Very odd comment by Governor Palin

[MillCreek]

You can say that with a straight face?

 

Absolutely. Here is a cut and paste of the Time article above showing the historical usage of the term:

The term Palin invoked to defend herself has deep roots in the demonization of the Jewish community throughout history. Apion, a 1st century B.C. Greek grammarian in the city of Alexandria, wrote that his Jewish neighbors "contrive each year at a certain time to capture a Greek foreigner, fatten him up, and then bring him to a certain forest, where they slay him with religious rites." Incendiary rumors like this one — Apion goes on to describe how the Jews eat the man's entrails — precipitated years of sectarian violence in ancient Alexandria, then one of the world's great cosmopolitan centers.

The advent of Christianity forever twinned Jews with blood. In the Gospels, Pontius Pilate publicly washes his hands of the guilt of committing Jesus to death, letting the assembled Jews take on the burden. "His blood be on us and on our children," they declare in Matthew 27: 25. These were words that stuck. Christendom grew rich by encouraging pilgrimages to venerate the purported remains of saints — bones, fingers, ears — but the Jews living in its midst were often openly faulted for bloody, occult practices, all of which were false.

Medieval lore abounds with tales of Jews in towns across Europe, from England to modern-day Slovakia and lands farther east, stealing young Gentile children for blood sacrifices. Invariably, such sensational stories were told to justify mass executions and pogroms of Jewish communities. According to some histories, a 2-year-old named Simon in the Italian town of Trento disappeared in 1475 and was found in the basement of a Jewish family, his body drained of blood so that the Jews could make matzah bread for Passover. Records show that at least eight Jews in the town were subsequently executed; Simon would be canonized as a saint a century later. Fears of Jewish baby snatching were raised by the Spanish Inquisition, leading in part to the expulsion of the entire Jewish community from Spain in 1492.

These tales lingered well into the 19th century and even the 20th century, with anti-Semitism still particularly strong in stretches of Eastern Europe. But some of the first instances of occasions when governments publicly defended Jews from these "blood libels" took place in the Muslim world, with firmans, or edicts, issued as early as the 1400s by a series of Ottoman Sultans, preventing the trial of Jews on such unfounded, outlandish accusations. (Of course, the Middle East wasn't free of anti-Jewish violence. In 1910 the Jewish quarter in the Iranian city of Shiraz was sacked by rioters who were inflamed by fabricated reports that Jews had ritually killed a young Muslim girl.)


So yes, there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries. Do you deny that?

[red headed stranger]

Possibly more apropos would be comparing it to "gay". I guess the question is, does the modern use of a word or phrase negate its original meaning?

Another example would be the use of the phrase "that sucks." It used to be a very rude term that referred to oral sex, now it is a more general phrase for displeasure about something.   

[makattak]

I see Millcreek is still impervious to evidence.

It's amazing to me how much people cling to their talking points despite scores of illustrations to the contrary, like we see with the gun control advocates falling back to the same, old, failed (thankfully) talking points after this tragedy.

[Monkeyleg]

So yes, there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries. Do you deny that?

[taking the floor] I don't deny that there's a historical record of the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries. I also don't deny that there's a historical record of the use of "sucks" to refer to oral sex, but I don't construe a person's saying "X sucks" to mean that the object of his statement gives oral sex.

It's bad enough that the Democrat sycophants in the media are twisting this like a pretzel to try to nail Palin. It's worse when the otherwise logical members of this forum inadvertently (or not) become the MSM's allies in this witch hunt. *


*Note that there is a historical and religious reference to the term "witch hunt", but that I am using it metaphorically.  

[MillCreek]

I see Millcreek is still impervious to evidence.

It's amazing to me how much people cling to their talking points despite scores of illustrations to the contrary, like we see with the gun control advocates falling back to the same, old, failed (thankfully) talking points after this tragedy.

Makattack, do you feel that there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries? Yes or no?

[wuluf]

The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.

When the Ft. Hood news broke, these same MSM pundits who came out of the gate against the "rhetoric" were advising caution, telling us to make sure we had the facts, before assuming this was terrorism.  Only necessary when it fits their narrative, i guess..

[red headed stranger]

Makattack, do you feel that there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries? Yes or no?

There is a significant historical record for using the term "bless you" when someone sneezes so that one can aid them in getting their soul back in their body. 

Does someone who says "bless you" when you sneeze think that your soul has escaped your body??

[makattak]

Makattack, do you feel that there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries? Yes or no?

Historical use as it applies to a libel against Jews, yes.

Exclusive historical use for the lies against Jews, no.

Your argument seems to be it only applies to Jews. (And then you walked it back to "generally.") It has had a use beyond simply applying to lies against a Jewish minority for some time, enough so that multiple sources will explicitly include blood libels against Christians, druids, neo-pagans, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc...

 

[Perd Hapley]

If by that you mean my opinion that the historical use of this term for many centuries has primarily been in an anti-Semite context, you are correct.

Are you saying that "blood libel" refers to libelous accusations against Jews, or are you saying that the phrase "blood libel" is only used by anti-Semites?

That's where you have me confused.

[MillCreek]

Historical use as it applies to a libel against Jews, yes.

