Is Noam Chomsky a good source?

[Praktik]

Some of his best friends are American!

So do you believe the accusation is valid?

Does that make him a "self-hating" American on top of being a "self-hating" jew?

perhaps you should define what you even think the term "anti-american" means. As I understand it, it is primarily used to ascribe the conclusions someone draws to irrational hate, rather than evidence.

 

[calebprime]

... But there is the inevitable creeping in of the willfully uniformed with exes to grind.

...
M

could it be stewardesses? with, like, angry white ex-boyfriend(s) in wife-beater tee-shirts who (are) stalking them? and then the woodchipper?

 

[Meed]

Yeah I don't think the term Anti-American makes much sense either. One more.

"In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society."

 

[gtc]

Wrong. He is not even anti-american, nor is he anti-Canadian (a bizarre concept to begin with) or anti-french.

Why is the idea that someone could be anti-Canadian bizarre?

The problem is that Chomsky claim not to be anti-American, anti-Canadian, anti-French, anti-Semitic or anti-Arab or whatever is contradicted by the other things he writes.


As an example:

"There's nothing nice that you can say about any of [the Arab countries]."

Even if he only meant to imply that the there is nothing nice that can be said about any of the Arab governments then that is still wrong and enormously counter-productive.

Its probably the most retarded criticism of Chomsky out there.

That is an offensive statement.

 

[Praktik]

Sorry man, it just is.

Maybe Americans and others are inured to the term "anti-american" but I really don't see much difference between it and the traditional Truther tactic of ascribing differences of opinion to ignorance or irrationality.

After all, the whole aim of the attack is to undercut the source and claim that the reason they say what they say is not because of the evidence they've amassed and their particular interpretation of that - but because they have an irrational hate.

"You said that because you hate America" is not so different than "You said that cause you are blind" - and both are childish, and yes, retarded.

I concede that there ARE people out there incensed by US policy and could perhaps be termed "anti-american" outside of America, but the frequency with which this is applied internally, to other Americans, is just appalling and disgusting. Its a caricature.

If you're arguing with someone do yourself a favour and get outta the slums and find something substantive to argue with - instead of engaging in mind-reading and pretending the source is possessed by some sort of irrational hate. Its an intellectual cop-out that makes the speaker look worse than the target, at least in my books.

 

[Praktik]

Why is the idea that someone could be anti-Canadian bizarre?

Because I can't even conceive of the term being properly applied to anyone.

The concept really doesn't exist up here.

 

[gtc]

Instead of the ad-homs, why don't you address what he has actually said in the numerous statements that have been posted here.

His statements are clearly anti-American, anti-French, anti-Semitic etc, etc and they clearly contradict any claims he makes to the contrary.

 

[Childlike Empress]

His statements are clearly [...] etc, etc.

Yep. Keep labeling.

 

[Praktik]

Instead of the ad-homs, why don't you address what he has actually said in the numerous statements that have been posted here.

His statements are clearly anti-American, anti-French, anti-Semitic etc, etc and they clearly contradict any claims he makes to the contrary.

Nice support there buddy.

The other reason people use this ridiculous and simple-minded tactic is to cast the opinions of the target as outside the realm of acceptable discourse.

And this is another reason, on top of the ones I listed above, why the dumb "anti-" attacks are a major pet peeve of mine.

They represent an artificial narrowing of the scope of debate, an attempt to cast the target as completely beyond the pale.

And as with your comments above, most who engage in this tripe don't bother supporting their accusation.

The reason being that calling Chomsky - an american and a jew - "anti american" or "anti semitic" is supposed to shut down debate. The hope is that others will shut their ears and dismiss the target without any further consideration.

Ironically, the result of this with someone like me is to dismiss the issuer of such epithets as providing little of constructive value in a political discussion. Its a major red flag and a useful one.

Rarely do wise words proceed after one screams "ANTI AMERICAN!!"

As I said above, this is "slumming it" in a major way. There are substantive and worthwhile criticisms you could use if you want to argue against chomsky.

Screaming anti-american or anti-semite like a child is not one of them.

 

[gtc]

No one is screaming anything.

Lengthy quotes have been provided to back up the points that have been made but you haven't addressed them.

Instead you have launched into a series of ad homs and claims that I am trying to shut down debate. Humourously, this appears to be an attempt by you to shut down debate.

 

[Praktik]

No one is screaming anything.

Lengthy quotes have been provided to back up the points that have been made but you haven't addressed them.

Instead you have launched into a series of ad homs and claims that I am trying to shut down debate. Humourously, this appears to be an attempt by you to shut down debate.

I havent found any of the arguments asserting "anti-americanism" or anti-semitical thoughts on Chomsky's behalf convincing in this thread.

It really is a form of mind-reading - the people who assert these things are claiming to know the inner-mind of Chomsky and that he is motivated by hate.

There is nothing in this thread which supports this claim.

And perhaps you can tell me how calling someone a racist or a hateful speaker isn't an attempt to discredit them so severely that any further consideration of their words is rendered futile. Why take a hateful racist seriously?

And I am still confounded at how people can claim that an American hates America, or that a Jew hates jews with a straight face.

Really, its beyond ridiculous and just shows how far apart the perspectives are. The gulf is so great, that some feel the need to ascribe their differences to irrationality, rather than the fact their worldviews are so vastly different.

 

[gtc]

Maybe you need to look at yourself too. You are claiming that I am needing to ascribe my differences with Chomsky to irrationality and yet you are doing exactly that when you talk about mind-reading and about how you are confounded that I can make my allegations with a straight face.

Let's take some of the heat out of it. He may not hate Americans or Jews or Canadians or Arabs etc, I honestly don't know, but the statements he makes are anti-American, anti-Semitic and so on.

Numerous examples have been posted. Why not address them?

 

[Praktik]

Maybe you need to look at yourself too. You are claiming that I am needing to ascribe my differences with Chomsky to irrationality and yet you are doing exactly that when you talk about mind-reading and about how you are confounded that I can make my allegations with a straight face.

Let's take some of the heat out of it. He may not hate Americans or Jews or Canadians or Arabs etc, I honestly don't know, but the statements he makes are anti-American, anti-Semitic and so on.

Numerous examples have been posted. Why not address them?

Hehe this is true. However the nested-doll nature of this issue is very real: Chomsky's critics are using very irrational claims to assert his irrationality... not much I can change about that!

There's a lot of junk in this thread what specifically did you find most convincing?

Think of this not as a dodge, but a product of my impending bedtime.

I will also say that I have read many Chomsky books and listened to many lectures and read many interviews, and not once did I come across any hateful intent regarding Jews or America.

Remember: criticizing American policy or the American government or American elites is not the same as criticizing America as a whole. Surely the salvation he envisions for the ills he sees is sourced entirely in America.

 

[Meed]

He may not hate Americans or Jews or Canadians or Arabs etc, I honestly don't know, but the statements he makes are anti-American critical of American policy, anti-Semitic critical of Israeli policy and so on.

Correction.

 

[gtc]

I take your points and I have been a bit glib. I don't think he hates America so much as that he makes statements that seem to imply that he does. They are not about America but the statements in cornsail's post yesterday show the sorts of things I am talking about.

 

[Praktik]

For those who think he's just anti-American, a couple quotes for perspective.

"There's nothing nice that you can say about any of [the Arab countries]."

"Canada became the per capita largest war exporter, trying to make as much money as it could from the murder of people in Indochina. In fact, I'd suggest that you look back at the comment by a well known and respected Canadian diplomat, I think his name was John Hughes, some years ago, who defined what he called the Canadian idea, namely "we uphold our principles but we find a way around them". Well, that's pretty accurate. And Canada is not unique in this respect, maybe a little more hypocritical."

"France is doing some really vicious things there, in fact they're just wiping out islands because they want them for nuclear tests. And when the socialist government in France is asked, "Why to do this?", they say, "Well look, we have to have nuclear tests." Well, if you have to have nuclear tests, why not have them in southern France? [audience laughter] Why have them in some island in the Pacific? Well, the answer to that is clear, after all they're just a bunch of little brown people or something. But you can't say that exactly, especially if you're a socialist, so something else is said."

These ones gtc? - really!??

