Blood libels are allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. Its use is nearly always with regard to sensationalized accusations and high emotions. Throughout history, these claims have been frequently made against Jews living in Europe and even resulted in lynching and persecution of whole Jewish communities.
It has recently been used by our modern Mrs Malaprop (she who coined
refudiate last year) Sarah Palin. Pundits say that the reason this phrase has provoked so much anger is because Palin is using the phrase “blood libel” just to refer to verbal criticisms, implying an equivalence between both circumstances. The famous linguist Deborah Tannen has speculated that Palin and her advisors are totally unaware of blood libel’s proper meaning.
And yet the Anti-Defamation posts a differtent take on the modern day use of the phrase (as does Wiki-pedia)...
ReplyDelete"It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.
Still, 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."