Why would Chomsky do this?This link points out the problems Chomsky has with his support for the rights of holocaust deniers to freedom of speech.
I am reading Chomsky's book on American Power and he is brilliant. But I see his method fairly clearly. He takes the position of directly contradicting the official line of propoganda that exists in the media.Is this his approasch to the Holocaust? If he is simply denying the "official story" what does he think is the real story?
I have no doubt the holocaust was real. Family visited Belsen after the War and gave first hand testimony. They were "shocked" at the response of those who were "rescued". They were not grateful or happy according to the tale but simply asked why they hadn't been rescued sooner. This rings true emotionally with me and all the imagery and literature although consistent and compelling really seems but an afterthought.
So starting there I can only see the rationale of the Chomsky argument as an effort to undermine the horrible oppressiveness this abysmal reality is used to serve.
I think however that he misses the mark entirely and his "method" is confounded by the enormity of the issue. In his book on the exploits of Japan in Manchuria and China he does an excellent job of pursuading the reader of the real problems Japan faced by the Colonial Powers and how their efforts to secure the raw materials and resources for their island state were hampered by the imperialism and vested interests in Washington. Many scholars have also pointed out the same thing about Germany.They argue that it was the severity of the depression accompanied with international sanctions that created the social conditions in which fascism and totalitarianism festered.
Today the United States itself argues that a nation has a right to aggress to defend and ensure its economic interests.
If you deny the holocaust (and most of those who do deny it do so in my opinion, because they either are seeking notoriety or if they are more "genuine" in their denial they simply cannot accept that human beings could do these horrible things) then you cannot look at the entire picture of WWll with any objectivity.
Chomsky's argument is that the clear black and white issues we are taught are not that clear after all. Horrible things were done on both sides, the dropping of the bombs on Japan and the thousand plane bombing raid the day the surrender was signed, for example.
The idea of freedom of expression does not include hate literature for most civilized people. The question,by way of analogy, is whether or not simply denying Charles Manson killed those people is the same as writing hateful or bigoted statement about the victims and their relatives. It isn't the same thing.
But I think that Chomsky owes it to the left wing to elaborate more on this ill thought attempt to get at the issues that created WWII by the use of his "devil's advocate" method. Why not put the holocaust in full perspective as recent TV movies have done where you see what appear to be normal if somewhat eccentric Germans acting in ways that defy the belief that human beings have an inate sense of right and wrong?
And yet it is typically Chomsky not to do this for if we care little about the various other genocides that have occured since the holocaust it could only be because the victims were nonwhite, he might argue.
Fine, but neither is acceptable obviously.
Any thoughts or comments?
What DOES Chomsky have to say about these matters?
[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Boinker ]
Email this thread to someone!
posted 13 December 2002 10:12 PM
