On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 11:54 AM, eric dorkin wrote:
> Nonsense...here Chomsky is flat out wrong. I WOULD call those that
> deny an American holocaust of Indians racist, for I could think of no
> other justification for denying the obvious. The same is true of those
> that deny the slaughter by Columbus and his ilk. The same is true for
> the sanctimoniuous Wiesel.
i admit that part of chomsky's response in this regard struck me as painfully hairsplitting (and i actually like thomas aquinas, so that's saying something). nevertheless, i thought the substance of his remarks make it plain where he stands, which is really the point, isn't it? unless, of course, you're a fascist wanting to deploy him on your side or someone more interested in discrediting him based on groups/people we don't like who like him. for the rest, why not just frickin' move on?
afaict, and i've stayed out while those of you who know this stuff better beat each other over the head, there are these molehills of circumstantial pseudo-evidence against chomsky's character masqerading as mountains of clearly damning evidence that everything he's done is hopelessly corrupt(ed). it's just pointless.
jeff
<snip>