Speaking of the Holocaust...

[SKL]

 

We're never touchy. Too polite for that.

 

Although the matter does beg the question, do Americans learn that Canada fought in WWII? :D

 

TBH, I think at best "Canada" is merely included as one of a list of Allies, when it comes to US kids' study of WWII (in school, anyway).

[WishboneDawn]

US History does NOT mean just "history of the US", it means the history of the US PLUS everything the US participated in--which is not necessarily strictly things only located in the US.

 

 

I just have to address this again...

 

No, it doesn't. It means the history of the US plus it's involvement in world events. So the American role in liberating Buchenwald would be part of US history. Buchenwald itself would be part of German history, the people held there would be part of the history of more nations and the greater story of the Holocaust and WWII would be world history.

[Spy Car]

 

Although the matter does beg the question, do Americans learn that Canada fought in WWII? :D

 

 

Really???

 

On which side? :D

 

Bill

[Aslana]

 

I just have to address this again...

 

No, it doesn't. It means the history of the US plus it's involvement in world events. So the American role in liberating Buchenwald would be part of US history. Buchenwald itself would be part of German history, the people held there would be part of the history of more nations and the greater story of the Holocaust and WWII would be world history.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I said. US History does NOT mean just "history of the US", it means the history of the US PLUS everything the US participated in--which is not necessarily strictly things only located in the US.

 

That's the history of the US plus it's involvement in world events. And my history lessons never broke it down so pedantically. US and World history were both taught about the US involvement in liberating Buchenwald AND how the Germans used Buchenwald AND the number and race of people in Buchenwald AND the Holocaust through WWII. It was all taught in one big discussion. There was no separating things like you and others are trying to do.

[Zebra]

I went to the US Holocaust museum when I was 17. We were going to DC, and I very much wanted to go to this museum because I had an real interest in the topic. My mom refused to go because it was too much for her, but my dad agreed to go with me, and my sister begged to go with us. I was pretty miffed because I knew she didn't care about it, and just wanted to tag along with me and my father. Anyway, it was this huge life changing experience for me and when we left my sister said, "Well, that was a bit much." Which sounds insensitive and stupid, but she was a thoughtless teenager. Teenagers say stupid things. I think it would have been so much worse if Justin Bieber had said the Holocaust never existed, or something truly horrendous. He is a dingbat, but we all knew that :) .

[*Lulu*]

 

 

 

That's exactly what I said. US History does NOT mean just "history of the US", it means the history of the US PLUS everything the US participated in--which is not necessarily strictly things only located in the US.

 

That's the history of the US plus it's involvement in world events. And my history lessons never broke it down so pedantically. US and World history were both taught about the US involvement in liberating Buchenwald AND how the Germans used Buchenwald AND the number and race of people in Buchenwald AND the Holocaust through WWII. It was all taught in one big discussion. There was no separating things like you and others are trying to do.

 

I think what you keep saying you meant and what you wrote are not lining up. When you posted the above it read, to me anyway, that you were questioning the amount of American history studied in Canada. While I think I get what you meant, (how much time do Canadian history classes give to the Holocaust), that isn't what you wrote.

 

I am sure Canadian students study the Holocaust as it is part of thier recent history. If they spend as much time on the US involvement in WWII as we spend on theirs they may or may not know we were even there. :p

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

That's exactly what I said. US History does NOT mean just "history of the US", it means the history of the US PLUS everything the US participated in--which is not necessarily strictly things only located in the US.

 

That's the history of the US plus it's involvement in world events. And my history lessons never broke it down so pedantically. US and World history were both taught about the US involvement in liberating Buchenwald AND how the Germans used Buchenwald AND the number and race of people in Buchenwald AND the Holocaust through WWII. It was all taught in one big discussion. There was no separating things like you and others are trying to do.

 

"plus it's involvement in world events" <----- This says involvement.

"US PLUS everything the US participated in" <--- This says the events themselves.

 

Language is important.

 

Or not. If not then next time I meet an American who's ignorant of some fact regarding the American Revolution I'll be sure to teach them Canadian history.

[WishboneDawn]

I think what you keep saying you meant and what you wrote are not lining up. When you posted the above it read, to me anyway, that you were questioning the amount of American history studied in Canada. While I think I get what you meant, (how much time do Canadian history classes give to the Holocaust), that isn't what you wrote.

