"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?

I find it sad that supposedly educated politicians and journalists can be so ill informed as to say things like this.

I have also come across someone mentioning that there would be "an Islamic Crusade", and that "Rome is a Mecca for Catholics".

The parallel is simple. Lies promoted as truth to implicate an inocent as a villain for political gain.

Here is a link an article from the Wall St. Journal about the term and the current events:

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel' - WSJ.com

I share the same viewpoint as the author of this article.

Blood libel means blood libel. It doesn't mean libel, it doesn't mean general criticisms, it means blood libel. She made a mistake due to ignorance. That's the whole story.

By the same token may we assume that "Grammar's not your Grandma, it's your grammar"?

...Grammar Rock is brought to you by Nabisco

I think we the people need to find a way to repurpose the tools at our disposal and use them to collapse the twin towers of partisanship and political opportunism.

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

I can see Palin's point. It's almost as if this controversy hit her like some sort of improvised explosive device.

Palin's ignorance is what really scares me. She has no qualms about who she incites and how they might react. She is a loose canon and extremely dangerous to safety and equality in the U.S.A.

I have no interest in Palin's political ambitions, but what specific ignorance (of her's) are you referring?

That's the real nigger in the woodpile here, isn't it?

It's like a bunch of mean old liberals have nailed her to a cross while flooding her whole world and mudering the firstborn sons in all the families in Wasilla.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------

Guys, this whole thing just makes me feel like i'm drowning in the ricewater stool of a cholera-ridden Haitian orphan.

It's almost like she was accused of being responsible for that whole crazy AZ massacre thing (if not the actual murders) without a shred of evidence.

Its a quite specific term, and not one that is commonly used these days. I find it quite difficult to believe that she - or whoever wrote the speech - did not say it on purpose.

I know! It's like the lamestream media has locked her up in a vietcong prison for five years and subjected her to intermittent torture!

The more I think of it, the more I believe it was calculated. Her whole video response was a production---a performance---and well thought out. (Not to mention it being released after her being silent for days.) You don't pull such a term as blood libel out of your ass when you're putting something like that together. I don't think she got it from American action films or from Alaskan hunting parlance.

She wanted to make herself out as a victim, and what better way than to borrow some of the Jewish victimhood loaded in such a term as blood libel and at the same time incur more liberal "wrath"?

Poor, poor Mrs. Palin.

It was calculated. The question is whether to consider it cold.

crazy stuff man!

I totally agree with BG. It was "uncleverly" calulated by her speech writer (because Palin won't know how to cleverly defend the statement any how) but the fact that she let "it fly" is the part that seems so anti-semitic, not to mention it will be adding extra fuel to the fire (so to speak) of the guns & ammo debate here in the states.

/So, Okay, if you live is Alaska you might need to know how to shoot a rifle once in a decade or so if you desperately need food or a killer wolf is attacking your kid!? But what are the odds for this being a real situation?/

There is no doubt in my mind the use of the term was calculated as was every word in her monologue. If you want to understand why she used the term, you have to get away from the "she wanted to make herself out as a victim" narrative. She is not a victim, she is a fighter. The use of the term was an attack. To accuse professional communicators of a "blood libel" is probably one of the worst accusations you can make. She threw an overt insult directed at liberal politicians and pundits. And she further mocked the idea of changing the "tone". She basically told them (or you) to go "f" yourself(s) and that she is not going to change. That is what I heard and she endeared herself even more to me with that message.

On the first day of this tragedy liberals were beside themselves trying to make connections with Palin, the Tea Part, talk radio, gun owners, etc. - she responded with "blood libel" and they have been making vailed attempts to back-off the charges ever since while still trying to hold on to the notion that "tone" is a problem. Only it is not their problem, but "my" (or people like me - gun owners, Tea Party suppporter, talk radio listeners, Fox Nes viewers, etc) problem. I can not wait for her interview with Hannity tonight.

Actually, it's almost like she's focusing on the fact that *some* folks rushed to judgment about the shooter's motivations in order to completely sidestep the questions regarding the appropriateness of her rhetoric. Though to be fair, that's kind of been the collective response from the folks who engage in that type of rhetoric.

