The True Nature of American Christmas. When It Started and Why It Sucked.

                In the US we tend to view Christmas as sacred and far reaching.  We picture our ancestors decorating Christmas trees by candle-light, giving gifts of dirt (or whatever they had way back then), and caroling at random like a bad old-timey episode of Glee.  We picture women in outfits that include things like bustles and bonnets and muffs (ha!) leaving their homes to spread Christmas cheer by taking baked goods and oranges to neighbors, and we picture men constructing rocking horses and reading Bible passages near a fire.  It is normal now to hear our 21^st century Christmas customs of elbowing old ladies in the face for the last Furby, shopping until we vomit on Thanksgiving, and going into credit card debt to buy enough booze to make our families tolerable derided as a departure from the “true nature of Christmas”.  We are reminded by political pundits and regular assholes to “put the Christ back in Christmas!” and that it is somehow unpatriotic to say “Happy holidays”.  

LIES!

All of it—lies!  So let’s take a brief look at the history of American Christmas celebration.  If only to shut up that obnoxious uncle bitching about this “sacred American institution” and how it’s been perverted. 

                The earliest Anglo-American colonies were settled by Puritans on the East Coast of the United States as early as the late sixteenth century (the 1500s for those that aren’t good with the whole numbered century thing).  Puritans believed in strict adherence to divine law in every aspect of life.  They saw all humans as depraved sinners, saved only by the grace of god, which was predestined.  This predestination did not translate, as logic would sort of dictate, to people doing whatever they wanted since their eternal salvation or damnation was already written regardless.  The reason for this was that Puritans believed only those that were pious enough and lived as righteously as possible could be predestined for salvation.  This led the Puritans to a stodgy existence without alcohol, with sex prohibited most of the time even for married couples, and dancing outlawed until Kevin Bacon rode in on his unicorn and saved the day.  Strict Biblical adherence was what the Puritans strove for and the more important part of the Bible, according to Puritans was the Old Testament.  If it wasn’t in the Bible, it wasn’t a thing.  And this affected how Puritans felt about Christmas. 

               Christmas in the Old World up until the seventeenth century (1600s) was celebrated on a much smaller scale than it is today.  More important, for most people anyway, was the twelve days of Christmas, which were celebrated with Christmas as day one and into January with feasting, drinking, gambling, the closing of businesses, etc.  Puritans saw all of this as excess.  Furthermore, Puritans also saw these celebrations as anti-Christian.  This view led to Christmas being outlawed in most American colonies.  For example, in 1659

Massachusetts Bay outlawed the holiday and imposed a five shilling fine on anyone found to celebrate it.  Not all colonies banned the holiday—in Virginia Christmas was celebrated often with hunting and gambling (and drinking-- If only to make the fact that they were living in Virginia tolerable for at least a day).  However, the family friendly holiday that we know and love today was not celebrated in any recognizable way in the early colonies. 

               So why didn’t the Jesus-loving, Scripture-adhering Puritans want to celebrate the birth of Jesus?  Well, because they didn’t believe that Christmas was the birth of Jesus.  And, if we’re to believe the historical record and what we know of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus—brace yourselves-- they were right.  Jesus was said to have been born in a manger while enroute to the land of Joseph’s birth for a census called by Augustus.  Census occurred in August.  Not December.  So what the shit is Christmas then?  Well, Christmas, as a holiday in December anyway, was a tactic for conversion.  

Let me explain. 

                In the earliest days of Christianity Christians were trying to convert the world at a time when polytheistic religions featuring many human like gods were the norm.  These gods were fun—they did things like drink wine, have sex, abduct people, feed them to sea monsters, etc—to convert people to a religion of good works and turning the other cheek took work.  At this time societies were agricultural and lived based on the agricultural year.  This didn’t mean constant work day in and day out until you died, the work was hard and back-breaking, yes, but there were long periods of leisure as well.  Winter was especially good to ancient farmers—there was no planting to be done, the harvest was already in, and the weather was conducive to slaughtering animals and preserving their meat at a time long before Frigidaire.  So festivals occurred.  And of these festivals that celebrating the Winter Solstice was the most popular and the most fun.  

