Chomsky & Genocide Denial

[Kevin Dunn]

Never since the meetings of my high school "Socialists Club" have I  
heard such vehement back & forth about Chomsky... Brings back memories  
of discussing East Timor too.

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 21, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Carvill John <johncarvill at hotmail.com>  
wrote:

>
> [Why does hotmail keep dropping parts of my posts?! Apologies, once  
> again, here is the full text: ]
>
> NOt to harp on about all this, but having had Pauls Mackin's post  
> swirling around my head all morning (among a great number of other  
> swirlings of course), it occurs to me that there's a central irony  
> here which I didn't really address yet.
>
> Paul said:
> <
> John's case rests on two inter-related assumptions:
>
> 1. He has privileged access to the pure, unadulterated, capital-T  
> Truth; and
> consequently
>
> 2. Anyone who disagrees is wrong or, worse, part of the global  
> Stalinist
> conspiracy.
>
> Well, none of us is God; we're all reading texts of one kind or  
> another.
>>
>
>
> Now leaving aside the cheap rhetorical trick of Paul telling me what  
> my case rests on, and then setting fire to that convenient straw  
> man, what's really rich is that he seems to be saying that I expect  
> people to buy my view of teh matter because i have this gospel truth  
> to back me up. Well, I'm *not* saying that, but what if I was?
>
> How would even that stack up against Paul Mackin's case, which (if I  
> may take teh liberty of setting it out for him) seems to be:
>
> 1. John Carvill is not God, therefore any 'knowledge' or 'facts' he  
> may have do not make for a cast-iron case; and
>
> 2. My approach, which is based on an absolute absence of knowledge  
> of teh matter, but relies instead on my blind faith in Chomsky, is  
> the more credible one.
>
>
> What anyone who wants to make an unbiased assessment must consider,  
> is that all the people who argue agsinst me on this one seem to be  
> basing their argument on their support for someone - Chomsky - whose  
> opinions on other matters they trust and respect. They like the cut  
> of old Chomsky's jib, as it were, so calling him out on his denials  
> and water muddyings over genocide just can't be cricket, can it? I  
> think what you need to do is to accept the fact that Chomsky may  
> have got this particular issue wrong, and keep in mind that if he  
> has, then that doesn't mean he has always been wrong about  
> everything else.
>
> Me, I could never rely on anything such a person said, ever again,  
> because if they can make such an arse of themselves over this issue,  
> if they base their argument on knee-jerk, one-dimensional,  
> chronically un-nuanced prejudices, then who's to say they won't do  
> that again?
>
> It makes me really really angry to hear people like Paul Mackin  
> choosing sides with Chomsky on this issue, purely because of their  
> blind faith in him, without ever stopping to think about the issues  
> themselves. It's frightening really.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
> http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_032009