GMTom wrote:...that's about it and trying to crucify her for anything else is putting your entire position in the realm of goofball sensationalism.

My gosh, Tom, you just skip from offensive comment to offensive comment, don't you? As you are no-doubt aware, the word "crucify" refers to an ancient torture that was employed by the Romans against uppity Jews about the time of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. You clearly intended an antisemitic--yeah, threatening--meaning by using it in the context of a discussion of a Jewish congresswoman who was brutally shot down.

Shame!

uhhh, I purposely used the term. It was intended to show the relation in use of terms.
Shame? You bet!

ok, this means absolutely nothing but I found it sorta funny. The following quote made me curious:

For some odd reason politically based shootings in the U.S. seem to be almost exclusively against liberal politicians...Crazy people just happen to hate liberals?.

So I did a Google comparison:
"Crazy Conservatives" = 29,600 hits
"Crazy Liberals" = 83,400 hits

There you have it, solid science, Liberals are almost three times more crazy than Conservatives!?

Careful, Tom. The term "hits" evokes some pretty violent imagery.

haha, now THAT was not quite as intended as the previous choice of words!

Minister X wrote:

freeman wrote:I am wondering who decided that "blood libel" could be used beyond its original historical reference... As for MX's response, I don't see Palin's use of "blood libel" as anti-semitic--it's just inappropriate.

If I'm wrong, and "blood libel" has never been used outside the Jewish context, that wouldn't make Palin an antisemite any more than is the case when someone compares their huge tragedy to the ginormous tragedy of the holocaust. Frankly, I'm not all that enamored with the Jews who get upset every time someone fails to pay adequate semantic honor to the Holocaust or other aspects of the history of persecution of the Jews. For instance, while I'm fairly confident, without doing any googling, that "pogrom" can apply to actions taken not just against Jews, I bet a lot of Jews would get upset if the word were used lightly to describe some piddling offense. Get over it. It's a disservice to historical memory in its own way to make semantics such a central point. What good is it to "own" the word holocaust if nobody teaches kids any more about the actual event?

They don't teach American kids about the holocaust any more? Wow! That is (if your question meant that it is true) pretty amazing.

It is most definitely still taught here. School trips to Auschwitz were being promoted by the government.

Is "blood libel" in the same class as "holocaust"? If so, Palin could be convicted of semantic insensitivity. Given that she's already earned a life sentence, this additional conviction will hardly end her career as some of the libs here are optimistically and absurdly predicting.

I agree on this. I don't think she intended to offend Jews, just to show how much of a victim she is.

When I google "blood libel" I find that the #2 link, right after Wikipedia, is at zionism-israel.com. They of course provide no hint of use outside the Jewish context, but while their first sentence says, "The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children..." later on they include this odd bit: "[the blood libel] was an invention of the pagans." Huh? What pagans? And if pagans invented it, how can it mean the sacrifice of Christian children? I'm stumped.

By pagans, I wonder if they are thinking of the Romans or other pre-Christian groups around the area. Shortly after the time of Christ, the Romans were putting down a very bitter revolt by the Jewish Zealots. Christians and Jews were persecuted by Rome and it's not unlikely that propaganda was used to discredit them both (separately or combined - for a lot of people early Christianity would have looked like just another sect of Judaism).

Danivon: HERE is a blogger who notes that "It is quite common to read pro-Israel writers speak of blood libel, because it's quite common for the wicked Zionist Entity to be falsely accused of various atrocities." What he's saying is that some defender of Israel might write something like, "It's a blood libel for al Jazeera to report that Israel committed an atrocity in Jenin." Perhaps I've heard the phrase used in that context and thus become somewhat inured to it. Or maybe it's got more to do with THIS, from the Encyclopedia of Judaism:

Blood Libel (also "ritual murder"). False allegation that Jews used the blood of slain Christian children for ritual purposes, particularly for preparing Matzah for Passover. Originally the accusation was leveled against both the Jews and the early Christians by pagans [aha!], who misconstrued Jewish and Christian ritual. Ultimately the libel was turned against the Jews by Christians

Or perhaps I'm just thinking (as the above hints at) more of "ritual murder", and surely the Jews aren't the only folk who've been accused of that.

As far as I can see, from reading the definitions that Mach posted (all of them, not just the small bits he highlighted), "Blood Libel" seems to be taken to mean a lie about a group of people who take part in ritual murder. The main targets of this have been the Jews, as far as I can see. I haven't seen another group that has falsely accused of ritual murder (and there are many) who have also been said to have been victms of blood libel.

