If student loans are a scam, then by normal logic, either college is a scam and/or the whole concept of loaning money. Be interested to know which one.
And Jason, completely agree with your point about how this helps only those most likely to be high earners in the future.
Well technically they both are tied together.
You can't get a private loan anymore for college because the banks screwed that up.
Colleges raise their tuition's now because they know everyone can get a loan for college.
The list goes on and on how colleges have scammed people.
Are colleges/universities privately run?
Yes. Gov't doesn't run them.
That depends on your definition. State universities are chartered by the state and the governor usually has some oversight and influence.
Of course I'm talking about Canada, where private universities aren't really a thing, but I work at a public university, and the government has zero impact on the day-to-day operations of the schools, nor on tuition fees or other fees that students pay. What the government does is determine how much funding the universities get to do what they will with, and it also of course regulates student loans. Plus the universities ultimately answer to the tax payers in terms of how the government funding is spent, but that is not a constantly monitored thing. The universities keep that in mind in good faith, and of course are always aware of the possibility of a government audit. Keep in mind too, that public universities still work their asses off to get private donations and come up with a multitude of other ways to earn money on top of government subsidies. In all cases, though, that money goes straight back into the university.
I can't speak for every state, only states for where I've lived, and our state u's are basically run the same way. Governors or the legislature rarely get involved unless there is some crisis or scandal. I think they probably have some leverage to remove chancellors or presidents in certain situations. The universities set the tuition rates but I'm sure the gov't also has some guidelines they may set. I do know that for example, UVA is the most expensive school, followed closely by William and Mary. The prices are definitely connected to the perceived quality of the education.
One thing our provincial government can do and has done in the past is freeze tuition rates. So the schools do determine them generally, but the province can make them not raise them anymore, for any period of time until they or the next government unfreezes them.... And such a freeze is how I paid my own way through university in the 90s! Of course the revolting, disgusting, piece of shit BC Liberal party (aka BC's conservative party) removed the freeze as soon as they come into office, and since then the tuition rates have more than tripled.
That's interesting. So the provincial gov't has authority on the universities, not Ottawa? I admit to being confused about where the province ends and central gov't begins. I seem to default to it being almost purely central gov't, not federal.
Yes, education is controlled by the provinces, not on the federal level. Same with healthcare (although the basic universal system is mandated federally).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If student loans are a scam, then by normal logic, either college is a scam and/or the whole concept of loaning money. Be interested to know which one.
And Jason, completely agree with your point about how this helps only those most likely to be high earners in the future.
Well technically they both are tied together.
You can't get a private loan anymore for college because the banks screwed that up.
Colleges raise their tuition's now because they know everyone can get a loan for college.
The list goes on and on how colleges have scammed people.
Are colleges/universities privately run?
Yes. Gov't doesn't run them.
That depends on your definition. State universities are chartered by the state and the governor usually has some oversight and influence.
Of course I'm talking about Canada, where private universities aren't really a thing, but I work at a public university, and the government has zero impact on the day-to-day operations of the schools, nor on tuition fees or other fees that students pay. What the government does is determine how much funding the universities get to do what they will with, and it also of course regulates student loans. Plus the universities ultimately answer to the tax payers in terms of how the government funding is spent, but that is not a constantly monitored thing. The universities keep that in mind in good faith, and of course are always aware of the possibility of a government audit. Keep in mind too, that public universities still work their asses off to get private donations and come up with a multitude of other ways to earn money on top of government subsidies. In all cases, though, that money goes straight back into the university.
I can't speak for every state, only states for where I've lived, and our state u's are basically run the same way. Governors or the legislature rarely get involved unless there is some crisis or scandal. I think they probably have some leverage to remove chancellors or presidents in certain situations. The universities set the tuition rates but I'm sure the gov't also has some guidelines they may set. I do know that for example, UVA is the most expensive school, followed closely by William and Mary. The prices are definitely connected to the perceived quality of the education.
One thing our provincial government can do and has done in the past is freeze tuition rates. So the schools do determine them generally, but the province can make them not raise them anymore, for any period of time until they or the next government unfreezes them.... And such a freeze is how I paid my own way through university in the 90s! Of course the revolting, disgusting, piece of shit BC Liberal party (aka BC's conservative party) removed the freeze as soon as they come into office, and since then the tuition rates have more than tripled.
That's interesting. So the provincial gov't has authority on the universities, not Ottawa? I admit to being confused about where the province ends and central gov't begins. I seem to default to it being almost purely central gov't, not federal.
Don't worry...plenty od Canadians wonder why we have a federal government...lol
I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.
But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum.
Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it.
I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.
But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum.
Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it.
I'm not arguing about your broader point of the arcane mechanics of bill movement, but she misrepresented the situation here. She's blaming McConnell but Democrats voted for the bill. Now McConnell sought to use the advantage of the 8 or so Dem Sens in Florida to vote, but it still passes without issue. She's spinning a narrative to suit her two "no" votes just like a good ole classic politician. The WashPo had a fascinating article Sat morning about how this whole deal went down and how Chuck and Nancy are blaming each other for the failure to unite, giving Mitch the upper hand.
I also found it interesting that she continues to defend her use of "concentration camp". I'm glad she continues to get called out on the topic because I think it was a bomb throwing technique. A lot of people bring up the academic piece, but the fact that she used "never again" in her original message is just too far.
I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.
But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum.
Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it.
I'm not arguing about your broader point of the arcane mechanics of bill movement, but she misrepresented the situation here. She's blaming McConnell but Democrats voted for the bill. Now McConnell sought to use the advantage of the 8 or so Dem Sens in Florida to vote, but it still passes without issue. She's spinning a narrative to suit her two "no" votes just like a good ole classic politician. The WashPo had a fascinating article Sat morning about how this whole deal went down and how Chuck and Nancy are blaming each other for the failure to unite, giving Mitch the upper hand.
I also found it interesting that she continues to defend her use of "concentration camp". I'm glad she continues to get called out on the topic because I think it was a bomb throwing technique. A lot of people bring up the academic piece, but the fact that she used "never again" in her original message is just too far.
We're still on opposite sides of the coin on this one.
For one, I think when terms get linked with events, we can recycle the terms to distil the important features of a new event very quickly (Israel is an apartheid-like state, the borders are detaining people in concentration camp-like environments, etc.). It compels us to say "that's an embellishment - let's disprove that", until you look and see the similarities and understand the point the author is trying to make.
For another, I've seen too much conflation from the pro-Israel lobby with respect to terms that are linked with the Holocaust but conveniently 'borrowed' to stifle pro-Palestinian sentiments (or really the justification of any extreme behaviours by Israel), to be bothered by a linguistically accurate statement. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Jews do not have and should not have a monopoly on guilt.
It's also worth mentioning that "Never again" is a 9/11 book by John Ashcroft, and I've seen it used numerous other times on the topic of 9/11.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.
But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum.
Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it.
I'm not arguing about your broader point of the arcane mechanics of bill movement, but she misrepresented the situation here. She's blaming McConnell but Democrats voted for the bill. Now McConnell sought to use the advantage of the 8 or so Dem Sens in Florida to vote, but it still passes without issue. She's spinning a narrative to suit her two "no" votes just like a good ole classic politician. The WashPo had a fascinating article Sat morning about how this whole deal went down and how Chuck and Nancy are blaming each other for the failure to unite, giving Mitch the upper hand.
I also found it interesting that she continues to defend her use of "concentration camp". I'm glad she continues to get called out on the topic because I think it was a bomb throwing technique. A lot of people bring up the academic piece, but the fact that she used "never again" in her original message is just too far.
We're still on opposite sides of the coin on this one.
For one, I think when terms get linked with events, we can recycle the terms to distil the important features of a new event very quickly (Israel is an apartheid-like state, the borders are detaining people in concentration camp-like environments, etc.). It compels us to say "that's an embellishment - let's disprove that", until you look and see the similarities and understand the point the author is trying to make.
