History by Dummies

One collection of stones on top of others is a pile of rubble, while another can amount to the Great Wall of China or Cathedral of Chartres.  Likewise, some historians obscure history by cynically throwing together historical vignettes and opinions while others reveal it by presenting the fruits of earnest research.

Oliver Kamm picks through the former and finds nothing but the collapsed remains of a facade. 

In other words, what happens when you seek the help of Howard Zinn to back up an assertion that the horrible carnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were practically without military value in terms of the Pacific War (and not the cold war)?  (An even bigger rubble heap is the pointless collection of human misery that Zinn amassed - and was lucky enough to find a mass market for - in The People's History of the United States.) 

Kamm is kinder than I would be in stating that  "I am certain Zinn is an honest historian, but equally certainly – on the subject on which Media Lens has sought his advice, at least – he is an incompetent and ill read one."

Comments

[rachjak]

And as for the dummy who apologizes in advance for the gassy magnitude of his rant, recommends, in fact, that one vault precipitously to the concluding sentence wherein one will find conveniently embodied the full measure of the argument for which the previous forty odd sentences were apparently unnecessary or impertinent, and arriving at said sentence one discovers no argument at all, rather a school yard insult whose usage in serious discourse would neuter the credibility of the most respected thinker, which stone metaphor do we employ to illustrate such a dummy?

I propose 'kidney stone'.

[kb]

Tanuki said:

"(An even bigger rubble heap is the pointless collection of human misery that Zinn amassed - and was lucky enough to find a mass market for - in The People's History of the United States.)"

Another question for Tanuki. Did you read THIS book, or is this just another of those which you read the first three paragraphs, didn't like what they said, and jumped to the conclusion that you knew what the book was about? You know, like that other fellow who you love to mention every other post? I'd be interested in hear YOUR comments of Zinn, NOT the ramblings of a demonstrated lying propagandist.kb

"Kamm is kinder than I would be in stating that "I am certain Zinn is an honest historian, but equally certainly – on the subject on which Media Lens has sought his advice, at least – he is an incompetent and ill read one.""

This "insight" itself demonstrates Kamm's knowledge, or should I say lack of knowledge with Zinn. It would appear that he, or you for that matter, didn't even understand the introduction to The People's History, I believe it was. He discusses how historians write, their attempts to be objective, the likelihood that this is probably impossible, and, in fact, that it's probably not even desireable, if it means one giving up one's ability to take action in the real world, instead of thinking one needs to stay aloof and disinterested in order to have an accurate view. This is nonsense. One can study the history of slavery all one wants, the apologetics for it, etc...and sit on their butts doing nothing to change it, or refusing to become involved, thinking this demonstrates their intellectual honesty somehow. Or they can take action based on what they know at any given time, if they feel strongly about it. It's called being a human. Anyway, as another great book title of Zinn's notices, 'You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train'. Kamm really should take a few reading classes. He's sad and pathetic.kb

[tanuki]

Rachjak--

"Kidney stones," eh? Ouch!

Judging by the content of your comment, I assume you took Kamm at his word and didn't bother to read the surgical bits--I mean, how he dissected Zinn's argument and found that Zinn had done piss poor research.

Like citing people who essentially disprove his thesis, etc. I guess if you're going to be "gassy," you'd better be able to back it up. If you think Kamm fails to do this, provide the evidence.

Furthermore, I think Kamm went easy on him. Zinn's statement that "the emperor was supreme" to me shows how ignorant Zinn is of even the basic elements of the argument. Most historians have characterized Hirohito as a figurehead, and even those who accord him an active role in plotting the war (Bix) would never portray him as calling the shots, as, say, Hitler did.

Another point is that, while some Japanese were hinting at surrender--under their own terms--there was always a strong faction that wanted to go down fighting. Right up until the end, kids and old folks were being drilled to resist the invader with sharpened bamboo sticks. Ghastly as it may sound, the number of dead by atomic weapons would have been miniscule compared to the slaughter if there had been an invasion of the mainland.

It's a messy, sordid, complex issue, and Zinn, more a polemicist than a historian, is clearly out of his depth.(He has, however, what Stephen Colbert would call "truthiness." Go look it up on Youtube if you don't know what I'm talking about.
And Kamm's exactly right to call him on it.

[kb]

Tanuki said to Rachjak:

"Judging by the content of your comment, I assume you took Kamm at his word and didn't bother to read the surgical bits--I mean, how he dissected Zinn's argument and found that Zinn had done piss poor research."

