According to urban legend there was once a department store in Japan that, shortly after the war, displayed a smiling crucified Santa at Christmas, mistakenly believing that that was how Santa was supposed to be displayed. In different versions of the legend the crucified Santa was either a small miniature or an 'enormous effigy'. There's no evidence that the Japanese crucified Santa ever existed. But people here in America have, of course, deliberately stuck Santas up on crosses.
Here's an article that refers to a guy who delighted his neighbors back in 2002 by placing a crucified Santa in his front yard:
A unique holiday display in Boise has prompted mixed reactions from neighbors and passersby. Residents of a home in the 6300 block of Ustick Road have erected a cross with a full-size, stuffed Santa Claus attached. Chili Ciluaga got the idea to build the crucified Santa in his front yard while watching a TV commercial. He said the display conveys the message that the holiday season has become over-commercialized.
Comments
Absurdly, rather than feeling entitled to outrage that their property was invaded and their possessions destroyed, the family was reduced to sending out apologies to the activist group for unintentionally 'offending' them.
The point: see the crucified Santa while you can. If he really is on display, I doubt he will be up for very long. A bunch of hypersensitive stupids with persecution fantasies are sure to raise a stink and demand his removal any minute now.
They broke the law, plain and simple, over something they perceived as a wrong. And the police were they watching while it happened.
It must be all those gruesome civil rights movement/American history movies my history teacher made us watch in high school.
Just shows you how alive these stories are, how sustainable...but I feel so gullible!
I wouldn't interpret it as a spoof of sincere Christianity, but as a commentary on people who put a Christian overlay on decidedly un-Christian celebrations of greed, consumerism, and egocentrism-- all of which are the opposite of the Christian gospel.
Santa Claus, not Jesus, is the Messiah most people in the U.S. are really devoted to these days, and their "Lord's Prayer" is "Give me the toys I want and I promise to be good."
1. That any hanging is a lynching, and is ALWAYS DELIBERATELY meant to be taken that way; and
2. That Frankenstein's monster is clearly and always symbolic of people of African descent.
Both preconceptions are absurd and outrageous. Hanging has been a method of execution for thousands of years. Why not assume Frankenstein was guilty of cattle rustling or witchcraft? They hung the 'witches' during the Salem Witch Trials, after all, which would be a much more obvious historical connection to make, given that it was Halloween.
Furthermore, and this is the fun point--it was freakin' Frankenstein! He's very distinctive--flat top head, green skin, bolts in the neck. He's a very well-known and popular, cartoonish character; there's no way for a REASONABLE person to mistake him for a serious effigy of a human being. If someone put up a poster of Frankenberry being kicked right in his mahshmallow sweeties, would you assume it was a thinly veiled attack on YOU? If you would, then you have some kind of weird problem where you identify yourself with ridiculous cartoon characters when that's clearly not what's intended.
If the hung figure had been something that actually had a symbolic connection to racist concepts towards people of African descent, then fine, tear it down. If it had looked anything like a black man, or like the horrible minstrel-show caricature of a black man, or even a monkey or ape of some sort, or any other creature or character that evoked the unfair and hateful slurs of the past, fine. But no well-adjusted person will see Frankenstein--FRANKENSTEIN!--and automatically assume he's meant to represent himself.
If the family lived in Montreal and put Frankie in a guillotine, would the Francophones be justified in storming their yard and tearing it down, since it 'clearly evokes' the favored method of execution during the French Revolution? No, you'd probably rightly see that as an absurd leap to make. Well, this one's just as absurd, you just have to think about it from the viewpoint of a reasonable adult person, and not the viewpoint of a hypersensitive crackpot with persecution fantasies.
It is not a crime to put up halloween decorations. It is a crime to break through someone's fence, invade their yard, and destroy their property, however.
>>>And the image of a body hanging from a tree seems to scream 'lynch mob' <<<
...you yourself even point out that you need a MOB to portray a lynching. The display was just Frankie hanging from a tree--there was not a mob of other Halloween characters standing around with torches or clubs, therefore there was no lynch mob portrayed, therefore no credible basis for seeing it as a lynching. Ironically, the only mob associated with the whole incident was--the protestors.
It would be like seeing Frankie with a bullethole in his head and assuming it was a display of a firing squad, even though there are no shooters with rifles to be seen. Quick, take it down before a Mormon gets offended!
Bottom line: it wasn't a lynching, it wasn't portrayed as a lynching, and in the context of previous years' displays, we know it was never intended as a lynching. If a person gets offended by things he imagines that aren't part of reality, that's his damned problem, and nobody owes him anything. This is just a case of a small group of overly sensitive people with a victim mentality losing their minds. We who are sane and reasonable shouldn't have to tiptoe through life, terrified that we might accidentally offend delusional nitwit jerks who see hatred and terror in the simplest and most innocent of Rorschach-style images. Screw 'em.
Be a bit weird - Montreal had been British for 30 years at the time of the French Revolution. Maybe in New Orleans?