For another, I've seen too much conflation from the pro-Israel lobby with respect to terms that are linked with the Holocaust but conveniently 'borrowed' to stifle pro-Palestinian sentiments (or really the justification of any extreme behaviours by Israel), to be bothered by a linguistically accurate statement. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Jews do not have and should not have a monopoly on guilt.
It's also worth mentioning that "Never again" is a 9/11 book by John Ashcroft, and I've seen it used numerous other times on the topic of 9/11.
I simply cannot believe that she used the term "concentration camp" and "never again" together by pure coincidence, and had no intent to conjure up Nazi images. It's too cute by a half and she has a history of overstatement. Not buying it.
I’m not a huge fan, so my opinion might be colored by that.
But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum.
Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it.
I'm not arguing about your broader point of the arcane mechanics of bill movement, but she misrepresented the situation here. She's blaming McConnell but Democrats voted for the bill. Now McConnell sought to use the advantage of the 8 or so Dem Sens in Florida to vote, but it still passes without issue. She's spinning a narrative to suit her two "no" votes just like a good ole classic politician. The WashPo had a fascinating article Sat morning about how this whole deal went down and how Chuck and Nancy are blaming each other for the failure to unite, giving Mitch the upper hand.
I also found it interesting that she continues to defend her use of "concentration camp". I'm glad she continues to get called out on the topic because I think it was a bomb throwing technique. A lot of people bring up the academic piece, but the fact that she used "never again" in her original message is just too far.
We're still on opposite sides of the coin on this one.
For one, I think when terms get linked with events, we can recycle the terms to distil the important features of a new event very quickly (Israel is an apartheid-like state, the borders are detaining people in concentration camp-like environments, etc.). It compels us to say "that's an embellishment - let's disprove that", until you look and see the similarities and understand the point the author is trying to make.
For another, I've seen too much conflation from the pro-Israel lobby with respect to terms that are linked with the Holocaust but conveniently 'borrowed' to stifle pro-Palestinian sentiments (or really the justification of any extreme behaviours by Israel), to be bothered by a linguistically accurate statement. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Jews do not have and should not have a monopoly on guilt.
It's also worth mentioning that "Never again" is a 9/11 book by John Ashcroft, and I've seen it used numerous other times on the topic of 9/11.
Well said, benjs.
This article also lays out the history of how "never again" has changed from being Holocaust-specific to being used much more generally, in a manner that even includes Netanyahu (who used the phrase to refer to the Rwandan genocide) and Eli Wiesel, and more recently as the slogan for the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooting survivors.
After a gunman took the lives of 17 students and staff at their high school in Parkland, Florida, students there launched a national campaign to promote gun control. They called for a major protest in Washington, DC, on March 24, and are encouraging similar protests and student walkouts across the country.
And they took a name for their campaign, #NeverAgain, that has long been linked to Holocaust commemoration.
Parkland junior Cameron Kasky is credited with coining the hashtag. A Twitter account for the movement, NeverAgainMSD, is described as “For survivors of the Stoneman Douglas Shooting, by survivors of the Stoneman Douglas Shooting.”
Some supporters of the students’ efforts are put off by their use of Never Again. Lily Herman, writing in Refinery29, said “it’s very uncomfortable to watch a term you’ve used to talk about your family and people’s own heritage and history be taken away overnight.”
Malka Goldberg, a digital communications specialist in Maryland, tweeted, “When I saw they’re using #NeverAgain for the campaign it bothered me, b/c many Jews strongly [associate] that phrase w/ the Holocaust specifically. For a second it felt like cultural appropriation, but I doubt the kids knew this or did it intentionally.”
Hasia Diner, a professor of American Jewish history at New York University, is unfazed by the students’ use of the phrase. While some may object to the phrase Never Again being reappropriated for gun control, it “does not mean that reaction is appropriate or reasonable,” she told JTA.
