OK, OK, I didn't mean for this to get into an argument about Mardi Gras being offensive. My point was that actually most people don't find partying on Mardi Gras offensive, even Catholics. But along those lines, I have to ask whether people celebrating Mardi Gras appreciate what the celebration is for...and if so, do they even observe Lent? I get tired of people celebrating holidays that have nothing to do with them, or holidays that even completely contradict their beliefs. Christmas is the worst in this regard. I can't stand it when people say that Christmas is about Santa Claus, being nice, world peace, etc. Sure, those things are commonly associated with Christmas, but the fact is that Christmas is a Christian holiday and nothing else; if you're not Christian, you shouldn't be celebrating it. Really, Mardi Gras, though not a holiday itself, was established with Christians in mind. But nowadays most people don't even think - or don't know - what it's about.

Drole, the Anglican tradition came from the Roman Catholic, true, but just because the Roman Catholics have changed ( some, at least - I know Roman Catholics who still celebrate the two religious observances) while we haven't, our beliefs aren't negated, are they? I think the point is that any group, not just the "first", that finds their religous or cultural practices being used for amusement may be offended.


What Peppy said.

I disagree. Christmas has, at least in this country, transitioned from a pure religious observance into a mainly secular commercial holiday. I have difficulty getting riled up about this, since Christmas was moved to December in order to coincide with Winter Solstice celebrations anyway. In my understanding, December 25th wasn't originally of special importance to anyone except pagans, and then only when the Solstice happened to fall on that day.

Who's having an argument? This was just a bit of a fun tangent. Here's the difference IMO. First, as you state, Mardi Gras is not a "holiday" and the observance of Lent is rather irrelevant to that for non-Catholic/Christians.

As for Christmas, I again see a difference since even those who aren't celebrating Jesus' birth are celebrating a rather joyful season with a joyful spirit. Not everyone certainly, but many.

However the point here is that somehow, American Indians shouldn't be upset that people dress up like them and get loaded because Catholics/Irish/Mexicans don't get upset about Mardi Gras/St. Patrick's Day/Cinco de Mayo. There's a big difference here. The latter are events that are intended for celebration (even St. Patrick's day), the first is dressing up in an attempt to "imitate" another culture. The equivalent here would be dressing up as a pregnant nun/ pedophile priest combo. I hate that and I get offended by it. VAST difference.


Hey, I even looked again, checked the Catholic Encyclopedia and since before the Reformation the Church thought Carnival had gotten out of control but no mention of a specific service as there may be for the Anglicans. Doesn't mean that some parishes don't have a tradition of doing something though. And I do know where the Anglican Church comes from.

Did you see the "silly" comment? You're taking this too seriously, possibly in an attempt to justify its legitimacy as a "come-back" to the American Indian's complaints in ND, possibly because you don't get that I'm not really saying that only X group gets to be offended because of X thing.

I will maintain there's a difference between someone else "co-opting" your day and someone mocking who you are.

THANK YOU! Also it bears mention that Cinco de Mayo *in some cases* involves those of non-Mexican heritage dressing like "Mexicans" in s disparaging way.

Not to mention that there were numerous such holidays and saint days in the medieval Catholic church that had a "carnivalesque" element to them. Because you didn't have to work on these days, peasants and city people had parades/masquerades/all kinds of parties on these days. It was one thing that early Protestants critiqued and that the Catholic Church cut back on during the counter-Reformation (or Catholic Reformation if you prefer)--they reduced the number of religious holidays by over half I think. Don't remember if that was at the Council of Trent or not. Mardi Gras as we know it was a far more common style of holiday before say, the late 16th-century.

Gotta disagree with you. What you said here regarding the transition to a mainly secular holiday is exactly why many of us for whom it is a religious observance can be very offended at the way it has been secularized. 'Course, we Christians (at least nominal Christians) did it to ourselves.

And don't get me started on seeing the same trend happening with Easter.

Somewhat of an oversimplification.

Of course, Scripture doesn't say when Jesus was born, although Luke certainly suggests it was in the summer.

But the winter solstice has historically in many cultures been a solemn and special occasion, usually marking the "rebirth" of the sun and the coming of light into a dark world. That's precisely why early Christians in Rome identified it as an appropriate time to replace pagan observances with the celebration of the Incarnation -- the birth of the Son of God and the coming of the "Light of the World" into the world.

