Palin and the Blood Libel

JWR - Jewish World Review ^ | Jan 13, 2011 | Jonathan Tobin

[MsLady]

At least your professor was honest. That is rare in a liberal/marxist/socialist. Ends justifies the means. You'd almost have to get in stealth.

In the local schools, you have to teach whatever curriculum they give you. I suppose a good teacher could teach the curriculum and bring in literature that added to it. But, then again maybe not. I'd cringe if I had to teach kids things I knew were lies or half truths. I'd probably be fired before I ever really got started. So many of the school books today have so much omitted. If it doesn't fit the liberal view or isn't PC it's gone. Our the truth is twisted to fit their world view. Many on the left seem delusional to me, when it comes to our history.

[ClearCase_guy]

I'd cringe if I had to teach kids things I knew were lies or half truths.

Well, here's my follow-up story --

Instead of grad school for history, I went into Library Science. I became a cataloger at a university library (Cambridge, MA) and put in a few years doing that. Very Liberal atmosphere, but I tolerated it. What ended it for me, however, was when a book arrived which told the tale of an African King from Mali who discovered America before Columbus. It seems this King sailed an armada of thousands of ships across the Atlanic in about the year 1400. He taught the Aztecs many things, then sailed back to Africa and told his people of the land he had discovered.

I went to my boss and said "The Library of Congress expects me to catalog this as non-fiction. But it isn't. This didn't happen. No one sailed thousands of ships across the Atlantic in 1400. And the Aztecs were more advanced than the Africans in 1400. They didn't need to be taught anything. I can catalog this as folklore or something similar, but not non-fiction."

She said I had to put it under non-fiction. I applied to grad school for engineering the next week. In some fields, the truth still matters.

[MrB]

I'd cringe if I had to teach kids things I knew were lies or half truths.

This is EXACTLY the sentiment that has driven me to a fervent study of worldviews and logically defending the truth. We [are going to] homeschool, and I didn't want any of the half truths / half liblies to be passed on through me due to my own education in the public school system.

So, I've made it my mission to seek out and destroy those lies in my own view of the world, and to armor up my kids against the lies of the world that will be foisted on them in their lifetimes.

[MsLady]

YIKES, that’s terrible but believable. No wonder so many kids coming up today don’t seem to get things. They are told so many lies. How would they know? We watched a show about Ben Franklin one night. I can’t remember whether it was the History Channel or Discover Channel. Anyway, I kept telling my hubby, you have to be careful about these shows, sometimes they really twist the truth. Sure enough near the end some liberal yoyo came on and was talking about the Declaration of Independence and how Ben changed something on it. I wish I could remember exactly what that was. But, his face brightened and he basically said, see we aren’t a Christian nation. I thought I’d throw up.

[PapaBear3625]

When you say Palin used the term in “EXACTLY the right context,” are you saying someone accused her of killing, eating, and sucking the blood of a child? Because that’s the only “correct context” for the term. Those who’ve used it differently over the past few weeks are simply ignorant of its history.

The people most upset about its usage are people who don't like Palin anyway. Get over it. Language evolves with usage. It is legitimate to use "blood libel" to refer to a libel over having the blood of innocents on your hands.

I think a lot of Jewish liberals freaked out when what they thought was a phrased owned by them, was used against them.

[ClearCase_guy]

Indeed. Similarly, when Republicans explain that cuts in marginal tax rates can help spur the economy -- and point out that JFK had success with this -- the Democrats (and the Kennedy family) go ballistic and accuse the Republicans of "crossing the line" somehow.

"That's our guy. How dare you make use of our guy?!"

[A CA Guy]

If you are being interviewed by a liberal you have to lie about what you think regarding politics and unions.
Once in there with tenure you can do what you want unless you have to change districts and start from the bottom again.

[jwalsh07]

“Blood libel” refers to Jews killing, eating and sucking the blood of children in 12th century Spain. The charges were all lies, of course.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Gwt off the island.

Blood and libel are two words strung together most prominently first applied to the Romans who blood libeled Christians in regards to the Holy Eucharist. Supposedly the evil Christians were using Roman children for the blood component of the Holy Eucharist in the early Second Century AD. Which, of course, predates the Middle Ages and certain Christian blood libeling of Jews.

[beckett]

Ridiculous. The association of the term “blood libel” with the dawn of anti-Semitism in Europe is so well established as to be undeniable by any serious historian. That cannot be changed by googling the term and trumping up a silly counter-argument whereby Christians become the poor victims. To present such an ahistorical and offensive argument is borderline anti-Semitic itself.

[jwalsh07]

Anti-Semitic? LOL. Why not racist as well?

The phrase blood libel is not owned by any religion, sect or race. It was applied to the Romans, the Greeks, and Christians alike.

The notion that the use of the phrase is anti-Semitic is insane as is the notion that applying it to the Romans of the second century AD is anti-Semitic.