It was an evolution, the myth and the sleigh was already there, the beard goes back hundreds of years. This page has a good overview of the image of Santa over the centuries:
Absolutely, I find this claim of "created santa" is so silly that it sounds like revisionist history. Kazakhstan, Lithuania and other regions have "Santa" traditions that go back over a hundred years and it is mostly indistinguishable than the "propaganda" version.
Almost all Kazakhs are Sunni Muslims. If you've meant Christian populations like Russians, then I would be interested to see what's special about Russian Kazakhstani's Santa traditions.
I'd also like to see a hundred or more years old Lithuanian Santa version similar to the Unionist one.
This is not to dismiss your claim that this might be revisionist (I'm not sure), but your examples on Kazakhstan and Lithuania lack evidence.
Not an answer, mostly a hint :) But could it be that the folklore of Odin / Wodan came there through the Vikings? The Dutch Sinterklaas is partly based on the Wild Hunt of Odin. Odin might have inspired more civilisations with the same concept.
There are some people that are susceptible to the idea of new information being more canonical than the prior information they were initially exposed to, as opposed to merely an alternate amongst many alternates.
The Netherlands has something called "Sinterklaas". But I think celebrating children and giving presents to them is something that goes back to the very origin of mankind and can be found all over the world.
They seem to agree with the premise (``[Nast] created the modern image of Santa Claus''):
``The cartoonist Thomas Nast established the bounds for Santa Claus' current look with an initial illustration in an 1863 issue of Harper's Weekly, as part of a large illustration titled "A Christmas Furlough".''
Before him there was "grandfather freeze" in Russia, in Poland st. Claus from bishop. How he looks? My nephew and niece really dont care :D as long as he brings presents :))))))
(which doesn't mean that the Christians 'invented' Santa Claus of course, since the early European missionaries often 'adopted' earlier pagan traditions)
> The Dutch are credited with transporting the legend of St. Nicholas (Sinterklaas) to New Amsterdam (now New York City), along with the custom of giving gifts and sweets to children on his feast day, December 6.
As someone from the Flemish (dutch-speaking) part of Belgium, I can honestly say that is a very US-centric view you have.
In the Netherlands, the custom of "Sinterklaas", which was brought to the US and became Santa Klaus, predates Christianity coming to the Netherlands and Saint Nicholas was indeed created in order to be able to continue this "heathen" feast.
It's origins are in the Celtic/Germanic midwinter fest of "Yule". During this fest, the god Wodan, rode on a horse, carried a staff, brought gifts to nice children and had devilish helpers who kidnapped the naughty children. This tradition is still strong in northern Europe, which was much less influenced by Christianity.
Santa Klaus lore still has a lot of hints to the pagan origins. For example, the reindeer which pull Santa’s sleigh are called Donner and Blitzen-‘thunder and lightning’ from the Old Dutch ‘Dunder and Blixem’. (Wodan is the Germanic/celtic version of Odin.)
Rather than saying “it’s origins are x” which reads as if it’s either wholly or primarily based on x, I would say “it’s origins include” or something to that effect. To say “it’s origins are” doesn’t acknowledge the weight of Christian influence on the current tradition, as if it was perpetuated without being majorly changed.
As Christianity spread, holidays and traditions from many parts of the world were subsumed by it. The history of the Church showed that it’s easier to change people’s religious beliefs than some of their cultural traditions. If theologically insignificant elements of a pre-existing pagan tradition got rolled into a Christian holiday that doesn’t mean the holiday is “actually pagan” or observers are giving some deference to a pagan god.
That may not have been your message, but I wanted to point it out because I hear that very often by those who apparently have some axe to grind with the Church and come off as if the history of some Christian holidays is a big secret they uncovered.
[Wikipedia:] The Old Norse theonym Óðinn (runic ᚢᚦᛁᚾ on the Ribe skull fragment) and its various Germanic cognates – including Old English Wōden, Old Saxon Wōdan, Old Dutch Wuodan, and Old High German Wuotan (Old Bavarian Wûtan), – all derive from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic masculine theonym Wōđanaz (or Wōdunaz).
My personal favorites, missing from this list, along with improbable etymology, are Wudan, Wudang, Wutan and Wutang.
in the UK, I would say (based on my limited view point) that most people call him Father Christmas , but Santa Clause is sometimes used interchangeably
Also in the Orthodox countries from Eastern Europe, the custom of St. Nicholas giving gifts to the good children and punishing the bad children, on December 6, was certainly existing in the middle of the 19th century (when December 6 was not on the same day as in the Western countries with Gregorian calendar), because it was mentioned in some books dating from that time, but probably the custom existed much earlier. In any case, the custom was not Catholic or Protestant but it existed all over Europe.
However I have no idea about how he was depicted at that time and the custom was strictly about December 6, not the Christmas, and the gifts or punishments were also only for the children, not for adults.
Sinterklaas actually has a lot of pre-Christian aspects (such as Zwarte Piet's bag). The mythic figure of St. Nicholas probably predates the arrival of Catholicism in the Netherlands.
(The non-mythic figure of St. Nicholas was also an actual person and not just a fairy tale, as is common with this kind of mythology.)
Ironically Sinterklass and his cringe-worthy blackfaced Zwarte Piet servants would have sided with the racist pro-slavery Confederacy, not the Union.
The racist pro-Piet hooligans in the Netherlands who still support Zwarte Piet like to celebrate the birth and teachings of Our Lord Jesus H Christ The Savior by gathering in crowds, hurling eggs, shouting racist insults, smashing windows, vandalizing cars, and shooting off fireworks against anti-racist protestors, who find Zwarte Piet's blackface and oversized red lips and black afro wigs and demeaningly stereotypical childish behavior a racist and offensive remnant of the Netherland's colonial past.
>During intocht celebrations throughout November 2018, violent incidents took place in the cities and towns of Nijmegen, The Hague, Leeuwarden, Den Helder, Rotterdam, and elsewhere. In Eindhoven, anti-Piet demonstrators were surrounded by an estimated group of 250 people described as "football hooligans" who attacked them with eggs and shouted racist insults. A similar protest in Tilburg led to the arrest of 44 pro-Piet demonstrators.[41]
>In 2019, it was decided that the nationally-televised arrival of Sinterklaas hosted by Apeldoorn would feature only sooty versions.[42] That November, a group called Kick Out Zwarte Piet were attacked during a meeting. Windows were smashed, nearby vehicles were vandalized, and fireworks were shot into the building where the group was planning protests in 12 communities that still feature traditional versions of the character.[43] In June 2020, American broadcaster NBC and Netflix opted to remove footage of a character dressed as Zwarte Piet from an episode of The Office. Series creator Greg Daniels released a statement saying that "blackface is unacceptable and making the point so graphically is hurtful and wrong. I am sorry for the pain that caused."[44]
>Prime Minister Mark Rutte stated in a parliamentary debate on 5 June 2020 that he had changed his opinion on the issue and now better understands why many people consider the character's appearance to be racist.[45] In August 2020, Facebook updated its policies to ban depictions of blackface on its Facebook and Instagram platforms, including traditional blackface depictions of Zwarte Piet.[46] In October 2020, Google banned advertising featuring Zwarte Piet, including soot versions without blackface.[47] Additional companies followed suit, among them Bol, Amazon, and Coolblue, who each decided to remove traditional Zwarte Piet products and promotions from their services.[48][49] In November 2020, Vereniging van Openbare Bibliotheken, a national association of public libraries, also announced that they were in the process of removing books featuring Zwarte Piet from library shelves.[50]
"Ironically Sinterklass and his cringe-worthy blackfaced Zwarte Piet servants would have sided with the racist pro-slavery Confederacy, not the Union."
No, just no. They are freed slaves, freed by St. Nicolas.
The discussion in the Netherlands is just something from the last 10 years. Many people have a very moderate opinion about it, but on both sides there are extremists, which is what the media focuses on.