I'm perfectly content in concluding that Sarah Palin is simply an ignorant person and probably tends to surround herself with ignorant people. While I certainly wouldn't blame Jewish people for being offended by the incorrect usage of such a term, I don't see it as racially offensive. Like everything else she does, it's intellectually offensive simply because someone that ignorant is given a microphone and is paid attention to. She may occasionally be guilty of malice, but first and foremost she's ignorant.

What purpose aside from looking stupid does the knowingly incorrect use of blood libel serve? Attention? She's already got that in spades.

I'm surprised nobody picked up on your subtle reminder that some of our talking heads (like Palin) don't seem understand how a turn of phrase could be offensive to others.

Or they do and WANT the offense to be taking to keep them in the headlines.

After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Okay, so she uses a victim narrative as a dirty fighter. How endearing.

Or this:

It's everyone's problem.

I hope it's as endearing.

blood libel was a poor rhetorical choice for a lot of reasons, but the tactical motivation behind its use is pretty obvious---getting palin some traction, making her appear to be responding, making her appear to be "fighting back" by whining loudly about what a victim she is blah blah blah. that's all it's about---getting traction, keeping the brand intact after a very bad news cycle period during which the neo-fascist "tea party" set got called out for their cheesy stupid violent backwater everyman with a gun rhetoric.

i dont see the phrase as "toxic" tho.
it simply refers to an old and quite ugly tendency within anti-semitism.
but if its going to be invoked, it should be done with circumspection.
the tea party types dont seem to be big on cicumspect. i mean, it's kind of hard to believe that these people would actually "be fighters" by arguing, in effect, that behind the shallow and superficial tragedy of people who got shot and killed or maimed or wounded tucson, the real victim of the real crime is sarah palin whose martyrdom is that of conservatives in general.

Well, roachboy, the more powerful rhetorical choice would have been to point out some of the specific illogical statements coming from the media, and liberals specifically. However, as many of us know, the current state of right politics in America isn't about logic, or facts, or reasoning. They're too boring and don't get good ratings or score many points in grassrootsiness.

No, the right is fuelled these days by showing how one can respond to the liberal/progressive/pseudo-left threat and that now isn't the time to pause or let up. Maybe it will never be time. The republic is at risk, remember?

The English language is a living language. She used it properly as have others outside of the historic origin of the term.

---------- Post added at 02:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 AM ----------

Based on what she has been called and then the suggestion that she purposefully incited the murder of innocent people - she is "a dirty fighter????

Yes, by calling the criticism of her rhetoric a "blood libel," she is a dirty fighter if a fighter. If she had decided to go the route of sincerity instead, I'd have a different perspective on this.

I'm just surprised she didn't call criticism of her "job killing".

She used it incorrectly, as a small few have also used it incorrectly in the past. The English language is a living language, but changing the meaning of a word overnight due to ignorance is not the mechanism of linguistic evolution.

Anyway, why should I trust the word of a giraffe*?

*not referring to the long-necked, African mammal, but rather a term I just made up which means people who use semantic arguments I disagree with

As an external observer of the American political situation, and a person with a fondness for the best of American ideas and thinkers, I am consistently shocked that Mrs Palin is apparently seriously considered a possible future president.

If I were asked to compare her to a British political figure, the nearest I could think of is Nick Griffin of the BNP. Over here, he's given his chance to speak, but generally that just serves to remind people what a boor and fool he is.

It seems that every time Mrs Palin speaks, she alienates some of her audience further, whilst at the same time driving many more to greater and greater fervour in their support of her.

What is it in a nation founded by some of the most intelligent and creative political thinkers of the Enlightenment, and existing in a pre-eminent almost unassailable position of wealth and local security that makes America today so susceptible to the idea that you are a nation under siege and surrounded by those that mean you serious harm?

Palin is good at the Palin brand. She's definitely got our Ace in her hole, if you knowwhatimsayin'.

I suspect that she may subscribe to the Newt Gingrich model of political participation, whereby if one can keep one's name dripping off the slobbering tongues of the establishment political press one can make money selling one's bullshit to chumps.

She doesn't need to sell her bullshit to too many people to maintain her wealth and attention. And if she can bolster her cred with her primary investors by offending the rest of us, then that's all to the good.

So in the long run, fil, do you think she'll run for president, or is it all a trick to get people to buy her books?

