I.
I’m no big Sarah Palin fan, and I’ve not followed news or commentary regarding the Arizona shootings in detail. (There are only so many hours in the day.) Nevertheless, when I first heard of the debate regarding her use of the phrase “blood libel,” my first thought was, “I guess she means to say that blame for the recent Arizona shootings is being falsely placed on her & her supporters.” Turns out I was pretty on-the-mark, since this is what Palin actually wrote:
But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.
I’d like to think my aforementioned thought process isn’t indicative of gross historical ignorance. I am well aware that the phrase “blood libel” had its origins in anti-Semitism, and that it particularly referred to accusations that “Jews supposedly murdered Christian Children as an act of ritual worship or to prepare unleavened bread for the Passover seder.”[1] When people like Jeffrey Goldberg & Jonah Goldberg pointed this out, it wasn’t news to me.
No, the reason I managed to reconstruct a reasonably-accurate paraphrase of Palin’s words, solely from the knowledge that there was an ongoing debate regarding Palin’s mention of “blood libel,” is because I’d previously seen that phrase used in contexts outside its medieval anti-Semitic origins. Palin was hardly the first to use “blood libel” to connote false accusations of complicity in murder, or even simply a grossly-false & seemingly-malicious accusation. Nor, for that matter, was Glenn Harlan Reynolds (of Instapundit fame). They’ve both had plenty of company in the past five years.
II.
For example, in a 2005 op-ed, Andrew Cohen noted charges that Terri Schiavo was “murdered by judges,” and a victim of “judicial homicide,” and labeled such accusations “a blood libel against judges.”[2] Later that year, the term reappeared on the right:
Here, at the spot known as Ground Zero . . . planners are busy developing an “International Freedom Center.” Finally! A place you can visit to find out exactly what you did wrong to bring about the 9/11 attacks.
Hundreds of relatives of those slaughtered at the World Trade Center . . . came out yesterday in a unified show of force, to perform a previously unimaginable task. They came here to defend their loved ones against a blood libel.[3]
The next year, Tony Blankley asserted that “media people,” in reporting about the 2005 Haditha killings, were “casually perpetrat[ing] blood libel against not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines but against our services more generally.”[4] Jack Kemp, writing in support of Joe Lieberman’s Senate candidacy, stated, “As a Republican, I don’t want the Democratic Party to lose a Scoop Jackson Democrat and become isolationist in the face of Islamic fundamentalism with its message of jihad, hatred, and blood libel against America and Israel.”[5] Matt Foreman, of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, asserted that Republicans had “dispatched henchmen like Tony Perkins and Pat Buchanan to offer the blood libel that gay men are prone to pedophilia.”[6] A New York Times article noted, “This week, Mr. Fiedler accused an op-ed contributor for El Nuevo Herald of ‘blood libel’ for suggesting that a Herald reporter who broke the Marti story had ties to Cuba’s spy agency.”[7]
In 2007, Cragg Hines wrote, “We need not consider [Jimmy] Carter’s latest book, whose title is a virtual blood libel with its title’s reference to apartheid and allusion to Israel.”[8] An apparent truther expressed annoyance in a letter to the editor: “This libel [that 9/11 truth seekers are paranoid], like the 9/11 blood libel against Muslims, dehumanizes its victims and makes its author, editor and publisher complicit in the holocaust of the 9/11 wars . . . .”[9] Chris Floyd, guest-blogging for Glenn Greenwald, accused Tony Blair of “seiz[ing] the opportunity of a New York speech to trumpet the blood libel that Iran is now the embodiment of the entire ‘global ideology’ of Islamic extremism . . . .”[10]
In 2008, a letter to the editor condemned a columnist for “repeat[ing] yet again the ‘blood libel’ against unbelievers, that only creationism offers any basis for ethics”[11] An op-ed by John Farmer lamented “the blood libel that as EPA administrator [Christie Whitman] deliberately misled responders at Ground Zero about the air quality . . . . The fact that she repeatedly advised responders to wear protection goes unmentioned.”[12] Another, by Andrew Cohen, responded to accusations of “judicial activism” by asserting, “[I]t is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.”[13]
An article from the campaign trail noted, “Just before Obama spoke, Newsday editor Les Payne had called ‘blood libel’ the argument that African-American journalists could not objectively cover Obama’s candidacy.”[14] Another article, regarding forged British National Archives documents which purportedly showed that Churchill & Himmler maintained a “secret, cordial relationship” during WWII, noted a British historian’s complaint about the documents: “’That’s a blood libel against Churchill and totally untrue,’ said historian Andrew Roberts, who signed the letter published in the Financial Times.”
