![]() It also results in what have become characteristically outrageous Chomsky comparisons. He says he has no heroes, and he doesn’t believe in leaders.This refusal to talk about political motives is in one sense a great weakness, because it amounts to a refusal to take seriously the difference between Administrations, or even between countries, and is by extension a refusal to consider the possibility, short of revolution, of significant political change. Like many theorists of universal humanness, he often seems baffled, even repelled, by the thought of actual people and their psychologies. Do you want the Russian troops to be held back?”Ĭhomsky always refuses to talk about motives in politics. Tens of thousands of Russian troops were killed. then began supporting armies established by Hitler to hold back the Russian advance. Well, we’ve learned from the Russian archives that Britain and the U.S. By Stalingrad in 1942, the Russians had turned back the German offensive, and it was pretty clear that Germany wasn’t going to win the war. And actually if you’re interested in expectations there’s more to say. O.K.? But you’re right, it has nothing to do with motives-it has to do with expectations. Maybe a better way was not supporting him in the first place, as Britain and the United States did. “First of all, you have to ask yourself whether the best way of getting rid of Hitler was to kill tens of millions of Russians. “But the world was better off,” the student persisted. The German military forces were overwhelmingly on the eastern front.” The war against Nazi Germany was fought by the Russians. “The United States and Britain fought the war, of course, but not primarily against Nazi Germany. “The Second World War is a slightly different story,” Chomsky continued. His eyes, too, are recessed deeply into his face they are so narrow that they are almost closed, the right eye more than the left, and are protected by metal-framed glasses. He gives his words so little force that they scarcely leave his mouth. In fact, his voice is so quiet that, unless he uses a microphone, it is difficult to hear him. The expression on his face doesn’t change. Would you be in favor of it?”Ĭhomsky can be brutal in argument, but except for the words themselves there is no outward indication that he is attacking. “Suppose we could get Saddam Hussein to conquer North Korea. “Well, let’s pick a worse monster than Saddam Hussein,” Chomsky said. “If Saddam is a monster,” the student went on, “what does it matter, actually, who is going to get rid of him? If you look at the Second World War, the alliance with Stalin was also not a very nice thing, but it was absolutely necessary.” “I’m talking about expectations,” Chomsky interrupted. “I just was wondering whether this is really a strong argument if you are talking about the motives of the government,” he began, in a european accent. Are these the people you would ask to bring freedom to Iraqis?”Ī student wearing a red V-neck sweater raised his hand to ask a question. In every single one of these cases, the people now in Washington supported them right through their worst atrocities. Another one they adored was Marcos of the Philippines. His record easily compares with Saddam Hussein’s. ![]() “Another one they loved was General Suharto. 1 was Mobutu, who was one of the worst gangsters in modern African history,” Chomsky said. “The first foreign leader invited to the White House by George Bush No. Do we celebrate that every year?”Ĭhomsky told the students that the current Administration was essentially the same as the first Bush Administration and the Reagan Administration, and therefore could not be trusted to replace a tyrant. If you follow the trail, it led to kicking Europeans out of Asia-that saved tens of millions of lives in India alone. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor led to many very good things. ![]() Yes, sometimes violence does lead to good things. “You don’t undertake violence on the grounds that maybe by some miracle something good will come out of it. “When I look at the arguments for this war, I don’t see anything I could even laugh at,” he said. His hair curled toward the middle of his neck and looked as though he didn’t pay it much attention. He was wearing what he usually wears: shirt, sweater, jeans, sneakers. He sat with his arms folded, a little hunched over on his stool, and began to talk into a microphone. On a recent evening, the students came to hear Chomsky speak about Iraq. There are nearly two hundred students and not enough chairs, so latecomers sit or lie down on the floor, which gives the class the air of a teach-in. On Thursday evenings at M.I.T., Noam Chomsky, one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century and one of the most reviled, teaches a class about politics. In other countries, Chomsky is a superstar whose speeches attract crowds of thousands, sometimes tens of thousands.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |