new thread
We all have our own personal sources of inspiration for growing our hair out... But who do you think has contributed substantially to the swaying the public's acceptance of long haired males?
I've been noticing a lot of Xanta posts as of late (wonder why!), but Xanta annoys me more than he appeals to me. I think the idealized image of Jesus that Christianity has popularized has left a mark somewhere in the unconsciousness of most Americans, regardless of faith (Face it, no matter what your creed, it's hard not to notice the evil that is the commerical manifestation known as Xmas).
I agree that Christmas is and probably was, for a long time)
commercialized...
The good news is that most people would probably agree.
It's difficult enough picturing Mary and Joseph heading toward the
inn while listening to:
"Jingle bell...Jingle bell...Jingle bell ROCK"...
all day
Jeah but most people don't know that the Christian version of 'Christmas' was taken from Egyptian festivals, the celebration of the birth of Mithra and various other religious holdidays
(Face it, no matter what your creed, it's hard not to notice the evil that is the commerical manifestation known as Xmas).
i apologize in advance if this gets off topic
i agree with you, Christmas is WAY too commercial,
i happen to infact LOVE Christmas, i'ts my fav. holiday, what it REALLY is supposed to stand for, i like the idea of forgetting your problems and showing love towards eachother,even if it is only just ONE day
i think presents are alright, since giving is showing love but society puts too much attention on GETTING and BUYING that the true meaning just gets lost for a lot of people and i agree with your post,
santa can be ok if it's done in an innocent way and NOT the main focus but sadly it is,
it's just like how people don't focus on the REAL meaning of Easter either
and each generatioit just gets worse like how so many true meaning
don't get me wrong i like getting presents as much as the next guy but i don't expect them,
i already got my present 2,000 years ago
The real meaning of Christmas is that it was the only time the Christians could celebrate because it coincided with the Winter solstice which the pagans celebrated at the time. They had to be secretive.
Since it was brought up...
If you are wanting this holiday season to be about the Jesus birth you might do better to shift it to another part of the year. Biblical scholars tend to agree that Dec. 25th is not even close to an a possible birthday for the Jesus of the Christian Bible. Many think that a date in the spring is much more accurate and still others think another part of the year might be it.
The Catholic church established this time of year for it's celebration of the birth of Jesus due to other religions using this time as their celebrations for various reasons. As they did with other already established celebrations, the Christian church found that by "squatting" on another religion's holidays they could get more people to accept their religion and faze out their competition. It worked quite well.
The Solstice is probably real "reason for the season" as the events of our solar system affected ancient people's lives and survial by bringing on the change of the seasons, etc. and celebrations for these events go back as far as recorded history. Is it any wonder why most religions happen to have big celebrations around this time? Go back in history to see who held these times as special before whom.
For those who adamantly believe that this is the time of Jesus birth, I am not trying to ruffle your feathers, you'll have to talk to the church leaders of old and ask them why they they did what they did. Do some studying for yourself and you will learn a few things that may suprise you (like this).
Also watch the History Channel, they are airing a program at various times called "Unwrapping Christmas" that recounts how we came to celebrate Christmas as we do today (commercialism and all). Very interesting and informative.
Reply
Hi Erik, I see you are well informed. You are right. I have read many books on general history and more particularly on the history of religion. Many of these traditions are just that: traditions based on no proven historical facts. One interesting fact about the catholic church is that priests were allowed to marry up until approximately the year 1100. Then some pope decided it was better for priests not to marry. This is a growing concern for the church today as very few want to be condemned to a life of celibacy. I say the catholic church will run out of priests in about 20 years. I was born catholic, and luckily to very open minded parents who never made a big fuss about religion. I turned by back on the church a long time ago and consider myself more of a believer of Buddhist principles: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Back to our main topic, which is long hair, I must say 2002 was a turning point in my life when I decided to let my hair grow again after about 15 years because of my receding hairline. Remember I am the one with the hairpiece. Advice on this board has been very helpful and encouraging. I also like the way you relate long hair to religion. Indeed long hair has to be protected and maintained “religiously” considering the time it takes to grow. We then tend to cherish it the way we would a loved pet, and there is nothing wrong with that. A third of all men eventually lose their hair. What, at first seems to be a tragedy, can be overcome with a little help and advice from some friends….
Treat your body with care. Staying healthy helps you get more out of what life has to offer.
May the new calendar year bring peace to all.
Marc A: That was a great post (in response to a very well informed post... The content of which I WAS familiar with, by the way, but neglected to mention b/c my original post spoke pretaining to how things are celebrated today and not so much the origins of the celebration).