And you have to be careful in identifying December 25 specifically, remebering (1) the exact date of the solstice can vary not only from year to year but from place to place, and (2) the calendar has been through a few changes in the last 2000 years. The December 25 observance (Saturnalia in the Roman world) was always a solstice observance.

Perhaps not so much a service, but confession. The English name "Shrove Tuesday" (rather than "Fat Tuesday") hearkens back and refers to the pre-Reformation English tradition of going to confession (being shriven) on the Monday and Tuesday prior to Ash Wednesday. So at least etymologically, the English name carries a religious connotation that Mardi Gras or Carnival do not.

And I know you know where the Angican Church comes from ;), but I note that SWTXBelle referred to her Anglican experience as "high church." I do wonder if she is using "high church" as meaning "Anglo-Catholic" -- sometimes it means Anglo-Catholic and sometimes it doesn't. But one of the particulars of the Anglo-Catholic movement was to seek to return to a pre-Reformation English Christianity/catholicism, sans the pope as Vicar of Christ (primer inter pares as Bishop of Rome, yes; pope, no) and other "Roman abuses," of course. With such a perspective, Shrove Tuesday as a day of religious observance would make sense.

Just saying.

Yes, Mystic - you've got it exactly right. And bonus points for knowing that Anglicans have a tradition that predates the Roman Catholic church in the UK.

And Drole - I think the thread has gone fairly far afield from the original discussion of the ND incident. My stating my problem with ANYONE'S cultural/religious holidays or observances being co-opted as an excuse to get drunk is certainly not an attempt to excuse a chapter's ill-advised actions. It is a typical GC digression - I did want to point out that many times if it's not your ox being gored you will excuse behaviors that you yourself indulge in. I realize that because I'm a Gamma Phi you might think that I am somehow seeking to justify the ND chapter's actions - but I haven't. I think the statement from HQ is perfectly succinct and to the point.
I'd like to think you "know" me well enough, Drole, to know that I wouldn't support any activity, even by my sisters, that was insulting to anyone or any group. I find it interesting that you basically have said I have no right to be upset at the degradation of Mardi Gras because I come from a small, yet ancient, religious tradition. You've essentially negated my point of view, going so far as to lecture me about ecclesiastical history. I would argue that you shouldn't have to justify your beliefs in order to have them respected.

The funny thing is that this all started because someone didn't think that NPC sororities are multi-cultural, and who went so far as to tell me that I was wrong to state that they were. Here is where I am drawing the definition of multi-cultural (Merriam-Webster)
Main Entry:
multi- Function: combining form Etymology: Latin, from multus much, many — more at meliorate
1 a: many : multiple : much <multivalent> b: more than two <multilateral> c: more than one <multiparous> <multibillion>

AND


Main Entry: cul·tur·al http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif Pronunciation: \ˈkəlch-rəl, ˈkəl-chə-\ Function: adjective Date: circa 1864 1 : of or relating to culture or culturing

Using this definition, all NPC groups are indeed multi-cultural, as they all contain members from many different cultural backgrounds. I realize that GLOs who define themselves as multi-cultural chose to parse the word differently. That does not, in my estimation, mean that the dictionary meaning is incorrect. Different, yes, but not incorrect. It seems to me that there is actually a fair amount of misunderstanding and negativity that has derived from the newer, group-specific definition.




As to Christmas, the date of December 25th is of itself of no consequence. What is important is that a large portion of the Christian community have chosen that day to commemorate the birth of Christ. I always think of it as like the birthday of Queen Elizabeth II, which is celebrated in June even though that was not the month in which she was born - but the weather is much better then. :)
Many other faiths and beliefs have winter celebrations, and of course they are entitled to celebrate them. I do have a problem with taking symbols of these various faiths and using them simply because they are pretty, or popular, without even a basic respect for the meaning they have to others. A menorah is more than just a bunch of candles, a tree is more than just something to decorate, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you would want to take the symbolism away and just, for example, put a dead tree in your house. I don't worry too much about non-believers who do it - but I do find it sad that you can find Christians who have no idea of the symbolism involved in all the trappings. It's like those GLO members who don't realize the rich meaning of their symbols, crests, etc.

eta - I think the word "offended" is too strong for what I'm discussing - and that may be where some of the conflict has arisen.

You're right about some people dressing up on Cinco de Mayo, that'd be where the offense lies IMO, not in the fact that the local bars have a special on Corona.

I don't know if they officially reduced the holidays or just the days of obligation. It seems as most of the days of obligation were turned into festivals of some sort, Michaelmas for example was a harvest festival.

No, I made a non-serious comment that only the original celebrants of something should get to be offended by its misuse. I also stated the level of "offense" that I think is reasonable - one where a tradition or people is being actively mocked. I did not get the impression from you, nor do I believe I suggested, that you were truly defending this chapter. Though it is a digression it was started as a off-handed "well lots of things are offensive" that minimized the original incident. Besides I originally joined this thread for the lulz.

TThey are multicultural without a multicultural focus. I think that everyone on here, including "someone" knows that. Representing ourselves as "multicultural sororities" when the common use of the term is something else is not a good idea.




And everything I found suggested an English/Anglican tradition on Shrove Tuesday too :) I replied since Catholics were mentioned specifically and Anglicans were not.

All I'd add is that we obviously disagree on what is "common" - the average person is more likely, imho, to define "multi-cultural" as Merriam-Webster does, and not as the relatively small percentage of Greeks who define themselves as multi-cultural do. In fact, even here on GC there seems to be a divide, with many NPC/IFC members using the M-W definition, while HBGLO/MCGLO use the newer, less-familiar definition which actually seems to be more describtive of focus, as you pointed out, then membership. NPCs have been criticized in the past because of a lack of multi-cultural members - and so it can look like a criticism when they are told they are not multi-cultural.
But the problem there is using a modifer (multi-cultural) by itself - without specifying whether it is a reference to members or focus. A lot of grief could be avoided, I think, if that were clear.

We need a lolcat ASAP. I'm all for the laughs, too.http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/...if?w=270&h=414
http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/...-you-didnt.gif

Yeah, I have no idea of the technical/canon law terms for all these things since I'm not Catholic. But there were a lot of days in the pre-Trent Church were all peasants had to be given the day off from work. Like a hundred or more. Trent reduced those numbers drastically and reformed saints' days and festivals more generally. Right now I can't seem to find reference to the exact numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident...oman_calendars

I still don't think a non-Christian using a Christmas tree is anywhere near as offensive as dressing up as an "Indian" for a lame party. Most non-Christians who put up Christmas trees are not intentionally mocking Christians.

MysticCat, while I respect your views, I have to point out that part of the reason early Christians put their holidays at the same time as major pagan holidays (Christmas and Easter are just two notable examples) was not just to "replace" pagan holidays but to encourage observance by rural/pagan people who might not really know all the details of theology. The Church (and here I'm speaking primarily of the Catholic Church) has had a long tradition in the history of its missions and proselytization that allows new Catholics, former practitioners of other religions, to practice their old rites, but usually under a Christian guise. See the syncretism of early Christianity (this includes the holiday issue we've been discussing, but also things like the cult of saints itself, and often specific saints who have no written historical record), the Christianization of Latin America, the Christianization of the Kingdom of Kongo, the Chinese Rite controversy of the 17th/18th c., etc., etc., etc. It wasn't just about "replacing," but often about respecting and incorporating the former religion's rites. Of course Protestants and some Catholics might be offended by this today, but the historical record stands.

There is a line of thinking that pagan symbols were in preparation for the coming of Christ, at which time the true, full meaning would be clear. Kind of like pledging vs. initiation. (:cool:)

Actually, I have no problem with the fact that the early church was brilliant enough to realize that they would be more effective by converting the meaning of pagan celebrations to bring them in line with Christianity. That's just good public relations. Today of course we have pagans and Christians both using evergreens to symbolize eternal life - just different beliefs as to how the whole "eternal" thing is going to work.

And the digression we've taken should in no way be seen as an attempt to excuse the actions of the ND chapter. At least, that's not my intent.http://icanhascheezburger.files.word...ng-of-hell.jpg

Your argument kind of begs the question, doesn't it? I mean, you assume that the purpose of this party was to intentionally mock native Americans. I'm sure that the ladies of that chapter would just tell [or they would have before becoming the targets of the PC police] you that the party was all in good fun, that it was "cowboys and Indians" and that they had no clue anyone would be offended by this.

I agree with all the points you've been trying to make Drolefille.

An "Across the Border" Mexican themed party (I vaguely remember this being mentioned years ago) would be offensive just like a 'Let's Dress up like Indians and put on war paint" themed party, or a "Let's Dress up in Blackface" themed party.

The girls SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. PERIOD.

And them choosing to do so is in NO WAY the same thing as a bar having a special on Corona or Dos X for Cinco de Mayo and lots of non-Mexican's coming out to enjoy the said beer specials.