 

I am sure Canadian students study the Holocaust as it is part of thier recent history. If they spend as much time on the US involvement in WWII as we spend on theirs they may or may not know we were even there. :p

 

You were there?

 

On which side? :D

 

(a special :p to Bill)

[Aslana]

I think what you keep saying you meant and what you wrote are not lining up. When you posted the above it read, to me anyway, that you were questioning the amount of American history studied in Canada. While I think I get what you meant, (how much time do Canadian history classes give to the Holocaust), that isn't what you wrote.

 

I am sure Canadian students study the Holocaust as it is part of thier recent history. If they spend as much time on the US involvement in WWII as we spend on theirs they may or may not know we were even there. :p

 

 

I guess I got lucky because I was most definitely taught much about Canada and their involvement in many things, not just this. It wasn't just a small blip in the discussion.

 

 

 

WishboneDawn

 

 

 

"plus it's involvement in world events" <----- This says involvement.

"US PLUS everything the US participated in" <--- This says the events themselves.

 

Language is important.

 

Or not. If not then next time I meet an American who's ignorant of some fact regarding the American Revolution I'll be sure to teach them Canadian history.

 

Again with the pedantic breaking down of things. And the snark. This thread is now complete. Those statements do not mean two different things. But continue with your snarky replies. Please. You are doing such a wonderful job of making your point with the snark.

 

I should have stayed in lurking. I wasn't raised to speak to others this way, can't believe the sheer amount of it on this board.

[*Lulu*]

Self edit

 

Sitting on my fingers and minding my own affairs.

[*Lulu*]

 

 

 

I guess I got lucky because I was most definitely taught much about Canada and their involvement in many things, not just this. It wasn't just a small blip in the discussion.

 

 

 

 

Actually I only got to WWII in one history class out of a 13 year education in our local PS. Every other text that included WWII we never completed or, in the case of one year, we skipped it to get to the Cold War and JFK.

 

 

ETA- the startling majority of history I learned between the ages of 5 and 17 was either self taught or facilitated by my parents. We were after schoolers before it had a name! :p

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

I guess I got lucky because I was most definitely taught much about Canada and their involvement in many things, not just this. It wasn't just a small blip in the discussion.

 

 

 

 

Again with the pedantic breaking down of things. And the snark. This thread is now complete. Those statements do not mean two different things. But continue with your snarky replies. Please. You are doing such a wonderful job of making your point with the snark.

 

I should have stayed in lurking. I wasn't raised to speak to others this way, can't believe the sheer amount of it on this board.

 

I do owe you an apology. I just reread the thread and realized I had taken your initial post the wrong way. You did clearly refer to world history. I still think there's a discussion to be had about language (and sloppy reading :o) on this but you're right, you didn't deserve the snark I was sending your way.

 

I apologize.

[kewb]

Pandering? No.

But there is a significant voting block that has successfully brought their issues/concerns forward. The backdrop of The Holocaust and mistakes the US made during that time adds to success of those lobbying efforts, and I believe has kept the Holocaust more visible to US politicians.

 

Maybe I am just reading something that you are not saying but the way you are phrasing things it sounds like you believe the roughly 6 million jews who live in the US have some kind of agenda and that the holocaust and the choices the US government made at the time( and those were some pretty lousy choices) are being used as a choke hold to ensure that their agenda comes to fruition.

[*Lulu*]

Self edit

 

Sitting on my fingers and minding my own affairs.

[Aslana]

 

I do owe you an apology. I just reread the thread and realized I had taken your initial post the wrong way. You did clearly refer to world history. I still think there's a discussion to be had about language (and sloppy reading :o)on this but you're right, you didn't deserve the snark I was sending your way.

 

I apologize.

 

Thank you. I do appreciate it. I guess it's easy for all to see how a discussion can become so muddled when so many are talking at once. I appreciate the apology.

 

BLA5--see above. This time, I wasn't taking offense when none was meant. It was a misunderstanding on her part that has since been cleared up. And I appreciate that.

 

As to your other comments--I actually had lots of WWII history in my schooling. The entirety of my middle and high school had it on repeat. However, I do feel my education was lacking on many of the "lesser" wars (don't read too much into that other than I mean the wars no one ever talks about, like the Crimean, the war of 1812, heck-even the Korean war did not get much notice.) I did get a bit more about Vietnam but not much more. And if I got any of the names messed up, well, that just proves what I did get was lacking.

[Spy Car]

 

 

You were there?

 

On which side? :D

 

(a special :p to Bill)

 

Do you remember a thread from a couple years back where a child of one of our board parents as supposed to pick a very obscure country that most Americans know nothing about to do a report?

 

I proposed Canada. And I wasn't really joking. I'm astounded how little most Americans (and I need to include myself here) know about our neighbor to the North.

 

I do know the National Sport of Canada....lacrosse!

 

Bill (not a complete know-nothing :D)

[SproutMamaK]

Please understand, Aslana, that your post strikes a lot of nerves for those people who are not American. To say that WWII is taught as "US history", whatever you may have meant by the words, is a perfect example of the attitude that the international community finds bothersome in America. It takes an event that changed that changed the world and slaps the label of "American" on it, as though it were all about the US. Whether that is the REALITY or not is entirely debatable (as this thread goes to show, lol), but the PERCEPTION is that America is taking something that is tragic and affected the whole world, and is making it all about them... sort of similar to what Beiber did, which is probably why it's striking a chord on this post in particular.

 

I'm not saying this is what you're doing AT ALL. I just want you to understand why the issue of "US history" gets people all riled up, especially when it comes to such recent and powerful history. It's not meant personally.

[WishboneDawn]

Do you remember a thread from a couple years back where a child of one of our board parents as supposed to pick a very obscure country that most Americans know nothing about to do a report?

 

I proposed Canada. And I wasn't really joking. I'm astounded how little most Americans (and I need to include myself here) know about our neighbor to the North.

 

I do know the National Sport of Canada....lacrosse!

 

Bill (not a complete know-nothing :D)

 

Honestly, we prefer it that way. The less you know of us, the less you know of our plans for your country. :coolgleamA:

[Spy Car]

 

 

Honestly, we prefer it that way. The less you know of us, the less you know of our plans for your country. :coolgleamA:

 

 

Oh, I'm aware of the Canadian plot to absorb 49 of the 50 states into a new "North American Union," spinning off Quebec and Louisiana into a neo-Gallic nation-state, and then having on-going guerilla warfare over the disputed territory of Nova Scotia which will be claimed by both sides, but nominally controlled by the "English?"

 

Pretty darn close, eh? :D

 

Bill

[Dicentra]

 

Honestly, we prefer it that way. The less you know of us, the less you know of our plans for your country. :coolgleamA:

Oh, I'm aware of the Canadian plot to absorb 49 of the 50 states into a new "North American Union," spinning off Quebec and Louisiana in to a neo-Gallic state, and then having ongoing guerilla warfare over the disputed territory of Nova Scotia which will be claimed by both sides, but nominally controlled by the "English?"

 

Pretty darn close, eh? :D

 

Bill

 

:lol: :hurray:

[bettyandbob]

Not everyone homeschools to "provide a better education". Among those who homeschool to deal with the logistics of a budding sports or entertainment career, I'm sure some people come out with a better education, but I'm also sure that for some people the goal is to get just enough done to count as school. I would never have thought Justin Bieber would have a "complete" education and it's clear that no one attempted to get him to understand the world actually does not revolve around him. Even though he is 20, I would never consider him an adult either.

[Aslana]

I'm on my phone and unavailable at the moment and I can't quote, but why wouldn't WWII be part of US history?

 

That said, I never said it was absolutely owned as our history by the US only that I was taught about it in both US and World history. It does apply in both areas.

 

I get the rawness, but I'm not saying the US is laying absolute claim to this war. Only that it was taught in both sections of my history lessons.

[Aslana]

And let me just say in the interest of fairness and not keeping the cycle going, I'm not arguing. Honest. I'm actually not even home right now. I'm being sneaky and posting when I shouldn't be so I just wanted to make sure everyone knows I'm not ignoring.

[itsheresomewhere]

After seeing several interviews of his mom, I am not surprised at what he wrote. He is on his way to being the next Lindsey Lohan.

 

Didn't he just grope a fan recently or something?

[LibraryLover]

I've heard, via a Dutch FB friend, that the Dutch are surprised Americans are reacting so strongly. The museum staff was not offended. I think if they realized it was going to spark such a controversy, they probably wouldn't have released the info. Or at least as quickly.

