Boycott anti-Christmas department store, Boscov's
Navigation
User login
Search
My book is out!
Do buy and read my book, The Tyranny of Liberalism! To get started, you can read excerpts here and here.
Book navigation
Visit our forum!
You may discuss this page in the Turnabout forum.
Syndicate
Some are calling for a boycott of Federated Department Stores
See here for the details.
We're letting our cultural enemies have it entirely their way
Here's the NewsMax.com item linked in Bryanna Bevens' Vdare.com log entry which Will S. linked (must scroll far down the very long page):
_____
Friday, Dec. 3, 2004 12:59 p.m. EST
Macy's Nixing "Merry Christmas"?
The store made internationally famous by the Christmas classic "Miracle on 34th Street" is reportedly phasing out any direct mention of the holiday in this year's seasonal promotions.
"Instead of Merry Christmas the message appearing in ads and store displays is 'Season's Greetings' or 'Happy Holidays,' " reports WABC Radio newsman George Weber.
A statement posted to the Web site of Macy's owner, Federated Department Stores, denies that there's any company-wide directive to purge direct mentions of Christmas from Macy's and other Federated outlets.
"Federated has no policy with regard to the use of specific references to Christmas in any of its divisional advertising or promotions. Our divisions are free to advertise in their local markets in any manner they choose. ... Our employees are free to wish any customer a Merry Christmas."
Still, Federated admits to bowing somewhat to the dictates of modern-day political correctness, noting:
"There are, however, many diverse cultures represented in American society today whose views we also recognize and respect. Phrases such as 'season's greetings' and 'happy holidays' embrace all of the various religious, secular and ethnic celebrations that take place in the November/December period. [Yeah -- like Kwanzaa, the ridiculous invented holiday that only makes those of a particular race who try to "celebrate" it look ridiculous in turn, and Winter Solstice Festival, the monstrosity leftists are trying to shove down our kids' throats in place of Christmas -- Fred Scrooby note]
"Because these expressions of good will are more reflective of the multi-cultural society in which we live today, they tend to be used more and more frequently across all segments of society. In fact, few if any national retailers or businesses now take a different approach to celebrating the season."
_____
As Will S. points out, Vdare.com's Bryanna Bevens is considering boycotting Bloomingdale's because of behavior like this. What's happening is tribalism, not universalism. If Americans want to keep the culture and traditions they hold most dear they must, among other things, rise up in no uncertain terms and force George Bush to bring to a halt his pet project of replacing the original U.S. population with other peoples he insists on bringing in in their millions and tens of millions. The American people have to learn they can't have it both ways: can't have open borders and still be Americans, any more than the Ugandans can have open borders and still be Ugandans, the Vietnamese can have open borders and still be Vietnamese, the Irish can have open borders and still be Irish, or the French can have open borders and still be French. Anyone who says differently is spouting a bunch of boob bait for the conservative Bush-loving bubbas. (For those bubbas who've had some college, it's called sophistry ...). And of course it goes without saying it's one hundred percent right to boycott stores that pull this stunt. That's called self-defense against attack (largely attack by other tribes, by the way, for any who think this is at bottom genuine universalism: it's not, but to a large extent the opposite: genuine tribalism).
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
This item should not have been published without further facts
When someone--not Will S.--a week ago sent me this same item that Mr. Kalb has allowed Will to link, I replied to my correspondent that there were no facts here, only a fragmentary report by one person writing one incomplete e-mail. I told my correspondent that he couldn't repeat these claims as true, let alone call for a "Christian boycott of Boscov's"-- in the absence of more solid evidence. This was all the more so since the claim is extremely unlikely on the face of it. Does anyone really believe that a major department store simply banned all holiday cards using the word Christmas? It's inconceivable, and I think any reasonably prudent and fairminded person would not accept it as true in the absence of established facts confirming it to be true.
Here is the entire e-mail on which the claim is based, and which apparently many people are simply accepting as true:
The first thing that leaps out is, does it make sense that Boscov would print cards that only say "Merry"? This frankly sounds like something concocted by a subnormal person, like something you'd expect to see if Monty Python made a movie about anti-Semites.
Update on pcwatch original post
Here.
