Noam Chomsky : 'What We Say Goes'

[Starglider]

Has anyone else here read Noam Chomsky's 'What We Say Goes'? A friend asked me to read it; he's pretty anti-American (anti-West actually) and said 'this will explain everything'. I'm familiar with Chomsky's (good) work in formal linguistics and it's short so I thought I'd give it a try.

His basic premise seems to be that everything is America's fault and that through all of history American governments have been complete bastards. This is really what broke the book for me. Every chapter starts well, with reasonable points about the abuses of various administrations. Then it gets into 'what really happened in incident X was Y, but mainstream media and historians won't talk about it' and I'm thinking 'I suppose that's plausible but where's your evidence?'. Then it declines into 'the US government fucked everything up for personal gain, which they usually didn't even get due to incompetence'. There's certainly been a fair bit of that in history, but the problem is how pervasive it is; Chomsky reluctantly and grudgingly admits that third world governments aren't ideal, before dismissing this with the assertion that America installed and supported all those governments anyway and thus anything they do is really the fault of the US.

It isn't as bad as its right wing equivalents - the presentation is at least moderate and for the most part intelligent - and of course this doesn't represent the extreme (smash all corporations! unilateral disarmament! world communism now!) left, though the political spectrum of the US is sufficiently right-heavy (and institutionally uncritical of the extreme right) to make this look fairly extreme by comparison. But it still struck me as seriously flawed and hence too easy for neocons to credibly dismiss - which is a shame, since a lot of his points really could bear repetition. The strong and non-empirical 'America sucks' focus also makes it disturbingly viable as both a 'little red book' for anti-Westerners and an easy 'see, all our opponents just hate America' cite for neocons.

Of course my knowledge of history and geopolitics is relatively limited. Any other opinions on this or other Chomsky stuff? Even if you haven't read this, I get the impression that his political books are all quite similar. I seem him referenced in N&P threads occasionally but I don't recall an explicit discussion of how sane his positions are.

[TheKwas]

Chomsky reluctantly and grudgingly admits that third world governments aren't ideal, before dismissing this with the assertion that America installed and supported all those governments anyway and thus anything they do is really the fault of the US.

This is a pretty common criticism of Chomsky: He will be fast to criticize America in most situations but he won't bother to provide the same sort of extensive criticism of other countries. However, from what I've read elsewhere, he defends this tendency by saying:
a) He's American, so he wants to concentrate on the crimes that his country commits.
b) Most people already know about the many abuses of numerous 3rd world countries, and if they don't already know there are already plenty of resources on the subject, so he feels like he would be contributing more by focusing on often glossed over and neglected history of American war crimes.
c) We (should) hold western liberal democracies to a higher standard of conduct than third world tyrannies.

I haven't read 'What We Say Goes' so I can't comment on how valid his specific arguments are (to be honest, I haven't read any Chomsky books in roughly 3 years, which is high-school days for me). I remember being impressed with his treatment of American involvement in Latin America (undermining democracy in Nicaragua and supporting anti-Communists terrorists in Cuba), and he was one of the reasons I started to take moderate theories of 'anarchism' seriously.

[Darth Wong]

Americans have no problem with bragging about their incredible worldwide influence as long as it's stated in the context of nationalist dick-waving. But the minute some stuffy left-wing intellectual starts talking about the destructive effect of American policies, all of a sudden it becomes ridiculous and extremist to say that America has influence on countries all over the world. Surely those countries are all entirely responsible for their own problems, because America doesn't really have that much influence! Until the dick-waving starts again, and then America suddenly becomes a towering juggernaut which influences every country on the Earth again.

[Sidewinder]

The wanking seems to apply to any nation with the real or imagined status as a superpower, such as China.

China has the power to save survivors of Burma’s devastating cyclone, according to Burmese Prime Minister-in-exile, Sein Win.

"The key to saving the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Burma is China," Sein Win told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington.

"No other country in the world has more influence on the military junta of Burma than China. The fact is, without the strong and consistent support of China, the military junta of Burma would not be able to exist. That we know."