 

Get a grip people. It's not like he wore a real Nazi uniform to a Halloween party. ;) (That was the work of another young man-- a beloved British playboy monarch-- who also happens to look stunning in a kilt. )

[aggieamy]

I'm on my phone and unavailable at the moment and I can't quote, but why wouldn't WWII be part of US history?

 

That said, I never said it was absolutely owned as our history by the US only that I was taught about it in both US and World history. It does apply in both areas.

 

I get the rawness, but I'm not saying the US is laying absolute claim to this war. Only that it was taught in both sections of my history lessons.

 

I think it can only get taught as US history if you're teaching it in the US. If WWII is being taught in Canada then it gets to be Canadian history or world history. DD and I reading about WWI. I'm not calling it British History even though they had a much bigger part than we did.

 

ETA: I'm not implying anything about our involvement vs Canada's involvement in WWII lest it be miscontrued that way.

[PachiSusan]

I've heard, via a Dutch FB friend, that the Dutch are surprised Americans are reacting so strongly.

 

Probably because he's one of our village idiots and he escaped and embarrassed us with his lack of sensitivity. :lol:

[TXBeth]

 

 

Probably because he's one of our village idiots and he escaped and embarrassed us with his lack of sensitivity. :lol:

 

 

Except he's not. Because he's Canadian. But I think sometimes Americans don't know that.

[PachiSusan]

Except he's not. Because he's Canadian. But I think sometimes Americans don't know that.

 

 

See how much I know??? :lol:

 

We are a Jonas Bros house and not a Beib house...I never even knew he was Canadian. I know next to nothing about him.

[Janie Grace]

I would never have thought Justin Bieber would have a "complete" education and it's clear that no one attempted to get him to understand the world actually does not revolve around him.

 

This is what I was thinking, too. Most 13-year-olds think and act as if the world revolves around them. As they go through high school and learn about literature and different religions and cultures and world history, as they have more responsibility and perhaps a job outside the home, as they read the news and learn more about "grown-up problems," they come to see (hopefully) that the world does NOT revolve around them. For these teen celebrities, right at this important crossroads, their egos get sky-rocketed and their fame and success seem to validate their natural bent -- "hey awesome -- it IS all about me!" And then we get ridiculous comments about Anne Frank having been a "belieber" rather than "I would have liked to know her."

[SKL]

I've heard, via a Dutch FB friend, that the Dutch are surprised Americans are reacting so strongly. The museum staff was not offended. I think if they realized it was going to spark such a controversy, they probably wouldn't have released the info. Or at least as quickly.

 

See, this is what I was getting at sort of. People in the US view this differently from people in other countries. I do not know how it is in Canada on this specific point, which is why I asked. While I am sorry for the pain - and I have in my ancestry / close friends German Jews and others who suffered under the Nazi regime - I think the US has gone a little too far on this particular sensitivity. The fact that nobody can say anything about it without PC alarms going off is sad. (I know the Bieber thing is partly because he's a guy many Americans "love to hate," but it goes beyond that.) Meanwhile other groups who suffered atrocities, even at the hands of the US, are supposed to sit down and shut up.

[Hen]

Actually I only got to WWII in one history class out of a 13 year education in our local PS. Every other text that included WWII we never completed or, in the case of one year, we skipped it to get to the Cold War and JFK.

 

 

ETA- the startling majority of history I learned between the ages of 5 and 17 was either self taught or facilitated by my parents. We were after schoolers before it had a name! :p

 

I never studied WWII or even WWI in my 13 years of PS education. We never managed to get that far in our History books. I learned about WWI by reading ahead in my History book and I learned about WWII on my own by reading, Anne Frank's diary was a big sparking of interest point for me.

[Kathryn]

Let me ask a question for the Canadians among us. Are Canadian children taught a lot about this in school or elsewhere? In the USA the "Holocaust" is a very raw subject, but not so much in most other countries. (There are more Jewish people in New York than in Israel or anywhere else in the world, so that could explain the difference.) If this is not a subject of much discussion / sensitivity in Canada, then perhaps we should not be expecting him to be as sensitive as a US young adult would be expected to be. I mean, his comment was still immature etc., but how insensitive depends on how aware he is of sensitivities to that particular event IMO.

 

I noticed this in the other thread too: why do you put quotes around Holocaust every time you write it?

 

Edited to fix autocorrect.

