why talking about the meaning of "holocaust" is productive

[27inCali]

and not a distraction.

maybe I am wrong, but I think a lot of people out there who are healthy, who haven't had any major problems with their health and haven't had the opportunity to realize how shitty their coverage really is yet, are just too emotionally detached from the argument. They can hear horror stories about the dastardly things the insurance companies have done to people, but until it happens to them or someone they love, they just wont get it. They may be hearing the numbers that 120 Americans are dying each day because they can't afford the healthcare they need, but it's just not sinking into their thick skulls, it goes in one ear and out the other, after all, everyday we are bombarded in the news with horrific stories of human suffering that if we did get emotionally attached to on a regular basis, would eventually crush in us any hope for a better world -but I digress.

to me, the word "holocaust" means: when a shockingly large number of people are intentionally killed. That's what it means to me. Emotionally for me, the word is more or less interchangeable with genocide. Though I'm not stupid and I know that the strict definition of these words is slightly different, THEY CARRY THE SAME EMOTION WEIGHT and I think, in an impassioned public debate, the strict definition of a word is powerless against it's emotional meaning, that's why the Teabaggers see no problem conflating socialism and fascism: the words actually mean completely different things, but emotionally for them, they mean the same thing, and that's all they need to go throwing the words around as though they were interchangeable.

but to summarize:

IF WE GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH THE RIGHT ABOUT THE REAL MEANING OF THE WORD 'HOLOCAUST' WE PUT THEM IN THE POSITION OF MINIMIZING THOSE 44,000 DEATHS A YEAR. THEY ARE IN THE UNENVIABLE RHETORICAL POSITION OF HAVING TO SPLIT HAIRS AS TO WHETHER THOSE DEATHS CONSTITUTE BEING COMPARED TO A HOLOCAUST (HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE FOR IT TO QUALIFY FOR THE TERM? ETC) , ALL THE WHILE THOSE 44,000 DEATHS GET MENTIONED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND THE NUMBER IS DRIVEN HOME TO THE PEOPLE AGAIN AND AGAIN. THE GOP WILL BE BAITED INTO MAKING ALL KINDS OF CALOUS STATEMENTS CONCERNING THOSE LOSING THEIR LIVES AND WILL RHETORICALLY SLIT THEIR OWN THROAT.

Just so you know, my grandpa was among the first soldiers to discover the concentration camps. He never told anyone about what he saw (If that gives you any idea of the horror that passed before his eyes) -I just want people to know I don't take the subject lightly at all since it caused a great deal of mental anguish for some one I loved deeply, but if there is one lesson my grandpa, and probably every other person touched by that tragedy would want us to take home with us, it is this. NEVER LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN, IF YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A HOLOCAUST, YOU CALL IT OUT FOR WHAT IT IS, YOU FIGHT IT WITH EVERYTHING YOU HAVE -and ultimately that is what this argument is about, ending a holocaust against the American people.

IT'S NOT BOMBAST, IT'S A TRUTH SO PAINFUL THAT PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT'S REAL -THAT'S EXACTLY HOW PAINFUL IT IS: IN THIS COUNTRY, WE ARE LETTING PEOPLE BE MURDERED SLOWLY BY MAJOR CORPORATIONS. THOSE WHO CALL IT OUT FOR WHAT IT IS WILL BE REMEMBERED AS HEROS. THOSE WHO WOULD DENY IT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO FACE IT ARE LITTLE BETTER THAN THOSE STUPID, WORTHLESS GERMAN CIVILIANS WHO SAID "WE DIDN'T KNOW."

[27inCali]

1. wow, I guess

I shoulda put something in the title about "fucking kids" or "exposed vaginas."

[izquierdista]

2. Another thing that is not a distraction

Is that the Nazis made lots of money off the concentration camp workers (see Schindler's List), letting them die of typhoid and typhus since they could easily be replaced. Insurance companies collect the premiums, and maybe somewhere there is an Oskar Schindler paying for treatment, but for a far greater number, "let them die" is the answer from the insurance company.