Kamm has a long history of supposedly "dissecting" arguments and magically demonstrating "piss poor research". However, the only folks fooled by this "dissecting" are the folks who usually have never read a word of the dissected writers works, not to mention their own dissecting of Kamm's idiocy and illiteracy afterwards. It fools only those who are looking to be fooled. Any two minute study of his comments regarding anything written by Chomsky easily demonstrates this. Of course one would have to actually know both what Chomsky's actual position are, his statements within the context of his writings, etc...and all the usual basics one wishing to know about a subject would automatically do, and then compare this with the "findings" of the Kammians. For those who have, you know, actually read Zinn, Chomsky, etc...it takes all of two minutes to see that Kamm is little more than a snake oil salesman peddling his wares to the unsuspecting. What sad is that you don't even know you're unsuspecting. As has been said 5,000 times before, if one wishes to see how Kamm takes things out of context, mis-represents things, etc....his usual style, then one must FIRST read the person in question. Fortunately for him, Kamm's followers rarely read at all. I mean, this IS why they're his followers.kb

"Like citing people who essentially disprove his thesis, etc."

Like can we be a little more vague? Evidence? Where? Whom? Have you read the Zinn ook in question, or any of them for that matter? Then make an argument. So far nothing but opinion.kb

"I guess if you're going to be "gassy," you'd better be able to back it up. If you think Kamm fails to do this, provide the evidence."

Here Tanuki goes again by trying to make someone prove a negative. It is NOT anyone's responsibility but your's to prove that his position is correct. You haven't done this at all. You've simply accpeted it as truth. This is the definition of a true believer. How on earth is one to prove anything to a true believer? Especially one who isn't even willing to take the very first step toward trying to know the subjecy, by, like, actually reading the book in question. You are NOT wanting to find the truth. You are wanting to find answers to fit your preconceived notions. Period. YOU prove that Kamm is correct. But I'll warn you first. You WILL have to read the Zinn book or books in question. If not, then gassy would pretty much be the word you should be applying to yourself.kb

"Furthermore, I think Kamm went easy on him."

Then he HAS read the book. I mean, at least it's implied here that he has. He has implied that he knows what the book says. So, once again, I'll ask the same question which is rarely answered. Have you read the book? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.kb

"Zinn's statement that "the emperor was supreme" to me shows how ignorant Zinn is of even the basic elements of the argument."

This should be good.kb

"Most historians have characterized Hirohito as a figurehead, and even those who accord him an active role in plotting the war (Bix) would never portray him as calling the shots, as, say, Hitler did."

And? What's this supposed to mean?kb

"Another point is that, while some Japanese were hinting at surrender--under their own terms--there was always a strong faction that wanted to go down fighting."

Of course there were. However, it is now known, and has been for a long time, that the war crime bombing was NOT necessary in any way, shape, or form. Take responsibility for your crimes and quit making gross apologetics. If even McNamara can admit to being a war criminal, why can't you at least admit the crime? You aren't looking for the truth. You are looking for data to confirm your apologetics. THIS itself is one of the primary distinguishing factors between much of the right and left. The left look for the data, no matter which way it goes. This is viewed by the indoctrinated as hostile to the U.S., especially when the facts don't present the U.S. in the most favorable light. This IS pretty much an exact example of apologetics and indoctrination. This is the exact response leaders always desire, especially totalitarian leaders. Unfortunately, for them they don't get the kind of unquestioning obedience that the leaders receive in the U.S. Well, at least the leaders from the right.kb

"Right up until the end, kids and old folks were being drilled to resist the invader with sharpened bamboo sticks."

Yes, and those bamboo sticks could have only been met with thousand pound bombs being dropped from 10,000 feet. The threat couldn't be any more apparent. I suggest, for the 50th time, that Tanuki see The Fogs of War video, which he can easily get at most any video store. True McNamara isn't quite as forthcoming as a truely honest person would have been, but he at least confesses to the basics. It's pretty powerful to see the numbers flashing by of the same percetages which would have been killed in U.S. cities were they bombed at the same levels. It sort of puts things in a more realistic perspective.kb

"Ghastly as it may sound, the number of dead by atomic weapons would have been miniscule compared to the slaughter if there had been an invasion of the mainland."

Yes, this old fable has LOOOONG been demonstrated to be nonsense. Please do a little research for Christ's sake.kb

"It's a messy, sordid, complex issue, and Zinn, more a polemicist than a historian"

I love when this sort of charge is made by someone knowing squat about history, as well as trying as hard as possible to be exactly that, a polemicist.kb

"is clearly out of his depth."

Yes, as you have...well...done nothing to demonstrate, as usual.kb

"(He has, however, what Stephen Colbert would call "truthiness." Go look it up on Youtube if you don't know what I'm talking about."

Yes, that sounds like a good use of tiume. I mean, rather than actually reading his work and making an argument.kb

"And Kamm's exactly right to call him on it."

Kamm calls no one on nothing. Never has, and I doubt ever will. I might be better to get off your knees and read a book. Kamm is a charlatan of the worst sort and it HAS been demonstrated. Of course, one would actually have to read the demonstrations. But give that the source material is never even considered, why on earth would we expect the rebuttals to be considered. Wouldn't even know if the rebuttals were accurate anyway given that the souce material was never read.kb

[andrew]

"Kamm calls no one on nothing. Never has, and I doubt ever will. I might be better to get off your knees and read a book. Kamm is a charlatan of the worst sort and it HAS been demonstrated."

This is one of those people that KB loves to attack but offers no evidence in support while simultaneously accusing others of doing the same. Why don't you actually refute what he says instead of just saying that he's wrong.

[kb]

Andrew said:

"This is one of those people that KB loves to attack but offers no evidence in support while simultaneously accusing others of doing the same."

On the contrary. I've given evidence of Kamm's lying and techniques dozens of times. They're quite easy to find, too, for those who like to read. But, given that you only look at one side and have an aversion to even attempting to look at the other, you'd be in little position to tell, as I've demonstrated time and time again. Kamm is a buffoon, and there is evidence all over the place, and I have given you the evidence...all over the place. It's your problem if you don't read it, not mine.kb

"Why don't you actually refute what he says instead of just saying that he's wrong."

Oh, I have, on MANY occasions. Trouble is, is that you have never read any of it. And even if you had you wouldn't have the foggiest if my criticisms were right or not because youhad never read the original source. You, like Tanuki, aren't interested in finding the facts or truth. You're interested, as I have also demonstrated time and time again, in finding support for your fairy tale perception of reality. So, why don't you do what I've been telling you both to do for several years now? Why don't you do what most any high school teacher would require before writing a paper on someone? You know, like, read the original source, the arguments against it, the rebuttals against the arguments, etc...You guys never even reach step one. You never read the originals. Never! This, too, has been demonstrated time and time again.

Teacher: Andrew! Tanuki! We're going to write papers on Plato's Republic. The paper must be at least two pages. Oh, and this time, you muxt actually read the book, NOT just the anti-Plato blogs for your data. You don't want another F this semester, do you?

[andrew]

"On the contrary. I've given evidence of Kamm's lying and techniques dozens of times."

You've called him names and said he doesn't know what he's talking about. Where have you shown him lying?

[kb]

Andrew said in yet another state of denial:

"You've called him names and said he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Yes, I have. And when I do this is is ALWAYS supported by evidence such as I have given on countless occasions. You haven't read, as I said, and this is your problem. I have showm probably a hundred times where, how, etc...he has taken things out of context, how his entire premise is wrong from the outset, and on and on...You obviously have never read one of my comments if you're going to sit here and make this charge. But then again, reading has obviously never been one of your strong points.kb

"Where have you shown him lying?"

Most every time he was ever discussed in the past. You guys and your cognitive dissonance really is an amazing thing to watch.

Andrew: Where has he lied?
KB: (3,958 pages of examples later) Uhh...Here for starters.
Andrew: Where? I don't see it.

The End

But, as mentioned earlier, and at least 500 times before, or more, you wouldn't know evidence if you were actually able to read it in the first place because you haven't read and aren't familiar with the source. THIS, Andrew, is STEP 1. And unless you and the other anti-reading folks ever learn this there is little hope that you will ever be able to recognize anything beyond bathroom gossip.kb

There are MANY, but let's leave the list short for now. I know how you hate reading and all.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/oliver_kamm_mar_1.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200601--.htm
(What's particularly great about this one is that Kamm actually had the nerve to try and respond thereby digging the hole even deeper and helping Chomsky to prove his point)
http://blog.zmag.org/ee_links/chomsky3

