Noam Chomsky is man who needs no introduction, if you don't know who he is - well give him a Google, you'll soon learn. I first became aware of him at University while studying linguistics, when we learnt about his idea of universal grammar in language acquisition class. It was around that time that I was introduced to his political activism and his vast bibliography of political essays. As I became older, I read several of his works, the most standout being Rogue States, where he attacks the definition of such countries and exposed how he saw the real truth that the real enemy wasn't countries like Iraq and Iran but in reality The United States, or more accurately successive US administrations, there is no doubt that in recent years he's become more mainstream with his views thanks to the Bush Administration's policies.
The man thrives on confrontation in my opinion and makes most of the radicals I knew at uni look like arm chair conservatives. This interview was conducted by Emma Brookes, and she aims directly for the intellectual's weak points, namely over his comments in regard to the Srebrenica massacre. According to the interview he upholds his belief that the massacre was exaggerated, and still supports Living Marxism's claims about the exaggerations. I was interested in this article, mainly because last year I wrote a story dealing with atrocities, in particular the war in Bosnia, I don't pretend to be an expert on this area, but I find it very hard to believe that the numbers were exaggerated, based on the research that I'd done. Emma Brookes manages to convey quite adroitly the irrational side of the intellectual, quite in character for Chomsky, as soon as he senses he's losing, he suddenly makes incredible leaps of logic by making parallels with other examples from around the world which truly take a serious imagination to make.
Read the article here
Well, it looks like Chomsky is having the last laugh on this one, a few days ago The Guardian printed a retraction of the article after an avalanche of complaints.It appears the article was a fabrication. It certainly appears that Emma Brookes had the proverbial axe to grind with Chomsky, however the prophet of modern times has succeeded in avoiding the killing blow. To summarise the article, basically Chomsky refutes he ever said that he denies that the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated, and had been in fact replying to different question, in regard to expressing regret out of not supporting Diane Johnstone's rights over her withdrawn book strongly enough. He further adds that the article is filled with invented contexts to make his quotes fit the case that Emma Brookes was trying to make.
I myself am disappointed that when dealing with an intellectual such as Chomsky that closer editorial supervison wasn't exercised over the article. Chomsky has his faults, and I stand by my own remark in regard to some pretty imaginative leaps when comparing different political conflicts or coming up with solutions to world problems, however writing fiction about him hoping no-one will check is bordering on if not stupidity, definitely naiviety. Maybe the journalist in question is planning for a career like Stephen Glass.
The article is here
Recent Comments