I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.
“Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”
Michael Feinstein, Village Voice, January 13, 2011
Okay, I agree that the term "blood libel" should not be used beyond its historic anti semitism meaning. Doing so dilutes the historical use of the term. But they say the Right is over the top? What some on the left are enaged in are lies intended to cause harm and inflame opinion as a means of attack. And yes, I would include Olbermann, Sullivan, and Krugman in that group. While it is not the blood libel, it is analagous to what the blood libel was used for.
H/T to TOM for finding this gem of tollerance from the Village Voice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe first time I ever heard the phrase was here at NRO, Conrad Black writing in response to you.
He mentioned "Jefferson’s blood libel on the American Indians" in the Declaration of Independence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat larger point of Palin's do you agree with? That rhetoric can only lead to violence when it comes from a journalist?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a sheltered gentile from the southwest, I hadn't even heard the term "blood libel" until the controversy over "Passion of the Christ." So the term has no deep-seeded meaning to me. but, it seems apropos, so let's find the equivalent term and use it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat should we deduce when Sheriff Nudnik makes false allegations right out of the box?---that he wants to cover up his own deficiencies as Sheriff by focusing hate and blame on innocents. If this is not a blood libel, it's a close cousin. Had he managed to keep this nut off the street, we would not be discussing all the carnage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStop whining and stiffen your wrist. I venture to say that a large percent of population has never heard of the term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEither she doesn't fully understand the history of the phrase or she is being deliberatlely provocative.
I hope that it is the former but it seems to take the victim complex too far to compare the current plight of Palin with the suffering of Jews throughout history.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe same thing bothered me when I read it. Given how the Blood Libel has been historically used against the Jewish people and how it sadly continues to be used against Jews today, its best to only refer to the Blood Libel in that context. Reynolds’ use of the phrase detracted from what was otherwise an excellent opinion piece.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI dissent.
Why would historical use deprive us of a term which is clear, concise, and correct to describe what the Left has done?
If "blood libel" means something to the effect of "written defamation implying culpability for bloodshed," is this not the perfect term? I'm sure the Judaic community, rather than jealously guarding the phrase, would by-and-large sympathize with others who are wrongfully accused in such an egregious and disgusting way. Unless someone has patented the phrase and I'm unaware of it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile "blood libel" probably isn't the appropriate term, I'm willing to give her some leeway as it must be hard to one day find out that you are responsible for the actions of every apolitical schizophrenic who guys on a killing spree.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a shock that Palin would "redefine" a term. She doesn't know/understand/get the original meaning -- or she refudiates it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShe's a piece of work! A Jew is shot and her rhetoric was one of the precipitating causes. To call it a blood libel against Palin is like the guy who killed his parents and saught sympathy because he was an orphan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with External Link
While 'blood libel" specifically is not appropriate, in the larger meaning of wrongfully accused, it is very correct because of the gravity of accusations. As a Jew I am very OK with this expanded use of the term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Cackon.
The use is the same. I don't think you can reserve it for one religion/ethnic group. That's not something we want to do and smacks of the left's predilection for language and message control. The accusation of the innocent for a murder for political gain seems to fit pretty aptly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've heard the same objection over the use of the word "holocaust" to describe the legally sanctioned murder of the now nearly 50 million unborn children since Roe v. Wade.
I am entirely sympathetic to both objections, but in both cases I would like to see a suitable alternative suggested -- one that is accurate, concise, precise, and effective in conveying the immoral ugliness of the action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStop nitpicking. It's a powerful broadside against those seeking to silence conservative action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCackon, while I understand your point, the problem with you position is that “Blood Libel” doesn’t mean "written defamation implying culpability for bloodshed,” it specially referred to a lie that propagated since the Middle Ages by Jew haters that the Jews killed children and baked their blood in their Matzah. I’d argue that in modern times there are similarities in language and usage to libels like the so-called Jennin Massacre that never happened, and the claim that Israel killed a bunch of peaceful aid workers earlier this year, despite clear evidence to the contrary. However, the libel has always been applied towards Jews by people who hate Jews. The liberals claiming that conservative rhetoric caused Loughton to go on a murderous rampage are certainly motivated by irrational hatred, but that ideologically driven hatred is of a different character than Anti-Semitism and doesn’t share the same historical roots as the Blood Libel. Words refer to actual things and ideas, we should not deconstruct "Blood Libel" and apply the phrase to something it really does not refer to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps we could also discuss the unfortunate preponderonce of the term "eliminationist" in these discussions.
According to what I read here: External Link
It also has roots in Nazi anti-semitism where it languished until being resurrected by Krugman.
"Of the 40 references to "eliminationism" in the Times archive, all but one refer to the destruction of European Jewry. The sole standout is Krugman, who, as we have seen, is referencing the Republican Party's opposition to health care legislation. (Though in fairness to Krugman, this is something of a requirement for those anointed by the Nobel Committee. Nobelist Harold Pinter said that the only comparison one could make to Bush-era America was to that of Nazi Germany.)
Make that 39 references to eliminationist Nazism and two Krugman columns on the "eliminationist" Tea Party. Much of this non-Nazi talk of “eliminationism” started, it would seem, with writer David Neiwert, who chimed in on the Arizona tragedy with a post on “eliminationist rhetoric and the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords” (and a bonus bit on “Sean Hannity's recent bit of eliminationist ‘humor’”). In 2009, Neiwert brought Goldhagen’s coinage to the lefty masses with his book The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (discussed in Jesse Walker’s terrific essay on the “paranoid center”)."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a modern left-wing variant of "blood libel" created by them to empower themselves. It is not anti-Semitic in this case; it is nonetheless evil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think G is right and wrong. Aesthetically, he is correct that this is not the proper term. Hatred of Palin is just as intense as hatred of Jews in Europe, but it is a different sort of hate.
What he is missing is the tactical value. Palin, knowingly or otherwise, has set the table for a discussion as to whether the media is morally the same as Jew hating fascists. If I'm in the liberal media, that's not a discussion I'm going to enjoy.
It is also shrewd for another reason. The media on all sides loves buzz words. Obama used the word "shellacked" and everyone on the left and right was trying to fit it into conversation. The same was true when George Will used the word "vapors."
We will likely see the same phenomenon here. In the process, the focus shifts to the moral turpitude of the accusers and their media enablers and away from the silly charges of "incendiary rhetoric" and so forth.
The old rule at work. If you're not on offense, you're on defense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse