Re: Palin's secret message

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
> It does raise the question though that I believe I touched on in another 
> post.  Isn't it the blood libel itself that is offensive as opposed to 
> the term?  Do jews really own the term such that no one else can use it? 
> Is the term only limited to false accusations against jews?

The libel itself is offensive, yes; and not only offensive, but downright 
harmful, because it has historically encouraged people to commit acts of 
anti-Semitism (and not just in the medieval past, but today, too; if I'm 
not mistaken, a lot of people in the Muslim world, e.g. Palestine, have 
stoked anti-Semitic violence by spreading modern versions of those 
medieval lies).

So when Palin says that she's the victim of a "blood libel", it does, for 
some people, bring her sense of proportion into question.  Is she the 
victim of violent persecution?  Has anyone accused her of killing children 
so that she can mix their blood in her food?  Is it, in fact, legitimate 
to compare the heated debate around one person to the centuries of hatred 
and outright violence that have been directed at an entire 
ethnic-religious community?

The fact that Rep. Giffords is, herself, Jewish just makes Palin's "I'm a 
victim just like the Jews were" posture that much more distasteful.  And 
no, the fact that Palin might have been clueless about the term's meaning 
when she used it does not, in and of itself, make the faux pas any less 
distasteful.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot