Ive read a few of his books, and he certainly goes pretty deep into his own version of history in them. Seeing as, the guy is a pretty respected thinker, I was wondering what actual historians think of him? I realize that this is not the usual type of question that gets asked here, but I didnt know where else to ask.
There is an exact replica to this thread which can be found below:
Specifically you're probably looking for a reply such as this one by /u/Cenodoxus
First off, Chomsky's obviously articulate and intelligent. He is, without a doubt, one of the most influential linguists of the 20th century. But when it comes to his books on politics and history, just keep in mind that he does have a bias. To be fair, he doesn't hide his ideological inclinations and proudly wears it on his sleeve. He self-identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist and his political beliefs does show up in his analyses of historical events. His views on Mao, Castro, the Sandinistas, and Pol Pot have brought him a lot of acrimony from academics that lean on the right.
He is respected as an intellectual (more so on the left than on the right), but most scholars realize that he isn't (and isn't trying to be) an objective or passive observer of history. Having an ideological bias does not always detract from historical research, as long as the reader understands the ideological beliefs of the writer. Eric Hobsbawm was an excellent historian and the foremost expert on the 19th century, despite his membership in the Communist Party and his Stalinism apologia.
No worries. I'm the same way with other things. :p