                One of the most studied of these ancient festivals, and the one that would have existed alongside Christianity, is the ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia.  Saturnalia was a fucking blast.  New Orleans on Fat Tuesday has

nothing on Rome in late December.  Festivities started around the 17^th or 21^st and lasted about a week.  The festivities would begin with an animal sacrifice to Saturn and feasting would occur from then on out with slaves being waited on by their masters.  Gambling was especially popular and wine would have to be allotted throughout the year for use during the Saturnalia festivities as everyone—seriously, everyone—would be plastered for the duration.  The festivities would culminate in a celebration of the coming of the new year and the birth of the sun on December 25 (ish—because ancient calendars are awkward) as the days began to get longer (because the sun was back) after the solstice (the shortest day of the year).  So early Christians absorbed this holiday and this ritual as the birth of their SON—the birth of Christ—in order to keep the Pagans engaged and keep the holiday festivities.  

*Note:  Don’t send me emails about this.  I realize that this is a touchy subject.  This is the interpretation of the holiday based on the historical record, what we know of Jesus and the writings we have from early Christians.  If you choose to disregard this and believe that Jesus was born on December 25 during a census that happened in August and in a manger during winter, that’s fine.  But don’t be a dick. 

               So Puritans, as well as some other Christians, saw Christmas celebrations for what they were-- throwbacks to Pagan festivities with no Biblical basis.  In fact, Increase Mather (who could be a blog subject all on his own) had this to say about Christmas and its origins:   "profane and superstitious custom… because the Heathens Saturnalia was at the time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian”.  Writing in 1687 as one of the most prolific ministers in the early American colonies (perhaps eclipsed eventually only by his son, Cotton), his view of Christmas can be taken as indicative of prevailing Puritan sentiment.  So on Christmas Day, life went on as usual—people worked, they tended to their animals, they went to church only if it was a normally scheduled meeting day—it was just another day.  

So what of the dude in the red suit?  The gifts, the tree, the ornaments, the crippling credit card debt?  These were predominantly 19^th century creations.  The first mention of modern Santa Claus was in Clement Moore’s “An Account of a Visit From Saint Nicholas”, written in 1820 (catchy title, huh?  I bet he was great at parties).  In England, Christmas was reinstated in the 1660s, but it would be another two hundred years before that sentiment would return to the New World.  In 1843 British author Charles Dickens wrote and published “A Christmas Carol”.  How much this one event molded the Christmas celebrations we know today cannot be overstated.  Dickens cast Christmas as a holiday centered around family and children rather than a somber religious observance, as it had become over the last century in England.  Almost immediately the holiday became transformed by merchants.  Seeing the growing popularity of Christmas celebrations merchants shifted focus from hunting, gambling, etc to children and goodwill (in the form of buying stuff for both children and the less fortunate).  As early as 1850 Harriet Beecher Stowe was complaining in writing that the true meaning of Christmas was lost amongst the shopping sprees.  Gift giving took center stage within about fifty years and the Christmas that we know today was born.

So you see, what we celebrate today as Christmas, has always really been about drinking, gambling, consumerism, family.  So don’t let that obnoxious uncle tell you otherwise.  When he starts to bitch, tell him TUH says to read his history. 

Happy Holidays! 

Think The Sons of Anarchy were badass? Try The Sons of Liberty....

                “The Sons of Liberty” is a name that gets thrown around a lot in high school history classes, arguments about American patriotism, and anytime an American wants to get a Brit riled up.  But who were they?  Why were they?  Did they spontaneously arise December 16, 1773 with a singular goal to throw tea in a harbor and fuck up the East Inida Company’s world?   Was their goal to start the American Revolution and show those dirty Brits whose boss?  

                The answer to all of the above is…. Not exactly…. 

                So, let’s explore who the Sons of Liberty were and why they were.  Because it’s important to American history, and whatever you learned in high school was probably wrong or incomplete or both-- and I’m on a one woman crusade to right all of the wrongs of high school history class.   Time to do what I do best—give you all a sexy and enlightening injection of knowledge—you lucky bastards…. 

