I know that no one is itching to have another discussion of words and when it is appropriate to use them, so I’ll keep this short.
The use of the phrase “blood libel” by Glenn Reynolds and Sarah Palin to describe the criticism they have received following the shootings in Arizona is probably the most ill-conceived historical analogy that I’ve ever come across.
There are certain phrases that I do not want to see become commonplace, because they are loaded phrases that should stay loaded. If it becomes customary to describe someone catching political flack as “blood libel,” then the phrase has lost its meaning and much of its emotional punch.
And since damn near everyone has piled on, I’ll leave it at that.
Oh, and Erick Erickson:
Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Dude, no. Just, no.
While I agree that the violent rhetoric should be scaled back, I don’t think Sarah Palin is to blame for the shootings, although she is the bane of my existence. Loughner, from all I’ve read and his Youtube videos I’ve watched, is like a total nut and would have gone off eventually anyway.
That being said, I’d never heard of the term “blood libel” until today, but shame on her for using it. That takes it too far.
While Palin did put out the map with the gunsights on it, the violent anti-government rhetoric pervades the far right wing. Consider Sharon Angle, who about a year ago made a statement about “second amendment remedy.” I would think that would make her the subject of many interviews in the last week, but I haven’t seen many, which is I suppose due to her not cooperating with journalists. This is about the only one I’ve seen:
Angle: Don’t blame me for Tucson shooting rampage
Despite her crazy train statements, she still only lost a bid for a U.S. Senate seat by about 5 percentage points.
There are certain phrases that I do not want to see become commonplace, because they are loaded phrases that should stay loaded. If it becomes customary to describe someone catching political flack as “blood libel,” then the phrase has lost its meaning and much of its emotional punch.
That day has arrived. Don’t ignore because it’s National Review, the link is a compendium of many, many links of the term being used politically much like Palin has.
Difference is, most of those uses were (more or less) correct in the sense of the implication, if not the extremity that ‘blood libel’ historically implies. The problem with Palin’s comment is that not only is it not talking about anything remotely on the same level as the pogroms in medieval Europe against the Jews due to those accusations, but also it isn’t even analogous *in any sense* to what is being talked about.
It’s like Palin has no idea what the term means, but likes the sound of the rhetorical twang of it. That, to me, is even more irresponsible than using the term in an at least analogous way.
See, I think the use of her and those are correct in commonly used political speech today. It’s the current usage overall that feels wrong compared to its historical root.
I think this is just another example of Palin’s appalling ignorance. I don’t think she meant to compare the flak she’s been getting with THE blood libel, she just didn’t know what the term meant.
Her use of the term fits right in with her bogus sense of persecution. Also, this isn’t the first time we’ve had glimpses of some very bizarre thinking on her part when it comes to Jews. Remember her remarks about how all the Jewish people are going to be streaming back to Israel? I wish some undercover reporter would get her to be honest about her beliefs.
Palin is an example of the evangelicals who fantasize about a massive war in the middle east and really get a hard on at the idea of such war going nuclear because this is part of their end time cult delusion. The problem is that they don’t just talk. Since the Oslo agreements in the early 90′s evangelical Christians have been pouring millions into Israeli politics in order to support right wing candidates, the crazier the better, who will push policies that will make any chance for political solution die an early death and will increase the chance for an all out war and in their sick mind hasten the second coming of jeebus. What you end up with is a holy alliance of christian, jewish and muslim fundamentalist nutjobs all working together for a common goal, unfortunately that goal is to get thing as fu*kedup as possible.
What??? More inappropriate rhetoric? I’m shocked! SHOCKED, I tell ya!
>:(
ps I thought what Brian Leiter had to say about it was apt:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/01/why-the-right-is-beside-itself-about-being-called-out-about-the-arizona-shootings.html
And I want to add this link, a history of violent rhetoric of the right calling for blood:
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline
Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Ah, yes. The ol’ “use anything that might get people thinking about death as a wedge to flog Jesus” strategy.
I remember when we all thought 9/11 would result in a lot of people coming to Jesus. Every tragedy just becomes a divine trigger for Revival. Then when Revival doesn’t come it’s just kind of forgotten about until the next tragedy.
It’s really a ghastly way to live, now that I think about it.