That said, Noam Chomsky's claim that "the US government fucked everything up for personal gain, which they usually didn't even get due to incompetence" does NOT support his position at all. For example, the US offered aid to Burma in the wake of the recent cyclone.

Official: UN plane lands in Myanmar with aid after cyclone
2 days ago

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) — Relief supplies from the United Nations arrived in Myanmar Thursday, but U.S. military planes loaded with aid were still denied access by the country's isolationist regime five days after a devastating cyclone.

The military junta also continued to stall on visas for U.N. teams seeking entry to ensure the aid is delivered to the victims amid fears that lack of safe food and drinking water could push the death toll above 100,000.

Four airplanes carrying high-energy biscuits, medicine and other supplies arrived in Yangon Thursday, U.N. officials said. Two of four U.N. experts who had flown to Myanmar to assess the damage were turned back at Yangon's airport for reasons that were not immediately clear, said John Holmes, the U.N. relief coordinator. The other two were allowed to enter.

By rejecting the U.S. offer, the junta is refusing to take advantage of Washington's enormous ability to deliver aid quickly, which was evident during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 230,000 people in a dozen nations.

"We have demonstrated in crises around the world ... our logistical capability to get humanitarian assistance quickly in to the people who need it," said Shari Villarosa, the top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar.

Gordon Johndroe, President Bush's national security spokesman, said the U.S. was still working to gain permission to enter Myanmar. Another option being considered was air-dropping aid without permission, said Ky Luu, the director of the U.S. office of foreign disaster assistance.

But Defense Secretary Robert Gates later said he couldn't imagine dropping relief aid into Myanmar without the military junta's permission.

France has argued that the U.N. has the power to intervene to help civilians because of an agreement by world leaders at a 2005 summit that the international body has a "responsibility to protect" people sometimes when nations fail to do it. But that agreement did not mention natural disasters.

Myanmar's generals, traditionally paranoid about foreign influence, issued an appeal for international assistance after the storm struck Saturday. They have since dragged their feet on issuing visas to relief workers even as survivors faced hunger, disease and flooding.

In 2004, the first foreign military aid did not arrive in the hardest-hit nation, Indonesia, until two days after the disaster. The most significant help came when U.S. helicopters from the USS Abraham Lincoln began flying relief missions to isolated communities along the coast of Aceh province.

With roads washed out and the infrastructure in shambles, large swaths of Myanmar's delta region also remain accessible only by air — something few other countries are equipped to handle as well as the United States.

Tim Costello, chief executive of World Vision Australia, said the U.S. has to convince Myanmar's government that it has no political agenda.

"Clearly we all know the political context there, and I think it's going to take a little bit more time for a breakthrough there," Costello said.

Thailand Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej offered to negotiate on Washington's behalf to persuade Myanmar's government to accept U.S. aid.

"What is critically needed at this point is for Myanmar authorities to open up to a major international relief effort," said U.N. spokesman Richard Horesy. "If that is not done quickly, there is a major risk that there will be a second phase to this disaster where large numbers of people will die of communicable disease."

The Association of Southeast Nations appealed to the international community to keep sending aid through Thailand.

"Please keep the help coming, keep the contributions coming, and if you have to, go to Thailand, park there and wait for redistribution from there," said ASEAN secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan.

The U.S. military sent more humanitarian supplies and equipment to a staging area in Thailand on Thursday. A C-17 transport plane with water and food landed Thursday, joining the two C-130s in place, Air Force spokeswoman Megan Orton said at the Pentagon. Another C-130 loaded with supplies was on its way, she said.

The Navy also has three ships participating in an exercise in the Gulf of Thailand that could help in any relief effort, including an amphibious assault ship with 23 helicopters aboard.

The Navy was sending helicopters from the USS Essex into Thailand, a defense official said Thursday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The London-based human rights group Amnesty International said some donors were delaying aid for fear it would be siphoned off to the army. The U.N. World Food Program's regional director, Anthony Banbury, indicated the United Nations had similar concerns.

"We will not just bring our supplies to an airport, dump it and take off," he said.

So far, the United Nations has recorded donations to Myanmar relief totaling $25 million from 28 nations, the European Union and charities. An additional $25 million has been pledged.

Myanmar's state media said Cyclone Nargis killed at least 22,997 people and left 42,019 missing, mostly in the hardest-hit Irrawaddy delta. Villarosa said the number of dead could eventually exceed 100,000 because safe food and water were scarce and unsanitary conditions widespread.

"That extraordinary volume of rain, of wave, of wind just crushing everything, snapping everything in its wake, that death toll I think could be conceivable," said Costello, of World Vision.

U.N. officials estimated as many as 1 million people were left homeless in Myanmar, which also is known as Burma.

In Yangon, the cyclone blew off the roof of Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and cut the electricity to her dilapidated lakeside bungalow, where she is under house arrest, a neighbor said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Entire villages in the delta were still submerged from the storm, and bloated corpses could be seen stuck in the mangroves. Some survivors stripped clothes off the dead. People wailed as they described the horror of the torrent swept ashore by the cyclone.

"I don't know what happened to my wife and young children," said Phan Maung, 55, who held onto a coconut tree until the water level dropped. By then his family was gone.

The World Health Organization has received reports of malaria outbreaks in the worst-affected area, and said fears of waterborne illnesses surfacing due to dirty water and poor sanitation also remained a concern.

Even near Yangon, the country's largest city, stricken villagers complained that they had received no government assistance and were relying on aid from Buddhist monasteries.

Myanmar's state television Thursday showed Prime Minister Lt. Gen. Thein Sein distributing food packages to the sick and injured in the delta and soldiers dropping food over villages. The date of the distribution was not given.

Although most Yangon residents were preoccupied with trying to restore their lives, activists wrote fresh graffiti on overpasses, including "X" marks — a symbol for voting "no" in a referendum Saturday on a new military-backed constitution. Voting has been postponed until May 24 in Yangon, some outlying areas and parts of the delta heavily damaged by the storm.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Thursday called on Myanmar's government to postpone the referendum entirely and "focus instead on mobilizing all available resources and capacity for the emergency response efforts."

Burma clears US aircraft to deliver relief
Junta says it will handle distribution
By Amy Kazmin and Colum Lynch
Washington Post / May 10, 2008

BANGKOK - Burma's military government said yesterday that it had cleared a US military relief flight for cyclone victims, declaring itself ready to accept aid from "all quarters." But the junta reaffirmed that it alone will handle distribution, without foreign workers, a restriction that international agencies oppose.

more stories like thisBurma criticized for effort to run aid effort alone. A5

The mixed message left deep uncertainties in the delivery of vital food and medications a week after Tropical Cyclone Nargis swept through Burma's low-lying Irrawaddy Delta, swamping villages and leaving at least 60,000 people dead or missing.

As hundreds of thousands of people stranded by the tidal surge desperately await aid, the Bush administration pressured China and other allies of Burma's military government, hoping they would prevail on it to open its doors to help. "The situation is getting critical and there is only a small window of opportunity if we are to avert the spread of diseases that could multiply the already tragic number of casualties," said Noeleen Heyzer, the top UN official in Asia.

Diplomatic overtures were having little influence over the junta, which brutally put down a popular uprising last year in a country where the citizens' deeply held Buddhist traditions often interpret natural disasters as a sign of political illegitimacy.

The generals who rule Burma view foreign assistance - even in the storm's dire aftermath - as a potential threat to their two-decade hold on power.

Critics also are accusing the generals of callousness for proceeding with a referendum on a controversial new constitution in areas unaffected by the cyclone. Nationwide voting began today except in the hardest hit areas, where it was being delayed two weeks. Opponents have said the election rules favor the junta.

Heavy rain is forecast over the next week, which relief officials said would complicate efforts to distribute food, water, and medicine. Diplomats and aid groups said illness could raise the number of dead above 100,000.

Yesterday, authorities at the airport of Rangoon, Burma's largest city, impounded food and equipment delivered by two UN planes the previous day. In response, officials from the UN World Food Program announced a suspension of flights. Burma officials also turned away a search-and-rescue team from the Persian Gulf state of Qatar that arrived without clearance to enter the country.

