Christmas first became controversial in the 17^th century, when Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans banned the whole thing. The festival, deemed ‘unbiblical’ in origin, was banned by the Long Parliament as a wasteful and immoral time. For the Puritans, the festival of ‘Christ-tide’ (best to avoid the Catholic implication of ‘Christ-mass’) as intended by Christ was to be a simple day of fasting and prayer. As one would expect, a lot of ordinary English people did not take kindly to this attempt, and responded with rioting, royalism and presumably aggressive gift-giving.

Controversy over one of the world’s most celebrated festivals remains to this day, though the few Christians who don’t celebrate it – Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular – would make no attempt to ban it. Christmas has evolved far beyond its Christian roots, with celebrators as irreligious as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Along the way, the festival has picked up enough pagan elements to make every Puritan turn in their grave; from trees to yule logs, Christmas today celebrates Christ by appropriating from the belief systems he largely replaced. As the sitcom Community described in 2010, contemporary Christmas is, for many, almost wholly about ‘music, cookies, presents, family and trees.’

Against the backdrop of ever advancing secularisation, Christmas has courted controversy as a conduit for consumerism. The anti-consumerist magazine AdBusters told its readers that should they buy almost nothing over Christmas, they ‘might just experience the most joyous holiday season ever’ even as evangelical Christians preach on the ‘reason for the season.’ Concerns about resource depletion have led environmentalists to open fire at the festival’s ‘wasteful’ nature. Affluent hipsters across the globe are signing up to a ‘Buy Nothing Christmas’ to try to escape the ‘treadmill’ of consumerism.

These objections touch on some valid concerns about society and our planet’s future. Demand for new smartphones and tablets each Christmas is placing enormous strain on rare earth metal stocks in Africa and China, and there are valid criticisms of the ‘instant gratification’ culture of economic materialism that Christmas arguably sustains. In general, however, distaste for the consumerist nature of Christmas has become another thinly veiled attempt to attack capitalist ideals.

The consumerism which surrounds us this time of year is not malicious; from Coca-Cola’s ‘Taste Christmas’ campaign to John Lewis’ ‘Man on the Moon,’ Christmas advertising seeks to liberate the season from its narrow roots and present it as a festival of mutual trust and friendship. These adverts are trying to sell you something, and you mustn’t forget it, but they’re also trying to perpetuate one of humanity’s greatest shared delusions – the idea that the coldest and darkest days of the years can actually be the warmest and brightest.

Strangely, for many of us, this almost nonsensical notion becomes true every single year. Ordinary people are momentarily freed of some of the stresses and pressures of modern life; the almost mythical essence of Christmas allows us to enjoy the simple things in life – companionship, baked goods and free time. For some, consumerism is a distraction from these pleasures. In reality, it is a catalyst. Many without Christian faith or Western origins are caught in the myth of Christmas when they see the first adverts on television; likewise, the desire to give back – for Christmas season is Britain’s peak donations season –arises not from an inner altruism but from a recognition of the mass material wealth consumerism has created.

With the problems of capitalism obvious, from rising inequality to world poverty, it’s easy to forget the pivotal role liberal capitalism has played in making people better off. Since industrialisation, the share of people living in extreme poverty has steadily fallen even as the population of the world increased sevenfold. As recently as 1981, more than 51% of the world population lived in absolute poverty, a figure which is now as low as 14%. Consumerism and consumer culture, as irritating as it might be to some, plays a necessary role in a moral mission which frankly even Oliver Cromwell might have been on-board with.

So as much as the Christians complain and the environmentalists preach, Christmas – a time of consumerism like no other – stands as a remarkable shrine to a socioeconomic system that has transformed this world. It is not a perfect system and there is much to do to ensure it works for the benefit of all, but at Christmas time its strengths and its weaknesses become acutely clear. Weaknesses such as inequality become hugely distressing just as strengths – like historically unfathomable levels of wealth and progress – become things to reflect upon. Whether you love or hate capitalism, and whether you think it is conducive to a better world, there is no denying that Christmas is in many ways a microcosm of capitalism in general.

This is a much derided fact, and it reflects on its critics. Christians hate the consumerisation of Christmas because it runs contrary to biblical statements on wealth; environmentalists may prefer a world unblemished by cities, factories, and technology. Ultimately, however, these critics are targeting the wrong enemy. Taking the consumer out of Christmas will not end capitalism in the world – only the development of a working alternative economic system can do that. Attacks on contemporary Christmas miss the mark, because they target the wrong enemy. Christmas brings people together in an almost exaggerated imitation of how consumerism brings people together; whether you think the flaws of capitalism outweigh this critical benefit or not, it is truly this which makes Christmas the one-of-a-kind festival it is.

It possibly seems like something somewhat resembling an eternity since Texas senator, Ted Cruz first declared his campaign for the US presidency back on March 23^rd 2015. However, after the Kentucky and Florida senators, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio quickly – and to be perfectly honest, predictably –  followed suit in launching their campaigns on April 7^th 2015 and April 13^th 2015 respectively; the fight for the Republican nomination in the 2016 White House race began to take a rather unexpected turn.