                The Sons of Liberty were a group of workers and tradesmen in the American colony of Massachusetts, specifically Boston, originally called The Loyal Nine.  These were not the movers and shakers of Boston colony.  In eighteenth century America there was not an egalitarian society where workers were important and could make decisions.  We tend to forget this as Americans and see the colonial period, especially the events leading up to the Revolution, as an uprising of the common everyman.  This was only partially true.  Colonial society was highly stratified and mirrored, in a warped way, contemporary English society of the time.  Those in high places, including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, aspired to be thought of as English gentlemen.  But the Sons of Liberty weren’t English gentlemen or their American counterparts, they were the people that served the gentlemen beer, they made buggies, and repaired hats.  The Sons of Liberty organized under a shoemaker named Ebenezer McIntosh and their ranks eventually grew to nearly two thousand.  American legend has it that The Sons had some friends in high places, though-- Samuel Adams and John Adams, two very high class movers and shakers in colonial America—that helped to organize The Sons of Liberty.  This is arguable.  Very, very arguable.  But we’ll get back to this.  

                First organized in 1765 they began their protests in that year.  Usually their protests took aim at the taxation policies of British Parliament.  Parliament at the time was not the elected body that established policy that we think of it today.  For the most part, the Parliament was there to support the king and was predominantly comprised of landed British gentlemen—exactly what many of the upper class American colonists aspired to be.  Parliament did, however, establish taxation policy.  Taxes weren’t unusual to the colonies—we often envision a tax free paradise of colonies that ruled themselves and acted without interference from the crown.  This wasn’t true—don’t tell the new people calling themselves the Tea Party.  For much of the pre-Revolution history of what would become the United States, the colonies acted as good British (or Dutch, or French, or Spanish) subjects.  There were times where they got unruly, but more often than not they behaved themselves.  So what changed in 1765?  Why did this small group of tradesmen grow into a force to be reckoned with and then suddenly decide to hang an effigy of the tax collector (technically it was a stamp distributor) and then burn his house down in August of that year?   Why were tradesmen and workers, those usually too poor to really be effected by the taxes being imposed on the colonies, suddenly so enraged by these acts of Parliament? 

                Life was not going well for the colonies.  Sure they were pretty much over that whole starvation/bludgeoned to death by Natives thing (for the most part) but suddenly the colonies were thrust into international politics on a grand scale and the colonists were paying the price—literally.  The French and Indian War had concluded in 1759.  Memories of what the French and Indian War was is probably hazy for most people and includes memories of some stodgy teacher droning on and on about something having to do with war.  So, in short, the French and Indian War was a giant prick waving contest between Britain and France (there are MANY of these throughout history).  An extension of the Seven Years War, the French and Indian War is the name given to the part of the prick waving contest that took place in North America.  See, North America wasn’t always British, at one point France held the lion’s share of the New World (the northern part, anyway) with huge holdings extending from Canada, through what is today New York and Michigan and down to the Caribbean (New Orleans, anyone?).  There were British holdings but the vast majority of what the French held didn’t change hands until the end of the war.  Fighting the French was a costly endeavor and Britain had to pay the bill somehow.  Remember when I said Parliament was an elected body full of wealthy British land owners?  Yeah, well, they weren’t going to raise the money through traditional taxes, because traditional taxes were predominantly passed as land taxes.  Tale as old as time: No one votes to pass taxes on themselves.  So something new had to be figured out.  Enter: excise taxes.  

                Excise taxes are taxes passed on manufactured goods like sugar, tea, woven textiles, etc.  Parliament passed these taxes and the brunt of them fell on the colonies, along with heavier import duties under the theory that the French and Indian War was fought for the defense of the colonists and thus they should have to pay for it.  The colonists called bull-shit with a quickness.  They saw the war for what it was—a giant prick waving contest for empire expansion.  

                So The Sons were established on principle?  The whole no taxation without representation thing, amirite? 

