Potential 2012 presidential candidate Sarah Palin's video statement about the Tucson shooting has been the hot topic today. And that's partly because of her use of the phrase "blood libel." The Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman said, "We wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood-libel' in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term 'blood-libel' has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
NPR dove a little deeper into the phrase:
The term "blood libel" is not well known, but it is highly charged — a direct reference to a time when many European Christians blamed Jews for kidnapping and murdering Christian children to obtain their blood. Jews were tortured and executed for crimes they did not commit, emblematic of anti-Semitism so virulent that some scholars recoiled Wednesday at Palin's use of the term.
...Some experts on the history of blood libel took exception to Palin's use of the term.
"In her own thinking, I just don't understand the logical use of this word," said Ronnie Hsia, a professor of history at Pennsylvania State University who has written two books about blood libel. "I think it's inappropriate and I frankly think if she or her staff know about the meaning of this word, I think it's insulting to the Jewish people."
To be fair to Palin, Glenn Reynolds used it the other day in the Wall Street Journal!
Mary C. Boys, a professor at Union Theological Seminary who has studied the history of blood libel as well as a Catholic nun, told CNN, "This is not language that we Christians should use when we're victims. This is what we charged Jews with... It's improper for us as Christians, who invented it and used it against Jews with horrific consequence, to use this terminology."
