I admit that I had a somewhat disappointing day today. I had a good meeting with a professor of Arabic literature to discuss the Arabic publishing scene, from whom I got some valuable leads and insights for our Arabic publishing project. I also met some faculty members and a very friendly and helpful university administrator, who set up a meeting for me with the office of Al Hayat in Beirut. The disappointment was that I found out that I had some competition for my lecture on the role of institutions: none other than the noted crackpot and kook Noam Chomsky, who, as if in a demonstration of his own wacky theories, dominated the scene with advertising, posters, and official (hence, hierarchical) endorsement by the Prince Alawaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Center for American Studies and Research.
Not surprisingly, attendance at my talk was relatively sparse and consisted mainly of faculty members. In the description online of Chomsky’s lecture it states “His traditional definition of himself is a anarchist, a political philosophy he summarizes as seeking out all forms of hierarchy and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified.” I guess that some hierarchies are more unjustified than others.
What’s especially sad about Chomsky’s influence in this part of the world is that his conspiracy theories click in so neatly with the conspiracy mongering and scape-goating that is rife in the Middle East. If the countries of the Middle East are to emerge from authoritarianism and poverty, they will need to cast aside the search for conspiratorial explanations and focus on domestic institutional reform.
Were I a Chomskyite, I would attribute the bad timing to a conspiracy by hegemonic forces to silence the marginalized. But I’m not, so I chalk it up to bad luck. (Anyway, I’m giving another talk before the students of the Political Science faculty on Thursday.)
UPDATE: I got a few emails and SMS’s from people saying I shouldn’t be upset that I was in competition with Chomsky. I wasn’t. Just a wee bit disappointed — and amused that were the situations reversed, his kooky theories would provide an explanation for a colossal injustice, whereas I chalked it up to bad luck. Neither the first nor the last.
“All hierarchies are equal, but some more than others.” Choam Nomsky
“Hierarchy equals authority, and all athority is evil. Listen to my words, for I am an authority on this subject.” Choam Nomsky
“The US system of democracic republican capitalism is evil because it is unjust. Hence anarchism is ideal, but the second best alterative is totalitarian communism.” Choam Nomsky
hey, I thought libertarians were for competition. looks like you lost fair and square.
The author of the first comment might have noted that the “quotes” are interpretations of Chomsky, just in case a few folks (like Meliora) wouldn’t know that.
As to Meliora’s comment, she’s right! She’s evidently a bit reading-challenged, since she is challenging me with the very conclusion of my comment, namely that “I chalk it up to bad luck.” A Chomskyite, on the other hand, would weep and wail about unequal forms of discourse and hegemonic domination, a complaint made the more plausible by the fact that his talk was being funded by the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. In contrast, I just figured that it was my bad luck that the economics faculty scheduled the talk at the same time as a famous, accomplished in his field (linguistics), provocative (since he loves conspiracy theories, which sell well on campuses around the world, but especially in the Middle East, due to the promixity of you-know-who), and very well funded nut.
Life can be like that. To say that it is “disappointing” is not to say that it is unfair. But neither Meliora nor Chomsky would agree.
You claim Chomsky’s talk was funded by “the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.” How do you know this? And, by the way, who funded your talk?
Oh, poor Meliora. It’s about irony… I’ll tell you who funded my talk. The economics faculty of the American University of Beirut announced it to their students. I received no honorarium (not that I’m complaining, mind you). My air ticket (unlike Chomsky’s, it was coach, by the way, and I’m staying in the apartment of a friend who is out of town, so that is costing me nothing) was paid for by a private donor in the U.S. (who doesn’t do business in Lebanon). But the point is not to ask who funds what, but to point out that that’s almost all that Chomsky ever asks. He sees grand conspiracies around every corner. And as to his funding from the ruling family fo Saudi Arabia….you should check again on your reading: it was paid for by the “Prince Alawaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Center for American Studies and Research.” Maybe you could google the name. Or just check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alwaleed_bin_Talal . I’m not complaining, just noting the irony. (You could google that term, too.)
