6 ms·

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.
      - airstrike 6y ago
        Except Americans aren't the victims here, so the analogy with the Jews and the Nazi isn't quite appropriate.
- refurb 6y ago
  Look at the totality of his comments: They wrote that the refugee stories of Khmer Rouge atrocities should be treated with great "care and caution" because "refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear." It's quite ironic that it was Chomsky himself who was dismissing evidence that didn't fit with his own world view.
  - cbnotfromthere 6y ago
    "It's quite ironic that it was Chomsky himself who was dismissing evidence that didn't fit with his own world view. " Why would it be ironic? That's basically the entirety of Chiosky's political writings.
easyat 6y ago
More discussion on the Chomsky section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cambodian_genocide_denial#Neutrality_discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk: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.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      Except Americans aren't the victims here, so the analogy with the Jews and the Nazi isn't quite appropriate.
refurb 6y ago
Look at the totality of his comments: They wrote that the refugee stories of Khmer Rouge atrocities should be treated with great "care and caution" because "refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear." It's quite ironic that it was Chomsky himself who was dismissing evidence that didn't fit with his own world view.
- cbnotfromthere 6y ago
  "It's quite ironic that it was Chomsky himself who was dismissing evidence that didn't fit with his own world view. " Why would it be ironic? That's basically the entirety of Chiosky's political writings.

easyat 6y ago

More discussion on the Chomsky section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cambodian_genocide_denial#Neutrality_discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cambodian_genocide_denial...