Insurance companies are not Nazis yet, having stopped short of shooting and gassing their victims policyholders, but that's because they have learned that slow murder is easier to cover over than fast.

[27inCali]

4. most people don't realize

that a lot of the big captains of industry and bankers here in America liked the Nazis and tried to oust FDR only to be foiled by Gen. Smedley Butler. The funny thing is, none of them were arrested because they were just too powerful to be convicted of anything.

Those people never went to jail, and they lived to pass their fortunes and their power down to the next generation of robber barons who most likely shared their sadism and predilection for the worst elements of the occult . So, if any of those big families ended up with controlling shares of these big insurance companies, which I can't say I know for sure, but is a big likelihood, then, yes, they would literally be modern day Nazis. As far fetched as that sounds, just look at their total disregard for human life. They are Nazis, they do a better job of hiding their atrocities than the original German Nazis. But if you think about it, the original Nazis kept the holocaust secret for years, so it really does all make sense. The insurance industry is run by Nazis.

It's just so fucked.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. Actually, holocaust is a Greek word for "burnt sacrifice". It's in the scriptures -

at least, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament - it's the offering that the priests would make, whether it be cow or dove or lamb, and so forth, when it was to be consumed by fire.

As a word, though, it has also been applied to mass war-time killings and slaughters for the past many centuries.

It's sadly lost that meaning in our social discourse, mostly because it's been tied so much to the Holocaust (capital H) of the Nazis that we now think of it as meaning "killing a lot of people". Killing a lot of people is genocide (if it's enough) or just 'killing a lot of people' if it isn't enough for a genocide.

When the genocide of World War II was first called the Holocaust (or in Jewish terms, The Shoah), that was a taxonomic maneuver to put a theological stamp on a horrendous event - it's a better word than mere genocide, because by calling it holocaust gave it religious meaning: that is, that the Jews (and others) that the Nazis killed were actually not just killings, but sacrifices, giving a kind of sanctification to those who were treated so murderously.

And unfortunately, it's a word that's both been used so much as well as a word that is loaded with so much emotional baggage because of the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, that it begins to lose its meaning when applied to things outside WWII. I'm not sure that using 'holocaust' (even with a small 'h') in relation to the health care crisis in America is completely free of moral violation of the Jewish/others suffering under the Nazis, and so I would be hesitant to use it (just as the anti-abortion fuck's constant mantra of the 'holocaust' of abortion) in relation to health care.

But, as you said in your post, it DOES have incredible emotional appeal, and in that sense it is a powerful word to use to frame the discussion our way, instead of letting the pukes and life-hating Jesus-crispies frame the discussion as so they so often are allowed to do.

This is one time that we simply cannot allow the right to frame the discussion and choose the vocabulary.

[27inCali]

5. you're right

does it even need to be said that we should to be careful to show the proper respect for those who suffered through the Holocaust of the 40's. I think it would be a good idea to ask them how they feel, I'm pretty sure most would understand why their suffering would be used as a battle cry in the fight against any needless human suffering, which is what we are trying to do here. Grayson is Jewish himself, so I'm pretty sure he doesn't take using the word lightly. I don't think any responsible person does, but I think anytime there are innocent people losing their lives because they are being crushed by another more powerful people, there is a strong moral relationship between that and the holocaust even if the magnitude of the number of dead does not match up. For example a lake and an ocean are two different things, but they are both made of water.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. "strong moral relationship" - indeed! Excellent phrasing.

And yes, Grayson being Jewish himself adds more weight to the use of the word (and offers the rest of us some relief about hesitating to use it).

[CTyankee]

15. And we handed the right a weapon when we use the term.

They can then focus everything on the word "holocaust" and not on our essential point. Exactly what is wrong with the comparison. It lets the right wiggle right off the hook.

