9 ms·

This was aided by Noam Chomsky, who used his considerable influence to cast doubt on the idea that the genocide had happened at all.

Cyph0n 6y ago
We’re going to need a reference for this one.
- notahacker 6y ago
  https://chomsky.info/19770625/ https://chomsky.info/19770625/ Perhaps the worst bit is where he dismisses the testimony of thousands of Cambodian refugees as 'refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries', arguing one should put more weight to the testimony of an anonymous European in Phnom Penh who apparently did enough cycling around to know that the only people being executed were 'prominent politicans' and 'hated bomber pilots'. Meta: Chomsky certainly wasn't the loudest or most committed defender of the Khmer Rouge on the Western left and obviously the left didn't make US policy and probably wouldn't have influenced it much if they'd been united on the evils of the Khmer Rouge from the very beginning. But this article and his continued insistence it was reasonable at the time [whilst others have admitted to being blinded by their biases] doesn't reflect well on him.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    Yeah doesn't reflect well on him. His ire is always pointed in one direction. That's what you get with Chomsky. Flipside the Khmer Rouge avoided deserved annihilation because of direct support from China and the United States. Chomsky has no responsibility for that. As you said his influence on policy is nil.
dr_dshiv 6y ago
References and nuance here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
- airstrike 6y ago
  > "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered." That's a far cry from what the parent stated.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    Not really. He made these comments when the genocide had become common knowledge, and the facts had been accepted by anyone conversant with the situation in the region. His continuing denial was based on the flimsiest scraps of evidence, and people were generally dumbfounded by his obtuseness in this matter. When you deny a genocide, it’s not merely a difference of opinion, it has a moral dimension, as when people deny the holocaust.
    - stelonix 6y ago
      I see no denial in his quote. Instead, I see warnings not to take US-centric accounts of the events without a ton of salt, because the US had interests in portraying them in a specific way in order to further an agenda.
      - goatlover 6y ago
        Was the US the only one reporting on the situation in Cambodia at the time? Surely Chomsky had the means to compare the US-centric version against other accounts and verify the atrocities going on.
      - Nasrudith 6y ago
        He was engaging in literal whataboutism for genocide and trying to cast doubt on its abundantly clear evidence. If he brought up a "that is what they accused Germany of in the first world war" or said "Well of course the Jews would claim that after the expropriation, they have interests against Germany!" nobody would try to argue in good faith that he wasn't denying the Holocaust while justifying it.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
Ignoring how you are misconstruing his views on the genocide, when has Chomsky had considerable influence on US foreign policy?
sadfev 6y ago
Yup, Chomsky conveniently denies this Genocide.
alentist 6y ago
This is not an isolated incident, unfortunately. He also praised Mao’s policies shortly after they caused the worst famine in human history. https://newcriterion.com/issues/2003/5/the-hypocrisy-of-noam-chomsky https://newcriterion.com/issues/2003/5/the-hypocrisy-of-noam...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Chomsky hosts a transcript on the forum those quotes were taken from, and that article ignored any context for the remarks and edited their content to make them seem more objectionable than they are. Saying China does not deserve blanket condemnation as part if a broader discussion is hardly praising Mao's policies. The butchering of the second quote is is even worse, omitting the line "But, as I said before, I don’t think it was the use of terror that led to the successes that were achieved." The article later moves on to defend the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory bombing, which is fittingly right after discussing Cambodia. https://chomsky.info/19671215/ https://chomsky.info/19671215/
  - woodandsteel 6y ago
    What is your own overall view of the Khmer Rouge, and ditto Mao? And have your views changed over time? Let me say where I am coming from here. The Khemer Rouge and Mao had in common certain ideas. They were for socialism, and they were for achieving it through violent revolution. They believed in the Leninist ideas of vanguardism and party centralization. And they believed that it was possible to take a preindustrial country directly to industrialization and then anarchistic socialism without first having to go through a liberal, capitalist phase. I think these ideas are mistaken, and whenever they have been tried the result has been a horror. And it is for that reason the Pol Pot and Maoist regimes were so brutal. So my question to you is, what do you think of these ideas?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Broadly, that they are both military dictators whose actions were more influenced by fighting off external and internal enemies than any ideals.
teruakohatu 6y ago
For me this comment has no up vote or down vote button, and I have not already up/down voted it (there is no unvote/undown button) . Is this the result of moderator action?
vangelis 6y ago
What policies did he make again?
aaron695 6y ago
During the shutdown of Cambodia when direct information was not known Chomsky correctly pointed out refugees lie. Which is the problem of just learning factoids and just stating them. In this case he was horrifically incorrect with his conclusion. Perhaps due to his left wing bias, that's the part that's hard to know, but I guess what we really are asking.

Cyph0n 6y ago

We’re going to need a reference for this one.

notahacker 6y ago
https://chomsky.info/19770625/ https://chomsky.info/19770625/ Perhaps the worst bit is where he dismisses the testimony of thousands of Cambodian refugees as 'refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries', arguing one should put more weight to the testimony of an anonymous European in Phnom Penh who apparently did enough cycling around to know that the only people being executed were 'prominent politicans' and 'hated bomber pilots'. Meta: Chomsky certainly wasn't the loudest or most committed defender of the Khmer Rouge on the Western left and obviously the left didn't make US policy and probably wouldn't have influenced it much if they'd been united on the evils of the Khmer Rouge from the very beginning. But this article and his continued insistence it was reasonable at the time [whilst others have admitted to being blinded by their biases] doesn't reflect well on him.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Yeah doesn't reflect well on him. His ire is always pointed in one direction. That's what you get with Chomsky. Flipside the Khmer Rouge avoided deserved annihilation because of direct support from China and the United States. Chomsky has no responsibility for that. As you said his influence on policy is nil.

dr_dshiv 6y ago

References and nuance here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

airstrike 6y ago
> "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered." That's a far cry from what the parent stated.
- leephillips 6y ago
  Not really. He made these comments when the genocide had become common knowledge, and the facts had been accepted by anyone conversant with the situation in the region. His continuing denial was based on the flimsiest scraps of evidence, and people were generally dumbfounded by his obtuseness in this matter. When you deny a genocide, it’s not merely a difference of opinion, it has a moral dimension, as when people deny the holocaust.
  - stelonix 6y ago
    I see no denial in his quote. Instead, I see warnings not to take US-centric accounts of the events without a ton of salt, because the US had interests in portraying them in a specific way in order to further an agenda.
    - goatlover 6y ago
      Was the US the only one reporting on the situation in Cambodia at the time? Surely Chomsky had the means to compare the US-centric version against other accounts and verify the atrocities going on.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      He was engaging in literal whataboutism for genocide and trying to cast doubt on its abundantly clear evidence. If he brought up a "that is what they accused Germany of in the first world war" or said "Well of course the Jews would claim that after the expropriation, they have interests against Germany!" nobody would try to argue in good faith that he wasn't denying the Holocaust while justifying it.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Ignoring how you are misconstruing his views on the genocide, when has Chomsky had considerable influence on US foreign policy?

sadfev 6y ago

Yup, Chomsky conveniently denies this Genocide.

alentist 6y ago

This is not an isolated incident, unfortunately. He also praised Mao’s policies shortly after they caused the worst famine in human history. https://newcriterion.com/issues/2003/5/the-hypocrisy-of-noam-chomsky https://newcriterion.com/issues/2003/5/the-hypocrisy-of-noam...

boomboomsubban 6y ago
Chomsky hosts a transcript on the forum those quotes were taken from, and that article ignored any context for the remarks and edited their content to make them seem more objectionable than they are. Saying China does not deserve blanket condemnation as part if a broader discussion is hardly praising Mao's policies. The butchering of the second quote is is even worse, omitting the line "But, as I said before, I don’t think it was the use of terror that led to the successes that were achieved." The article later moves on to defend the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory bombing, which is fittingly right after discussing Cambodia. https://chomsky.info/19671215/ https://chomsky.info/19671215/
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  What is your own overall view of the Khmer Rouge, and ditto Mao? And have your views changed over time? Let me say where I am coming from here. The Khemer Rouge and Mao had in common certain ideas. They were for socialism, and they were for achieving it through violent revolution. They believed in the Leninist ideas of vanguardism and party centralization. And they believed that it was possible to take a preindustrial country directly to industrialization and then anarchistic socialism without first having to go through a liberal, capitalist phase. I think these ideas are mistaken, and whenever they have been tried the result has been a horror. And it is for that reason the Pol Pot and Maoist regimes were so brutal. So my question to you is, what do you think of these ideas?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Broadly, that they are both military dictators whose actions were more influenced by fighting off external and internal enemies than any ideals.

teruakohatu 6y ago

For me this comment has no up vote or down vote button, and I have not already up/down voted it (there is no unvote/undown button) . Is this the result of moderator action?

vangelis 6y ago

What policies did he make again?

aaron695 6y ago

During the shutdown of Cambodia when direct information was not known Chomsky correctly pointed out refugees lie. Which is the problem of just learning factoids and just stating them. In this case he was horrifically incorrect with his conclusion. Perhaps due to his left wing bias, that's the part that's hard to know, but I guess what we really are asking.