Exclusive historical use for the lies against Jews, no.

Your argument seems to be it only applies to Jews. (And then you walked it back to "generally.") It has had a use beyond simply applying to lies against a Jewish minority for some time, enough so that multiple sources will explicitly include blood libels against Christians, druids, neo-pagans, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc...

 

I am back from the show, where unfortunately, there was not a single stainless New Blackhawk to be had.

Although this may seem shocking, we are in complete agreement when the issue is parsed this way.  What I have found interesting is reading the citations and sources showing how the term is now being more generally used in other than an exclusive Jewish context. I was unaware of that previously.

[MillCreek]

Are you saying that "blood libel" refers to libelous accusations against Jews, or are you saying that the phrase "blood libel" is only used by anti-Semites?

That's where you have me confused.

You know, I have not made a sufficient study of analyzing the context of how the term is generally used to be able to give a definitive answer.  I lean towards your first statement, though, with the codicil that I am interested to see how the contemporary use of the term is expanding outside of the strictly Jewish context. 

[Regolith]

From the WSJ:

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

Rabbi Boteach is the author of "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children" (Vanguard, 2011). He will shortly publish a book on the Jewishness of Jesus and his murder at Roman hands.

[Perd Hapley]

Rabbi Boteach is the author of "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children" a loon.

Sorry, but I had to point that out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685898/ns/msnbc_tv-about_msnbc_tv/

[MicroBalrog]

Because he doesn't like Passion of the Christ?

[Perd Hapley]

   I linked to a panel discussion transcript. If you read it, you'll see why he's a loon.

[Matthew Carberry]

To state a blood libel against Jews is anti-semitic.

To state a blood libel against blacks is racist.

Palin points out that saying that conservative pundits words cause murders is to state a blood libel against conservative pundits.

There's no reasonable context in standard English comprehension through which her statement can be taken as anti-semitic.

As for your recent discovery of multiple uses of the term, that merely shows your lack of general knowledge of the term, not any recency in such use.  Since the term has existed it has been used in a variety of non-Jewish associations.

Read more history.

[MillCreek]

^^^ Hey, are you in law school yet?  How is that going?  Do the 1-Ls talk about the job market?  I do some guest lecturing at my local law school, and it seems to be quite the topic of discussion, especially amongst the 3-Ls.

[Matthew Carberry]

^^^ Hey, are you in law school yet?  How is that going?  Do the 1-Ls talk about the job market?  I do some guest lecturing at my local law school, and it seems to be quite the topic of discussion, especially amongst the 3-Ls.

Not yet.  Money is the issue.  Talking to the Army Guard recruiter about an OCS prior service enlistment to help pay for it.  I keep reading about Bar passers taking paralegal jobs so school debt is NOT on my agenda.

OCS would be this summer in South Dakota if I get in.  I hear the climate is... pleasant.

[MillCreek]

^^^^


http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=27685.0

In case you did not see it, the NYT article that I found at the top of the thread is pretty enlightening in terms of law school debt and current job prospects.  From what I read on some of the legal blogs, it is pretty darn tough these days.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

OCS would be this summer in South Dakota if I get in.  I hear the climate is... pleasant.

APS is taking over the military-industrial complex. And in case you run across a Marine unit in about 2-years time with a patch reading "The Gun is Good, the Penis is Evil," stop by to say hi to another APSer. 

[Perd Hapley]

The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.

I suppose the irony would be more apparent if there were anything that identified Loughner as a conservative, and if there were also a history of Palin, Limbaugh, et al, preaching and practicing violence against members of Congress.

That dog does not participate in outdoor sports.

[BReilley]

Either way, this is more proof of my theory that Palin supporters will find any way to argue that what she's doing is clever.

It's not your theory, it's every Palin-hater's theory.  The woman can't blink an eye in public without somebody calling her a name for it.  The term is loaded, but it is accurate.  The entire American left accused Palin of being everything from an irresponsible imbecile all the way to a terrorist mastermind who remotely activates vulnerable crazies with "incendiary rhetoric".  Google "stochastic terrorism" for a shining example of that one.

Anyway, I don't remember anyone saying she's clever.  Everyone here arguing in her favor is doing so because she's been the VICTIM of an inexcusable blindside by people who can't see a tragedy without looking for someone to blame(or some way to blame someone they don't like).  You people are worse than ambulance-chasing lawyers.

Because it was sure to attract negative attention in this climate.

See above.  Anything she said would attract negative attention in this "climate of [Palin] hate".

To state a blood libel against Jews is anti-semitic.

To state a blood libel against blacks is racist.

Palin points out that saying that conservative pundits words cause murders is to state a blood libel against conservative pundits.

There's no reasonable context in standard English comprehension through which her statement can be taken as anti-semitic.

*ding* Well said.

[Perd Hapley]

It being thoroughly established that Palin said nothing odd or unprecedented, is the thread title going to be changed any time soon?

[Perd Hapley]

OK, I guess not.

[roo_ster]

OK, I guess not.

One benefit of being on the left or afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome is never having to say you're sorry.

It is crap like this that makes me think Palin running would be a good idea.  Oh, the GOP has better candidates and I'd really prefer she didn't, but nobody brings out folks' inner asshat like Palin does.