Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

Yes, technically, the Holodormor is a holocaust. I thought you were referring to the debate as to whether it was genocide or the result of some other cause
That it has become associated with genocide through a specific genocide shold not prevent other groups from refering to similar events of genocide as a holocaust provided they refer it as a specific holocaust for clarity

No, the Holodomor was not a holocaust. The Holocaust is called a "holocaust" for a reason, in reference to the old greek meaning of "sacrifice by fire". By that the Holodomor is definitely not that, in the same way few genocides would really qualify for the term "holodomor", a compound word literally translating to "Death by starvation".

So yes, these terms shouldn't be tossed out casually because they are meant to evoke the conditions of their specific genocides, and not just a byword for genocides in general.

 

[Greg K]

No, the Holodomor was not a holocaust. The Holocaust is called a "holocaust" for a reason, in reference to the old greek meaning of "sacrifice by fire". By that the Holodomor is definitely not that, in the same way few genocides would really qualify for the term "holodomor", a compound word literally translating to "Death by starvation".

I stand corrected on that the holodmor- unless it was a mass genocide ( I am not too familiar with it other than their is debate as to whether it was a genocide or due to another factor such as industrialization)

As for holocaust, the Greeks may have had it as sacrifice by fired. However, it is also defined as destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war (so fire need be a requirement). Native American, Rwanda (half-million to a million murdered), and Armenian (600k-1million+) are in my opinon examples of genocides that could be labeled holocausts.

edit: Actually, I don't stand corrected. The term holocaust has been used several times (including by Jews) prior to what we, commonly, call the Holocaust. It took reading a link by another poster to remind me of what I was thinking about prior usages of holocaust (from readings in classes and online) when I typed my initial paragraph. This is in additon to one Jewish scholar, Irving Horowitz, in the opening of an essay he wrote over 40 years ago to be given at a conference on Jewish and Armenian studies, lamenting how a handful of scholars in the early field of Post Holocaust studies, were engaging in a linguistic battle" over whether the term "holocaust" should apply to other genocides. In his opening, he stated that, not to deny are unique experience, but we as "Jews", especially, the actual survivors, can be so close to the subject "to lack objectivity" (his quoting of Elie Wisel) on the matter and debates over use of them divides rather than unites victims of various genocides. This was my reaction, long before reading his opening, after reading about some American-Jews arguing against calling the Armenian Genocide a holocaust.

 

[Bohandas]

Some other definitions of phylactery

"(in the early Christian church) a receptacle containing a holy relic.
an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger."

The problem is that (as I pointed out before) a lich's phylactery generally isn't worn as an amulet and doesn't contain a relic.

And if you go back to the Greek origin, phylaktḗrion, from which phylactery is ultimately derived, it not only includes amulets tefellin and safeguard, but a guarded place.

I could get behind changing it to phylaktḗrion. Honestly that sounds way more magicy. That would still entail a change however.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I stand corrected on that the holodmor- unless it was a mass genocide ( I am not too familiar with it other than their is debate as to whether it was a genocide or due to another factor such as industrialization)

It was, but it involved no fire. It was a slow, mass starvation event. It's not at all like a "holocaust".

As for holocaust, the Greeks may have had it as sacrifice by fired. However, it is also defined as destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war (so fire need be a requirement). Native American, Rwanda (half-million to a million murdered), and Armenian (600k-1million+) are in my opinon examples of genocides that could be labeled holocausts.

No, I think you are completely wrong and off-base with trying to expand the definition in this way. You're just generalizing at term that need not be generalized; there's no need to have another word for "genocide" because we already have "genocide". Let specific terms stay specific, because they hold great meaning for those who were affected by the events.

 

[Greg K]

The problem is that (as I pointed out before) a lich's phylactery generally isn't worn as an amulet and doesn't contain a relic.

but note that what I wrote "an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger."
Merriam-Webster defines safeguard as "something that protects and gives safety". The phylactery (in 2e and 3e) contains the lich's soul for its protection.

 

[Bohandas]

No, I think you are completely wrong and off-base with trying to expand the definition in this way. You're just generalizing at term that need not be generalized; there's no need to have another word for "genocide" because we already have "genocide". Let specific terms stay specific, because they hold great meaning for those who were affected by the events.

That term doesn't technically cut it for what happened to germany's gays and disabled people, as they aren't an ethnic group but were among the people targeted.

 

[Justice and Rule]

but note that what I wrote "an amulet, charm, or safeguard against harm or danger."
Merriam-Webster defines safeguard as "something that protects and gives safety". The phylactery (in 2e and 3e) contains the lich's soul for its protection.

I feel like using the out-of-use definition for something like this is basically conceding that the usage is off-base and now we're just trying to plead out something that was basically flippantly tossed in rather than carefully considered.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That term doesn't technically cut it for what happened to germany's gays and disabled people, as they aren't an ethnic group

By that definition the killing of Jews doesn't necessarily fit because they themselves stride the line between an ethnic and religious group. There's no need to be so restrictive: a genocide is a campaign of murder against certain groups of individuals with shared characterstics: these can be ethnic, national, religious, racial, sexual preference, etc.

 

[Bohandas]

Weren't you the one who was just a moment earlier arguing against expanding terms for a sepecific mass murder to include any mass murder

 

[Justice and Rule]

Weren't you the one who was just a moment earlier arguing against expanding terms for a sepecific mass murder to include any mass murder

Does the term "genocide" refer to a specific mass murder now, or is it a generalized term that already covers mass murders for ethnic, religious, national, or racial reasons? Because the former is what I'm talking about in reference to the Holodomor and the Holocaust, while the latter is what I'm talking about slightly wider definition. I thought I was rather clear about that, but here we are.