Xmas

Lee Jakeman

As long as it's got nothing to do with political correctness ...

verity

Xmas is a perfectly acceptable way of spelling it. It was already in wide use by the early 15th Century. The X is the Greek Chi (pronounced in a word as K) and is the initial of Christ. It's even spelled thusly in the Gutenburg Bible. So you're not doing anything particularly daring, rebellious or dismissive.

Self-Confident Jew

Oh for goodness sake, Stephen. Are you British or not? If you are a British Jew, then, come the end of the year, you celebrate Hannukah AND Christmas. Okay? It doesn't mean you believe that Jesus was the Messiah. It just means that when in Rome, you do like the Romans. So stop being so silly, and get OVER it already! As one yid to another, let me tell you: call it Christmas, celebrate it, enjoy it, and spend your mental energies on more useful issues.

Lawrence Auster

The decadence of Britain is shown in this, that Stephen Pollard, writing in a British "conservative" magazine, feels perfectly comfortable expressing his contempt for the majority religion of Britain. So sure is Pollard that the Christians themselves don't care any more about their own religion, that he feels that nobody will object to his obnoxious comment, the sort of comment that in previous generations would not have been made in any publication, let alone a "conservative" one.

Verity

There was an unpleasant feel about Stephen's post, which is why I pointed out that the usage that he imagined, in his ignorance, was dismissive - "Xmas" - with the Greek Xi having been in use in England for 500 years. Possibly longer than Stephen's family has been here. It isn't a construct of Selfridges' copywriters or ignorant louts. It is a respectful usage, so thanks for using it, Stephen.

Verity

Another thing, for your future reference, Stephen, it is not a "Christmas lunch". It is a "Christmas dinner", despite being eaten in the middle of the day. That is our tradition. Try to think of it as similar to an American "Thanksgiving dinner" - also eaten in the early afternoon, if that helps. By the way, it's "make hey" not hay. I don't blame you for your error, though, as you have no folk memory of our language. This post of yours has been most revealing.

Martin Morgan

"No folk memory of our language". I'm not sure that you understand how language works, Verity. Now run off an measure some skulls, or whatever. Merry Xmas to you, Stephen, and a Happy New Year!

Verity

Martin Morgan - I'm not sure you understand how irony works. Perhaps you should spend less time lecturing fellow commenters and try to write with clarity? I am baffled by "Run off and measure some skulls". This is clearly meant to be a killer point, but it's a trifle opaque.

Joshua

I have absolutely no intention of ever celebrating the birth of someone whose followers have been responsible for countless centuries of the most vicious persecution of my people. To celebrate the birth of that individual is beyond anything else to spit in the faces of the many thousands of Jews who have gone to the stake or submitted to the wrath of some murderous Christian peasant rather than convert to Christianity. Naturally, there will always be Jews who won't feel comfortable unless they are kissing the nearest gentile's ass or celebrating his religious festivals, but history has taught us exactly what happens to such people and their families; the Shoah actually had its genesis in the one nation in Europe where Jews were almost perfectly assimilated both culturally and socially. Oh, and given Britain collaborated in the Holocaust, acted in a manner in post-war Palestine that would have done credit to the SS, and is currently at the very centre of the storms of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that are sweeping through Europe, the Jewish citizens of that nation do not owe it one solitary thing beyond the usual loyalty. It is more than enough that the Jews of Britain have paid their taxes, fought in Britain's wars, donated vast sums to her charities, and contributed incalculably to virtually every single area of life that really matters.

Verity

Stephen, in response to your additional paras above: The celebration of the birth of Christ is important to 2.5bn Christians around the world. It is not a secular festival and posting it as such will not make it so. I believe the generosit of its inclusiveness of its appeal speaks well of the spirit Christianity. I have spent Christmasses in muslim countries, where they join in with great enthusiasm. The boat is firmly pushed out. The decorations, the Christmas music, the elevated spirit of goodwill all speak of a major force for good. No one seems to feel their islamicness is diminished by joining in. In your mean-spirited post, you wanted to be sure that we all understood that you were attending your in-laws' "Xmas lunch" with your fingers crossed behind your back. When I pointed out that the spelling of Xmas thusly has been common for 500 years, you affected to know that, but from the context of your original post, I believe that you did not. No offence, but your post came across as mean-spirited and hostile and I was not alone in noticing this.

Richard Brown

Martin, 'Britain collaborated in the Holocaust'. I thought the British fought the Nazis. Jews have made a great contribution to Britain but that is because they have been allowed to. If they had remained in Eastern Europe they would have suffered the same fate as the rest of their bretheren. Antisemitism is on the increase in the UK, although not as much as it is in France, but it aint the native Brits who are at the forefront is it?

Jim

Stephen -- You claim not to have been expressing contempt for Christianity, but why did you say you used the spelling Xmas "deliberately" unless you meant that it did not, like "Christmas", contain the word "Christ"? Why are you "happy" to join in only now that Xmas (see Verity's comments) has become entirely secular? It hasn't: it remains a central festival of Britain's -- and Europe's -- majority religion. Christianity certainly has its faults, like all religions, but we owe it much more than many of its enemies presently realize.

Anthony

Dear Mr. Pollard, I was originally thinking of writing that I thought that you were a putz and a moron. But that’s not very nice because you can’t help yourself. I’ll get to my points minus the well deserved insults, relying on the better angels of my nature to guide me. I'll be both sad and glad when Ramadan is the majority religion in your decaying country. That's what you narcissists are mightily laboring towards, no? I’m afraid it is clear to most with eyes that England is dead, and the only hope is that only such a calamity is the last hope of saving your country from itself and people like you. If the de-Christianization of England is not an intentional effort, the net result will be just the same, a spiritual death which could destroy Western Civilization. In its vacuum, an alien, but exotic and therefore acceptable religious majority who would just love to get their hands on unscrupulous, intellectual wannabes, and anti-establishment-God nihilists such as you, is obviously waiting in the wings. Does that cause you to lose sleep, or is it just Santa? I don’t hear you crusading against that particular group of peaceful anti-secularists, but cowardice is a hallmark of the liberal. Oh darn me; I nearly slid down the slippery slope to blatant ad hominem attacks. I need to keep them subtle, I do apologize. To my main reason for writing and for your edification Mr. Pollard, "X-Mas"isn't really an attempt to "X" Christ out of Christmas. As you must know being smart and wearing glasses and all that, in Greek, "X" is the letter "chi," the first letter of "Christ" and a commonly abbreviated way the early Christians referred to Christ. So it would appear that in a way, you shot yourself in the foot. As you are a self proclaimed foot soldier of the Left, stationed at the Ministry of Truth, doing battle against Christianity on behalf of Liberalism under the camouflage of secularism, I’m sorry your childish and ignorant, attempt to do battle against Christmas was based on faulty intelligence. Regards, Anthony from NYC

Ross

I don't really understand the reaction to what seems like an innocuous comment. The use of Xmas as opposed to Christmas is presumably to emphasise that it is the secular aspect of the holiday that he is taking part in as opposed to the religious. It's possible that Xmas isn't the right word to use for that distinction, but the dual role of Christmas as a Christian religious festival and as a secular celebration is real and has been for centuries.

Caryl Johnston

Disgusting and intellectually dishonest, which shows how trivializing the modern english-speaking intellect has become. Instead of honestly dealing with Christmas and spelling it with the Name of the one it honors, Pollard trashes both it and honest intellectual discourse. For shame, Spectator!

RHK

Ross has made about the only sensible comment on here. Welcome to Christmas (my preferred spelling), Stephen, whether the religious observance of those who persist in this archaic mindset, or the Dickensian festival of midwinter general good will of us secularists. Hope you don't feel to insulted at being mistaken for a liberal by Anthony of NY. :) As for Joshua, I hope and pray (in my secular way) that I am not anti-Semitic, but if anything could make me one, it would be his appalling bigotted rants.

Tiberius

Turkey sandwich, anyone?

Tyrone Slothrop

Wow! This is some serious insanity. The post was fine and it was not offensive. I've celebrated both x-mas and christmas over the years (the capitalization is for verity). What is very funny and a tad frightening are some of the posts. The saddest crime here has been against the English language and descriptions of that language. First, verity tells us a bit about Greek, though their phonology seems a bit off. To claim that something is "pronounced in a word as K" tells us really not nearly enough (it is indeed misleading). In English, a language verity may be familiar with, and in my dialect, we have both an aspirated and an unaspirated voiceless velar stop [kh] and [k]—the alternation is relatively predictable; with the aspirated form coming word initial and the unaspirated form coming after the extrasyllabic /s/ (for example), and . Note that word final in some dialects we find [k’] as well! Notice that the oral cavity shifts when a different vowel is introduced and . All of this is straightforward phonology and has to do with the allophonic variation found in the phoneme /k/ (note that a phoneme is an abstraction of a clustering of realized or potentially realized allophonic sounds within given morphophonological environments or phonotactics). It does, however, suggest the rather naïve view of language that is being put forth by verity (hardly!) with blissful ignorance. Perhaps verity’s “folk memory” of their language is a wee peccable?

Christiane

Remind me to write a contemptuous post about Hanukkah.

markc

Wow, great post.

How to make friends and influence people, etc. It's bad enough that you call us Gentiles still. Leave Christmas alone, just as we leave your days alone. I doubt you'd feel very pleased if we attempted to secularise the Passover (sorry, P-over), and boast about it around the place.

As for Joshua: I hope you are just mean-spirited satire, and not for real. The Shoah was not Britain's fault - we are not responsible for the fact that you didn't fight it - and the idea that we should be anything other than revolted at Israel's bombing campaign in British Palestine is pathetic. Mind you, you reap what you sow. I guess the Palestinian campaigns tell you that clearly enough.

Lawrence Auster

I earlier missed Stephen Pollard's reply to my comment. He wrote: "UPDATE: So much for the Xmas spirit. There were some very tetchy and, frankly, weird comments sent on this post. I couldn't allow a couple to be posted, so vile were their antisemitic words. "Lawrence Auster accuses me of expressing my contempt for the majority religion of Britain and describes the post as obnoxious. I'd be grateful, Lawrence, if you could point to one mention of Christianity above, let alone an expression of contempt for it. As I say: weird. I simply wrote that I am happy to join in a big national secular festival, which Xmas has now become. How is that construed as my expressing contempt for Christianity?" But of course Mr. Pollard had started out his original post by saying: "Apparently today is some sort of holiday. In which case, Happy Xmas." And now he denies having expressed any contempt for Christianity, because, he says, he never "mentioned" Christianity. I confess to being stunned by Mr. Pollard's audacity. I can't think offhand of another occasion when a by-lined writer has said such a low and brazenly dishonest thing. He expressed his total contempt for Christmas and Christianity, and now, like a little boy in a school yard, denies having done what he has so obviously done. Astonishingly, he even complains of the lack of "Xmas spirit" in some of the replies to his blog entry. But what is this "Xmas spirit" he's referring to? Of course he's talking about the Christmas spirit, and thus about Christianity. But so low is Pollard that he denies having even referred to Christianity, even as he expresses his contempt for it. Then he continues: "But my wife's family has, like many other Jews, always done a big secular Xmas. So, at the age of 43, I am about to have my first proper Xmas lunch. "Given that Xmas—I use that spelling deliberately—is now an entirely secular festival, I'm pleased to be able to join in.)" In every sentence, Mr. Pollard is of course referring to Christianity, but, having changed its name to "Xmas" (which in his ignorance he thinks is a secularized version of the name), he now says he can join in the festivities. Meaning he's happy that Christmas and Christianity have been stripped of their meaning and changed into something other than what they are. In the manner of a totalitarian, he strips the thing he wants to destroy of its identity prior to destroying it, so that when he proceeds to destroy it, he can deny that he's destroyed anything at all. If a community or ethnic/religious group does not condemn its own members who are engaging in hateful behavior toward another religion, then that bad person's behavior can reasonably be seen as the behavior of that community. I urge Jewish readers of this blog to join me in condemning Stephen Pollard's hateful anti-Christian behavior.