In 2009, Carl Cannon lamented increasing partisanship on Politics Daily: “Anything bad said about my homeys is a blood libel. Anything bad said about the other guy is obvious truth, or free speech or, you know, just satire. Lighten up, dude.”[15] In 2010, Andrew Sullivan stated that “The conflation of homosexuality with child abuse” was “the oldest blood libel against gays . . . .”[16] And P.J. O’Rourke, writing in praise of Radio Free Europe, noted, “The effort to provide accurate information combats rumor, conspiracy theories, scapegoat hatreds, and blood libels.”[17]
[I would go on, but instead I’ll refer you to a couple of posts by Jim Geraghty (here and here), who apparently had the same idea I did.]
III.
Following Palin’s invocation of “blood libel,” some defended her use of the phrase, by noting that whatever its origins, it has long since acquired a broader connotation not necessarily related to anti-Semitism.[18] I am inclined to believe that these defenders are correct. Perhaps such linguistic evolution really is a bad thing. But if so, Palin is hardly the first to be complicit in it.
[1] MICHAEL BERENBAUM, THE WORLD MUST KNOW 13 (1993).
[2] Andrew Cohen, Op-Ed, Schiavo was calm eye of the perfect storm, DENV. POST, Apr. 3, 2005, at E-05 (emphasis added).
[3] Andrea Peyser, Wrong Time, Wrong Place For Lefties’ PC Prattle, N.Y. POST, Jun. 21, 2005, at 9 (emphasis added).
[4] Tony Blankley, Op-Ed, Media dance macabre; Journalists in orgy of excessive Haditha reporting, WASH. TIMES, Jun. 7, 2006, at A21 (emphasis added).
[5] Jack Kemp, Working For Lieberman, N.Y. SUN, Aug. 29, 2006, http://www.nysun.com/opinion/working-for-lieberman/38756/ (emphasis added).
[6] Press Release, Nat’l Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Latest blame-dodging tactic in Foley scandal is ‘appalling, disgusting and pure McCarthyism’, (Oct. 05, 2006) (emphasis added) at http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr985_100506.
[7] Andy Newman, Standoff at Miami Papers Ends in Cartoonist’s Arrest, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 25, 2006, at A10 (emphasis added).
[8] Cragg Hines, Op-Ed, Carter is right about Bush, VIRGINIAN-PILOT, May 25, 2007, at B9 (emphasis added).
[9] Kevin Barrett, Letter to the Editor, Reporting on 9/11 Conference Was Distorted and Libelous, CAP. TIMES, Aug. 11, 2007, at A9 (emphasis added).
[10] Chris Floyd, Chris Floyd for Glenn Greenwald: Blair and Bush team up to sell new war, SALON (Oct 24, 2007, 7:34 PM), http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/10/24/selling_war (emphasis added).
[11] John B. Hodges, Letter to the Editor, Religion has no special claim to an ethical basis, ROANOKE TIMES, Dec. 27, 2008, at B7 (emphasis added).
[12] John Farmer, Op-Ed, Why the true mavericks can’t win, STAR-LEDGER, Oct. 19, 2008, at 35 (emphasis added).
[13] Andrew Cohen, Op-Ed, McCain Sings Same Old GOP Song On Justices, CBS NEWS, May 7, 2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/opinion/courtwatch/main4077336.shtml (emphasis added).
[14] Abdon M. Pallasch, Obama rips foe on affirmative action, Iraq, CHI. SUN-TIMES, Jul. 28, 2008, at 2 (emphasis added)
[15] Carl M. Cannon, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech, POLITICS DAILY (Aug. 18, 2009), http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/18/free-speech-vs-hate-speech/ (emphasis added).
[16] Andrew Sullivan, Proving Animus, THE DAILY DISH (Jan. 14, 2010, 3:37 PM), http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/proving-animus.html (emphasis added).
[17] P.J. O’Rourke, Radio Free Europe, Freedom of Speech, and Liberty, WORLD AFFAIRS (Aug 12, 2010, 2:57 PM), (emphasis added).
