Our Shared Shelf discussion

Anyone else having trouble getting interested in this book? I'm wondering why I can't get into it. I can't figure out a purpose for reading it, other than it's this months selection. On chapter 4

Whew!!! Ok, chapter 4 changed my perspective! I think the first 3 chapters were laying the groundwork to have a vocabulary and context in which to move forward to the "meat" of the book. Now I'm really getting into it!

Hi!

I come here because I eas having the same problem. First, I'm glad you finally are interested in the book :D
And if someone comes here exactly for the same reason, all I have to say is that, even though the book is really interesting, I sometimes still have trouble because the society and many of the situations that bell hooks present are very different from mine. Like, REALLY different and of course I have problem believing some of her words.

So, the only advice I have is to read with the mind open :)
But so far I liked the book.

I am also having the same problem, I just can't connect with the writer's work.

Reading this book with an open mind is good advice. I stay away from the self help section of the library, because these books are written from the perspective of the author and while whatever the advice is that may have worked in the life of the author it does not mean it will work for me.
With that being said this is not the worst self help book. Hook is a very good writer so that helps and she is pretty straight forward. I appreciate that, so I am keeping on keeping on with this book.

I just could not connect with this book. Yes, the writer gets her point across, still I will finish the book.

I'm not going to be reading this book. My library doesn't have a copy, the digital library doesn't have a copy, and it's not on kindle. Then, I'm reading this thread and thinking it probably wouldn't be worth it to keep trying to find a copy to buy, when I may not want to finish it. Oh well, maybe next month...

Hello Everyone:

I understand your concerns about not connecting with the book, and though I am not one to force someone i to reading something that they are not into, I highly suggest and encourage for you to keep on reading.

I was able to keep objective until she started trying to convince me to abandon my individuality and dreams and belongings to lead a communal life. That hippie BS really turned me off. I don't think the circle is useful to society. Hierarchy makes you WANT to be better. To get farther. To progress. To achieve. The circle sounds VERY much to me like it erases individuality and individual achievement and thus progress in favor of hive mentality and deliberate stagnation. Why progress? Why strive to be better? Why evolve? Just stagnate. The world will be happier without progress. It's the extinction of the human race. Competition is the engine of progress. However, I'm all for making the competition more fair.

Jason wrote: "She had me until she started trying to convince me to abandon my individuality and dreams to lead a communal life. That hippie BS really turned me off. I don't think the circle is useful to society..."

Not that I have started reading the book yet, which I'll try to change ASAP, but in the words of our January author, 'we are in a hierarchy, hierarchy is based on patriarchy, patriarchy doesn’t work anywhere anymore.' ;)

I would not be up to leave everything and go live in a hippie commune, mind you. Well, no need to word that in the conditional tense...I am not up for it, present tense, period. ;) Competitiveness is one of my traits, I am afraid, although I have yet to find out its source. All I'm saying is, hierarchy, regardless of its origins, may make you want to be better, but it does not necessarily allow you to do so. Because of hierarchy, some us can aspire to some stuff while others can't, and I'm not even talking feminism right now. So when you know that you want and actually would be able to progress, but you end up crashing against the tall, sometimes insurmountable wall of hierarchy...there is a mighty chance that you will feel bitterness, resentment or despair. Unhappiness, in a word. That's where I would see the point of those who defend leading a communal life, and even though as I said before I would not be up for it entirely, I do believe that maybe just incorporating a bit of the mindset does us good indeed.

I am pessimistic enough to believe that we will never get rid of hierarchy. However, I would hope that we will still be able to keep fighting it and conquering at least a few points within the system, if we all make a continuous, conscious effort. :)

I don't think there is anything wrong with hierarchy in itself. We need chains of command, in particular when growing experience and increasing responsibility is concerned. (Which translates to my not trusting all individuals to make sensible choices in an anarchy, not after having amused myself by reading some Ode to Stupid compilations of most dense things said in court by lawyers (yes seriously, they passed the bar quite miraculously...) or uttered by patients at the doctor's; there are no words, it is beyond me, people really are that blank. We were given brains but not everyone uses theirs.)

Hierarchy goes down the toilet, however, when weak minds abuse the system. Those individuals need to boost their egos through belittling others instead of lifting them up, and also it isn't uncommon to sabotage others whilst elbowing one's way up the ladder. The sad part is that people don't forget, and instead of having an organisation built on trust and sharing, you get a broken mess that favours only some of its participants. Loyalty suffers, too, (and productivity in the end - woohoo, altar of Mammon - meaning shareholders get less, bahaha, but hey, if you wish to crap in your own nest, go ahead). We need to find solutions that make self-centered thinking the opposite of desirable.

Ana wrote: "Jason wrote: "She had me until she started trying to convince me to abandon my individuality and dreams to lead a communal life. That hippie BS really turned me off. I don't think the circle is use..."

I love everything about your post. Although I'm a little more optimistic. I believe in competitiveness, yes, I am competitive in a brutal way... and I believe people can be competitive without hierarchy. Well, at least, as we know it.

Heidi wrote: "I think it is an obvious idea that we want to really enjoy the book we are personally reading, however our shared shelf's purpose is to broaden our feminist lens. It sucks when we don't connect wit..."

Yes! Keeping an open mind is very important!

I struggle a LOT with the book. I don't believe in the power of prayer, but I do believe how communities live, because I live in a country with great communities, when you can find awesome people. Not communities in the hippie way, but still, communities.

I finished the book yesterday (yes, I have all the month to read it and I finish it on the first week) and I have very mixed feeling about. There's some parts I enjoyed, there are some other parts I didn't enjoy and there are parts I simply don't understand (the loss and fear ot death) because I come from a culture with different beliefs.

But I suscribe your words: the best advice if you want to read the book is to keep the mind open. When you start reading a book you want so desesperatly to like it, but sometimes it takes time.

I still have to make peace with the book. I don't want to throw it out the window, but I have very mixed feelings about it.

It's really simple. Any kind of advance, change, implies a difference. Someone has to do something in order to create that difference. Ergo, individuality and hierarchy are meant to exist. But there are infinite definitions of individuality and hierarchy, it depends on which one we choose. And that doesn't mean that we can't share things, too.

I actively disliked this book, for several reasons. I'm not going to dump my whole review here, because it's full of spoilers, but yeah. I gave it a go, I read it to the end, but in my honest opinion the bad outweighs the good, and I had stuff to say about that in my review HERE. I'm kind of glad this thread turned up, because I wasn't going to be the only sour note in a chorus of praise, but I feel comfortable speaking up if other people are having problems with it too.

Iamshadow wrote: "I actively disliked this book, for several reasons. I'm not going to dump my whole review here, because it's full of spoilers, but yeah. I gave it a go, I read it to the end, but in my honest opini..."

Be courageous :) It's challenging to be alone with your opinion, and I recall a particular time many years ago when there was a vote. I was the only one out of several dozens of people to vote against, it was vote by showing hand, and my hand was the only one up in the air. I don't think I've ever felt that lonely in matters of the mind, but hey ho, I would have acted against my conscience. Can't do that.

I'm currently reading Roxane Gay's

in which there's an essay on likability, and she argues that people focus a great deal on coming across as likable. To me it is more important to stick with my integrity and be honest, whilst keeping a discussion going (rather than flouncing), regardless of whether people like me or not.

The reason I'm saying this is because chances are others haven't liked it either, if you haven't. But being the first to voice a negative opinion can be surprisingly difficult.

Iamshadow wrote: "I actively disliked this book, for several reasons. I'm not going to dump my whole review here, because it's full of spoilers, but yeah. I gave it a go, I read it to the end, but in my honest opini..."

I know this can be challenging for some people, but no one should throw you shade for not liking a book! :D We each have different expectations and tastes, amirite? :) I think there is a thread for those who finished it already? If there is, go there and share your review with us!

That being said, a lot of people seem to have gone rather fast through the book. Is it that easy to read, are you reading beasts or is it just that I've lost my own, pretty-impressive-in-the-past, reading powers? (Maybe a mix of the second and third options, haha!)

Iamshadow wrote: "I actively disliked this book, for several reasons. I'm not going to dump my whole review here, because it's full of spoilers, but yeah. I gave it a go, I read it to the end, but in my honest opini..."

Hitherto, I had been reading objectively and the first thing to ping my radar was all the hippie BS. But reading Iamshadow's review made me think and now I do see correlations between the call for less punishment and the BS the school system tried to force me into when they told me that I should sympathize with people who abused me everyday to the point that I dreaded the sunrise because I knew the day in all probability would hold nothing good. I'm to sympathize and understand their lives are probably harder than mine when I'm the one who dreads the daylight.

Hitherto, I had been reading objectively and the first thing to ping my radar was all the hippie BS. But reading Iamshadow's review made me think and now I do see correlations between the call for less punishment and the BS the school system tried to force me into when they told me that I should sympathize with people who abused me everyday to the point that I dreaded the sunrise because I knew the day in all probability would hold nothing good. I'm to sympathize and understand their lives are probably harder than mine when I'm the one who dreads the daylight.
Yeah, a lot of so-called "anti-bullying" strategies are rife with this stuff - it's a form of gaslighting, really, to be brutally frank. It makes the victim feel shame for reporting and doubt the severity of their own abuse. We're told all our lives to be less selfish, be empathetic, to love and forgive everyone, and that's the way to be loved, appreciated and happy, when in reality, it's a manipulative and horrific form of social control to keep those who are victimised from any kind of power to change their lot. If you're abused, it is NOT okay, there is NO EXCUSE for the abuser and you are under NO obligation to forgive. If it is something you want to do and can do without harming yourself - then that is your choice. But being forced by others into belittling your own pain and putting the perceived pain of the abuser first is revictimisation. It's disgusting, and it's everywhere, and that bullshit needs to stop YESTERDAY, but it can only stop if we're aware it exists and actively make the choice to STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO FORGIVE THE UNFORGIVEABLE. It's their choice, not yours, and you have no right to tell someone else to do it.

Iamshadow wrote: "Hitherto, I had been reading objectively and the first thing to ping my radar was all the hippie BS. But reading Iamshadow's review made me think and now I do see correlations between the call for ..."

I agree that nobody should question the abuse experienced, and it is wrong on so many levels to insinuate that reporting abuse is questionable at best. In particular when men get abused, it pains me that the only way we are able in some cases to verify it indeed was abuse is through reversing the roles, seeing if a woman in the same position were abused or not. Fucked up quite frankly.

As for forgiveness, I'm subscribing to some Buddhist teachings in that respect. For me personally it enriched my life considerably when I was able to forgive my now ex for everything he put me through, forgive myself for not having put an end to it sooner, and actually thanking him and myself for the experience. I wouldn't be who I am today, had I not gone through a personal hell, and I definitely don't miss the old me at all. I know I would become bitter if I had not done all that forgiving.

Aglaea wrote: "Iamshadow wrote: "Hitherto, I had been reading objectively and the first thing to ping my radar was all the hippie BS. But reading Iamshadow's review made me think and now I do see correlations bet..."

I don't wanna be derisive, but there is something extremely backward in the second part of this post. Thanking him for the experience of fear and worthlessness? It's up to you, of course. But I would NEVER thank the bastards who made my youth a living hell.

Iamshadow wrote "I actively disliked this book for several reasons..."

I am wondering whether to read this book or not - I'm 50-50 on it.
It's very interesting reading everyone's comments on this one.

Jason wrote: "I don't wanna be derisive, but there is something extremely backward in the second part of this post. Thanking him for the experience of fear and worthlessness? It's up to you, of course. But I would NEVER thank the bastards who made my youth a living hell."

Not him in person, I'm not daft. In my mind, though. The bastard that made my life a living hell, made me push through boundaries to something I at first doubted, had perhaps not thought of myself. He made me see just how strong I am, how much integrity I have, and that in the end, he would never beat me, make me feel inferior, make me succumb to his torment. I was insecure before meeting this "bastard", but not anymore. I'm freaking grateful for having made see exactly how much value I have as a person. He may have wanted to diminish me into nothing, but I refused. I stood up to his shit. I said no when I had had it. I didn't accept his rules of the game, but insisted on my own in the end. Look who got the last word, I'm still standing. So yes, I'm thanking the bastard, and the universe for testing me, for making me see myself for who I really am.

ETA
I personally abhor the victim label. I'm not a victim, I'm a survivor. The difference is so huge that it's almost like they are opposites in regards to how one views one's experiences in life. I prefer to see what good I've done, how much I've grown and become stronger. I also don't want to define myself, my existence, in relation to other people, and victim implies that the bastard would have power of me still. Survivor means I've broken free of the chains, and have redefined myself.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt. I'm not inferior.

Aglaea wrote: "As for forgiveness, I'm subscribing to some Buddhist teachings in that respect. For me personally it enriched my life considerably when I was able to forgive my now ex for everything he put me through, forgive myself for not having put an end to it sooner, and actually thanking him and myself for the experience. I wouldn't be who I am today, had I not gone through a personal hell, and I definitely don't miss the old me at all. I know I would become bitter if I had not done all that forgiving."

And that's absolutely illustrating my point - if forgiveness has made your life better, then that's great. If it's your choice to forgive, and you're happy, then that's wonderful. But there's this kind of blanket approach out there that well-meaning people (often those in charge of people's health and wellbeing, like therapists or teachers or religious advisors) subscribe to that you HAVE to forgive or it will ruin your life and you'll become bitter and twisted and a victim forever, and it just isn't true. It's marketed as an essential process of healing, but it isn't.

I tried to forgive and it nearly destroyed what was left of my self worth. Eventually I had the courage to do something opposite to what everyone from family to religion to therapists had told me - I gave myself permission to not forgive and it made my life better. It taught me that it was good to say "no" and to advocate for myself against people who wanted to use me.

Has it ruined my life? No, far from it.

Is my abuser with me every day? To be honest, yes and no. Am I ever the person I would have been otherwise? Absolutely not. Experiences shape us. But is he dogging my heels? To be honest, I sometimes go weeks or months without even remembering consciously that he exists. He isn't a focus of my burning hate - he's just a non-entity.

So, I am the living proof that you can be happy and live without feeling obliged to grant your abuser forgiveness.

Iamshadow wrote: "So, I am the living proof that you can be happy and live without feeling obliged to grant your abuser forgiveness."

Yes, it is nice to hear that you have found what works for you. I also grasped very well your point earlier, but since there were capital letters earlier in the thread, it was reasonable to explain in greater detail exactly why I've chosen forgiveness and why it has worked for me.

It's a bit like the finer nuances of getting negative feedback. Let's say that you're a blogger and you're writing about something important to you. A reader barfs all over you with negative feedback, acidic rant and the whole works. On principle, someone not open to change will dismiss the feedback in its entirety. Another writer, however, might analyse the rant, choose to reflect objectively and conclude that despite the acid was meant to hurt, they will still use it, because the only one who would suffer is the writer themself. A narrow mind might say that this writer would "lose", because they are "giving in", but an expanded mind will see that there's no point in shooting oneself in the leg just to "win", to refuse to take to heart the acidic feedback. It's all about self-improvement, not about winning or losing.

So in my case, when I explain in great detail why I've chosen forgiveness, someone else might think of the concept in new ways. Jason didn't figure out why I had chosen forgiveness, which is case in point out of my perspective. It wasn't about "losing" by thanking my abuser, but "winning" by acknowledging the hard work I have done to put the incident in my past. It's about taking the experience to a whole new level, by seeing what went wrong in the first place, and what I can improve in myself still, so the abuse became secondary in my own survival story.

I never said this way of dealing with it is the only way, but sometimes it can be helpful to think of a particular situation from a totally new perspective.

