Posted on 12/11/2003 10:10:29 AM PST by JCB
Noam Chomsky: You Ask The Questions 04 December 2003
Professor Noam Chomsky, 74, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, into the only Jewish family in a lower-middle-class neighbourhood. He took a degree and then a PhD in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. At the age of 29, he published Syntactic Structures, which revolutionised the study of language. In 1964, he began openly resisting the Vietnam War, and published his first collection of political writings five years later. He has remained a major authority on both linguistics and political theory ever since. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts with his wife, Carol, and has three children.
If you had only one question to ask the Presidentof the United States, what would it be? Michael Kulas, by e-mail
Why doesn't he abdicate, thus doing the world a great favour?
What has been your biggest mistake, and would you make it again if you could relive your life? Steve Womble, Sunderland
The failure to do anywhere near enough to try to put an end to suffering and crimes for which I share responsibility as a citizen of a free country, enjoying unusual privilege and opportunity. But that is a mistake I make every day.
Is anti-Semitism on the increase? Ricardo Parreira, London
In the West, fortunately, it scarcely exists now, though it did in the past. There is, of course, what the Anti-Defamation League calls "the real anti-Semitism", more dangerous than the old-fashioned kind: criticism of policies of the state of Israel and US support for them, opposition to a vast US military budget, etc. In contrast, anti-Arab racism is rampant. The manifestations are shocking, in elite intellectual circles as well, but arouse little concern because they are considered legitimate: the most extreme form of racism.
Where is the "silent genocide" you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001? Mike Dudley, Ipswich
That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First, the facts: I predicted nothing. Rather, I reported the grim warnings from virtually every knowledgeable source that the attack might lead to an awesome humanitarian catastrophe, and the bland announcements in the press that Washington had ordered Pakistan to eliminate "truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population".
All of this is precisely accurate and entirely appropriate. The warnings remain accurate as well, a truism that should be unnecessary to explain. Unfortunately, it is apparently necessary to add a moral truism: actions are evaluated in terms of the range of anticipated consequences.
Will there be a state of Israel in 50 years' time? What form will it take? Jo Honer, Portsmouth
There is still a bare prospect for the kind of two-state settlement that has been supported by a broad international consensus since the mid-1970s, including the majority of Americans, but has been unilaterally barred by the US. But that prospect is fading fast. Israel is in no danger as a state, but for the Palestinians, the future is not pleasant to contemplate.
Do you think the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power? Clive Norton, Godalming
Certainly not. That is why I have opposed US-UK policies since they began their strong support for the murderous thug 25 years ago, continuing long after his worst atrocities were well-known. They returned to support for Saddam in 1991 when he crushed a rebellion that might have overthrown him, because they held the "strikingly unanimous view [that] whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression" (New York Times).
To counter all the depressing news reports about seemingly omnipotent corporations, corrupt politicians and ignorant or disenfranchised subjects, are there any recent "points of light", that would encourage hope? Michael Pilkington, by e-mail
I can only repeat what I've often written. The US, and the West generally, has become far more civilised in the past 40 years, thanks to the activism of mostly young people in the 1960s and since. It is easy to give examples, including opposition to aggression and massacre, but also in many other domains as well. Of course, every effort is made to induce hopelessness and despair, but there is no reason to succumb. The future is in our hands, and the opportunities today are far greater than they have been in the past.
What has been the biggest mistake of Tony Blair's premiership? Sarah Paulsen, London
From my perspective, his virtually reflexive support for atrocious policies carried out in Washington.
As a linguist, do you understand 21st-century teenage slang? Jackie Dean, Birmingham
I cannot understand the words of the music my grandchildren listen to, or sometimes them either, but that has nothing to do with being a linguist: rather, becoming an old codger. I had the same problem 40 years ago, though.
You have mentioned on several occasions that human survival may be at stake, in reference to the quest for world domination stated explicitly by the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States. How serious is this threat? And how can we reduce it? Kelly Patrick Gerling, Kansas, USA
The threat is serious. The declaration was followed by actions to demonstrate that these are not empty words. One was the virtual announcement that Iraq would be invaded, without international authorisation or credible pretext. The administration also moved at once to block international efforts to enforce bio-weapons treaties, to ban militarisation of space and to reaffirm protocols banning bacteriological weapons. It also announced that it would move from "control" to "ownership" of space, proceeding with plans to use space for offensive weapons and surveillance systems that place the world at the mercy of a devastating attack without warning.
Of course, others react. As predicted, the weak react by resorting to terror and WMD; the strong by building up their own offensive capacities. Russia has rapidly expanded its offensive weapons, adopted the Bush first-strike doctrine and moved to automated delivery systems, an extreme hazard. China is doing much the same, with a ripple effect spreading to India, Pakistan and beyond.