While some have traced the phrase to the Hebrew poet Isaac Lambdan’s 1926 poem “Masada” (“Never shall Masada fall again!”), its current use is more directly tied to the aftermath of the Holocaust. The first usage of Never Again is murky, but most likely began in postwar Israel. The phrase was used in secular kibbutzim there in the late 1940s; it was used in a Swedish documentary on the Holocaust in 1961.
But the phrase gained currency in English thanks in large part to Meir Kahane, the militant rabbi who popularized it in America when he created the Jewish Defense League in 1968 and used it as a title of a 1972 book-length manifesto. As the president of the American Jewish Committee, Sholom Comay, said after Kahane’s assassination in November 1990, “Despite our considerable differences, Meir Kahane must always be remembered for the slogan Never Again, which for so many became the battle cry of post-Holocaust Jewry.”
For Kahane, Never Again was an implicitly violent call to arms and a rebuke of passivity and inactivity. The shame surrounding the alleged passivity of the Jews in the face of their destruction became a cornerstone of the JDL. As Kahane said, “the motto Never Again does not mean that ‘it’ [a holocaust] will never happen again. That would be nonsense. It means that if it happens again, it won’t happen in the same way. Last time, the Jews behaved like sheep.”
Kahane used Never Again to justify acts of terror in the name of fighting antisemitism. In the anthem of the Jewish Defense League, members recited, “To our slaughtered brethren and lonely widows: Never again will our people’s blood be shed by water, Never again will such things be heard in Judea.”
Later, however, Kahane’s violent call for action was adapted by American Jewish establishment groups and Holocaust commemoration institutions as a call for peace, tolerance and heeding the warning signs of genocide.
These days, when the phrase is used to invoke the Holocaust, it can be either particular or universal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tends toward the particular when he uses it to speak about the need for a strong Jewish state in the wake of the Holocaust.
“I promise, as head of the Jewish state, that never again will we allow the hand of evil to sever the life of our people and our state,” he said in a speech at the site of the former Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp marking International Holocaust Memorial Day in 2010.
But Netanyahu has also used the phrase in its universal sense of preventing all genocides. After visiting a memorial to the victims of the Rwanda genocide in 2010, Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, wrote in the guestbook, “We are deeply moved by the memorial to the victims of one history’s greatest crimes — and reminded of the haunting similarities to the genocide of our own people. Never again.”
Then-President Barack Obama also used the phrase in its universal sense in marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2011.
“We are reminded to remain ever-vigilant against the possibility of genocide, and to ensure that Never Again is not just a phrase but a principled cause,” he said in a statement. “And we resolve to stand up against prejudice, stereotyping, and violence – including the scourge of anti-Semitism – around the globe.”
That’s similar to how the US Holocaust Memorial Museum uses the phrase. In choosing the name Never Again as the theme of its 2013 Days of Remembrance, its used the term as a call to study the genocide of the Jews in order to respond to the “warning signs” of genocides happening anywhere.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
And Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and author who came to be associated with the phrase, also used it in the universal sense.
“‘Never again’ becomes more than a slogan: It’s a prayer, a promise, a vow … never again the glorification of base, ugly, dark violence,” the Nobel laureate wrote in 2012.
Never Again is a phrase that keeps on evolving. It was used in protests against the Muslim ban and in support of refugees, in remembrance of Japanese internment during World War II and recalling the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. And now the phrase is taking on yet another life: in the fight for gun control in America.
Shaul Magid, a professor of Jewish studies at Indiana University who is presently a visiting scholar at the Center for Jewish History in New York, told JTA, “For [Kahane], Never Again was not ‘this will not happen again because we will have a country’ but ‘we Jews will never be complacent like we were during the war.’ That is, for Kahane, Never Again was a call to militancy as the only act of prevention. In Parkland it is a call for gun control. In a way, a call for anti-militancy.”
It’s doubtful Kahane would have appreciated the term being co-opted by a gun control campaign. His second most-famous slogan was “Every Jew a .22.”