In both extremist sides there are people calling for violence. That way they disturb normal conversation. Even the Dutch NCTV, the government anti-terrorism organisation, labeled them as extremists, with the mention that they had not used violence up to now.
One of the proponents of Kick Out Zwarte Piet, Akwasi, called out on stage for kicking Zwarte Piet in the face. Many people who are part of the childrens party felt threathened. He was found guilty, but because he said "I was misunderstood" they let it go. This kind of aggressive extremist action actually is counter productive in the racism debate as it is completely unreasonable. It is very common to hear being said that the anti-racism card has been pushed too hard and the lobby is losing its support.
Personally I don't have any issue with changing the look of Zwarte Piet into roetveeg-Piet, which has mostly happened here. Just the conversation is highly aggressive. As an anecdote, when a colored person dresses as Zwarte Piet, he often gets called out for being racist :) All because it has never been a healthy discussion.
"And what's wrong with being extremely anti-racist [...] ?" What is wrong is that extremism can go too far :)
By any measure, the pro-Zwarte Piet protesters are much more violent much more often than the anti-racist protestors who they're regularly attacking. And the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are the ones attacking the police defending the anti-racist protestors, not the other way around.
Zwarte Piet protest group accuses police of failing to protect safety:
>[...] The group has also filed a police complaint against The Hague businessman John van Zweden, who posted tweets on Friday afternoon calling on people to turn up to the protest ‘with tar, feathers and other shit to drive them out of the city.’ [...]
And there are not two sides to the argument about racism. The pro-racist side is wrong, and has a long sordid history of enforcing their racism with violence, and the anti-racist side is correct, and on the right side of history.
>It is very common to hear being said that the anti-racism card has been pushed too hard and the lobby is losing its support.
So you're rationalizing that if only the mean anti-racists weren't so extreme and didn't protest against racism and always play that darned anti-racism card, they'd be able to change the nice pro-racist's minds, huh? I highly doubt it, or that the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans are only racist and violent because somebody "pushed too hard" on "the anti-racism card" as you absurdly claim. Their furious butt-hurt from the anti-racist Zwarte Piet protestors spoiling their fading memories of religious childhood fairy tales doesn't justify their continuing violence and racism in the name of Jesus.
>Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion. Tone policing detracts from the truth or falsity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.
>A concern troll is a false-flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt within the group often by appealing to outrage culture. This is a particular case of sockpuppeting and safe-baiting.
You want to argue that one extremist group is less or more violent than the other? Well, you just made my point :) Both extremist groups are scum. In the Netherlands we don't solve things with violence but with conversation. And yes, people do listen. Please do not think we are like the US, we do have healthy conversations and a government that does listen (sometimes :) ). Calling for violence from a public stage, urging people towards violent behaviour has nothing to do with tone policing, it is simply forbidden by law and people will stop listening to you. You might want to read up on the "Poldermodel", which is very much part of Dutch politics and society.
Please do not mix up the US culture and history with that of the Dutch. In the US, colored people who have been for generations in the US get discriminated on skin color. I would argue that discrimination on skin color in the Netherlands does exist, and yes, the change of Zwarte Piet is slowly being done. But discrimination is much more happening on a cultural level, which is even harder to deal with. People with a Moroccon, Turkish or Hindu background don't always find their place easily. And no, by saying that I don't mean that discrimination on skin color is any good.
The story about freeing slaves is just a revisionist rationalization, just like the more recent revisionist rationalization that they're not really black skinned Moores, but just white people covered in soot. They were originally enslaved demons forced to assist their captor.