Best from Beirut,
Tom
“A private donor”: in other words, you refuse to say.
Oh, you’ve twisted my arm just *too* hard. The main donors to my work in the Middle East have been members of the Byrne family, which is why the project is named “The Jack Byrne Project for Middle East Liberty,” to honor an entrepreneur and wealth creator. You see, I go and ask people to donate funds voluntarily. I’m afraid that there’s no irony in an advocate of liberty asking for voluntary support. There is more than a bit for someone like Noam Chomsky, with his shrill and often vicious denunciations of wealth, accepting honorarium money from the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. I admit that I find it a bit amusing.
Reason #5676 that I no longer call myself a “libertarian”…
I used to subscribe to a left libertarian/rothbardian email listserv…and it was the party line there that “Noam Chomsky was more libertarian than fascist Milton Friedmen.”
True story.
Chomsky is a wealthy man. So is Castro.
May I Just Say…
…that no one, but no one, delivers a comments-section smackdown quite like Tom Palmer.
Of course, he did have good material to work with. If I didn’t count him an honest person, I might be tempted to think that his interlocutor was a so…
ex-libertarian, please realize that some if not more) of the Rothbardians (see: Lew Rockwell and his group; I’m not putting their link but it’s easy enough to find) are nutty and think any one not completerly anarcho-capitalistic is a fascist.
For extensive material debunking Chomsky’s propaganda fabrications and conspiracy theories, see:-
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
For Chomsky’s conduct during his trip to Lebanon, see especially:-
http://www.almanar.com.lb/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=649568
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/05/noam_chomsky_de.php
Hello,
I can understand your “frustration” about the timing of your talk. (Actually, I am very interested in your work because I have no idea…”Arabic literature to discuss the Arabic publishing scene” peaks my interest). Though I am a political scientist myself, I believe that the best way to connect people in the world is through culture, art, literature and philosophy). In any case, if I were you, I would have canceled my talk and attended Noam’s speech. The man has done a lot and deserve–in my view–a Nobel Peace Prize. Is there anyone in the West who asks the kind of questions that Noam raises persistently. NONE, ZERO. We shouldn’t focus on him personally but the big picture he is trying to address such as below, the issues he is trying to convey and the vision that he has.
Few examples:
1) Addressing issues related to the living consequences of the existing economic system that makes some people into a thing or simply part of production and the world order shaped by NOT ordinary good Americans but an abstract entity called the United States of America (an amalgam of big capital [again not small hard working businesses], large military-industrial complex, and multinational financial capital who don’t have any loyalty to a particular country). For instance, he might have in mind many children in the world who have been subjected to daily terror and eternally condemned to be “terrorists” and “enemies”.
2) His idea on terrorism. The US army manual defines it as the intentional usage of force for political, ideological and religious purpose. Now, have the things that the US has done meet this requirement? Or, is the US too good to do such thing? Another point that Chomsky argues is a basic moral truism, namely, we should apply the same standard we apply to ourselves on others. We are responsible for what we do and we have no moral claim whatsoever on the things we can’t affect. We must be able to examine our own behavior. He is too naive in thinking that. Why should America reflect on itself when it can do whatever it wants.
…
PS: Write to Noam how you felt. He is very generous, kind and gentle person. I am sure he will respond to your message. Making this world a better, humane, just and peaceable ought to be our SHARED dream and goal.
Sincerely,
Anna
…….
SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops
300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA
1890
Troops
Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE
1891
Troops
Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI
1891
Troops
Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.
IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners’ strike.
HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops
Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed
NICARAGUA
1894
Troops
Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Jap War.
KOREA
1894-96
Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA
1896
Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA
1898-1900
Troops / Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.
GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops / Seized from Spain, still used as base.
MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops
Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA
1898
Troops
Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops
Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA
1899
Troops / Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops / Army occupies Coeur d’Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops
Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.
HONDURAS
1903
Troops
Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA
1904-05
Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA
1906-09
Troops / Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA
1907
Troops
“Dollar Diplomacy” protectorate set up.
HONDURAS
1907
Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA
1908
Troops / Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA
1910
Troops
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS
1911
Troops / U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops
Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA
1912
Troops / U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA
19l2
Troops / Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS
19l2
Troops / Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing
20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO
19l3
Naval / Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval / Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO
1914
Troops / Breaking of miners’ strike by Army.
MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops
Series of interventions against
nationalists.
HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing
19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops
8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA
1917-33
Troops / Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany
RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops
Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.
PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
“Police duty” during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against
mineworkers.
TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).
CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA
1925
Troops / Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA
1927-34
Troops / Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval / Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops / Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3
years; 1st nuclear war.
DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.
IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).
YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval / Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.
URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.
KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against siege.
GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new govt nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners
LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval / Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA
1958
Troops / Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.
CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat, Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.
LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA
1964
Troops / Panamanians shot for urging canal’s return.
INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT
1967
Troops / Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES
1968
Troops / After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; “carpet-bombs” countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Emba-ssy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets war-ned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.
HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops / Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN
1984
Jets / Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov’t.
BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets / Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.
ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be “terrorist” nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.
YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.
MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.
AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond.
(The first bombing began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack. The story continues).
Hello (again),
The following is somewhat “patronizing” (“they”, “we”, etc.) yet sincere note of Albert Camus on Mulims written at a cafe in Algeria before WWII. There are many cultures and religions in Arab world but its most venerable heritage is, I feel, depicted aptly by an artist.
“LookÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦how they are, how they go, so noble, indifferentÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦They are more civilized than we areÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦”
Anna
Dear Anna:
The simple fact is we live on a fallen Earth. Eve already ate the apple. But in trying to create heaven on Earth (the original sin), you continue to create hell.
Best,
Adam
Hi Adam,
It seems to be that way ( I mean the reality of the world and all things people do in the name of making things better)…I for one–person preoccupied with the question of justice, reducing the sum of human suffering, etc.–more than others due to my profession and the subject I research and teach–sometimes do wonder why I personally don’t feel I am condemned and experience happiness and joy and therefore am and continue to remain hopeful. Suppose the point I am trying to make is: we all–good, bad and ugly people–do things to bring out “goodness” in human heart. I mean, literally, all people! Here is my illusion. I feel that something amazing, splendid and great will come out of this latest human struggle in the Middle East. And, back to Noam, he is doing a tiny, tiny, tiny thing which is neither “prefect” nor the most important thing. His works, acts and life is a minute ripple. All of us–including the author of this website–are doing different things. Some pray, some write poetry, some rigorous political economic analysis, some grass roots movements, etc.. Through these seemingly unrelated or even opposing activities, we encounter the minds, spirit and hearts of fellow humankind. Who knows? This may lead to one’s meeting with or feeling the presence of the supreme being–the being (God) that is everywhere and yet nowhere. Oh, how I wish our world be more just and peaceful. How I wish people are more reflective, kind, gentle, and understanding with each other. Amazing to see how I can’t recall any “bad” or “evil” person for all these years I lived in the US as a foreign-born scholar and yet how the world has a very different impression of this nation (US)? Am sure that that’s the way many people outside the US feel…
Anna
PS: On a totally unreleated subject…I grew up on an apple farm. I must tell you that apples are good–especially those my parents grew in our orchard–not the kind you buy these days in the supermarket.
According to the links provided by Paul Bogdanor, Chomsky met with the leadership of Hezbollah, an organization that is hardly peaceful and definitely terrorizes the people of both Lebanon and Israel. They’re backed by the not-very-peaceful Iranian regime, which kills people over religion, sexuality, and ethnicity and is doing its best to get nuclear weapons.
Remember Chomsky’s defense of the Khmer Rouge? He wishes you didn’t: http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm
Then it was the Khmer Rouge. Now it’s Hezbollah. There’s nothing soft, gentle, warm, or snuggly about that man.
