3 ms·

which he never claimed didn't happen. You are another of those quickly educated on PragerU and similar Youtube channels but who never go to original sources?

which he *never* claimed didn't happen. You are another of those quickly educated on PragerU and similar Youtube channels but who never go to original sources?

ch4s3 3y ago
No he definitely made the claim. He was quoted saying “tales of holocaust in Cambodia were so much propaganda.” He went on to say that refugees were making up the stories to please the west. It’s in the 1977 article on his own website. Chomsky apologists never seem to be able to admit that he carried water for the worst regimes of the 20th century. To be clear there are nearly 24,000 confirmed mass graves accounting for nearly 1.3 million dead. Fully 60% of the examined remains showed clear signs of execution with the most common method being a pickaxe. Chomsky said the refugees made it up. He’s never taken that claim back.
- imjonse 3y ago
  Due to little info coming out of Cambodia at the time, from what I read, Chomsky said he underestimated the immensity of the genocide, not that he denied it. Later he acknowledged it, you make it sound he's some sort of Holocaust denier. Funnily Chomsky gets a lot more flack for incorrectly assessing the gravity of the Khmer Rouge killings in the late 70s while the US foreign policy which was intstumental in keeping Pol Pot in power at certain points where it was convenient geostrategically are considered par for the course.
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    This is bullshit. He unequivocally said that the refugees were lying for the benefit of the US. Chomsky is always quick to shout that anything short of the literal Holocaust isn’t genocide and doubly so if a leftist regime is doing it. He was then and always has since minimized crimes against humanity in one direction.
    - imjonse 3y ago
      "Always minimized crimes against humanity in one direction". You haven't read much Chomsky have you? The one key point that comes across from his thinking is how much we (westerners) minimize our crimes even when they are comparable or larger then the enemy. His whole manufacturing consent book is about such examples. And that if you criticize someone it better be your own side, where you at least have a slight chance of changing something even if democracy is a thin veneer over something shady, rather than bravely criticising totalitary regimes where your chance of having an impact is really negligible. Just like if you have kids you'd better make sure you correct their faults instead of gossiping about the neighbours' kid's mischiefs. Chomsky and his cohort was criticizing the Vietnam war at a time it was very unpopular to do so at home, today you get western people criticizing Putin and Xi as if this was some act of bravery and not the pointless navel grazing that it is in fact. Until the West has a shitty foreign policy, and increasingly shitty domestic one as well (see surveillance, making terrorists of activists or journalists) totalitarian regimes can use this a valid excuse to shake off any criticism on their part.
      - ch4s3 3y ago
        I've read quite a bit of Chmosky's commentary, that how I knew to reference the old article from his own site. It's perfectly valid to criticize US foreign policy and double so as a citizen. But Chomsky is jut full of shit and a liar. In Invasion Newspeak[1] he claims there was never any American Danchev with respect to Vietnam. Early coverage was actually critical[2], and after the Tet offensive it really went south. Chomsky just totally ignores this, it's inconvenient to his narrative. Moreover, you don't need to call refugees liars to criticize the US. You don't need to "well actually" what happened in Bosnia. Chomsky is a liar and piece of shit. [1]https://chomsky.info/198912__/ https://chomsky.info/198912__/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20091211102035/https://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=vietnamonte https://web.archive.org/web/20091211102035/https://www.museu...

which he *never* claimed didn't happen. You are another of those quickly educated on PragerU and similar Youtube channels but who never go to original sources?

ch4s3 3y ago

No he definitely made the claim. He was quoted saying “tales of holocaust in Cambodia were so much propaganda.” He went on to say that refugees were making up the stories to please the west. It’s in the 1977 article on his own website. Chomsky apologists never seem to be able to admit that he carried water for the worst regimes of the 20th century. To be clear there are nearly 24,000 confirmed mass graves accounting for nearly 1.3 million dead. Fully 60% of the examined remains showed clear signs of execution with the most common method being a pickaxe. Chomsky said the refugees made it up. He’s never taken that claim back.

imjonse 3y ago
Due to little info coming out of Cambodia at the time, from what I read, Chomsky said he underestimated the immensity of the genocide, not that he denied it. Later he acknowledged it, you make it sound he's some sort of Holocaust denier. Funnily Chomsky gets a lot more flack for incorrectly assessing the gravity of the Khmer Rouge killings in the late 70s while the US foreign policy which was intstumental in keeping Pol Pot in power at certain points where it was convenient geostrategically are considered par for the course.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  This is bullshit. He unequivocally said that the refugees were lying for the benefit of the US. Chomsky is always quick to shout that anything short of the literal Holocaust isn’t genocide and doubly so if a leftist regime is doing it. He was then and always has since minimized crimes against humanity in one direction.
  - imjonse 3y ago
    "Always minimized crimes against humanity in one direction". You haven't read much Chomsky have you? The one key point that comes across from his thinking is how much we (westerners) minimize our crimes even when they are comparable or larger then the enemy. His whole manufacturing consent book is about such examples. And that if you criticize someone it better be your own side, where you at least have a slight chance of changing something even if democracy is a thin veneer over something shady, rather than bravely criticising totalitary regimes where your chance of having an impact is really negligible. Just like if you have kids you'd better make sure you correct their faults instead of gossiping about the neighbours' kid's mischiefs. Chomsky and his cohort was criticizing the Vietnam war at a time it was very unpopular to do so at home, today you get western people criticizing Putin and Xi as if this was some act of bravery and not the pointless navel grazing that it is in fact. Until the West has a shitty foreign policy, and increasingly shitty domestic one as well (see surveillance, making terrorists of activists or journalists) totalitarian regimes can use this a valid excuse to shake off any criticism on their part.
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      I've read quite a bit of Chmosky's commentary, that how I knew to reference the old article from his own site. It's perfectly valid to criticize US foreign policy and double so as a citizen. But Chomsky is jut full of shit and a liar. In Invasion Newspeak[1] he claims there was never any American Danchev with respect to Vietnam. Early coverage was actually critical[2], and after the Tet offensive it really went south. Chomsky just totally ignores this, it's inconvenient to his narrative. Moreover, you don't need to call refugees liars to criticize the US. You don't need to "well actually" what happened in Bosnia. Chomsky is a liar and piece of shit. [1]https://chomsky.info/198912__/ https://chomsky.info/198912__/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20091211102035/https://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=vietnamonte https://web.archive.org/web/20091211102035/https://www.museu...