Changes

== Genocide denier ==

== 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 would have to contribute the brutality from a broader and more general peasant uprising. He also doesn't necessarily agree that those who died of starvation could be attributed to the Khmer Rouge specifically, 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. (d) His claims about the Khmer Rouge's killings being "100" or "1000" times less than reported are specifically about the Khmer Rouge's KNOWN (not estimated) killings '''after they became an enemy of the state''', so this estimate is not taking into account the executions and brutalities by the Khmer's People National Liberation Front that occured during the period where they were supported by the U.S. to fight against Vietnam.

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 would have to contribute the brutality from a broader and more general peasant uprising. He also doesn't necessarily agree that those who died of starvation could be attributed to the Khmer Rouge specifically, 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. (d) His claims about the Khmer Rouge's killings being "1000" times less than reported are specifically about the Khmer Rouge's KNOWN (not estimated) killings '''after they became an enemy of the state''', so this estimate is not taking into account the executions and brutalities by the Khmer's People National Liberation Front that occured during the period where they were supported by the U.S. to fight against Vietnam.

Here is the full quote where he says "factor of 1000";

Here is the full quote where he says "factor of 1000";

  "in short, a factor of 1000 matters in estimating deaths, and we should try to keep to the truth, whether considering our own crimes or those of official enemies."

  "in short, a factor of 1000 matters in estimating deaths, and we should try to keep to the truth, whether considering our own crimes or those of official enemies."

The importance of the words "official enemies" gives credit to my interpretation in argument (d).

The importance of the words "official enemies" gives credit to my interpretation in argument (d). But this also becomes clear if you read the entire paragraph or chapter.

 

 

"there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and '''who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands'''; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false. They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf. Chomsky: At War with Asia, on the problems of interpreting reports of refugees from American bombing in Laos). We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."

'''Also, in general, this section takes up way too much of the entire article. My personal opinion is that "genocide denier" should be reworded at very least and a few of the facts given should be checked and perhaps removed if found to be out of context. New sources might also want to be looked at, since many of the sources used are self-described "opinion" articles from blogs.

'''Also, in general, this section takes up way too much of the entire article. My personal opinion is that "genocide denier" should be reworded at very least and a few of the facts given should be checked and perhaps removed if found to be out of context. New sources might also want to be looked at, since many of the sources used are self-described "opinion" articles from blogs.

[[User:4tomic|4tomic]] 00:17, 15 November 2012 (EST)

[[User:4tomic|4tomic]] 00:17, 15 November 2012 (EST)