Now, you linked to the Spectator. The main source for their article on it being more widespread is a national review article that I had also seen referred to elsewhere as 'proof'.

It does appear to have been happening. For about 5 years or so, indeed. It passed me by, I guess, that hotheads on both sides were accusing each other of blood libels for all kinds of things (although often there was an acknowledgement that it was comparison to the actual 'blood libel')

So, yes it is more widespread than I thought. But it could well be pretty recent, as part of the escalation of the 'Culture War' that is still being fought in columns and on talk radio to this day. It also seems to be an American thing.

I still don't feel comfortable with it. Sorry, but that's just how I feel. Mach can tell me that Min X and Dershowitz are Jews, and they say it's OK, so it must be, but I'm not so sure. Kanye West and Jay-Z are black, but I won't take their word for it that I can say '@#$!' in any situation.

You seem to have confused me with someone else--I didn't post the definitions you reference, Dan.

Do try to read carefully in future--you'll understand so much more that way.

You may be interested in this piece, that appeared in that hotbed of conservatism, Salon, which cites other uses of "blood libel" in a non-Jewish context. Perhaps your misunderstanding can be put down to the divergence of American and British idiom, but in any case it's fairly clear that--on this side of the pond, anyway--the term has a broader usage (as evidenced by my very first example, in which a Democratic congressman accused conservatives of a blood libel against Al Gore, who (so far as I know) is 100% goyem).

Machiavelli wrote:You seem to have confused me with someone else--I didn't post the definitions you reference, Dan.

Do try to read carefully in future--you'll understand so much more that way.

Sorry, but right wingers all look alike to me. It was Dr Fate.

You may be interested in this piece, that appeared in that hotbed of conservatism, Salon, which cites other uses of "blood libel" in a non-Jewish context. Perhaps your misunderstanding can be put down to the divergence of American and British idiom, but in any case it's fairly clear that--on this side of the pond, anyway--the term has a broader usage (as evidenced by my very first example, in which a Democratic congressman accused conservatives of a blood libel against Al Gore, who (so far as I know) is 100% goyem).

Mach, it's clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle in the USA who will say and do stupid things. It also seems clear that what is acceptable there is far wider than what would be acceptable here.

I'm interested in the fact that most of the quotes are from the last few years, with 2004 being about as far back as we go. Is that an internet bias towards the recent past? Or is it only in the last 5-10 years that it has been so?

My view is actually that the over-use of words for a particular thing, in other contexts, cheapen that thing. A holocaust refers to immolation, and to the mass murder of millions of people by the Nazis (most of the victims being Jewish). I personally would object to the widening of the term holocaust to mean something totally different.

I'm interested in the fact that most of the quotes are from the last few years, with 2004 being about as far back as we go. Is that an internet bias towards the recent past? Or is it only in the last 5-10 years that it has been so?

Does it matter? In either case it is clear that Palin did not coin the broader usage, but rather used the phrase consistently with the way others had done so (which, after all, is what language is all about).

For what it's worth, I've heard the phrase used in the non-Jewish sense as long as I can recall--certainly for more than the past 5 years or so. Indeed, only in learning about the Proticols of the Elders of Zion--at least two decades ago--did I come to realize that the phrase originated in a slander of Jews.

Your reference to "holocaust" is interesting, because that is a term that has been narrowed from its original usage. The first use I am aware of to describe a genocide was by Winston Churchill regarding the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks. In fairly recent usage, it was common--before Ronald Reagan made the likelihood of such an event comfortably remote--to refer to a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia as a "nuclear holocaust" (though perhaps you are too young to remember). In neither case, though, do I recall complaints that use of the term in a broader sense somehow cheapened its application to the Shoah (though in this world of infinitely tender sensibilities, no doubt there were some).

again liberals harping on an issue and making it something it isn't. A poor choice of phrase is not stupid and it most certainly was in no way antisemetic, why oh why do you continue to insist it was made that way?

danivon wrote:I haven't seen another group that has falsely accused of ritual murder (and there are many) who have also been said to have been victms of blood libel.

You wrote this immediately after quoting from where I'd quoted the Encyclopedia Judaica saying that Christians had been accused of Blood Libel. Am I missing something or are you? Not that it matters very much if other groups had ever been accused of it.

danivon wrote:Mach can tell me that Min X and Dershowitz are Jews, and they say it's OK, so it must be, but I'm not so sure.