[Sisyphus]

Ahem. My father is Canadian, but I never knew Justin Bieber was. So, my point of reference is taking the article at face value only.

 

And- I'm not offended. He humanized Anne, I don't think he meant it as "I'm so cool, shed love me". Millions of girls just Annes age DO love him, though. He put himself in her place and saw her as a girl with posters on the wall, a journal, a girl like any other girl. Who in 2013 would probably love Bieiber. And instead died a horrible death in a concentration camp for no discernible reason except humanity gone terribly wrong.

 

He is young, maybe not terribly smart, apparently Canadian. But I think his statement was less about Bieber being star than it was realizing Annes humanity and how it relates to him. I don't think that's a bad or even self centered thing- we can't quite appreciate these atrocities fully without removing the barrier that makes them a faceless "other"- a Jew, a gypsy, a Rwandan. He put her in the place of the girls her age he (obviously, his livelihood depends on it) knows so well and then related her tragedy and it clearly moved him.

 

I find nothing terrible about his statement and instead find it rather touching. I do wish he'd pull up his pants, though.

 

[Melissa in Australia]

I certainly do not feel it is more a US event than a European one and I certainly did not say as much. What I said was I was taught this in US History AND World History class and that I was not aware of what Canadians would teach or how they would teach those two classes (because I do know some Canadians who teach US History, but not how they teach it).

 

None of what you imply was stated by me in any way.

 

As for why it is included in a US History class? Perhaps because the US was involved in the war and not just as a secondary involvement either that is gets included in both US and World History. Also too, European History is not taught as a stand alone course like US and World history and even then, at least in my area, Euro History is NOT offered until the college level.

 

 

you possibly don't want to know what was taught in other countries about US history regarding WW2 and other things. Some of it is not very complementary.

 

the new National curriculum coming into effect in Australia doesn't have much American history at all. It is not viewed as important at all over here. It does however cover large amounts about ww2 from The AUSTRALIAN Prospective. USA is a long way away form here, and quiet frankly it doesn't have much importance in history until modern times. and in many countries it only has a very fleeting importance at that.

[SKL]

I notice ethics in the other thread too: why do you put quotes around Holocaust every time you write it?

The literal meaning of "Holocaust" is burnt offering to God. This doesn't sit well with me. I use the term because it is what others seem most familiar/comfortable with. But I don't espouse it. That's why I put it in quotes.

[Melissa in Australia]

 

We're never touchy. Too polite for that.

 

Although the matter does beg the question, do Americans learn that Canada fought in WWII? :D

 

And Australia. We went to war about 1 minute after England

[TXBeth]

 

The literal meaning of "Holocaust" is burnt offering to God. This doesn't sit well with me. I use the term because it is what others seem most familiar/comfortable with. But I don't espouse it. That's why I put it in quotes.

 

Have you considered changing the way you indicate that now that it has been mentioned more than once how it comes across (that maybe you don't believe it actually happened)? Maybe an asterisk with a note at the bottom would be a better idea.

[PachiSusan]

The literal meaning of "Holocaust" is burnt offering to God. This doesn't sit well with me. I use the term because it is what others seem most familiar/comfortable with. But I don't espouse it. That's why I put it in quotes.

 

I completely understand that this is the religious definition, and I agree with you on that, but the #1 definition in the dictionary is:

 

hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-)

n.

1.

Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

 

 

Your point might be getting missed or causing anxiety in people. I know at first I thought you were putting it in quotes because you didn't believe in it.

[Melissa in Australia]

Please understand, Aslana, that your post strikes a lot of nerves for those people who are not American. To say that WWII is taught as "US history", whatever you may have meant by the words, is a perfect example of the attitude that the international community finds bothersome in America. It takes an event that changed that changed the world and slaps the label of "American" on it, as though it were all about the US. Whether that is the REALITY or not is entirely debatable (as this thread goes to show, lol), but the PERCEPTION is that America is taking something that is tragic and affected the whole world, and is making it all about them... sort of similar to what Beiber did, which is probably why it's striking a chord on this post in particular.

 

I'm not saying this is what you're doing AT ALL. I just want you to understand why the issue of "US history" gets people all riled up, especially when it comes to such recent and powerful history. It's not meant personally.

:iagree:

 

For older Australians ( I mean people who were alive during WW2) there is a strong anti-American sediment because of things that Americans did in WW2

[TXBeth]

I would actually argue that "burnt offering (to God)" is the etymology of the word, not its literal meaning.

