|
"Blood libel"
As you may know, in the aftermarth of the murders out in Arizona, and the criticism of Sarah Palin's marketing campaign with gun sights over targeted senators, Sarah Palin made a statement in which she seems to accuse those people criticising her of blood libel.
I dont really want to have start a debate about Palin as a person, but rather the use of the term, and whether some terms are inherently toxic and cannot be used justifiably ever.
Shortly, for anyone not familiar with the term, "blood libel" specifically refers to claims that Jews use the blood of murdered children in religious ceremonoes. Palin claims that those who accused her of helping to create the atmosphere which fed the mind of the killer were treating her in the same way as those who create these lies treat Jews.
_
Those who have defended her have argued that the term, although it has the literal meaning described, is also a generic term for falsehoods in general... and that the outrage is false and manufactured.
Those who criticise the usage say that is based in an anti-semitic view of the world, is insensitive, is not balanced, etc.. but the issue is whether the term itself can be used.
_
Another, less contensious, example was last year a Tory MP inadvertently used the phrasing "freedom through work" when talking about welfare reform. Because it was more that he used the combination of words unthinkingly, it was not something that was seen as offensive, but it did bounce around Twitter abit and was at least an embarassment.
The concept of "gaining freedom from dependancy and depression and isolation through a hard days work" is clearly a reasonable one. Is it impossible to use the phrase this man did because it sounds like the words on the gates of Auschwitz?
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."
The Gospel of Thomas
|