>The Saint Nicholas tradition contains a number of elements that are not ecclesiastical in origin.[16][17] In medieval iconography, Saint Nicholas is sometimes presented as taming a chained demon, who may or may not be black. However, no hint of a companion, demon, servant, or any other human or human-like fixed companion to the Saint is found in visual and textual sources from the Netherlands from the 16th until the 19th century.[18] According to a long-standing theory first proposed by Karl Meisen,[19] Zwarte Piet and his equivalents in Germanic Europe were originally presented as one or more enslaved demons forced to assist their captor. These chained and fire-scorched demons may have been redeveloped as black-skinned humans during the early 19th-century in the Netherlands in the likeness of Moors who work as servants for Saint Nicholas.[20] Others believe Zwarte Piet to be a continuation of a custom in which people with blackface appeared in winter solstice rituals.[21]
Since we can all agree Zwarte Piet is actually all just fiction, and that it was ok to change the story numerous times as society evolved to be less religiously fanatic and racist, then why are so-called "moderate" people you're defending still clinging to the racist iconography of blackface and big painted red lips and black afros?
If they can change the story from Zwarte Piets being chained and fire-scorched enslaved demons forced to assist their captor, to merely black-skinned freed human slaves, then from that to soot-stained Caucasians, then why are so-called "moderate" people so upset about changing "tradition" yet again?
So what's wrong with being extremely anti-racist and protesting peacefully, instead of only "moderately" against racism, while racists are still violently rioting in the streets of the Netherlands and attacking both police and peaceful protestors?
And why after 10 years of open public discussion are hooligans still shouting racist insults, throwing eggs, pelting police with fireworks, and rioting in the streets in support of Zwarte Piet?
NOVEMBER 16, 2020: Riot police deployed in Zwarte Piet demonstration in Maastricht:
>On Saturday afternoon, a planned demonstration against Zwarte Piet in Maastricht was disrupted by counter-protesters. Tensions at the scene escalated, leading to violence and police intervention.
>The action group Kick Out Zwarte (KOZP) had a permit from the municipality to demonstrate against the blackface character on the Vrijthof (a central square). But when counter-protesters gathered and the atmosphere became threatening, the police mobile unit had to intervene.
>They used horses and dogs to keep the counter-protesters at a distance. The police were pelted with fireworks.
>KOZP spokesperson tells NU that demonstrating at the second scene was impossible. “That place was almost next to the Vrijthof. There were a lot of threats and a lot of violence. People threw things and there was shouting. We, therefore, stopped our action prematurely.”
DECEMBER 4, 2021: Kick Out Zwarte Piet protesters pelted with eggs, oliebollen and firecrackers in Volendam:
>A group of people in Volendam attacked Kick Out Zwarte Piet (KOZP) protesters with, among other objects, eggs, oliebollen and firecrackers. KOZP was protesting against "structural racism" in the village.
>Police escorted several dozen demonstrators back to their buses. The protesters left the village around 1 p.m. under police escort.
>According to KOZP spokesman Jerry Afriyie, they were pelted with "anything and everything," including fruit and oliebollen from the nearby market. Police did not confirm the number of people who attacked the protestors in Volendam.
>While officers kept the groups apart, they were also pelted with eggs and oliebollen. According to Afriyie, some of the windows of the bus were damaged. Some of the people attacking the protestors also threw firecrackers.
And please give me a break with your false equivalence "both sides" white-washing rationalization of blackface and violent racist behavior: The behavior of the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans you're defending with your false equivalence is FAR WORSE than the anti-racist protestors and police in riot gear who they're violently attacking, which is ironic because Zwarte Piet is supposed to punish people for bad behavior.
So why are they violently fighting against anti-racist protestors and riot control police for something they don't even believe in, if it's not actually just about racism?
If the mythology of Zwarte Piet was supposed to teach children to behave well and treat each other with respect in celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday, then it has failed miserably and become a shibboleth and symbol of racism, so it should be disposed of in the dustbin of history.
>then why are so-called "moderate" people so upset about changing "tradition" yet again?
I feel like when people argue about keeping "tradition" it's really more about the short term past, the "traditions" they've seen their whole lives (and thus perceive as "how the world has always been").
Traditionalism is inherently paradoxical. Traditionalists yearn for a remote home or past that lacked the problems they perceive in their own place and time. Yet, the people in that other place and time were probably just living the best way they could figure out to live, and would gladly have accepted many aspects of modern life for just a bit more comfort, health, or safety.
