7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: + + + + + +
→Genocide denier: new section
Actually, if the ACLU (an organization that I generally sympathize with) can be listed under the category "lunatics;" why not Chomsky?[[User:JakeRMurrin|JakeRMurrin]] 21:45, 6 November 2010 (EDT)
Actually, if the ACLU (an organization that I generally sympathize with) can be listed under the category "lunatics;" why not Chomsky?[[User:JakeRMurrin|JakeRMurrin]] 21:45, 6 November 2010 (EDT)
== Genocide denier ==
I think his views on the Cambodian genocide are a bit misrepresented and out of context. He makes his claims that (a) it wasn't genocide because it wasn't an attempt by the Khmer Rouge at eradicating a race of people (which is the definition of genocide), (b) he doesn't claim that people weren't killed in huge numbers in that era, but he dismisses that 2 million deaths should be attributed to Khmer Rouge. He thinks that for the 2 million number to be near accurate, we would have to take into account the killings by the American bombing campaign (and almost every historian of this period agrees with his view to a great extent). He also doesn't necessarily agree that those who died of starvation could be attributed to the Khmer Rouge, as there were many larger factors contributing to famine outside of the Khmer Rouge's involvement (including American military involvement). (c) He bothers to make these claims for secondary purposes which are important to factor in (1) it shows we inflate death tolls when an event involves American enemies and deflate the death tolls or negative effects of our own involvement, (2) it shows we are hyper-focused on what American enemies are doing, but remain unfocused on events where there is American involvement or the involvement of American "interests" such as East Timor, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, etc. His own sentiment is that it would be better if American's were more observant and critical of the conflicts where they are involved.
Also, in general, this section takes up way too much of the entire article.