Noam Chomsky (and Moore) discussion thread
 

I'm starting a new thread because the discussion I caused derailed Viper's original thread. I'm sorry, Vipe.

To answer Croteam's past reply ...

That may be, but I feel Chomsky himself is merely taking facts and filtering them through a lens of his own. Much like Moore's ... well, kaleidescope.

As I pointed out, he didn't know of it, because China kept it hidden away. Yet, in light of it, it doesn't make it seem all that good. Nor does the fact that Time named two genocidal dictators as men of the year.

I don't really think getting people to become more inquisitive is his real aim here -- and if it is his aim, I don't feel he's doing that good a job. Instead, a lot of people who hate Americans seem to name him as a hero. I've repeatedly witnessed or experienced people saying that Chomsky and/or Moore were the only intelligent people in the United States, and that they were spreading the truth about an evil nation and its people. It's a bit disheartening.

Much of what I see in Chomsky's work is based off semantics - you can glean quite a bit from the feelings and intention depending on what word is used to describe an ideal. Just as you, Croteam, emphasize that you didn't mean to call me a zombie, but that I was looking through only one view. You can imply hatred or apologism through semantics, and the more research I do on this, the more I feel that Chomsky's not trying to make people more aware as much as he is insurrectionist.

*waits for someone to bring up that Thomas Jefferson himself said "A little revolution every twenty years is a good thing"*

Can't you be insurrectionist and actually be trying to make people aware? I think most insurrectionists actually think they have a reason to call for insurrection.

Of course he is, everybody does that. But the problem is you're asking someone else what Chomsky's lens is like. And everybody you'll ask will have their own lens, which can't help further distort your view of what Chomsky's view is like.

Me too.

To answer Trev-MUN's last reply;

ArchBio said it best.

I'll repost a portion of what was in the last thread, because I edited it in moments before this new thread was created:

Chomsky said, in reference to the WTC bombings of 1993 and 2001:

"As for the World Trade Center, we scarcely know what the terrorists had in mind when they bombed it in 1993 and destroyed it last week, but we can be quite confident that it had little to do with such matters as "globalization," or "economic imperialism," or "cultural values," matters that are utterly unfamiliar to bin Laden and his associates and of no concern to them, just as they are, evidently, not concerned by the fact that their atrocities over the years have caused great harm to poor and oppressed people in the Muslim world and elsewhere, again on September 11."

He does not reserve criticism solely for the United States. He obviously doesn't support bin Laden. He obviously doesn't support terrorism. He obviously isn't blaming the United States for all of the problems in the world. I don't see where he called the United States the Great Satan. I don't see where he asked us all to take up our guns and murder our leaders.

A lot of wars have been fought in the name of God. Extremists of any sort will find someone to look up to. I don't think anybody asked God if he wanted to be their posterboy. I don't think Noam Chomsky has offered to head up the America-Haters-Club-of-America.

These people act on their own accord. If they misinterpret writings, it's unfortunate. If they use someone to champion a cause that's far from the original, it's unfortunate. There's always people who take a good thing to the extreme, and make you feel ashamed that you once had something in common. Those people you talk about are extremely disheartening, indeed; it's like having the KKK on your side. It's something NOBODY wants.

Please show me a way to criticize the government without being called an insurrectionist. Is there a way to criticize the government without offending someone? Is there a way to raise concerns about the government that won't make someone think you're Anti-American?

But of course! Go back in time to 1998, become Republican, and worry about who sucked whose dick rather than silly things like unjustified wars and blatant lies about evidence.

I give you the Chomsky Interview (Note: its a parody)


I just cant take Chomsky seriously. What with his talk of "Binational Socialism", his defense of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, insisting that Khmer Rouge quick thinking in evacuating Phnom Penh served to rescue the population from starvation, and the people were forced to pull plows because the US killed all their animals, and his predicting the US was planning a "Silent Genocide" in Afghanistan. The man's claims are laughable.


More Here

Just checking in quickly today, but -

You can be critical of a nation and still be for it. Yes, some people (especially those who believe their nation is never ever wrong) will blast you as being prejudiced and hateful against their nation, but for the most part you can easily demonstrate you're not an enemy of the nation and its people, yet still be able to render criticism.

Here's a quote that says it far more eloquently than I can, and provides an author to investegate as proof.

"The problem is that if anti-Americanism involves a relationship between a target and its critics, merely dwelling on the former tells us nothing about why some of the latter are anti-American and others merely critics. It is perfectly possible to endorse the criticisms and yet be ‘pro-American’. As Michael Walzer has shown (2002), the most effective form of social criticism engages with its target’s own proclaimed values, drawing our attention to the gap between ideals and practice, and examining ways to close that gap. Something else is at work in the mind of the anti-American."

Now. Does Chomsky provide constructive ways to close whatever gaps there are in the U.S. and his own visions? The only thing I've seen is his urging readers to cause disruption and chaos within the United States.

Altough I agree in good part with the proposed method (the best example in the US being calling up the Constitution, but it's so easily shrugged off), it seems to me like the biggest difference would be one of tone. You still have to fudging cheer every step of the way!

And the Anti-American definition still seems fishy to me. Someone that disagrees with fundamental ideals of the US can't be a critic?

Still not defending Chomsky.

Trev: I hate the discussion forums. sEriously. I don't know what I'm doing here.

Anyways, I felt it important to say that while I don't agree with Chomsky completely, if at all, it is important you do ACTUALLY READ HIS STUFF BEFORE PRETENDING YOU HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Yes, he does provide constructive criticism, offering his own ideas on how to fix things. Whether or not these ideas are good is up to you to decided after you read it. He does not, on the other hand, tell people to 'stir up chaos'.

So then KefkaTaran, since I obviously have no worth talking about Chomsky, enlighten me on what he means by this phrase:

(Taken from "What Uncle Sam Really Wants," 1992)

"The people of the Third World need our sympathetic understanding and, much more than that, they need our help. We can provide them with a margin of survival by internal disruption in the United States. Whether they can succeed against the kind of brutality we impose on them depends in large part on what happens here."

There's something odd in the excerpt, and I mean about the very part which is underlined (probably by you for emphasis). You obviously believe he means insurrection or literal sabotage, but I'm sure that a successful insurrection would do more than It just doesn't fit, so either there's something I'm missing or Chomsky's just a screwy thinker.

But again, I think the only objection that was raised against your judgment of Chomsky were about statements like: "Chomsky never says anything constructive about the United States". I'm grossly paraphrasing, but that little excerpt doesn't prove that Chomsky has been purely negative or something equally sweeping. Just that he might be a insurrectionist.