The title says it all. The Romans also came up with the idea of celebrating New Year on the first of January, and did so since around 153 "BC". It's a good enough date, I suppose.
One question that preoccupies my mind is that of years and calendars in general. The current Western calendar that supposedly dates back to the birth of Jesus is ridiculous. First of all, we have no way of knowing if Jesus was a historical figure at all. There is absolutely no definitive proof that he ever lived. Secondly, AD 1 is nowhere near the speculated birth date of the probably fictional Jesus. Thirdly, are we really so backward as a culture to use the supposed birth date of a fictional character as the basis of our calendar?
I abhor the Christian calendar, with its ridiculous notations of Before Christ and Years of Our Lord. Just to be contrarian, I like to use the notation AS for Anno Satanas. On Walpurgisnacht, or the night of April 30th-May 1st 1965, Anton Szandor LaVey established the Church of Satan and declared it Year One, Anno Satanas.
By my count, it's still the year 42 AS now, and it'll be 43 on May 1st. So I'll be wishing you all a Happy New Year in May.
Last night, I watched Werner Herzog's documentary Grizzly Man on Discovery. I was lucky enough to catch it at the cinema when it came out, and I find Grizzly Man a great documentary. For those of you who haven't seen it, go do so now.
The film is fascinating because of Tim Treadwell's personality and obsession, Herzog's filmmaking and the pure human interest of the story, but an equally fascinating aspect is the light it shines on our cultural conceptions of nature.
There are two classic conceptions of nature present in the film. Sam Egli, the mustachioed, ultramacho helicopter pilot in his aviator shades, belittles Treadwell's view of nature. According to Egli, Treadwell thought bears were like people in bear suits, not animals, and mockingly supposes Treadwell thought he and the bears could come together "as children of the universe". Egli reckons Treadwell got what he deserves.
Also interviewed is the director of Alutiiq museum, who gives another conception of nature. Citing folklore and traditional concepts of nature, he views bears and nature in general as occupying a separate sphere from humans. To him, Treadwell's attempt to get into contact with bears is almost blasphemous. In his superstitious mindset, bears occupy the bear world and humans occupy the human world. As he puts it, Treadwell crossed a line and paid for it.
Both commentators are visibly irate at what Treadwell has done. What is his crime?
To both mindsets, man and nature are inexorably separate. To the macho Westerner, animals are brute beings entirely different in kind from humans. A subset of the same mentality is seen in the bear biologist interviewed for the film, who casually talks about the importance of hunting to the economy, and about how many bears can be harvested each year. After seeing Treadwell's footage of the bears, and the way in which he approaches each bear as an individual living being, it is thoroughly chilling to hear a scientist talk about harvesting them. To him, bears are a natural resource, not at all unlike coal or lumber, and an object of scientific study, like a molecule. To the traditional, frankly superstitious worldview, animals are also different in kind from humans, also irrevocably so.
Treadwell violates this cultural code of seeing animals as totally different from us in kind and also in worth. His greatest ideological crime is to see a bear or a fox as a living being, just like a human.
Treadwell shows us that he can occupy the same space as a bear; in a superstitious worldview that isolates animals on a different sphere from humans, this is impossible. Treadwell shows us it is not. He also shows us that he can coexist peacefully with animals as an equal; in a mechanistic worldview where animals are always objects or resources, they must either be harvested, studied scientifically or utilized in some other way but never treated as equals, this is impossible.
Treadwell transgresses against our cultural conceptions of nature and animals by showing us that we can live together with other members of the animal kingdom, in mutual respect, understanding and peace, without segregating animals into a separate sphere of existence which we try to keep away from us, and without viewing them in a purely mechanistic sense as resources to be exploited or threats to be combatted. Treadwell's vision is brave and worthy, and his tragic death in no way diminishes the power of his message.
Humanity as a species, however, is not ready to accept Treadwell's vision. As we can too easily see in the world around us, it's too much of a stretch for most people to accept other people as fundamentally equal, so there seems little hope of us being able to accept other animals as anything but objects, soulless automata. Tim Treadwell was a man ahead of his times, but I hope that his vision will endure to inspire us to look for a more equal, more humane view of nature and a more egalitarian relationship with it.
Dec 31, 2007
Dec 30, 2007
In the news today (not some goon)
On TV news shows, they always put the funny human interest items on last. Since this is a blag, I have to do things the other way round.
Small, religious Louisiana town changes its ill-fated 666 telephone area code. A town in Louisiana fought a 40-year battle to change their telephone area code because they couldn't deal with having to dial 666. Aren't religious people ridiculous?
Also, I want to do some advertising. As some goon's birthday is coming up, those of you that know him ought to know he has a page on IMDb! Gang Member. He makes us proud!
More fun with Russia: Russian priests accuse Coca-Cola of religious warfare (MTV3 news, Finland). I wouldn't know how to even begin making this stuff up. Coke launched an ad campaign featuring images of Russian Orthodox churches among other things. Russian priests accuse Coke of religious warfare, and want the government to ban the ads, citing a law on religious agitation. Obviously putting a picture of a church on a Coke bottle is the same thing as preaching a crusade against Islam or whatever a law on "religious agitation" is meant to prevent. They probably just want equal inviolability with Santa, who you're not allowed to question either.
Now for some more serious stuff. Welcome, dear readers, to the idiotic world of European Union climate politics. In the interests of fighting global warming, the EU is set to impose a blanket demand on all member states to increase renewable energy production. That sounds nice, doesn't it? The EU's goal is that by 2020, 20% of the EU's electricity will be produced as renewable energy. Still sounding very nice. Who could possibly disagree?
Different EU member states produce different amounts of renewable energy, obviously. For instance, almost 30% of Finland's energy production comes from renewable energy, while the comparable figure for Great Britain is some 3%. Anyone versed in EU climate change policy can guess what's coming next.
The EU will demand that Finland increase renewable energy production by at least 10%. This is going to cost billions of euros in government subsidies, because it isn't cost-effective to increase renewable energy production by that much. The government has to pay for the lot. That means us, in taxes. The only other alternative is to raise the price of electricity across the board by over 10%.
WHY?!? Finland is already well above its own share in renewable energy production at 30%, if the EU goal is to reach 20% by 2020. We're already there! Because of a ridiculous EU decision, Finland is going to waste billions of euros. If we really want to slow down global warming, wouldn't it be more sensible to subsidize those countries that are way behind on renewables, like, I don't know, practically the whole of the EU outside the Nordic countries?
