4 ms·

So many people were wrong about Cambodia: https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/glimpses/ghosts-of-cambodias-past/ https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magaz

by msla 3y ago

So many people were wrong about Cambodia: https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/glimpses/ghosts-of-cambodias-past/ https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/glimpses/ghosts-o... > At the time, American scholars Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman argued that media claims of the Cambodian genocide were propaganda, designed to make the US look favorable in the ongoing Vietnam War. Swedish diplomat Gunnar Bergstrom dined with Pol Pot in Phnom Penh while the dictator’s cadres continued their genocide. Global powers like the United States and China promoted pro-Khmer-Rouge resolutions in the United Nations after their removal from Cambodia. Ironically, academics, politicians, and foreigners were key Khmer Rouge targets for extermination. PDF: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=historical-perspectives https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... > Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s 1977 article, “Distortions at Fourth Hand,” published in the left-leaning publication The Nation, exemplifies the perspective of the left in regards to Cambodia during the 1970s. Although Chomsky and Herman acknowledge that Cambodia was facing a time of extreme suffering, they criticize less ideologically driven publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time for reporting Khmer Rouge crimes for which “there is no independent confirmatory evidence.”12 Citing other liberal publications like The Economist, Chomsky and Herman declare that the evidence suggests, “Executions have numbered at most in the thousands.” They even go so far as to claim, “The ‘slaughter’ by the Khmer Rouge is a...New York Times creation.”

camillomiller 3y ago
So, let me understand: the mistake of a non-military intellectual who was not in a position of power at the time, and was proven wrong about his ideologically loaded perspective, is presented as an equivalent to the position of a high ranking official that physically commanded actions that killed thousands of innocent civilians?
- golemiprague 3y ago
  [dead]
- msla 3y ago
  No, of course not. I'm just providing context.
- mimd 3y ago
  You don't think Chomsky has power? Using your influence to cause others to disregard or advocate for actions can lead to as much death as direct influence. He was activity dismissing reports as "misinformation" for ideological reasons at the time and people took his advice. If it caused people to not act, then yes, he's partially responsible. No, I don't think he's equivalent, but let's not give him a pass here. His ideology lead to excusing and lauding a group of people who wanted to slaughter anyone with education and reduce anyone else to starving farmers. And he didn't do himself any favors afterwards either, sulking and attacking people who pointed out that moral failing, even circa 2000's. We tend to trash people for that sorta thing, like we do for Kissinger, but since it's Marxism/Communism it's given a pass by media/left groups. Their are still a lot of puff articles for Chomsky/and his similars every year. The imbalance in how we talk about that era in certain circles is a bit nauseating. Anyway, the Intercept is trying to obscure their favored ideologies excesses, and reassign blame to their ideological opponents. That's why the intercept is specifically titling it "killing fields" to usurp the other known quantity of the Khmer Rouge's massacres, and focusing exclusively on Kissinger. I've heard way too many people blame solely Kissinger as responsible, as if pol pot did not exist, to give the intercept the benefit of the doubt.
  - camillomiller 3y ago
    Your position is giving very much a free pass to the atrocities the U.S. government was responsible for at the time. Chomsky was one of the few voices that saw it, and denounced it accordingly. His position on Pol Pot has never been fully absolutory, instead he just focused more on the injustices coming from his own camp, where he certainly had more weight to excert. Also, Marxism is a perfectly fine philosophy, and extremely interesting lens through which we can read and understand capitalism and our present. Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing to reinforce a negative bias against them unfortunately shows a profound misunderstanding of both
    - mimd 3y ago
      I thought about some interesting quips but you kinda just fell on you own sword. I gave Chomsky benefit of the doubt several years ago about influence and his position on pol pot, but after more dives on the subject, no, he's unrepentant and petulant. Also you're hero worshipping him by assuming he's one of the "few". He's one of the few you know. And Marxism is heavily intertwined with Communism historically. The distinction is academic only and revolutionaries of the 20th century interchanged them so heavily so as to make it nearly indistinguishable. To ignore it's "implementations" is the "no true Scotsman" at it's finest.

by msla 3y ago

camillomiller 3y ago

So, let me understand: the mistake of a non-military intellectual who was not in a position of power at the time, and was proven wrong about his ideologically loaded perspective, is presented as an equivalent to the position of a high ranking official that physically commanded actions that killed thousands of innocent civilians?

golemiprague 3y ago
[dead]
msla 3y ago
No, of course not. I'm just providing context.
mimd 3y ago
You don't think Chomsky has power? Using your influence to cause others to disregard or advocate for actions can lead to as much death as direct influence. He was activity dismissing reports as "misinformation" for ideological reasons at the time and people took his advice. If it caused people to not act, then yes, he's partially responsible. No, I don't think he's equivalent, but let's not give him a pass here. His ideology lead to excusing and lauding a group of people who wanted to slaughter anyone with education and reduce anyone else to starving farmers. And he didn't do himself any favors afterwards either, sulking and attacking people who pointed out that moral failing, even circa 2000's. We tend to trash people for that sorta thing, like we do for Kissinger, but since it's Marxism/Communism it's given a pass by media/left groups. Their are still a lot of puff articles for Chomsky/and his similars every year. The imbalance in how we talk about that era in certain circles is a bit nauseating. Anyway, the Intercept is trying to obscure their favored ideologies excesses, and reassign blame to their ideological opponents. That's why the intercept is specifically titling it "killing fields" to usurp the other known quantity of the Khmer Rouge's massacres, and focusing exclusively on Kissinger. I've heard way too many people blame solely Kissinger as responsible, as if pol pot did not exist, to give the intercept the benefit of the doubt.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  Your position is giving very much a free pass to the atrocities the U.S. government was responsible for at the time. Chomsky was one of the few voices that saw it, and denounced it accordingly. His position on Pol Pot has never been fully absolutory, instead he just focused more on the injustices coming from his own camp, where he certainly had more weight to excert. Also, Marxism is a perfectly fine philosophy, and extremely interesting lens through which we can read and understand capitalism and our present. Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing to reinforce a negative bias against them unfortunately shows a profound misunderstanding of both
  - mimd 3y ago
    I thought about some interesting quips but you kinda just fell on you own sword. I gave Chomsky benefit of the doubt several years ago about influence and his position on pol pot, but after more dives on the subject, no, he's unrepentant and petulant. Also you're hero worshipping him by assuming he's one of the "few". He's one of the few you know. And Marxism is heavily intertwined with Communism historically. The distinction is academic only and revolutionaries of the 20th century interchanged them so heavily so as to make it nearly indistinguishable. To ignore it's "implementations" is the "no true Scotsman" at it's finest.