"Charles P. Kalina" wrote:
> In article <8jotr6$m5...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Ignatz Mouse <edix5...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > While I haven't gone through everything posted on this topic about the
> > debates, what I have seen so far is not convincing. It seems to me
> > that
> > the detractors of Chomsky on Cambodia want him to admit that there
> > were
> > massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia that were nearly as bad as
> > the media reported. They want him to cry uncle (sam).
> To judge by the title, this thread concerns Chomsky's accuracy, yes?
> Therefore, the relevant question is whether his comments about post-war
> Cambodia were accurate or not.
Speaking of framing the debate notice the attempt to exclude the
importance of US involvement with the term post war, as if pre-1975
Cambodia did not exist. Chomsky's comments about Cambodia pertained to
a critique of media reports. He did not make any error with these
critiques, the media had lied and made repeated mistakes.
> If they were not correct, then he
> should acknowledge his earlier mistake and correct the error. If he
> doesn't, then it's fair to say that he is not accurate -- which is
> evidence that he is not a credible commentator.
He certainly has, in every way, acknowledged the brutality of the KR (I
am pretty sure I can find a dozen or so quote pointing this fact out).
It seems that the one statement anti-chomskyites see as easy pickins' is
his 1977 Nation bit. In this case he relied on evidence provided by
credible sources.
> There were indeed massive atrocities in Khmer Rouge Cambodia; media
> reports at the time may have contained minor errors but were
> substantively correct.
Had 2 million to 3 million people been killed by the KR in 1977? Were
atrocity photographs not faked? Did the US press not downplay the
effect of bombing campaigns? The press was relying on falsified
evidence to make their conclusions. Should Chomsky have accepted the
conclusions of a media that was using falsified, and erroneous evidence?
>If Chomsky perceives it as defeat ("crying
> uncle") to admit this fact, that's his problem.
How odd. Chomsky admits the KR were brutal, but denies that this
affects his thesis about the media's portrayal of the events in
Cambodia. His conclusions are clearly supported by fact: the media did
fake photos, exaggerate numbers without evidence, and downplay the
slaughter in East Timor. Yet, this newsgroup's ardent critics continue
in their constant silliness of getting him to revoke statements which
were correct, who's trying to get who to say "uncle" here?
> [...]
> > Seems like a bit of jealousy, that the left
> > (and the anarchists) have a popular spokesman who needs to be cut down
> > to size.
> Chomsky can hardly be described as a "popular spokesman". He is not
> exactly well-known outside certain intellectual and academic circles,
> and among those who do know his work, he finds more detractors than
> admirers.
This is true, his circle is limited to those who read the New York
Times, who refer to him as "possibly the most important intellectual of
our time." As for detractors, every great mind is sure to find more
than are countable (it is the sign that you are doing something right).
You will find that outside America, Chomsky is widely respected, as for
America itself, Mozart never caught on in Salzburg until after his
death.
> He provides intellectual ammunition and affirmation for a certain
> subset of the far left, and among such persons he is no doubt very
> popular, but I don't think he convinces many people who didn't already
> share his view of the world. Indeed, his work has become so repetitive
> and self-referential that I think affirmation can be its only use.
Unlike your statements here, which offer nothing more than your personal
opinion, Chomsky relies on something more substantive.
> To say that Chomsky is expected to "cry uncle" implies that his
> commentary is substantively accurate, but that he is nonetheless
> expected to surrender to some sort of ideological force-majeure.
> Certainly one can understand why he (and his partisans) would try to
> frame the debate in such favorable terms. Nevertheless, it begs the
> question: is his commentary generally accurate, or not?
> The fact remains that Chomsky has been a poor judge of foreign regimes,
You cite his critique of the media's handling of Cambodia (your attacks
are in dispute), perhaps you wish to offer another "foreign regime" in
which you find Chomsky's account deficient?
> Frankly I don't care whether he admits this ("cries uncle")
> or not -- old men are entitled to their snits and quibbles.
...as are young men to their youthful arrogance.
> What interests me is the devotion he inspires among his acolytes
> despite this evident lack of judgment and (ahem) accuracy.
How fitting to your above comments, that the term "accuracy" might cause
your speech to falter.
