ADL Calls On Politicians To Refrain From Using Holocaust Imagery

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaninchen said:
Perhaps we should both bear that in mind.
Click to expand...
Oh, I am, believe me. I will definitely remember that even when someone, specifically when I, concede to you that your point is valid and that I will abide by your request out of sensitivity, in other words when you get exactly what you want, that it still is not satisfactory.

Reminds me of a quote I read recently. Something to the effect that people who are determined to find fault are always successful.

Cheers!
 
Richardols said:
No, a holocaust is not a holocaust. All those events are tragedies, or horrors or genocides. The term “holocaust” was originally used to describe the Jewish tragedy and should remain as such. .
Click to expand...
Once again,

How can a word that has been in English usage for 4 centuries have ORGINALLY be used to decribe a 20th century event?
 
Richardols said:
, that the Jews have absolutely no business kwetching about the Catholics usurping the word,
Click to expand...
Catholics are ‘usruping’ no words at all. All I see is people using the word exactly was Webster’s describes it, “a large loss of life” Are you honestly trying to claim that English speaking people cannot use words in their dictionary defined sense?

Where’s the usurption in that?
 
Brendan said:
Catholics are ‘usruping’ no words at all. All I see is people using the word exactly was Webster’s describes it, “a large loss of life” Are you honestly trying to claim that English speaking people cannot use words in their dictionary defined sense?

Where’s the usurption in that?
Click to expand...
The original word, even as used in Scripture, meant a sacrificial offering consumed in flames. Anyone can use the word in that sense. The sense of holocaust as a “massive slaughter, esp. the genocide of European Jews (Amer. Heritage Dicty)” became the common meaning after World War II. If one wants to use the term in that sense, that’s also valid. The term has become so synonymous with the genocide of the Jews, that, out of respect for their unique experience, it ought not to be used for other genocides.

The Cambodia Holocaust? The Rwandan Holocaust? And so on. No. Such minimizes the singular horror of the German campaign against the Jews.
 
Brendan said:
Catholics are ‘usruping’ no words at all. All I see is people using the word exactly was Webster’s describes it, “a large loss of life” Are you honestly trying to claim that English speaking people cannot use words in their dictionary defined sense?

Where’s the usurption in that?
Click to expand...
Right on Brendan. 👍
 
Even if someone is “usurping” the word holocaust, it’s not Catholics, or at least not only Catholics. The word is routinely used to describe genocide. The original meaning does not appear to be strictly observed as it appears that genocide by any means will often be described as a holocaust.

The so-called “Catholic usurpation”, however, cannot be defended by consulting a dictionary since if you’re claiming you’re using the word only as it is precisely defined in the dictionary, then abortion would generally not qualify since abortion doesn’t involve fire.

But this is not about the dictionary meaning of words, it is about feelings. Jews want the word holocaust to remain strictly to describe the Nazi atrocities during WW2, the Shoah. The term is precise and appropriate. And their situation was unique.

Even if others may believe that describing other episodes of genocide can properly be described as a “holocaust”, the Jews do not agree. They and their ancestors/relatives are the ones that died. So, out of charity, how does it harm us to respect their wishes?

There have to be a lot of times in life where someone says something we don’t agree with, and yet, out of respect for their feelings, we keep still. Why can’t this be one of those times?

There are lots of words. Why can’t we enlarge our vocabulary sufficiently that we don’t have to hurt an entire group to describe yet another episode of genocide?

Better yet, why can’t we use all this energy to work towards ending all forms of genocide? Does anyone think all this arguing is accomplishing that? Wouldn’t it be a better goal?
 
MelanieAnne said:
Even if someone is “usurping” the word holocaust, it’s not Catholics, or at least not only Catholics. The word is routinely used to describe genocide. The original meaning does not appear to be strictly observed as it appears that genocide by any means will often be described as a holocaust.

The so-called “Catholic usurpation”, however, cannot be defended by consulting a dictionary since if you’re claiming you’re using the word only as it is precisely defined in the dictionary, then abortion would generally not qualify since abortion doesn’t involve fire.

But this is not about the dictionary meaning of words, it is about feelings. Jews want the word holocaust to remain strictly to describe the Nazi atrocities during WW2, the Shoah. The term is precise and appropriate. And their situation was unique.