Little things such as this:
In late-2005 Kamm was co-author, with journalists David Aaronovitch and Francis Wheen, of a complaint to The Guardian when it published a correction and apology for an interview with Chomsky by Emma Brockes. [18] Chomsky complained that the article suggested he denied the fact of the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. [19] A Guardian readers' editor found that this had misrepresented Chomsky's position, and his judgement was upheld in May 2006 by an external ombudsman, John Willis. [20] In his report for the Guardian, Willis detailed his reasons for rejecting Kamm's argument; Kamm maintains that his argument "remains unconsidered" by Willis. [21] The Independent's media columnist Stephen Glover criticized the Willis report and commented favorably on the arguments put forth by Aaronovitch, Wheen and Kamm.[22] By contrast, bloggers Brian Leiter and David Peterson (the latter belongs to the Srebrenica Research Group, which denies that there was "a single large massacre of Muslims by Serbs" at Srebrenica in 1995 [23]) harshly condemned Kamm's praise for the original Brockes interview and his later decision to lodge a complaint after the editor's ruling in favour of Chomsky. [24] [25]

[andrew]

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2137

I suppose all of these people are liars too.

[Marin]

I have read Zinn's work. I have also taught it in classes in both the USA and in Japan. Unfortunately, I found it very one-sided and seriously lacking the objective viewpoint necessary for a history textbook.

As a teacher, I really don't want to use a book that has an agenda. I would love to just present the information in as factual a manner as I can then let students question the validity of those facts.

After that, they can do research and discover new information or theories for themselves. In this way they can be better informed and not led by my predujice or the textbooks agenda.

Finally, I really don't see the need for anyone telling everyone that this person or that person is a liar or hasn't read anything. If it is true the words will speak for themselves. I like the personal analysis but I just would like to see a little respect for each other's opinions and that can be done even when we disagree.

[kb]

Andrew said:

"I suppose all of these people are liars too."

The Emma Brokes non-issue was settled, not that there was anything there in the first place. So, yes, if they lied they lied. Were you going to make an argument? This was already settled and finished. Next you're going to try and say that it was just "proven" by someone that Chomsky is a "Holocaust denier" because he supported Faurisson.kb

Marin said:

"I have read Zinn's work. I have also taught it in classes in both the USA and in Japan. Unfortunately, I found it very one-sided and seriously lacking the objective viewpoint necessary for a history textbook."

I DO hope to hear specific examples. A simple assertion that you taught it and therefore you know means squat. There are also economists who have taught that globalization is good.kb

"As a teacher, I really don't want to use a book that has an agenda."

Then demonstrate that it has an agenda. Your simply saying it does means squat.kb

"I would love to just present the information in as factual a manner as I can then let students question the validity of those facts."

And if you think Zinn hasn't done this then it's your job, as a history teacher, suppoedly, to demonstrate how. Otherwise it means squat.kb

"After that, they can do research and discover new information or theories for themselves."

Yes, this IS what most folks who read Zinn do anyway. This is a given, and is exactly what Zinn would recommend, as he says all the time when speaking. One should read the history written by whoever seems to have the most facts, best arguments, etc...This is a given. So, if you think Zinn doesn't do this then it's your job to demonstrate it, NOT just say it. This means squat.kb

"In this way they can be better informed and not led by my predujice or the textbooks agenda."

Yes, I think that about 99.99% of the folks who read Zinn are quite well aware of this. This isprecisely why he appeals to them. Same goes with Chomsky. They've read most of the standard texts, many of which have been paid for by the C.I.A. or other such agencies in the first place. Would you like a list of those who have worked to engineer the correct way? Perhaps you've heard of a few of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

"Finally, I really don't see the need for anyone telling everyone that this person or that person is a liar or hasn't read anything."

Then don't do it. Personally, if I hear someone lying through their teeth, and can prove this is what they're doing, then I call them on it. If they're simply ignorant of the topic because they've never studied it, fine, they should be honest and say they've never studied it. NOT pretend that they have. It's quite simple.kb

"If it is true the words will speak for themselves."

Oh, believe me they do, they do. They have MANY times. That'S the odd part. It's like most children understand simple problems such as 1+1=2 after one or two lessons. These guys have been told hundreds of times for years and are STILL making the same nonsenical and fallacious arguments.kb

Let me ask you a question, Marin. If you were to assign the students to study a particular person's writings, would you allow for them to use only sources which were hostile to the person as primary sources, or would you perhaps recommend that they read the person in the original so that the person may know what the person had actually said. NOT what they heard someone say who has been preoven time and time again to be a lying buffoon? Personally, any teacher worth their salt would flunk the kid immediately for even thinking of doing such a thing. This is anti-history.kb

"I like the personal analysis but I just would like to see a little respect for each other's opinions and that can be done even when we disagree."

Yes, I agree. Disagreement isn't what this is about though. It's presenting arguments and defending them with evidence, counter-evidence, etc....What it's NOT is simply looking for data to fit one's agenda, which is exactly what is usually done by Tanuki, Andrew, and most of the right, and exactly what is NOT done by folks like Zinn. Or, if it has, it's yet to be demonstrated. I say go for it though. This is why I ask these guys if they've read the texts in question. How is one to argue when only one person has read the book? These guys are actually hostile to the notion that reading the primary sources may be a good idea. Actually, they fight against it tooth and nail. This alone demonstrates what they'd probably have to offer in way of worthy input. Do any of your students come to class without reading any of the assignments, and try and argue with you anyway, all the while you cringe because all of the arguments they think they've made were contained and answered in the the reading they didn't do? I hardly think so.kb

[andrew]

"The Emma Brokes non-issue was settled, not that there was anything there in the first place."

If by settled you mean the Guardian refused to print a letter which was signed by genocide survivors condemning Chomsky, then yes it's been "settled". But as usual you quickly run away from the topic.

[kb]

The Emma Brokes non-issue was settled, not that there was anything there in the first place."kb

"If by settled you mean the Guardian refused to print a letter which was signed by genocide survivors condemning Chomsky, then yes it's been "settled"."

They refused to print it because it was false and was proven to be false. There are many people who have been sued for lesser offenses than this most blatent one. Perhaps in your overzealousness to try and "get" something on Chomsky, as usual, you know nothing about the non-issue. Kamm was demonstrated to be a liar, again, was caught, and tried to squirm out of it, again. Nothing there. Did you have evidence of some sort to prove something that wasn't already proven? No? Yes, well, didn't think so. Now go back to your Dick and Jane books and let the men argue.kb

"But as usual you quickly run away from the topic.""

In yet another gross example of projection ANdrew does exactly what he accuses kb of doing. YOU, Andrew, have run away because YOU Andrew have provided no evidence for anything. As far as my running, I must simply laugh. I gave two or three links above with easily demonstrate Kamm's lying ways. YOU have run away from them quite obviously as you always do. Now, did you wish to keep talking about THIS subject of Chomsky of which you've demonstrated in the high hundreds of times now that you know nothing about, or did you wish to go back to history, Zinn, and the topic above which you also know nothing about. You choose. I'll be waiting....STILL.....as usual.kb

[tanuki]

Andrew, have you read any of the sites that KB linked to? I think I know where he gets it from now. In the Leiter Report one, all the blogger really does is call Kamm names, although the whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Where Kamm really spanks Chomsky is in the old, old, 1968 exchange of letters between Noam and Samuel Huntingon, although all Kamm really does is let Huntington defend himself. Blatant misquoting. Other examples of Chomsky's prevarications include the "2 million refugees" he cited in regards to the invasion of Afghanistan, then claimed his citing of it had nothing to do with his views; hinting that Chritopher Hitchens was a racist because he considered the 3,000 plus killed on 9/11 a greater crime than Clinton's bombing of the Sudanese chemical plant, and most hilariously, John Williamson catching Chomsky making ridiculous claims about WWII (American units battling Russians invading Germany), researching the matter and finding out it was completely wrong, then having Chomsky deny he said it...THEN FINDING A VIDEO CLIP OF CHOMSKY SAYING IT IN CLASS ON THE INTERNET!!! Now that's a veritable layer cake of dishonesty!

Everybody's entitled to a mistake, I suppose, but reputable scholars admit them and move on. And it wouldn't be nearly so irksome if Chomsky's followers didn't revere the old swindler so much, and take such abusive tones with those who call a spade a spade. But you know that, Andrew.

What I want to know is, how a discussion about one letter of Zinn's turned into a Chomsky debate.

[andrew]

"They refused to print it because it was false and was proven to be false."

Who has shown it be false? Why not print it and let people decide for themselves. The letter was signed by 25 people including 3 Srebrenica survivors. Does it bother you that genocide survivors are going against Chomsky, or do you consider them to be "criminals"?

"Andrew, have you read any of the sites that KB linked to? I think I know where he gets it from now. In the Leiter Report one, all the blogger really does is call Kamm names, although the whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot."

Yes I read them. Typical KB is to link to Chomsky or others saying the exact same thing he's already been saying. That's always his "evidence."