 

[SKL]

Have you considered changing the way you indicate that now that it has been mentioned more than once how it comes across (that maybe you don't believe it actually happened)? Maybe an asterisk with a note at the bottom would be a better idea.

No. That would imply that whoever chose the term "Holocaust" (for a movie, if my recollection serves me) had a right to tell everyone else that they must call it that or make excuses for themselves. Besides, I don't have time to do that in every post, and even if I did, my computer isn't allowing me to use the enter key. ... To tell the truth, the term offends me and I don't think I should be the one apologizing for it. ... How anyone reading my posts could conclude that I don't believe the cruelties occurred is a mystery to me. If that were the case, I would use terms such as "alleged."

[Melissa in Australia]

I think it can only get taught as US history if you're teaching it in the US. If WWII is being taught in Canada then it gets to be Canadian history or world history. DD and I reading about WWI. I'm not calling it British History even though they had a much bigger part than we did.

 

ETA: I'm not implying anything about our involvement vs Canada's involvement in WWII lest it be miscontrued that way.

 

you said in one sentence what I clumsily worded in several.

Thank you

[PachiSusan]

If that were the case, I would use terms such as "alleged."

 

In the written word, putting a word in quotations can mean that. I understand that you have a difficulty in even writing it, but maybe you need to use a different word for your own peace of mind. Is there another term for it that you can use without feeling you need to use the quotation marks?

 

I don't have a horse in the race - once I read a few of your posts I understood that you didn't mean "alleged", but it did give me a start the first few times I saw it.

[Chelli]

:iagree:

 

For older Australians ( I mean people who were alive during WW2) there is a strong anti-American sediment because of things that Americans did in WW2

 

Okay, now I'm curious. What did we do?

 

Obviously dropping the bombs on Japan, but you posted this when quoting someone talking about the Holocaust.

 

Just curious, not trying to start an international incident. :001_smile:

[SKL]

I would actually argue that "burnt offering (to God)" is the etymology of the word, not its literal meaning.

I believe they chose the word because of its religious significance. Holocaust is something God commands in the Jewish law to show penitence or commitment to God. The "sweet savor" of the burning offering is mentioned - but this is supposed to be a sacrifice BY humans, not OF humans. ... Decades after this term was applied to this series of events, we now think of "Holocaust" as referring to mass human killings and cruelty. But is that because the term always meant that, or because it has gained that connotation recently, long after the camps were liberated? In what other context has the term "Holocaust" been used to refer to human atrocities?

[TXBeth]

 

 

In the written word, putting a word in quotations can mean that. I understand that you have a difficulty in even writing it, but maybe you need to use a different word for your own peace of mind. Is there another term for it that you can use without feeling you need to use the quotation marks?

 

I don't have a horse in the race - once I read a few of your posts I understood that you didn't mean "alleged", but it did give me a start the first few times I saw it.

 

Yes, the most used alternate word is Shoah which comes from the Hebrew for "catastrophe."

 

However, holocaust (not capitalized) has been used to refer to any mass slaughter since the 1830s and specifically the Nazis' extermination of Jewish people since the 1960s. The root comes from the Greek words meaning "whole/entire" and "burnt" and was originally used in the Bible as the term for burnt offerings. However, to insist that the meaning has not changed over the last 200 years IMO verges on ridiculous.

[SKL]

However, to insist that the meaning has not changed over the last 200 years IMO verges on ridiculous.

Of course it has changed, but I don't have to appreciate the change. I wish I could think of a way to name that series of events without confusing people even more. So far I have not.

[Melissa in Australia]

 

Okay, now I'm curious. What did we do?

 

Obviously dropping the bombs on Japan, but you posted this when quoting someone talking about the Holocaust.

 

Just curious, not trying to start an international incident. :001_smile:

Actually I was posting more broadly about America's involvement in WW2, not specifically about the Holocaust.

I am afraid to post them on an American board. I am sure I will be blasted to smithereens :leaving:

[SKL]

However, holocaust (not capitalized) has been used to refer to any mass slaughter since the 1830s ...

I did not know of any other time this term was used this way. However, we now say "the Holocaust" to refer ONLY to the atrocities that are the focus of this thread. I feel like I'm stuck with the word but I really dislike it.