Korean Job Discussion Forums

[everything-is-everything]

[rollo]

Not really a hater. Just think the guy isnt so much. never heard of him being on any real universitiy's reading list.

His support for for Pol Pot his attempts to justify the genocide in Cambodia. His made up account of dying children in the Sudan due to a U.S missle strike, well if you think that is great so be it.

If you like Chomsky on historical analysis try von Dankien on physics

[everything-is-everything]

[northway]

[everything-is-everything]

[shapeshifter]

[rollo]

He is a public intellectual. He is widely read. He has had signifigant influence. He is not well thought of as an intellectual in mqany circles. No his specialty is not the American empire. His speciality is certains branches of linguistic study.

he is generally criticized for being too U.S centric. he tends to extrapolate and find links where there might not be any.

Not only did he support Pol Pot. He denied that a genocide had taken place!!! Claiming it was U.S. propaganda. Then he seemed to actually support the killings. .

Yes I understand how the U.S. actions may have helped Pol Pot come to power, but I, also understand how Chinese actions helped Pol Pot come to power. There is the problem with Chomsky!!!!

He usually does not tell the whole story . Geez you guys really hero worship this guy is he like your cousin or something. I mean there are other historagraphers that I could criticize, Mintz, Wolfe and people would not get as nearly defensive.

In Academia he is considered a light weight.

[northway]

The funny thing is that I actually agree with a lot of what Chomsky has to say, it's just that I don't think his approach fits particularly well in a political science setting. He's far too focused on the United States, far too judgmental, and contributes little to the development of theory (as his work is more history-oriented than anything else).

I took six or eight classes of upper level IR and Chomsky never came up, nor did any of my friends focusing on IR have to read him.

[Leon]

I think as far as linguistics go, he is generally acknowledged to be a so called "heavyweight" by most people, but in politics I would consider him to be a commentator more than a strict academic. I liked his work in Manufacturing Consent a lot, and was assigned that in college in a communications elective I took about propaganda. I studied International Relations and was never assigned him, though I did use his books a sources in my papers. The most valuable thing for me about him, in terms of politics, was his bibliography at the end of the books. Lots of good sources to link out from.

[Fat_Elvis]

[rollo]

Yes he is more of a commentator and usually he uses other peoples research.

I certainly agree that in the field of liguistics Chomsky is a heavy weight. No doubt about that.

Well I learn something knew everyday. I did not know that Obama is an emperor. So I guess no need for that nasty 2012 election thingy.

But an interesting tidbit that might still be aqround somewhere on the internet, is when William Buckley, hardly a heavy weight demolished Chomsky on t.v.

Biggest complaint he jumps fron a-z with little in between except his opinion. I can not imagine him being taken seriously by any Academic when it comes to analysis of the International scene.

[DIsbell]

Wait, you think Buckley demolished Chomsky and not the other way around? As I recall, Buckley got furious at Chomsky.

Regarding Pol Pot, it's not so cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be (in fact, that's a pretty right-wing reactionary take on what Chomsky actually has written on Cambodia). It tends to boil down to Cambodia being in bad shape before Pol Pot's KR, and that appropriate attention should be given to the US military action in Cambodia which opened the floodgates, essentially setting the stage for the KR to take power in the first place. His writing at the time expressed skepticism about various atrocity figures due to conflicting numbers and virtually zero focus being given in the media to death tolls due to US military action. Chomsky described the "extraordinary brutality on both sides" and specifically on the KR discussed the "violence lurking behind the Khmer smile." Interestingly enough, the US (and others) supported the KR for over a decade after the end of the Vietnam War.

And now, Chomsky of course does not deny the genocide that took place.

[rollo]

Buckley got angry because Chomsky wouldnt or morely couldnt answer certain questions, kept talking in circle. Also Chomsky's inacurrate statement that Hitler was a Christian seemed to touch a nerve.

Perhaps you are not as familiar with Chomskys writing on Cambodia. here is where one of the problems with chomsky's work begins. The U.S. The U.s. The bad U.S. Je ;ooks at U.s. actions in Southeast asia makes some leaps and ignores Chinese and Russian involvment. Also he committs the sophmoric mistake of not giving ehough credit to indigineous actions and movements. Really some shoddy work filled with hyperbole and shall we say not quite accurate statements.

he certainly seems to be popular among commonwealth types. Because he lamblasts the U.S. My god!! its's as if I kicked a kitten. if your self esteem is somehow tied to this man and his opinions you have built your house on shifting sands.

He is not a major intellectual force outside of linguistics. he is not considered highly by academics in his analysis of history or events.

Now repeatedly I have given my reasons why I think Chomsky is not important as a writer about international relations. i ASK NOW TELL ME WHAT GROUNDBREAKING RESEARCH HE HAS DONE! What original thought or idea has he produced. What book or article of his has been peer reviewed.

[DIsbell]

Not a commonwealther.

In my last post, I included some direct quotes from Chomsky's writing that are contrary to your claims of Pol Pot support/KR violence denial.

Can you specifically cite anything he said regarding Cambodia that would indicate support for Pol Pot's violence or an absolute denial of it? You made the claim initially, so it's natural to expect you to back it up. Frankly all you've offered is personal insults towards Chomsky and those who find his work interesting/useful.

And as far as non-linguistic fields go, Chomsky seems to carry some weight in media related topics, as much of his work has dealt with the media's role in public consent. A little google reveals his work on syllabi at several US universities in fields such as media and Latin American studies.

[rollo]

Please. You are boring me. What personal insult have I directed toward Chomsky. I have only criticized his methodologies. I have nothing against the man. Do not know him. I do not think you understand the difference between criticizing his work and criticizing him.

I have written on this site. Repeatedly that I think his work is too U.S centric. That he plays to a certain crowd. That he often depends on conjecture instead of fact. His use of hyperbolic rhetoric, not professional

Did he loan you money, or something. Dear Lord its not like I attacked the writings of some saint. Or the virginity on Mother Mary

I mean every writer gets criticized. In academia it is brutal, no holds barred. I am only writing what most serious people who study International relations, history and historography would say. Please find a peer reviewed piece of work by Dr. Chomsky that is not linguistics related. Oh, lets make it easier. what other writer in the field cites Chomsky. Answer: None, nada, zero.

I operate behind the great fire wall so looking up things is not always easy but his comments on Pol Pot and the genocide are well known. He got lambasted pretty well for some of the stuff he wrote.

I also respect him on certain issues. His support for the Kurds, his trying to bring attention to their plight when no one else was talking about the attrocities being committed against them. He deserves to be commended for that.