Reducing the threats is easily within our means. We are fortunate to enjoy an unusual legacy of freedom and privilege and can act to change government policy in ways not available to others who, nevertheless, continue to struggle courageously in ways that should put us to shame.
Do you listen to music while you write your books about the world's problems? If so, what kind of music? Barbara Mallett, Hove
I'm afraid I'm an old-fashioned conservative. I listen to classical music, but little from after the 1930s and mostly from long before. I don't listen to music while I'm working.
What do you do for fun? And do you have a favourite joke? Liz Sturt, Petworth
I am constitutionally incapable of remembering jokes for more than 10 minutes. For fun? Grandchildren - something I highly recommend.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.independent.co.uk ...
Chomsky: "The failure to do anywhere near enough to try to put an end to suffering and crimes for which I share responsibility as a citizen of a free country, enjoying unusual privilege and opportunity."
Typical guilt-filled leftist! Every bad decision made in the third world is somehow our fault. It's the classic Robert "beat me harder" Fisk mentality.
Question: Where is the "silent genocide" you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?
Chomsky: "That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First, the facts: I predicted nothing. Rather, I reported the grim warnings from virtually every knowledgeable source that the attack might lead to an awesome humanitarian catastrophe...
A bold-faced lie! Not only did he predict a genocide, HE SAID IT WAS ALREADY GOING ON! October 18, 2001: ‘Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide’ which will kill ‘Three to four million people or something like that’. Now that reality has come back negative on his dire claims, he pretends never to have made them.
Question: Do you think the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power?
Chomsky: "Certainly not. That is why I have opposed US-UK policies since they began their strong support for the murderous thug 25 years ago, continuing long after his worst atrocities were well-known."
Makes you wonder why he never comments on the support Saddam received from the USSR, France and China - ie. 80%+ of his weapons!
Communists can do no wrong in this sick man's mind.
How long has it been since you first realized you were ful of sh**?
Have you ever considered an enema?
Who are the fathers of your children?
Are you ever going to run for President? What Party?
I bow to their intellectual superiority
oops
/sarcasm
In the West, fortunately, it scarcely exists now, though it did in the past.
Obviously wrong. Is he just ill-informed?
There is, of course, what the Anti-Defamation League calls "the real anti-Semitism", more dangerous than the old-fashioned kind: criticism of policies of the state of Israel and US support for them, opposition to a vast US military budget, etc.
Clever move. Name an enemy. Attribute an untruth to it. (That this group said the "real" anti-semitism is "more dangerous" than the "old"...an easy, false strawman to tear down, plus he relocates the argument to the US military bugaboo.
In contrast, anti-Arab racism is rampant.
"Arab" should read as "Islam". The study of it is a threat to Chomsky's limited world-view in sync with Arab obsessions with Israel and Jews.
The manifestations are shocking, in elite intellectual circles as well, but arouse little concern because they are considered legitimate: the most extreme form of racism.
I haven't seen this, but perhaps for Chomsky any reading or analysis of Arab opinions, etc. that don't confirm his projects.
Of course, he could just be pandering to his reader-base, the ones who give him money via book-buys.
Semiotics is more my style. It's fresh, lively, and hi-tek. Umberto Eco is entertaining, Chomsky is unreadable. We're not going to use a Chomsky text, but one that references Chomsky. I don't believe Chomsky will get a dime from us.
Why doesn't he abdicate, thus doing the world a great favour?
Wow, I didn't know that Noam Chomsky was such a big fan of seeing President Cheney. You learn all sorts of things reading the articles that make their way to FR.
In the West, fortunately, it scarcely exists now, though it did in the past. There is, of course, what the Anti-Defamation League calls "the real anti-Semitism", more dangerous than the old-fashioned kind: criticism of policies of the state of Israel and US support for them, opposition to a vast US military budget, etc. In contrast, anti-Arab racism is rampant. The manifestations are shocking, in elite intellectual circles as well, but arouse little concern because they are considered legitimate: the most extreme form of racism.
Hey Noam, have you been reading about Europe lately? That is a part of the "Western World" too.
He calls himself a "Libertarian Socialist" (also known as anarchist) and seems to hold the view -- and this is my characterization -- that if you just killed off all the businessmen, all the private property owners, anyone with an individualist mindset, anyone motivated by self-interest in any way... you'd be left with interchangeable workers who loved all mankind and would selflessly share everything and work together and build together and hold hands and la la la la la la la! The guy is a Phoebe Buffet song without the music.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.