Nor should you be. I'm a damn poor Jew to begin with, and only giving my opinion from the POV of my limited experience. Any time you want to defend Jews harder than I do, or offend them less, it's OK with me.

GMTom wrote:again liberals harping on an issue and making it something it isn't. A poor choice of phrase is not stupid and it most certainly was in no way antisemetic, why oh why do you continue to insist it was made that way?

Tom. Read what I wrote. I will grant that I think making a poor choice of words in a widely anticipated broadcast on a subject which is very topical and is a bit stupid.

But where did I say that Palin was being anti-semitic. Why do you continue to insist I'm saying things I am not?

I was talking in a more general sense about how the phrase is used. OK?

Machiavelli wrote:Does it matter? In either case it is clear that Palin did not coin the broader usage, but rather used the phrase consistently with the way others had done so (which, after all, is what language is all about).

Which others though? People trying to calm things down, to take a rational view? Or people pointing fingers at each other and trying to demonise their opposition. Remember, I'm not a liberal, and I've no issue with you pointing out that Liberals do it too (I'll just respond to ask if that makes it OK alone).

I wondered if it was a recent trend or part of (what I perceive as) an example of escalating intolerance in American political discourse.

For what it's worth, I've heard the phrase used in the non-Jewish sense as long as I can recall--certainly for more than the past 5 years or so. Indeed, only in learning about the Proticols of the Elders of Zion--at least two decades ago--did I come to realize that the phrase originated in a slander of Jews.

Ah well, It must be an American thing then. We've only seen evidence from about 2004 on, but maybe you guys have been accusing each other of using blood libel for decades. You've certainly been using fiery rhetoric for a while too.

Your reference to "holocaust" is interesting, because that is a term that has been narrowed from its original usage. The first use I am aware of to describe a genocide was by Winston Churchill regarding the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks. In fairly recent usage, it was common--before Ronald Reagan made the likelihood of such an event comfortably remote--to refer to a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia as a "nuclear holocaust" (though perhaps you are too young to remember). In neither case, though, do I recall complaints that use of the term in a broader sense somehow cheapened its application to the Shoah (though in this world of infinitely tender sensibilities, no doubt there were some).

A nuclear war would result in immolation (which is what the Greek words it derives from mean), and would kill millions if not billions. I think we can compare that to the Holocaust.

On the other hand, I recently saw someone who used 'holocaustic' to describe loud traffic noise outside their hotel room. It was not a well received well.

Minsister X wrote:You wrote this immediately after quoting from where I'd quoted the Encyclopedia Judaica saying that Christians had been accused of Blood Libel. Am I missing something or are you? Not that it matters very much if other groups had ever been accused of it.

I meant that until the last week I'd not seen it used in other ways in modern times, or been aware of it's use since the Middle Ages for anything other than the particular definition. You can see I also looked at whether there would be a common historical thread.

Nor should you be. I'm a damn poor Jew to begin with, and only giving my opinion from the POV of my limited experience. Any time you want to defend Jews harder than I do, or offend them less, it's OK with me.

You've certainly been using fiery rhetoric for a while too.

Indeed. I believe the first offenders were the original Tea Partiers (imagine that!) I seem to recall that you Brits weren't terribly pleased with them, either. Their anti-government rhetoric definitely inspired a bit of shooting--most notably at Yorktown--so it's a bit hard to see how our latest round of incivility could be part of an "escalating trend."

It is mildly amusing to hear the American left--now the object of "fiery rhetoric"--worry about its destabilizing effects. They seem to have been struck with group amnesia over the fiery rhetoric they, themselves, employed during the Bush years, and all the more so when John "Ghengis Khan" Kerry was leading protests on the Capital Mall.

And while we appreciate your neighborly concern, Danvion, our republic has survived the whiskey rebellion, several Indian wars, a civil war, a good two dozen financial crises, Jim Crow, the civil rights movement, the assassination of several presidents, John Kerry and his execrable ilk, communist sympathizers masquerading as "peace" activists, Puerto Rican nationalists, the Weather Underground, Patty Hearst, the Ku Klux Klan and Scientology. Somehow I think we'll muddle along whether or not Sarah Palin puts a few crosshairs on a campaign mailer.

The fact that you continue to harp on this despite your claim it was simply a poor choice of phrase suggests something "more"?

Palin = Hitler



Well, somebody had to say it...