The term was coined during WW2, and it means a mass slaughter of people.
We refer to the WW2 event as the Holocaust, the name of the historical event that invented the word.
There is a difference between the two, and trying to argue that this is not technically comparable to what happened in WW2 because not enough people died yet is a terrible thing to do.
If your ancestors that witnessed what happened during the war were witnessing what is happening today, do you think they would scoff at Palestinians because they don’t have 6 millions deaths yet or would they make the parallel between what happened then and now.
I appreciate your history course, but the kind of discourse you and many other have dilutes the word because you couldn’t be bothered to open a dictionary and look up the meaning of a word. You go around instead , lecturing people saying “akschually…” and spouting the same talking points from the IDF propaganda.
The term itself comes out of the Greek language, around 400 BC. It does not mean mass slaughter or genocide, it means the burning of animals.
In no terms it means anything near mass slaughter. The term though got a different meaning after the second world war, since we called the events holocaust. So, “” akschually"" referring to what happens in Palestine as a holocaust is factually wrong, since the de facto meaning of the word is a religious sacrifice of animals. In modern times the word is only used to refer to the german actions against Jewish people from 1936 to 1945.
Indicating what happens in Palestine is a holocaust is therefore only a comparison between germany 1936 and 1945 to Palestine.
Yes, it may be a genocide, it may be a mass murder/slaughter, BUT it does not even come close to what happened in germany. Therefore it downplays of the events in germany, which is not a good thing.
So, if you want a post it note
A Holocaust is a mass slaughter/genocide
But a mass slaughter/genocide is not a Holocaust.
By the way, my grandparents are still alive and first hand witnesses to what happened here, when the war ended they were 14 and 16 years old. And I have not heard them referring to what happens in Palestine as a Holocaust, neither do I expect them reacting nicely when someone would.
Holocaust has been used and was understood at least since 1189 to describe the burning of Jews. See my comment
Edit: this is btw. not to detract from your point. The word holocaust as the deliberate burning of people was mostly used for burning jews, but also witch-burnings and similar events. Even the great fire of London was called a holocaust.
In pre-WWII parlance, calling what happens in Gaza a holocaust would absolutely be appropriate. Post WWII its usage is just… not helpful and has bad connotations that detract from what is important in the discussion.
The term is greek in origin and referred to burn offering “holókaustos” - “completely/wholely burned”, it was used in this way throughout the middle ages for fire-progroms against Jews (*) and later (1515) to decry the witch-burnings as “the new fire sacrifices” (“nova holocausta”).
* “Eodem coronationis die, circa illam sollemnitatis horam qua Filius immolabatur Patri, incceptum est in civitate Londoniae immolare Judaeos patri suo diabolo ; tantaque fuit hujus Celebris mora mysterii, ut vix altera die compleri potuerit holocaustum” - “On the same day of the coronation, about that solemn hour when the Son was sacrificed to the Father, it was begun in the city of London to sacrifice the Jews to their father the devil; and so great was the delay of this famous mystery, that the next day the holocaust could scarcely have been completed” source
Edit: This is btw. describing the events of the coronation of Richard the Lionheart 1189 CE.
The term was coined during WW2, and it means a mass slaughter of people.
We refer to the WW2 event as the Holocaust, the name of the historical event that invented the word.
There is a difference between the two, and trying to argue that this is not technically comparable to what happened in WW2 because not enough people died yet is a terrible thing to do.
If your ancestors that witnessed what happened during the war were witnessing what is happening today, do you think they would scoff at Palestinians because they don’t have 6 millions deaths yet or would they make the parallel between what happened then and now.
I appreciate your history course, but the kind of discourse you and many other have dilutes the word because you couldn’t be bothered to open a dictionary and look up the meaning of a word. You go around instead , lecturing people saying “akschually…” and spouting the same talking points from the IDF propaganda.
If you want a post it note for next time.
The Holocaust (event) : what happened during WW2
a holocaust (name): the mass murder of people
The term itself comes out of the Greek language, around 400 BC. It does not mean mass slaughter or genocide, it means the burning of animals.
In no terms it means anything near mass slaughter. The term though got a different meaning after the second world war, since we called the events holocaust. So, “” akschually"" referring to what happens in Palestine as a holocaust is factually wrong, since the de facto meaning of the word is a religious sacrifice of animals. In modern times the word is only used to refer to the german actions against Jewish people from 1936 to 1945.
Indicating what happens in Palestine is a holocaust is therefore only a comparison between germany 1936 and 1945 to Palestine.
Yes, it may be a genocide, it may be a mass murder/slaughter, BUT it does not even come close to what happened in germany. Therefore it downplays of the events in germany, which is not a good thing.
So, if you want a post it note
A Holocaust is a mass slaughter/genocide
But a mass slaughter/genocide is not a Holocaust.
By the way, my grandparents are still alive and first hand witnesses to what happened here, when the war ended they were 14 and 16 years old. And I have not heard them referring to what happens in Palestine as a Holocaust, neither do I expect them reacting nicely when someone would.
And tbh, wtf are we even fighting about.
Holocaust has been used and was understood at least since 1189 to describe the burning of Jews. See my comment
Edit: this is btw. not to detract from your point. The word holocaust as the deliberate burning of people was mostly used for burning jews, but also witch-burnings and similar events. Even the great fire of London was called a holocaust.
In pre-WWII parlance, calling what happens in Gaza a holocaust would absolutely be appropriate. Post WWII its usage is just… not helpful and has bad connotations that detract from what is important in the discussion.
The term is greek in origin and referred to burn offering “holókaustos” - “completely/wholely burned”, it was used in this way throughout the middle ages for fire-progroms against Jews (*) and later (1515) to decry the witch-burnings as “the new fire sacrifices” (“nova holocausta”).
* “Eodem coronationis die, circa illam sollemnitatis horam qua Filius immolabatur Patri, incceptum est in civitate Londoniae immolare Judaeos patri suo diabolo ; tantaque fuit hujus Celebris mora mysterii, ut vix altera die compleri potuerit holocaustum” - “On the same day of the coronation, about that solemn hour when the Son was sacrificed to the Father, it was begun in the city of London to sacrifice the Jews to their father the devil; and so great was the delay of this famous mystery, that the next day the holocaust could scarcely have been completed” source
Edit: This is btw. describing the events of the coronation of Richard the Lionheart 1189 CE.