work to do. Likewise, aaproaching the spring equinox the men would have had little time for frivolity. Thanks for your interesting program.
QuoteAs a non-Christian adult, we (my husband and I) participate in the Christmas holiday as we do other secular holidays. As a person who was raised a Christian, memories of Christmas in the late 50′s and early 60′s were more about families and gathering together to celebrate the season of Peace and Good Will than it was about the birth of Christ as Easter was our holiest of days.
QuoteJust recently discovered your podcast, and I’m busy catching up. I listened to this Christmas episode today, and descriptions of early nineteenth century celebrations sparked some memories and answered some long-running questions. In the 1970′s in Nashville, Tennessee, we had a family tradition of caroling on Christmas eve to raise money for a local charity. I was often confused by some of the lyrics from older carols, for instance from “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” . . .
We wish you a merry Christmas, etc. etc., and a Happy New Year.
(and then the less often sung second and third stanzas)
We want some figgy pudding, etc. etc., and a cup of good cheer.
We won’t go until we get some, etc. etc., so bring it out here.
. . . but in the context of temporary inversion of the social order, the calling out for food and drink makes perfect sense. Then, the one that always baffled me, from “Here We Come A-Wassailing” . . .
We are not daily beggars who go from door to door,
But we are neighbor’s children, whom you have seen before.
. . . must date from the period of the holiday’s early “domestication”, as it reflects the softening of the social inversion into a plaything for the young. Not that it has been keeping me up at night all these years, but thanks for the clarification.
Quote