I could see this coming a mile away...all of our explanations about the history of the term, Old Testament, yadda yadda, the real question is: Have we advanced the debate one inch further to our goal of universal health care with the use of the word "holocaust." I would argue "No" because we are mired in this debate on a word and NOT on what the urgent message should be.

Focus, folks, focus. Let's keep our eyes on the prize...

[demwing]

6. Save us from another holocaust

Why does the word "holocaust" brings up images of WWII and Nazi concentration camps? The word was in use before that time, so why the stigma now? Partly because it fits so well the description of what happened during that period, but also because it has been considered taboo to use the term ever since. Whatever the reason, the term has never had the chance to lose it's affiliation with the death of millions at the hands of Adolph Hitler. In that sense, "holocaust" now belongs to Hitler, and to Nazi Germany.

Remind me again, how is this a good thing?

What is the benefit of isolating this term in our language? What do we, the dead or the survivors, or their family members, gain from maintaining the specific use of this word? Does anyone think that WWII will fade from our memory if the word "holocaust" reverts to its pre-war meaning and usage? Do we risk another run in with Nazism--or any other fascist nationalist dictatorships--if we allow a word back into common use?

If our memories are that weak, and our history books serve only to gather dust on our shelves, does this one word hold the balance of change? Are we not doomed to forget, regardless?

Will saving us from the word "holocaust" ever save us from another holocaust?

[27inCali]

7. by limiting the word to just the Nazi reference

we rob ourselves of the proper word to explain what happened in Dafur.

and we enable the dangerous idea that it was somehow a unique phenomena when in fact similar systematic mass murder has occurred regularly throughout human history (just read the Old Testament, there is plenty of mass religious slaughter in there).

it also gives the false impression that it could never happen again -making it harder to prevent in the future.

sad, just sad.

[demwing]

8. Exactly

By pretending this word is unique to that event, we begin to believe that that event was unique in human behavior.

The numbers and cruelty involved in the Holocaust of WWII are merely indicative of what humanity is capable of if we act without checks. We can close our eyes and pretend that Hitler was an inhuman devil, and the world will never let that happen again, or we can open our eyes and remain vigilant to ENSURE that it never happens again.

Setting this word apart maintains its power to describe a specifci atrocity, but robs its power to prevent another. Darfur proves the point.

[CTyankee]

10. This is EXACTLY why we SHOULD NOT use the word "holocaust."

It DOES make us think immediately of Nazis and concentration camps. It is not the image of what is happening in this country. It just isn't.

Not one person on DU or anywhere is saying that Republicans are starving and gassing people to death and then putting them in ovens. OUR images should be our stories about Americans who are suffering and dying because of lack of health care right in our very midst, every day. We need to connect with stories about our loved ones, neighbors, friends, coworkers even, who have experienced this. People can relate because they all know someone who has been affected.

I used to write direct mail fundraising letters for a living. Telling a person's story about suffering immediately connected that person to the one reading the appeal. It is why people give money -- not to the institution but to other people! It is a maxim in fundraising: people give to people. THIS is what we need to talk about.

These are powerfully connective, very compelling stories. People will respond in ways that they may never respond to the images of the concentration camps, horrible tho they may be. People respond to what is familiar to them and that is going on around them.

Please think this thing through...

[demwing]

12. But SHOULD it remind us?

That's my question. You seem to agree that it does remind us, but I question whether that reminder is valuable, or even necessary.

[CTyankee]

13. What is "should" and what just "is" was my point.

As liberals, we think the public "should" respond the way WE think they should respond. What I am saying is, while that is fine for us, in order to connect with other Americans we need to tell them about someone they can relate to. I don't think images of concentration camp victims, long ago and on grainy black and white films that we have all seen, immediately connects the viewer to OUR present day Americanproblem of health care.

It's really a question of how best to present the problem in a way that wins over people to our side. I just don't think we can do it by summoning up The Holocaust. We can do it more effectively but still very strongly.