[18] See, e.g., Shmuley Boteach, Sarah Palin Is Right About ‘Blood Libel’, WALL STREET J., Jan. 14, 2011, at A13, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html (“The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.”); Publius, Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’, BIG GOVERNMENT (Jan. 12, 2011, 10:24 AM), http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/ (quoting Alan Dershowitz as stating, “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.”).
Excellent use of footnotes. It’s nice to see someone support their data so scrupulously. I had the same reaction you did, not because I’d heard the expression blood libel extensively, but because it sounds like she used the term appropriately. The idea that hateful rhetoric caused Loughner to shoot a bunch of pretty random people is not inconceivable, but also kind of a stretch. If the perception of a connection causes people to begin to communicate less angrily and more constructively then that will be good. Sarah Palin has earned herself many enemies due to the way she communicates and they will not be likely to give her the benefit of a doubt regarding interpretations of what she says and writes.
Nice job of research. Thanks for the citations. But this may be just an example of a voguish 2-word phrase taking the place of a more colorless-sounding single word. I used to hear a lot of teenagers, and some parents, talk about “peer pressure” when in fact all they meant was “pressure.” So why not “blood libel” instead of mere “libel”? (Or, for that matter, “damyankee” instead of “yankee”?) It sounds so much worse! Maybe we should start a sort of scavenger hunt word game of finding more of these locutions.
janiceboughton & wiredsisters – thanks for the kind words. In response to the points raised:
If the perception of a connection causes people to begin to communicate less angrily and more constructively then that will be good.
I would prefer to see more civil discourse, but ISTM that for the “perception of a connection” to do the most good in this regard, such a “perception” would have to be accepted by the parties whose words are being “connected” to the incident (i.e., Palin, Tea Party, etc.). As Palin’s invocation of “blood libel” suggests, such acceptance is unlikely to be forthcoming, particularly when (as in this instance) the actual existence of such a “connection” is questionable.
Acceptance of a “connection” by other parties might be helpful, since it would at least convince _them_ to tone down their rhetoric; but not if those other parties accept (say) Krugman’s differentiation (*) between “bad manners” or “ridicul[ing] and denounc[ing] those who disagree with them”, on the one hand (which those on the left presumably do engage in), and “calls, explicit or implicit, for violence”, or “eliminationist rhetoric”, which is “coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.” In that case, acceptance of a “connection” merely becomes a stick with which to beat up one’s political opponents, while failing to notice the beam in one’s own eye. (Yes, comparing Bush to Hitler may not be the same as calling for insurrection; but as far as I’m concerned, neither is terribly “civil”, regardless of which one is worse. Does robbery become acceptable merely because murder is worse?)
this may be just an example of a voguish 2-word phrase taking the place of a more colorless-sounding single word.
I agree, to some extent. Certainly some of the examples I cited – e.g., the comments by Foreman, Fielder, & Cohen – had nothing to do with anyone having blood on their hands; in which case, the mention of “blood” does indeed become redundant, since that’s just ordinary libel. However, in other instances, there was a connection between usage of the phrase & false accusations of involvement in killing. Those seem to be less about adding color, and more an extension of “blood libel” to encompass false accusations of killing outside its original anti-Semitic context.
(*) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html
Sarah Palin removed the controversial cross-hairs from her web site within hours of the shootings in Tucson. That was the right thing to do. That she did it demonstrates, if not a sense of guilt, at least a sense that her choice of symbolism had been rendered excruciatingly inappropriate in light of what just happened. That speaks for itself. There was no need for gallons of ink and column-yards of commentary to slice and dice it.
Point taken.
Would you mind providing examples of such usage? (Not disagreeing, mind you; I’m just asking for purposes of general edification.)
Our welcome Mad will, of course, answer as he wishes, but I do have a bit of information.
1) The term “blood libel” was, I believe, coined by Jews in reaction to the ongoing persecution visited upon them by Christians.
2) Early Christians had the same accusations (kidnapping Roman babies, drinking their blood and cannibalizing them) made against them by the Romans. They, in their turn as the powers that were in Rome and in their growing empire, used the same propaganda against every non-Christian group (mostly Pagans, of course) they encountered.
Re. your #2, I agree; see here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib1.htm
(Incidentally, this page also appears to support Mad Federalist’s point, since it lists the accusation of “Jews killed Christ” under the heading “Similar Blood Libel Myths”.