Table of contents for this debate.

 
========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,
talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer
 Rouge record  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left
 is understood to include'Bolshevism,' then I would 
flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one
 of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion,
 for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 05:48:10 GMT


fishe@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Carwil James) wrote:

>Hugo S. Cuningham writes:
>|From the "Nation" article:
>|
>|"The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-'New York Times'
>|creation" (N., p. 792, column 1)

>Here deletion of context is extremely important. To suggest that subject
>here is the existence of a slaughter, rather than a particularly cited
>report of slaughter is disingenuous at best. The quotes around slaughter
>refer to a specific claim, rather than an attempt to write off all
>allegations (which Herman and Chomsky admit may be true).

>Here is the entire paragraph:

>In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor 
>of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" 
>which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's
>intelligence agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total 
>revolution has resulted, by the official admission of its
>Head of State, Khieu Samphan, in the slaughter of a million 
>people." Moss informs us that the source of this statement is
>Barron and Paul, who claim that in an interview with the Italian
>weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu Samphan stated that more than a 
>million died during the war, and that the population had been
>7 million before the war and is now 5 million. Even if one places
>some credence in the reported interview nowhere in it does
>Khieu Samphan suggest that the million postwar deaths were a result
>of official policies (as opposed to the lag effects of a
>war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on the verge of 
>starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York
>Times creation. 

>|
>|>People interested in reading Chomsky's 1977 Nation article can
>|>get it at:
>|
>|>http://wwwdsp.ucd.ie/~daragh/articles/a_nation_distortions.html
>|
>|    Good addition!
>|
>|    If anyone finds a substantive disagreement between what I put in
>|quotation marks above and what appears at that site, I would  v.e.r.y
>|much appreciate hearing about it!  (But don't try to look up my
>|"Dissent" cites in the "Nation" article.)
>|
>|--Hugo S. Cunningham
>|

>Carwil James

>--
> /\  / Chan | Fish-E Carwil James |    Seek Peace & Justice Everywhere     |
>/o \/- bpen | Northwestern Univ.  | CTD '88, '89, '90, '91, '94, '95 '96   |
>\/ /\- bplah| Class of '96  | "But there is | "Life's a beach and the tide |
> \/  \      |               |  no context"  |  just came in."  ~Osadczuk   | 


I don't see that you've proven anything.  How many different times can
the same million people be "slaughtered"?

Perhaps Chomsky should have said, "The confession to 'slaughter' by a
Khmer Rouge leader was a Moss-'New York Times' invention," but that is
not what he did say.  In any case, you are splitting hairs.  Do you
deny that a "slaughter" did take place?  Or do you deny the
implication of my other quotes, that Chomsky's "Nation" article would
lead the average reader to believe that accusations against the Khmer
Rouge had been wildly exaggerated?

--Hugo S. Cunningham


========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge
 record  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood
 to include'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself
 from the left. Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of
 socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hallinan@borg.com (Terry Hallinan)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:08:17 GMT

hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)

>hallinan@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:

>>For any that do not know this is a venture of  Freeport McMoran Mining
>>Company in cooperation with Indonesian government which in addition to
>>adding to the empire coveted the income from mining.  Anything that
>>that has interfered with this fine business venture has been dealt
>>with harshly indeed.  Few of the surviving inhabitants of EastTimor
>>have not suffered imprisonment, torture, rape, and the other niceties
>>of totalitarian regimes.  It is said guards at the McMoran mine when
>>bored have shot at natives much as some of us once shot at
>>jackrabbits.

>For those (like me) unfamiliar with this, pro-Chomsky poster Carwil
>James (much to his credit) pointed out that Freeport Moran is actually
>in West Irian, not East Timor.  He has been posting to a different
>thread, but with the same headline.

>--Hugo S. Cunningham

I am not pro- (or anti-) Chomsky.  I am anti-stupid which brought me
into conflict with Mr. Cunningham.  And in doing so I made a very
stupid blunder myself showing my ignorance of geography which Carwil
James pointed out.

Mr. Cunningham makes excuses for the bloody butchers in Indonesia who
have acted in every bit as evil a manner in East Timor as the monsters
in Cambodia.  This hypocrite condemns Noam Chomsky for supposedly
making a distinction between left- and rightwing brutality and then
makes excuses for the Indonesian butchers because they are rightwing
dictators unlike leftwing dictators.  He tries to justify the
distinction by a body count and resistance.

I condemn all genocide, left or right, and especially the stupidity
that excuses it.  Isn't it stupid not to?