                Yeah, no.  Not exactly.  It is very common for a global depression to hit shortly after major global powers end a war with one another, especially if these global powers are empires.  See: World War I.  The French and Indian War/Seven Years War was no different and at the conclusion, the world fell into a deep economic depression that the colonies were not exempt from.  As this depression began to take its toll, Parliament began passing these taxes.  Though the taxes were predominantly a problem of the elite, in the context of depression they were felt by the entire population.  To make matters worse, the colonists were well aware that the majority of these new taxes, including the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act and the Townsend Act, were really only levelled on the colonies—NOT on British subjects on the main-land.  Further, in 1764 Parliament abolished all forms of colonial currency.  This was not a bad idea, so much as it was bad timing.  In the colonies there was no one particular currency, everyone pretty much made their own currency with its own value and worth.  This was confusing and did not lend itself to international trade which was becoming increasingly involved in the colonial economies.  Something needed to change, but when Parliament abolished these and instituted new currency tied to the British Pound Sterling it threw the colonial economy into further chaos.  Then came the East India Company and the camel’s back was broken.  

                Tea was popular with everyone in the colonies.  The British drink tea.  That’s just a thing.  It just is.  The Tea Act was passed in 1773 as a government bail out to the East India Company.  The East India Company had found themselves in trouble due to some really complicated international goings on and some bad business investments.  Companies like this one were giant and often had their own militaries.  We think international corporations are bad today?  They got nothing, and I mean NOTHING, on the internationally chartered companies of the eighteenth century.  These companies not only raised armies, but chartered colonies, ran entire countries, and changed the course of international history to suit their financial needs.  So when they found themselves going bankrupt, the Brits determined them “too big to fail” and bailed them out.  But the Brits were broke, so instead of handing them cash, they instead handed them a monopoly on selling tea to the colonies.  Thus, the only tea allowed into the colonies was that imported, duty free, by the East India Company.  But those buying the tea still had to pay taxes.  Boycotts and violent protests flared almost immediately and then, in December 1773, the Boston Tea Party became a thing.  

                The Sons of Liberty entered history at this point.  Some dressed as Native Americans (Mohawks) and all boarded ships and dumped over three hundred chests of tea into the harbor in protest of the Tea Act.  So what’s with the guy that makes the beer?  Legend has it that Samuel Adams was the architect of the Boston Tea Party, but really, there’s little to no evidence of this.  Some historians argue that the legend is true and the lack of evidence is due to the fact that Adams couldn’t, as a British gentleman, have his name attached to such a group.  Others argue that these historians are just clinging to folklore.  It doesn’t matter, really, after the Tea Party Adams popularized the act of protest and backed the colonists up.  That’s what makes Adams an American patriot.  It’s also what tends to lend credence to the folks that claim he didn’t plan the protest—why not attach your name to something before and then attach your name to it after it’s even more dangerous to do so?  But I digress.  

                The Sons of Liberty weren’t planning a revolution.  They wanted an alleviation of the taxes that were killing their economy.  And the whole no taxation without representation thing?  It was a thing.  It wasn’t nearly as singularly important as high school history makes it sound though.  The representation part wasn’t what we make it seem—no one wanted to vote for the king or be able to enact legislation.  Upper class colonists wanted Parliamentary representation for a say in the taxes that were being leveled on them and zapping any chance of making profitable business ventures.  But unintended consequences being what they are, revolution did occur and The Sons of Liberty and their most famous party were instrumental.  The relationship between the crown and the colonies was irreparably damaged from the Tea Party onward and independence was won in 1783. 

America.  Fuck yeah!

What The Actual Fuck Happened To The Mary Celeste?

        On November 4, 1872 the Mary Celeste embarked from New York City to Genoa, Italy with a cargo of industrial alcohol (please don’t ask me what the hell that is).  However, on December 5, 1872 the Mary Celeste was found drifting about 400 miles east of the Azores in the Atlantic Ocean.   By this time, the ship should have been far past the Azores; the captain and crew of the Dei Gratia, the ship that initially spotted the Mary Celeste, observed the ship yawing and tatters in the sails.  After two hours of observation they boarded the ship, and shit instantly got weird. 

