"Holocaust"

[Hubert Flottz]

Holocaust
–noun 1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire.
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3.the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

Origin:
1200–50; ME < LL holocaustum (Vulgate) < Gk holókauston (Septuagint), neut. of holókaustos burnt whole. See holo-, caustic


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holocaust

**********************

(4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.)(Origin: 1200–50) Like the senseless deaths of 44,000 American people every year because they can't afford medical care in the richest country in the world?


I think Mr. Grayson knew what he was saying when he used the word "holocaust" to describe the present health care situation in the USA. People are dying because they are poor. "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM" is the Mother of all Oxymorons.

[Triana]

1. BEWARE: The opposition's focus on this one word is A DISTRACTION from the central

argument. We (and Grayson) need to STAY OUT of that arena and CONSTANTLY return focus to the central point of his argument.

DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY THIS.

[Hubert Flottz]

5. Rachel Maddow grilled Mr. Grayson on his use of the H...

word last night.(asked the man if he was sorry he used the word holocaust three times in about three minutes) Keith Olbermann highlighted the congressman's use of the word also and said it was wrong for the congressman to have used the word. The context that the congressman had used the word holocaust in, had nothing to do with WW II, as Rachel and Keith implied that it did last night, IMHO.

I love Rachel and Keith, BTW.

[Triana]

25. Yea - they're getting caught up in a distraction. I hope Dems support Grayson and don't

go off getting caught up in it too (like they got caught up in ACORN thing - ignoramouses).

On one hand, I guess it's OK to clarify the use of the word and defend its proper definition and use by Grayson.

But once that's done, they oughtta DROP it, call it what it is (a distraction - the opposition's ruse to get them tangled up in semantics) and consistently return to the central tenets of the argument - which is that Republicans have NO alternative and NO plans for getting decent, affordable, & accessible health care for all Americans - thus their plan is essentially "drop dead" - quickly.

I just know Democrats are wont to jump for such "distraction bait" and also to get caught up in media propaganda and the mob mentality fomented by the media and orchestrated by the opposition.

Once that happens, they end up losing the whole argument - which is what detractors want. They do this time and time again.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Here is a discussion on the topic with numbers of deaths (LINK)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6668291

[NYC_SKP]

3. My older dictionaries make no reference to WW2. Languages change over time.

Languages change over time and specific words tend to gather more, rather than fewer, variant definitions and associations.

More recent associations, however, should not diminish other, and especially older, meanings.

The current concern over the use of the term and the suggestion that it in some way disrespects the victims of Nazi hatred is, IMO, misplaced.

:donut:

[DaveinJapan]

4. Words do indeed change over time, and this one wasn't a good choice in this case.

I loved what Congressman Grayson had to say on this matter, in both speeches, but "holocaust" was a foolish choice of words. In context, it's understandable, but historically the term has become synonymous with the eradication of six million souls in a particularly horrific campaign, and there the word should remain imho.

There are plenty of other words he could have chosen, such as "tragedy" or "catastrophe" or "calamity" or even "abomination" if you want to get as graphic as possible.

He chose poorly. And he admitted as much on the Maddow show and I for one thought she did journalism a great deal of credit for pressing him on his choice of words in this case. Aside from that, he did great. So the best course of action would be for him to admit (as he DID) that it wasn't the best choice of words and then move on.

[malaise]

6. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Some people have decided it can only be used for one horrific event. I'm not sure they own dictionaries.

[Hubert Flottz]

8. I knew because, my old mean eighth grade English teacher...

made me look it up, about a hundred years ago. :hi:

[LeftinOH]

7. OK: I holocausted my toast this morning.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. I did the same thing with my biscuits...

I had to rush into the bathroom to take a George Bush and WHAM!

I hate when that happens.

[ljm2002]

9. The religious right fanatics use the word "holocaust"...

...when talking about abortions. They are not referring to WWII when they use it. He explicitly mentioned at one point, that we need to care for people after they are born, not just the unborn. Personally, I think he chose the word carefully and I support his use of it.

[Subdivisions]

11. Nobody owns the word "holocaust" and it was a word before

the Holocaust.

