So I'm a big fan of Chomsky for his analysis of us politics and his idea's about pragmatic anarchism but I often hear his critics call him a liar who doesn't know his history. For the most part everything I've checked that he's said has been correct so I was wondering if anyone has checked his sources or general memory of history. I know his views on history can be controversial and don't want to discuss them I'm just wondering if he uses Correct info
I know his views on history can be controversial and don't want to discuss them, I'm just wondering if he uses correct info
Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Chomsky is that he's an unreliable source of historical information (and because of what he says about the self-brainwashing of US intellectuals, the reader isn't highly motivated to go look at other sources).
In particular, as a reader, I usually assume that if a writer provides a selective quote from someone else, it should provide a reasonably accurate summary of what the other person said. Chomsky doesn't appear to adhere to this rule.
This means that it's necessary to check his references very carefully. I assume not everyone who reads Chomsky does this.
Orwell describes the phenomenon of extreme partisan writing in his essay Notes on Nationalism: "Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied."
There's a February 26, 1970 letter to the New York Review of Books by Samuel Huntington, with a response by Chomsky, which gives an example. ("After Pinkville" is reprinted in The Chomsky Reader.)
In response to "After Pinkville" (January 1, 1970)
To the Editors:
In the space of three brief paragraphs in your January 1 issue, Noam Chomsky manages to mutilate the truth in a variety of ways with respect to my views and activities on Vietnam.
Mr. Chomsky writes as follows:
"Writing in Foreign Affairs, he [Huntington] explains that the Viet Cong is 'a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist.' The conclusion is obvious, and he does not shrink from it. We can ensure that the constituency ceases to exist by 'direct application of mechanical and conventional power...on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to city....'"
It would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dishonest instance of picking words out of context so as to give them a meaning directly opposite to that which the author stated. For the benefit of your readers, here is the "obvious conclusion" which I drew from my statement about the Viet Cong:
"...the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist. Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation."
By omitting my next sentence--'Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation'--and linking my statement about the Viet Cong to two other phrases which appear earlier in the article, Mr. Chomsky completely reversed my argument.
Chomsky's response includes the following remarkable sophistry:
... I did not say that he "favored" this answer but only that he "outlined" it, "explained" it, and "does not shrink from it," all of which is literally true [emphasis added].
Stanley Hoffmann, another critic of the Vietnam War, described Chomsky as having a "tendency to draw from an author’s statements inferences that correspond neither to the author’s intentions nor to the statements’ meaning." Source.
I've written up a longer critical review of Chomsky's writings on foreign policy, attempting to be as fair-minded as possible.
Questions about Chomsky's politics have been asked several times in both /r/AskHistorians and /r/AskSocialScience
Here's one from /r/AskSocialScience that includes a second link to a post in /r/AskHistorians
Hi all,
this thread, as the rest of this sub, is actively moderated. We expect posts to be of a certain quality, and we expect them to cover historical arguments, concepts and ideas.
We do not tolerate personal attacks of any kind, not even if they're part of a longer post. I've already removed several posts where people felt the need to tack on a swipe at Chomsky or an user. Neither will be accepted. In addition to removal of your post, personal attacks may result in a warning or a ban.
Please stick to discussing arguments, thanks.