Doug Henwood wrote:
> > Why does he have to? He's a tireless, intelligent, well-read, and
> > generous critic of U.S. imperialism, a thoroughly admirable writer
> > and human being. How many other people can you say that about?
Marta Russell:
> I agree about Chomsky even though he told me after complimenting me on
> something I had written that he was too busy "with more important things" (than
> disability). He must have had a bad day that day. He could not have meant it
> the way it sounds.
Chomsky himself has said that he is not an original or particularly deep political theoretician, but an activist who is operating off common sense. Hence he occasionally commits what I see as gaffes, of the sort I associate with common sense. For instance, in a case similar to your example, I was reading one of the ZNet forums (probably the one devoted to him) when the issue of animal use politics and ethics arose. He said some pretty dumb things after which about half a dozen people jumped on him and he beat a hasty retreat into the ambiguity of not having time for the issue. I had the strong impression that he didn't know what the issues were, and this may apply to a variety of leftist and radical concerns which don't happen to excite his interest.
I find the cult of personality surrounding him more troublesome than any blind spots. I wonder if it hasn't been organized by the mainstream media on the One Negro principle. If it weren't for the c.o.p. I doubt if many people would be all that concerned with his possible lapses.
Gordon gcf at panix.com