2. What is the origin of the word "Holocaust"?

The word holocaust comes from the ancient Greek, olos meaning "whole" and kaustos or kautos meaning "burnt." Appearing as early as the fifth century B.C.E., the term can mean a sacrifice wholly consumed by fire or a great destruction of life, especially by fire.

While the word holocaust, with a meaning of a burnt sacrificial offering, does not have a specifically religious connotation, it appeared widely in religious writings through the centuries, particularly for descriptions of "pagan" rituals involving burnt sacrifices. In secular writings, holocaust most commonly came to mean "a complete or wholesale destruction," a connotation particularly dominant from the late nineteenth century through the nuclear arms race of the mid-twentieth century. During this time, the word was applied to a variety of disastrous events ranging from pogroms against Jews in Russia, to the persecution and murder of Armenians by Turks during World War I, to the attack by Japan on Chinese cities, to large-scale fires where hundreds were killed.

http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?topic=01

[rockymountaindem]

13. Except that definitions change with the times

"Faggot" just means a bundle of sticks, right? "Holocaust" might have meant one thing on August 31, 1939, but it means something different and very specific today. I agree with Rep. Grayson but he would have been wise to avoid use of that word. I'll give him this though: for all the times I've seen the word "holocaust" misappropriated, this is one time that actually involves people dying for no good reason.

[malaise]

15. No it hasn't changed meaning

Alan Grayson used it correctly. No one group owns the word. Atlantic slavery was a holocaust. 45,000 people dying needlessly because of a lack of health care is no different.

[rockymountaindem]

16. I have to disagree

We can call the trans-Atlantic slave trade what it was, a horrible crime of the first order, without using the same word that has more rather than less become applied to a specific other horrible crime of the first order. A little differentiation in terms is not the end of the world.

Furthermore, I would say that while the death of so many people for lack of health care is an utter catastrophe and a hundred other bad things, it's still not the same thing as gas chambers, ghettos, mobile execution vans and the Einsatzgruppen.

[malaise]

21. Then use the definite article in front of it

for the horrific German version of it. Words cannot be stolen or retired because that suits some people and holocaust has several meanings. What happened to the people of Africa during Atlantic slavery was nothing short of a holocaust.

[Hubert Flottz]

24. What happened to the people in the World Trade Center...

by definition, "was nothing short of a holocaust"

What might happen tomorrow or next week might by definition, be "nothing short of a holocaust"

What could happen if Iran would develop nuclear weapons could by definition, be "nothing short of a holocaust"

[malaise]

33. 100% correct n/t

[JBoy]

12. The RW's demand for an apology will morph into apologizing about using that word.

On the facts, they don't have a leg to stand on. But they'll think they can create some phony outrage by saying "he's making light of the nazi holocaust for political reasons".

[ljm2002]

30. Well if they do try that...

...then it is up to us to dredge up videos of the rabid right wingers using the term when discussion abortion rights.

As usual, they are all outraged when one of ours uses emotionally charged language. Because dontcha know, only they are allowed to use such terms to get people riled up.

Pffft.

[Iggo]

14. Polansky!!!

Are you distracted yet?

[Hubert Flottz]

18. Nope...

holocaust...Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cambodia, New York City, Baghdad.

It was Keith and Rachel who were distracted. When I think of Polansky I think of Sharon Tate and her baby.

"The wages of sin is death" 44,000 dead Americans every year because of greed. The GOP and some of the democrats in Washington value their jobs more than they value those people and then they go to church on Sunday and brag about what fine christians they are.

[VenusRising]

17. Also:

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/the-holocaust/etymology-and-usage-of-the-term.html

Etymology and usage of the term

The word holocaust originally derived from the Greek word holokauston, meaning "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering", or "a burnt sacrifice offered to God". In Greek and Roman pagan rites, gods of the earth and underworld received dark animals, which were offered by night and burnt in full. Holocaust was later used to refer to a sacrifice Jews were required to make by the Torah. But since the mid-19th century, the word has been used by many authors to refer to large catastrophes and massacres, particularly those caused by immolation. Referring to the Second World War in the years following, writers in English tended to use the term in relation to events such as the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima, rather than the Nazi genocide; it was not until the 1970s that the latter began to become the conventional meaning of the word, when used unqualified, and with a capital letter.

