[feedforward]

The US began arming the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that means) in 1979 as well as protecting them in the UN, so the equivalence seems pretty valid to me.

Not to mention the US 1970 invasion of Cambodia and concurrent CIA-backed overthrow of the Cambodian government, which including shooting dead US students who protested against it at Kent State and Jackson State, or the US carpet bombing of Cambodia during and after Operation Freedom Deal.

[ein0p]

I recall vehemently disagreeing with Chomsky on many things when I was much younger, but then I somehow stumbled upon Howard Zinn’s “People’s history of the United States” and realized the version of history I knew was basically concentrated propaganda I was brainwashed into believing. That opened the door to understanding Chomsky. “Manufacturing consent” explains our present state of affairs really well.

[tptacek]

Zinn's reputation among historians: not all that great.

[ein0p]

Reputation of historians according to Zinn: not all that great either. Read him as a counterpoint, and food for critical thought, not as the sole source of truth. He doesn’t hide that he has an agenda.

[tptacek]

OK, but to be clear: his reputation among leftist historians, of which there are many: not all that great!

[caycep]

I did actually see him talk at a rally in Boston Common, around '04 or so. While his written stuff may well be better, what struck me was the gist was basically self promotion about how he know "secret" things from "secret" sources, but never really bothered to elaborate, only that the "US Govt is lying to you". Well yes but...I would say if one had such information, it is not well served by presenting oneself as a conspiratorial crank....

[ein0p]

Yes, US Govt is routinely lying to you. That is not controversial at all at this point. Read the book. It’s a difficult read though. Might ruffle some patriotic feathers.

Think of how difficult it is today to get even remotely truthful news. And then think about how this horseshit will be written up by government funded historians once all the political scores are settled and winners are determined

[caycep]

Yes, but why should I even bother with Zinn especially when his talk was basically to take him at his word/narrative, over other, better sourced accounts of how the US Govt is lying to me?

(* some of which comes from other parts of the US Govt meant to keep tabs on certain other parts of the US Govt) (*granted, also this assumes the US Govt is one monolithic entity when it is anything but)

[Eisenstein]

I don't think the solution to having been taught one biased view is to turn around and embrace the oppositely biased view. Countering one form of extreme with another does not make truth, it makes people who hate each other who refuse to find common ground or compromise.

[vasco]

I mean if you want another perspective you can simple Wikipedia "American Empire". It'll be simple enough for another view of current state of affairs without going into politically motivated alternative history, either from communists or from milton friedman fans.

It annoys me to no end that both right wingers and left wingers like so much to tell history how it's convenient to them and always hard to get something unbiased. Even numbers of deaths can't be trusted before you check who you are reading.

[yareal]

"People who I am critical of don't like me" is not particularly surprising, to be honest.

[hi-v-rocknroll]

I was more-or-less a free-market, atheist libertarian until about age 16 because I didn't know any better and it seemed so righteous and freedom flag-waving. Then, I learned a few things decades since then (but kept the atheism), especially about the dark origins of libertarianism. The truth is that America is a neocolonial power that flirts authoritarianism where one can live an easy life if they're moderately rich, but on the backs of a massive, struggling underclass that has it much worse than most countries in Europe. "Socialism" is a taboo word in America that it needs much more of, but the problem is that most people have too much faith in strongmen, corruption of campaign financing, and giving corporations more money, more power, and favorable regulations including regulatory capture.

[ein0p]

I’m starting to waver on atheism also. I’m not likely to start believing in god this far in my life, of course, but I now see why a lot of people feel the need to believe, and I no longer judge them for it. I do however judge religious organizations for shamelessly exploiting that need.

[karmakurtisaani]

Perhaps I could sell you the idea of ignosticism: one cannot prove anything about any supernatural beings, so the whole question of existence of gods is meaningless, and can be therefore happily be ignored. Thus, all religious questions are resolved.

Even atheism is a strong stance and asserts a belief that you cannot test!

[verticalscaler]

If you reread what you wrote carefully an amazing irony falls out.

You might consider your consent has simply been manufactured in another direction. Lots of Chomsky acolytes never quite reach that epiphany.

They simply follow in his footsteps of being oh so traumatized by the sudden realization that governments lie and propaganda is a thing that you could get them to opt in to an even deeper set of absurdities and half truths quite easily. To the great delight of the enemies of the US.

This is how you get college students to chant "Death to America".

[corimaith]

Second option bias comes to mind here, funnily enough the alt-right utilizes the same tactics.

[verticalscaler]

Indeed. Alt-right/left/whatever. Very potent tactics as you can tell even from reading this thread.

You would think people who come to these bitter realizations would know better but many inevitably land on "the ends justifies the means" or the less sophisticated "only our scum enemies lie!" and round and round we go.

[ein0p]

Actually that’s only true if you uncritically accept everything either side says and reject the other side. That’s low IQ, don’t do that.

[cm2187]

1979 was after the genocide and after Pol Pot was pushed out of power. Implying the US had something to do with the killing fields defies common sense. The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed.

Now the US did support some incompetent and corrupt militia in Cambodia to oppose the Khmer rouges, and those did their fair share of misdeeds, to the frustration of local US officers. But given the crimes the khmer rouges ended up committing, it is hard to argue that not opposing them was the morally superior position, even with hindsight.

[foobarqux]

It's like saying the war in Iraq has no effect on the current situation there.

[cm2187]

You mean like saying the US is the cause of the Shia-Sunni hatred?

[feedforward]

> The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 and China invaded Vietnam in 1979. What are you talking about?

[cm2187]

In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia, and in January 1976, Democratic Kampuchea was established. During the Cambodian genocide, the CCP was the main international patron of the Khmer Rouge, supplying "more than 15,000 military advisers" and most of its external aid.[82] It is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid to Khmer Rouge came from China, with 1975 alone seeing US$1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid and US$20 million gift, which was "the biggest aid ever given to any one country by China"

And if you read the article, north vietnam was their main backer before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#1975%E2%80%931993

[turndown]

I worded that part poorly, and did not bring up what really bothers me about it, that he tried to deny that there was a genocide in Cambodia. I agree with what you said. The idea that the US is innocent in Cambodia or really anything going on in that part of the world at that time is beyond false.

[lamontcg]

His point was always that the most inflated estimates of deaths in Cambodia were uncritically accepted by Western media and widely broadcast, while atrocities committed by friendly nations always leaned towards the very low estimates and the stories were buried.

[vintermann]

Yes, the accusation that he denied the Cambodian genocide is false, and a tactical smear.

[Aloisius]

Chomsky wrote that "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation."

I'm unsure as to how that would be anything but genocide denial.

[andrepd]

He wrote that before the truth was known, while the genocide was ongoing and the only thing we had was scattered reports of atrocities. This was the 70s, we did not exactly have telegram livestream channels from the frontlines. It was a mistake and he recanted those views in the later stages of the regime and afterwards, when the evidence became overwhelming.

[Aloisius]

Before the truth was known? No. Before he accepted the truth after it became untenable for him to continue to reject it.

Chomsky simply rejected all the earlier evidence pointing to a genocide as an American imperialist lie.

For goodness sake, he characterized Barron and Paul's Murder of a Gentle Land as being sourced from "informal briefings from specialists at the State and Defense Departments" despite it clearly sourcing testimony of hundreds of Cambodian refugees and Khmer Rouge radio broadcasts. His characterization of it was so intellectually dishonest that it is difficult to believe it was either an intentional lie or willful ignorance.

He searched for any counter-evidence that would confirm his belief that the US was evil (and its adversaries were good or just misunderstood), no matter how questionable - a pattern he continued his entire life.