"Occident - That portion of the world as opposed to the Orient where the
the major industries are murder and robbery known respectively as war and
commerce.  These are also the major industries of the Orient."
                                    - The Devil's Dictionary


========

Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record
  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include
'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left.
 Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my
 opinion, for reasons I've discussed.
Re: Ideologies, politics, history  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: hcunn@tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:35:12 GMT

hallinan@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:

[deletion]

>Mr. Cunningham makes excuses for the bloody butchers in Indonesia who
>have acted in every bit as evil a manner in East Timor as the monsters
>in Cambodia.  This hypocrite condemns Noam Chomsky for supposedly
>making a distinction between left- and rightwing brutality

Actually, I accused him of under-reporting left-wing brutality.

>and then
>makes excuses for the Indonesian butchers because they are rightwing
>dictators unlike leftwing dictators.  He tries to justify the
>distinction by a body count and resistance.

To this last sentence, I plead guilty as charged.  In a perfect world,
no regime would kill anybody.  In the real world, one has to make
distinctions between regimes that kill thousands and regimes that kill
millions.


[rest deleted]

--Hugo S. Cunningham




========
Newsgroups: alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,
talk.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Chomsky's bad faith proven:  the Khmer Rouge record
  [was  Re: Chomsky, was " If the left is understood to include
'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left.
 Lenin was one of the greatestenemies of socialism, in my opinion,
 for reasons I've discussed.Re: Ideologies, politics, history
  (was: The Murder Sweepstakes)
From: ukeith@telerama.lm.com (Keith)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 09:38:33 -0400

Hugo S. Cunningham (hcunn@tiac.net) wrote:
> ukeith@telerama.lm.com (Keith) wrote:

> [deleted]

> >Hugo S. Cunningham (hcunn@tiac.net) wrote:

> [deleted]

> >> Not really true.  Chomsky consistently favors the enemies of the West,
> >> most likely because his version of Anarcho-Leftism is far closer to
> >> Communism than to America's mixed economy.

> >Would you like to provide some citations from Chomsky's writings that
> >support this conclusion? Readers should note that Hugo has not quoted
> >a single sentence of Chomsky to prove any of his assertions.

> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
> chances are it is a duck.  Compile a long-term list of the regimes and
> movements Chomsky defends and the ones he attacks, and a rather
> obvious pattern emerges.
>     Historical note:  In Russia's civil war (1917-21),
> Anarcho-Leftists (eg Kronstadt sailors, Makhno) supported the
> Communists against both parliamentarians and "White" generals.  After
> the Communist victory, the Anarcho-Left started to oppose them, but
> were easily put down.

>     As a  world-renowned linguist, Prof. Chomsky is a master of
> ambiguity and deniability.  For that reason, the Khmer Rouge record is
> especially worth treasuring.

Talk of ducks does not answer my question. I asked if you could support
your assertion by citations to Chomsky's writings. You did not provide
a single citation, you only repeated your assertion.

> >>     His bad faith showed most clearly during the Khmer Rouge genocide
> >> in Cambodia (1975-78).  Years after everyone else recognized and
> >> denounced Khmer Rouge barbarity, Chomsky continued to suggest it was
> >> hysteria cooked up by self-serving capitalists.  Only  a.f.t.e.r
> >> Communist Vietnam publicly resolved to overthrow the Khmer Rouge (4
> >> Dec 1978) did Chomsky suddenly make eloquent denunciations of the
> >> Khmer Rouge.

> >Of course, this is completely wrong, as a reading of the
> >articles that you point to show. Did you even read the articles in
> >question?

> Yes.  I have the photocopies in front of me.

> Cruel-hearted cynics who do not want to take my word or Keith's on
> faith may want to check it out for themselves.   The references are

> (1)  Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, "Distortions at Fourth Hand"
> in "The Nation" (periodical), 25 Jun 1977, pp. 789-94

> (2)  Noam Chomsky, Comments on "Vietnam and Cambodia" in "Dissent"
> (periodical), last quarter 1978, pp 386-389.

> For those without access to a library, I include a few quotes, but,
> again, try to check it out for yourself.  (And keep in mind that Khmer
> Rouge barbarism had already been a subject of general notoriety for
> two years, since 1975.)

> From the "Nation" article:

> Chomsky approvingly refers to "analyses by highly qualified
> specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and
> who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands."
> (N., p. 791, column 1)

First of all, note that Chomsky is referring to executions, not the
total number of people killed. Hugo is attempting to say that Chomsky
is thereby concluding that the total number of people killed is in the
thousands, which is a mis-reading of the above passage.