With that said, it is sad that some healthcare professionals think it's about them and their egos rather than the patient/client. They got stuck in one model and don't seem to have the capacity to invite alternative ways of thinking, to walk in the shoes of others. It's abundant everywhere, though, also in this group.

Aglaea wrote: "since there were capital letters earlier in the thread..."

That was totally because I wrote that at about four in the morning and I forgot that I could use html and italicise for emphasis. :DDD

No shouting intended, I just wanted to be emphatic.

Iamshadow wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "since there were capital letters earlier in the thread..."

That was totally because I wrote that at about four in the morning and I forgot that I could use html and italicise for em..."

Lol, it looked Very Passionate. Glad we're on the same page now :)

It's important, though, as one instance in which I can't wrap my head around forcing forgiveness is kids, where one is bullying the other. When they are forced to kiss and make up in front of each other, and adults don't want to truly deal with the problem, it is the most insulting - and traumatic - to the bullied child, like nobody really cares. And the torment can continue. There's a time and place for everything, and actual bullying situations are far from it.

This is my first encounter with the author and I'm not sure about her style of writing, but this book felt more like a casual conversation rather than a serious take on love, abuse and discrimination. I think it lacks in that argumentative strength required to change mentalities about "love". Then again, the author clearly tells her stories from a subjective, deeply personal experience so it is in a way justified.

And something else, was anybody else bothered by the idea that love is the solution to all of our problems - personal, social, political, even economic? I am never comfortable with giving one answer / explanation for profoundly complex issues.

Stefu wrote: "And something else, was anybody else bothered by the idea that love is the solution to all of our problems - personal, social, political, even economic? I am never comfortable with giving one answer / explanation for profoundly complex issues."

Gosh it vexes me that I can't find the book, it sounds interesting enough regardless of one agrees with the author or not. Anyway, in regards to your question, I do think we could value love, kinship, and other "soft"/"weak" concepts more.

Buddhism has a great deal of love in it, the Bible says in Mark 12:31 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.", and I'm sure there's something similar in Quran and Bhagavad Gita as well, to name a couple more. At least the eight limbs of yoga (Ashtanga) are pretty clear on how to treat others.

I'm agnostic, but I feel the world is a very hard place today, with individuals caring more about their own survival than that of others. When this is encouraged also in the workplace, soon enough we have "me myself and I" going on, pulling interests and the general evolution of the team in a zillion directions.

When we try to analyse quantitatively what might benefit from including also qualitative aspects, I think we are already oblivious to a whole bunch of factors that should have been included in the equation, and the game was lost before it could begin for real.

"The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking." - Albert Einstein.

Aglaea wrote: "the Bible says in Mark 12:31 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

The Christian Bible may say that, but the original is in the Five Books of Moses, Leviticus 19:18.

Stefu wrote: "And something else, was anybody else bothered by the idea that love is the solution to all of our problems - personal, social, political, even economic? I am never comfortable with giving one answer / explanation for profoundly complex issues."

I think more love in the world would go a long way toward making it a better place for people, but the one place I can see the weakness of the argument is in economics. I haven't quite made my mind up about that one yet. Certainly, unbridled capitalism driven by greed, greed, greed hasn't been good for the world, but I don't quite see how love can be introduced to the system. I think the book Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered deals with this, but I haven't read it yet.

It's a bummer that there is no audio version. I tend to listen to books as I'm walking my dog, hiking, or taking the bus to and from work and school. I think I'll have to skip this reading.

Stefu wrote: "And something else, was anybody else bothered by the idea that love is the solution to all of our problems - personal, social, political, even economic? I am never comfortable with giving one answer / explanation for profoundly complex issues."

I am never confortable with giving a one miracoulous answer / solution for complex issues, either. I agree that love can make the world a better place because the people would be more empathic, but not as the final solution.

Still, I don't know if Hook's mean that or it's only me who is interpreting it that way.

Andrea wrote: "I agree that love can make the world a better place because the people would be more empathic, but not as the final solution."

