On the last day of school before Christmas break, I pulled into work listening to Steve Harvey's morning show on an L.A. radio station. The staff there was doing what seemed like a noble thing: collecting toys for kids who wouldn't get any. Then I heard a father call in and ask for free toys so he could pay the bills. I had no real problem with the father or the radio station, but I got out of my car wondering where the father's guilt came from.
It didn't take long to figure out that it came from the rest of us. Every year, people buy so much stuff that those with less money wind up having a hard time for all the wrong reasons. By lavishing friends and relatives with gifts, we give others the gift of shame. I know I'm not the first person to realize this, but hearing an impoverished parent's embarrassment over asking for a handout neither he nor his children needed really bothered me.
There is a great solution to this: boycott all toy drives. If there are families in the community struggling to make ends meet, why give them things they will not need? If a family does make ends meet, but cannot afford gifts, why give them anything when there are others who are truly poor? Why give action figures when you can give food? Granted, there are some material gifts (even toys) that can be educational or enjoyed by the whole family. Still, by supporting toy drives, I cannot get past the possibility that we're telling children that Christmas is about materialism.
In the Iranian film Children of Heaven, a poor young boy loses his sister's only pair of shoes. Knowing his father would punish him severely if the shoes are not recovered, the boy and his sister look all over. When they finally find them, the shoes are on a young girl who is even poorer than they are, so they let her keep them. This is an act of giving far more valuable than anything dropped in a Toys for Tots box. It also reflects a principle of giving we should instill in others: everyone, regardless of tax-bracket, can sacrifice something. Why can't Christmas giving be purely charitable? Does it have to be about helping others acquire more stuff?
This Thursday, many children will receive toys as a result of well-meaning adults who think kids need the latest toys to be happy. My wife and I have bought several different toys for our nephew, all varying in price. His favorite continues to be a cheap ball from a fast food kid's meal. Perhaps we should teach him the more expensive toys are the ones he's supposed to like.
Posted by tommyjolly at December 22, 2003 10:26 PMWow. Good point. I can't wait to tell some Toys-for-Tots volunteer to take his bell and shove it.
Posted by: jeff at December 23, 2003 07:39 AMyou dont mean the scragly santa in front of all the targets do you jeff? he works for the salvation army. but you are right, the bell has to go.
isnt christmas a great holiday? i love what we've done with it.
Posted by: grant at December 24, 2003 03:42 PMI do understand your point about giving children what they need, however, the gift of hope is something that cannot be found in food or clothes or even shelter. A toy to a child can bring happiness that nothing else could possibly substitute for. The child of a parent that cannot make ends meet, no matter the circumstance, is the innocent victim. Toys for Tots is a charity meant to bring hope to un-privileged children. What is wrong with that?
Posted by: Kelly at October 25, 2006 09:52 PMI agree with Kelly. Toys for Tots not only delivers toys to these kids but other stuff you would get at Christmas too like clothes and SHOES! It doesn't teach kids that Christmas is about materialism, Santa Claus does that. Toy drives teach kids with more how to give to those with less and it could soften the heart of the one receiving it so they don't grow up hating people with more money. It's not wrong to have more money and some of the richest people in the world give away alot of money. I agree some people do go overboard on the gift giving in the holiday season but the solution is not to take away from people that don't have anything! This is a very STUPID idea!
Thanks,
Jonathan