Ok let's look at #1 - obviously an off-the-cuff comment from an interview somewhere. I sincerely doubt that he believes 100% that there is nothing "nice" to say about any Arab country. Obviously he's referring to dismal human rights records, oppression of women, suppression of democracy, and the pimping out of the regions resource's to the highest bidder for the wealth of the tiny elites selling out and not the benefit of the populace. Those are ubiquitous things in the middle east.

#2 - I'm a Canadian and I fully agree with that statement. In fact, I'm taking my final class for my IR degree (a little late!) and its on Canadian Foreign and Defence Policy. We hit the years of Lester B Pearson and Trudeau last week. Our prof mentioned the fact that while we prevaricated on Vietnam, or sent signals we were displeased, we nonetheless cashed in. I guess my prof is "anti-Canadian"??

lolz

#3 - the French nuclear testing. He's talking about pretty standard Great Power practise in the Pacific - clear out an island with little compensation cause the people dont matter nearly as much as the state's military aims. The history there is callous and shameful and deservedly he called out France on their shameful practises. I am not well educated on the French misadventures in the Pacific but for a look at American treatment of islanders there's none better than this right here.

Western involvement in the Pacific has been 100% self-interested, and the lives of the peons counted for nothing. I fully support Chomsky here and I also love the french. I'd love to go to france and eat their cheese and if I'm single, mingle with their women and if not - gaze at them longingly.. My best friend is from Nice... lovely place there..

-----

So #1 here obviously is perhaps the most criticism-worthy and likely an overstatement. I don't believe it speaks to a hatred of arabs but rather a hatred of anti-democratic government. My personal belief is that if you had the opportunity to press Chomsky on it and ask "Really? Nothing good to say about any Arab country?"

He'd reply: "well that was an overstatement on my part what I really meant was...."

And in the other cases, we have very deserving criticisms of countries and their policy. Again, we see critics discomforted by criticism of a country and conflating that criticism with an irrational hatred of that country. This allows the critic to process that criticism without having to engage with it.

I think there are shameful aspects of Aussie history - that does not make me anti-aussie - though I will say the pitch of your women's voices can sometimes be quite shrill and discomforting..

 

[Meed]

My only point with those quotes was that he gives criticism where he thinks criticism is due, regardless of what country it is. He doesn't criticize the United States based on some unreasonable standard that he doesn't hold other countries up to.

gtc, should I conclude that you're an anti-Semite and an anti-American for criticizing Noam Chomsky, an American Jewish man? Should I conclude you're a racist for dismissing criticism of France's treatment of indigenous islanders or dismissing criticism of Canada's exploitation of the killing of Indochinese? Or should we rise above that level of discussion?

 

[Praktik]

My only point with those quotes was that he gives criticism where he thinks criticism is due, regardless of what country it is. He doesn't criticize the United States based on some unreasonable standard that he doesn't hold other countries up to.

And this is a common criticism of Chomsky. That he focus inordinately on the United States and then out pops a laundry list of things in other countries that he should also condemn to remain intellectually coherent.

beyond the fact that he does criticize other countries from time to time his defence of his focus on America is that he is an American citizen, and sees the primary duty of a citizen to criticize their home country since that's the place where that criticism has the greatest chance of bringing results.

 

[Meed]

beyond the fact that he does criticize other countries from time to time his defence of his focus on America is that he is an American citizen, and sees the primary duty of a citizen to criticize their home country since that's the place where that criticism has the greatest chance of bringing results.

Indeed. Another reason is that there is less point in criticizing things that are already understood as bad by the majority of the target audience (i.e. Soviet oppression of its citizens).

The accusation "you criticized X, but not Y" is, of course, meaningless. It'd be like me accusing NWO Sentryman of criticizing Chomsky, while ignoring the crimes of Hitler.

The accusation "you criticized X for A, but you defended Y for A" would be valid and that is what I was providing some counter-examples against.

 

[Childlike Empress]

beyond the fact that he does criticize other countries from time to time his defence of his focus on America is that he is an American citizen, and sees the primary duty of a citizen to criticize their home country since that's the place where that criticism has the greatest chance of bringing results.

That's btw exactly what he said to Buckley in the video i've posted early in this thread. And that's not the only "point" that his critics bring up that was already explained by Chomsky in that video. That forty years old video.

Must be incredibly frustrating. No surprise he sometimes treats his less sharper critics like children.