newberry wrote:

big_dave wrote:

newberry wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree then. Agree with his views or not, IMHO he is very intelligent.

Of course he is!

Ok, but I mentioned that he was intelligent because you called parts of his article "mind-bendingly ignorant."

Well, I'm not calling his intelligence into question, but the attacks and dismissals he makes are willfully ignorant.

big_dave wrote:

newberry wrote:

big_dave wrote:

newberry wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree then. Agree with his views or not, IMHO he is very intelligent.

Of course he is!

Ok, but I mentioned that he was intelligent because you called parts of his article "mind-bendingly ignorant."

Well, I'm not calling his intelligence into question, but the attacks and dismissals he makes are willfully ignorant.

How do you know it's willful ignorance? To me Chomsky doesn't seem like a knee-jerk kind of guy, he seems thoughtful and reasoned. Could it be that he spent time reading and thinking about the philosophers in question, and then came to his opinion?

newberry wrote:

big_dave wrote:

newberry wrote:

big_dave wrote:

newberry wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree then. Agree with his views or not, IMHO he is very intelligent.

Of course he is!

Ok, but I mentioned that he was intelligent because you called parts of his article "mind-bendingly ignorant."

Well, I'm not calling his intelligence into question, but the attacks and dismissals he makes are willfully ignorant.

How do you know it's willful ignorance? To me Chomsky doesn't seem like a knee-jerk kind of guy, he seems thoughtful and reasoned. Could it be that he spent time reading and thinking about the philosophers in question, and then came to his opinion?

This is exactly what I would assume, and exactly why I criticise him for it. It is willful ignorance because he good reason to criticise himself, but he won't do his audience the justice of articulating that rather than resort to the rhetoric and the insults. I'd love to read why Chomsky thinks young Lacan was good, and why older Lacan is a "charlatan", I'd like to see him draw the distinction.

Skronk wrote:
I watched the excerpt on youtube, it was very good. I'd like to see the entire debate.

Part I
Part II

You can read a transcription of the entire debate in a book. I know it's not YouTube, but just fyi.

Foucault couldn't look any more the creepy, homo Bond villain in these things.

newberry wrote:As I was saying, if anyone has any specific quotes from Chomsky that they take issue with, I'd be curious to hear them. His views on the Khmer Rouge were brought up, but I didn't see any quotes from Chomsky on that topic (but I may have missed them)--I saw direct quotes from a Chomsky critic.

Chomsky and Herman wrote [in the article Distortions at Fourth Hand]:

"The response to the three books under review [Murder of a Gentle Land, by John Barron and Anthony Paul, Ponchaud's Cambodge Annee Zero, and Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, by George Hildebrand and Gareth Porter] nicely illustrates this selection process. Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. Published last year, and well received by the journal of the Asia Society (Asia, March-April 1977), it has not been reviewed in the Times, New York Review or any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an editorial entitled 'Cambodia Good Guys' (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia."

What a joke, and someone suggested Chomsky was an historian. No historian worth their salt would say such things even in a book review. This is empty rhetoric, not history or even accurate political analysis; in fact it doesn't even qualify as journalism. It's careless and irresponsible writing.

Chomsky and Herman wrote [in Distortions...]:

Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports.

Not true. These unnamed 'specialists' took their information from 'official' KR reports and documents only and the refugee accounts were remarkably accurate as it turns out. Chomsky tactic here is similar to arguments put forward by Holocaust deniers (of which one of the most prominent Chomsky openly supports) by attacking the first hand accounts, in this case Cambodian refugees. If he'd have said we should treat all accounts with caution, it might have been acceptable but to treat them all as extremely unreliable highlights his narrow agenda driven mentality.

Oh and before any Chomskyites say "oh but poor Noam was speaking up in defense of freedom of speech". Yes, but Chomsky's defenders continually ignore Chomsky in support of Faurisson's 'credentials' and 'findings' that there were no gas chambers.

Chomsky says:

Dr. Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon 2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the "Holocaust" question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander, and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.

Chomsky is not just supporting freedom of speech. Faurisson was never denied access to libraries etc. Chomsky is a liar and like those he supports is a "falsifier of history". CRAP

Vidal-Naquet said:

The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for my death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a "relatively apolitical sort of liberal." You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and to recast him in the colors of truth.

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/

What a joke, and someone suggested Chomsky was an historian. No historian worth their salt would say such things even in a book review. This is empty rhetoric, not history or even accurate political analysis; in fact it doesn't even qualify as journalism. It's careless and irresponsible writing.

How is it careless and responsible? That he called American impact destructive? Or something else? I'm not seeing it.




And below, specifically, where is the lie? From your excerpt:

but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing.

Chomsky is quoting journals--is he mischaracterizing them? If not, where is the lie?

newberry wrote:

What a joke, and someone suggested Chomsky was an historian. No historian worth their salt would say such things even in a book review. This is empty rhetoric, not history or even accurate political analysis; in fact it doesn't even qualify as journalism. It's careless and irresponsible writing.

How is it careless and responsible? That he called American impact destructive? Or something else? I'm not seeing it.




And below, specifically, where is the lie? From your excerpt:

but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing.

Chomsky is quoting journals--is he mischaracterizing them? If not, where is the lie?

I don't have a problem with the notion that America as evidenced by its foreign policy is a greedy, power hungry cunt of a nation but I do have a problem with Chomsky's simplistic black and white view of the world and woefully inaccurate portrayal of the KR as good guys ["Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies"] and in the same article stating that the refugee accounts are "extremely inaccurate". That Chomsky does not check his sources is what is careless and irresponsible and Chomsky's inability to get facts straight or ignore them when said facts don't fit his agenda. Chomsky's hackery cannot be trusted. Seeing the word 'historian' in the title of this thread is what I find particularly offensive. He isn't one and never will be. No historian would give him the time of day; he's never quoted or referenced in any historical works. He's a polemicist yes, a very clever one, but that's all.

His books on the whole are meandering and repetitive and preach to an uncritical choir. The thing is I often agree in general with his stance on American foreign policy and it's no wonder the rest of the world hates the US, especially now after years of Bush et al. However, I will not ignore Chomsky's awful approach to history. I laughed when I saw his book Power and Terror in our (in Australia) equivalent of Walmart. I feel that's where most of his books belong. H's written virtually the same book over and over again since the 1980s. He's as guilty of propaganda as those he criticizes. Just because I don't agree with American foreign policy it doesn't mean I have to subscribe wholeheartedly to Chomsky. I think he is right on many issues, however, there is enough doubt abut his methodology specifically with regard to historical scholarship to requote at least two other posters earlier who said:

chomsky is 70% NC and 30% embarrassing crap

I don't have a problem with the notion that America as evidenced by its foreign policy is a greedy, power hungry cunt of a nation but I do have a problem with Chomsky's simplistic black and white view of the world and woefully inaccurate portrayal of the KR as good guys ["Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies"] and in the same article stating that the refugee accounts are "extremely inaccurate".

What exactly did Chomsky say about the KR being good guys? I don't understand the quote above (starting with "Cambodian revolutionaries...")--maybe it would be more clear if I could see the full context. What is the source of that? This is from Chomsky's mouth, or someone characterizing his views?

It's my understanding that historians disagree on the number of casualties.

I still haven't seen any lies--anyone have an example of one?

Chomsky is not just supporting freedom of speech. Faurisson was never denied access to libraries etc.

What is he supporting then--what are you getting at? Do you think Chomsky is an anti-semite or Holocaust denier? If so, where is the evidence? How do you know Faurisson was never denied access to libraries?

For those of you interested in further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

(I know that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, but the articles above link to external sources, and I believe they are a good starting point.)

And an article about criticisms of Chomsky (that is pretty sympathetic toward him): http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fa ... homsky.htm

One more article on the Khmer Rouge/Chomsky debate:
http://www.flagrancy.net/khmerchomsky.html

Andrew. wrote:Foucault couldn't look any more the creepy, homo Bond villain in these things.

Haha. So true.

Like a muscled-up Donald Pleasance avec android head. Plus the doctorly glasses. He was laying it on rather thick there. Should've done a cooking show with Heino.

No Chomsky is not anti-semitic or a denier but if you read the quote it's quite clear that he gives much undeserved credit to Faurisson. Read the entire Vidal-Naquet article linked. Quite frankly, Chomsky looks plain dim when it comes to the Holocaust but is more than happy to refer to Faurisson's so called 'findings' about a subject he knows nothing about - these 'findings' are non-existent, the gas chambers weren't as RF claims. So Chomsky looks like an idiot for not getting his facts straight. If he's just said I support RF's freedom of speech no-one would have cared but no NC has to speak about things of which he knows nothing. It's this act of stupidity that destroys his credibility for me. The fact that Chomsky's original defense of RF and his responses to the resulting criticism are impossible to find, except in Vidal-Naquet's Assassins of Memory, anymore is pretty telling.

The book review Chomsky wrote for The Nation is here.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

From your linked article:

Since then great pains have been made to show that Noam Chomsky went to great pains to lie about the Khmer Rouge. Along with many of his contemporaries Chomsky has been alleged of being "beguiled", supposedly supporting their cause during the civil war and denying solid evidence of genocide. Chomsky has never apologized for his statements on the subject, his statements since have been quite clear to the effect that there was, in fact, genocide, and the argument is thusly whether his statements at the time classify as "denial", presumably in the fashion of deniers of the holocaust, of Pol Pot's genocide.

His statements at the time do not classify as denial they do classify as poor scholarship. He ignored any evidence to suggest that something terrible was occurring in Cambodia, even first hand refugee statements. Why didn't he wait until facts were in before writing the very biased article for the Nation and all the ones that followed? The answer to that is it helped push along his obsession and that is my main problem with NC, apart from his poor scholarship, that everything I've read of his is so agenda driven that any objectivity goes out the window. It's odd though he seems so calm in any TV interview I've seen him in but his articles all read like he's shouting and, although I used to read a fair bit of his stuff on Z-net and in various books over the years, I simply do not trust him.