"What I want to know is, how a discussion about one letter of Zinn's turned into a Chomsky debate."

KB's usual method is to call someone a liar or apologist for crimes and then to declare the matter over. Then he will change topics and go on a long rambling rant usually involving Chomsky or someoone who had the audacity to challenge the infallibility of Chomsky.

[Marin]

"Let me ask you a question, Marin. If you were to assign the students to study a particular person's writings, would you allow for them to use only sources which were hostile to the person as primary sources, or would you perhaps recommend that they read the person in the original so that the person may know what the person had actually said..."

I guess the best way to answer your question is that I have never limited the information or sources that a student may wish to use. I only want them to be able to complete the task and defend their research results. From that point we can then have open and informed dialogue and debate.

"...NOT what they heard someone say who has been preoven time and time again to be a lying buffoon?"

To respect all opinions even for those who are ignorant or wrong is necessary. Everyone makes mistakes or lapses into poor judgement. These are the kinds of lessons I try teach students. History reflects this.

I know that you may disagree with me and that is fine. I try to teach with resources and materials, as Zinn states, come from "...the work of several generations of scholars, especially the current generation of historians who have done immense work in the history of blacks, indians, women and working people of all kinds."

Also as Zinn continues, "... the work of many people, not professional historians, who were stimulated by social struggles around them to put together material about the lives and activities of ordinary people trying to make a better world, or just trying to survive." (From the Bibliography of "A Peoples History of the United States")

I would like to think that this discussion board offered by Tanuki is a forum for us "ordinary people trying to make a better world". I want to respect that.

[kb]

Tanuki said:

"Andrew, have you read any of the sites that KB linked to? I think I know where he gets it from now. In the Leiter Report one, all the blogger really does is call Kamm names, although the whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot."

Obviously you read nothing then. He easily demonstrates Kamm's lying, as does Chomsky on his link, as do many, many, many other folks.kb

"Where Kamm really spanks Chomsky is in the old, old, 1968 exchange of letters between Noam and Samuel Huntingon"

Kamm has done nothing in this regard. Firstly, this argument was made about that long ago and was responded to about that lond ago. Kamm did little but to resurrect an old non-issue. Next he'll say that Chomsky just supported a Holocaust denier, too, as if he discovered something. I DO most enjoy watching you and Andrew dribble back and forth the same mis-information, ALL based, mind you, on knowing ZERO about the subject and thinking you both do. Now, how many Chomsky books have you read? Andrew, this goes for you, too. How many? And how if you haven't do you think you know that Kamm can be trusted? He has never demonstrated anything to anyone knowledgeable of the subject that he has anything to offer, only to those who know no better.kb

"although all Kamm really does is let Huntington defend himself."

Yes, and then Chomsky responds to Huntington in kind. And anyone knowing the entire context easily sees that there's no issue whatsoever. The only folks who "think" they see an issue are the folks who aren't the least bit aware of the context. Kamm is one, and his followers are still yet further down. But let's just assume that by some VERY unusual chance that Chomsky was 100% incorrect. So what? What do you think that it proves? That he potentially interpreted something wrong? Whoopie! Then there would be ONE out of 34,978 assertions which would have been demonstrated to be wrong. I'd say the odds would STILL, by FAR, be in his favor. He has mounds of other stuff on Huntington, Schlesinger, and a host of others which have never been touched. Why? Because they were correct. You guys are SOOOO desparate to get something on Chomsky, as Tanuki is my typing errors, that you'll settle for just any old thing. Bottom line: You do NOT know the subject. And until you do you will be do little more than drooling on yourself. Hey, I'm not telling you this because I care an iota about Chomsky. I'm doing this so you guys won't keep on making yourselves look like fools. Anyway, if you DO ever decide to become serious and study the subject, for once, you can thank me then. Just think of all the time you've wasted on bablling meaningless nonsense and unwittingly helping to propagate lies when you could have actually spent about 1/10he the time, read all of his works, and almost be able to offer something which would make it appear that you had some knowledge of the subject. I'm just perplexed at why you aren't embarrassed.kb

"Blatant misquoting."

Really? Where? It's never been demonstrated. On the contrary, Huntington already tried to demonstrate this and Chomsky demonstrated his quote to be exactly accurate. Same thing happened with the even less of a challenge, Hitchens. It was quite embarrassing for Hitchens I'd imagine.kb

"Other examples of Chomsky's prevarications include the "2 million refugees" he cited in regards to the invasion of Afghanistan"

No, actually it was 3 to 4 million and it was correct. Once again, you have ZERO knowlwdge of the subject and are simply repeating the lies of the lying idiots you use for your "data". This, TOO, has been covered in great detail. I have the lecture of him making the statement, sharing the names of those who gave the numbers, etc...He said that based on the numbers given by all of these places that if aid were cut off that 3-4 million could potenially be starved. This isn't HIS opinion. This is data based on several agencies, newspaper writers who supposedly have familiarity with the country, etc...You know, the usual mounds of reliable source which he offers. So, once again, you know nothing of the subject. I'd advise reading. I mean, I have been advising this for years now, and look where you guys are. Exactly where I said you'd be, doing exactly what I said you'd be doing. Neither of you have read a single book, and neither of you still know squat about the topic. This REALLY doesn't embarrass you? To talk endlessly about a subject you less than nothing about? Are you honestly going to sit here and tell us that you think you DO know the subject even after having admitted on several occasions that you hadn't read anything?kb

"then claimed his citing of it had nothing to do with his views"

Yes, this is true. He sited the numbers which were available at the time and said that if these were true numbers then we had consciously chosen to starve/murder (the same except perhaps starving is worse). This is exactly correct and it has never been shown to be incorrect. What actually happened afterwards is 100% irrelevant to what Chomsky said, though the numbers probably did go way up into the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, which is another topic he talks about. Observers were not allowed in. Wonder why?kb

"hinting that Chritopher Hitchens was a racist because he considered the 3,000 plus killed on 9/11 a greater crime than Clinton's bombing of the Sudanese chemical plant"

He didn't hint Hitchens was a racist at all. Are you completely illiterate? Is this genetic or what? He made an apologetic for a statement that he didn't think Hitchens could possible have said and meant. He was trying to help Hitchens lapse in linguistics. For, if HItechens actually DID mean what he said, then it's not even close to being a question that this would make him a racist. And a REALLY bad one at that. Being that Chomsky didn't believe Hitchens to be a racist, he simply corrected him and made him, perhaps, double-check his statement and what all it might imply. Chomsky was doing him a favor. Hitchins though, having the ego he does, made a VERY big mistake and tried to go forward with it by pitting hmself against someone WAAAAY out of his league. He then proceeded to dig the hole deeper and deeper, as was shown all over the place as well. You know, it would really behoove you guys to read something other than FrontPage Toilet Paper once in a while.kb

"and most hilariously, John Williamson catching Chomsky making ridiculous claims about WWII (American units battling Russians invading Germany), researching the matter and finding out it was completely wrong, then having Chomsky deny he said it...THEN FINDING A VIDEO CLIP OF CHOMSKY SAYING IT IN CLASS ON THE INTERNET!!! Now that's a veritable layer cake of dishonesty!"

Oh, you mean this: "Chomsky has in the past stated, to the outrage of many, that these articles actually justified the attack on Pearl Harbor": says John Williamson, helpfully linking to the supposed source of this outrage, where in fact Chomsky says "That doctrine [preventative war] would, for example, justify Japan's attack on US military bases in Pearl Harbor and Manila" in the middle of an attack on "that doctrine" which obviously Chomksy doesn't believe in."

Woooow! You really got him. Yes, it's exactly this type of out of context nonsense which is so easily swallowed by you guys precisely because you DO NOT KNOW THE SUBJECT.kb

"Everybody's entitled to a mistake"

Of course they are. Unfortunately, you have yet to demonstrate any. And what's really funny is that if you actually HAD deomstrated something, you STILL wouldn't really know as you know nothing about the subject. Don't you get tired of hearing me repeat this obvious fact? Oh, and it IS a fact.kb

"I suppose, but reputable scholars admit them and move on."

Really? That's odd. None of the fellows who Chomsky has demonstrated said X,Y, and Z over 50 years have ever eeveb tried with the exception of two or three. I'd say that was pretty good, especially given that these guys were wrong, too. At least Schlesinger did admit HIS mistake after Chomsky asserted something, Schlesinger denied it calling Chomsky a liar, Chomsky proving himself correct, of course, and he took it back. Of course he was working for Kennedy then, so I'm sure his historical insights wouldn't have been influenced.kb

"And it wouldn't be nearly so irksome if Chomsky's followers didn't revere the old swindler so much"