This is because, just under a month later on the 4^th May; two candidates with absolutely no experience of elected public office (the world-renowned neurosurgeon, Ben Carson and former Hewlett Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina) set out their stalls for the GOP primaries battle. Subsequently, an array of other US governors and senators, current and former began to seemingly queue up in order to throw their hats into the ring to create an absolutely enormous field of 17 major (i.e. regularly featured in notable national opinion polls) 2016 republican presidential candidates. This represented the largest number of contestants for the presidential nomination of a major US party since the Democratic primaries of 1976, which incidentally had only a mere (if that is indeed an appropriate word!) 15 major candidates. Notably, during this campaign announcement period between May and July; the businessman and reality TV star, Donald Trump publically launched what was initially expected to be very much a longshot campaign for the GOP nomination.

At first glance, it is certainly not unheard of to have notable Republican presidential candidates like Carson, Fiorina, and Trump from very unconventional political backgrounds competing in US presidential primaries (Herman Cain’s 2008 campaign and Steve Forbes’ 2000 campaign both spring to mind). On the other hand, it is definitely extremely unusual – in fact, uniquely unusual if one looks at the history of US presidential elections – for three people with no experience of elected US federal office (executive or legislative) to be the apparent polling frontrunners in a major party presidential primary; as was the case on October 18^th 2015, when Carson, Fiorina, and Trump took 56% between them (with Trump leading on 28%) in a national Monmouth University opinion poll of a sample of GOP primary voters.

Even as recently as the 21^st December 2015, the aggregate opinion polling average of the Huffington Post has shown Donald Trump as having the support of 37.8% of Republican primary voters. Consequently, although Carly Fiorina (since the middle of October 2015) and Ben Carson (since the beginning of December 2015) have both decisively fallen out of fashion amongst potential GOP caucus-goers and primary voters; with just over a month to go until the first caucuses in Iowa on the 1^st February, the race for the Republican presidential nomination still has a clear frontrunner from an incredibly unusual (and to the party establishment, unacceptable) political background.

It is fair to say that to the vast majority of independent and moderate Republican voters in the USA, Trump is a very controversial figure. After making inflammatory comments about groups varying from Mexicans through to individual famous female journalists, Donald Trump has most recently and possibly most extensively been ridiculed in the world media for suggesting that there should be an immediate and total shutdown on the admission of Muslims to the USA for the time being for national security purposes.

Resultantly, it comes as very little surprise that the GOP establishment of US Congress members, RNC officials, and major party donors are absolutely terrified at the unpalatable prospect of Trump being their nominee for the presidency. In reality, it seems a foregone conclusion that the presence of such a divisive candidate on the Republican ticket would easily hand victory in the 2016 US presidential election to the Democratic nominee (who is pretty much definitely going to be Hillary Clinton); due to the alienation of large numbers of crucial voters from demographic groups such as Hispanic Americans and women.

However, do establishment Republican leaders have any hope of avoiding the nomination of a candidate who is quite possibly simply ‘un-nominateable’? Well, in short; yes.

If opinion polls are to be believed, it does seem as though other Republican presidential contenders are beginning to gain significant electoral momentum; making Donald Trump appear to be increasingly under threat in the GOP primaries race. Despite the fact that Trump’s level of popular support is seemingly remaining reasonably stable (even in spite of his recent aforementioned comments on Muslims), other more electorally viable presidential candidates (notably the young senators, Marco Rubio and most notably Ted Cruz) are seeing their support amongst Republican voters rise significantly. Ted Cruz especially has built up an extremely well organised grassroots campaign in early-voting states, notably Iowa; in which primary and caucus victories will provide him with much needed momentum to attract undecided GOP primary voters (and indeed party officials and donors looking to endorse someone in the nomination race) who are looking for the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump and actually win in the general election fight against the Democratic candidate in November 2016.

Additionally, as the massively extensive field of declared 2016 Republican presidential candidates continues to narrow down from the present 13; it will in all likelihood be the establishment-friendly candidates with either executive or legislative experience who will benefit, not the marmite-akin figures like Donald Trump.

Although candidates like New Jersey governor, Chris Christie and potentially also former Florida governor, Jeb Bush look set to stay in the GOP nomination race beyond the first few primaries and caucuses; others (notably Carson, Fiorina; and the governor of Ohio, John Kasich) are likely to begin suspending their White House campaigns rather rapidly and in quick succession after poor performances in the first few states to vote, creating a large vacuum in nationwide opinion polls that is likely to be predominantly filled by candidates including Cruz and Rubio. Consequently, it does still seem very plausible that despite all of the (justified) global media hype; the current frontrunner may not actually end up being the eventual Republican nominee in the 2016 US presidential election.

However, ‘very plausible’ definitely isn’t synonymic for ‘certain’; and consequently it is definitely not outside the realms of reasonable imagination about the immediate future that Donald Trump will be the 2016 Republican nominee. For this reason, we will all continue to pay very keen attention as we watch this electoral epic continue to unfold. It does seem completely fair and reasonable to say though that the 2016 Republican presidential nominee will be either Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio. As the primaries and caucuses begin to take place over the next few months, it will probably become much clearer who the 2016 GOP presidential nominee will be.

