Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 00:42:12 +0100
From: el don <eldon-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: [BOU:] the meaning of the holocaust


At 13:11 +0800 7/8/04, Daedalus wrote:
>My query was not about the Jewish Holocuast, but the one supposedly
>happened during WWI.
>Sorry for the misunderstanding.

At 6:56 +0800 6/8/04, Daedalus wrote:
>Did it take place in the first place?????


At 13:58 -0400 4/8/04, N Miller wrote:
>>People remember the Jewish Holocaust, but forget the first Holocaust: the
>>nine-million young men slaughtered in the First World War.
>>
>>The Holocaust occurred in order enact the repressed experience of war, to
>>depict the horrific fate of a body that has been given to, taken
>>over by the collective.
>>
>>Jews in the death camp symbolized death at the hands of the nation-state,
>>now stripped of words such as honor, duty and glory.
>>
>
>As a Jew old enough to have been at Dachau when it was liberated, I
>dislike the word 'Holocaust' and keep a wary eye on the Holocaust
>industry.  But I reserve active revulsion for those who can write
>such rubbish.


OKay, i see. so:
did the _WW1 holocaust_ take place in the first place...?

the missing referent for  "it", i'm sure makes it all clear....

so, rewording the original comment to:  "did the slaughter of nine
million people in WW1 actually occur?" might explain people's
responses of credulity in believing the referent to be the jewish
holocaust  - especially in the light of some widely publicised
'debates' on the matter. certainly it explains mine....

i also apologise if i am still misunderstanding the original
comment, and further apologise if anyone is offended by
discussion of language. [it is notable btw that the only bourdieu
publication i have read cover to cover is 'lang&symbolic
power', and that i am more likely to gravitate to a bernsteinian
view of language - although, again, for me the difference does not
make as much of a difference as hasan might identify]

on the topic of language here, and in the light of another recent
post on this matter, i feel goyishly reluctant to adopt the term
'shoah' to refer to the jewish holocaust. i tend to think it might
signify more knowledge than i am actually privy to. this reluctance
also occurs with me and certain other lexical items which 'belong' to
tribes into which i have not been initiated. does anyone know
whether bourdieu ever commented on these types of (queasiness at)
appropriation of language?


regards,
L.

-- 
-----------
alexanne don
phd research student
applied linguistics
department of english
university of birmingham,
birmingham. B15 2TT
U.K.
(44)-0121-459-5318
<eldon-AT-panix.com>
<eldon-AT-gol.com>
<acd089-AT-bham.ac.uk>
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu