This is laughably untrue, and it’s obvious untruth is clear to all who have read the thread. You have decided the reliability of sources without even bothering to read them (Chomsky would be proud of you), demanded specific sources be provided addressed and to you when they were being addressed the whole time and the original sources provided for you three times, and then yourself continued to fail to address anything posters had written, choosing instead to provide a rebuttal by someone else to something else an entirely different person had written criticizing Chomsky on something not related to anything a poster had stated. Again, you do Chomsky proud; I propose titling this ineffective method of non-debate “Rebuttal at the Fourth Hand.”
Im not that familiar with Shahak. I’m reading about him now. He appears to have done extensive civil rights work in Israel, was a doctoral professor of chemistry there for many years, was a Holocaust survivor having been sent to a concentration camp in Poland where his father died, he also seems to be very well respected at least in his scholarship on many topics by “Noam Chomsky, and winning plaudits from Jean Paul Sartre, Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens and Edward Said.” Wikipedia-
For Chomsky to say that “Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.” I don’t think is all that horrifying. If Shahak has some faults in overeach over the years I don’t think it warrants blacklisting or even avoiding his work if there is a great deal of value in it that is difficult to find parallel for elsewhere.
The book you reference, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, seems to get pretty good reviews. There are some rabid attack mill sites that obviously hate it but I don’t take them very seriously on anything. It appears at a glance to reveal some inconvenient truths about orthodox Judaism. If it were a book about orthodox Christians with similar inconvenient charges I imagine there would be similar Christian groups that would be highly offended. Sorry, religions tend to have some wacky and indefensible positions and traditions. Documenting them as a jewish person in an attempt to explain the context of jewish history is not anti-semitic.
This is again someone who is as Jewish as they get and as invested in the history of Jewish atrocity as anyone being attacked as an antisemite for saying things inconvenient to Israel domestic and foreign policy.
You’re going to need more evidence than Cohn’s ramblings to prove to me that anyone who speaks positively of the guy s clearly and anti-semite (I don’t doubt t opportunists in the antisemitic community have taken advantage of his writing out of context for their own stupid purposes, that’s just going to happen in anything of detail.)
Do not accuse other posters of lying in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
Where has anything I posted been dealt with in detail?
I’m sorry if you feel neglected on the fourth hand issue, there have been a half dozen issues for me to rebut, again I have done that extensively, perhaps not about that book yet, but again I have responded n detail on many of the other issues people have proposed with zero reciprocation. I will get to it, and have been researching the issue, however I have not yet put my mind together on the alleged issues of DOTFH and wanted to wait until I had my rebuttal tightened into something I was happy with.
Thusfar I have noticed that criticisms of DOTFH seem to rely on using the standard of what was known years after it’s publication as proof that Chomsky was being misleading then, ignoring what was known in the future. A kind of intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from critics of Chomsky.
Again I’ll wonder aloud: What exactly is the damage that is supposed to have been done by Chomsky to the Cambodians even if he had systematically minimized legitimate reports of their genocide? Without his efforts and other anti-war activists of the time does the American military then have the support to go in and stop the genocide and protect life in Cambodia? Anyone who knows anything about the issues and that war know that that’s complete nonsense to imagine. Everything we touched in that area of the world in those wars was turned into a mass grave. We supported Pol-Pot for years and years. Our government supported this monster with a lot more than words. Where is your outrage about that? Something that is uncontroversially true? Using the tax money of the US citizenry to keep in power a mass murderer? The false outrage over this is really duplicitous and depressing.
I apologize; it was not my intention to call him personally a liar. The statement he made is however not true. He may genuinely believe it to be true, but it clearly is not.
Again, you are clearly not interested in debating in good faith. The thread is full of detailed responses to you. You are not answering any of the criticisms given here, by posters here, of Chomsky’s apologia for the Khmer Rouge. Instead you provide articles written by other people responding to yet other people’s criticisms of Chomsky’s defense of the Khmer Rouge, and now announce that criticisms of Chomsky on the issue use standards of what was known in later years. This is complete and utter tripe and nonsense asides. Chomsky wrote his piece of filth in 1977. It was widely known then that the Khmer Rouge were systemically committing auto-genocide. They had been doing it for two years and the evidence that it had and was continuing to occur was indisputable to all but those with clear and twisted political agendas like Chomsky and Herman, who decided that for example all the refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge were lying. The first thing the Khmer Rouge did after winning was to completely empty the capital city of Phnom Penh of its entire population; the old, infirm, sick and wounded included. Hospital patients were tossed out of windows. This isn’t some later known fact, it was known when in happened in 1975 and in 1977 Chomsky absurdly tried to act as if this was perfectly normal behavior.
cites please. (where it was known before the publications in 77).
In post #7 I begin refuting a source paragraph by paragraph. Again in post #15, and on and on.
Your turn to show where others have done the same.
Tom, he’s not accusing UP of lying. Dissonance merely pointed out that UP had made a statement which was wrong.
On countless threads in GD we all regularly say the other person is making statements that are clearly untrue.
That doesn’t mean the other person is lying. They could be mistaken or just refusing to have cherished beliefs contradicted.
Really? You seriously want a cite that the Khmer Rouge emptied Phnom Penh the day they captured in it 1975? That it was a well known fact that they had been engaging in genocide from 1975? I thought you claimed to have read Distortions at Fourth Hand (hey look, I’ve now linked it for you four times!). Chomsky’s entire article in that piece of filth was denying cites of genocide and calling Cambodian refugees liars. Try reading it. Only the willfully blind claimed genocide hadn’t and wasn’t happening in Cambodia in 1977. Even Chomsky didn’t have the audacity to claim it was uncited, he simply said any source saying so was worthless while gleefully parroting press releases by the Khmer Rouge without the merest hint of skepticism that they might actually not be telling the truth.
No, your posts were quoting someone else’s apologia trying to refute another someone else’s dissection of Chomsky and Herman apologia for the filth it was defending the Khmer Rouge without bothering to actually read what Chomsky and Herman wrote. As I said, Rebuttal at the Fourth Hand.
Butter. Spread at will.
Again you cant seem to back up your assertions with evidence. Cite it or withdraw your blathering.
Er…he’s citing Distortions of the Fourth Hand in the post you’re quoting.
You’re really not helping your argument.
Now, you’ve angrily proclaimed after being asked about you’re familiarity with Chomsky’s sources that this thread isn’t about them, but you’re the one who introduced Chomsky’s sources in your very first post and proclaimed they were a reason you found Chomsky so reliable.
Now, you’re specifically claiming that every single assertion he makes “has a strong source” that you can simply “look up.”
As has been brought up repeatedly Chomsky regularly refers to obscure academic journals and books that were never translated into English, aren’t available online, and are unavailable in virtually all libraries.
So, since you claim you can easily check his sources then please tell us what languages other than English you speak and how can you easily check up on obscure academic journals that went out of business decades ago and were never published in English?
What library do you go to look up these sources and what languages do you read them in?
Finally, which of Chomsky’s books have you read?
Again, I’m only asking this because you brought up his “sources” and you claimed you liked them because you could easily look them up. We’d like to be able to find out what would make you make such a claim.
Thanks.
Okay, this doesn’t even qualify as theater of the absurd. Click on the link to Chomsky’s own article I provided for you four times and that you claim to have read. Now read it. I’ve provided you with citation from Chomsky himself. No seriously, read it, he hand waves away the emptying of Phnom Penh with the bizarre explanation straight from the mouth of the Khmer Rouge at the time that the people were being sent to work in the fields to prevent starvation. Are you now saying Chomsky is a worthless source?
We’re not talking about defense against “blacklisting”, but rather Chomsky enthusiastically endorsing a book by a person who thinks an anti-Jewish massacre was a laudable thing and contains other grotesque anti-Semitic statements. Defending Shahak’s right to say such things is one matter - gushing over his writings is quite another. I don’t see why it’s so difficult for you to grasp this.
The bigoted statements Cohn referenced had nothing to do with Israel. And being Jewish does not exempt one from being an anti-Semitic bigot. Some notorious anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage.
You want to discuss something Chomsky says in the book as being untrue, quote it and then we can deal with that single issue, all your vague assertions are meaningless without evidence, it is your assertion, therefore your responsibility to prove, not mine. This is obvious. You continue to cite the entire article only as if I’m supposed to do your homework for you.
The Jewish massacre you mention I think unless your talking about something else is about a couple hundred year old or more massacre in a situation where people of Jewish faith\background were an oppressing people over another group, a rebellion occurred and the Jewish dominant class was killed in mass. He compares this to some french revolution where some French colony rebels and kills French people the tyranized people associate with their condition, mostly rightfully though of course some innocents were probably caught up in the ferver. You’ll have to show that the context is antisemitism beyond this. Guess what, being Jewish doesn’t make people incapable of kinds of evils that all other religios people and no religious people have been guilty of over the ages.
A lot of very respected Intellectuals appear to have “gushed” over this guys work at one time or another. He does a lot of scholarship issues other people simply aren’t interested in.
Again the guy was sent to a concentration camp as a child where his father died, I don’t think he sympathizes with antisemitism in any way shape or form. If he sometimes recounts the Jewish history in a non-Fairy-tale fashion that silly people find uncomfortable. Well into sorry. The truth is important and does matter for us to understand the context of human history and the present day.
If he targets especially any jewish groups it appears to be orthodox Jews which are a tiny minority of modern Jews and right wing Israeli nationals. I don’t want to get to far down the rabbit hole on this guy but he does not appear to obviously be some absolute wacko unless you think all left wing pacifist types are by litmus test unacceptable to academic contribution.
“in mass” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Beyond that, I find it preposterous that in the 17th Century Ukraine Jews were oppressing Christians and the Christians had to retaliate by massacring them.
Are you familiar with the history of Jews in Eastern Europe.
You might as well proclaim that South African blacks in the 1970s were persecuting Afrikanners and the Afrikanners were forced to retaliate.
Please provide evidence from a reliable source to support such a ridiculous notion.
Shahak also claims Jewish children are regularly taught to utter ritual curses when they pass gentile cemetaries and that Jews are taught to worship Satan.
Are you claiming that this is true or would you concede it’s anti-Semitic claptrap.
For all your ranting, (and I will cut you some slack on your latest “blathering” accusation, but that was your last pass), I would say that every poster in this thread could have directed this comment to you. You have only one post that actually addresses any issues by quoting Chomsky, directly, on the point, rather than quoting (or, more often, paraphrasing), Chomsky talking about his opinions about criticisms of his works.
= = = = =
EVERYONE:
From this point, all comments about other posters in this thread will earn the submitting poster a Warning for failing to follow Moderator instructions. Stick to observations regarding Chomsky–preferably supported by direct quotes.
[ /Moderating ]
en masse (n ms)
adv.
In one group or body; all together: The protesters marched en masse to the capitol.
It means exactly what I used it as. Silly that I have to look it up to prove that things mean what they mean in the English language.
I am not the one with a burden of proof, he refers to these things vaguely without the specifying cites. He must provide the cites to have any legitimacy to his claims. I did not say I knew the full trappings of the comments as I am not that familiar with IS, but I’m certainly not going to track it down if he wont. It’s his accusation, it’s his to prove not mine to disprove before anything meaningful has been brought to the conversation.
Plenty of religions carry traditions from pagan or other strange sources that lead to this sort of tradition. If it’s part of some diatribe against jews in general and its clear he’s trying to say jews are especially bad as opposed to ‘just like everyone else’ you might have something. But again he has not provided the citation and I am not going to track it down for him. He made a vague accusation and so I make a vague review of the man to see if something obvious was there. If he can provide actual cites I will follow up on them. Otherwise I will not. I think its kind of obvious that if you’re the one trying to villianize someone you should have to provide good evidence or hold your tongue. Cite or stop being irresponsible with defamation.
In the 17th century example you will have to provide me with the context. If he’s actually saying that people with no just cause killing a bunch of innocent jews were justified because hey jews are bad and everyone knows that well sure, but I’m guessing theres more to it. Again cite it up or please don’t continue to generalize in defamation without credible evidence.
Jews are not incapable of being the bad guys. They are not special above other groups of stupid religious people. That IS finds one example way back in history does not convince me he’s trying to create a pattern of evil ingrained in jews.
Had you said “en masse” you’d have a point, but you didn’t so you don’t.
Your statement here is utter rubbish.
You specifically argued that the pogrom was a result of the fact the the Jews were “the dominant group” and had brought the Pogrom on themselves because they were “oppressing” Ukrainian Christians.
Now, I’m saying that your above comment is anti-Semitic bullshit which would cause anyone remotely familiar with the history of the Jews in Eastern Europe to piss themselves laughing.
Back it up and show evidence with reliable cites to show that the Jews of the 17th Century were the “dominant class” and were “oppressing” the Christians of the Ukraine and that what you’re saying was the truth rather than anti-Semitic bullshit.
Why are you writing “jews” instead of “Jews.”
Also, you haven’t answered my question.
Are you saying that it’s not anti-Semitic bullshit to claim that Jewish children are taught to utter ritual curses when they pass by gentile graveyards and that it’s also not anti-Semitic bullshit to claim that Jews pray to Satan while eating?