Korean Job Discussion Forums

[DIsbell]

So, you don't have anything to back up your statement of "Chomsky supports Pol Pot."

OK.

In regards to Chomsky not being published or cited outside of linguistic journals, please spend just a minute or two on Google.

[Privateer]

@rollo

Any actual Chomsky quotes or articles to support your claims?

Nope.

[rollo]

In after the Catascylsm" Chomsky wote about the "alledged genocide". This was after Pouchards's book Year Zero which Chomsky criticize as being confused and filled with anti communist bias. e


years after reports on the massacres, even from those who escaped, Chomsky doubted the numbers and motives. he wrote that the reports of the murders were used to white wash imperialism in the region. Ther is also his " would the nine men autogenocide, which seems to be doubting the genocide. then there is the C.I.A. radio staion Chomsky talks about that was broadcasting confusing reports into Cambodia. This implies either the C.I.a. was responsible for the slaughter or that it led to exagerations of the number of dead.

he never writes about the destabilizing effect of billions of dollars of Russian and Chinese weapons entering the region had on political groups or traditional paths to leadership. Nor does he want to discuss the role of European intellectuals had in influencing Pol Pot and his followers.

He makes it nice and simple. Bad U.S. UGLY IMPERIALISM.

Dont get to caught up in the Chomsky worship!

There are other better, writers and analyst out there. JUST LOOK FOR THEM.
I am not even suggesting that he should not be read but he should be approached with the knowledge that he has an agenda, he plays to an audience and his biases are very apparen t.

I have no access to my library, and my google access is limited . Also I have had two glasses of wine and am wondering why I am responding to people who think Chomsky is important.

[DIsbell]

Chomsky used "alleged genocide" because there were conflicting reports (coming from reputable sources such as the Far East Economic Review) about the death toll. This is skepticism, not denial.

Yet again, I see no citations from you. Just some more rambling followed by insults. I'll humor you though, here's a direct quote from Cataclysm:

[T-J]

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

[rollo]

d
Yes you are a true believer. Not all reports of the murders were from refugees. Chomsky attacked very reliable sources, such as Pouchard Thanks for the quote it seems that Chomsky is saying that all reports were biased and inaccurate. I love the one that the civil war was provoked by the U.S. Ignoring other factors. Again thanks, seems to prove that he is too U.S centric and too simplistic

You are confusing attacks on his writings with personal attacks. I even admire him for certain stands he has taken. His stand supporting Faurison , took guts. His standing up for the Kurds when others were silent, I admire very much.

But I dont worship at his temple. I try to view his work objectively and much of it does not stand up when examined closely
Washington talked of a nascent empire, well Pitt talked about the potential of the American colonies and how they well might expand.

But you are an acolyte, so just keep the faith.

[DIsbell]

Again, you have nothing but insults for me, and nothing relevant to your position in the specific argument we are having (or are attempting to have). Chomsky noted conflicting sources and cast doubt on a few in particular, but again he, at the time, said it was not clear enough to make a judgment on the numbers.

My problem with you specifically is that you've offered nothing on Chomsky that doesn't circulate on chain e-mails or right wing websites. You've yet to offer any specific quotes with clear, sourced refutes.

T-J is starting in the right direction, though he's only posted a pdf that circulates right wing web circles. I browsed it an it seems to have a few legit points, though I noticed it often confuses "was incorrect" with "lied" by refuting a Chomsky quote with figures or revelations that came out years after the fact. Others are often quite up for debate. While we could all probably learn a lot of history by debating and discussing each "lie", I'm not going to mount a massive defense against an entire "Chomsky is an evil lying liberal fascist Hitlerite" pdf just for the hell of it. T-J, if you have anything in particular you'd like to discuss, by all means bring it up.

There's no hiding that I generally like and respect Chomsky, but if you're going to criticize him, do it right. Hell, I don't even agree with all of his stances. I think some of his WWII stuff is off.

[T-J]

I honestly have little use of or thought toward Chomsky. I saw him for what he is very early and dismissed him.

He's an academic. I do respect his academic achievements for what they are. However his views and opinions do not translate well out of that sphere into the realm of where we are and more importantly where we are going.

He appeals mostly to undeveloped minds that are experiencing critical thought for the first time because of his anti-cultural appeal.

I understand that for what it is. I try not to let that detract from his legitimate academic achievements.

If you want to read someone that is much more pragmatic about where we are and where we need to go as opposed to equating FDR with Hitler based on body counts then I would suggest Thomas P.M. Barnett.

[young_clinton]

[DIsbell]

And here we are, back at the "naive college kid" ad hominem attacks on anyone who might side with Chomsky (or Zinn, or Krugman, or Boas, or whatever other "Ivory Tower Liberal") on a particular issue.

Can anyone actually articulate a clear, well reasoned and well-cited critique of Chomsky without the ad hominems? At this point I'm genuinely curious.

[Kuros]

[Leon]

I would like to suggest that Robert Kaplan is the most important, and possibly one of the most influential writer about International Relations in recent times and recomend him. As to Chomsky, he is a commentator. He is biased, if you accept that then he can be interesting. He is certianly better than popular commentators on the right and left, but that isn't saying much. I'd say that he would make a good entry point. Read his books, and then look up for more information based on what you read. When I first read manufactoring consent in high school it oppened my eyes to things I hadn't heard of before. He's good to read in my opinion, but I would make sure to also have a wide range of materials and not form a worldview based only on his writting.

[rollo]

Good post Kuros. leon I also like Kaplan not just for his analysis but also for his travel writing. Barnett is first class. Went to a Barnett lecture about five months before Mubarak was overthrown and he called it!! lecture hall crowd had lots of middle eastern students and they kept applauding as he talked of the new connectedness and the failure of the Arab regimes.
kaplan wrote the best stuff on the Yugoslavian wars and his 'Coming Anarchy is brilliant.

Sorry you feel that i am attacking you Disbell. It is just I dislike Chomsky's biased, simplistic writings and its too U.S. centric focus. I just do not take him very seriously. Nor have I quoted any chain letter. Keep the faith though.

South east Asia was and is a very complicated region. Certainly U.S. actions were a contributing factor but overlooking other influences is just not telling the whole story. Nor is calling the accounts of the murders whitewash for imperialism , honest, and is insulting to those who wanted the story of the Cambodian tradgedy known to the world.



K

[shapeshifter]

[northway]

I just think he views the States in an exceptionalist light that doesn't really fit within the political science discipline. He spends entirely too much time trying to show how the US is somehow completely different than the rest of the world, which doesn't really contribute anything towards furthering political theory. He's interesting airplane reading, but I'd be a bit peeved if I got him in a class unless we were reading him for the sake of historiographical analysis.