Even if others may believe that describing other episodes of genocide can properly be described as a “holocaust”, the Jews do not agree. They and their ancestors/relatives are the ones that died. So, out of charity, how does it harm us to respect their wishes?

There have to be a lot of times in life where someone says something we don’t agree with, and yet, out of respect for their feelings, we keep still. Why can’t this be one of those times?

There are lots of words. Why can’t we enlarge our vocabulary sufficiently that we don’t have to hurt an entire group to describe yet another episode of genocide?

Better yet, why can’t we use all this energy to work towards ending all forms of genocide? Does anyone think all this arguing is accomplishing that? Wouldn’t it be a better goal?
Click to expand...
Well put, MelanieAnne. Out of sheer respect, we ought to reserve the word Holocaust for the Jewish experience, and as you say, we can use our energies for better causes than trying to wrest the term away for some other end.
 
Richardols said:
Well put, MelanieAnne. Out of sheer respect, we ought to reserve the word Holocaust for the Jewish experience, and as you say, we can use our energies for better causes than trying to wrest the term away for some other end.
Click to expand...
Which is justifying abortion.
 
Richardols said:
Not at all. To tell people not to use the term Holocaust except when referring to the German murder campaign is to show respect for the Jews. No one used the term to refer to abortion except to draw an association between the **actual **Holocaust and the numbers of abortions. Before the early 70s, the word commonly used, meant only one thing - the Shoah.

Anti-abortionists would do better to use another word for the history of abortion deaths - perhaps The Horror or The Abomination. There are plenty of terms that can be used.

Why deliberately offend the Jews by usurping a term they consider as their own because of their unique experience (unique not in terms of numbers, but unique in that they were the special target of the Germans)?
Click to expand...
How does using the Holocaust in a general sense deliberately offend the Jews?

Once again, why does Foxman claim only Jews can use that term when Jews were not the only ones killed during the Holocaust?

I am not anti-Semitic. In fact, I think that term would be more accurately saved for those who DENY that the Holocaust happened (like Iran’s presidents and some college professors).
 
The ADL are Jewish-supremacist bigots. Foxman is just as racist as David Duke and the ADL is just as racist as the KKK.

In our society it seems everyone can be labelled a racist except the Jews. If you denounce something said by a Jew, you are automatically an “anti-semite”.

The ADL has basically claimed that only Jews died in the holocaust and they have denied the Armenian genocide. How much more racist can you get? What must one do to not be an “anti-semite” in the eyes of the ADL? Build a shrine to the Jews in your living room?

Secular Jews control Hollywood, the diamond industry, much of the media, much of wall street, etc. Its not a “conspiracy”, its a fact. Their power is very disproportionate to their population. Schools teach students about Jewish rituals and holidays and not Christian ones, despite the fact that Jews make up 2% of the population and Christians 80%. Yet racist Jews like the ADL don’t care when schoolchildren are forced to make manorahs in class. Thats “diversity”. However the 10 commandments in a courtroom are “intolerance”.

I for one have had enough of the ADL and their obvious Jewish-supremacy agenda.

And before some pc liberal comes in and calls me “racist” or “anti-semite” or some slanderous label like that, I am definantely not. I am white and I’ve had plenty of non-white girlfriends and friends. I have no grudge against any race. I’m just sick of the nonsense forced onto us by rich secular Jews. America is a Christian nation, not a Jewish one.
 
Richardols said:
The number of Jews murdered by the Germans is proportionately way higher than the deaths of the others and so it is more than appropriate that they can claim the Holocaust as their own. One might note that the Poles, who saw 3 million Catholics killed by the Germans, do not use the term Shoah or Holocaust to refer to those deaths.
Click to expand...
Hitler killed more gentiles than Jews. Just because not all died in the concentration camps doesn’t mean they still weren’t victims. But to the ADL all those people were just “goyim” so they don’t deserve recognition, unlike the superior Jews:rolleyes: .

And why doesn’t the ADL ever condemn Stalin?
 
RomanCrusader said:
Hitler killed more gentiles than Jews. Just because not all died in the concentration camps doesn’t mean they still weren’t victims. But to the ADL all those people were just “goyim” so they don’t deserve recognition, unlike the superior Jews:rolleyes: .

And why doesn’t the ADL ever condemn Stalin?
Click to expand...
Cause they’re apologists for the communists.
 
bones_IV said:
Foxman is such a religious bigot isn’t he?

“The Holocaust was a unique tragedy in human history – an attempt by the Nazis to exterminate the Jewish people that led to the deliberate murder of six million Jews. We find the use of analogies to the Holocaust in other contexts deeply painful, disturbing and offensive. Such analogies can only trivialize and diminish the horror, and cause further pain to Holocaust survivors and to those alive today who lost friends and loved ones.”

Apparently the ADL does’t recognize the murder of unborn children as a violation of human rights. May God remove the gunk and filth from the hearts of these perfidious people!

Link
Click to expand...
Foxman, Wiesel and other Jewish leaders have long taken the position that the term “Holocaust” should be used only to refer to the Nazi’s murder of Jews in the 1940’s. It is almost as though they had copyrighted the word. Over 100 million people died worldwide as the direct result of WWII - 20 million in Russia alone. Stalin eliminated far, far more than six million in the purges of the '30’s. In this context the losses of the Jews do not appear to be overwhelming. But, it has to be admitted, that of all the people who suffered, they were the only ones who were legal targets of an advanced western state of which they were citizens. This makes their case somewhat different.

I however have trouble accepting that the death of one person is any more or any less tragic than the killing of another.
 
OriginalJS said:
Foxman, Wiesel and other Jewish leaders have long taken the position that the term “Holocaust” should be used only to refer to the Nazi’s murder of Jews in the 1940’s. It is almost as though they had copyrighted the word. Over 100 million people died worldwide as the direct result of WWII - 20 million in Russia alone. Stalin eliminated far, far more than six million in the purges of the '30’s. In this context the losses of the Jews do not appear to be overwhelming. But, it has to be admitted, that of all the people who suffered, they were the only ones who were legal targets of an advanced western state of which they were citizens. This makes their case somewhat different.

I however have trouble accepting that the death of one person is any more or any less tragic than the killing of another.
Click to expand...
Its a classic case of Jewish racism. By claiming their genocide to be “worse” than any other, they are saying that Jews are superior human beings. As I said, Hitler killed more gentiles than he did Jews. Look at the Slavs. They weren’t even brought to concentration camps, they just got murdered on the spot by the SS or the Ustashi.

The Germans are still being forced to bear this stupid guilt-trip because of what happened 70 years ago. The Japanese and Soviets of the time behaved just as barbarically, and they don’t have a guilt-trip like the Germans do. Today the poor Germans can barely wave their flag without being slandered as “Nazis”.

The holocaust was horrible, just like every other genocide. It was no better and no worse, and it wasn’t strictly Jewish by any means. For Jews to try and monopolize it is racist and insulting to the millions of gentiles who died. Millions of Jews and millions of gentiles perished, making it more universal than the ADL would like us to believe.
 
RomanCrusader said:
Its a classic case of Jewish racism. By claiming their genocide to be “worse” than any other, they are saying that Jews are superior human beings. As I said, Hitler killed more gentiles than he did Jews. Look at the Slavs. They weren’t even brought to concentration camps, they just got murdered on the spot by the SS or the Ustashi.

The Germans are still being forced to bear this stupid guilt-trip because of what happened 70 years ago. The Japanese and Soviets of the time behaved just as barbarically, and they don’t have a guilt-trip like the Germans do. Today the poor Germans can bearely wave their flag without being slandered as “Nazis”.

The holocaust was horrible, just like every other genocide. It was no better and no worse, and it wasn’t strictly Jewish by any means. For Jews to try and monopolize it is racist and insulting to the millions of gentiles who died. Millions of Jews and millions of gentiles perished, making it more universal than the ADL would like us to believe.
Click to expand...
Amen!

Pope Pius XII said, that “Thousands of people who through no fault of their own, due to their nationality, race were destined to die”. Jewish supremism is alive and well.
 
I’m trying to understand the viewpoints being expressed. Are you saying that since various ADL spokesmen have expressed viewpoints that you believe to be racist/supremacist/etc. that you are, in turn, justified in being uncharitable and insensitive?

It’s not just card carrying members of the ADL who are being insulted here. Cooperation and understanding has to start somewhere. Why can’t it start here? OK so some guys on the other side are bigots. Be charitable and sensitive anyway. It won’t hurt you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top