Michael Lewis

I suspect that most of the amazingly strident comments are from people who were referred to (sicked on to ?) your site - surely not your regular readers! You made a whimsical remark about your new family's holiday (small h) custom of lunching together on 25th Dec - possibly the use of "without religion" as opposed to "secular" might have been more accurate, and so as NOT to insult those for whom this is a Holy day, and from your not feeling comfortable using the "C" word, you chose the popular, more bland "X" one. I saw the comments at the very start and was thinking of a "silly" comment that you had commenced backsliding with this new, to you, custom but I thought that the comments would go no further and held off. Looks like there are lot of people desperate to be insulted!

Mark Jaworowski

As someone born of a Jewish mother and now a practicing and devout Catholic, I did take offense in Mr. Pollard's remarks trivializing a sacred holiday to millions of us Christians in the West. What I found so contemptible about secularists such as Pollard is that they treat Islam, a truly imposing religion, with kid gloves. Let me paraphrase the prophetic words of the great Catholic historian, Hellaire Belloc - "Europe without the faith, is no longer Europe." It would be nice if we could offer you secularists a glimpse of what Europe would have been like without the influence of Christianity on the soul of the European. Secularists point out only the excesses of the past without even considering the good Christianity is responsible for.

dimitri

The form of the expression matters. It's like saing in the other people's wedding that you're glad they will be fu...ng and you are ready to join tham if they would like. Technically, it is correct, and maybe that's the language you usually speak with your friends, but it's hardly appropriate for congratulating the bride.

Verity

Tyrone Slothrop, I managed to stay awake through the yawn-a-thon of your explanations of "my dialect", but it took an effort of will, because eminent scholars of Ancient Greek - which bears the same passing resemeblance to modern Greek as does Old English to modern-day English - I believe, reached their conclusions from reading ancient Greek poetry and collating what was deemed, at the time, to rhyme with what. Stephen has has now gone overtly hostile in his new post at the top of the page, insisting that the celebration of 2.5bn people of the birth of Christ is as nothing compared with his insistence that Christmas is a secular holiday. What is it about the birth of Christ and its celebration by Christians that infuriates him so? He cannot leave it alone. I wonder why? Joshua is very much over-the-top, but still, he is honest about his dislike of us and he is entitled to his feelings and he hasn't tried to dress them up as an amusing (soi-disant) anecdote. I respect him for that. Stephen then moved on to a slyer approach (in the new post at the top of today's page), hoping again to persuade 2.bn Christians that Christmas is now a "secular festival". He professes surprise that people sprang to the defence of Christmas, yet had written with deliberate provocation that he believed "that today is some kind of a holiday". He made an issue of spelling Xmas thusly, unaware that this is an ancient and respectful tradition. Well, at least we're in no doubt that Stephen Pollard loathes Christianity. I don't think anyone cares, but he came rolling into Christmas day with the subtlety of a Soviet tank. Michael Lewis sniffs loftily: "Looks like there are lot of people desperate to be insulted!" Mr Lewis, just a guess: Were you a little suck-up at school?

Lawrence Auster

Your software has eliminated the paragragh breaks in my last comment. Can you please restore them? My comment is long, and without paragraph breaks it is difficult to read and follow.

palmer

Please bring back Mark Steyn and get rid of this pillock, sorry pollard.

Tyrone Slothrop

verity, You obviously missed the point. To argue that something is "pronounced as K" is misleading and it is certainly bad linguistics. In English, as is well known, there are a series of allophonic relations for the phoneme /k/, those allophonic relations do not overlap identically with the phonotactics or allophonic relations of other languages and their phonological inventories. This is, perhaps, the single most basic fact of phonological research. Arguments that something is pronounced as something in another language are misleading. IS the K an aspirated (kin) or unaspirated (skin) velar voiceless stop? Is it an ejective voiceless velar (as in dick)? My problem is that you clearly do not have the basic understanding of phonology and yet you are completely willing to make naive and misleading assertions. If you are so lax concerning straight-forward linguistic details, what else are you lax in? For an interesting discussion of some of the problems in cross language comparisons of phonemes, see: Port, Robert and Leary, Adam. 2005. “Against Formal Phonology.” Language. 81(4): 927-964. For a straight-forward example of the problems with voiceless velar stops across languages see: McDonough, Joyce and Ladefoged, Peter.1993. “Navajo Stops.” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics. 84. 151-164. On why you make assertions about topics you do not understand, see: Youself. I do hope you had a merry christmas. I did.

Tyrone Slothrop

By the way, verity states, "Ancient Greek- which bears the same passing resemeblance [sic] to modern [sic] Greek as does Old English to modern-day English -" This claim is obviously false. Old English and Modern English have different resemblances and differences than do Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. This is true because they have different sociohistorical trajectories. Languages change in different ways and because of different influences. Those influences are often extralinguistic. Obviously, 1066 and 1492 (as two rough and ready dates that represent complex historical events) had profound influences on the English language we speak today. They had infinitely less influence on Modern Greek. One wonders if Greek went through a Great Vowel Shift that was identical to the one that took place in English? The answer, obviously, is no. What profound ignorance to claim that Ancient Greek bears “the same passing” resemblance “to” Modern “Greek as does Old English to modern-day English.” Here again you are ignorant on the topics of basic phonology and on matters of historical linguistics, yet you blithely make assertions about both! If you care so little for being precise and being responsible about the languages that we speak, what else are you so careless about?

Grahame Priest

Well, I for one didn't read anything other than a little tongue-in-cheek humour in Stephen's post. “Apparently today is some sort of holiday....” made me smile. As if anyone could miss it! I'm nominally Christian, being baptised but remaining unconfirmed by choice. My parents were practicing Christian and I even did my stint as a choirboy in the village church. In some ways I represent the reason why Christmas has become secularised as a festival. I don't go to church, even on Christmas day but still celebrate it. If anyone had the brass cojones to arrogantly suggest that I've abrogated my right to do so, they'd be offensively wrong. Christmas is a traditional festival and its message is both ubiquitous and valuable. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men; a time to put others before ourselves; a time to reflect on how we live our lives and what's important to us; a time for families, happiness, children and sharing. So what's the difference between Stephen and myself? Stephen was brought up in a Jewish tradition. He may or may not be a practicing Jew, that's his choice, but if he celebrates Christmas as a secular festival, he's doing nothing more or less than millions of others of all faiths do every year. Christmas is almost unique in its appeal and ability to reach out across religious divides and traditions. Its most important message perhaps lays in something unspoken, something though we can all feel and share. Simply this, that no matter what our traditions and our faiths, there is something that can bind us all together in common humanity, care, regard and respect for each other as human beings. That's something in precious short supply these days, so happy Christmas Stephen (or Xmas if you prefer). It's a pleasure to share with you.

Hugh

It's dishonest to pretend you're baffled that this has provoked some people. If you use a word (Xmas) in practically every sentence people are entitled to assume you're trying to make a point. And describing it as "an entirely secular festival" is obviously going to irritate those thousands or millions of people for which it is not. It's also inaccurate.

lucysharp

I've never liked Xmas as a word, mainly because it sounds so weird - Exmas? Chi-mas? Kissmas? And I would celebrate Yule even if I were not a believer. What I don't think is true is that Christianity necessarily creates a hatred of Jews. The very strict Nonconformist Christian sect in which my mother was brought up taught that the Jews were the chosen people of the Lord God, that their refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah was a sacred mystery and therefore not blameworthy, and that on the Day of Wrath they would be the only people going to heaven apart from the members of the Clark Street Gospel Hall. Jewish people were regarded with a sort of awe. Admittedly, it was a tiny sect and didn't last long, but I think its heart was in the right place. I was quite startled, this year, to get a Christmas card from my only Jewish friend, who is Orthodox. I apologised for not having sent him one, having supposed that it would be unwelcome. He said, kindly, that he would have accepted it in the spirit in which it was intended, and that he had sent a card knowing how much this time of year meant to me and wanting to acknowledge that. I wish I knew how to reciprocate that generosity of spirit.

archie wedderspoon

I must say I was astonished at some of the invective which has poured forth. I'm a practising Catholic and I found nothing to take on about in what you said.

Max Kaye

Verity, you mentioned "make hey". I always thought the expression was to 'make hay' - as in 'to make hay while the sun shines' - as it's hard to make it [hay] when it's wet. Please explain.

