On the Chomsky stuff, Nadine, You're basic reference is to an essay by a Berkely undergraduate. However, I've decided to do some reading. I'm still quite early in it but may not do much more because I've settled a few issues. You might wish to take a look at the references I offer below, particularly the second, to see what you think.
The Berkeley undergradute piece you reference is a remarkable undergraduate honors essay on Chomsky and Cambodia, entitled The Khmer Rouge Canon, 1975-1979. It's almost book length and not worth a terribly careful read but for one who was unaware of this entire controversy, the skim reading I did was quite an eye opening. The url is jim.com.
However, the much more important, interesting, and even fascinating essay is by Christopher Hitchens. It's one of those classic Hitchens' pieces, published in 1985 in which he sets himself the task of refuting all the serious criticisms of Chomsky. It's well worth a careful read. I don't think it's possible to evaluate the arguments without reading the literature he refers to and I certainly don't plan to do that. Nor should anyone else interested in this conversation.
However, Hitchens does make the unmistakable case that whatever else that is going on in all these charges about Chomsky, the issues are complicated, extremely vulnerable to political opportunists, and ambiguous in the extreme.
Since Chomsky is not a figure whose work, political or intellectual otherwise, genuinely interests me, I don't intend to track all this stuff down. But I've now mentally bookmarked the controversy.
Whoops, forgot. Here's the Hitchens url zmag.org. If this were not so long an essay, I would paste it all in here. But it is long. And, as with Hitchens at his very best, it is intricate besides carrying all those literary illusions he loves. |