PC Watch now admits the charge against Boscov's is false
The updated information posted at PC Watch which Will S. has linked, evidently in response to my criticism of his original posting, indicates that it is not greeting cards at Boscov's that lack the word "Christmas," but rather some kind of credit card-sized item called a gift card that is used for purchases in the store. These little credit cards say "Merry" followed by a Christmas style image. I said last night that it was impossible that Boscov's had no greeting cards with the word Christmas. My statement has turned out to be correct. PC Watch's charge has been reduced to complaining that the gift cards for "Happy Hannukah" have the word "Hannukah," but the gift cards for "Merry" just have Christmas decorations instead of the word "Christmas." That is still objectionable, but it is an order of magnitude less objectionable than the charge that the store has excluded all greetings cards with the word Christmas. The lack of symmetry concerning the gift cards justifies complaints to the store, it does not justify a "Christian boycott" of the store.
Will S. posted his ridiculous and false charges and the call for a "Christian boycott" against Boscov's almost a week ago. Why did no reader of this forum notice the absurdity of the charge until I came along and pointed it out? Are we now living in the age of the Blood Libel, when any charge against Jews of committing some anti-Christian act, no matter how ridiculous and unbelievable the charge is, is automatically believed?
And, while both PC Watch and Will S. deserve credit for coming forth with the truth, notice the _way_ that they deal with the truth. Instead of saying, "We blew it, we published this e-mail and accepted its statements, even though what the e-mail said was unbelievable on its face," instead of admitting any of that, they simply post, without comment, the updated information, while still acting as if the lack of symmetry in the gift cards is as serious as a lack of symmetry in greeting cards.
That's what Maureen Dowd did after her misleading and false quotation of President Bush (making him appear to say the opposite of what he had actually said) was exposed. Instead of retracting and apologizing for her previous false quotation, she simply published the correct quote without comment. That is cowardly at best. It is the mark of the type of person who, even though one particular bigoted and false comment of his has been exposed, cannot apologize for it, because he still clings to the bigotry that led him to publish it in the first place.
Here is the updated information at PC Watch which Will S. linked:
I wasn't motivated by bigotry; rather anger at perceived bigotry
I do not care about the beliefs and/or ethnic group identification of those that run Boscov's, I was merely ticked off at what seemed to me, on the surface, as anti-Christian bigotry - and it is still objectionable, to have gift cards which will avoid reference to Christmas but have no such objection to other religious festivals. We do have a real "war against Christmas" going on - see VDARE for multiple examples of such. And a "War against Thanksgiving", and against the Confederate flag, and so on. In this era, where many (perhaps even on our side, too, as a response, I'll admit) are hypersensitive about offense, the charges levelled against Boscov's were not unbelievable, in and of themselves. Daily, we read accounts of absurdities wherein people are offended by little things, and seek to have them banned.
BTW, I originally linked johnjayray's cross-posting to majorityrights.com, so if I am to be taken to task for either sloppiness or perceived bigotry, along with PCWATCH, then majorityrights.com ought to be, as well.
As for my "being allowed to post" something, this forum is largely, if not completely, unmoderated (posting can be made directly), and people can pretty much post anything, and of course, anyone can respond, as they see fit... Freedom of speech for all is a wonderful thing; let's hope and pray it lasts...
Will S. justifies himself
Will S. justifies what he himself calls his "anger"-driven assumption that a major department store banned all greeting cards containing the word Christmas. He bases his assumption on the many other outrageous attacks on Christmas in recent years. So, on one hand, one can't entirely blame him for jumping the gun. On the other hand, he should have seen that there is a big difference between, say, Christian things being closed out of public institutions such as schools, and Christian things being closed out of Christmas season Christmas cards, on sale to the public, in a large department store! I repeat that the sheer unlikelihood of the latter being the case, combined with the brevity of the e-mail that was reporting it, should have warned Will S. and John Ray and others to have verified the facts before jumping into publication calling for a "Christian" boycott of a Jewish-owned department store over such a transparently specious charge.
I repeat, this item should not have been published. For Will S. to defend the publication of this misleading and incendiary e-mail on the basis of "freedom" means that he is defining freedom as license, the license to do whatever he likes.
Further clarification
The original e-mail did not refer to greeting cards but to gift cards. However, in the absence of any particular information about what a "gift card" is, which information was only supplied by PC Watch's later update, readers would all assume that gift card meant greeting card and that the word Christmas had been systematically banned from all greeting cards sold at Boscov's.
Next "Lawrence" defines what "is" "is"
We all know what the deal "is" Auster.No need to ramble.on
Muhlenberg, was that tone called for?