Instead we're going to spend billions on something that is going to have a far lesser impact on global warming, but since the money is all coming out of the Finnish taxpayer's pocket, who cares?
This is going to be my segue onto an essay on global warming. In at least one way, the campaign against global warming is exactly like imperialism. Coming up in January!
Another horribly depressing news item: More than half of the Finnish population thinks the world is becoming more unsafe, and the US is to blame. In a survey, 55% of the population identified the United States as a threat to world peace. Also, over half of the population thinks the world is becoming a more unsafe place, and poverty and climate change top the list of reasons. Luckily, the US isn't the only country they blame; Iraq, Iran and Russia also made the list. Nevertheless, 55% is a lot.
It's incredibly hard to understand how half of the population gets around to viewing the United States as a threat to world peace. I suppose half a century of Finlandization will do that to a people, but it doesn't really seem to be a sufficient explanation. It might be, though. Again, a topic I suppose I'll have to return to at greater length, but suffice to say that I find that number to be a very sad indictment of the general population's idea of international politics and history.
Small, religious Louisiana town changes its ill-fated 666 telephone area code. A town in Louisiana fought a 40-year battle to change their telephone area code because they couldn't deal with having to dial 666. Aren't religious people ridiculous?
Also, I want to do some advertising. As some goon's birthday is coming up, those of you that know him ought to know he has a page on IMDb! Gang Member. He makes us proud!
More fun with Russia: Russian priests accuse Coca-Cola of religious warfare (MTV3 news, Finland). I wouldn't know how to even begin making this stuff up. Coke launched an ad campaign featuring images of Russian Orthodox churches among other things. Russian priests accuse Coke of religious warfare, and want the government to ban the ads, citing a law on religious agitation. Obviously putting a picture of a church on a Coke bottle is the same thing as preaching a crusade against Islam or whatever a law on "religious agitation" is meant to prevent. They probably just want equal inviolability with Santa, who you're not allowed to question either.
Now for some more serious stuff. Welcome, dear readers, to the idiotic world of European Union climate politics. In the interests of fighting global warming, the EU is set to impose a blanket demand on all member states to increase renewable energy production. That sounds nice, doesn't it? The EU's goal is that by 2020, 20% of the EU's electricity will be produced as renewable energy. Still sounding very nice. Who could possibly disagree?
Different EU member states produce different amounts of renewable energy, obviously. For instance, almost 30% of Finland's energy production comes from renewable energy, while the comparable figure for Great Britain is some 3%. Anyone versed in EU climate change policy can guess what's coming next.
The EU will demand that Finland increase renewable energy production by at least 10%. This is going to cost billions of euros in government subsidies, because it isn't cost-effective to increase renewable energy production by that much. The government has to pay for the lot. That means us, in taxes. The only other alternative is to raise the price of electricity across the board by over 10%.
WHY?!? Finland is already well above its own share in renewable energy production at 30%, if the EU goal is to reach 20% by 2020. We're already there! Because of a ridiculous EU decision, Finland is going to waste billions of euros. If we really want to slow down global warming, wouldn't it be more sensible to subsidize those countries that are way behind on renewables, like, I don't know, practically the whole of the EU outside the Nordic countries?
Instead we're going to spend billions on something that is going to have a far lesser impact on global warming, but since the money is all coming out of the Finnish taxpayer's pocket, who cares?
This is going to be my segue onto an essay on global warming. In at least one way, the campaign against global warming is exactly like imperialism. Coming up in January!
Another horribly depressing news item: More than half of the Finnish population thinks the world is becoming more unsafe, and the US is to blame. In a survey, 55% of the population identified the United States as a threat to world peace. Also, over half of the population thinks the world is becoming a more unsafe place, and poverty and climate change top the list of reasons. Luckily, the US isn't the only country they blame; Iraq, Iran and Russia also made the list. Nevertheless, 55% is a lot.
It's incredibly hard to understand how half of the population gets around to viewing the United States as a threat to world peace. I suppose half a century of Finlandization will do that to a people, but it doesn't really seem to be a sufficient explanation. It might be, though. Again, a topic I suppose I'll have to return to at greater length, but suffice to say that I find that number to be a very sad indictment of the general population's idea of international politics and history.
Dec 29, 2007
Coaches and corners
I'm watching TPS-Pelicans on TV, and TPS have just thoroughly wasted a five-minute power play. Why is it that Finnish players seem to be totally incapable of shooting a one-timer? TPS had at least three spots from which an NHL player would've scored, but since none of the TPS players could manage a one-timer, the score is stuck at 0-0.
One of the most serious problems in Finnish hockey is that for whatever reason, Finland as a country is incapable of producing young players who can score. I've heard a pile of theories as to why that is and I'm not sure I really believe any of them. That's why Valtteri Filppula's performance with the Detroit Red Wings is such a delight. He has two back-to-back two-goal games and is developing into an excellent forward. I watched him make his breakthrough with Jokerit in the lockout season, and look forward to great things from the guy.
Funnily enough, he's a Jokerit product. The same franchise gave the NHL Jari Kurri and Teemu Selänne. Maybe someone there is doing something right.
No NHL season goes by without some goalie trouble. The Tampa Bay Lightning waived Marc Denis after a thoroughly disappointing performance. Bet you wish you hadn't traded Fredriks Norrena and Modin for him. Given that Norrena has been outstanding in Columbus,like those of us who've seen him play for Team Finland know he can be, that's starting to look like a truly horrible trade for the Lightning.
After Martin Gerber found his game again in Ottawa, Ray Emery is seriously pissed off that he isn't getting any playing time. He was sent home from practice yesterday after a temper tantrum. There's great trade potential here for Ottawa and Tampa. Emery would definitely get playing time in Tampa. Tampa's season is turning into a complete debacle, and if they start riding young goalie Karri Rämö hard in a losing season, they'll ruin him along with the season.
Given Tampa's ridiculously bad performance after winning the Cup before the lockout, it's a miracle Fonzie, sorry, John Tortorella still has his job. I caught the Montréal-Tampa game this week, and the Lightning looked terrible. The greatest coaching miracle of the season is still Marc Crawford's continuing employment, though. The Los Angeles Kings are well on their way to finishing dead last in the regular season, despite strengthening their roster considerably from last season. Why does he still work there? Crawford's Canucks were terrible and he's plunging the Kings even deeper into the abyss.
Then again, the standard of coaching has gone way down in the league. Last season, the Jack Adams Award for best coach went to Alain Vigneault of the Vancouver Canucks. Why? He took a highly entertaining team I enjoyed watching and made them play a mind-numbingly boring trap. The single most important coaching decision he made was having Roberto Luongo play practically every game, and apparently that's what got him the Jack Adams. Good grief.
