‘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 that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.’
What is one to make of this latest utterance from Sarah Palin? After the highly politicized circumstances leading to the shooting of representative Gabrielle Giffords, Ms Palin hit back at the tide of accusations against her – that the gun-slinging tone of her campaign literature and rhetoric led, in one way or another, to words transforming into bullets.
But the phrase that’s drawn particular anxiety is blood libel. This phrase has a particular meaning – it refers – mostly, but not always, to the ancient calumny in which Jews were (and are) accused of kidnapping and killing Christian children and using their blood in the manufacture of matzo.
The reaction has been predictable – what we in the journalism trade refer to technically as a ‘shitstorm’. A blog over at Scientopia goes into the history of the blood libel and, like many, finds it ‘reprehensible’ (to use Ms Palin’s words) that a Christian is using the term in the context of the shooting of a Jew (Ms Giffords is Jewish).
Antisemitism is, as the man said, is a beast that sleeps but lightly. I’m Jewish, and like many, had relatives that perished in the Holocaust. My mother, a refugee from the Nazis aged just three, was called ‘Christ Killer’ in the playground. My father, the only Jew in a tough school, learned to fight early and often. When I was a graduate student at Cambridge, a fellow graduate student said that it had been a ‘jolly good thing’ that my grandparents had been gassed in Auschwitz. Crox Minor, a student at a rather rough school here in Cromer, endures antisemitic jibes that the well-intentioned teachers seem powerless to quell entirely.
Antisemitism is ingrained in British academia in ways that US academics might find hard to credit (just dig a little way into this site); Richard Dawkins, for example, made a perhaps careless reference to Jewry that served to entrench ancient stereotypes. When I corresponded privately with Prof Pat Bateson, a senior figure in UK academia, on his support of an anti-Israel boycott, he aired my correspondence in public in the Guardian without he or the reporter having been polite enough to have consulted me first (the Guardian‘s Reader Ombudsman upheld my complaint and printed a very tiny correction).
Of course, the standard line is that criticism of Israel is a separate issue from antisemitism, and so it is – or ought to be. But when I was at a pro-Israel demo a few years ago, the counter-demonstrators seemed insensitive to such niceties – the screams of ‘Kill the Jews’ could clearly be heard. Yes, antisemitism is alive and well.
One is entitled to ask whether Ms Palin knew what she was saying – perhaps, to her, the phrase ‘blood libel’ was simply a pair of words that went emotively together, the usage very much in tune with her previous rhetoric rather than having any connection with antisemitism. An article that’s just popped up on Wikipedia (look now before it’s deleted) seems to be an attempt at damage limitation, defining ‘blood libel’ as a term used in US politics as a counter to those accusing one of an accessory to bloodshed, rather than having any specific connection with antisemitism. Certainly, I’ve been surprised, reading comments here and on Facebook, educated people in the US and elsewhere, even Jews, hadn’t heard of the term ‘blood libel’ in its antisemitic context. (As an aside, one could, perhaps, forgive Dawkins for a careless use of words rather than any antisemitic intent, but he presumably cannot use an excuse of lack of information or intelligence).
So I, for one, am prepared to think that Ms Palin, true to her record of general ignorance about the world in general, and her general and habitually martial rhetoric, didn’t know what she was talking about, and that perhaps her speechwriters are similarly ignorant; that Ms Palin sprays words around as were they so many bullets, heedless of where they might fall.
What choice to I have? The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
It would be easier to explain the ignorance of “not knowing what the wording means” if it wasn’t for the fact that right-wing evangelical US politicians usually know their Bible and interpretations pretty well…. just saying…
(I was sort of waiting for this angle since the religious denomination is one of the first four things you state about a US congress/senate/political person, to “explain” who they are… like “married” and other important (?) things to describe the person)
Than again, as a fairly liberal, left-wing non evangelical Christian I flinched so maybe it’s not as commonly known? Foot, meet mouth.
Palin terrifies me.
Hopefully her latest outburst is a result of stupidity and nothing else, but I’m not convinced.
I believe Palin is entirely unconscious, not only of the meaning and effect of her words, but generally. Like Sharron Angle and Michelle Bachman, she merely reacts and acts on prejudice. There’s no calculation here whatsoever. She is antisemitic, proviolence, hate-fuelled and all the rest. Ascribing any other motive than “act out what I learned at Mommy’s knee” is over-interpretation.
Palin may be ignorant of the meaning, but it was circulating widely in the conservative blogs earlier this week, starting, I think, with Glenn Reynolds. Which means it is most certainly a repulsive dog-whistle move on someone’s part.
Jus in case I’m not getting this right, please clarify. The term “blood libel” referesnto the unjust nature of the accusation against the Jews, and is not a term that defines this accusation, correct? If that is the case then using the term “blood libel” would not be anti-Semitic, but as pointed out in one of your links very maladroitly and perhaps cruelly associates the Jewish history of persecution to a perception of wrong doing from the “liberal elite media”. Did I get thus right? The point that Palin does have is that the accusations that she or others directly caused this man to act are misguided, although I would argue that the climate of rhetoric, not of using violent language, but instead of painting political opponents as enemies of the state and a threat to one’s well-being, is more relevant and insidious.
….btw, writing this one my bloody auto-correcting phone, so pardon the weird word jumbles. Main point is the use of the term is cruelly misguided, even if she is misinformed, and shows a lack of clear perception of what the political landscape has become: the “real America” comment was much more damaging than any “surveyor mark” on a map. Putting the fear that Obama will kill your grandmother and take away your rights will send several nutjobs Glock-shopping.
I’ve been an atheist most of my life, and *I* know the Bible better than many evangelical Christians with whom I’ve interacted in various contexts over the years. At least in this part of the US, the bits and interpretations of the Bible they seem to know best are those that support their bizarre prosperity theology.
The other burning question is: if she’s so sure that the criticisms of her and her rhetoric are being “manufactured” i.e. are completely unfounded, why was she so incredibly quick to remove the target mark map and other materials from her website and Facebook page?
KristiV: I agree with you!
I’m not saying anything else than that I don’t think they (as in the right winged evangelicals) wouldn’t know this “wording” from what it refers to. I tried to say too there are several people who knows the bible more “throughly” or “less prejudicinal” (since it’s not faith believed) than the ppl I mentioned. That said, I don’t think they don’t know what she said.
It’s an old thing, like the “save the Jews since then will be the second coming of Christ” … neither of which are mentioned that much in the popular press but if you look in conservative traditional evangelical press…. you’ll find it pretty quickly. (As in some TV commercials where you can give money to do such thing.)
cath: AFAIK she only removed it from fb. Not the site where it was original. I’ll see if I can find that link….
Wonderful and courageous post, Henry. I’m proud to be affiliated with you on OT.
Having lived in Israel, the US, and Canada, and having visited many countries in S. America and Europe a number of times, I honestly think that “old world” anti-semitism in Europe thrives today–often thinly masked as anti-Israeli sentiment. On the other hand, in the US, while there will always be pockets of racism and anti-semitism, I truly think that there is an extraordinary level of tolerance in the US.- probably more than in any other country at any time in history. Even among people I meet who have “never met a Jew” (before me), there seems to be a high level of respect for Jews as people who contribute to American society.
A friend of mine once said, “Never attribute to malice what can can written off as simple ignorance”. I have tried to track down that quote and never succeeded–so either he invented it, or I am a bad tracker.
In any case, as much as I loathe Palin’s comments and behavior, I honestly believe that her use of the “Blood Libel” in that comment came from absolute ignorance–after all she does have a strong track record in that category. I do not see it as a devious means of proffering up of anti-semitism, and doubt that she has a clear enough understanding of the issue. In fact, based on her populism, I suspect she’d be likely to take on a strong pro-Israel stance. After all, in the US, Israel is not demonized and supporting Israel can win points for an elected official, but is unlikely to lose any.
What is obviously frightening is that a vice presidential candidate could/can run for vp with such a minimal level of basic knowledge.
I agree with Steve (and most everyone above). I think Palin herself is not individually that dangerous. The mindset that she represents is a plurality, and there are enough people who think the way she does, that it encourages them to find one another, empowers them, and THAT is what is dangerous.
I also like that Henry is kind of the intelligent person’s watchdog for ambient anti-Semitism the way that Jenny sometimes is for ambient anti-feminism.
I hate to admit ignorance, but I have to confess I had never come across the term ‘blood libel’ or the blood and matzos accusation before, and I’m sure that this applies to a lot of people, quite possibly including Palin*. However, having said that, I suspect most US Evangelicals know their bible and associated evil folklore better than I do.
I rather liked Obama’s indirect reference in his speech that neatly put down her reaction.
* Am I alone in the UK in being upset at having the name of one of our most revered broadcasters, the saintly Michael, associated with such a person?
Steve, you said: “What is obviously frightening is that a vice presidential candidate could/can run for vp with such a minimal level of basic knowledge.”
I actually like the fact that any pig-ignorant, bigoted knuckle dragger can stand for office as long as they meet minimum criteria. What is frightening is that there are enough pig-ignorant, bigoted knuckle draggers to vote them into office.
And as much as we like to make fun of Palin and the Tea Party/GOP, over here in Europe we have some pretty nasties ourselves, especially in the far-right.
Benoit: It isn’t called “blood libel” because it’s particularly unjust or nasty, it’s because of the substance of the allegation: that Jews use Christian children’s blood (hence “blood libel”) to bake their bread.
While I think chall is correct about most prominent evangelicals in the US and their solid knowledge of the Bible (especially Old Testament), I don’t think the same is true of Palin. She’s mostly right-wing(nut), with less of the religion, and, more importantly, she’s ignorant about almost everything. Of course that doesn’t stop her from spouting off about all sorts of topics, as if she were an expert. It’s practically a national pastime in the US to spout off on topics about which you know nothing. For example, there’s a flame war currently running on a fiber arts site I frequent, over an article about a woman with the world’s largest yarn stash – some US commenters are certain that they can diagnose her with a mental illness, simply because they’ve watched the A&E program Hoarders. *rolls eyes*
For European readers, The Guardian had a good “through the day as it happens” thread from yesterday, covering reaction to Palin’s idiocies, news updates, and coverage of Obama’s speech last night. Has lots of links to other coverage/blogs.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post has some sensible things to say on gun control.
Regarding Palin, I am hoping that her appalling behaviour through this period, including the ridiculous and offensive “blood libel” remarks, will have done her some serious political damage, perhaps even with elements of her own constituency. As this American blogger puts it:
The contrast with Obama, who, whatever your view of him, said a lot of what needed to be said, could not be more marked.
I remain just stunned anyone could regard Palin as qualified to run anything. Even her own family.
Brian: "Am I alone in the UK in being upset at having the name of one of our most revered broadcasters, the saintly Michael, associated with such a person?"
I am more distressed by the Pastor Terry Jones, especially after TJ’s great documentaries Barbarians and The Crusades! Maybe I should send PTJ the DVDs…
I’m guessing Palin (Sarah, not Michael. Although Michael probably can’t either. although I could be wrong: he might have a second home that is more appropriately situated) can’t see Israel from her house.
Nico:
Point well taken.
Bob:
Not even through telescopic sights?
Owen: yes, I understand the reference; by unjust accusation I’m referring to the term “libel”. I just was trying to get a clarification of the perception of usage, whether using “blood libel” by itself anti-semitic (or perceived as such), or is the use of the term inappropriate because of its historical meaning, and thus reflecting how Palin and others perceive (or wish to portray) the media’s reaction to their idiocy.
Heather: I like the term “ambient anti-feminism”- did you coin it, or is it my ignorance?
May I add the word of Stephen Colbert?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/370861/january-12-2011/the-word—life–liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-angriness?xrs=synd_facebook
Talking of the prime-time rabid right brigade, here is a mildly cheering piece about protests over another of Palin’s buddies, the ghastly Glenn Beck. Though the statements of Beck’s that are referred to may make you despair.
Just a quick note to thank you all for your very kind, insightful and informative comments and useful links. I haven’t met Michael Palin, though I have met Terry Jones.
Here’s how it happened. Some years ago, before the Croxi relocated to Cromer, I attended a synagogue in London, and after Friday evening services used to go to the pub with my friend Mr A. K. of Barkingside. Well, Mr A. K. is a fun guy, kind of an autodidact polymath who teaches Cheder (religious instruction) at the synagogue, knows Hebrew and so on. Suffice it to say that I’ve learned an awful out about Judaism from Mr A. K., as well as discovering a shared passion for all things Pythonesque. We called our Friday-night bull sessions the King Herod Appreciation Society, the only vaguely religious organization to regard Mont Python’s Life of Brian as a documentary. We once had a website as a place to put Mr A. K.’s teaching materials, but it’s now been reformatted as a blog, where it’s gonna take me years to edit A. K.’s prose into something that’s (a) intelligible (b) not actionable.
But I digress.
One day the BBC called Mr A. K. at home to ask if the KHAS would like to participate in one of Terry Jones’ programmes, about the real King Herod (It was Mrs A. K. who took the call – she almost had kittens on the spot.) To cut a long story short, me and Mr A. K. went to he Beeb and were interviewed by Terry Jones, himself, in the studio. Here is the BBC’s own press release:
It was a proud day. A. K. and I both did the fist-against-head salute of the People’s Front of Judaea in His Presence. Ah, happy days. Somewhere or another I have an mp3 of the programme …
Oh, fantastic story! Please please please find that mp3 and post it!
I watched a documentary about the making of Monty Python and the Holy Grail last week. Great stuff.
And I, too, love Michael Palin!
Here it is (possibly). We’re on after 13’09″, and again after 19’35″. It may or may not be noteworthy that in the couple of weeks after this broadcast, the King Herod Appreciation Society website, as it then was, received more than 200 malicious virus attacks.
Pingback: Caution—they’re only words | No Comment