Only right wingers call Chomsky a wacko because right wingers cannot accept the reality, they hate reality and science. Right wingers will loose this battle because the world is waking up to the fact that what Noam Chomsky has been saying is true, and right wingers are KKK and wrong !!
Juan Carlos, you are the only one on this thread who has described Chomsky as a “wacko.” I’m not sure what to conclude from that, other than that you seem rather defensive, since no one else used the term. Nonetheless, I could point you to some “left wingers” who might very well use the term to describe Chomsky. Here’s J. Bradford DeLong, a left-of-center prof at the University of California at Berkeley:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html
And by the way, Juan Carlos, your style of “argument” doesn’t convince.
Ah, I read through the entry again more carefully. Palmer referred to Chomsky’s “wacky” theories, from which Juan Carlos decided he had called him a “wacko.” Not quite the same thing. But true to Chomskian form, Juan Carlos didn’t defend those theories, other than to clench his fist and sling insults. The teaching is, after all, to be critical of everything but the claims of Noam Chomsky. And anyone who disagrees is “KKK and wrong!!” I’m convinced.
The question one must ask is:
What have “we” (I mean, you and I who live in a relatively free society like the US) and the government of the US, done, can and will do to reduce the sum of suffering caused by the use of terror (including those exercised by both powerful countries and sub-state organizations)?
Are we really hurt, saddned, and concerned by the suffering of people elsewhere? Or, are we just trying to win argument?
……………………………
Chomsky would stress the responsibility of citizens of the most powerful state (e.g., US) to reflect on what their country (the US) has done in the past and can do in the future to address such critical issues as the violation of human rights. If you want to address the violation of human rights, you first stop your own behavior that leads to the violation of human rights. If powerful countries such as the US want to promote human rights, they must stop their action of violating human rights. Take for instance, have the actions of the US in Iraq contributed the promotion of human rights? (Many Americans say yes because “evil” Saddam is gone. Others might argue that the US has committed many acts of violation of human rights). According to Chomsky’s reasoning, the citizens of the US should question the actions of their own government, investigate the consequences of their own government, and take the responsibility of their own acts. Otherwise, they have no moral authority of whatsoever. For instance, a man who beats his own wife would not have the moral authority to preach another wife-beater? Would he? Of course, powerful people and states can get away with immorality and hypocrisy. That doesn’t mean that one should not strive for higher goals and ideals.
There are a lot of rotten apples in the world. Some might argue that currently, many of the most powerful states are most rotten ones. We should focus on the consequences of our own actions first. Preaching how bad others are and how others should behave may not be as effective as we think.
For instance, let’s say some Israeli officials claim that they are very concerned about the violation of human right in Palestine and blame the Palestinians. How might Chomsky reply? He might say that the Israelies should be first concerned about what they do. They must ask, to what extent have our own behavior contributed to the violation of human rights in the GAZA strip. Another example: Suppose some communists under former USSR are critized for their role in the violation of human rights in Soviet Union. The communist officials might try to blame others, instead of reflecting on what they did. According to Chomsky’s reasoning, the action of the communist has no moral value whatsoever. How about the possible response of Nazi to the critics? What if the Nazi blames others for the violation of human rights under their occupation, let’s say in the Nazi occupied Poland? The behavior of the Nazi has no moral value whatsoever. Another example: The government of the US condemns other nations for the violation of human rights. Officially, there is no record whatsoever that shows that the US has ever showed its ability to reflect on its own actions. (Many good people and private citizens do, but not official representatives and leaders). We still don’t have any accurate information about the number of civilians who died since the war began in Iraq in 2003 (20,000 to 100,000??).
How does this relate to both his previous and latest activities in question–specifically his seeming sympathy for those who have resorted to the usage of force and terror?