Please don't use that phrase, "the final solution." That's a request, of course, because you're free to say what you want. But I think it has terrible connotations that you don't mean, as it was Hitler's name for the systematic extermination of the Jewish people.

I feel kind of sad, because after a couple of chapters, "I'm not feeling it" It has nothing to do about love, i'm a firm believer and practicioner in love, but even though she talks about patriarchy, she still says, men do this, women do that, men love like this women love like that, which i find it's the very things she is critizing in other books. Specially since i don't fit in any of the generalizations she makes about men and many of the women i've loved don't fall in the category in women. I particularly don´t like that it's all so far based on personal experience. There's no science, no philosophical or sociallogical method. Don't get me wrong she doesn't have to, but if she's gonna speak from personal experience she needs to say something different or special, but nothing so far. Just that love saves, and "this new generation of young kids doesn't know how to love" which is never a good argument to blame the "youths". I hope the book gets better, because i was so happy yesterday when my book arrived.

Kressel wrote: "Andrea wrote: "I agree that love can make the world a better place because the people would be more empathic, but not as the final solution."

Please don't use that phrase, "the final solution." Th..."

Sorry. I didn't mean that in a negative way and didn't know Hitler used them especifically. Iugh. I'm not going to use it again here. The only thing I have to say is that words have the power the people want to give them and it's very difficult sometimes not to say something that might make someone unconfortable.

I don't find anything bad with them (especially when I think them in spanish), but if you don't find it comfortable, I'm nobody no say it otherwise :)

Iván wrote: "I feel kind of sad, because after a couple of chapters, "I'm not feeling it" It has nothing to do about love, i'm a firm believer and practicioner in love, but even though she talks about patriarch..."

I feel the same way about generalizations within the book. I tried to ignore the gender ones after a while because I didn't want to get mad with the book, but when I reach the chapter about loss it hit me very hard the generalisation she makes about the fear of death and how we ignore or try to ignore that death is a part of life. I guess that's a generalization of the society she knows.

But in Mexico there's a phrase not so very famous Paz wrote about how we percieve death. I don't remember it exactly (and it was in spanish) but he wrote something abour how the mexican play with death and how we die in the same way we've lived. So I didn't fit in that and I really struggle while trying to understand what point she was trying to make.

Ruby wrote: "Whew!!! Ok, chapter 4 changed my perspective! I think the first 3 chapters were laying the groundwork to have a vocabulary and context in which to move forward to the "meat" of the book. Now I'm re..."

Hoping the same thing will happen to me Ruby, cos I am REALLY not feeling it this far. I'm finding it so 'self-helpy' which is a kind of literature I am just not interested in. With Gloria's biography I felt like she was SHARING something with us, bell's way of writing is a lot heavier somehow and I feel like she is TELLING me what I need to do. I don't appreciate that at all.
I'll keep reading though, hopefully it's just a first impression.

Alma x

Iván wrote: "and "this new generation of young kids doesn't know how to love" which is never a good argument to blame the "youths"."

Exactly this sentiment which is repeated quite a few times disturbs me as well. I'm finding some passages quite good but others are so complicated and don't seem to make sense when I look at the society I know.

Andrea wrote: "The only thing I have to say is that words have the power the people want to give them and it's very difficult sometimes not to say something that might make someone unconfortable. "

Very true. Sometimes the words we use distance others from us, and sometimes they bring us together. But on this online forum, about books no less, words are all we have to connect us.

Palabras son todo que tenemos.

I am having a rough start, I don't know why but I just am. Do any of you write in your books? Take notes or underline stuff? I normally don't because I get mine from the library but this one I actually bought.

Kressel wrote: Very true. Sometimes the words we use distance others from us, and sometimes they bring us together. But on this online forum, about books no less, words are all we have to connect us."

I think the same. And I have to say that here words are very important because connect people very different to share their opinions or their points of view (which, for me, don't happen very often) and learn a lot. :)

Alma wrote: "Ruby wrote: "Whew!!! Ok, chapter 4 changed my perspective! I think the first 3 chapters were laying the groundwork to have a vocabulary and context in which to move forward to the "meat" of the boo..."

