As a Christian who is invested in building new, constructive bridges between Jewish and Christian communities, Sarah Palin’s recent claim that she had been accused of blood libel, in regards to the recent shooting in Tuscon, appalled me. I was troubled on two levels. First, I do not know why that the term was even used in this instance because the connection between the shooting and the blood libel in history are very loosely connected. On a broader level, I am frustrated because Palin herself or her speechwriter or whoever must be ignorant of what the term means to Jews historically and in the present day, which means that American are not being educated adequately. I am not saying this because religion is not taught in schools as much as I would like (or at all, for that matter) but rather because we are teaching a selective history. Just look at the Texas textbook controversy.
Due to how most of the press is describing blood libel, I would like to clarify a few things. First, blood libel refers to Christian communities accusing Jews of killing Christians (usually children) and drinking their blood. Often this fear mongering occurred historically around the Christian Passion holidays (Good Friday through Easter), which usually coincided with the Jewish festival Passover. The accusation then changed to baking Passover matzah with Christian blood. This furthered the longstanding charge of deicide towards the Jewish community. Other anti-Jewish actions taken by the Church included the architectural displays of a broken Lady Synagoga and a triumphant Lady Ecclesia and the Judensau.
A lot of the press has described blood libel as an ancient or medieval myth, as if it is some archaic fable that we have left behind. This is not the case. Blood libel charges occurred throughout the 19th century and is a large, albeit often unspoken, part of 20th century anti-Semitism/Judaism, expanding much further than just Nazi Germany. This resulted in pogrom massacres throughout Europe, even one in Poland after World War 2 was over. The accusation of Jews being involved in ritual murder by Christians and others is still happening today.
In my opinion, Palin did not recognize the ramifications of what she was saying because she is ignorant of the history behind the term. This is not a jab at Palin’s competence because I am willing to argue that a rather large majority of Americans (including those our society would classify as highly or well-educated) are also ignorant to it. Churches are not teaching the tumultuous relationship that Christians and Jews have had for a substantial portion of our shared history. As a result, problematic, anti-Jewish portions of the New Testament are skillfully glossed over in our lectionaries and liturgies as we unknowingly perpetuate hateful stereotypes towards our Jewish brothers and sisters.
On a political level, it does not help that there are some who feign from commenting when asked about Palin’s vocabulary. A particular congressperson, after giving no response about the “blood libel” comment, was asked a follow-up question about the accused shooter’s political leanings, and said this: “…from what I heard, his two favorite books were Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto—that tells me the guy is on the left. People like to associate Hitler with the right, but in fact he was a socialist himself.” Thank you, for that thoughtful, constructive response.
Palin’s use of” blood libel” is less about her and much more about uncovering the festering wounds between Jewish and Christian communities all over the globe that require dialogue, reconciliation, intentional education (in both religious and secular arenas) and time to heal.
Tidbit: Gabrielle Giffords happens to be Jewish, which makes Palin’s comments all the more…unwise.
Palin, like Richard Dawkins before her in his response to the Jewish Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled, use “blood libel” to mean that they or their chosen ideologies (conservative American politics, New Atheism) are being falsely associated with or accused of causing wrongful death.
I would say that in this way, Palin’s use of the term may very well be understandable. Check out Jewish conservative diva Pamela Geller (I try to read multiple sides on this sort of thing) in her response here: http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2011/01/12/a-conspiracy-against-the-mind-against-life-against-man-and-the-virtue-of-sarah-palin/
In pointing this out, I am not defending or endorsing Palin or Dawkins’ use of the term, simply showing that it does have some logic to it.
The meaning of words, phrases, and their implications (including emotionally charged and historically problematic ones) morphs over time. What are the implications, think ye, for us in inter-religious dialogue?
Sure, language morphs over time but I think it takes a lot more time for these historically hurtful words to morph. Blood libel is a very current issue (especially in Iran).
I do not deny Palin’s logic in using the term. It makes sense but it is distasteful and does much more harm than good. Thanks for the Geller link! It is always fruitful to read the flip side of a controversy.
Language has HUGE implications for dialogue. Just as the n-word usually comes up in dialogues on race/ethnicity, blood libel could behave similarly. The difference, I think, is that more American know the historical implications of the n-word than they do blood libels. This is not because blood libels are an archaic European invention, it is because we are not educated on it. Blood libels came to the “new world” along with all the other nasties: slavery, mass killing, diseases, etc. If dialogue is going to be constructive, participants need to take language into account.
Thanks for writing this piece, Anthony!
Thank you for reading!