When I started my delightful Noam Chomsky thread I had received about 12 negative reputation and 12 positive reps. The negative rep comments were interesting however I have a question. 1) Why is that some liberal get all up in arms when a Conservative speaks at Bob Jone University and then comes out and says he opposes the views of that University? They are often called Racist and other not so nice things. However Noam Chomsky writes a forward to a holocaust denial book and then claims he is opposed to the opinions of the author (and defends the authors opinions as 'findings') and it's A-Ok? What is the difference? Personally I find both to be wrong, both the conservatives who speak at Bob Jones University (which I call BJU) and Chomsky. In fact, Faurisson was found guilty of slander and every anti-racism group in Europe was opposed to the book - of which Chomsky contributed to and defended. note: for those that think Chomsky didn't know he was writing for an anti-semite should check http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html 2) Of the positive rep I received, many were from liberals. How do you Chomsky fans explain why even alot of liberals dislike Chomsky as well? I'm sure someone can help me out here since I forget his name, but one of Chomsky's protoge's had come out denouncing Chomsky a few years ago. Gill Seidel is a French author who praises Chomsky often but called Chomsky's contribution to Faurission's book "anti-semitic in nature" - Nevertheless he has a lot of left wing detractors, why? 3) Chomsky claims the U.S. intervention in Kosovo was wrong and has called it a failure. While things are obviously not perfect in Serbia/Montenegro the NATO bombings actually forced both sides to the bargaining table and only the extreme hardheaded would call it a failure. Why do people jump all over Chomsky's detractors yet offer no critique of Chomsky himself? 4) How do you justify Chomsky's Khmer Rouge fiasco? It's well documented that he denied it happened and then when the evidence that it did happen Chosmky " But none of this extensive evidence appears in the New York Times' analysis of “conditions in Indochina two years after the end of the war there.” Nor is there any discussion in the Times of the “case of the missing bloodbath”, although forecasts of a holocaust were urged by the U.S. leadership, official experts and the mass media over the entire course of the war in justifying our continued military presence. On the other hand, protests by some former anti-war individuals against alleged human rights violations in Vietnam are given generous coverage. This choice of subject may be the only basis on which U.S. ― as opposed to Soviet ― dissidents can get serious attention in the mass media today. " Chomsky to the new york times: "Dear Editor: Anthony Lewis writes (June 23) that I "refused to believe what was going on in Cambodia," and "put the reports of killing down to a conspiratorial effort by American politicians and press to destroy the Cambodian revolution." The second charge is an invention. The first is his rendition of my suggestion that in dealing with horrendous crimes, one should try to keep to the truth, whoever the agent: for Cambodia, that means during both halves of the "decade of genocide," as the years 1969-79 are described in the one governmental inquiry (Finland). At the time I reviewed these and many other cases, including the "grisly" record of Khmer Rouge "barbarity." More interesting than the invented charges is what Lewis omits: my comparison of two huge crimes of 1975-1978, Cambodia and East Timor. The cases are not identical. There was no constructive proposal as to how to end or even mitigate Pol Pot's crimes (as a check of Lewis's columns will illustrate). In contrast, there were easy ways to respond to the crimes in Timor, apparently the worst slaughter relative to population since the Holocaust: by withdrawing the decisive US military and diplomatic support for them. The reaction to the two cases is instructive, as is Lewis's conclusion that by describing Khmer Rouge crimes as comparable to those in Timor I was denying these crimes. Noam Chomsky" 5) How do you justify Chomsky accepting money from Institute for Historical Review? Yes I know, he doesn't agree with their statements either, but why does Chomsky feel so strongly about free speech when it comes to Holocaust deniars? (Plus this group helped raise money for Manufacturing Consent. )
I'll try a different tack, and this is from someone who didn't send you any rep of any kind. I was completely oblivious to any of the assertions above, including that of his authoring the forward to a holocaust denial. I'll do my own checking, but a cursory view has your stuff looking pretty air-tight. That said, it wasn't until I read some of his political writings on the effect of language on popular opinion that my eyes were opened to some pretty (for you smart folks) standard political truisms, one of which being that whoever gets to define political vocabulary gets to use it. Much of the stuff I've read of his (mostly against Clinton and the bombings of Iraq during his administration) is pretty out-there, and as such makes quite a bit of sense to me. Stuff like (and I'm paraphrasing from 10 years' memory) Clinton had to bomb that building in Iraq to prove his manhood. That it had nothing to do with foreign policy and everything to do with his perception at home. I'm greatful for what I've learned reading his works, but probably won't read another if I find my own evidence of what you've posted above. Make sense?
Ted Cikowski IMO your post indicates the basic problem with political discussion in the US - namely, there is none. What purports to be political discourse is, in fact, little more than a series of stacatto statements in which people adopt positions either contrary to or in agreement with somebody else. Listening to an Amercian political discussion is often like watching 2 small children playing scissors, rock, paper... 'Ha-ha, mys pro-life beats your pro-choice because you can't be anti-life'. I wouldn't mind so much but we're going the same way.
Anybody who takes Chomsky seriously as anything other than a linguist needs to be beaten over the head with a hammer.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Faurisson Affair I don't think Chomsky's ever denied the holocaust himself, and I've seen people of various political stripes defend holocaust deniers on the grounds that even reprehensible opinions have a right to being voiced. That said, I think that Chomsky got himself into worse trouble in the Faurisson affair for the exact reasons I don't think too highly of his social thought: democratic, non-totalitarian discourse must always be presented with the caveat, unspoken or announced, that "I might be wrong." Chomsky's political thought, like his linguistics, tends toward the authoritarian, imo, because it seems to be beyond him to utter that phrase. So in short, as I have to head out to lunch now, I don't defend Chomsky, and I don't think too highly of his work even when I find myself agreeing with his analysis. As for attacking it... why bother? There seems to be plenty of people doing that out there already.
I'd be interested in hearing people's view on a question that's always struck me... Is it possible to question the historical accuracy of something which people feel deeply about such as the holocaust without being called a holocaust denier? Note I say 'question' - not contradict.
Well, if you deny that something happened, then it's pretty hard to say you're not a "denyer". I'm a little confused here, unless your point is whether it's possible to try and make a point without immediately being tagged with some convenient and completely irrelevant label which serves not so much as a response but rather to impugn your motives and thereby make any kind of rational response unnecessary. As for example, when someone says "You know, affirmative action programs might actually be counterproductive" everyone screams that you're a "racist" Or when you say "Actually, I happen to think that marriage is an institution that should be reserved for male-female unions" you are of course a "homophobe" Or if you say "Title IX was a fatally flawed piece of social engineering which has had negative effects that the original framers did not aniticpate" why then clearly you are a "mysogenist" Or when you say "To me, abortion really runs counter to everything I believe about the sanctity of life, and I find late-term partial birth abortions particularly disgusting" and people immediately say you're a Fundamentalist Christian whacko? Is this sort of primitive, moronic namecalling what you had in mind?
Er, they're all rhetorical questions, aren't they Bill, i.e. Statements - not questions at all... so NO - that's not what I had in mind at all. Actually I have a certain amount of inside knowldege of the holocaust because an old friend of mine was among the first troops to come across one of the camps in the west so maybe that's not a particularly good example. I chose that because I was reading Deborah Lipstadt's piece about the Faurisson/Chomsky affair... http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_deniers_print.asp I have a problem with parts like... 'Those who are committed to the liberal idea of dialogue fail to recognize that certain views are beyond the bounds of rational discourse. After all, these views do not emanate from rational or honest inquiry. Thomas Jefferson argued that in a setting committed to the honest pursuit of truth, all ideas and opinions must be tolerated. But he added a caveat, which is particularly applicable: "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error 'so long as reason is left free to combat it'" (emphasis 'in additional quotes' added). In the case of Holocaust denial, reason becomes hostage to particularly odious ideology. ' I don't really see that Jefferson was making a caveat - he seems to be simply stating his point as far as I can see. I also don't agree that reason is hostage to anything. Apart from anything else are we to assume that we SHOULDN'T use reason - what else is there? Am I to assume that answers to deeply philosophical questions or ones of historical accuracy should be established by casting the runes or examining tea leaves? To be honest, though, Lipstadt penchant for calling people names rather than contradicting the accuracy of their statements is what I'm really talking about.... 'Denier, Relativists and Pseudo-scholars'. I'm not saying these phrases are innacurate - I'm saying they aren't an alternative to reasoned debate. 'The impact of revisionist claims on young people is of valid concern since they often are the most willing to listen. As Walter Reich observed in the Washington Post, they listen because they believe "everything is debatable and nothing [including the Holocaust] should be accepted as true that was not personally seen and experienced."18 ' Well, don't we WANT young people to ask questions at college? Isn't that what they're there for? Apart from anything else is it going to be sufficient to tell young, enquring minds that they should believe what we tell them 'because I said so'. That worked with my daughter when she was 5 - but not afterwards. Isn't it better to tell people the truth about the other sides views and ask them to make their own mind up. Isn't it more likely that they think we've got 'something to hide'. In any event, I'm sorry, but the abandonment of reason is too high a price to pay for anything but particularly the holocaust because it resulted from the utter abandonment of reason itself. Another example... A few years there was a programme on British TV called 'Love They Neighbour'... http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/tv/comedy/lovethyneighbour.htm 'While the show boasted 17 million viewers at its peak, it is inconceivable that a show like Love Thy Neighbour could be made today. The racist jibes ("Sambo", "King Kong", "Nig Nog", "Chocolate Drop" etc) are rarely heard (and never condoned) in the world today' In the 60's and 70's it was not uncommon to hear words like that used on TV BUT, and this is the important point, a greater proportion of peoples money was paid in tax. It was generally accepted that people WERE their 'brothers keeper'. I think I'm correct in saying that a greater level of GDP was spent in foreign aid and it was also accepted that there should be controls on British companies activities abroad. The phrase "the ... unacceptable face of capitalism" was captured by a CONSERVATIVE prime minister, Edward Heath, about the activities of 'Tiny' Rowland, the boss of Lonrho because of his activities in Africa. Now, we are not allowed to call people ************** but we are allowed to let our companies carry out actions which let them starve to death or die of aids in great numbers. It's as if our political debate is all about style with no mention of substance... then we are shocked when our politicians reflect that. Something about this is, how shall I put it?... fvcked up.
I was going to make a run at Andy's question yesterday, but work kept getting in the way. John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is one of the most influential books on politics that I've read, and I generally buy what he says, esp. lines like no view should be repressed, no matter how reprehensible, because it may contain a grain of truth. Now, I've modified that position when it comes to hard-core holocaust denial, simply because I've yet to come across someone who denies the holocaust who does so on the basis of research, and not prejudice (and what research was undertaken, was guided by that prejudice). Of course, you didn't talk about holocaust denial per se, you said, "Is it possible to question the historical accuracy of something which people feel deeply about such as the holocaust without being called a holocaust denier?" And that's a little different, though not much. So, I would say, yes, it is possible to question historical accuracy, BUT someone who does so must be aware enough of the debates surrounding the issue. In short, if a scholar QUESTIONS certain historical events or accounts or statistics, especially pertaining to the holocaust, that scholar is going to be subject to all sorts of challenges not just to his or her research, but to his or her personal integrity. Now, if the researcher is ready for that, and if the researcher believes her or his integrity is up to the task, then go ahead, but be ready to ride out the storm. If one is committed to the truth, that's not too much to ask. I actually modified my Mill-influenced position when I was in graduate school at Louisiana State University, and the campus Republicans invited former KKK leader (and future gubernatorial candidate) David Duke to campus. There were many who wanted him dis-invited, but one of my professors, a Jewish poet with strong Zionist leanings, campaigned openly to let him speak. His reasoning wasn't quite like Mill's. It was basically, "let them speak. They have a right to be heard. And you have a right to object to their views. But so long as they are airing those views in public, you know where they are, and you know who their followers are. Force them underground, and you don't have that advantage." Gotta get to work.
Dr.W. Just to be clear I am not denying the holocaust took place and am not suggesting that the word n!gger should be reintroduced into common usage. Like I said, the holocaust is probably a bad example of what I'm talking about but in another sense it's probably a good one because it's the one where it becomes most difficult to hold a debate. I also cite it because of the statements by Lipstadt, et al, about Chomsky who I agree with in some areas but not others. His views may be wrong but they are worth hearing. So... just going back a stage to one of Bill Archer's points... abortion is one that I have always had difficulty with. Frankly I object, intellectually, to the idea that a woman has the 'right to choose' what do her body in the way that it's presented. If she becomes pregnant without being raped and simply through being careless then the issue isn't one of whether she has the right to choose - it's one of whether she has the right to change her mind... and also it's about whether she has the right to have power over someone else's body. Well, that's not quite the same thing, is it. However, I think the argument for the 'sanctity of life' as it's used here isn't accurate, (more accurately, helpful), either. Obviously we all want a situation where life is protected in general terms but we can probably all think of ways where those high ideals aren't lived up to. I won't use the example that some would in my position of people agreeing with the death penalty but arguing for the sanctity of life because my position has to be valid in it's own terms... but I have already indicated that our ideals about protecting life aren't considered that important when it comes to paying taxes for the poor abroad for aids drugs, for example... even drugs for diseases like Maleria which the WHO estimate causes over 1 million deaths every year. Under these circumstances the argument about the sanctity of life in the unborn (where, in any case, it has historically been extremely difficult to stop the deaths occuring anyway if the woman has been determined enough), seem rather shallow. The abortion debate seems to me typical of the sort of thing I am talking about where politics is about 'issues' rather than any rational thinking about the human condition overall... and it's the overall condition of the wolrd that matters to the vast number of people. I don't think that the political climate in Britain will ever go quite the same way as it is in America because it's more difficult for pressure groups to have an effect - we don't have political funding like you do. I think I'm right in saying that a British member of parliament isn't allowed to spend more than about £7-8,000 on his election expenses, although the party apparatus costs more but, because none of this can be spent on TV advertising, the effect is reduced considerably. But this hasn't stopped the debate becoming largely stale and redundant with politicians touting themselves largely as simply better managers rather than anyone with a political conviction. Hmm, bearing in mind you've just elected someone claiming to hold political convictions maybe I should be careful what I wish for. Actually, that's not really true of Blair anyway.