I think she believes what she's selling. If she thinks there is a remote chance that she can win, she will run.

Anything to get back to "time-tested truths"...whatever they may be.

palin may believe in the palin brand and her handlers may as well, but there are basic problems with it that (i would hope) will prevent her from being more than a marginal side-show that appeals to the fears and images based in fear particular to our local poujadistes. the problem is the persistence of an assumption of stupidity and/or ignorance at the center of brand identity. so when she defends the blood libel usage

Sarah Palin defends ?blood libel? use - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

a significant aspect of the defense is defending herself against the assumption that she didnt know what the term meant.
then there's a reiteration of exactly the victimization narrative we've been talking about (sorry ace, dear, but you're entirely wrong again)
and then some lame-ass assertion that the poujadistes are being censored and that the demise of this confederacy of dunces would kill off the republic.

so it seems to me the assumption of stupidity gets affirmed most effectively when it is being refudiated.

Let's simply say that not everyone agrees with you:

Read more: Dershowitz, others defend Palin’s use of ‘blood libel’ | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

Palin has never said her intent was to run for President, she was not even interested in the VP slot on the McCain ticket until she was approached. She stepped down as governor of AK to move on with her life, virtually ending her political career - but liberals would not leave her alone. Liberals keep bring the issue up. Liberals are obsessed with the idea of Palin running. Liberals feel it is their job to eliminate her from a Republican run at the nomination, but what they do back fires. They think by trying to knocking her down, they build themselves up but they come across as being very foolish.

It sounds like you're suggesting that the liberals have created a postmodern Prometheus in Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin™ is a liberal creation?

Here is the dynamics of this situation. Palin was the reason why I voted for McCain. And after the defeat I did not like the resignation as governor, I assumed she retired from formal political life, but would continue on helping conservatives here and there. So, I was luke warm on the idea of her even running and I thought it would be a long-shot just to get the nomination, and even more of a long-shot to win a national election.

Now, I am 100% with her until the end. I would work on her campaign as hard as if I were running. So, if she has a base of about 20-30% Republicans with a good number like me - over 2 years anything can happen. As the young folks say: It's on!:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

My take on Palin is that she would be very happy in a minor support role in the Republican Party. However, in order for her to serve in that capacity there has to be strong leadership with conviction. No other Republican political leader is standing tall taking the hits that she is taking, no leader is strongly defending her message, while liberal make personal attacks. The strategy being employed by liberals is a tried and true one, other conservatives are hiding behind Palin's skirt. I know it, she knows it, they know it. So, the more she is attacked and the more there is a lack of leadership from Republicans - given her nature the attacks are "forcing" her into a position of running.

My mind is made up, I will not support any current Republican leader who has been silent over these past few weeks and is entertaining any notion of changing the "tone".

I don't believe she believes all she's selling. I think she sells what she thinks her base will ingest, regurgitate and spew. Too bad Christmas has passed, we all could have chipped in and bought (as the old saying goes) her a huge wooden cross and some nails, then she could climb up and nail herself to it.

ace, you say you see "minor support role for the Republican party," but I see "leading the way towards whatever it is she thinks America needs to return to."

She's said herself that she'll do anything politically if she feels she'll succeed at it, even beating Obama.

She's the champion of neo-Reaganomics and American exceptionalism. She knows it. I know it. And you know it.

She's a leading political reactionary, and this happens to make her the leading voice in opposition to liberalism and progressive politics in the U.S. If she wanted to be a minor player, she'd spend more effort in flying below the radar rather than keeping her image polished. But we all know her strengths don't lay in gruntwork behind the scenes. They lay in being in the limelight. Her "blood libel" video is evidence of this. She could have easily made statements to the press or even held interviews. Instead she chose to make a polished video statement.

I expect right-wingers are all too eager to jump to Palin's defense. The organization you've cited which is defending Palin? They're called "Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin". I don't expect objectivity from them. Regarding Dershowitz, he said this:
Note, please, that Dershowitz has very clearly not disconnected the term from being associated with Jewish issues. Palin herself is not Jewish (by a long shot), and she was not speaking in the defense of Jewish people, but herself. She used the term incorrectly, and it's not surprising that Jewish organizations all over the world are pissed about the incorrect use of a serious accusation.