By the way, here are what some analyses done after the Vietnamese 
invasion found:

                    Executions              Total Dead

Finish Inquiry	    75,000-100,000          1,000,000
Commission

Michael Vickery     200,000-300,000         750,000

The CIA             50,000-100,000          Unavailable

Carlyle Thayer      50,000-60,000           500,000


> Chomsky repeatedly ridicules refugee reports, which later turned out
> to be accurate.  (A generation earlier, other leftists showered
> similar contempt on refugee reports from Stalinist Russia, which later
> turned out to be accurate.):
>     [Authors approved by Chomsky] "testify to the extreme
> unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with
> great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf.
> Chomsky:  'At War with Asia' on the problems of interpreting reports
> of refugees from American bombing in Laos).  Refugees are frightened
> and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces.  They naturally tend to
> report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear.  While
> their reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are
> necessary.  Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais
> have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of
> Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter
> will fail to take into account."  (N, p. 791, column 2)

I fail to see how this is "ridiculing" refugee accounts. He's only
saying that "great caution" must be exercised in the use of these
accounts.

> "It is interesting that a 1.2 million estimate [of the Khmer Rouge
> death toll] is attributed by Ponchaud to the American Embassy
> (presumably Bangkok), a completely worthless source, as the historical
> record amply demonstrates.  The figure bears a suggestive similarity
> to the prediction by U.S. officials at the war's end that a million
> would die in the next year."  (N., p. 791, columns 2 to 3)

> "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-'New York Times'
> creation" (N., p. 792, column 1)

This is so obviously taken out of context. Here's the paragraph in
its entirety:

In the New York Times Magazine, May 1, 1977, Robert Moss (editor 
of a dubious offshoot of Britain's Economist called "Foreign Report" 
which specializes in sensational rumors from the world's intelligence 
agencies) asserts that "Cambodia's pursuit of total revolution has 
resulted, by the official admission of its Head of State, Khieu 
Samphan, in the slaughter of a million people." Moss informs us that 
the source of this statement is Barron and Paul, who claim that in 
an interview with the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana Khieu 
Samphan stated that more than a million died during the war, and 
that the population had been 7 million before the war and is now 
5 million. Even if one places some credence in the reported
interview nowhere in it does Khieu Samphan suggest that the million 
postwar deaths were a result of official policies (as opposed to the 
lag effects of a war that left large numbers ill, injured, and on 
the verge of starvation). The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is 
a Moss-New York Times creation. 

> From the "Dissent" article:

> [By the end of 1978, as Cambodia's diplomatic position is in flux,
> Prof. Chomsky appears to be thinking about reversing his appraisal,
> but old habits die hard]:

> Condemnations of the Khmer Rouge  m.i.g.h.t  be true, but one must
> note "that the susceptibility of intellectuals to fabricated atrocity
> stories has been no less notorious since World War I than their
> apologetics for some favored state, and that skepticism is aroused in
> this case by the many documented falsehoods." (D., p 386, columns 1 to
> 2)

Could you do me a favor and provide the full paragraph that this
quote appears in as well as the preceding paragraph?

> (The remainder of the article argues that any Khmer Rouge brutality
> was all America's fault.  This is similar to the domestic Leftie
> argument that murderers should not be punished, because "society" made
> them do it.  Why, then, do Leftist revolutionaries periodically
> slaughter  u.n.r.e.s.i.s.t.i.n.g  populations, as in Stalin's
> Collectivization and Great Purge, and in Mao's Cultural Revolution?] 

I'm quite sure that Chomsky did not argue that the Khmer Rouge
brutality was "all America's fault." However, I believe that he
would rightly assign a large part of the blame on the US for the
following reasons:

1. From 1969 to 1973, the US dumped the equivalent of three times the
bomb tonnage used against Japan in WWII on Cambodia killing hundreds
of thousands of people and creating over a million refugees.

2. The US was instrumental in undermining the Sihanouk government
that resulted in the Lon Nol coup and the resulting civil war.

> [The following quote is not directly relevant to the Khmer Rouge death
> toll, but I couldn't resist adding it]:

> "Now we are asked whether opposition to the U.S. attack on rural South
> Vietnam, later all Indochina, was legitimate, in the light of postwar
> suffering and atrocities that are in large measure a result of this
> aggression.  With comparable logic, Germans might have asked whether
> opposition to Nazi aggression should be reconsidered after the
> massacre of tens of thousands in France under American civil-military
> rule"  (D., p 388, column 1) 
>     HSC comment:  Such a German claim might indeed have some merit
> (and relevance to Cambodia), if the US invasion of France had been
> followed by the massacre of ten  m.i.l.l.i.o.n.  Once again, Lefties
> are incapable of handling large numbers.  Eg the (admittedly
> excessive) execution of one very minor spy (Ethel Rosenberg) puts the
> US McCarthy era on the same moral plane as Stalinist Russia (20
> million dead).
>  

Are you arguing that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would have still
come to power in Cambodia if the US had stayed out of Vietnam and
refrained from bombing Cambodia and undermining Cambodia's goverment?

> >In fact, Chomsky's big criticism of the media was that they were
> >so willing to latch onto very questionable sources. For example,
> >in his conclusion to the Nation article "Distortions at Fourth
> >Hand" (June 25, 1977), Chomsky lays out his main point:

> >     We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst 
> >     these sharply conflicting assessments [on the number of
> >     people killed under Pol Pot]; rather, we again 
> >     want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters 
> >     through to the American public is a seriously distorted 
> >     version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged 
> >     Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the 
> >     crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment 
> >     that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the 
> >     American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is 
> >     ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship 
> >     but because the message is unpalatable. 

> >Furthermore, Chomsky did not deny the fact that terrible atrocities
> >were taking place in Cambodia as his comment's on Francois Ponchaud's
> >book Cambodge Annie Ziro (Cambodia in the Year Zero) show: "Ponchaud's 
> >book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the 
> >commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of of what
> >refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment 
> >at the hands of the Khmer Rouge."



>      The thrust of Chomsky's article, however, was to reduce the Khmer
> Rouge death toll of millions (deserving Jimmy Carter's label of
> "world's worst violator of human rights,")  to thousands, making it
> merely one more garden-variety Third World despotism.  (See his quote
> above about "analyses by highly qualified specialists.")
>       If the death toll is common by Third World standards, then there
> is no need for world opinion to consider the political pathology
> responsible.
>  

Chomsky's article does not say this. His talk of thousands was in
reference to executions not total number killed and was based on
estimates of Southeast Asia experts writing in respected
journals:

     Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press 
     treatment, we would like to point out that apart from
     Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on 
     recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to 
     the attention of the American reading public. Space 
     limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such 
     journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London 
     Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others 
     elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified 
     specialists who have studied the full range of evidence 
     available, and who concluded that executions have numbered 
     at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas 
     of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, 
     where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat 
     of starvation resulting from the American destruction and 
     killing. 

>       Incidentally, bogus compassion is a tool-in-trade of many
> revisionists:

>   (1)  Nazi Holocaust revisionist "Richard Harwood" ends his "Did Six
> Million Really Die?" thus:  "Jewish casualties during the Second World
> War can only be estimated at a figure in thousands.  Surely this is
> enough grief for the Jewish people?"

>   (2)  Stalin Holocaust revisionist Jerry F. Hough wrote, [For] "the
> number of deaths in the purge. . .a figure in the low hundreds of
> thousands seems much more probable than one in the high hundreds of
> thousands, and even George Kennan's estimate of 'tens of thousands' is
> quite conceivable, maybe even probable.
>       "Some persons seem instinctively to object to these figures on
> the ground that the Great Purge was so horrible that the number of
> deaths cannot have been so 'low.'  We must not become so insensitive
> to the value of human life, however, that we dismiss tens of thousands
> of deaths as insignificant."
>     --Jerry F. Hough, "How the Soviet Union is Governed," Harvard
> University Press, Cambridge MA, 1979;  p. 177.

>     In each case, the revisionist professes a humanitarian horror and
> grief even at the drastically downsized death-toll.  He quietly leaves
> it for others to draw the conclusion that if Nazism (or Stalinism, or
> the Khmer Rouge) did not kill any more people than did regimes
> accepted by current world opinion, then principled anti-Nazism (or
> anti-Communism) is mere cynicism, or hysterical over-reaction. 

The Nazi revisionists wrote there tripe well after the
end of WWII when mountains of documentation existed on the Nazi
Holocaust. The Nazi revisionists are given credence by no one
in respected scholarly circles.

Chomsky wrote his article during the Pol Pot reign, when reliable
evidence on numbers was much more sparse, and often contradictory. 
Furthermore, he based his article on the works of many prominent 
scholars. There is a big difference. Now, if Chomsky denied the 
numbers that came out after the Vietnamese invasion, you could 
compare him to the Nazi revisionists.

> [material on Hitchens article deleted]

> >People interested in reading Chomsky's 1977 Nation article can
> >get it at:

> >http://wwwdsp.ucd.ie/~daragh/articles/a_nation_distortions.html

>     Good addition!

>     If anyone finds a substantive disagreement between what I put in
> quotation marks above and what appears at that site, I would  v.e.r.y
> much appreciate hearing about it!  (But don't try to look up my
> "Dissent" cites in the "Nation" article.)
>      (Unfortunately, my references to page numbers and especially
> "columns" might not be helpful in searching an electronic copy, but a
> keyword search should let you track them down.) 

> [rest deleted]


> --Hugo S. Cunningham

Keith