"...look at nast's santa, and look at what mitzen turned him into - which looks more like the modern santa??
argument was that SANTA (as you hedged your comment later that you meant) - "Santa" is the "modern" creation of and by
The Coca-Cola Company and as you further insist - a "retail invention". But regarding the "modern" issue - go back as you have said for me to do and re-read your original comment. The word "modern" is not used - imputed by context perhaps - but still not there as a distinct word in your sentence.
So...now you want to argue that Thomas Nast's SANTA - drawn 60 years earlier
than the Coca-Cola "Santa" and also apparently just because it's a pen and ink, black and white drawing typical of his day
- and even though Nast's "SANTA" was portrayed with a big belly, white beard, pipe, spectacles, etc., etc., as a human "SANTA" and not as an elf as documented in the prior post - doesn't count as beating Coca-Cola to the creative drawing board ???!!!
all because Coca-Cola's illustrator started using color and drew in his own ideas as Nast had done before him in turning SANTA
from an elf into a human ??
I have to laugh - not meaning as with any disrespect. It's just...well...whatever anyone wants to call it...when someone digs in their heels and refuses to acknowledge the obvious as you are doing in the face of documenation upon documenation - that "Santa" is not
the "modern-day creation of the Coca-Cola Company".
Retailers (including Coke) have of course played their part in promoting the contined advancement of how "Santa" is drawn but it's the PARENTS and cultural changes
that are the real driving forces behind changes in Santa's "image". The children and adults of Nast's day were in a simpler time than we today and as each generation of children has become more and more advanced and interactive in the world around them, artists have and continue to respond in how they portray Santa's image (for as you have at least in part correctly surmised, to sell stuff).
On the point of the "look" of Santa being only since 1931 and Coke's illustrator's rendering and representing the "modern Santa" - here is a picture of SANTA on a 1920 Christmas Post Card
, which is very much a "modern-day" Santa. Its likeness is still seen in retail stores displays, "greeting cards", toys, and gifts.
Note the post card and the drawing of "SANTA" in 1920 is not
as an elf but as a human
"SANTA" - just as Nast started in leading the wa
y on that change (you know, that pesky sixty years I keep bringing up before Coke's illustrator followed Nast's lead).
The link leads to a current online auction on Ebay of a Picture of a 1920
Christmas post card with a "modern day" drawing of Santa in the upper right hand corner of the card:
Click on the "postcard" to enlarge for a better look at the card itself. (Presumably this image will not be availble indefintely through the Ebay link. At that point, I will reproduce it from another source because it isn't copyrighted and post it later on if needs be).1920 Christmas/Santa Postcard for sale
Whether it's a less complex drawing such on the 1920 Christmas Postcard or the more elaborate one by Coke's illustrator - the fact remains they both represent what we see in retail stores today. Neither are Santa as an 'elf' - both are as a human, just as Nast started drawing him in the late 1800s as already documented.
Tell us @janimal - why don't we see the Coca-Cola Santa everywhere if that's the "modern" SANTA ??
Why? Because Coke has copyrighted their [i]GRAPHIC version
[/i] of "SANTA" - but they can't
"copyright" SANTA "en masse" can they - since they weren't the first to represent him in drawings similiar
to the one they copyrighted nor did their copyright include
the name of "SANTA" or "SANTA CLAUS"!!
Coke has their version
copyrighted - but that doesn't keep us from seeing many other "artist concepts" of SANTA around does it! The fact that Nast's version is not seen anymore (if you would presume to try and argue that) ... is because it's not the 1860s, 1880s, etc. anymore and we don't see "black and white" Christmas anything as was typical of his day in newspapers and magazines any more.
Moving on - since it seems @jinimal that clinging to your postition is more important than being comforted by simply knowing that Coca-Cola improved
on an earlier "Santa" by Nast and then used their marketing genius to spread that "updated picture" around the world - why should I bother to continue with the futility of presenting you with documentation that so clearly and repeatedly distinguishes your claims and statements from those of histoical facts about Santa and origins of Christmas? You are quite content believing as you continue to do (complete with accompanying 'bah! - humbug!').
Your continued line of argumentation reminds of "...don't confuse me with facts... (like 1930's drawings of Santa predating Coca-Cola's by 60 years)...because my mind's made up !!"
Before wrapping this up, a moment about your exposure to the "Dutch" and "Santer Klaas".
" - that was a typo on my part. The Dutch name was "Sinter Klaas"
- and that was what they called "St. Nick
" when they immigrated to the US in the 1700s.
As to continuing to insist "santa is clearly hispanic" - amazing. You continue to be confused about the fact that although the Spanish word for "saint" is
"santa" (no argument there as in "The Santa Maria") there is not a shred of evidence supporting your claim that "Santa Claus" is of Spanish orgin historically.
Of course today with its worldwide exposure through Christmas celebrations, those in Spain and Mexico as well as all who speak Spanish of use "Santa" Claus. I would challenge you, however, to provide evidence
that when those of Spanish/Mexican descent refer to the jolly old fat Coca-Cola "Santa Claus" - they have in mind "Nicholas the Saint" and not the Coke "Santa" (or some other rendering of the character).
You know as well as I do - they aren't thinking about "Nicholas the Saint" any more than any other parent/child in any country or language thinks of "Nicholas the Saint" and not "Santa" the jolly fat man in the red suit pulled across the shy on Christmas eve bringing gifts.
While we are stil on that topic @jinimal, why not go ahead and produce your proof
that the "founding basis" for creating the name "Santa Claus" is of Spanish or Mexican origin?
We will be waiting.....
"...as for referncing sites like mystic realm for info - i won't even dignify that with a response. these so called pagan websites are nothing more thanphantasy and arsewater. at least look at somne serious sources.
First - no one knows better than "pagans" where their ancient beliefs now hide in "Christian clothing", sanctioned by a Church that couldn't stamp them out so it brought them into a "Christian" setting by renaming some, changing ritual for liturgy, and more @jinimal.
Dismissing them as "phantasy and arsewater" is to overlook that they know better than you or me
where their ancient beliefs still live disquised as "Christian" (and given your comments, especiall
y you). I can only wonder how many things you believe, observe, and even celebrate in complete ignorance that they are derived from paganism.
Secondly - your statement "...look at some serious sources"
and put them here in responses to your comments more than once
before referencing the "pagan" websites. All you
have continued to do is to ignore and dismiss them all regardless of whether "serious sources" or "pagan"!!
Finally, what you choose to accept or not accept about the inclusion, adaptation and propagation of pagan customs and beliefs into early Christianity including Saturnalia, Oestra, Mithraism, Sol-Invictus, and many others because the Church couldn't stamp out their flocks continuing to practice their rituals and belief in them even after converting to "Christianity" - is up to you. Those with any serious mind for religious history know better - such as knowing that Constantine remained committed to Sol-Invictus until on his death bed when he accepted formal "conversion" by the priests administering Last Rites (that was when Constantine finall
y accepted Christian baptism).
Nothing more to be accomplished here by additional responses from me. You believe what you believe and that's your right. I'll leave any future responses to you on this topic to someone else if they want to take the time. The documentation that can independently be validated which has been provided in the multiple responses to you - stand on their own merits.
It's "Christmas Day".
Enjoy your lump-of-coal.