Later yesterday, the World Food Program headquarters overturned the initial ruling and said that two more aid planes would land in Burma today but that discussions on who will distribute the supplies would continue.

"The UN system does not fly in goods, hand them to the government and then fly away," said Richard Horsey of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. "We have certain requirements on accountability. Beneficiaries have to be identified on the basis of need, and delivery has to be monitored."Continued...

The United Nations has pressed for a week to get about 40 visas for UN logistics and disaster relief coordinators and technicians to help scale up a massive operation. But the government of Burma, which the military rulers renamed Myanmar in 1989, showed no sign of buckling on that issue.

"Currently Burma has prioritized receiving emergency relief provisions and making strenuous effort of delivering it with its own labor to the affected areas," the state-run New Light of Burma newspaper said. "Burma is not in a position to receive rescue and information teams from foreign countries at the moment."

Despite the uncertainties, the chief UN relief official, John Holmes, appealed to member nations at a meeting in New York yesterday to provide more than $187 million to fund UN relief operations likely to last many months. At that meeting, Burma's UN ambassador voiced some of the most conciliatory remarks heard from the government since the crisis began. "We are most thankful to the international community, our friends near and far, for the solidarity and generosity," Kyaw Tint Swe said, welcoming aid from "all quarters."

He also said Burma had agreed to allow a US military C-130 cargo plane to land in the country as soon as Monday. It was unclear whether it would be the first of many.

But with the Burma government prone to reversing itself, officials in Washington had discussed staging an airdrop into the country's flooded coastal regions without government permission but have now rejected that option. France announced it will dispatch toward Burma a warship loaded with 1,500 tons of humanitarian supplies.

Burma's prime minister in exile, Sein Win, added his own voice yesterday to the call to China to help open up his country. "China has more influence with Burma than India or any other country," he said in Washington.

Sein said opposition figure Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who lives under house arrest in Rangoon was safe, although her house was damaged.

The United Nations estimated that 1.9 million survivors were "severely affected" and that as of Wednesday, about 276,000 of them had received any relief supplies from UN agencies or international nongovernmental organizations.

International aid workers continued to paint a grim picture of conditions in the Irrawaddy Delta. "It's really horrific," said one Rangoon-based foreign aid worker. "There are villages where everyone survived, but they have been without food and water for a week and are just on a little hill, surrounded by water, waiting for help."

Soldiers have begun evacuating victims from the submerged areas, but often just to schools or monasteries to fend for themselves, with little or no food.

Under Mr. Chomsky's reasoning, the US will fuck up Burma if it does deliver aid, because it'll be done for personal gain, but if the US does NOT deliver aid, it'll ALSO fuck up Burma. And his accusations fail to consider the relationship between China and Burma, and whatever influence, real or imagined, the Chinese government has on Burma's. (Personally, I think Sein Win is OVERestimating China's influence. The point stands, however, that the US has VERY LITTLE influence on Burma.)

[Warsie]

This is a pretty common criticism of Chomsky: He will be fast to criticize America in most situations but he won't bother to provide the same sort of extensive criticism of other countries. .

hasn't he attacked the USSR in the past pretty well?

[K. A. Pital]

Under Mr. Chomsky's reasoning, the US will fuck up Burma if it does deliver aid, because it'll be done for personal gain

I thought he didn't say international aid to natural disaster victims was wrong. I didn't read that in his books.

Technically yes, he only presents criticism of America, but then, I though the book's purpose was to criticize American foreign policy and it's effects, so he at least stays on topic.

[Sidewinder]

Under Mr. Chomsky's reasoning, the US will fuck up Burma if it does deliver aid, because it'll be done for personal gain

I thought he didn't say international aid to natural disaster victims was wrong. I didn't read that in his books.

US aid to Americas correlates with torture by governments

US aid has tended to flow to Latin American governments which torture their citizens. It has nothing to do with need, only with willingness to serve the interests of privilege. Broader studies reveal a correlation between torture and US aid and provide the explanation: both correlate with improving the climate for business.

The agro-export model produces an “economic miracle” where GNP goes up while the population starves. Popular opposition develops, which you then suppress with torture.

No doubt this nut will claim US aid to Burma is meant to ENCOURAGE the Burmese government to torture its citizens so it'll be easier for American businesses to exploit Burma's resources.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Jesus Christ, talk about missing the fucking point. He isn't talking about the US giving aid money after disasters, he talking about the US funding corrupt regimes that serve their interests. That quote has nothing to do with a situation like Burma's.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

US aid has tended to flow to Latin American governments which torture their citizens. It has nothing to do with need, only with willingness to serve the interests of privilege.

I must have missed the part where aid to cyclone victims in Burma is going towards maintaining a government which tortures its citizens, which is one of the prerequisites of his argument. If the prerequisite isn't met, then that argument isn't applicable in this case and the point still stands.

[TheKwas]

This is a pretty common criticism of Chomsky: He will be fast to criticize America in most situations but he won't bother to provide the same sort of extensive criticism of other countries. .

hasn't he attacked the USSR in the past pretty well?

He has, in fact I believe he said something along the lines of "The USSR is best described as a dungeon". Of course, people still whine about him because he doesn't write books dedicated to the subject like he does about America. It's a total double-standard of course; there's plenty of academics who seem to only care about analyzing exactly why we must hate the USSR and why Communism is the scourge of the earth (Big Black Book of Communism), but how dare an academic focus in on the bad things America has done in the past.

That said, Noam Chomsky's claim that "the US government fucked everything up for personal gain, which they usually didn't even get due to incompetence" does NOT support his position at all. For example, the US offered aid to Burma in the wake of the recent cyclone.

...

Under Mr. Chomsky's reasoning, the US will fuck up Burma if it does deliver aid, because it'll be done for personal gain, but if the US does NOT deliver aid, it'll ALSO fuck up Burma.

Because you haven't quoted any primary sources, I am led to the conclusion that your information concerning what Noam Chomsky is claiming is derived from the original poster. In which case, I must respond with a how the fuck are you so stupid?

It's quite obvious that Noam Chomsky doesn't actually believe absolutely everything America tries to do is fucked up due to personal gain and incompetence (he's complimented the American social security system and refutes claims of a social security crisis, for example), but rather everything he writes about in his books is fucked up due to person gain and incompetence.

You seem to be using a warped version of inductive logic where

a) Events A to D that Chomsky writes about were American fuck-ups
b) Event E is an American event that is not a fuck up, therefore
____________________________________________________
c) Events A to D are not American fuck ups and Chomsky is wrong

Which is, of course, buttfuckery logic.

The wanking seems to apply to any nation with the real or imagined status as a superpower, such as China.

*snip*

You realize that a Burmese PM-in-exile emphasizing China's influence over the current Burmese government isn't actually a case of China waving it's dick around. The individual doesn't represent the Chinese nation and isn't even a Chinese citizen. This would be better categorized as someone else reaching into China's pants to wave it's dick.

And his accusations fail to consider the relationship between China and Burma, and whatever influence, real or imagined, the Chinese government has on Burma's.

What accusations? Give me a link or a source where Chomsky actually makes an accusation concerning America's role in Burma's cyclone reconstruction. He doesn't. You have just managed to totally misunderstand what the original poster was trying to say (or even if the OP was under the same misunderstanding as you, it's an incredibly stupid mistake) and you have created a massive strawman of Chomsky where every little thing America has ever done anywhere to any degree, is evil to him.

[TheKwas]

Ghetto edit: I started posting before Sidewinder's second post, but others already dealt with that idiocy for me.

[CJvR]

Chomsky is something of a messiah for the radical US hating left, you frequently get slapped with quotes from him or references to his books if you debate them.
IIRC Chomsky have also said the US, for all it's flaws real and imagined which he delight in pointing out, is the best of all nations - something the radicals never appreciate if you remind them.

[Resinence]

WTF, since when is hating America "radical"? This just in: People tend to hate those who abuse their power and yell in their faces about how great they are.

[TheKwas]

Not that I'm denying that Chomsky has a lot of 'fan boys', but to refer to him as a messiah figure is a cheap shot no different from the creationist claim that evolution is a religion with Darwin as it's messiah, or atheism is a religion with Dawkins as it's prophet, ect.

