Hanoi Chomsky

[MMMMMM]

see this quote in Hanoi Chomsky II:

Chomsky's own personal reply to the question about whether he gave the speech confirms that he did say and write such things at the time: "The passage quoted is reminiscent of things I actually wrote at the time, touching on the very same topics..."

[brad]

'Chomsky's reply: "I know nothing of any speech broadcast on North Vietnamese radio 30 years ago, or ever." '

whered u get that, i couldnt find it on the link you had.

[brad]

you keep quoting the same thing trying to legitimize it more and more.

if its an attack piece then its an attack piece. assuming they manufactured or lied about radio interview why would a quote in same article be any more honest or whatever.

having said that chomsky is for the UN and gun control and so is grey at best, but still i think his ideas are good if looked at critically.

[brad]

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=I+...o+30+years+ago,+or+ever.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=36ACFD11.6247%40columbia-center.org&rnum=2

------------------------------
The short answer is that I know nothing of any
speech broadcast on North Vietnamese radio 30
years ago, or ever. Hence can't comment, any more
than if you asked me about a speech I gave over
BBC 30 years ago. The passage enclosed is
reminiscent of things I actually wrote at the
time, touching on the very same topics, which are
easily checked -- hence not discussed. On
returning from Laos and North Vietnam, I wrote
articles in the NY Review of Books -- mostly on
Laos, where I found out a lot more than in North
Vietnam, including a lot that was new, and that is
still mostly suppressed, so that material is never
discussed. This material is reprinted with some
extensions in a book that came out in 1970: "At
War With Asia" (Pantheon). Anyone who happens to
have an interest in what I had to say about these
topics at the time can easily discover it. End of
story.
--------------------------------

so it seems to me that if you really want to nail chomsky on your 'charges' then you have to look at his writings of the period and if they are similiar enough to the 'radio interview' then i guess you are right.

but in any case it is not cut and dried.

[Chris Alger]

Go down unti you see the paragraphs starting with "Voiced support for Communists in Hanoi." There's a link to this response:

http://www.isp.nwu.edu/~fprefect/pol...sky_hanoi.html

[brad]

thank you.

[Chris Alger]

Indeed much of it sounds like him then, but certain phrases don't: "the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny."

This would be a rare bit of optimism for him. Anyway, exactly what in the speech do you find offensive? Do you dispute that North Vietnam was a target of unprovoked U.S. aggression? Do you think that anyone who believes this is a traitor? What's your point?

[MMMMMM]

I never claimed it was cut and dried, and I only said that it "appeared" to be confirmed. At any rate I'm glad you've allowed the possibility that it might be legitimate, rather than dismissing it all out of hand.

[brad]

'
"I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.

'

i find that to be pretty offensive. of course when patriot act 2 passes after the next terror attack they can 'infer from his actions' that a US citizen renounced his citizenship and ship him overseas to be tortured and stuff so maybe the author of that (who is not chomsky btw) was right after all.

my guess is he attacked chomsky cause some of us were using his ideas in our arguments.

while i agree with chomsky on some things i disagree on others, like gun control.