        Upon boarding the ship the crew of the Dei Gratia found the ship in relatively good condition—the ship was still adrift on something close to its planned route even.  Some things seemed out of place, for example, two pumps were disassembled and there was about three and a half feet of water on the ship’s bottom.  But what was weirder is what the crew didn’t find.  For example, they didn’t find any people.  The ten people that should have been aboard just weren’t.  There was enough good food and water aboard to sustain the vanished crew for around six months.  A couple naval sounding transport and navigation instruments were also missing (I’d name them, but, let’s be honest no one reading this knows what the fuck they are).  But the crew’s belongings and all of the 1,701 barrels of industrial alcohol were still on board (it would later be discovered that nine random barrels were empty, however), though the ship’s only lifeboat was gone.   Captain Briggs’ log was still on board also, the last entry being at around five am on November 25, wherein he stated that he had just spotted the Azores. 

          The captain and crew of the Mary Celeste were never seen or heard from again and most of the biggest questions remain unanswered.  Prominently, the question of why a serious and experienced sea captain would abandon a perfectly okay ship.  Not to mention the question of where the fuck everyone went after abandoning the aforementioned pretty okay ship. 

Here are my favorite theories about the fate of the Mary Celeste and her crew. 

   

1.)     Drunken Shenanigans!
 
The Theory:  Crew members, probably two German brothers that worked as deck hands, got drunk on the industrial alcohol, murdered the captain and the crew and then disappeared on the lifeboat.   

          Why It’s A Thing:   Two courts of inquiry were called, one in England under the vice admiralty court and a second led by Americans (because two of the missing crewmen were American).  The English inquiry reported that blood was found in the captain’s chamber and on an ornamental cutlass Capt Briggs had owned.  No other damage was really found on the ship and, once the ship was in port, it was found that nine barrels of alcohol were empty.  This theory does explain why everyone is missing.  It also explains the missing lifeboat and the missing navigational equipment, as well as the missing alcohol.  The German brothers were found to have no personal effects on the ship, leading many to surmise that they had taken them with them upon fleeing.   

       Why It’s Probably Not A Thing:  This theory is intriguing and it does explain away a lot of the weird shit aboard the ship.  However, it doesn’t explain why no food was taken, nor does it explain the complete lack of destruction on the ship itself.  Also, that blood that was found was contested by the American inquiry, who insisted that it was rust.  The barrels that were empty were made of a different wood than the rest of the barrels, this wood is more porous meaning there’s a possibility the barrels just leaked.  Researchers and even the descendants of the German brothers maintain that the reason no effects from the Germans were found was because the German brothers simply didn’t have anything, which wouldn’t be a strange concept as both were poor laborers.  

  

   

2.)    Pirates!
 
The Theory:  Pirates boarded the ship and killed or kidnapped nearly everyone. 

                Why It’s A Thing:  Well, a mystery ship devoid of people in the Atlantic tends to bring thoughts of pirates.  Pirates were still a very real thing in 1872.  Just two years before the Mary Celeste was found drifting, the United States Navy had fought the Battle of Teacapan against pirates running attacks in the Atlantic and Caribbean from the ship Forward.  So a lot of knee-jerk reaction involved pirates.  However, the theory of pirates in this case does start to diverge at some point.  The crew aboard the Dei Gratia was actually suspected of killing the captain and crew of the Mary Celeste in order to get the salvage rights to the ship and cargo.  Salvage rights were a weird thing, and continue to be.  Basically, if you find a ship that has been abandoned you can claim a right to part of the money that it was insured for.  The crew of Dei Gratia applied for this money but was only awarded a small amount, which is a good sign that the insurance company and inquiry court had their suspicions as to the part the Dei Gratia guys played in the fate of the Mary Celeste as well.

                Why It’s Probably Not A Thing:  The ship was in near pristine condition when it was found by the crew of the Dei Gratia.  Pirates tend to not be very neat and tidy.  According to those that boarded the ship, nothing seemed to be out of place including the very expensive load of alcohol the ship was carrying.  It doesn’t make sense that traditional pirates would have taken over the ship, killed everyone, not taken anything and then left the ship drifting.  As far as the crew of the Dei Gratia is concerned, the theory is implausible for the same reasons—the ship was too tidy, nothing was taken, etc.  One could argue that the crew could have cleaned up and wouldn’t have had a reason to take anything, however, it’s strange that a hostile take-over of a ship wouldn’t have at least produced some accidental damage.  Further, it was revealed that the captain of the Dei Gratia and Captain Briggs were good friends that had dined together just a couple nights before the Mary Celeste set sail.    

