Maybe this is regional, but I feel like I've always heard some variation of "the Holocaust was when the Nazis killed 11 million people, 6 million of whom were Jews" as the standard definition throughout my life, making it specific to the industrialized mass murder but not specific to the Jewish victims.

[–] XiaCobolt@hexbear.net 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's how I was taught in Australia.

Also writers like Mike Davis ("Late Victorian Holocausts") often use the term to refer to a genocide event broadly.

[–] gay_king_prince_charles@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago

Finkelstein separates the Nazi Holocaust (the genocide committed by the Nazis against Jews, Poles, Roma, etc), holocaust (a general term) and Holocaust (the public perception of the Nazi Holocaust as if it was the only genocide to ever occur and focused solely against Jews)

[–] SootySootySoot@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I've also always used to it to refer to all the victims. It makes little sense otherwise because why would people deliberately exclude the genocide of other groups also when condemning Nazis? The history of the terminology seems to be that meaning is mixed from place to place.

I guess to be clear I have to not use the term holocaust when I want to mean "The industrialised mass murder of 11 million people as part of a systematic extermination campaign". Bit more of a mouthful though.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Seconded, I think in LatAm this is how I've heard it be discussed generally.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

That was my American public school experience - and at a very Jewish public school, at that.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's interesting. I guess it probably is regional then.

Edit: I agree with your other comment about the dishonest rhetoric of this institute, though.