Can I trust this man's view of modern history?
He is harshly critical of almost everyone. He even claims that "all post-WW2 American presidents would be hanged if judged by the standards of the Nuremberg trials". Is he overly harsh and blinded by bias, or does he offer objective evaluations of the governments of our world?
>Objective evaluations
High school please go.
Overly harsh and blinded by bias. Especially when it comes to America.
>>284717
Not even a little.
>Although Chomsky had long publicly criticised Nazism and totalitarianism more generally, his commitment to freedom of speech led him to defend the right of French historian Robert Faurisson to advocate a position widely characterised as Holocaust denial. Chomsky's plea for the historian's freedom of speech would be published as the preface to Faurisson's 1980 book Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire.[114] Chomsky was widely condemned for defending Faurisson.[115] France's mainstream press accused Chomsky of being a Holocaust denier himself, and refused to publish his rebuttals to their accusations.[116] The Faurrison Affair had a lasting, damaging effect on Chomsky's career;[115] Werner Cohn's Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers contained numerous falsified claims.[117]
most of the replies will come from butt hurt right who never read one of his work, so take it with a salt.
>>284717
No, he's not a historian.
>>284913
He does discuss history in his writings on language.
What are Chomsky's writings on history like? I've watched him debate with Foucault and it was interesting. Basically, Foucault called him a retard for saying you can't write history before writing was around, and most of Chomsky's claims were ahistorical.
>>284913
But surely that has nothing to do with the claims that he makes? He is renowned for his extensive knowledge of world affairs. He is probably more qualified than most historians to talk about certain subjects.
>>284888
?
>>284838
Why?
>>284733
Why is he overly harsh? He seems to always back up his claims with examples.
>>284720
There is such thing as objectivity in historical discussion.
>>284717
Not without qualification. He does have some groups he favors over others or criticizes less harshly like the Palestinians.
Since he's American he spends a lot more time criticizing America than any other country, so one has to account for that as well.
>>284928
He was more concerned with trying to nitpick errors American media might have committed while covering the massacres of Pol Pot, than with the Cambodian genocide itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman
>>284924
That debate was very underwhelming. It was basically Noam and Foucault reiterating their views over and over again with no real discussion.
He hates the US more than Nazis and ISIS.
But I'd say his opinions are just the result of taking the whole "hurr durr equality and human rights" crap actually seriously to its conclusion - The problem has always been people spouting this shit while acting completely differently.
>>284928
>There is such thing as objectivity in historical discussion.
No there isnt
>>284979
Hate is a strong word. But can you make an argue that the U.S. does not deserve criticism for their atrocities?
>>284988
Sure, but he likes to trace everything back to the U.S.
Israel does something bad? America.
Ukrainian people revolt? America sponsored it.
Latin American government is authoritarian? America supported coups there. Let's ignore all history of caudillist tradition and large sectors of their societies which were anti-democratic, and all the unrest that was happening for n reasons particular to each of those nations. It's America's fault.
>>284988
>>285046
>>284979
You guys might find this (admittedly, just a blog post, but a pretty well thought out one) edifying.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
The tl;dr version is that most people don't go very far when it comes to their "real" enemies. The reason you see generally leftist people expressing more hate for someone like Margaret Thatcher vs Osama Bin Laden is one of immediacy. "Foreign" groups are liked or hated based far more on how they wind up aligning with your domestic enemies as opposed to any real objective evaluation between who is worse.
>>284717
Nah. I love Chomsky, I think he's like your racist grandfather except on the opposite side of the political spectrum. There is a hint of truth to his writings but most of them are buried under predictable bias. I admire him for his criticisms of the US Government and anyone who makes Sam Harris cry isn't a totally terrible person.
>>284717
>Can I trust this man's view of modern history?
Let's see, does Chomsky have a PhD in history, use the standards of historiography, and receive favourable reviews for his historiography in historical journals?
No. No. No.
Not a historian, ignore his opinions.
Never met a historian of Cambodia who describes him as anything other than a hack for his comments re: the Khmer Rouge.
Whenever he writes about time periods that i have knowledge of, he gets shit wrong, which makes me doubly mistrustful of his writing about stuff i don't know about.
>>284888
That makes him seem pretty based IMO I guess he likes that Voltaire quote.
>>284717
>Can I trust this man's view of modern history?
Yes; he's one of the most well read scholars in the world and all of his positions are backed by extensive research and strong evidence. All the rightist asspain about him is pure infantile flailing, sound and fury signifying nothing. Read him and find out.
>>286304
>Never met a historian of Cambodia who describes him as anything other than a hack for his comments re: the Khmer Rouge.
And what comments were those? Quotation and citation, no wikis.
>>286276
This
>>286276
Chomsky has far more intellect and knowledge about modern history than 99% of history PhDs.
>>284717
I love him because this is the funniest thing I have ever read in my life
>'Professor, what do you think of the '9/11 truth' movement?'
'Not much'
'Can you elaborate?'
'Do you...' he searched for my name.
'Bachem.'
'Bachem, do you spend a lot of time talking to strippers?'
'Probably not as much as I should.'
'Well I do. Interesting thing about strippers: most of them, not surprisingly, have daddy issues. It's not unusual for children with profound resentment towards their fathers to have irrationally exaggerated estimations of their fathers' power and influence. How else, really, can they blame their fathers for the myriad dissatisfactions of their lives: what they do, what they are, what they're not, et cetera is seen by them as their fathers' fault. That they dropped out, did drugs, got involved with the wrong people, did things they regret--they blame it all on daddy.'
'And?'
'And so if you ask them whether the President was involved in 9/11, they're likely to either think it's very possible or be entirely convinced of it. Because such a view almost requires the mentality of a resentful child
>>286304
This. I was born in Czechoslovakia and listening to Chomsky speak about '68 Prague Spring and subsequent Soviet invasion made me ponder how can anyone think this retard has any credibility.
>>286276
>historiography
Into the trash you go, revisionist.
>>286752
>intellect …about modern history.
>>286688
Well?
>>284717
>all post-WW2 American presidents would be hanged if judged by the standards of the Nuremberg trials
There have been plenty of completely valid criticisms of Chomsky ITT but this quote is true. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and the like have so many unspeakable crimes under their belt it's truly miraculous their reputations aren't as butchered as Nixons.