The previous Jack Adams went to Lindy Ruff. I can't argue with that; I'd give Bennet from Commando an award too because I'm scared shitless of him. One of the greatest movie villains ever.
Last year's Jack Adams should've gone to Randy Carlyle, hands down. He won the Stanley Cup with a team whose only playmaker is a defenseman (Niedermayer) and playing a first line made up of three wingers. His only snipers were Scott Niedermayer, a defenseman, and Teemu Selänne who played the entire season without a center and still managed to score 48 goals. If someone had called the Anaheim roster a championship team before the season, they would have been called insane.
This, by the way, is why both teams win in the Andy Macdonald - Doug Weight trade. Macdonald was a good player but a rubbish center, and Anaheim has more than enough wingers. Weight is a fairly proficient center, and if Teemu comes back I can see Bertuzzi - Weight - Selänne being an excellent playoff line.
My official pick for the Jack Adams Award winner this year is Pittsburgh's Michel Therrien. Why? Because I can't think of a single reason he should win it.
One of the most serious problems in Finnish hockey is that for whatever reason, Finland as a country is incapable of producing young players who can score. I've heard a pile of theories as to why that is and I'm not sure I really believe any of them. That's why Valtteri Filppula's performance with the Detroit Red Wings is such a delight. He has two back-to-back two-goal games and is developing into an excellent forward. I watched him make his breakthrough with Jokerit in the lockout season, and look forward to great things from the guy.
Funnily enough, he's a Jokerit product. The same franchise gave the NHL Jari Kurri and Teemu Selänne. Maybe someone there is doing something right.
No NHL season goes by without some goalie trouble. The Tampa Bay Lightning waived Marc Denis after a thoroughly disappointing performance. Bet you wish you hadn't traded Fredriks Norrena and Modin for him. Given that Norrena has been outstanding in Columbus,like those of us who've seen him play for Team Finland know he can be, that's starting to look like a truly horrible trade for the Lightning.
After Martin Gerber found his game again in Ottawa, Ray Emery is seriously pissed off that he isn't getting any playing time. He was sent home from practice yesterday after a temper tantrum. There's great trade potential here for Ottawa and Tampa. Emery would definitely get playing time in Tampa. Tampa's season is turning into a complete debacle, and if they start riding young goalie Karri Rämö hard in a losing season, they'll ruin him along with the season.
Given Tampa's ridiculously bad performance after winning the Cup before the lockout, it's a miracle Fonzie, sorry, John Tortorella still has his job. I caught the Montréal-Tampa game this week, and the Lightning looked terrible. The greatest coaching miracle of the season is still Marc Crawford's continuing employment, though. The Los Angeles Kings are well on their way to finishing dead last in the regular season, despite strengthening their roster considerably from last season. Why does he still work there? Crawford's Canucks were terrible and he's plunging the Kings even deeper into the abyss.
Then again, the standard of coaching has gone way down in the league. Last season, the Jack Adams Award for best coach went to Alain Vigneault of the Vancouver Canucks. Why? He took a highly entertaining team I enjoyed watching and made them play a mind-numbingly boring trap. The single most important coaching decision he made was having Roberto Luongo play practically every game, and apparently that's what got him the Jack Adams. Good grief.
The previous Jack Adams went to Lindy Ruff. I can't argue with that; I'd give Bennet from Commando an award too because I'm scared shitless of him. One of the greatest movie villains ever.
Last year's Jack Adams should've gone to Randy Carlyle, hands down. He won the Stanley Cup with a team whose only playmaker is a defenseman (Niedermayer) and playing a first line made up of three wingers. His only snipers were Scott Niedermayer, a defenseman, and Teemu Selänne who played the entire season without a center and still managed to score 48 goals. If someone had called the Anaheim roster a championship team before the season, they would have been called insane.
This, by the way, is why both teams win in the Andy Macdonald - Doug Weight trade. Macdonald was a good player but a rubbish center, and Anaheim has more than enough wingers. Weight is a fairly proficient center, and if Teemu comes back I can see Bertuzzi - Weight - Selänne being an excellent playoff line.
My official pick for the Jack Adams Award winner this year is Pittsburgh's Michel Therrien. Why? Because I can't think of a single reason he should win it.
Dec 28, 2007
Chris Simon, Jarkko Ruutu and Don Cherry
And now for something completely different: ice hockey.
Chris Simon, a forward for the New York Islanders, recently made some headlines by slewfooting Pittsburgh's Jarkko Ruutu and trying to stomp on his leg with a skate blade (on video here). This is an almost unheard of act in hockey. Using a skate as a weapon is one of the biggest no-nos in hockey, all the way from the junior teams to the NHL. Simon has already been suspended six previous times by the league, and was still serving a 25-game suspension for hitting Ryan Hollwg in the head with his stick when the season started.
What Simon did is pretty shocking, and the NHL suspended him for 30 games. Simon himself has complained about his penalty, showing that the man has absolutely no clue. Given that he's a repeat offender who seems to be learning nothing from his mistakes, why does the NHL allow him to continue playing? What do you have to do to get kicked out of the league? His suspension won't keep him out for the balance of the season, so Simon might return to the ice this season (although to be fair, that seems unlikely).
Some amount of noise was made over the fact that it was Jarkko Ruutu he attacked. Ruutu is probably my favorite NHL player of all time, which certainly wouldn't make me many friends in Canada. Ruutu is one of the best agitators in the game; he checks the opposing team's best players, he runs his mouth at them and more often than not suckers his opponents into taking stupid penalties. I love the guy, and it causes me no end of pain that he plays for the Penguins, which is now the official one-man show of the divin' and whinin' Princess of the Ice Cindy, erm, Sidney Crosby.
Because of Ruutu's playing style, a lot of people simply hate him. One in particular is Don Cherry, the Coach of Coach's Corner on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. Cherry commented on the Chris Simon incident on Coach's Corner on December 22nd. Watch it on YouTube here. This is also the one where he tells us about Baby Jesus, which I already talked about earlier.
He starts off by showing Tuomo Ruutu, Jarkko Ruutu's youngest brother, skating by Chris Neil. Obviously to have a European player sort of almost make contact with you after the whistle is an affront to his Canadian masculinity, so Neil crosschecks Tuomo in front of the ref. Neil is sent to the box, and Tuomo grins at him as he goes off. It really was a monumentally stupid penalty to take.
Cherry is furious. "Wouldn'tcha like to smack him, huh? His brother's just the same!" According to Cherry, "they got what was coming to them." It's insane. In Cherry-land, if you commit the cardinal sin of annoying your opponent, it's your fault if they go berserk and try to stomp on your leg with a skate blade. He blames Ruutu for getting attacked, and then goes on to remind us that neither Ruutu or Ryan Hollweg missed a single game because Chris Simon tried to injure them. Again, what an idea. How about we let players stomp on each other with skates and swing sticks at each other's heads, as long as they don't get hurt. "NOT ONE!" screams Cherry, referring to games missed.
He goes on to say other things, including that if Native Canadians feel discriminated against and treated unfairly in Canada, it's their own fault. Speaking of races and cultures, isn't it funny that Jarkko Ruutu makes Cherry's segment surprisingly often as an example of all the horrible things in hockey, but players who play the same way but happen to be Canadian, like Ruutu's former teammate Matt Cooke for instance, are never reprimanded by Cherry. Hmm.
Don Cherry really has a gift for coming across like a complete lunatic. I actually agree with most of what he says about hockey. For instance, his continuing stand on no-touch icing is thoroughly laudable. It's still more than a little disturbing to me that CBC gives him airtime to tell the nation about Baby Jesus and how Native Canadians are to blame for being discriminated.
The purest insanity moment of the whole segment has to be when Cherry calls CBC "despicable" for giving Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki airtime on a hockey program. Cherry insists hockey shows need to be about hockey. Without missing a beat, he starts talking about Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Whew.
To get to my point: I'm totally disgusted that Cherry has the nerve to blame Jarkko Ruutu for getting stomped on by Simon. I can't quite believe he talks about Baby Jesus and the troops in the same segment where he insists hockey shows need to stick to hockey.
Today's link is to former NHL GM Mike Smith's blog at the Hockey News, where he talks about racism in hockey, specifically the way Canadians regard pro hockey as their own personal sport that foreigners have no right to be playing. If we ask Don, I'm sure it's all the damn Europeans' own fault.
Chris Simon, a forward for the New York Islanders, recently made some headlines by slewfooting Pittsburgh's Jarkko Ruutu and trying to stomp on his leg with a skate blade (on video here). This is an almost unheard of act in hockey. Using a skate as a weapon is one of the biggest no-nos in hockey, all the way from the junior teams to the NHL. Simon has already been suspended six previous times by the league, and was still serving a 25-game suspension for hitting Ryan Hollwg in the head with his stick when the season started.
What Simon did is pretty shocking, and the NHL suspended him for 30 games. Simon himself has complained about his penalty, showing that the man has absolutely no clue. Given that he's a repeat offender who seems to be learning nothing from his mistakes, why does the NHL allow him to continue playing? What do you have to do to get kicked out of the league? His suspension won't keep him out for the balance of the season, so Simon might return to the ice this season (although to be fair, that seems unlikely).
Some amount of noise was made over the fact that it was Jarkko Ruutu he attacked. Ruutu is probably my favorite NHL player of all time, which certainly wouldn't make me many friends in Canada. Ruutu is one of the best agitators in the game; he checks the opposing team's best players, he runs his mouth at them and more often than not suckers his opponents into taking stupid penalties. I love the guy, and it causes me no end of pain that he plays for the Penguins, which is now the official one-man show of the divin' and whinin' Princess of the Ice Cindy, erm, Sidney Crosby.
Because of Ruutu's playing style, a lot of people simply hate him. One in particular is Don Cherry, the Coach of Coach's Corner on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. Cherry commented on the Chris Simon incident on Coach's Corner on December 22nd. Watch it on YouTube here. This is also the one where he tells us about Baby Jesus, which I already talked about earlier.
He starts off by showing Tuomo Ruutu, Jarkko Ruutu's youngest brother, skating by Chris Neil. Obviously to have a European player sort of almost make contact with you after the whistle is an affront to his Canadian masculinity, so Neil crosschecks Tuomo in front of the ref. Neil is sent to the box, and Tuomo grins at him as he goes off. It really was a monumentally stupid penalty to take.
Cherry is furious. "Wouldn'tcha like to smack him, huh? His brother's just the same!" According to Cherry, "they got what was coming to them." It's insane. In Cherry-land, if you commit the cardinal sin of annoying your opponent, it's your fault if they go berserk and try to stomp on your leg with a skate blade. He blames Ruutu for getting attacked, and then goes on to remind us that neither Ruutu or Ryan Hollweg missed a single game because Chris Simon tried to injure them. Again, what an idea. How about we let players stomp on each other with skates and swing sticks at each other's heads, as long as they don't get hurt. "NOT ONE!" screams Cherry, referring to games missed.
He goes on to say other things, including that if Native Canadians feel discriminated against and treated unfairly in Canada, it's their own fault. Speaking of races and cultures, isn't it funny that Jarkko Ruutu makes Cherry's segment surprisingly often as an example of all the horrible things in hockey, but players who play the same way but happen to be Canadian, like Ruutu's former teammate Matt Cooke for instance, are never reprimanded by Cherry. Hmm.
Don Cherry really has a gift for coming across like a complete lunatic. I actually agree with most of what he says about hockey. For instance, his continuing stand on no-touch icing is thoroughly laudable. It's still more than a little disturbing to me that CBC gives him airtime to tell the nation about Baby Jesus and how Native Canadians are to blame for being discriminated.
The purest insanity moment of the whole segment has to be when Cherry calls CBC "despicable" for giving Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki airtime on a hockey program. Cherry insists hockey shows need to be about hockey. Without missing a beat, he starts talking about Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Whew.
To get to my point: I'm totally disgusted that Cherry has the nerve to blame Jarkko Ruutu for getting stomped on by Simon. I can't quite believe he talks about Baby Jesus and the troops in the same segment where he insists hockey shows need to stick to hockey.
Today's link is to former NHL GM Mike Smith's blog at the Hockey News, where he talks about racism in hockey, specifically the way Canadians regard pro hockey as their own personal sport that foreigners have no right to be playing. If we ask Don, I'm sure it's all the damn Europeans' own fault.
Dec 27, 2007
Finland and the Freedom of Expression - part I
I apologize in advance for the boldface and the length of the post, but I feel I'm writing about a topic that demands length and boldface.
Just before the holidays, Finland's "minority ombudsman", a state official charged with looking after the interests of minorities, declared that "Internet racists" need to be arrested and tried (Ombudsman: Bring Net Racists to Justice, YLE news, amusingly referring to "racialist" sites).
According to Ms. Suurpää, the current ombudsman (ombudsperson?), there are "large amounts of material promoting racial prejudice" currently available on the Internet. "She told the newspaper the prevailing wisdom seemed to be that anything could be placed on the net."
Of course,this being Finland, you can't just place anything on the net. The Finnish penal code, Chapter 11: (translation from finlex.fi)
"Section 8 - Ethnic agitation (578/1995)
A person who spreads statements or other information among the public where a certain race, a national, ethnic or religious group or a comparable group is threatened, defamed or insulted shall be sentenced for ethnic agitation to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years."
A few years ago, Professor Tatu Vanhanen almost found himself in court for publishing results of a study on the varying average IQ of different nations in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Amazingly, the Finnish state decided that publishing scientific results isn't criminal after all, and Vanhanen was not tried. When the scandal over the Danish Mohammed cartoons erupted, a Finnish extreme right-wing organization published the cartoons on their website, and after several parlamentarians demanded the police stop them, an investigation was launched into whether publishing the Mohammed cartoons in Finland constituted "ethnic agitation".
Think about that for a moment: most other European countries rallied around the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in support of Denmark and Jyllands Posten, who had published the original cartoons. Finland wanted to criminalize publishing them. That should give you an idea of the state of freedom of speech in Finland.
Also note that these were both totally victimless crimes. No Muslim came forward to complain that the cartoons insulted their faith. No native of the countries whose people Tatu Vanhanen's study reckoned has a lower IQ than the others complained that they felt defamed or insulted. Neither of these police investigations into ethnic agitation was undertaken because someone felt agitated against, insulted, defamed or in any way attacked; they were undertaken because the state wanted to. When no private citizen or organization starts a lawsuit, the police are left with the freedom to choose which texts they want to consider "ethnic agitation".
Under Finnish law, the penalty is fairly stiff; fine or up to two years of imprisonment. I'll give some examples of crimes that are, by the magnitude of the penalty attached to them, comparable to ethnic agitation.
If you can't be bothered to read the lawyerly text, scroll on down to my executive summary. Here is a series of crimes for which the same penalty can be applied:
Section 18 - Distribution of sexually obscene pictures (650/2004)
(1) A person who manufactures, offers for sale or for rent, exports, imports to or through Finland or otherwise distributes sexually obscene pictures or visual recordings depicting
(1) children,
(2) sexual violence or
(3) bestiality
shall be sentenced for distribution of sexually obscene pictures to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
Section 5 - Assault (578/1995)
(1) A person who employs physical violence on another or, without such violence, damages the health of another, causes pain to another or renders another unconscious or to a comparable condition, shall be sentenced for assault to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Section 12 - Brawling (578/1995)
A person who by employing physical violence or otherwise takes part in a brawl or attack which has several participants and where someone is killed or a serious bodily injury or illness is inflicted on someone, if he/she had reason to believe that the brawl or attack would have the said consequence, shall be sentenced for brawling to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Section 13 - Imperilment (578/1995)
A person who intentionally or through gross negligence places another in serious danger of losing his/her life or health, shall be sentenced, unless the same or a more severe penalty for the act is provided elsewhere in the law, for imperilment to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Section 14 - Abandonment (578/1995)
A person who renders another helpless or abandons a helpless person of whom he/she should take care, and thereby causes danger of said person losing his/her life or health, shall be sentenced for abandonment to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Here are a few examples of crimes for which the penalty is lower than that for ethnic agitation:
Section 8 - Buying sexual services from a young person (650/2004)
(1) A person who, by promising or giving remuneration, engages a person younger than 18 years of age to have sexual intercourse or to perform other sexual acts shall be sentenced for buying sexual services from a young person to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of one year.
(2) An attempt shall be punished.
Section 15 - Neglect of rescue (578/1995)
A person who knows that another is in mortal danger or serious danger of losing his/her health, and does not give or procure such assistance that in view of his/her options and the nature of the situation can reasonably be expected, shall be sentenced for neglect of rescue to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.
Executive summary: In Finland,it is a crime to agitate against an ethnic group. A comparable crime, in terms of the magnitude of the penalty allowed by the law, is assault, abandonment or producing or distributing child pornography. That's right. The penalty for "Internet racism" is the same as for child porn.
Going by the maximum penalty allowed by the law, in Finland it is a lesser crime than ethnic agitation to engage the services of an underage prostitute, or cause someone to die by not assisting them when they're in immediate, mortal danger. That is to say, the maximum penalty allowed by the law is less for these crimes than for ethnic agitation.
Leaving someone to die or engaging the services of a child prostitute are lesser crimes than "Internet racism".
In a twist of macabre humor, the crime of ethnic agitation is listed under Chapter 11 - War crimes and offences against humanity in the Finnish penal code. It immediately follows Section 6 - Genocide and Section 7 - Preparation of Genocide. Under Finnish jurisprudence, publishing a cartoon is on the same page as genocide.
You would think that, given the comparably severe penalty for ethnic agitation and its classification as a crime against humanity, this law would only be applicable to something really serious. Instead, according to the Finnish government and police, a blog post is a crime against humanity.
Mikko Ellilä has recently been sued, by the previous "minority ombudsman", for ethnic agitation over a blog post (Espoolaismiehelle syyte kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan internetissä, YLE news). The post, in Finnish, is to his blog on thinkertothinker.com: Yhteiskunta koostuu ihmisistä. He talks about this on his blogs, fi-lib and Uusi viesti. As I said at the beginning of this post, the current minority ombudsman, a civil servant, has said that more people need to be sued for the same reason.
Because of this blog post, Ellilä is going to be placed on trial for ethnic agitation. As I've shown, under Finnish law this is a crime that calls for a penalty similar to that for assault or distributing child porn. Had he attacked a random passerby on the street or taken pornographic pictures of a 12-year old, he would face the same penalty. I'd ask you to think about that, but I don't really want to think about it myself.
Had he, on the other hand, hired a 15-year old prostitute or left a person to drown, he would face a lesser penalty. Instead of doing something less serious like causing someone to die, he instead committed the more heinous offence of posting something in his blog.
I know Mikko Ellilä personally, and consider him a friend. I also thoroughly disagree with what he says in his blog entry, and I do consider it racist. What I simply cannot deal with is that according to the laws of this country, his blog post constitutes a crime, and a fairly serious crime.