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
^^ Thank you for supporting my point. The phrase is connected to prevention and/or remembering a holocaust. For her to use it in the context of the migrant camps, she's attempting to draw a comparison of the border situation to the intentional depriving of property, force removal from the home and subsequent extinction of a group of people. As much as I despise Trump, equating the border situation with a holocaust is absurd.
BTW, her staff money doesn't come out of her 174k. That's her salary. There's a budget for staff.
I know that, I was throwing it in there to support the raises.
I live where she lives. I make a little less than half her salary. I am able to pay all my rent, utilities, food, gas, and debt, save for retirement, support my mom whose only income is social security, and have money left over for entertainment. Cry me a river.
^^ Thank you for supporting my point. The phrase is connected to prevention and/or remembering a holocaust. For her to use it in the context of the migrant camps, she's attempting to draw a comparison of the border situation to the intentional depriving of property, force removal from the home and subsequent extinction of a group of people. As much as I despise Trump, equating the border situation with a holocaust is absurd.
That article and my comment does not support your point, much as you might like it to. You're really stretching here for some reason.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Her argument that a small raise will prevent members of Congress from engaging in corruption is just plain old bullsmack. What corruption does she have in mind -- starting a Go Fund Me to pay her DC rent? Please. She is as opportunistic as they come.
^^ Thank you for supporting my point. The phrase is connected to prevention and/or remembering a holocaust. For her to use it in the context of the migrant camps, she's attempting to draw a comparison of the border situation to the intentional depriving of property, force removal from the home and subsequent extinction of a group of people. As much as I despise Trump, equating the border situation with a holocaust is absurd.
That article and my comment does not support your point, much as you might like it to. You're really stretching here for some reason.
The whole argument was whether AOC was trying to invoke the Nazi death camps when she made her statement. After the backlash, she and her supporters have claimed it was an academic statement essentially, that concentration camp is a general term of the concentration of people in any camp. However accurate that is academically, colloquially the phrase drums up Nazi death camps for many (me included) and the fact that she said "never again", which I argued is Holocaust related and you countered that it is any holocaust (with the article). I'll concede that it's 'holocaust' in general. Fine. But that's still way overstated for the situation.
Her argument that a small raise will prevent members of Congress from engaging in corruption is just plain old bullsmack. What corruption does she have in mind -- starting a Go Fund Me to pay her DC rent? Please. She is as opportunistic as they come.
I agree. It's a bit of grandstanding. I admire her ambition though. But I do prefer people spending some time learning.
Yep she’s digging to get to the bottom of the cesspool that is Border patrol Racist I’m glad she has the guts to get down & dirty .. this administration has made this nation numb even folks here except a few of us are outraged by this vile policy of keeping children in cages ...like I said in the immigration thread it’s gotten really tough for me to want to live the remainder of my life in this country...
Yep she’s digging to get to the bottom of the cesspool that is Border patrol Racist I’m glad she has the guts to get down & dirty .. this administration has made this nation numb even folks here except a few of us are outraged by this vile policy of keeping children in cages ...like I said in the immigration thread it’s gotten really tough for me to want to live the remainder of my life in this country...
For the record, she didn't do this. This was a project by Pro-Publica.
Yep she’s digging to get to the bottom of the cesspool that is Border patrol Racist I’m glad she has the guts to get down & dirty .. this administration has made this nation numb even folks here except a few of us are outraged by this vile policy of keeping children in cages ...like I said in the immigration thread it’s gotten really tough for me to want to live the remainder of my life in this country...
For the record, she didn't do this. This was a project by Pro-Publica.
Yes for the record I don’t give a fuck as long as its being exposed for how evil these creeps are !
A.O.C. will be a constant from now on. She will be a congressperson or senator for the rest of our lives. She is so super popular that her political coffers will be overflowing with donations so she will be unbeatable.
I found my place......and it's alright
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,320
A.O.C. will be a constant from now on. She will be a congressperson or senator for the rest of our lives. She is so super popular that her political coffers will be overflowing with donations so she will be unbeatable.
She is popular but even better than that, she's a go-getter, smart and ambitious. I wish the best for her.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Ocasio-Cortez splits with Pelosi on border bill with fiery response
https://youtu.be/M4CrNQYNx3g
But I thought Jake nailed it by challenging her as to why she’s just a “no” vote. Seems like she did something, stood up for what she believed in, most people don’t agree with her and so they moved on without her. And now comes the tantrum.
Its true though that the politics of it gets annoying. Using breaks to ram things through, etc. it has become the norm but it shouldn’t be. So it’s nice to see someone point it out. But I’m still waiting for someone in the controlling party to point it out when they have the power and it’s their leadership doing it.
I also found it interesting that she continues to defend her use of "concentration camp". I'm glad she continues to get called out on the topic because I think it was a bomb throwing technique. A lot of people bring up the academic piece, but the fact that she used "never again" in her original message is just too far.
For one, I think when terms get linked with events, we can recycle the terms to distil the important features of a new event very quickly (Israel is an apartheid-like state, the borders are detaining people in concentration camp-like environments, etc.). It compels us to say "that's an embellishment - let's disprove that", until you look and see the similarities and understand the point the author is trying to make.
For another, I've seen too much conflation from the pro-Israel lobby with respect to terms that are linked with the Holocaust but conveniently 'borrowed' to stifle pro-Palestinian sentiments (or really the justification of any extreme behaviours by Israel), to be bothered by a linguistically accurate statement. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Jews do not have and should not have a monopoly on guilt.
It's also worth mentioning that "Never again" is a 9/11 book by John Ashcroft, and I've seen it used numerous other times on the topic of 9/11.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Well said, benjs.
This article also lays out the history of how "never again" has changed from being Holocaust-specific to being used much more generally, in a manner that even includes Netanyahu (who used the phrase to refer to the Rwandan genocide) and Eli Wiesel, and more recently as the slogan for the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooting survivors.
https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Never-Again-From-a-Holocaust-phrase-to-a-universal-phrase-544666
After a gunman took the lives of 17 students and staff at their high school in Parkland, Florida, students there launched a national campaign to promote gun control. They called for a major protest in Washington, DC, on March 24, and are encouraging similar protests and student walkouts across the country.
And they took a name for their campaign, #NeverAgain, that has long been linked to Holocaust commemoration.
Some supporters of the students’ efforts are put off by their use of Never Again. Lily Herman, writing in Refinery29, said “it’s very uncomfortable to watch a term you’ve used to talk about your family and people’s own heritage and history be taken away overnight.”
Malka Goldberg, a digital communications specialist in Maryland, tweeted, “When I saw they’re using #NeverAgain for the campaign it bothered me, b/c many Jews strongly [associate] that phrase w/ the Holocaust specifically. For a second it felt like cultural appropriation, but I doubt the kids knew this or did it intentionally.”
Hasia Diner, a professor of American Jewish history at New York University, is unfazed by the students’ use of the phrase. While some may object to the phrase Never Again being reappropriated for gun control, it “does not mean that reaction is appropriate or reasonable,” she told JTA.
While some have traced the phrase to the Hebrew poet Isaac Lambdan’s 1926 poem “Masada” (“Never shall Masada fall again!”), its current use is more directly tied to the aftermath of the Holocaust. The first usage of Never Again is murky, but most likely began in postwar Israel. The phrase was used in secular kibbutzim there in the late 1940s; it was used in a Swedish documentary on the Holocaust in 1961.
But the phrase gained currency in English thanks in large part to Meir Kahane, the militant rabbi who popularized it in America when he created the Jewish Defense League in 1968 and used it as a title of a 1972 book-length manifesto. As the president of the American Jewish Committee, Sholom Comay, said after Kahane’s assassination in November 1990, “Despite our considerable differences, Meir Kahane must always be remembered for the slogan Never Again, which for so many became the battle cry of post-Holocaust Jewry.”
