Ask any large group of kids, or even adults for that matter, what the most recognizable symbol of Xmas is, and a few will probably say Xmas trees/wreaths of holly; a few might say snowmen; or boxes with Xmas wrappings and ribbons. One or two might even say Christ - that oh so warm and fuzzy baby Jesus manger scene displayed in shopping centres from coast to coast (which is fictional nonsense but that's another topic). But by far and away, the vast majority will nominate "Santa Clause" (with or without elves, reindeer, and sleigh).
Nearly every child on Planet Earth is exposed to the Christmas icon commonly labelled Santa Claus. The image of Santa is everywhere. On Xmas cards, on wrapping paper, on billboards, in the movies, physically present on the street corner, in the department store, represented in song lyrics and titles, and in pictorials in just about every place and reach that commercialism can stick a Santa image on.
Maybe in one sense therefore no one has to tell a child that Santa exists. The child will just assume the positive based on the images and the evidence. Of course ultimately false impressions and expectations are those that child will have to come to terms with sooner or later. Until that sad day eventuates...
So, what can parents do but go with the flow and tell their little darling brats (sorry, their kids - brats are other family's kids), "yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". Of course parents may have an incentive - it's a carrot and stick method, something to get their brat (oops, little darling) to tow their line. "You do as I say or Santa won't do his thing for you come Xmas Eve!" But whatever happened to the ethical concept of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Just about every year we read about or personally see/hear public figures do an 'oops' and blurt out to anyone within range that "no Virginia, there is no Santa Claus", and end up in a lot of hot water, and more often as not, humiliated and forced to retract their statement. Why should they, for after all they just stated the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, you get a pat on the back if you lie and tow the Santa line; you get the middle finger if you tell it like it is. Something's screwy - back to front - somewhere.
Surely parents would not expect society, public figures, authority figures, to lie to their little brats (oops, little darlings). Surely parents would not wish for their little darlings to be told lies by their teachers when starting out at kindergarten or elementary school. Yet when it comes to Santa, telling lies as opposed to the truth, well that's the exception to the otherwise ethical rule.
Now parents will rationalise that sooner or later their darling little brat (sorry, little Jane or Johnny) will have that eureka moment when the light bulb lights and the kid finally and rationally using pure logic figures it all out all by himself/herself - no, there isn't a Santa Claus anymore than there is a mythical figure flying around with a big S displayed on his cape and chest. Or, maybe the penny drops when the presents from Santa are socks and underwear, not toys! Maybe it's when a friend/classmate (or other higher authority) with a superiority complex ridicules your kid and tells him (or her) the real Santa Claus facts-of-life.
Assuming kids can figure it all out themselves, how do kids figure it all out?
The Physics of it all: You can't really expect a kid of three to have the maths abilities to figure out that Santa is a physical impossibility, and thus in the same category as the mythology surrounding Superman - An interesting fiction, but fiction nonetheless. But, by the time a kid hits elementary school, they should be so able.
Let's do a quickie analysis. Let's confine Santa's Xmas Eve deliveries to just Down Under Australia (Oz), but allow him the full dusk (Xmas Eve) to dawn (Xmas Day) time span, which, allowing for time zone differences in high summer Oz, amounts to roughly 12 hours. Now say there are 21 million inhabitants in Oz at 3 per household. That's 7 million households. But say only 1 in 14 has young children or a child that requires a Santa stopover. That's 500,000 required visits/deliveries by Santa in 12 hours. At a rate of say 1 second per delivery, Santa needs 500,000 seconds to get the job done. Alas, 12 hours equates to 720 minutes which is 43,200 seconds. Santa is short roughly some 450,000 seconds. Santa needs to step up the pace and deliver at a rate of one expectant Oz household every 1/10th of a second. Of course you are already aware that one delivery per second is impossible and therefore one visit every 10th of a second is an order of magnitude even more impossible - where's Superman when you need him! Now throw in the rest of Planet Earth and Santa starts to violate some very fundamental aerodynamic principles. Santa has to travel so fast that not only will his sonic booms keep the entire population of Planet Earth awake; the speeds required would generate so much atmospheric friction that Santa would burn up like a 'shooting star'.
Now it doesn't take all that long for a kid to preform some sort of analysis like this - it can be done dozens of ways. Perhaps the kid asks himself how long would it take Santa to deliver gifts to all the kids in his elementary school, while partaking of the milk and cookies left out for Santa at each house? Say the school has 200 students and it takes Santa five minutes per to deliver gifts under the tree, fill the stockings and polish off the snack. That's 1000 minutes - way more than 12 hours worth. And any child of elementary school age knows that there are many, many other elementary schools even just within his immediate surroundings. Once heading down that logical pathway, the kid has to conclude that something's screwy somewhere.
Will the kid now ask why did mommy and daddy (and all of society) lie to me? Will the kid confront them with a "please explain"? Then again maybe he will just say, "WTF, I got freebies out of this nonsense. It was good pickings while it lasted!"
The Morals/Ethics: What does the concept of Santa teach kids? Greed! Freebies! Those free lunches are real. Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets at no cost to Lola.
Of course this concept of additional 'gifts' from Santa, the pressure placed on those who actually have to buy those gifts, raises moral questions. That pressure from society places some financially challenged parents under obviously additional but really quite unnecessary financial pressure to provide that extra 'gift(s)' from Santa. If you don't, the message is you're not a good and loving parent by not doing your bit to keep the mythology going.
Do kids ultimate suffer because they are originally told by trusted associates (public figures, their parents) that there is a Santa Claus? I mean they also obtain physical evidence via sitting on Santa's knee in the local department store (and department store Santa's should be getting double their remuneration considering what they have to put up with - all those brats (sorry, little darlings). I wouldn't do it for all the (fill in the blank) in (fill in the blank). Other physical evidence comes of course via the present(s) under the Xmas tree - "to brat (sorry, Jane or Johnny), love Santa". But then they ultimately get the downer when they find they've been had, made a fool of hook, line and Santa sinker. Well, kids seem to undergo that rite of passage without grabbing the nearest sharp tool and gutting mom, dad and the department store Santa to boot. I mean by the time they figure out the Santa myth, they have also figured out that parents, friends, higher authority, life, the universe and everything can't be trusted to throw them a straight fastball. It's all curveballs and knuckleballs and spit balls. Trust no one over the age of ten!
But should they be fibbed to in the first place, be it by society, Madison Avenue and dear old mom and dad? No matter which way you slice and dice it, it's a breach of trust. Kids believe what adults tell them. If adults blatantly lie to them and tell them, "yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" when there's not, what sort of message does that convey to them once past their "I love Santa" years?
So, IMHO, if any public figure, in any medium whatsoever, who screams out the message that "no Virginia, there is no Santa Claus", then they are doing the world and all the brats (sorry, little darlings) therein, a public favour. It's all about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And it should commence from when your little darling (a brat to everyone else) is newly hatched; starting at Day One. Anything else is again ultimately a breach of trust.
No Santa? Just deal with it - the truth shall set you free of at least one impossible thing to believe in before breakfast!
But isn't it all just harmless childhood fun - part of growing up? Don't we all recover from the trauma of either that admission from someone in the know, or via that eureka moment when we figure it out all by ourselves? Well, if you can justify telling falsehoods to children as something harmless, okay. If you can justify installing a sense of greed in children that there is such a thing as a 'free lunch' since the child can't reciprocate by giving Santa a gift in return, okay. If you can justify all the additional resources Planet Earth has to yield up just for all those extra 'gifts' from Santa, okay. If you can justify that additional ecological footprint, okay. If you can justify it just because you can afford it as a parent, okay (but there might not be a correlation between what the kid wants and wants and wants and wants some more of and what you can afford). If you can justify lining the bottomless pockets of the retail sector with additional profits, that's okay too.
It's not going to happen of course, but IMHO the whole concept of Santa just needs to fade away, and the sooner the better. The concept of Santa contributes nothing positive either to a family's Xmas or to society as a whole, apart I guess from the extra mileage the retail trade milk from all those extra 'gifts from Santa' that find their way under the Xmas tree.
Science librarian; retired.
No comments:
Post a Comment