3 of 4
3
HD: Blood Libel
Posted: 19 January 2011 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3470
Joined  2007-01-29

Yeah, sorry, I’m sure you didn’t mean to be rude, and Lionello’s quite right.  (And he does have some good off-color stories!)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2011 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2816
Joined  2007-01-31

I note that Palin has neither denied nor affirmed being aware of history of the phrase in anti-Semitism before she used it, but she is parsing it exactly as I suggested she would: “Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands.” (from the Hannity interview on Fox News)

I still think that at the time she used it, she was unaware of the specific implications and associations of the phrase.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2011 10:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  68
Joined  2010-12-20

Thanks for the rebuke and the tut-tut. I didn’t mean to be rude the way you thought I did, but I did intend to be rude to a lot of people. I am a product of a different culture indeed but, being interested in other cultures and their history as well, do know a wee bit about some of the others. Whether we like it or not, we all have to abide by Judaeo-Christian philosophy (and some of their prejudices), Greco-Roman aesthetic standards and English jurisprudence systems—wherever we are. In reality, even sense of humour can vary from culture to culture.
Now, please tell me how best can I extricate my erring feet (certainly not from my own mouth) and from whose guano?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2011 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3065
Joined  2007-02-26

"I notice that the discussion on blood libel is slowly but surely drifting away from racial prejudice to Michaelangelo and mistranslation of the OT. “

Welcome to the internet!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2011 05:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1991
Joined  2007-02-19

I think your feet are already guano-free, anirhudda - no extraction required

;-)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2011 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  811
Joined  2007-06-20
Aniruddha - 19 January 2011 10:12 PM

Whether we like it or not, we all have to abide by Judaeo-Christian philosophy (and some of their prejudices), Greco-Roman aesthetic standards and English jurisprudence systems—wherever we are.

Hmmm - sitting here in a Middle Eastern country where people have been jailed for exchanging kisses on the cheek in a restaurant, I’m not sure I’d agree with THAT statement. But let’s not divert this thread even more …

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2011 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  68
Joined  2010-12-20
Aniruddha - 19 January 2011 04:14 AM


The handling of the ostracization of Slans by common-or-garden humans had impressed me a lot

I’m surprised that no one rebuked me for writing ‘ostracization’. I, a rank outsider to English, might make such mistakes from time to time; perhaps I’m expected to. Are such mistakes beneath contempt in the present company?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2011 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3065
Joined  2007-02-26

Wassa Slans?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2011 10:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  282
Joined  2007-02-23

"Ostracization” appears in the OED.

Even if it didn’t, I guess it would be clear enough.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2011 10:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2313
Joined  2007-01-30
OP Tipping - 20 January 2011 09:17 PM

Wassa Slans?

See post #28 upthread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 01:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

Are such mistakes beneath contempt in the present company?

As far as mistakes go here: nothing, but nothing, is beneath contempt.  And a word from the wise: NEVER complain if your mistakes go unnoticed. 
Edit: this led me to my latest thread: blag. 

smiles smugly

[ Edited: 21 January 2011 01:34 AM by ElizaD ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 03:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4697
Joined  2007-01-03

Generally, we (assuming the editorial prerogative here) don’t like to take people apart for minor typographical or usage errors. We all make them, and throwing stones just pisses people off and lowers the quality of the discourse. If something is not not clear, the people here are not shy about asking for clarification.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3470
Joined  2007-01-29

I’m surprised that no one rebuked me for writing ‘ostracization’. I, a rank outsider to English, might make such mistakes from time to time; perhaps I’m expected to. Are such mistakes beneath contempt in the present company?

What on earth are you on about? It’s been in use since the 19th century (Harper’s Magazine, Feb. 1875 314/1: “The city now passed into the hands of white persons imbittered by long minority, and resentful for their ostracization in former years"). You seem awfully fighty; at the moment you’re fighting unnecessarily with yourself rather than us, but you might want to dial it back and just chat rather than making belligerent assumptions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2011 10:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  68
Joined  2010-12-20

One of my daughters rebuked me (on mail) for writing ‘ostracisation’ in place of ‘ostracism’ in a message to her. That was quite some time ago, but -iasation seems to be firmly fixed in my mind. I remembered it after submitting the -iasation post. Linguistic hesitation is a sure sign of under-tutoring. So I hastily went through a handy copy of a thesaurus, against my better judgement, which had the -ism spelling only. Thanks, anyway, for correcting my erroneous error. We live to learn each day. 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2011 10:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  432
Joined  2007-10-20

At the risk of engaging in polemicization, or polemicism, or polemics and thus incurring ostracizement ;-), let me ask: What term should Palin have used? (there isn’t another one) Does blood libel succinctly express the concept she wanted to get across? (yes) Does she use it in the same sense others have? (yes, Ariel Sharon) Is it written somewhere that the term can only be used in a context regarding antisemitic accusations? (no) For that matter, was Sharon accusing Time of antisemitism at all (probably not), or simply refuting an accusation of wrongful killing? (probably yes) Was the Brooklyn Rabbi’s usage even further afield than Palin’s? (yes)

Politcs and the English language are robust, active, sometimes brutal pursuits. I say get used to it.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3