[Hepburn]

19. Yes, the mass destruction of people....the word totally fits in the context...

...of the denial to health care. What else would be an appropriate term for what the GOP and the Blue Dogs are doing?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

20. "Holocaust" + "Let's remember we should care about people even after they're born." =

call out of the hypocritical anti-choice movment. They refer to aborted fetuses as a holocaust all the time.

We can take the ball and run with it, or reflexively start falling all over ourselves with self-criticism.

I suggest we stay off the back foot and keep attacking.

[Hubert Flottz]

22. "I suggest we stay off the back foot and keep attacking"

I like your attitude! :hi:

[redqueen]

23. Thanks!

:hi:

[MidwestRick]

26. The problem I have...

...is the study he used for his "facts". Unfortunately, the study concludes that if someone that was part of the study didn't have insurance and died, the cause of death was lack of insurance. That type of logic is bogus imo.

[Hubert Flottz]

27. Lack of treatment due to lack of insurance...

I do understand.

[MidwestRick]

28. Lack of treatment, yes...but...

If you were part of the study and you were hit by a bus and killed imediately, you would be in the list of, died because of lack of insurance. It's similar to the studies done to prove how many people die from smoking. If someone has died, and they were a smoker, they are counted as a death caused by smoking...even if the person died from being struck by lightning.

It's junk science imo.

[Kadie]

29. Even if the number of deaths due to lack of insurance is half of what is quoted in the study,

or even a quarter, it is still inexcusable. It is still a lot of needless deaths. We need to be better than that. We should not let people die just because they can not afford to see a doctor or get a prescription. It shouldn't happen.

[MidwestRick]

31. I agree

But imo to use faulty logic to sustain an arguement only hurts the cause. That is my only point.

[bridgit]

32. You can see right there just how it turned after 'complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire'

into 'burnt offering', very Biblical very Torah and the quick def2<def3 expansion through 'systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II' and beyond. By assigning the definition of a word such as 'holocaust' to one group and one group only; the equally pernicious, systematic deaths of all others are too able to become discounted, for whatever reason, even where their having died so by similar means throughout history and around the world

When anywhere near that scenario presents itself, it's possible to understand any such assigning of definition as a matter trending toward product placement or image control which is really the basis for this round of hullabaloo-like protestations: who can even deign to semble this word but they to whom the definition has been assigned or reserved, their immediate family or friends, and the people they donate money to/or receive money from

Product Placement ~

At the saloon one Sunday, just coffee Irish on the patio with friends mind you ;) hubby walked inside and keyed up some music. When the Beach Boys song Good Vibrations came on, a young woman at our table became completely animated, big teethy white smiles & giggles asking who the band was cause she just loved that song. A mutual friend told her the Beach Boys, she said she bets the Beach Boys must like OJ so much they wrote a song about it, cause that's where she heard it first oh my:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74JyDmAu9Zw

American HC is for some a form of holocaust when they see Fascist-like corporate elites, their immediate family or friends, and the people they donate money to/or receive money from; seen with their naked eyes their smirking laughing faces all pointing downward upon the downtrodden maladies of everyday people as they stand in line pushing their guts back through a separation in their viscera so it is a sadness no doubt,

When a word has been co-opted thus, proceed to the root of it's synonyms if not the origin of words themselves:

Main Entry: holocaust

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: widespread destruction

Synonyms: annihilation, carnage, catastrophe, devastation, extermination, extinction, genocide, immolation, inferno, mass murder, massacre, slaughter

The Bataan death march was a form of holocaust as was the trail of tears, or pox sent out onto the prairie. Groups have their experiential relationship with it; but no one group can *own* a word such as holocaust that continues to effect so many peoples so heinously, round the world, without energetic image control certainly not hate & war mongering republican hypocrites *not even* Eric Cantor

I like Grayson, and so I'd like to think he understands most keenly the specific gravity of the word: holocaust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo