4 ms·

What?! This is the early international reaction of Pol Pot criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#International_reaction https://en.wikip

by berntb 10y ago

What?! This is the early international reaction of Pol Pot criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#International_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#Internation... Chomsky, according to the w-pedia link I gave in the GP, criticize that and call it probable anti communist propaganda. And then they write supportive/neutrally of communist Pol Pot defenders.

Synaesthesia 10y ago
He wrote that with the information he could get at the time. Later when the evidence of the genocide was better known, he criticised the US government for its recognition and support of the DK government. https://chomsky.info/199903__/ https://chomsky.info/199903__/ The US recognized the expelled DK as the official government of Cambodia, because of its “continuity” with the Pol Pot regime, the State Department explained.
- berntb 10y ago
  According to w-pedia, Chomsky wrongly dismissed the eye witnesses as an anti communist propaganda conspiracy... And evaluated as more trustworthy the supporters of dogma/regimes that already before the "Killing Fields" had a history of mass murderers. If you dismiss whatever you want as a conspiracy, you can motivate any conclusion. (Here: "Country X used propaganda in a war, I'll assume they do exactly the same amount of propaganda when not in a war.")
bildung 10y ago
Mind the context: The Vietnam invastion of the U.S. happend just then, with massive atrocities committed by the U.S. (2 million civilians were killed in North Vietnam alone, Agent Orange killed an additional 400000 after the war ended). At that time, that was hardly mentionened in the press, or, if mentioned, framed as a necessary price to pay to archieve freedom. In 1969, Nixon also dropped over 100.000 tons of bombs over Laos and Cambodia (Operations MENU and Freedom Deal), killing many thousands of civilians. Even now, 40 years later, the English Wikipedia entry for the Vietnam War and the casualities portrays a completely different image than e.g. the German entry (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzte https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzt...). The english entry downplays the U.S. atrocities and e.g. doesn't mention the Agent Orange aftermath. The majority of pictures in the U.S. entry show Viet Cong victims, despite the fact that the U.S. killed way more civilians. Of course Chomsky and Herman, being aware of that, were sceptical about the Pol Pot press coverage in 1977. And, according to your link, they reverted their scepticism when the facts became clearer, calling it the "great act of genocide in the modern period".
- notahacker 10y ago
  Context is very important in understanding commentary written in the 1970s. In today's world, people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future. I have a certain degree of sympathy for someone like Hildebrand - the coauthor of a book heavily dependent on Khmer Rouge sources which one of Chomsky's more controversial articles on Cambodia praised - who subsequently admitted that he'd been guilty of "intellectual arrogance" in being too quick to assume based on his Vietnam experiences that popular media accounts were fabrications and Southeast Asian leftist groups were relatively honest about the situation. I have somewhat less for Chomsky, who switched from insisting that Cambodian refugee reports were unreliable, casualties owed more to US bombing than the Khmer Rouge and that nitpicking over mainstream estimates of death tolls was entirely appropriate if they were out by a "factor of 1000" to accusing the CIA of Cambodian genocide denial (by deliberately misrepresenting a report which actually attributes 1.2-1.8m deaths to "the savagery of that regime") almost as soon as Cambodia was successfully invaded by North Vietnam, and who continues insist to his commentary in the 1970s was entirely balanced and justifiable.
  - berntb 10y ago
    >> people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future. Interesting, what do you think will be heavily reevaluated? Frankly, I have no clue. The whole place seem too complex to have a serious opinion. Do you expect that ~ friends of different democratic groups will do genocides? [Edit: It ought to be quite a time before a US president flirts with the Brotherhood in Egypt again, right?] Do you think the acceptance of extremists will be embarrassing? When the whole "don't be a friend of a non believer" etc gets through to the left? Or the opposite, that the Middle East will be less intolerant and easier to live with and gets modernized?

by berntb 10y ago

Synaesthesia 10y ago

He wrote that with the information he could get at the time. Later when the evidence of the genocide was better known, he criticised the US government for its recognition and support of the DK government. https://chomsky.info/199903__/ https://chomsky.info/199903__/ The US recognized the expelled DK as the official government of Cambodia, because of its “continuity” with the Pol Pot regime, the State Department explained.

berntb 10y ago
According to w-pedia, Chomsky wrongly dismissed the eye witnesses as an anti communist propaganda conspiracy... And evaluated as more trustworthy the supporters of dogma/regimes that already before the "Killing Fields" had a history of mass murderers. If you dismiss whatever you want as a conspiracy, you can motivate any conclusion. (Here: "Country X used propaganda in a war, I'll assume they do exactly the same amount of propaganda when not in a war.")

bildung 10y ago

Mind the context: The Vietnam invastion of the U.S. happend just then, with massive atrocities committed by the U.S. (2 million civilians were killed in North Vietnam alone, Agent Orange killed an additional 400000 after the war ended). At that time, that was hardly mentionened in the press, or, if mentioned, framed as a necessary price to pay to archieve freedom. In 1969, Nixon also dropped over 100.000 tons of bombs over Laos and Cambodia (Operations MENU and Freedom Deal), killing many thousands of civilians. Even now, 40 years later, the English Wikipedia entry for the Vietnam War and the casualities portrays a completely different image than e.g. the German entry (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzte https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzt...). The english entry downplays the U.S. atrocities and e.g. doesn't mention the Agent Orange aftermath. The majority of pictures in the U.S. entry show Viet Cong victims, despite the fact that the U.S. killed way more civilians. Of course Chomsky and Herman, being aware of that, were sceptical about the Pol Pot press coverage in 1977. And, according to your link, they reverted their scepticism when the facts became clearer, calling it the "great act of genocide in the modern period".

notahacker 10y ago
Context is very important in understanding commentary written in the 1970s. In today's world, people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future. I have a certain degree of sympathy for someone like Hildebrand - the coauthor of a book heavily dependent on Khmer Rouge sources which one of Chomsky's more controversial articles on Cambodia praised - who subsequently admitted that he'd been guilty of "intellectual arrogance" in being too quick to assume based on his Vietnam experiences that popular media accounts were fabrications and Southeast Asian leftist groups were relatively honest about the situation. I have somewhat less for Chomsky, who switched from insisting that Cambodian refugee reports were unreliable, casualties owed more to US bombing than the Khmer Rouge and that nitpicking over mainstream estimates of death tolls was entirely appropriate if they were out by a "factor of 1000" to accusing the CIA of Cambodian genocide denial (by deliberately misrepresenting a report which actually attributes 1.2-1.8m deaths to "the savagery of that regime") almost as soon as Cambodia was successfully invaded by North Vietnam, and who continues insist to his commentary in the 1970s was entirely balanced and justifiable.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future. Interesting, what do you think will be heavily reevaluated? Frankly, I have no clue. The whole place seem too complex to have a serious opinion. Do you expect that ~ friends of different democratic groups will do genocides? [Edit: It ought to be quite a time before a US president flirts with the Brotherhood in Egypt again, right?] Do you think the acceptance of extremists will be embarrassing? When the whole "don't be a friend of a non believer" etc gets through to the left? Or the opposite, that the Middle East will be less intolerant and easier to live with and gets modernized?