The anti-gay "moderates" love to make the argument that same sex marriage goes against "tradition", when the actual tradition of marriage is that women are considered property, and traditionally not allowed to vote or own land or asked to consent to sex, just like slaves.
I'm not sure how you could be a moderate if you were anti-gay, but the types of people who I think about when I think "anti-gay" probably would be quite happy to own slaves
"[...]The behavior of the pro-Zwarte Piet hooligans you're defending [...]"
How am I defending them? I am calling them out as scum. These are the same people turning violent on the police in Rotterdam a month ago because football was not allowed to have public in the stadiums. They are out for the kicks and are looking to amuse themselves in this way.
If you have a good solution for dealing with scum, please share.
>"You DARE bribe Santa?! I'm gonna shove coal so far up your stocking, you'll be coughing up diamonds!" ―Robot Santa Claus
>"I know he is, but I have no choice. I'm already running late, and if I don't complete my BRUTAL rampage, well, it just wouldn't be Xmas." ―Robot Santa Claus
>"Nice try! But my head was built with paradox absorbing crumple zones." ―Robot Santa Claus
>"Your mistletoe is no match for my TOW missile!" ―Robot Santa Claus
>"Time to get jolly on your naughty asses!" ―Robot Santa Claus
>It is unknown how Robot Santa enacts surveillance upon the entire population of Earth but it is probable that he uses "Mom's Old Fashioned Surveillance Unit".
>Robot Santa was scammed out of his "Naughtiness List" in "Bender's Big Score" and this made him quite upset because he wanted to cause discontent with the information on the List.
>Robot Santa Claus has a bunch of Native Neptunians working in his workshop on Neptune but the Neptunians can be confused with Elves because they're underfed due to not turning a profit because Santa doesn't give them a paycheck.
>He may have been inspired by the robot Santa seen in the Simpsons episode "Homer's Phobia"
>If you think about it, maybe the Robot Santa Claus is right to consider all the inhabitants of the earth as bad and not a programming error, since throughout the series you can see how in reality all the characters are selfish and bad. (This was worded terribly!)
>Due to him, Xmas has become warped from its original holiday meaning.
What's been very successful through history has been that new religions adapt, displace and take over old traditions. Midwinter celebrations to Christmas and so on, or why not jewish holidays given a new story in christianity while continuing to be celebrated at the same time of year or maybe even with the same food (originally).
If one is optimistic, this "depth" of traditions surrounding christmas or maybe other holidays give them a bigger meaning, it can encompass all the different traditions at once.
And even in American culture, there's a certain famous poem from a few decades before the Civil War involving a jolly white bearded St Nicholas with a sack of presents on his back and a sleigh with reindeer, ironically acknowledged by the article itself.
I think this and many other comments on this article are taking the article the wrong way. The article isn't asserting that Nast created the image of Santa Claus for everyone on Earth but only in the US. This might be wrong as well -- Nast perhaps took an image, or elements of various images, that were present in many locations in the US and popularized them -- but people are presenting evidence of the depiction of Santa Claus/Father Christmas/Saint Nick/Sion Corn/Sinterclas/etc. in other countries as contradicting the thesis of the article. It is an article in an American magazine for an American audience and it discusses the depiction of this entity in the US before and after Nast's influence. Evidently the author should have been more explicit on this point, but I expect she didn't think people would take it as they have. The "we" should refers to her assumed audience, is other people in the US, the sort of people who subscribe to Smithsonian. When she says the "the image we have today" she doesn't mean any disrespect to other cultures; she is just assuming her audience is Americans, that they will know she has this assumption, and that therefore she is talking about American culture, not global culture.
I'd say that the red and white colours scheme is much older than Coca Cola.
The American Santa Claus is believed to be mostly based on the Dutch "Sinterklaas" (Saint Nicholas) tradition, in which he is depicted as wearing a red cape and bishop's mitre over a white robe.
_-_Sv._Mikul%C3%A1%C5%A1.jpg){kind=link}
https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/a-pictorial-histor...