Lots of ink spilled over Starbucks' decision to serve their beverages in plain red cups for the holidays; the biggest complaint is that it's offensive to Christians.
Now, there are plenty of people who've pointed out that the previous designs on the Starbucks cups have pretty much said 'Christmas' without having any kind of Christian themes at all, so obviously it's not the removal of an actual Christian theme that's causing the indigestion.
I think, perhaps, I know what did it.
Take a look at Starbucks' official explanation for the change:
reasons excuses we've heard from all and sundry for removing the word 'Christmas' from just about everything related to the holiday; 'we want to be inclusive, and the word 'Christmas' (and, lately, traditional Christmas symbols like trees and snowmen and reindeer and Santa) might offend someone'.
Starbucks, however, maintains that their holiday cups were meant to be a blank canvas for customers to create their own stories, inspired by the doodles and designs that customers have drawn on white cups for years.Perhaps it's just me, but those last five words sound awfully close to the
"In the past, we have told stories with our holiday cups designs," Jeffrey Fields, Starbucks vice president of Design & Content, said in a statement. "This year we wanted to usher in the holidays with a purity of design that welcomes all of our stories." (emphasis mine)
Personally, I don't really like Starbucks products; nor do I believe Christmas is about gifts and parties and all that stuff (at least it shouldn't be). The plain red cups don't bother me, and I'll go out on a limb and say they probably wouldn't have drawn the ire of some people had the explanation not sounded like just another attempt at the multiculti obsession society has these days about removing or outright banning anything and everything that might offend.
Because, quite honestly, the multiculti obsession offends me.
And I don't think I'm alone.