Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grignard wrote:I just don't see the point of being exclusive with the term.

You mean to the Nazi genocide overall as compared to other atrocities, or specifically to the description of the systematic genocide of the Jewish people within that calamity?

Ahtman wrote:

Grignard wrote:I just don't see the point of being exclusive with the term.

You mean to the Nazi genocide overall as compared to other atrocities, or specifically to the description of the systematic genocide of the Jewish people within that calamity?

The Nazi genocide/murders specifically.

Grignard wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Grignard wrote:I just don't see the point of being exclusive with the term.

You mean to the Nazi genocide overall as compared to other atrocities, or specifically to the description of the systematic genocide of the Jewish people within that calamity?

The Nazi genocide/murders specifically.

Call it 'The Nazi Genocide', then. You just solved the problem. Go Team You.

Albatross wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Grignard wrote:I just don't see the point of being exclusive with the term.

You mean to the Nazi genocide overall as compared to other atrocities, or specifically to the description of the systematic genocide of the Jewish people within that calamity?

The Nazi genocide/murders specifically.

Call it 'The Nazi Genocide', then. You just solved the problem. Go Team You.

Thats cool. I believe for simplicity I'll continue to refer to it as "The Holocaust", regardless of the ethnicity of the victim. Not like genocide comes up much in casual conversation anyhow.

Frazzled wrote:
No its not. Its specific to the Jews murdered by the Nazis and their fellow travellers. That its grown to encompass all the victims of the Nazi regime is not relevant.

That's not consistent with the meaning of the word holocaust. It means, literally, 'wholly burnt' and has been used to describe the massacre of Jews, specifically, and large groups of people generally. For example, during WWII, many writers used the term to describe the Armenian Genocide of WWI.

The more proper term for the extermination of the Jews, specifically, is 'Shoah'. The official Israeli translation of 'Shoah' is 'Holocaust of Jews'; implying that holocaust is not sufficient to describe the slaughter of Jews.

Actually shoah just means calamity. In as such there is shoah and Shoah, holocaust and The Holocaust. Just because the incident got the name first doesn't somehow deny that there haven't been other genocides.

I know that shoah means 'calamity'. I was pointing out that the word Holocaust has no special association with Judaism such that there is an intrinsic case for applying it only to Jewish victims of Hitler's genocide. By contrast, 'Shoah' is a Hebrew word which, to my knowledge, has never been commonly used to refer to Hitler's genocide in general.

I see 'Holocaust' as a reference to Hitler's genocide in general, and 'Shoah' as a direct reference to the slaughter of Jews during it. Obviously leaving non-capitalized forms to mean other things.

Oliver Stone's comments weren't racist, they are bigoted. There's a big problem with these two words being used interchangeably.

Stone has had a rager against the US ever since he got drafted to serve in Vietnam.

As for the lack knowledge of the genocides and the Holocaust. Blame crappy public school curiculum or history teachers. The facts of who was exterminated hasn't changed.

If you dont think Israel has a hand in American foreign policy your wrong. Flat out wrong. Positive or Negative, Israel is a major influence on our middle east policy.

The reason that Jews are the focal point of the Holocaust is because they were the largest affected group of people by far. There is no slant in the media (The victims of the genocide are all common knowledge). Forgive the horrible example, but it's like this: When you recommend a movie to someone, do you name off every single actor who's in it, or just the actors who are the main characters?

Oliver Stone's comments were racist, because they imply that Jews favor their own race over other people. Implying a sweeping generalization about an entire race is racist, even if that generalization is not derogatory.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Oliver Stone's comments were racist, because they imply that Jews favor their own race over other people.

Couldn't this be considered racist since it assumes that Jews actually are different race? Ethnically they are Hebrew which is Semitic, but there are many other groups that are as well. Their difference is in their religion, not their race.

That's sort of a Catch-22 that you've created. It can't be racist if Jews are not to be considered a different race of people. It is simply a common case of mislabeling; the general consensus is that the word 'Jew' is the equivalent of 'Hebrew', since Jews that are not even partially of Hebrew ancestry are exceedingly rare.

Since I was speaking of an opinion of someone else, it's fairly inconsequential anyway.

Chrysaor686 wrote:The reason that Jews are the focal point of the Holocaust is because they were the largest affected group of people by far. There is no slant in the media (The victims of the genocide are all common knowledge). Forgive the horrible example, but it's like this: When you recommend a movie to someone, do you name off every single actor who's in it, or just the actors who are the main characters?

If it's a majority it's a very slim one. Six million jews vs five to six million people of other religion and ethnicity.

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Oliver Stone's comments were racist, because they imply that Jews favor their own race over other people. Implying a sweeping generalization about an entire race is racist, even if that generalization is not derogatory.

I'm not sure that necessarily applies in this case; as Judaism is an ethnicity, religion, and culture. The existence of the latter two presuppose a sort of preference for one set of beliefs or predilections over another. Antisemitism often gets bound up with racism, but its really a very different animal.

Moreover, Stone said that the Holocaust received a lot of emphasis because of a self-perceived Jewish bend in popular media. This doesn't necessarily indicate that Jews prefer their people to others, only that the Holocaust is more likely to be significant to the Jews that supposedly control Hollywood. Note that he didn't say the attention was unjustified, only that he feels other Nazi atrocities get less attention.

dogma wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Oliver Stone's comments were racist, because they imply that Jews favor their own race over other people. Implying a sweeping generalization about an entire race is racist, even if that generalization is not derogatory.

I'm not sure that necessarily applies in this case; as Judaism is an ethnicity, religion, and culture. The existence of the latter two presuppose a sort of preference for one set of beliefs or predilections over another. Antisemitism often gets bound up with racism, but its really a very different animal.

Moreover, Stone said that the Holocaust received a lot of emphasis because of a self-perceived Jewish bend in popular media. This doesn't necessarily indicate that Jews prefer their people to others, only that the Holocaust is more likely to be significant to the Jews that supposedly control Hollywood. Note that he didn't say the attention was unjustified, only that he feels other Nazi atrocities get less attention.

And I agree that Israel has a hand in United States foreign policy, like another poster. Several countries have that leverage though.

Again, it probably would have been insulting if you were Jewish and let things get to you, but I don't think it was racist. As was said earlier, when did Jews start being a race anyhow, did the Nazi's start that one or did it begin earlier?

dogma wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:
Oliver Stone's comments were racist, because they imply that Jews favor their own race over other people. Implying a sweeping generalization about an entire race is racist, even if that generalization is not derogatory.

I'm not sure that necessarily applies in this case; as Judaism is an ethnicity, religion, and culture. The existence of the latter two presuppose a sort of preference for one set of beliefs or predilections over another. Antisemitism often gets bound up with racism, but its really a very different animal.

Moreover, Stone said that the Holocaust received a lot of emphasis because of a self-perceived Jewish bend in popular media. This doesn't necessarily indicate that Jews prefer their people to others, only that the Holocaust is more likely to be significant to the Jews that supposedly control Hollywood. Note that he didn't say the attention was unjustified, only that he feels other Nazi atrocities get less attention.

I think the comment that is more controversial is "putting Hitler in context". What context about an egomanaical, genocidal fascist is needed? What confusion has occurred about one of the most covered events in history?

Maybe he was trying to say thatHitler was minunderstood, like Chavez, who's really just a warm teddy bear of love and free enterprise.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe he was trying to say thatHitler was minunderstood, like Chavez, who's really just a warm teddy bear of love and free enterprise.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:The reason that Jews are the focal point of the Holocaust is because they were the largest affected group of people by far. There is no slant in the media (The victims of the genocide are all common knowledge). Forgive the horrible example, but it's like this: When you recommend a movie to someone, do you name off every single actor who's in it, or just the actors who are the main characters?

If it's a majority it's a very slim one. Six million jews vs five to six million people of other religion and ethnicity.

You call that a slim majority? That's more than 50% of the killings attributed to one single group of people. The other half is everyone else lumped into one category, and that's a very broad range of people.

Stormrider wrote:
I think the comment that is more controversial is "putting Hitler in context".

Really? Because I found that to be the most benign thing he said. Surely the hackneyed reference regarding the "Jewish domination of the media" is far worse?

Stormrider wrote:
What context about an egomanaical, genocidal fascist is needed? What confusion has occurred about one of the most covered events in history?

Context would establish why Hitler was an egomaniacal, genocidal fascist; which is something that could be very interesting to see, depending on the approach Stone takes, in film. Oddly enough, some people are actually interested in more than X is bad, or X is evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:
You call that a slim majority? That's more than 50% of the killings attributed to one single group of people. The other half is everyone else lumped into one category, and that's a very broad range of people.

That is a slim majority. You're confusing plurality with majority.