I am sure he can give a better explanation than mine. But, he might say, imagine that you have been, for years, years, and years, been subjected to foreign powers (call it colonization, imperialism, etc). Your choice is pretty limited. When one’s survival is at stake, all human beings will do whatever to prevent from being killed. What should the founding fathers have done when the British colonizers refused to allow an independent and sovereign US? The British colonizers were pretty nasty from my reading of history. The early settlers of America did fight. They did not lay down their arms. Some called it a just and revolutionary war. It was about maintaining your basic human dignity. Some chose to arm themselves not for higher wages or owning more than two homes. In many parts of the world, it they do so so that someday they can claim their own little home without foreign domination. “Hegemony or Survival”, Noam might call it. However, we all see that there are innocent victims of violence committed by BOTH powerful states and weaker sub-state organizations. If we are truly concerned about human suffering, that is what we should focus not on Chomsky per se.
As a privileged intellectual living in a relatively free society like the US, Noam might say that he has the duty to remind of the information and data specifically concerning people in the third world that are not widely available in the mainstream American public. I think that he knows the erros and mistakes that he makes and even predicts the reactions that he get. But, I think, he is committed and dedicated to reduce the total sum of human suffering and injustice. Socrates did the same thing and refused to stop what he was doing. When accepting the death sentence, he said, he thank for the freedom that the Athenian democracy has given to him.
The issue should be our sincere and shared goal for humanity and create the kind of society in which the silent cry of most wretched being on earth can be heard.
Regarding Chomsky’s personal chacter, yes, he is a very thoughtful, kind and generous person. In my view, he is truly an epitome of honest intellectual with integrity. History will be on his side.
“Apart from the intelligence, the only human faculty which has an interest in public freedom of expression is that point in the heart which cries out against evilÃ?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦ What is first needed is a system of public education capable of providing it, so far as possible, with means of expression; and next, a regime in which the public freedom of expression is characterized not so much by freedom as by an attentive silence in which this faint and inept cry can make itself heart; and finally, institutions are needed of a sort which will, so far as possible, put power into the hands of men who are able and anxious to hear and understand it.” (Simone Weil, “Human Personality”)
To live is to suffer. Too bad utopians such as Anna cannot accept this fact and work their best to MAXIMIZE suffering.
What is suffering? “1 To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment 2 To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death 3 to appear at a disadvantage 3 to appear at a disadvantage; “he suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary…” (The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, 1981).
I guess the “suffering” I mentioned is #3. I recall a (the only) student from Morocco. One day after class she and I looked at the Abu Ghraib Prison Photos together. It was the day when the incident was revealed. She and I cried in an empty lecture room after all American students had left. Some people CHOOSE to react to and feel others “unjust” suffering. Those who had similar experience in the past are more likely to do so.
“NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, several reasons. For one thing, anti-Semitism was not — you know, it wasn’t like Germany, but it wasn’t a joke, either. I mean, anti-Semitism was a serious phenomenon. I can remember very well from childhood when my father got old enough to and finally got enough money to buy a second-hand car in the late 1930s. If we would drive up to the nearby mountains for a weekend, he would have to check for motels to see if they said “restricted,” because “restricted” meant “no Jews.” I happened to live in a neighborhood of Philadelphia which was, to a large extent, German and Irish American, very anti-Semitic, quite pro-Nazi, in fact, up until Pearl Harbor. And there were kids and boys on the streets, you know, you run into what you can expect. Never talked to my parents about it. They never knew. In fact, my brother and I, until about the day of their death, never told them. It wasn’t — like your life wasn’t in danger; it’s not like urban society today. But it wasn’t a lot of fun. The particular paths you would take, you might get beaten up, this sort of a thing. It was right below the surface.”
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20041126.htm
Anna
“The United States is a kinda-sort terrorist and totalitarian. So it’s better to support those who are completely and absolutely terrorist and totalitarian. Sure the millions killed by the Soviet Union was bad, but Abu Garib shows the US is EVIL.” – Choam Nomsky
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/05/ward-churchill-reprised.html
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/05/restarting-clock-of-history.html