Is Noam Chomsky a good source?

[Praktik]

Ya those debates with Buckley were great... saw them first when I was a lot younger and Chomsky featured a lot more in my thinking and reading and writing...

In later years, especially with the clowns that took over the conservative movement, I find myself appreciating the videos from a completely different angle: as much as I disagree with many of Buckley's points he puts up a good fight, and is a great example of a kind of intellectual conservatism we dont see enough of these days.

 

[GreyArea]

I don't think that Chomsky hates Americans at all, especially since he has been repeating for several years now that we've improved our political awareness and moral outlook in a more-democratic direction.

Go back to 1965 when there were 150,000 troops in Indochina, at that time there was almost no vocal opposition to the war. It developed much later, when the war had entered a far more brutal and destructive stage. So the fact of the matter is that there's much more protest against the war in Iraq now than there was against the war in Indochina at any comparable stage. In my opinion, that reflects the civilizing effect of the activism of the 1960s, which changed society in many ways: opposition to aggression, commitment to human rights, minority rights, women's rights, and concern over the environment. The Society simply became more civilized.

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Tikkun-ChomskyonIraq

One very promising development is the slow evolution of a human rights culture among the general population, a tendency that accelerated in the 1960s, when popular activism had a notable civilizing effect on many domanins, extending significantly in the years that followed. One encouraging feature has been a greatly heightened concern for civil and human rights, including rights of minorities, women, and future generations, the latter the driving concer of the environmental movement, which has become a powerful force.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xx...resnum=7&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Hegemony or Survival, p.235

Asked about the apparent decline of racism signalled by Obama's election, Chomsky replied:

But to the extent that it [the decline of racism] is real, I think it is primarily a result of the civilizing effect of the activism of the 1960s and its aftermath. That has indeed changed the moral and cultural level of the society, significantly, while leaving institutions essentially intact. I do not happen to like any of the candidates in the November 2008 election, but it is important to bear in mind that 40 years ago, and also more recently, it was unthinkable that the two candidates in the Democratic primary would be an African-American and a woman.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090228.htm

When asked in 2001 if the 9/11 attacks would cause Americans to support attacks on civilians abroad and loss of civil liberties at home, Chomsky replied:

But that's by no means inevitable, and we should not underestimate the civilizing effects of the popular struggles of recent years. We need not stride resolutely towards catastrophe, merely because those are the marching orders.

http://struggle.ws/issues/war/afghan/statements/chomsk7_trans_se01.html

In a very recent statement to the United Nations about the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), Chomsky wrote:

American public opinion brings up a futher consideration. The maxims that largely guide international affairs are not graven in stone, and, in fact, have become considerably less harsh over the years as a result of the civilizing effect of popular movements. For that continuing and essential project, R2P can be a valuable too, much as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been.

http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/interactive/protect/noam.pdf , penultimate paragraph

Chomsky is indeed very critical of U.S. government policy, but (as has been said before) this is not the same thing as being critical of the American public or American society as a whole (let alone hating them).

He thinks the American public is a different kind of people than we were in the 1950's and '60's. We're getting better at being a civilization worthy of the name, and a democracy. I don't see any hatred there, I see respect and admiration.

 

[gtc]

It seems obvious that we aren't going to get anywhere with this discussion. People are prepared to assume that he didn't really mean what he wrote, just as with the the statement about Arabs and with the statement about Jews from the first page.

It seems odd that such an intelligent man would repeatedly make such unintentionally inflamatory remarks

gtc, should I conclude that you're an anti-Semite and an anti-American for criticizing Noam Chomsky, an American Jewish man?

You don't see the difference between criticising one man for what he says and condemning an entire nation?

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?

Should you be able to prove that I dismiss such criticism then you would be able to criticise me for that.

 

[Meed]

Should you be able to prove that I dismiss such criticism then you would be able to criticise me for that.

You called it "anti-French" / "anti-Canadian". That implies you don't think the criticism was valid.

"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."

 

[gtc]

You called it "anti-French" / "anti-Canadian". That implies you don't think the criticism was valid.

"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."

You appeared to be making the claim that I reject all criticism of France's treatment of its indigenous islanders. A claim that is simply not true.

 

[Praktik]

But cornsail didnt assert that, he did only by way of illustrating the type of logical mistake you make with reference to Chomsky....