General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can anyone truly deny we're on the path to a new Holocaust? [View all]enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Because the genocide of Jews (and the mentally impaired - and Gypsies - and Gays) by the Nazis was somehow different because of the word?
The primary definition of holocaust is slaughter on a mass scale - usually by fire. Originally it referred to burnt offerings to the gods. It existed before the term genocide (1944), so it's not surprising that it was attached to the event - but that doesn't mean it can't ever be used again.
Nothing changes what the Nazis did, but attempting to sanctify a WORD isn't going to make it somehow better. Suggesting it is offensive to use it for anything but the Nazi holocaust is trying to do exactly that - sanctify it.
If you - and Dipsydoodle - want to make an issue over Pab's use of the term, no one can stop you, but it's not a very logical argument. If you want to go for technical accuracy, then it could be argued that genocide (the coordinated annihilation of a given group of people) is more accurate - because we do not know what form that might take. Certainly the comment that the hearts of gays should be burnt brings "holocaust" to mind, though.
You're right. Words matter - but in this case, not in the way you think. Yes, "genocide" would be a more accurate term - but suggesting that "holocaust" can NEVER be used for anything except for the one case is ridiculous.