Politically Correct To Alter Santa Out Of Existence
Over the course of the past decade or so, leftist malcontents have set their ideological sites against Christmas no doubt as the holiday points to the birth of the Savior Jesus Christ who can often help or motivate the individual to work through many of their own problems without an over reliance on government aide and because many of the celebrations if not taken to extremes provide the individual with a sense of well being that undermines liberalism’s basic assumption that things are so miserable that the only hope of fixing them is handing control over to a state imbued with almost God-like powers.
Initially, many of these challenges and objections were couched in terms of the canard of the Separation of Church and State and all that other pluralistic mumbo jumbo about not offending other cultures even though the rest of us have the other cultures jammed down our throats the rest of the year to the point where if anyone objects to allowing hordes of radical Muslims or swarms of illegal aliens to settle here without question now you the one likely to be labeled a troublemaker or a threat to national security.
But now that the average American has just about enough of the efforts to banish the foundations of American culture even if they do not embrace the underlying worldview of these foundations, more crafty subversives are beginning to come out from beneath their dank rocks like cunning serpents to play on those abridgements of freedom already accepted by the good-natured but slightly dimwitted if they desire status as progressive members in good standing with the COMMUNITY.
Beloved by all but the most puritanical or revolutionary from either extreme of the socioreligious spectrum, even Santa Claus is no longer immune to postmodernist deconstruction.
In years past, some have sought to eradicate him as a symbol of the Christian ethos in which the icon either sprang up in or was grafted onto. However, rather than outright obliteration, the more crafty now want to alter his fundamental nature in such a way that most of us will no longer recognize him once our politically correct overlords have their way with him.
Those following the news first caught wind of this in a story from Australia where Santa Clauses from Downunder were forbidden from uttering “ho ho ho” because it might be “offensive to women” since other than a jolly greeting it is also slang for a woman of ill repute.
Though I’ll have to admit I have also used it as a double entede for comedic effect in a column about a strip club participating in a toy drive, frankly, if you are going to sit around and raise a fuss over this jolly phrase apparently the plight of women is so good here in the civilized lands of the West that there is nothing left to complain about.
As a recent country song laments there was a time when “a hoe was just a hoe.” The rest of us should not have to be punished because of the success of the Jerry Spinger and Maury Povich Shows in popularizing ghetto slang in the broader culture.
Most probably just stand back and scratch their heads at that one. However, the jolly old elf is now threatened by a new campaign those conditioned to blindly accept what those in lab coats and carrying clipboards will have a more difficult time countering.
Inherent to his accepted appearance along with his thick white beard and usually velvety suit is that Santa is renowned for being a bit on the stout or pleasingly plump side. However, in the attempt to pressure us all into being malnourished little minions of the New World Order, those now running a number of these agencies, regardless of whether or not the government even hold such influence, have declared war against Santa Claus.
The U.S. Surgeon General said in an interview to the Boston Globe, “It is really important that the people who kids look up to as role models are in good shape, eating well, and getting exercise.”
All Americans — just not parents with children of Santa believing age — should step back for a moment and cogitate upon this magistrate’s pronouncement. This statement not only applies to an icon trotted out once per year; for if the statement is taken to its logical conclusion it could be applied to anyone a little thick around the middle.
Should Oprah trot back up the scale again, does that mean she must forfeit much of her influence and stop playing her new role as “False Prophet” to Obama’s “Psuedo-Messiah”? More importantly, if this size bias continues to percolate, will there come a day when those deemed as overweight will be forced out of prestigious careers or professions? Even worse, will overweight parents lose visitation rights in divorce proceedings or even have children snatched from the home all together?
Furthermore, if the Surgeon General is going to come out against the impropriety of obese Santas, why doesn’t he also come out against supposed role models exhibiting other behaviors deleterious to health?
For example, if the obese are to be banished as role models, does this mean the same should be done about the sexually promiscuous in the media. Teens and adults, I think, would be more prone to emulate provocative behavior of that fashion since all physically healthy folks have lots more urges pushing them in that direction than a pre-school child would to want to look like Santa Claus who will just be an innocent playful memory too soon enough in a few fleeting years.
It seems the gift some could use the most this Christmas season is a little bit of good old fashioned common sense.
By Frederick Meekins
| More from Frederick Meekins
Stumble It!


December 26th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Get rid of Santa because he’s fat? So much for diversity.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:20 am
nope because he is a G(ood)WM, not a D(ead)WM
(meanwhile they re-did rankin bass animations (years ago) in computer generation and changed the story, values, and such using the exact same characters. you can tell in that the ‘new’ versions look exactly the same to parents who are not watching but glancing and remembering… they dont have credits listed or a year when they are listed in the scheds like ranking bass does, and rankin bass was a stop photography animation not computer generated. (rankin bass did their rudolf show in 1964 – and its the most favored xmas show of all time) so why make a remake and show it more than the favored one? for the same reason that you wont see the old willy wonka any more but the new one. or didnt you notice tha the old doctor doolittle is not seen on cable – even though its more loved and cheaper since its old. or that when the christian narnia chronicals were a hit, that someone did the toned dowm first story of the golden compass series which is the ANTI-THESIS of narnia in that parents who see the movie will let their kids read the series. anyone care to list other cultural oddities?)
December 27th, 2007 at 6:26 am
oh and have you noticed the subtle changes in the santa myths for neo movie goers of the last few decades? well santa is married yes, but his wife and he are immortal and barren, ergo the toys. after all there was a time when barren people who wanted children were also the kind to dote on what they wouldnt have. anyway, immortals by definition are sterile, so the myth has it doubly.
so how many show santa as having children? or mixing it up with peter pan and having it tied to faeries? how about this most common one. that santa is an ‘office’ that is held by a new person every so often (and the adventure of how the new person takes office is usually the fare).
he has even been the victim of many nefarious schemes by dark evil people to get rid of him! hey! wait a minute! they just turned themselves into a characature of the cartoons and stories they grew up watching!!!
December 27th, 2007 at 8:27 am
I’m surprised you missed the recent story out of Maryland, in which the kids in the Head-Start (taxpayer supported) program must now refer to the jolly, portly, red-suited guy as “Father Winter.” Give me a break.