inciting to violence
Jan. 12th, 2011 09:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutI've had a lot of reservations about the loose talk about how political speech that used metaphors of violence may have contributed to the recent tragedy in Arizona. I don't like to see a public debate that lets the far right cloak itself in the mantle of the defenders of the first two amendments to our constitution. I haven't been particularly shy about saying this, urging people to focus instead on things like technical gun regulations (better reporting of people with mental illness that might make them ineligible to own a gun; renewing restrictions in high capacity magazines).
Then Reuters has this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B3W320110112
quoting Sarah Palin as saying this:
"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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
"Blood libel" is a scandalous term, referring to horrifying speech. From wikipedia's entry on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
[quote begins] Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. [quote ends]
So I take it all back. The media should go after Sarah Palin and the far right for everything factual they can possibly find. They should criticize her political speech, her family life, her television career, her parenting choices, her clothing, her hair and grooming, her illiteracy, her religious views, the views of everyone around her. They should do so with every negative adverb and adjective they can muster while sticking to the factual truth.
She's earned it. And at this point, anyone who defends her in any mistaken view that the attacks on her are risking anything more serious are as delusional as I was yesterday.
To quote Olbermann: That Woman is an Idiot.
And that's an insult to idiots.
ETA: To clarify, what Sarah Palin has done by using this offensive term in this context is to put her "suffering" on a par with what Jews suffered in the course of Christian pogroms against them. Rather than cloak herself in the mantle of a defender of the bill of rights, she has chosen to cloak herself in the mantle of a persecuted Jew of 70 or more years ago. Doing this while a Jewish woman is lying in a hospital after being shot while engaged in the work of democratic government is difficult to find words for.
Then Reuters has this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B3W320110112
quoting Sarah Palin as saying this:
"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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."
"Blood libel" is a scandalous term, referring to horrifying speech. From wikipedia's entry on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
[quote begins] Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. [quote ends]
So I take it all back. The media should go after Sarah Palin and the far right for everything factual they can possibly find. They should criticize her political speech, her family life, her television career, her parenting choices, her clothing, her hair and grooming, her illiteracy, her religious views, the views of everyone around her. They should do so with every negative adverb and adjective they can muster while sticking to the factual truth.
She's earned it. And at this point, anyone who defends her in any mistaken view that the attacks on her are risking anything more serious are as delusional as I was yesterday.
To quote Olbermann: That Woman is an Idiot.
And that's an insult to idiots.
ETA: To clarify, what Sarah Palin has done by using this offensive term in this context is to put her "suffering" on a par with what Jews suffered in the course of Christian pogroms against them. Rather than cloak herself in the mantle of a defender of the bill of rights, she has chosen to cloak herself in the mantle of a persecuted Jew of 70 or more years ago. Doing this while a Jewish woman is lying in a hospital after being shot while engaged in the work of democratic government is difficult to find words for.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-12 06:06 pm (UTC)Apologies for repetition; it is the same link I posted on Facebook.
thanks!
Date: 2011-01-12 06:16 pm (UTC)I agree with the proposition, "Violent political rhetoric will be misunderstood by certain members of the population who may then choose to act on it in a violent way." I never disagreed.
What I had (and have) trouble with is the political strategy of using that proposition to partisan ends. Yes, one side is using a whole lot more, detailed violent political rhetoric. Yes, they should be called out on it. Yes, they should stop. Unfortunately, that whole process of doing the calling out will tend to make the people doing the calling out subject to an (incorrect) accusation that they are trying to suppress speech (and/or guns). My issue is that the proposition is true, the action is noble, it is tactically brilliant politically but there is a strategic political risk.
However, what Palin did in response is so appalling that at this point, anyone can say anything (true) about her and no one can possibly go after them. I no longer perceive (or care about) a strategic risk.
Re: thanks!
Date: 2011-01-12 06:51 pm (UTC)I think there is still a strategic political risk (plenty of other people have said similarly unforgivable things and totally gotten away with them), but at this point to hell with it. We're so screwed if we don't stand up for decency now that it really doesn't matter.
Re: thanks!
Date: 2011-01-12 07:43 pm (UTC)npr coverage
Date: 2011-01-12 10:17 pm (UTC)A whole bunch of people being way too reasonable.
"Matt Goldish, a professor of Jewish and European history at Ohio State, said Palin's usage of the term led him to believe she did not know its history, but that he did not think many people would find it offensive."
I'm offended.
Re: thanks!
Date: 2011-01-12 10:17 pm (UTC)When someone does/says something reprehensible,
can we reprehend them & what would that mean.
Possible cognates in my head are apprehend,
prehensile, but I'm wrong about these things.
Not this time: "to hold back" to "restrain."
Re: npr coverage
Date: 2011-01-15 12:33 am (UTC)"In an editorial arguing that "Mrs. Palin is well within her rights to feel persecuted" and defend her use of the phrase "blood libel," the conservative garbage-paper The Washington Times calls efforts to hold her accountable for her reckless use of violent rhetoric "simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers."
Yes. Seriously. A pogrom.
I don't even know what to say anymore."