[demwing]

18. Agreed, BUT

my point is that it will remain so as long as we let it remain so. The working title of my original post was "Words serve those who use them, and are served by those who fail to" and that sumes up my feelings here.

Anyway, this is really not a battle I want to stake Health Care Reform on, so I'll let it go. :)

[cali]

14. it's not a matter of should or shouldn't. It just does. I'll wager that

for most Americans familiar with the word it conjures images of starved bodies stacked like cord wood and gas chambers.

[demwing]

19. See my post #18 /nt

[rockymountaindem]

20. Excellent post n/t

[Ineeda]

9. It's an emotionally loaded word, as it should be, but

Used in the framework of 44,000 Americans dying every year, I can’t think of a better word, and I don’t minimize the WWII horror in any way. Put in perspective, if the population of a small city of 44,000 was wiped off the planet by a natural disaster, oh, woe is me, as it should be. Or if an epidemic of, say, H1N1 threatened to kill the entire population, this year, of Brentwood, CA, Mariposa, AZ, Edina, MN, Hot Springs, AR, or Coral Gables, FL (all cities of approx.44,000) there would be outrage, as there should be.
Because it’s happening to someone else and not all at once, it’s ignored. When 44,000 people die each year – whether all at once or one by one – it’s beyond horrible, and it’s shameful.

[CTyankee]

16. Have you seen the American Cancer Society's PSA on health care reform?

It features a middle aged man who talks about how a back injury made him lose his job and his health insurance. His wife got cancer, discovered it too late and died because she didn't have health care. Here is this guy that anybody in America could relate to, telling his and his wife's story, with shots of her framed picture when she was younger.

THESE are the images that we should be promoting in the media to drive home our point about hcr. Strutting Nazis and concentration camp victims doesn't relate the viewer to our immediate crisis, whether we think they should or not. We're wasting time...

[Ineeda]

17. Exactly my point - make it personal. n/t

[DearAbby]

24. +1

[Number23]

21. I'm not sure that I agree with your point, but I think that the debate over the use of this word

is a great exercise. I'd really like to hear from some Jewish groups on their thoughts about this. I am a firm believer that people should have some input on how their history is represented and characterized to and especially BY people outside of that culture.

Words matter. They carry tremendous weight. And the use of words to convey certain images should be thought about carefully. Whether the word/images are in reference to Jewish history, black history, or anyone else's history, it is important to show respect and be mindful of the thoughts and feelings of members of that cultural group.

Even though in this case, the word holocaust predates The Holocaust, I'd still be interested in hearing if any Jewish groups took offense to the Congressman's use of the word.

[Number23]

23. If the current meme that Grayson is Jewish is correct, then that adds a really interesting angle

to this discussion.

As I referenced here: I am a firm believer that people should have some input on how their history is represented and characterized to and especially BY people outside of that culture.

If Grayson is a member of the culture, I think that changes things significantly.

[vadawg]

25. i am not jewish, but my wife is and i take great offense at the seemingly

politicisation of this, theres no way in the world to compare the holocaust to the problems in the US health care debate. its apples and screwdrivers...

[Lyric]

22. I am of Jewish descent.

My great-uncle survived the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, while other extended family members died there. However, I am also from a very poor family, and I went from age 5 until age 18 without ever seeing a doctor outside of the ER. We couldn't afford healthcare, period.

I can speak only for myself, but I am not offended by the word "Holocaust" being used to describe the deaths of people who are basically dying for the sake of other people's greed, bigotry, and hate. I think it's quite appropriate.

[vadawg]

26. a lot of people seem to think that the holocaust only involved the Jews it seems

remember there was a lot of other groups who were involved and it is offensive to minimize what happened to them...

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Redefining anything at all is okay if it furthers our agenda.

Didn't you get the memo?

[GivePeaceAchance]

28. Yes, it was good for him to bring emotion to something folks should feel passionate about.