Also, Chomsky never hides the fact he considers America among some of the better countries in the world (especially in terms of internal affairs), but I doubt he ever claimed it was the best of all nations (best in what regard and by what measure?).

[KlavoHunter]

WTF, since when is hating America "radical"? This just in: People tend to hate those who abuse their power and yell in their faces about how great they are.

When was the last time you saw somebody on the Right in America hate America?

... Well, there are some fundies.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

When was the last time you saw somebody on the Right in America hate America?

What about me?

[Ariphaos]

Chomsky is extremely insightful. I've seen him defend the government, for example putting down the Truthers in a discussion.

[Starglider]

Chomsky is extremely insightful. I've seen him defend the government, for example putting down the Truthers in a discussion.

There was a section on that. He doesn't really try to refute them, just noting that a conspiracy of that scale seems implausible, mainly he complains about how this would be a total diversion from the 'real crimes of the Bush administration' (i.e. invading Iraq) even if it was true. In fact he's pretty critical of the Internet in general, saying that it 'atomises activism', 'spawns cults around every bizarre idea', 'is useless for real research' etc. Again, there's a sentence or two of 'but the Internet can also be useful' in there, but it looks cursory - he advocates community radio as a better alternative for organising activism, to which I say 'WTF?' (to be fair, he is nearly 80 now). As usual he has some valid points but they're written in a pointlessly inflamatory tone that will likely just alienate potential supporters.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

WTF, since when is hating America "radical"? This just in: People tend to hate those who abuse their power and yell in their faces about how great they are.

When was the last time you saw somebody on the Right in America hate America?

... Well, there are some fundies.

There are a lot of fundies that hate the US, or at least its liberal parts, and think that events like 9/11 and Katrina are God's vengeance. They are far more prominent and powerful than the "radical US hating left" who are a powerless and basically irrelevant group (unless you use the common definition that anyone who dares criticize the US must hate it).

[Ghost Rider]

WTF, since when is hating America "radical"? This just in: People tend to hate those who abuse their power and yell in their faces about how great they are.

When was the last time you saw somebody on the Right in America hate America?

... Well, there are some fundies.

You mean aside from Falwell and Robertson's rants that America is the Devil's land and 9/11 was an example of God's Wrath against America's ungodly ways?

They may be fundies, but they are also part of the Right.

[TheKwas]

WTF, since when is hating America "radical"? This just in: People tend to hate those who abuse their power and yell in their faces about how great they are.

When was the last time you saw somebody on the Right in America hate America?

... Well, there are some fundies.

Resinence didn't say anything about the right, he asked why is hating America 'radical'. That's a good question because outside America, the common view is that America is a douchebag in international affairs. Almost by definition, a common viewpoint is not a radical viewpoint.

Unless CJvR is actually talking those radical elements who actually hate America, but then he shouldn't bother to included 'leftists' because this group is primarily Religious fundies (Christian and Islamic). People like Chomsky just want to change America.

[Resinence]

Resinence didn't say anything about the right, he asked why is hating America 'radical'. That's a good question because outside America, the common view is that America is a douchebag in international affairs. Almost by definition, a common viewpoint is not a radical viewpoint.

Unless CJvR is actually talking those radical elements who actually hate America, but then he shouldn't bother to included 'leftists' because this group is primarily Religious fundies (Christian and Islamic). People like Chomsky just want to change America.

Yep, and his answer pretty much reinforces the common opinion that many americans are incapable of thinking outside the scope of the USA when it comes to politics.

[Adrian Laguna]

When was the last time you saw somebody on the Right in America hate America?

What about me?

Aside from the fact that your political opinions would likely make most of the Right recoil from you in utter horror, you don't really seem to actually hate America.

[Axis Kast]

The problem with Chomsky's "focus on America" is that he ends up telling one-sided narratives that distort the truth.

This is a pretty interesting discussion on his approach to the Cambodian genocide.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm#chii

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, Chomsky considered Pol Pot is the "good guy" and USSR-backed Vietnam are "bad guys"? As far as I gathered from the text... Pretty damn shocking.