If Jesus Christ had shown up in person and stopped the shooter before anyone got hurt it might be worth having faith in him.
Undoubtably he was busy trying to decide which grilled cheese sandwich to put his picture on and couldn’t be bothered.
This = yes
Agreed.
So she’s claiming that right-wing inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t incite violence, by using a phrase that has been used through the ages to justify persecution of Jews. It’s hard to find words that describe just how stupid that woman is.
If you didn’t know what it meant, it sounds like what it sounds like, a false accusation of responsibility for a death or murder. Me, I look stuff I’m not sure of in the dictionary before I say it or use it in a comment. Even what I consider intelligent people all over the internet, in my experience, use words assuming they mean what they seem to mean, or how another person used it. “Nonplussed” is a good example of a lot of people using a word without knowing what it means, assuming it means unfazed or not bothered, either because it just seems to, or gathering it from someone else’s context.
I’m not saying this is right. However, I do think whoever used this phrase in the speech is either guilty of the same sort of carelessness or a genius.
“Me, I look stuff I’m not sure of in the dictionary before I say it or use it in a comment. ”
You have, what we like to call, intelligence.
Dunning-Kruger effect to the rescue.
Yeah, you’re most likely right that it’s an honest mistake, if a gigantic one. I suppose it’s too much to ask of an aspiring presidential candidate that she actually knows the meaning of the words she uses. Anyway, she probably didn’t even write the speech herself.
Still, even if unintentional, you gotta love the irony of such a statement.
They had to have heard it somewhere, it’s not just an invented phrase or word like “refudiate.” However, if libel is a strong word with legal backing, if anyone is, in fact, libeling Failin’ Palin, blood libel does conjure up in hyperbolic fashion that we’re not just libeling her, we’re really crossing a line. I don’t think it was a totally oblivious remark. In her usage of “blood libel,” even if it didn’t mean anything else, it really magnifies the point she’s trying to deny. Strong language has become too common and too impotent that stronger imagery becomes necessary (for some people) to relay the same message, to defend themselves, or to motivate voters.
Well politicians already never say what they mean, so why should we assume they mean what they say?
I actually had to go and look up “Nonplussed”. >.<
Talking of fun words, one of my favourites is peruse. Often mis-used.
Now you’ve got me … what have you heard it used for?
Maybe, “This Swiss Army knife might have fifteen uses, but it’s over $300; that’s over $20 peruse!” (Actually no, I do not recall seeing the word misused.)
And by the way, the word “misused” is often misspelled. :P
Use of hyphens to separate prefixes is a style choice. An extra hyphen can add clarity :-)
… especially when English is not the reader’s first language. It can increase comprehension in one reading of the text.
Peruse means to read thoroughly or carefully. It’s often wrongly used to mean glance over quickly.
If it’s any consolation to you – I had to look it up too :-).
My first guess before looking it up was something like “better than anything else”.
One of the major uses of language is to create metaphors so that we can compare the way two events are alike. We claim that McCarthism was a modern-day inquisition. This doesn’t mean we actually believe that he was burning people at the stake. Rather we are claiming that the two events share a similarity, namely baseless accusations of impiety.
Much of our language is filled with hyperbole and metaphor. We speak of chocolate that is better than sex; a war on poverty; and being so happy that we are over the moon. No one realistically believes any of these hyperbolic metaphors are literally true. Blood libel would, in metaphor, mean using a false accusation against a group of people in order to make the larger population hate them.
In this sense Palin used the term semi-correctly (from her point of view). The term is probably thrown around a little bit too loosely, however the liberals are making a claim that conservatives are using words that are getting people killed. This isn’t blood libel (in metaphor) for two reasons though. The liberals aren’t trying to get people to hate conservatives, but rather getting conservatives to stop using this language. Further, this charge has a large amount of accuracy (Glenn Beck has advocated killing both Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore for starters) so it is not really libelous (maybe incorrect, but certainly not baseless).
So Palin used the term way too quickly as it feeds into her mythology that “liberal elites” are trying to subjugate and destroy “real Americans” like her. However I firmly believe that it is acceptable to use hyperbolic metaphor in our language.
If nothing else language like this reminds us all of how bad the original event was (I had never heard of blood libel)
Alan Dershowitz coming to her defense is all the convincing I need:
“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.”