“This is for Syria, my Muslim brothers.” These were the words of Muhaydin Mire, the ‘terrorist’ who a few weeks ago wielded his Stanley knife at Leytonstone Tube Station, injuring but thankfully not killing three innocent Londoners.  This particular remark is what led police to categorise this violence as a ‘terrorist incident’, a description which, as far as I’m concerned, is not particularly helpful or accurate.

Now at first you might think I’m being slightly obtuse — of course it was terrorism, you’d say. There was a young man, of Somalian or Sudanese origin, speaking with an Arabic accent according to eyewitnesses, who set out to kill innocent people. What’s more, he was acting on behalf of what he himself described as his “Muslim Brothers” in Syria — better known as ISIS to you and me. His actions even seem to fit the dictionary definition of terrorism as ‘the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims’.

So why am I being so stubborn? Why can’t I just accept that the Leytonstone attack was terrorism? You probably think I should just get off my lefty-liberal Corbynista terrorist-sympathising high horse and accept like everyone else that this is just a new form of terrorism that we must all recognise and fight. There is a reason why I won’t.

On Tuesday 10th November, a month before the Leytonstone incident, a Japanese national and octogenarian Yoshiyuki Shinohara chose to push an unsuspecting woman into an oncoming Tube Train at Piccadilly Circus. Luckily his victim survived the ordeal although Shinohara was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. But nobody labelled the incident as terrorism. There was no blanket media coverage where politicians, police chiefs and commentators asserted the need for ever greater vigilance and ever-more resources in the fight against terror, stoking already high levels of fear amongst the population. It was just another crime on the tube, like the other 2,255 violent crimes which occurred on the network last year. So what was it that made Leytonstone so different from Piccadilly Circus or for that matter any of these other violent crimes?

Very little, as far as I can see. Of course, Mire did shout “this is for Syria” and his aims probably were political. But who is to say Shinohara was not harbouring some political motive and what reason is there to assume Mire was any more mentally stable? What’s more, imagine if Shinohara had shouted “this is for Syria”. I very much doubt whether anybody would have labelled him a terrorist. People would have just said that he was a crazy old man whereas Mire on the other hand was a young Somali Muslim — far more likely to be a terrorist, surely?  It appears then that when we use the word terrorism to describe events we do so not just on the basis of the presence or absence of political motivation, but on our prejudices: racial and religious. It is for this reason I am uncomfortable applying the word terrorism to describe events at Leytonstone. Worse still, the way in which we define terrorism also affects how we respond to it.

No better example of this is Donald Trump’s call “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” in the wake of the California shootings.  This typifies the often dangerous reactions which can be elicited by declaring a form of violence to be terrorism, demonstrating the need for caution before doing so. To their credit, US security services did this, initially refusing to call the shootings terrorism. Only once the identities and backgrounds of the perpetrators – married couple Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik – had been discovered was the label applied, due to the knowledge that they had been radicalised in Saudi Arabian training camps. Now, I don’t deny for one minute that the California Shootings were terrorism. Neither do I dispute that it was correct to express this fact in the media. My concern is simply the ubiquity of ethnic and religious prejudice when defining and reacting to tragedies such as this.

Take Charleston, South Carolina, where on the 17th June this year white supremacist Dylann Roof entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church and murdered nine worshippers in cold blood. Very few people classified his actions as terrorism, despite the fact Roof was politically motivated in his violence, admitting his intention was to start a race war. He targeted people due to their identity, killing them because of his beliefs, like ISIS. The only reason I can see why people didn’t call him a terrorist was because of who he was, because he was white, because he was a Christian. None of these factors seem legitimate to me.

It seems then that we determine whether or not something is terrorism based on the race and religion of those who carry out the act. If this was of limited consequence then I might be more ambivalent but this simply isn’t the case. The fight against Islamic fundamentalists seems to permit us to step over an invisible line, to say things we would not normally think acceptable, to justify things we would not normally consider permissible: mass surveillance laws, drone strikes in civilian areas, Guantanamo Bay.

Now it could be argued that all this is perfectly fine, as long as it is only the terrorists on the receiving end. However, this is almost never the case, with those often simply sharing the same race or religion as them being caught in the crossfire. And thanks to our selective use of the word ‘terrorism’ it is mostly Muslims and those from the Middle East who become the victims of our response. After all, it’s not as though the Klu Klux Klan suddenly felt the full military force of Western Governments after Charleston with all whites and Christians suddenly becoming acceptable collateral damage. Nor did we see Theresa May calling for a ban on all Japanese nationals after events at Piccadilly Circus involving Mr Shinohara. 

So where do we draw the line? We start by using the word terrorism properly, ridding it of our racial and religious prejudices. We should stop using it to describe everyday crimes on the Tube and instead use it to describe events which fit the true meaning of the word, such as the murder of African-American churchgoers, motivated by the colour of the victims’ skin. Then maybe if we stopped using the word so excessively, and instead started to use it more selectively, our response to many tragedies could become a little less unjust.