Hi, Alma!

I don't "self-helpy" (as you say) either. I'm simply not interested and sometimes feel writers talk down to me, something I can't stand. However, my advice with Hook's book is to read it with an open mind (as I said before) because Bell Hooks has some interesting things to say. The book, in my point of view, has a lot of flaws but, among that flaws, there are interesting points :D

And if you don't simply enjoy reading a book, don't let it become a torture. You can put the book down for a while. :)

I gave up on reading the book in chapter five. I tried to understand her points, but the examples that she gives in the book do not help her get her point across.

Words. Well, "English privilege" anyone? Can only speak for myself again, but I've worked very hard to master English, started learning it in my mid-teenage years only, and at times there are expressions that take me by surprise still.

I had no idea the expression Andrea used is connected to Hitler, just to mention an example. So yes, anyone speaking English as their first language might do the rest of the world a nice one by recalling that most of us have been forced to use your language in global communication.

Sorry about the sidetrack, but I've seen actual ridicule of people doing the best they can to express themselves in English; ridicule both of writing and pronounciation. Whereas many a person from the US or UK spell quite obnoxiously themselves, whilst barely getting one language right, let alone two or more. Anyway, back on track.

Aglaea wrote: "I had no idea the expression Andrea used is connected to Hitler, just to mention an example."

Seriously, Aglaea? You've never heard of "the Final Solution?" How about "die Endlösung?"

But kudos (Greek) to you for writing so well in a language other than your native tongue. I couldn't do it.

Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "I had no idea the expression Andrea used is connected to Hitler, just to mention an example."

Seriously, Aglaea? You've never heard of "the Final Solution?" How about "die Endlösung..."

I don't think that saying the final solution should be associated immediately to Hitler. If you're talking about racism, or about nazism, ok. We could say the same for the words national or socialism. They were related to Hitler, so everytime someone uses those words he's talking about nazism. It's pretty absurd.

Leo wrote: "so everytime someone uses those words he's talking about nazism. It's pretty absurd. "

Oh, I knew she didn't mean to refer to Nazism. I said that in my post. I simply asked her not to use the phrase. (See post #34 on this thread.)

Kressel wrote: "Leo wrote: "so everytime someone uses those words he's talking about nazism. It's pretty absurd. "

Oh, I knew she didn't mean to refer to Nazism. I said that in my post. I simply asked her not to ..."

Yes, I understand, and I'm trying to tell you that it's absurd to ask her not to use that phrase because you personally relate it to nazism.

Leo wrote: "Yes, I understand, and I'm trying to tell you that it's absurd to ask her not to use that phrase because you personally relate it to nazism. "

This is beyond what I personally think. It's a historic phrase.

Kressel wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "I had no idea the expression Andrea used is connected to Hitler, just to mention an example."

Seriously, Aglaea? You've never heard of "the Final Solution?" How about "die Endlösung..."

In German, I've never heard people use the word 'Endloesung' during a normal conversation. However, I never realised that 'final solution' has a negative connotation in English as the Hitler's language medium was in German and this is the English translation. Could you suggest alternative wordings, Kressel?

Anja wrote: "Could you suggest alternative wordings, Kressel?"

Well, what I got out of what Andrea was saying (post #33) is that she doesn't believe that love is the ultimate solution to all the world's problems. I don't know if it is either, but since I live in a town full of conflict along ethnic lines, I do have to say that empathy, communication, and just plain old politeness can go a long way toward melting hatred. After that, perhaps there will be room for love.

Kressel wrote: "Leo wrote: "Yes, I understand, and I'm trying to tell you that it's absurd to ask her not to use that phrase because you personally relate it to nazism. "

This is beyond what I personally think. I..."

But "the final solution" is a basic part of a language, it's not something bound in any way to politics. You can need it in science, in everyday life, in a thousand different aspects of life. Banning it because it reminds you of nazism doesn't make any sense as long as no one is using it with that intention. Of course this is not an important discussion, but it freaks me out to read certain things.