Now pundits are drawing back from their initial claims that Sarah Palin and company were responsible for the Tucson shootings, since it’s evident that the gunman Jared Loughner was simply mentally ill and never paid attention to political rhetoric. But now they are attacking Palin for describing the way she was blamed for the killings as a “blood libel.”
That phrase specifically refers to the old anti-semitic libel that Jews mix the blood of Christian children in their matzoh balls. How dare Palin compare criticism of her with the pograms of the Jews, especially in the context of the shooting of a Jewish congresswoman! Oh, how insensitive! Oh, how hateful!
The phrase was first used in this context by conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds, aka “Instapundit.” It has also been used in other contexts and for other meanings without attracting condemnation.
So do you think “blood libel” can only apply to what Jews have been falsely accused of?
Some say that “holocaust” should only refer to what happened to the Jew, though it seems acceptable to speak of “nuclear holocaust.” Some say the same for “genocide,” but it is still used for attempts to wipe out other ethnic groups.
Should “inquisition” be off limits, out of sensitivity to Lutherans and Jews, the two main targets of that persecution?
Is “witch hunt” insensitive to Wiccans?
Should we reserve “purge” for the victims of Communism?
Can you think of other potentially problematic terms, if we are going to go this route?