I wish you all the best of luck in recovering that which you once had.
But the main reason why I responded to your post was to comment on something... What I am about to mention is sort of a correction, but you were not incorrect to say what you did b/c you did infact throw in a clause conditional to how most would perceive the situation:
"A third of all men eventually lose their hair. What, at first seems to be a tragedy, can be overcome with a little help and advice from some friends"
As regretable as hair loss may be to men, most common instances of hair loss lack the characteristic and structural attributes to accurately be considered a tragedy. Mind you, you did say that it would "seem" to be a tragedy, and having said that, you made no mistake whatsoever, for that is indeed how most people would think of and describe the loss. What this majority of people fail to understand, however, is what makes a tragedy (in the truest sense of the word) tragic: Most simply throw the word around to describe ANY circumstance that could be perceived in ways the least bit regrettable (ESPECIALLY if death is involved, however arbitrary the conditions were). People have adopted it as a synonym for sadness and regret, but there is just so much more to what structurally consists of a tragedy that to call commonplace loss as such is to bastardize the word. Just think about that for a second: When you hear someone say that it was tragic that a child happened to be hit crossing the street when the driver of a car neglected to notice them, have you ever wondered just why this person is classifying that which is arbitrary (an automobile accident, to be percise) as tragic? More often than not, such people use tragedy to imply a sense of grief with loss simply because they've heard others use the term under similar conditions. Well my friends, that is a clear example of ignorance manifested. It seems like nowadays, few seem to understand what seperates the stories portrayed in literature such as Shakespeare's Hamlet from everyday mishaps that we tend to reflect on with sadness.
If you want an accurate definition of the word (and inlightenment regarding the term's complex aspects), look it up in an English Handbook; a dictionary will probably not be sufficent to fully convey the intricacies of the term which I am defending.
I don't specifically blame the people themselves, as we learn a great deal of that which we speak from the media: THEY are the ones who have spawned a pseudo interpretation of the word in their attempts to sensationalize common news broadcasts. What's more, English is not stressed enough as an art within most public schools, so this phenomena really shouldn't upset me as much as it does. I think a lot of my discontent lies in the fact that when I ask people to explain WHY they chose to describe something (incorrectly) as a tragedy, they tend to defend their choice of vocabulary by stating that they were only using the word in the context of its modern meaning. The fact that people would EVER settle on the modern meaning that the word has become associated with sickens me, for it has merely become a synonym for sadness and lost all its complex intricacies. The implications as such mean the word officially becomes useless in its misuse (and overuse), for everyday events of chance true will continue to receive the same classification as true tragedies.
So again, by throwing that "seem" into your sentence, you saved yourself from falling subject to this error. I just thought you should be aware that given the frequent misuse of the word, what the contexts under which most consider the application of the term correct and appropriate (Hence why so many mishaps of pure chance and accident SEEM like tragedies according to our contemporary understanding of the word) are infact flawed and judged out of ignorance.
That was some essay, my friend! You put a lot of effort into writing this text. I’ll grade it an A++. Although my encyclopedia is silent on the word tragedy, my dictionary defines it as “ characterized by, or involving death or calamity or suffering implied in death”. Indeed Sept 11-01, the sinking of the Titanic, all wars are tragedies. Hair loss does not fit that definition…unless someone considers the death of ones hair follicles is such a loss.
I must tell a story that happened to a distant cousin about 20 years ago. He started losing it on top at about 20 and by the time he was 25 he had lost most of it. He also had marital problems during those years and the couple eventually split. (It is said that stress can be a contributor to hair loss). He was very depressed for several years. When he wanted to start dating again, he hit a wall with the girls he wanted to date because of the fact that he was bald. Nothing to help one’s self esteem. It took him years to find a girl who would ignore this “flaw”.
I myself witnessed this kind of prejudice from girls when I was into the dating scene in my early 30’s. Many women’s ads specified that they only wanted to go out with a man who had a “full head of hair”. This did not affect me at the time though, as I had a barely noticeable spot where the hair was starting to go thin.
Most people will admit that a person with a full head of hair is much more attractive than a baldie, man or woman (a shaved head on a woman is, to me, supreme ugliness). Go to any hair restoration web site and compare the before & after pics. Need I say more?
In my own case, I decided to start to let my hair grow last June. The more it grew the more obvious the contrast between the egg on top and the long flowing hair on the sides. See exhibit A by copying & pasting this link to the address bar:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1192489
That’s when I decided to get the hair piece I now wear every day. My baldness never affected my self confidence but I must admit I now really feel like a new man. It’s a great feeling!
Regards & Happy holidays