For Kahane, Never Again was an implicitly violent call to arms and a rebuke of passivity and inactivity. The shame surrounding the alleged passivity of the Jews in the face of their destruction became a cornerstone of the JDL. As Kahane said, “the motto Never Again does not mean that ‘it’ [a holocaust] will never happen again. That would be nonsense. It means that if it happens again, it won’t happen in the same way. Last time, the Jews behaved like sheep.”
Kahane used Never Again to justify acts of terror in the name of fighting antisemitism. In the anthem of the Jewish Defense League, members recited, “To our slaughtered brethren and lonely widows: Never again will our people’s blood be shed by water, Never again will such things be heard in Judea.”
Later, however, Kahane’s violent call for action was adapted by American Jewish establishment groups and Holocaust commemoration institutions as a call for peace, tolerance and heeding the warning signs of genocide.
These days, when the phrase is used to invoke the Holocaust, it can be either particular or universal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tends toward the particular when he uses it to speak about the need for a strong Jewish state in the wake of the Holocaust.
“I promise, as head of the Jewish state, that never again will we allow the hand of evil to sever the life of our people and our state,” he said in a speech at the site of the former Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp marking International Holocaust Memorial Day in 2010.
But Netanyahu has also used the phrase in its universal sense of preventing all genocides. After visiting a memorial to the victims of the Rwanda genocide in 2010, Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, wrote in the guestbook, “We are deeply moved by the memorial to the victims of one history’s greatest crimes — and reminded of the haunting similarities to the genocide of our own people. Never again.”
Then-President Barack Obama also used the phrase in its universal sense in marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2011.
“We are reminded to remain ever-vigilant against the possibility of genocide, and to ensure that Never Again is not just a phrase but a principled cause,” he said in a statement. “And we resolve to stand up against prejudice, stereotyping, and violence – including the scourge of anti-Semitism – around the globe.”
That’s similar to how the US Holocaust Memorial Museum uses the phrase. In choosing the name Never Again as the theme of its 2013 Days of Remembrance, its used the term as a call to study the genocide of the Jews in order to respond to the “warning signs” of genocides happening anywhere.
And Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and author who came to be associated with the phrase, also used it in the universal sense.
“‘Never again’ becomes more than a slogan: It’s a prayer, a promise, a vow … never again the glorification of base, ugly, dark violence,” the Nobel laureate wrote in 2012.
Never Again is a phrase that keeps on evolving. It was used in protests against the Muslim ban and in support of refugees, in remembrance of Japanese internment during World War II and recalling the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. And now the phrase is taking on yet another life: in the fight for gun control in America.
Shaul Magid, a professor of Jewish studies at Indiana University who is presently a visiting scholar at the Center for Jewish History in New York, told JTA, “For [Kahane], Never Again was not ‘this will not happen again because we will have a country’ but ‘we Jews will never be complacent like we were during the war.’ That is, for Kahane, Never Again was a call to militancy as the only act of prevention. In Parkland it is a call for gun control. In a way, a call for anti-militancy.”
It’s doubtful Kahane would have appreciated the term being co-opted by a gun control campaign. His second most-famous slogan was “Every Jew a .22.”
That article and my comment does not support your point, much as you might like it to. You're really stretching here for some reason.
BTW, what was the threat of harm? Was it the throwing of burritos at them?
this administration has made this nation numb even folks here except a few of us are outraged by this vile policy of keeping children in cages ...like I said in the immigration thread it’s gotten really tough for me to want to live the remainder of my life in this country...
I see why CBP officers were being so physically &sexually threatening towards me.
Officers were keeping women in cells w/ no water & had told them to drink out of the toilets.
This was them on their GOOD behavior in front of members of Congress.
What the Hell is happening?
https://news.yahoo.com/the-us-is-headed-to-fascism-says-ocasio-cortez-after-tour-of-detention-facilities-at-southern-border-195842239.html
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-EV 8/14/93