I think Mikko's blog post is based on incomplete facts, and the conclusions he draws from it are wrong and, quite frankly, racist. Before anyone asks me to qualify that, I'll return to the topic later in this blog. I vehemently dislike and oppose racism, so obviously I don't want to defend it.
What I do want to defend is our freedom of speech and expression. I firmly believe Mikko has the right to write about whatever he damn well wants to in his blog, without being sued by the government.
The only crime he has committed is holding an opinion, and writing about that opinion in his blog. In Finland, this constitutes a crime against humanity, and the government is empowered to press charges against him and imprison him.
More than likely he won't go to prison, and he may not even get a fine. But because we're dealing with the law and our human rights as citizens, what matters here is principle. Those of us who are citizens of Finland should not, indeed if we believe in human rights at all can not, accept the fact that a blog posting is a crime against humanity. Those of us who are citizens or residents of other countries should take note of what's going on here, lest it happen in your country as well.
Accoring to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
In Finland, everyone does not. In Finland, a blog post can be a crime against humanity if the government wants it to be.
I firmly believe something needs to be done about this. As a start, I'm trying to raise awareness about this particular case. I'll be returning to the theme of freedom of expression in Finland in later posts, and I believe that the state of Finnish legistlation is such that those of us who believe in freedom of expression need to start fighting for that freedom, even if it means taking the side of people whose opinions we disagree with.
Wikiquote tells me that a famous quote that I like is not in fact from Voltaire, but from Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who used it to sum up Voltaire's opinion on free speech:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
We need to think long and hard about whether we actually believe in that or not. If we do, then something needs to be done.
Just before the holidays, Finland's "minority ombudsman", a state official charged with looking after the interests of minorities, declared that "Internet racists" need to be arrested and tried (Ombudsman: Bring Net Racists to Justice, YLE news, amusingly referring to "racialist" sites).
According to Ms. Suurpää, the current ombudsman (ombudsperson?), there are "large amounts of material promoting racial prejudice" currently available on the Internet. "She told the newspaper the prevailing wisdom seemed to be that anything could be placed on the net."
Of course,this being Finland, you can't just place anything on the net. The Finnish penal code, Chapter 11: (translation from finlex.fi)
"Section 8 - Ethnic agitation (578/1995)
A person who spreads statements or other information among the public where a certain race, a national, ethnic or religious group or a comparable group is threatened, defamed or insulted shall be sentenced for ethnic agitation to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years."
A few years ago, Professor Tatu Vanhanen almost found himself in court for publishing results of a study on the varying average IQ of different nations in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Amazingly, the Finnish state decided that publishing scientific results isn't criminal after all, and Vanhanen was not tried. When the scandal over the Danish Mohammed cartoons erupted, a Finnish extreme right-wing organization published the cartoons on their website, and after several parlamentarians demanded the police stop them, an investigation was launched into whether publishing the Mohammed cartoons in Finland constituted "ethnic agitation".
Think about that for a moment: most other European countries rallied around the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in support of Denmark and Jyllands Posten, who had published the original cartoons. Finland wanted to criminalize publishing them. That should give you an idea of the state of freedom of speech in Finland.
Also note that these were both totally victimless crimes. No Muslim came forward to complain that the cartoons insulted their faith. No native of the countries whose people Tatu Vanhanen's study reckoned has a lower IQ than the others complained that they felt defamed or insulted. Neither of these police investigations into ethnic agitation was undertaken because someone felt agitated against, insulted, defamed or in any way attacked; they were undertaken because the state wanted to. When no private citizen or organization starts a lawsuit, the police are left with the freedom to choose which texts they want to consider "ethnic agitation".
Under Finnish law, the penalty is fairly stiff; fine or up to two years of imprisonment. I'll give some examples of crimes that are, by the magnitude of the penalty attached to them, comparable to ethnic agitation.
If you can't be bothered to read the lawyerly text, scroll on down to my executive summary. Here is a series of crimes for which the same penalty can be applied:
Section 18 - Distribution of sexually obscene pictures (650/2004)
(1) A person who manufactures, offers for sale or for rent, exports, imports to or through Finland or otherwise distributes sexually obscene pictures or visual recordings depicting
(1) children,
(2) sexual violence or
(3) bestiality
shall be sentenced for distribution of sexually obscene pictures to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
Section 5 - Assault (578/1995)
(1) A person who employs physical violence on another or, without such violence, damages the health of another, causes pain to another or renders another unconscious or to a comparable condition, shall be sentenced for assault to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Section 12 - Brawling (578/1995)
A person who by employing physical violence or otherwise takes part in a brawl or attack which has several participants and where someone is killed or a serious bodily injury or illness is inflicted on someone, if he/she had reason to believe that the brawl or attack would have the said consequence, shall be sentenced for brawling to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Section 13 - Imperilment (578/1995)
A person who intentionally or through gross negligence places another in serious danger of losing his/her life or health, shall be sentenced, unless the same or a more severe penalty for the act is provided elsewhere in the law, for imperilment to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Section 14 - Abandonment (578/1995)
A person who renders another helpless or abandons a helpless person of whom he/she should take care, and thereby causes danger of said person losing his/her life or health, shall be sentenced for abandonment to a fine or to imprisonment for at most two years.
Here are a few examples of crimes for which the penalty is lower than that for ethnic agitation:
Section 8 - Buying sexual services from a young person (650/2004)
(1) A person who, by promising or giving remuneration, engages a person younger than 18 years of age to have sexual intercourse or to perform other sexual acts shall be sentenced for buying sexual services from a young person to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of one year.
(2) An attempt shall be punished.
Section 15 - Neglect of rescue (578/1995)
A person who knows that another is in mortal danger or serious danger of losing his/her health, and does not give or procure such assistance that in view of his/her options and the nature of the situation can reasonably be expected, shall be sentenced for neglect of rescue to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.
Executive summary: In Finland,it is a crime to agitate against an ethnic group. A comparable crime, in terms of the magnitude of the penalty allowed by the law, is assault, abandonment or producing or distributing child pornography. That's right. The penalty for "Internet racism" is the same as for child porn.
Going by the maximum penalty allowed by the law, in Finland it is a lesser crime than ethnic agitation to engage the services of an underage prostitute, or cause someone to die by not assisting them when they're in immediate, mortal danger. That is to say, the maximum penalty allowed by the law is less for these crimes than for ethnic agitation.
Leaving someone to die or engaging the services of a child prostitute are lesser crimes than "Internet racism".
In a twist of macabre humor, the crime of ethnic agitation is listed under Chapter 11 - War crimes and offences against humanity in the Finnish penal code. It immediately follows Section 6 - Genocide and Section 7 - Preparation of Genocide. Under Finnish jurisprudence, publishing a cartoon is on the same page as genocide.
You would think that, given the comparably severe penalty for ethnic agitation and its classification as a crime against humanity, this law would only be applicable to something really serious. Instead, according to the Finnish government and police, a blog post is a crime against humanity.
Mikko Ellilä has recently been sued, by the previous "minority ombudsman", for ethnic agitation over a blog post (Espoolaismiehelle syyte kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan internetissä, YLE news). The post, in Finnish, is to his blog on thinkertothinker.com: Yhteiskunta koostuu ihmisistä. He talks about this on his blogs, fi-lib and Uusi viesti. As I said at the beginning of this post, the current minority ombudsman, a civil servant, has said that more people need to be sued for the same reason.
Because of this blog post, Ellilä is going to be placed on trial for ethnic agitation. As I've shown, under Finnish law this is a crime that calls for a penalty similar to that for assault or distributing child porn. Had he attacked a random passerby on the street or taken pornographic pictures of a 12-year old, he would face the same penalty. I'd ask you to think about that, but I don't really want to think about it myself.
Had he, on the other hand, hired a 15-year old prostitute or left a person to drown, he would face a lesser penalty. Instead of doing something less serious like causing someone to die, he instead committed the more heinous offence of posting something in his blog.
I know Mikko Ellilä personally, and consider him a friend. I also thoroughly disagree with what he says in his blog entry, and I do consider it racist. What I simply cannot deal with is that according to the laws of this country, his blog post constitutes a crime, and a fairly serious crime.
I think Mikko's blog post is based on incomplete facts, and the conclusions he draws from it are wrong and, quite frankly, racist. Before anyone asks me to qualify that, I'll return to the topic later in this blog. I vehemently dislike and oppose racism, so obviously I don't want to defend it.
What I do want to defend is our freedom of speech and expression. I firmly believe Mikko has the right to write about whatever he damn well wants to in his blog, without being sued by the government.
The only crime he has committed is holding an opinion, and writing about that opinion in his blog. In Finland, this constitutes a crime against humanity, and the government is empowered to press charges against him and imprison him.
More than likely he won't go to prison, and he may not even get a fine. But because we're dealing with the law and our human rights as citizens, what matters here is principle. Those of us who are citizens of Finland should not, indeed if we believe in human rights at all can not, accept the fact that a blog posting is a crime against humanity. Those of us who are citizens or residents of other countries should take note of what's going on here, lest it happen in your country as well.
Accoring to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
In Finland, everyone does not. In Finland, a blog post can be a crime against humanity if the government wants it to be.
I firmly believe something needs to be done about this. As a start, I'm trying to raise awareness about this particular case. I'll be returning to the theme of freedom of expression in Finland in later posts, and I believe that the state of Finnish legistlation is such that those of us who believe in freedom of expression need to start fighting for that freedom, even if it means taking the side of people whose opinions we disagree with.
Wikiquote tells me that a famous quote that I like is not in fact from Voltaire, but from Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who used it to sum up Voltaire's opinion on free speech:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
We need to think long and hard about whether we actually believe in that or not. If we do, then something needs to be done.
You better not doubt
It's official: Santa Claus is coming to town.
Russia prohibits denial of Santa
A Russian electronics company ran an ad that said Father Frost, Russia's Santa, doesn't exist, and the ad was promptly banned. Apparently it undermined children's confidence in their parents and teachers, and the government prohibited the ad.
It's good that the state is clamping down firmly on companies questioning such fundamental tenets of Russian society as Father Frost. Why, next they'll be asking if we rigged the elections...
I never did understand why parents lie to their children about Santa. Why tell them the presents are coming from a semi-supernatural Santa in exchange for them being good? It doesn't seem to do the kids any good either. Recently we read about Halle Berry's shock at finding out Santa doesn't exist; according to her, "the most horrific day" in her life. Thanks, Mom! Do parents really think the threat of Santa bringing them coal (sticks in Finland, IIRC) is going to make children behave better?
Then again, it's constantly argued that morality needs to be based on religion. If we as adults believe that our ethics need to be based on the threat of a god shooting lightning at us or making us go to hell, I suppose it makes sense that we would think children need to be threatened too.
How depressing.
Russia prohibits denial of Santa
A Russian electronics company ran an ad that said Father Frost, Russia's Santa, doesn't exist, and the ad was promptly banned. Apparently it undermined children's confidence in their parents and teachers, and the government prohibited the ad.
It's good that the state is clamping down firmly on companies questioning such fundamental tenets of Russian society as Father Frost. Why, next they'll be asking if we rigged the elections...
I never did understand why parents lie to their children about Santa. Why tell them the presents are coming from a semi-supernatural Santa in exchange for them being good? It doesn't seem to do the kids any good either. Recently we read about Halle Berry's shock at finding out Santa doesn't exist; according to her, "the most horrific day" in her life. Thanks, Mom! Do parents really think the threat of Santa bringing them coal (sticks in Finland, IIRC) is going to make children behave better?
Then again, it's constantly argued that morality needs to be based on religion. If we as adults believe that our ethics need to be based on the threat of a god shooting lightning at us or making us go to hell, I suppose it makes sense that we would think children need to be threatened too.
How depressing.
Dec 26, 2007
Please don't make me happy
A useful link for reading over the holidays:
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2002_09_norberg_happiness.pdf
Johan Norberg on happiness as a policy objective. Worth reading if you've encountered any discussion on whether economic growth is good for us and whether economic growth makes us happy.
The whole debate on happiness as an utilitarian objective of national policy is too tired to rehash here, so I'll just say that I really don't want anyone to make me happy. I too prefer the pursuit of happiness to its imposition.
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2002_09_norberg_happiness.pdf
Johan Norberg on happiness as a policy objective. Worth reading if you've encountered any discussion on whether economic growth is good for us and whether economic growth makes us happy.
The whole debate on happiness as an utilitarian objective of national policy is too tired to rehash here, so I'll just say that I really don't want anyone to make me happy. I too prefer the pursuit of happiness to its imposition.
There's no such thing as Christmas
Now that it's the Christian holiday season, it's a good thing to remember that there's no such thing as Christmas.
The word Christmas comes to us from the Old English Cristes mæsse, Christ's mass, and Christmas is supposedly a celebration of Jesus's birth. Indeed, on last weekend's Hockey Night in Canada, Don Cherry reminded us that Christmas is Baby Jesus's birthday, and no matter how much we like Santa, we musn't forget that Christmas is all about Baby Jesus.
