Chomsky: Khmer Rouge? Shmer rouge!
Khmer Rouge Apologist Noam Chomsky: Unrepentant
Journalist Nate Thayer conducts a rousing take-down of linguist Noam Chomsky’s astoundingly long-standing denial of Khmer Rouge atrocities. Chomsky, as of 2011, still refuses to join the leftist Khmer Rouge apologists of the 1970’s in taking back his earlier works.
No, he still believe the Khmer Rouge atrocities were a mass fabrication, and he still believes that a vast media – and refugee? – conspiracy came together to unfairly demonize the Khmer Rouge. Also, it’s all America’s fault. Someone get this guy on Nuon Chea’s defense team.
I have not bothered to read any of Chomsky’s work previously, and judging from Thayer’s description of his opinions, I doubt I will do so in the future. (Maybe for sheer comedy value, or if I am in the mood to feel extremely angry, and sometimes, I am.
What I find most repellant about Chomsky’s stance is his belief that the accounts of refugees – which most journalists writing on the Khmer Rouge have heavily replied upon – are intrinisically untrustworthy.
This is because refugees, presumably addled, desperate, and “unusually” opposed to the ruling regime will tell Western reporters whatever they want to hear to demonize their “enemies” and perhaps secure some measure of fame or safety for themselves.
For someone who purports to be an enemy of imperalism and an advocate for the third world, this is the absolute worst kind of patronizing twaddle. I imagine there are thousands of Khmer Rouge survivors out there who would beg to argue differently. (But perhaps they are just biased and addled too).
And as Thayer points out: if thousands upon thousands of Cambodian refugees have somehow managed to orchestrate a collective lie about the extent of Khmer Rouge atrocities—well, that massive lie would surely register as humanity’s most impressive conspiracy to date.
But, no, Chomsky holds strong in the face of overwhelming evidence:
“I am very pleased that there has been such a hysterical reaction to these writings. They’ve been analyzed with a fine tooth comb to try to find some error, and to my knowledge, the end result is that not even a misplaced comma has been found.
True, a lot of errors have been found in fabricated material attributed to me, but that’s a sign of the desperation of the apologists for state violence. If you know of an exception, I’d appreciate it if you’d inform me. I haven’t yet seen one.”
Yes, Noam. You are smarter, a better source, and a more reliable arbiter of justice than the entire Cambodian people. I am truly sorry I ever doubted you.
It is really strange that Chomsky still argues so much about “the accounts of the refugees” from so many years ago.
What prevents him from reading PRESENT day’s reports about the country? How can he, in face of these facts, still claim – as you say – to be a “more reliable arbiter of justice than the entire Cambodian people.” Why does he not come for a tour of the many mass graves around the country? Some other former ideological supporters came and withdrew their former positions.
I think if you’re looking for contrarian arguments about Western use/abuse of power, Chomsky can come up with plenty of food for thought. But he’s one of many voices, and I’m dismayed that people tend to echo his approach without critical analysis.
I’m amazed at his tireless attempt to address and contextualize every political issue that crosses his desk. As regards Cambodia, he’s simply picking the wrong argument by endlessly reiterating his press critique. He may briefly refer to the KR in a negative context, but he sees them primarily as a reaction to US bombing. (Most recently citing Kiernan and Taylor Owen to back this up).
Humor: A Noam Chomsky Christmas
http://www.qdcomic.com/blog-old/Chomsky_Christmas.htm
Chomsky is thick and arrogant who rejects reality and truth. From 42 university students of my class only 8 of us have survived the Khmer Rouge Regime. And the ones that survived have lost more than one members of their families. Chomsky is still living in his ivory tour. Sad to see such an intelligent man can’t see even his eyes open and can’t hear even he is not deaf. A great linguist who fails to use his skills to gauge simple social phenomenon and to serve humanity.
Dr Liev! When and how you knew your 34 classmates were dead ?Where ,when and how they were dead?(before or after Vietnam invasion,by gunshot or explosion scrapple or diseases or starvation).Anyway ,I still remember a joke what you cracked about ex-Colonel Dr. Pok Varuon ( the family of 8 children living in Long Beach where we visited them in 1992 ) cannot identified his buffalo …and you told me that Khmer Polpotist had knew the familly background .In 1984,I remember,you told me that your living was Ok in Pol Pot regime because Khmer rouge cadres knew you were a University student and you had a job as a their secretary like job.I think most of professor Chumsky comment on Khmer rouge genocide were right ,there are and there were a lot of mRake up story ,in books ,in movies, in Internet…etc.. why? Dishonesty is against Buddhist way of life.
“Professor Chumsky”. Almost perfect. Should be “Professor Chumpsky”.
Interesting post Faine,
Chomsky’s main point is that the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge were given extra media coverage to distract from Operation Menu. I have lived in Siem Reap for many years and have learned that many if not most do not regard Polt Pot as the big bad guy. My mother-in-law had to play dead in a mass grave to stay alive during the Khmer Rouge. I have spoken to her in Khmer and learned that she does not hate Pol Pot – she feels he was taken advantage of. She feels that the Vietnamese occupation was much harder than the Khmer Rouge regime. She and her 9 children (only 3 survived) tell stories of Yuon soldiers killing Khmer like dogs. One of her daughters was killed by Vietnamese soldiers for harvesting herbs. The only part of her history Mother refuses to talk about is the American bombing from 70-75, it was just too horrific for her to speak of.
I agree that excessive scrutiny of Pol Pot and his regime detracts from the real bad guys – Vietnam, Hun Sen, and Nixon/ McNamara.
Interesting post Faine,
Chomsky’s main point is that the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge were given extra media coverage to distract from Operation Menu. I have lived in Siem Reap for many years and have learned that many if not most do not regard Polt Pot as the big bad guy. My mother-in-law had to play dead in a mass grave to stay alive during the Khmer Rouge. I have spoken to her in Khmer and learned that she does not hate Pol Pot – she feels he was taken advantage of. She feels that the Vietnamese occupation was much harder than the Khmer Rouge regime. She and her 9 children (only 3 survived) tell stories of Yuon soldiers killing Khmer like dogs. One of her daughters was killed by Vietnamese soldiers for harvesting herbs. The only part of her history Mother refuses to talk about is the American bombing from 70-75, it was just too horrific for her to speak of.
I agree that excessive scrutiny of Pol Pot and his regime detracts from the real bad guys – Vietnam, Hun Sen, and Nixon/ McNamara.