words:
here is Chomsky in his own words :
His Right to Say It
Noam Chomsky
The Nation, February 28, 1981
link:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html"Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy. "
another article - Link:
http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.
CHOMSKY: I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.
here is detailed article by Christopher Hitchens (hardly a leftist)
link to full article:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html snip:"The Case of the Cambodian Genocide
David Horowitz and Peter Collier were wrong, in the syndicated article announcing their joint conversion to neoconservatism, to say that Chomsky hailed the advent of the Khmer Rouge as "a new era of economic development and social justice." The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975. In 1972, Chomsky wrote an introduction to Dr. Malcolm Caldwell's collection of interviews with Prince Norodom Sihanouk. In this introduction, he expressed not the prediction but the pious hope that Sihanouk and his supporters might preserve Cambodia for "a new era of economic development and social justice." You could say that this was naive of Chomsky, who did not predict the 1973 carpet-bombing campaign or the resultant rise of a primitive, chauvinist guerrilla movement. But any irony here would appear to be at the expense of Horowitz and Collier. And the funny thing is that, if they had the words right, they must have had access to the book. And if they had access to the book.... Well, many things are forgiven those who see the error of their formerly radical ways."
snip"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The facts are now more or less in, and it turns out that the two independent writers were as close to the truth as most, and closer than some. It may be distasteful, even indecent, to argue over "body counts," whether the bodies are Armenian, Jewish, Cambodian, or (to take a case where Chomsky and Herman were effectively alone in their research and their condemnation) Timorese. But the count must be done, and done seriously, if later generations are not to doubt the whole slaughter on the basis of provable exaggerations or inventions"
the faurisson affair:
snip:In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense"
snip:"I wouldn't accuse any of the critics listed here of deliberate falsification. But it is nevertheless untrue to describe Chomsky's purloined avis as a preface, as Fresco does on almost a dozen occasions and as Mayer does twice. It is also snide, at best, to accuse Chomsky of "breaking with his usual pattern" in praising "the traditions of American support for civil liberty." He has, as a matter of record, upheld these traditions more staunchly than most -- speaking up for the right of extremist academics like Rostow, for example, at a time during the Vietnam War when some campuses were too turbulent to accommodate them. It is irrelevant, at least, to do as Fresco also does and mention Voltaire's anti-Semitism. (As absurd a suggestion, in the circumstances, as the vulgar connection between Locke and imperialism.) Would she never quote Voltaire? Finally, she says that no question of legal rights arises because the suit against Faurisson was "private." What difference does that make? An authoritarian law, giving the state the right to pronounce on truth, is an authoritarian law whoever invokes it."
And I certainly don't think he should be the spokesman for the Democratic Party, nor does he want to be. The only Democrat celebrity I have ever come across who quoted Chomsky in a favorable way was Ed Schultz in his book, Straight Talk from the Heartland.
I don't see that the Republican Party leadership has ever been concerned about those who are waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the mainstream of opinion. It certainly does not seem to have hurt them politically in the least. In fact they seem to revel in putting right-wing extremist front and center at every opportunity. They have for years. Does any sane person actually believe that the Republican Party gained dominance because they are such moderates and mainstream centrist?
Chomsky is an iconoclastic intellectual. He says a lot of different things; some agreeable and some not so agreeable, much like Jean Paul Sartre was France. Sartre was a committed Marxist-Leninist, but still was highly respected even within very conservative circles of France specifically because of his iconoclastic contribution. On this side of the Atlantic, Ema Goldman would have made Chomsky sound like a DLC Democrat, yet it did not stop Eleanor Roosevelt from befriending her. A bit earlier than that, Republican President Harding invited Eugene V. Debs to the White House as a special guest of honur-after he had been pardoned by him and released from prison-just because he wanted to meet him. Has American society become so antiseptic and skewered so far to the right that only right-wing extremist are considered credible iconoclastic thinkers to make contribution to public thought?
Nobody has even accused Chomsky himself of being a Holocaust denier except from the most absolute ultra-right fringe. The actual accusation by some is that he is excessively tolerant of such deniers. That is not the same.
link:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.htmlhttp://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htmHere is Chomsky's controversial 1977 article from the Nation regarding Cambodia
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.htmlDistortions at Fourth Hand
Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman
The Nation, June 6, 1977
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
