Wednesday, January 12, 2011

A Moose With Hoof In Mouth Disease

Sarah Palin's response to her critics included the phrase "blood libel".  Pat Buchanan thought it was "excellent".



The both of them really might want to read a book once in a while, because the history of that particular phrase is ugly.

Historically, blood libel refers to anti-Semitic accusations from the Middle Ages, when some believed that Jews made Passover matzo from the blood or organs of murdered Christian children. Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf told Politico, "The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews -- the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable."

The first example of blood libel, which is sometimes called "blood accusation," surfaced, as far as we know, in the writings of a monk. In 1173, Thomas of Monmouth wrote "The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich," which told the story of a young boy who was allegedly killed in England around Easter 1144. According to Thomas of Monmouth, the town believed that local Jews were responsible. Afterward, a Jewish man was murdered. Since Thomas of Monmouth was the only one to write about the story, we have no idea whether the events, or some form of them, ever took place.

Despite the questionable origins, the rumors took hold in Europe, lasting through approximately the 14th century. Some Jews were tortured, even executed, after being accused of such abductions and murders of Christian children; others converted to Christianity to save themselves.

Though blood libel allegations declined after the Middle Ages, they still cropped up occasionally, even in the United States: In 1928, in upstate New York, the Jewish community of the town of Massenna stood accused when a 4-year-old girl disappeared. It was Yom Kippur, and the police questioned the town rabbi to see whether the local Jews might have been responsible. Even when the girl reappeared, having been lost, the Jewish community was still looked at with suspicion.

The phrase was first used this week by Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Reynolds wrote, "So as the usual talking heads begin their 'have you no decency?' routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?"

In the National Review Online, blogger Jonah Goldberg questions Palin's and Reynolds' use of the phrase this week. "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," he writes.

And if you're willing to cross a line that makes Jonah Goldberg stop and go "You know what, that's a bridge too far" then you've failed.  Claiming a phrase with a long history of anti-Semitic connotations for your rhetorical defense of your words in the shooting of a Jewish member of Congress may in fact be Palin's most ignorant, boneheaded move yet.

Granted, she lifted it from Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, but he's supposedly a law professor, someone who should have known better.

Every time she opens her mouth on this issue, she makes things far worse for herself.

10 comments:

Zandar's Credibility Problem said...

Speaking of history, did you know Jared Lee Loughner is somebody who didn't pay attention to talk radio or political rhetoric but is an anti-Christian 9/11 Truther who believes the banks destroyed America?

There's a reason why Zandar and the left has been trying to deflect attention from Loughner and onto Palin...because the Left created Loughner.

Given Zandar's hatred of religion, Bush, and banks, you have to wonder if we'll be seeing his mug shot on TV soon...

I wonder what your FBI file looks like?

SteveAR said...

I'm assuming you didn't have a problem when super-gynecologist pothead Andrew Sullivan used the phrase "blood libel" over two years ago. Or when Florida Democrat Peter Deutsch used the phrase "blood libel" during the 2000 recount. But you probably knew a host of other people on both the right and left who have used the phrase "blood libel" during the last few years, right? You didn't? Oh. Hmmmm.

By the way, here is what liberal Alan Dershowitz had to say about Palin's use of the phrase:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

I guess this is just more rhetoric on your part that could possibly be thought to have "contributed to a climate that may have fostered" what happened last Saturday in Tuscon, based on your abysmal standards of criticism. Are you going to take responsibility for what you say lest it be used for some horrible purpose?

Anonymous said...

So sick of hearing about this....find a new topic please or let Bon The Geek take over for a couple of days please!!!

Unknown said...

All the bloody-handed co-conspirators clamor, please stop telling the truth about our complicity in the murder of a little girl!

Zandar's Credibility Problem said...

Zandar is trying so hard to get the deaths of six people off his conscience. Liberals like Zandar and Loughner have a long a deadly history in America.

Unknown said...

Another day of multiple comments posted while you were supposed to be doing your job. Speaking of that I understand you got your performance review yesterday, how did that go?

Not terribly well, from what I hear...

D Johnston said...

I'm assuming you didn't have a problem...

Yes, it was stupid when those people said those things. Does that mean you agree that it was stupid when Palin et al said them as well?

That's the thing about tu quoque - it only works if you admit that your side is wrong, too.

D Johnston said...

anti-Christian 9/11 Truther who believes the banks destroyed America

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Tea Partiers believe that the banks destroyed America? In fact, I believe there was a study not too long ago that suggested a majority of Republicans in general blamed the banks.

Not that I'm saying he was a conservative, mind you. I'm saying that you're an idiot.

By the way, you two need to coordinate your trolling better. We've got one of you talking about how horrible it is that liberals are politicizing the shooting, while the other politicizes the shooting for conservatives. It's almost as if your side is completely incoherent...

SteveAR said...

Yes, it was stupid when those people said those things. Does that mean you agree that it was stupid when Palin et al said them as well?

No. I never said it was stupid for Palin or anyone else to use the phrase.

Zandar's Credibility Problem said...

"Not that I'm saying he was a conservative, mind you."

Zandar certainly is. I guess it's unanimous then: everyone in this comment thread thinks Zandar's an idiot...

Oh No!

Related Posts with Thumbnails