05 December 2005

By Nellie Day

Charles Drummond of The Harvard Crimson reported on a unique event that encompasses an all-too-familiar controversy. The issue at hand: whether it is appropriate to rename things many traditionally associate with Christmas, such as “Christmas” parties or cards, to something more ethnically and religiously inclusive, such as “holiday” parties and “holiday” cards.

Drummond captured the controversy surrounding the plethora of December’s religious celebrations that has recently boiled over from the department store windows to the public forum. The issue seems to have taken on a life of its own in a region that spans from Massachusetts’ Beantown to Nova Scotia, Canada. According to the Crimson, every year Nova Scotia meticulously selects and ships a tree to Boston as an act of appreciation for the assistance the city provided to Halifax, the Canadian province’s capital, in December 1917, when thousands of Halifax citizens had been injured or killed after two ships exploded near the Canadian port.

Nova Scotia had always considered the gift of gratitude to be that of a Christmas tree, and until last month, there was little argument in either country about this. As the tree lighting date neared, however, Boston’s Department of Parks and Recreation changed the spruce’s official name from a “Christmas tree” to a “holiday tree.” Many Christians, not to mention Canadians, were outraged. Drummond does a great job of explaining how the word Christmas is significant to the Canadians, because they believe that’s exactly what they’re sending Boston, a Christmas tree. He also clearly articulates why those involved in the traditional gift-giving are upset, noting that the logger who chopped down the tree would never have done it had he known his country’s gift would be renamed. Lastly, Drummond presents the sources from both countries as intelligent people, which, judging by the reasons they state for their outrage, they are.

Yet even after all of this, Drummond’s piece still leaves readers wanting more. Clearly, no one should expect Drummond to solve the issue of what Americans should call the time period between Thanksgiving and New Year’s. However, what he could have done was stretch beyond the “Christmas is in December, therefore this is the Christmas season” argument that is displayed through his piece’s talking heads.

The citizens of Boston seem to recognize that, yes, there is more than one religious holiday during the month of December, and yes, those holidays do deserve acknowledgment by America as well. But Drummond classifies this as a “controversy over the role of religion in municipal holiday celebrations,” instead of as an idiomatic, but nevertheless significant, argument over whether it is appropriate to rename a gift that has gone by the same name for the past 34 years (when Nova Scotia started this tradition). It is understandable that the Canadians would be offended that Boston would choose to promote its gift under a different name than it was given. It is also understandable that Boston chose the new name out of respect for other religions and holidays. However, what is not understandable is why Drummond would spend so much time hyping the jabs that many Bostonians and Canadians take at the name change instead of looking at the issue of the name change itself.