|
“A Final Solution”
The Wikipedia entry for 'final solution':
The Final Solution (German: die Endlösung, pronounced [diː ˈʔɛntˌløːzʊŋ]) or the Final Solution to the Jewish Question (German: Endlösung der Judenfrage, pronounced [ˈɛntˌløːzʊŋ deːɐ̯ ˈjuːdn̩ˌfʁaːɡə]) was a Nazi plan for the genocide of individuals they defined as Jews during World War II. The "Final Solution to the Jewish question" was the official code name for the murder of all Jews within reach, which was not restricted to the European continent. This policy of deliberate and systematic genocide starting across German-occupied Europe was formulated in procedural and geopolitical terms by Nazi leadership in January 1942 at the Wannsee Conference held near Berlin, and culminated in the Holocaust, which saw the murder of 90% of Polish Jews, and two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe.
—
Yesterday the U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution which demanded an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, flouted her own resolution which, for lack of support, was not put to a vote.
At the press stake-out after the vote Thomas-Greenfield remarked:
Good afternoon, everyone.
You just heard me make the case for a resolution that I believe all of us can agree to. In fact, the points in the proposed resolution have all been articulated by the other 14 members of this Council.
…
The draft we’ve presented is a forward leaning resolution. And it is one that we intend to work on in good faith with other Council members to ensure it gets over the finish line.
…
We are eager to continue working with the Council on this proposal: One that would see a temporary ceasefire as soon as practicable, based on the formula of all hostages being released. And one that would get aid into the hands of those Palestinians who so desperately need it.
All told, we intend to do this the right way, so that we can create the right conditions for a safer, more peaceful future. And we will continue to actively engage in the hard work of direct diplomacy on the ground until we reach a final solution.
A final solution – one way or the other …
“The invention of the internet was a disaster for human knowledge. History is a practice; one learns how to read evidence, assess and interpret narratives and texts, understand form, content and occasion. Like medicine, engineering and architecture, history requires training. One does not simply pick up a brush and produce a Kandinsky or Picasso. One studies in the formal framework within which the discipline (think on this word…) reproduces itself. This does not lead to dogmatism, but rather actively enables new forms of thought and exploration—”I studied art for 25 years in order to be able to paint like a child”.
The internet on the other hand is full of children who splash paint, revile formal knowledge, and think they’re Picasso. It’s like giving a machine gun to a monkey.”
Posted by: Patroklos | Feb 21 2024 20:01 utc | 143
Sounds like you mixed up the MOA bar crowd with your young, impressionable students you preach to- so make it even more pretentious [is that possible? editor] I set your sermon to iambic pentameter with my Walmart chapGPT and it worked not bad:
Olympian Pretension (or:A View from An Ivory Tower)(1)
The emergence of the internet, a vast terrain,
A disaster for knowledge, some do proclaim.
For history, a craft, requires due skill,
To read, assess, interpret, with a will.
Like medicine or engineering’s art,
History demands training, a formal start.
One cannot simply wield a brush with ease,
And craft a Kandinsky or Picasso, please.
Years of study in the discipline’s frame,
Reveal the secrets, the knowledge to claim.
Not to breed dogma, but to spur the mind,
To new horizons, exploration kind.
Yet on the internet, a different sight,
Where children splash paint, their skill in flight.
Reviling formal knowledge, they display,
A false sense of mastery, led astray.
It’s like a machine gun in a monkey’s hand,
A chaotic scene, hard to understand.
For true wisdom comes with careful thought,
Not with reckless splashing, chaos wrought.
chat GPT _ Title by canuk
No royalties will be paid to the original authour.
1. Inspired by two Tyskies ($2.50 each 500 ml) and 1/2 bottle of my red staple lately: Monasterio de las Vinas, Gran Reserva, 2016-13.5 % Spain-$19.99 Canadian
Posted by: canuck | Feb 21 2024 20:40 utc | 156
She probably knows very very little about WW2 or the first Holocaust …
Posted by: Ahenobarbus | Feb 21 2024 16:05 utc | 48
—
Ah, no. 1935 was definitely NOT “the first holocaust”, far from it. Below is a long Wiki copy, but everyone should read it before they ever use the word holocaust again.
>>>*
The word “holocaust” originally derived from the Koine Greek word holokauston, meaning “a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering,” or “a burnt sacrifice offered to a god.” In Hellenistic religion, gods of the earth and underworld received dark animals, which were offered by night and burnt in full. The word holocaust was later adopted in Greek translations of the Torah to refer to the olah,[3] standard communal and individual sacrificial burnt offerings that Jews were required[4] to make in the times of the Temple in Jerusalem. In its Latin form, holocaustum, the term was first used with specific reference to a massacre of Jewish people by the chroniclers Roger of Howden[5] and Richard of Devizes in England in the 1190s.[6]
The earliest use of the word holocaust to denote a massacre recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary dates from 1833 when the journalist Leitch Ritchie, describing the wars of Louis VII of France[citation needed], wrote figuratively that he “once made a holocaust of thirteen hundred persons in a church” where they had gone to seek refuge when the town of Vitry-le-François was burned by Louis’ troops in 1142. The English poet John Milton had used the word as a poetic description of the self-immolation of a phoenix in his 1671 poem Samson Agonistes.[7][8][9]
In the late 19th century, holocaust was used in 1895 by the American newspaper The New York Times to describe the Ottoman massacre of Armenian Christians.[10] In the early twentieth century, possibly the first to use the term was journalist Melville Chater in 1925, to describe the burning and sacking of Smyrna in 1922 in the context of the Turkish genocide against Anatolian Christians.[11][12] Winston Churchill (in 1929 [11][13]) and other contemporary writers used it before World War II to describe the Armenian genocide of World War I.[14] The Armenian Genocide is referenced in the title of a 1922 poem “The Holocaust” (published as a booklet) and the 1923 book “The Smyrna Holocaust” deals with arson and massacre of Armenians.[15] Before the Second World War, the possibility of another war was referred to as “another holocaust” (that is, a repeat of the First World War). With reference to the events of the war, writers in English from 1945 used the term in relation to events such as the fire-bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima, or the effects of a nuclear war, although from the 1950s onwards, it was increasingly used in English to refer to the Nazi genocide of the European Jews (or Judeocide).
By the late 1950s, documents translated from Hebrew sometimes used the word “Holocaust” to translate “Shoah” as the Nazi Judeocide. This use can be found as early as May 23, 1943 in The New York Times, on page E6, in an article by Julian Meltzer, referring to feelings in the British mandate of Palestine about Jewish immigration of refugees from “the Nazi holocaust.”[16]
One significant early use was in a 1958 recollection by Leslie Hardman, the first Jewish British Army Chaplain to enter Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in April 1945, where he ministered to survivors and supervised the burial of about 20,000 victims,
Towards me came what seemed to be the remnants of a holocaust – a staggering mass of blackened skin and bones, held together somehow with filthy rags. ‘My God, the dead walk’, I cried aloud, but I did not recognise my voice… [peering] at the double star, the emblem of Jewry on my tunic – one poor creature touched and then stroked the badge of my faith, and finding that it was real murmured, ‘Rabbiner, Rabbiner’.[17]
By the late 1960s, the term was starting to be used in this sense without qualification. Nora Levin’s 1968 book The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933-1945 explains the meaning in its subtitle, but uses the unmoderated phrase “The Holocaust”. An article called “Moral Trauma and the Holocaust” was published in the New York Times on February 12, 1968.[18] However, it was not until the late 1970s that the Nazi genocide became the generally accepted conventional meaning of the word, when used unqualified and with a capital letter, a usage that also spread to other languages for the same period.[19] The 1978 television miniseries titled “Holocaust” and starring Meryl Streep is often cited as the principal contributor to establishing the current usage in the wider culture.[20] “Holocaust” was selected as the Association for the German Language’s Word of the Year in 1979, reflecting increased public consciousness of the term.
The term became increasingly widespread as a synonym for “genocide” in the last decades of the 20th century to refer to mass murders in the form “X holocaust” (e.g. “Rwandan holocaust”). Examples are Rwanda, Ukraine under Stalin, and the actions of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Objections to the usage of “Holocaust” for Nazi extermination of Jews:
Some people find the use of “holocaust” for the WWII-period Nazi extermination of Jews unacceptable, on account of the theological and historical nature of the word “holocaust”.[21] The American historian Walter Laqueur (whose parents were murdered in the Holocaust) has argued that the term “Holocaust” is a “singularly inappropriate” term for the genocide of the Jews as it implies a “burnt offering” to God.[22] Laqueur wrote, “It was not the intention of the Nazis to make a sacrifice of this kind and the position of the Jews was not that of a ritual victim”.[22] The British historian Geoff Eley wrote in a 1982 essay entitled “Holocaust History” that he thought the term Holocaust implies “a certain mystification, an insistence on the uniquely Jewish character of the experience”.[22] <<<
And none of that excuses the massive PR operation since WWII of Jews to effectively own the word ... or to own the de-capitalised words final + solution for their own exclusive reference.
Posted by: Jake Blanchard | Feb 21 2024 21:32 utc | 174
|