Muhlenberg, I'm one who didn't get the impression anyone was rambling in this thread. I found the comments by all posters in the thread, including Lawrence Auster's and Will S.'s, extremely valuable and thought-provoking. I think your insinuation (mainly in the title of your comment, which evoked the image of Clinton testifying before the Grand Jury) that Mr. Auster is insincere in his forum discussions is not only wrong and uncalled for but a little shocking, especially coming from a Turnabout regular, Turnabout being View From the Right's closely allied sister site.
Finally, about "what the deal 'is' ": I wonder if you could explain that. We can say controversial things at this site, as far as I'm aware, so why the snideness in making that remark? At the risk of being completely wrong, I'll take a guess about what "the deal is": if it's to do with the delicate fact that Jews and Jewish groups are prominent among those who oppose public expressions of Christmas it's something we here (and likely the whole world) already know, including Lawrence Auster, and it's fine to bring it up in a thread such as this, but why not politely? Why the snideness when addressing a man who has discussed things along these lines many times at his own forum completely objectively (and has said he'd be perfectly willing to discuss them more, were it not for the fact that each time he did it attracted all the genuine anti-Semites to his forum)? Bringing up the subject of Jews' opposition to Christmas isn't shocking. What's shocking is the snideness.
(I'm no angel in that regard, having dished out more than my share of snide sarcasm when I get the feeling I'm talking to a brick wall who just can't be reasoned with. But Auster's not exactly a brick wall who just can't be reasoned with.)
If "what the deal is" has to do with something else than this particular subject, what is it then?
I, you, Mr. Auster, and most people who come to this site oppose the forces trying to stamp out public expression of Christmas.
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
PC leads down strange paths
Kwanzaa is apparently de rigueur in the world of PC -- you see it everywhere on AOL for example, always side-by-side with Hannukah and Christmas. The leftists at AOL never leave it out. Might Boscov's have left the "Merry ..." greeting incomplete so that people could fill in "Merry Kwanzaa"?
If that's the explanation, they probably should get boycotted anyway -- but for having extremely bad taste, not for suppressing Christmas ...
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
VDARE's 2004 War On Christmas Competition has begun
See here.
Sam Francis on the meaning of the War on Christmas
Here.
(Thomas Fleming had some interesting comments, back in 2000, on the War on Christmas, and elevation of other festivals, here.)
history of Kwanzaa and its founder, in poem form
Here.
It never stops. Some Christma
It never stops. Some Christmas cheer. "The Passion" used as a lead in to a film about Hitler:
Michael Medved made an observation yesterday on (Laura Ingraham's radio show about the animonsity to the film. He said all the criticisms from many (antisemitic, not true to the Gospels, a "Chainsaw Massacre" etc) are insincere. It is loathed for one reason only: The Passion is pro-Christian. That alone is why it is being shunned for awards.e
Christians ought simply to reject this élite self-righteousness
"Schools all across the country are celebrating 'National Inclusive Schools Week' this week. But if anything should be banned from the schools, it is this invidious application of inclusion. It is one thing to be sensitive to students from diverse backgrounds, quite another to use the concept of inclusion as a weapon to censor true diversity."
____
"In Michigan’s historic Village of Franklin, they used to have a Holly Day Festival this time of year. But now they have progressed to calling it the Franklin Winter Festival. Why? Because as Les Gorback said (he is a prominent store owner who pushed for the name change), ‘Holly Day had the connotation it was strictly a Christmas holiday festival.’ Gorback said, ‘we wanted to try to make it more inclusive, so we changed the name.’ Why he didn’t simply move to cancel Christmas, he did not say."
____
"The latest Newsweek poll shows that 84 percent of Americans are Christian; Jews represent less than two percent. In other words, the U.S. is more Christian than Israel is Jewish (approximately 72 percent of Israelis are Jewish), yet it is Christmas, not Hanukkah, that is considered controversial to celebrate."
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
Those who hated "the Passion" with a passion also hate Christmas
VDARE's War On Christmas 2004 Competition (IV), here.
No surprises, really; Abraham Foxman and his ilk in the ADL are anti-Christian bigots, plain and simple. They seem to think opposing anti-Semitism entails opposing public expression of Christianity...
I think the elites' anti-Christmas attitudes show that...
... it's high time Christians pulled their children from public schools, and instead place them into religious or traditionalist private schools (or homeschool them)... Of course, these may not be viable options for all, but everyone should consider: sending kids to public schools means sending them into the hands of the anti-Christian elite, who will have them for about 6-8 hours a day (or whatever it is), and hence plenty of time to indoctrinate them with liberalism...
I'm assuming that most private and Roman Catholic schools (and Protestant schools, etc.) won't have these crazy anti-Christmas attitudes, but of course, perhaps some of them might be infected, too... In any event, I do know a Christian couple who pulled their kids out of a Christian school, and sent them back into the public school system, since they were being taught gross theological errors in that particular Christian school, and they felt it was more damaging for their kids to be exposed to error which they might accept uncritically (given that it was a Christian school, and hence supposedly doctrinally sound), rather than the errors of the public school system, which, in their particular experience, were actually less bad than those they'd encountered in that Christian school, and moreover, they could more easily set their kids straight, since their kids would have a healthy skepticism, or willingness to check things out with their folks, knowing public education's biases...
So, despite my first paragraph in this post, and despite my previous stated opinion some time ago, here, I recognize there isn't a one single right answer universally applicable, and that everyone will have to consider their particular situation, and decide accordingly.
Where you when it ever happened?
http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk117.html
China bans Christmas joy in Shanghai media
Financial Times (12/03/04):
The Shanghai media has been ordered to play down any stories that promote Christmas, a celebration the city's propaganda chiefs worry may come to rival traditional Chinese festivals. The directive was contained this week in on e of the regular missives that the propaganda department sends out to all . . .continued hereˇ¿
How would we like it if Buddhism rivaled Christianity here?
The Chinese must not appreciate being culturally colonized by us any more than we'd appreciate being culturally colonized by them. I see nothing wrong with China's authorities trying to limit the growth of Christmas (just as I see everything wrong with certain forces in this country trying to stamp Christmas out).
Notice how appealing must be what in reality amounts to the Christmas spirit. Someone in the article says Christmas in China is purely commercial. No. It's the other way around. Things have to be extremely appealing first, then they can be commercial. Unappealing things don't entice people into stores to make purchases.
One Chinaman quoted in the article says the expansion of Christmas there is inevitable. That seems somehow not right -- makes me, for one, feel uneasy. There's supposed to be a China in the world. And the China there's supposed to be doesn't celebrate Christmas (just as the Europe there's supposed to be does). China is supposed to be Buddhist, not Christian. I'd feel more comfortable if the missionaries out there all came home.
Given Christmas's strength, think what the Christmas haters, those trying to stamp Christmas out here, are up against.
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
China is not supposed to be Christian?
Mr. Scrooby, your statement about China and Christianity really encapsulates everything that is wrong with integralist traditionalism as an ideology. Cultural universalism is an obvious error, but so is every form traditionalism and particularism which excludes Christianity. Men are different, yes -- but not that different. As John Henry Newman told the world, every man was "born to be a Catholic."
Please don't consider me a spokesman for anything
I'm no spokesman for traditionalism. No doubt I'm getting it wrong in lots of ways. I'm also a different kind of Christian than many of the good people who post here -- a worse one, I'm sure.
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
What I want from Christians like Mr. Culbreath
Mr. Culbreath, since you mention "forms of traditionalism and particularism which exclude Christianity," and having very vividly in mind my conversations with you some months ago (I'm "Unadorned"), I'll add if I may that all I would like from Christians like you is an admission that Christianity does not consider it wrong for people to prefer to preserve the racial and ethno-cultural identies of their communities and nations and to take reasonable steps in that direction.
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
Finally ...
... a direct answer. Sorry it took so long.
Christianity, as I understand it, does not forbid anyone from preferring one particular racial identity or taking "reasonable steps" to preserve that identity. The problem is that there is usually more to the question than this.
The Christian religion always goes to motive. Christ our King always asks, "Why?" I think this is where racialism usually breaks down. The Christian racialist will say only that he prefers, say, whites, because he is white himself, and that he believes races are good things in themselves and worthy of preservation just as they are. Good so far. But that really isn't enough. Christianity doesn't just say "Y has value", it says that "Y has more value than X and less value than Z". That is, to choose Y over Z would be wrong from a Christian point of view, and racial preservation, in the language of most racialists, usually involves just that.
So we are faced not just with the question of racial preservation as a value, but racial preservation as one value among many competing values. Christianity has something to say about this.
Thank you
In the first two parts of that three-part response you said essentially that you weren't interested in "race" or races as such. That's OK. That's legitimate -- there are plenty of people who either don't see races or just aren't interested in them. We're all made differently.
From the third part:
"Christianity, as I understand it, does not forbid anyone from preferring one particular racial identity or taking 'reasonable steps' to preserve that identity. [...] The Christian [normal person may] say [...] that he prefers, say, whites, because he is white himself, and that he believes races are good things in themselves and worthy of preservation just as they are. Good so far."
That much I got. The rest of part three I didn't understand but don't repeat it. It's OK. Let's leave it at that ...
Thank you.
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________
Liberal on Race?
Lest anyone think I'm dodging Mr. Scrooby's question, I should come right out and admit that I don't think race is something that needs preserving for its own sake. Racial and ethnic groups change with every marital union. The pace and degree of change may be controlled by various means, but I think this sort of thing is best regulated by the families and individuals involved.
(Cue "Somali Bantu" immigration argument.)
Yes, about those Bantus. Let me just state for the record that the immigration of any people with formidable language, religion, and culture barriers - apart from an effective assimilation apparatus - is a bad idea. Unless, of course, there is a greater good involved, which is certainly possible (e.g., saving lives).
(Cue "But the Somali Bantus are unassimilable" argument.)
Yes, about assimilation. I don't know enough about the Bantus to have good opinion, but I suspect that most human beings under 30 years of age, living anywhere in the world, are capable of enough assimilation to be functional in American society. Not perfect assimilation, but sufficient assimilation.
I'm an American, and America is a land with people from all over. That's the America that greeted me from Day One, and I accept it for what it is. There's nothing inherently good or bad about this. Racial "diversity" is neither strength nor, necessarily, weakness. What is important is that Americans of all races forge enough of a common culture to revive our civilization. If that is not possible on a national level, then it should forged on a local level, not along racial lines, but along religious and cultural lines.
Christianity and Racial Preservation
Hello Unadorned. Yes, I remember our discussions. The problem with any racial/ethnic preservation policy in America (I assume you are talking about public policy here) is that it would almost certainly have to subordinate greater goods. That is, things like national unity, civic unity, regional unity, family unity, religious unity, etc., would be torn asunder in the name of racial or ethnic preservation.
If this is not the case - if racial preservation in your view would NOT require breaking up existing social units - then I'm not sure what you mean by "racial preservation" exactly.
If you are just saying that you think immigration should from henceforth be restricted to whites only, well, that doesn't do much for racial prervation since there already exist multi-racial social units in place and functioning well. Something will have to be done about them too.
Race and Christianity
I don’t expect I will agree with Big Brother’s view about race anytime soon, but who knows if I allow him to work on me. Big Brother seems to rely on the premise that race is a morally repulsive factor one ought not to consider in deciding what to do next. He might be right. I don’t have a syllogism to prove him wrong, not that we are governed by a philosophical construct in any event.
There is evidence to the contrary though. Birds of a feather flock together. Races segregate themselves. Races are manifestly different: they look different, act differently, and are intellectually different.
Is racial preference a base instinct such as theft, adultery, murder, or envy? Not that I know of. Maybe someone can make a case for the proposition that racial preference violates one of the Ten Commandments.
In any event, I would be delighted to hear rebuttals.
Something's not right about Christians converting other cultures
Eliécer, just to mention -- Christian concern about the world's different races along the lines of the Joshua Project wasn't what I was referring to in my question to Jeff Culbreath. But thanks very much for giving the URLs of the Joshua Project in your two comments. I'd never heard of the Joshua Project before, and I find the work they're doing very interesting to read about. That said, I'll add something about my views that I realize goes against most standard Christian teaching: my personal preference is against converting the whole world to Christianity. I feel the world is vastly richer for having all the world's religions, for one thing, and for another, all peoples and societies have a right to not be converted, but to continue to cherish their traditional religions, cultures, and ways of life. The Bible is universally available for any who may want to read it, as are books galore on Bible commentary and Christianity. If people choose to adopt Christianity entirely on their own, fine. But I don't agree with efforts of Westerners to convert them. Unless I'm misinformed, about 25% - 30% of the population of South Korea is now Christian and the percentage is growing. Was undertaking the conversion of South Korea necessary? I don't think so. They have an extremely rich, beautiful, and deep culture and way of life of their own. Why must they lose that? If Korea gets converted entirely to Christianity the world will be a poorer place. If the whole world were converted, the world would be an immensely, incalculably poorer place. It would be just an incredible disaster.
Do I think preserving non-Christian cultures and religions is more important than saving heathen souls? I don't view it that way. I view it as "Christianity is right for me, and their religions are right for them." Let each respect the other, not try to impose his truth on the other.
________________________
"If a tree falls and an expert doesn't hear it, is there a sound?" Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.
________________________