To everyone else here: I still can't believe grown up people in the West take the subject of religion so seriously. I hope some radical Christian or Jew whom I've offended doesn't take it upon him/herself to seek paradise by emulating their muslim brethren by slitting my throat and pining a note to my chest telling everyone that this is what happens to infidels. Do Jewish and Christian 'martyrs' get 72 virgins? No... 50? Maybe 24? Hmmm... I guess it doesn't work for celibate priests. I've never had one myself [no - not a priest!]. Are they any good?

One of the best Christmas celebrations apparently took place in Bethlehem. Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks fought a pitched battle, bashing each other over the heads with broomsticks. Monty Python couldn't have made it up.

Happy New Year everyone!

Verity

Max Kaye writes,inexplicably: "I hope some radical Christian or Jew whom I've offended doesn't take it upon him/herself to seek paradise by emulating their muslim brethren by slitting my throat and pining a note to my chest telling everyone that this is what happens to infidels." Have you ever known this to happen in the history of either religion? Have you ever known an adherent of either religion refer to "infidels"? You seem militantly ignorant. Get an etymological dictionary. I'm not explaining usage to someone with such arcane notions of language.

Max Kaye

Verity, Religious killings by Christian and Jews are, thankfully, rare in this day and age (although murders of abortion clinic workers by militant 'pro-lifers' and political killings by extreme messianic Jews are not an unknown phenomena).

In less enlightened times heretics (aka 'infidels' - see below) were stoned (Old Testament instructions) and burned at the stake (more festive, maybe?). Besides, according to the letter of the Law, one doesn't have to be a heretic to warrant a death sentence: A bit of light gardening on the Sabbath is a good enough excuse.

My various dictionaries refer to infidel as a 'heathen: a person who does not acknowledge your god'; and, 'literally, "one without faith", one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion, especially those regarding its deities. More generally, an infidel is one who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.'

Pope Urban II, launching the first crusade, said
"The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom... The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war."

I'm not sure I'd call myself 'militantly ignorant'. My knowledge and learning may only be partial (in itself a 'dangerous thing' I'm sure), but 'ignorant' no. As for 'militant' - I'm not sure about that either. I'm far too laid back to be militant about anything much. How about 'resolute' in my intention to ridicule any system of belief that reveres and worships an all-powerful and omniprescient supernatural being who cares whether or not I have bacon for breakfast or, in the marvelous words of Ian Anderson, 'wind him up on Sundays'?

Childish of me? Probably. But great fun.

(Oh, and as for etymological dictionaries, what does yours say about 'making hay/hey'? - Go on, be a sport!)

James Forsyth

Firstly i don't understand the blatant outrage felt by many of the sadder and madder posters on this blog for what Stephen Pollard has written above, it is a perfectly simple statement that he intends to have Christmas Dinner for the first time. Yet some people seem to interpret this as contempt for Christianity and are blatantly anti-semitic. I attend a Catholic church every week and i regularly switch between using the terms Xmas and Christmas, I have also had both Atheist and Jewish friends round to Xmas Dinner and never have i felt an ounce of regret for any of these things. Some people are either just stupid or mentally deranged.

Margaret Evans

James Forsythe doesn't understand why people are offended by Pollard's post? Well, let me explain it to you, James. In proclaiming "Xmas" an "entirely secular festival," Pollard has not only crossed out the name of Christ (and done so "intentionally,") but has chosen to ignore, or deny, the fact that, for billions of people worldwide, Christmas is, indeed, a holy day. Let's stop pretending that we don't understand the arrogance and insult of this flippant statement, people. If you're really as intellectual and sophisticated as you purport to be, surely you're smart enough to get that.

I invite you all to the American south, where Christmas is alive and well.

Tyrone Slothrop

Verity, you state, "You seem militantly ignorant. Get an etymological dictionary. I'm not explaining usage to someone with such arcane notions of language." This is very funny, considering that you have shown a profound ignorance concerning both phonology and historical linguistics. It appears that you have not the slightest background concerning linguistics and yet you continue to make utterly spurious claims concerning languages. That you care little about facts, that you care little about truth, that you care little about having a basic understanding of topics you engage in, seems clear. Not to point out the obvious, but given your utter disregard for a basic understanding for linguistics--a topic you have made numerous false claims concerning (basic misleading and false claims)--compounded with an arrogance of ignorance, why should anyone trust anything that you write? Why are the critics of Pollard so clearly under-educated?