    

    3.)    Industrial Alcohol Vapors!

 
The Theory:  The barrels that the industrial alcohol was stored in allowed gas to leak out of the barrel causing Captain Briggs to fear that a spark would ignite the gas and blow the ship up once this leakage was made known.  Briggs ordered everyone into the life raft which was then somehow separated from the ship and all aboard drowned, starved or died of exposure. 

        Why It’s A Thing:  Captain Briggs had mentioned on multiple occasions that he was uncomfortable hauling such a large load of volatile stuff, and really you can’t blame him.  The vapors emitting from the alcohol are highly flammable at a very low heat.  The barrels were reinforced with metal and the cargo was not well secured in the hold causing the barrels to rub against each other.  It’s possible that these vapors could have built up to a point that when the hold was open a large gas cloud was emitted causing Capt Briggs and the crew to panic and head for the lifeboat.  A frayed rope hanging behind the ship lends some legitimacy to this as it could have been used to tie the lifeboat to the ship.  A large wave or other weather could have broken the rope and sent the lifeboat adrift.

        Why It’s Probably Not A Thing:  This theory is considered the most plausible and it is, at least at the time of this writing, the most widely accepted theory.  But something always seems a little off about it to me.  It seems unlikely to me that a well-respected and experienced sailor like Captain Briggs would have panicked so easily and made such a rash decision.  Also, according to contemporary accounts from other ships in the area, including the Dei Gratia, the seas were unusually calm for that time of year and the weather was nice, making a wave fraying the rope on the lifeboat unlikely.  

    

    4.)    Rogue Wave!

The Theory:  A tsunami or “rogue wave” hit with little to no warning washing

everyone overboard.  

             Why It’s A Thing:  The rogue wave would explain the water in the bottom of the ship.  It would also explain the missing lifeboat and passengers.  The theory runs that when everyone was on deck a rogue wave hit the boat pulling everyone over board and to their deaths.   According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, rogue waves are “greater than twice the size of surrounding waves, are very unpredictable, and often come up unexpectedly from directions other than prevailing wind and waves.”  Which seems to fit into the narrative of the Mary Celeste; this theory also explains why so much was left on the ship.  Personal affects, potable water, food, blankets, basically anything you would need to survive at sea in a lifeboat, were left on the Mary Celeste leading most scholars to believe that everyone left quickly or left against their will.   
  
              Why It’s Probably Not A Thing:  Rogue waves are extremely rare.  Not only that, but they are devastating.  They have been known to rip ships apart and the Mary Celeste wasn’t ripped apart—it is unlikely that a rogue wave would have hit the ship without damaging it in some way.  Not only that, but the rogue wave doesn’t explain why the nautical equipment was missing, nor does it explain the disassembled pumps which were inside the boat, not on the outside where a wave would have been able to disassemble them. 

    

    5.)    Sea Monster!

The Theory:  A sea monster attacked the ship killing everyone aboard. 

                Why It’s A Thing:  Sea monsters would explain why nothing of what wasn’t on the ship was ever seen again.  Nothing has turned up since 1872 regarding the crew or any supplies from the Mary Celeste and contemporary sailors were convinced that sea monsters were a thing.  Sea monsters are capable of vast destruction and do tend to snack on humans. 

                 Why It’s Probably Not A Thing:  It’s safe to assume that a sea monster attack would cause serious damage to the Mary Celeste, so the lack of damage to the ship is a pretty good indicator that the captain and crew probably didn’t succumb to a sea monster attack.  Also, sea monsters don’t exist. 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There’s some new research being funded in part by the Smithsonian Institute as to the fate of the Mary Celeste.  Check out this article about it:  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/abandoned-ship-the-mary-celeste-174488104/?page=1

If you want to know more about rogue waves and all things weather related, check out the NOAA website:  http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/roguewaves.html

There was a time when sea monsters really were considered a thing.  Old mariners put locations of sea monsters on their maps, kind of like the beware of deer signs we have today.  Strange science does a great write up about it here: http://www.strangescience.net/stsea2.htm