No it isn't.
First of all, we don't know that Jesus existed at all, but that's a longer story. Suppose Jesus did exist, though, and suppose the Gospels are a more or less correct account of what went on in Palestine around the time Jesus was born.
The traditional Christmas story everyone knows or has at least had to endure is mostly based on the second chapter of the Book of Luke. Here in Finland, Luke 2 is the "Christmas gospel". Here, the shepherds are being told about the birth of Jesus:
"8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.""
-Luke 2:8-12 (New International Version)
Here's the problem: if the shepherds are out watching their sheep, then it can't be winter. In winter in Palestine, sheep weren't kept on the fields. If the Gospel of Luke is correct and the story of the shepherds is true, then Baby Jesus's birthday can't be on the 25th of December.
None of the gospels themselves give a date. The whole idea of December 25th being the day Jesus was born dates back to the year 221 A.D., when Sextus Julius Africanus published a reference work for Christians where he recommends celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25th. The custom became widespread in the Roman Empire, and modern Western society inherited the date from the Romans.
Why December 25th, though? December 25th falls conveniently close to the winter solstice, which has been celebrated in many human cultures and all over Europe as the darkest day of winter; from the solstice onward, the day starts to become longer again. Especially in Northern Europe, where the change in the length of the day is significant, the festival is especially poignant.
The Romans celebrated December 25th as the winter solstice, known as Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the birth of the unconquered sun. The day of Sol Invictus was preceded by the Saturnalia festival, the biggest wintertime festival of the Romans, and one of the most popular celebrations on the Roman calendar. Saturnalia commemorated the Roman god Saturn, and was celebrated by copious eating and drinking, giving and receiving presents and wearing the pileus, the freedman's hat.
Early Christians had, in fact, celebrated the birth of Jesus either in conjunction with the Epiphany, in January, or on the vernal equinox. This practice didn't become popular, and eventually Christmas replaced Saturnalia and Sol Invictus on the Roman calendar.
In more northern Europe, Germanic tribes celebrated Yule on the day of the winter solstice. After Roman Christianity had decided on the winter solstice as the day of Christmas, Yule was suppressed with the forced conversion of the Northern European peoples to Christianity and replaced with Christmas. Those Christmas customs that don't come from the Saturnalia festival are based on the old Germanic Yule celebration.
In short, there's no such thing as Christmas. If Baby Jesus was born at all, he certainly wasn't born in the Winter. When businesses shut down at midwinter, people give each other gifts and everyone eats, drinks and makes merry, we're all celebrating Yule and Saturnalia. The floppy red hat Santa's elves wear is the Roman pileus. Giftgiving was a Saturnalia tradition, and the gifts are put under a spruce tree, a Germanic Yule tradition. The whole of Christmas is a Christian bastardization of an older tradition, a clumsy and unsuccesful rebranding of one of the oldest festivals of mankind.
Christmas isn't Baby Jesus's birthday. The "real" idea of Christmas is the winter solstice, and the winter solstice will be around for as long as humans are able to tell the changing of the seasons. It was around long before Christianity and will be around longer than Baby Jesus.
The word Christmas comes to us from the Old English Cristes mæsse, Christ's mass, and Christmas is supposedly a celebration of Jesus's birth. Indeed, on last weekend's Hockey Night in Canada, Don Cherry reminded us that Christmas is Baby Jesus's birthday, and no matter how much we like Santa, we musn't forget that Christmas is all about Baby Jesus.
No it isn't.
First of all, we don't know that Jesus existed at all, but that's a longer story. Suppose Jesus did exist, though, and suppose the Gospels are a more or less correct account of what went on in Palestine around the time Jesus was born.
The traditional Christmas story everyone knows or has at least had to endure is mostly based on the second chapter of the Book of Luke. Here in Finland, Luke 2 is the "Christmas gospel". Here, the shepherds are being told about the birth of Jesus:
"8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.""
-Luke 2:8-12 (New International Version)
Here's the problem: if the shepherds are out watching their sheep, then it can't be winter. In winter in Palestine, sheep weren't kept on the fields. If the Gospel of Luke is correct and the story of the shepherds is true, then Baby Jesus's birthday can't be on the 25th of December.
None of the gospels themselves give a date. The whole idea of December 25th being the day Jesus was born dates back to the year 221 A.D., when Sextus Julius Africanus published a reference work for Christians where he recommends celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25th. The custom became widespread in the Roman Empire, and modern Western society inherited the date from the Romans.
Why December 25th, though? December 25th falls conveniently close to the winter solstice, which has been celebrated in many human cultures and all over Europe as the darkest day of winter; from the solstice onward, the day starts to become longer again. Especially in Northern Europe, where the change in the length of the day is significant, the festival is especially poignant.
The Romans celebrated December 25th as the winter solstice, known as Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the birth of the unconquered sun. The day of Sol Invictus was preceded by the Saturnalia festival, the biggest wintertime festival of the Romans, and one of the most popular celebrations on the Roman calendar. Saturnalia commemorated the Roman god Saturn, and was celebrated by copious eating and drinking, giving and receiving presents and wearing the pileus, the freedman's hat.
Early Christians had, in fact, celebrated the birth of Jesus either in conjunction with the Epiphany, in January, or on the vernal equinox. This practice didn't become popular, and eventually Christmas replaced Saturnalia and Sol Invictus on the Roman calendar.
In more northern Europe, Germanic tribes celebrated Yule on the day of the winter solstice. After Roman Christianity had decided on the winter solstice as the day of Christmas, Yule was suppressed with the forced conversion of the Northern European peoples to Christianity and replaced with Christmas. Those Christmas customs that don't come from the Saturnalia festival are based on the old Germanic Yule celebration.
In short, there's no such thing as Christmas. If Baby Jesus was born at all, he certainly wasn't born in the Winter. When businesses shut down at midwinter, people give each other gifts and everyone eats, drinks and makes merry, we're all celebrating Yule and Saturnalia. The floppy red hat Santa's elves wear is the Roman pileus. Giftgiving was a Saturnalia tradition, and the gifts are put under a spruce tree, a Germanic Yule tradition. The whole of Christmas is a Christian bastardization of an older tradition, a clumsy and unsuccesful rebranding of one of the oldest festivals of mankind.
Christmas isn't Baby Jesus's birthday. The "real" idea of Christmas is the winter solstice, and the winter solstice will be around for as long as humans are able to tell the changing of the seasons. It was around long before Christianity and will be around longer than Baby Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