Notice the charge again "swindler" inferring hew knows something about the topic. He doesn't. Never read a single book of the guys, but "tries" to talk about him endlessly. Not knowing the topic, you probably wouldn't understand why someone would appreciate his honesty, life long work for human rights, support for MANY worthy organizations, confronting power and not being a coward in the face of it (like most psudo-patriots do), and on and on...The good thing is though, and I am exactlly 100% sure of this, if ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, who does, in fact, know the subject, or even takes an interest in Chomsky, and they come across our conversations during the time they're educating themselves, your comments regarding what you "think" Chomsky is all about compared with what the student will be learning that he's REALLY all about, will help him in FAAAAR more ways that you could comprehend. I know that you're attempt at defaming the Descartes of our time, though this is actually a criticism of Chomsky to a degree, is all in bad spirit, but it really will help him. Sorry.kb

"and take such abusive tones with those who call a spade a spade."

Yes, and that's exactly what kb has done here, again. He's called a spade a spade. And that spade is that neither Tanuki or Andrew have the foggiest idea of what they're "talking" about. Neither have read ONE Chomsky book. Both of them depend on 24th hand sources which NO teacher would EVER accept from a student. They both talk, infer, make snide little remarks like they're "on to something", and they're not even close. It's basically like Beavis and Butthead thinking they're on to something. What makes it even more amusing is that while Tanuki loves to mention the name of the fellow whose books he's never read a one of, and criticisizes those who have actually studied the subject by calling them "Chomskyites" or inferences to their worship of him, etc...and all the usual devides one uses when they don't know what they're talking about, he feels the need to mention the name of Theodore Darmapple or whatever his insignificant name is in every other post, not to mention Tanuki's mentioning of Chomsky all the time in an interesting display of stalker-like obsession.kb

"But you know that, Andrew."

Wink wink! Nod nod! Yes, believe me, Andrew knows. Two blind, deaf, and dumb snake oil salesmen conferring with each other. Awww....kb

"What I want to know is, how a discussion about one letter of Zinn's turned into a Chomsky debate."

Look above and you'll find the answer. I've asked the same question. Didn't get a response, of course.kb

Androoled:

"They refused to print it because it was false and was proven to be false."

"Who has shown it be false? Why not print it and let people decide for themselves."

Andrew, the non-issue is closed. Finished. Gone. They lied. Chomsky demonstrated, as usual, that he didn't say what they said he said, and it was removed, just as most everything Kamm writes would have happen to it were he writing if for some legit rag. This is why they won't have him regarding anything about Chomsky. They're intelligent enough to know that he'll be made to look the idiot he is, which, in turn, will make the rag look bad for allowing an idiot to "contribute". Most worthy rags aren't that stupid. It would be like letting Coulter, Hannity, or Limbaugh write columns for you. Who in their right mind, or even wrong mind, would be that idiotic. Anyway, like the Holocaust denial non-issue, Pol Pot apologist non-issue, and all the rest, there is nothing there and there never was. Geez, you're only about X number of light years behind on everything. ARead any Chomsky, or Zinn, lately...ever?kb

"The letter was signed by 25 people including 3 Srebrenica survivors. Does it bother you that genocide survivors are going against Chomsky, or do you consider them to be "criminals"?"

Still don't know what you're talking about. Come back after you do. But since we're here, what DID Chomsky say? I mean, I want YOU to give me the exact quotes in question, the context, and everything else, and THEN try and make your argument. Until then you're doing little more than continuing to spread around the anti-Chomsky propaganda without even knowing that's what you're doing. There were also a few Cambodians who burned Chomsky's book supposeldy thinking it was Pol Pot apologetics also. They were wrong. And anyone reading the book, and who understands the English language, would never come away with such an inperpretation. I mean, these folks were Cambodians whose English skills were not quite up to par, so there may BE an excuse for them, even though most were actually used by anti-Chomsky folks, and weren't even aware what they were talking about. But for any even semi-literate native speakers, to have come up with an interpretation that ANY book at all of Chomsky's was apologetic to anyone who had committed crimes of any sort, is rather pathetic and sad. It doesn't exist. Nowhere. In NONE of his books. And if YOU, or anyone you read thinks there are any of these invisible things there, they're probably also seeing pink elephants floating by when they look out the window as they drive, and should seek immediate medical (psychiatric) attention.kb

"Andrew, have you read any of the sites that KB linked to? I think I know where he gets it from now. In the Leiter Report one, all the blogger really does is call Kamm names, although the whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot."

"Yes I read them. Typical KB is to link to Chomsky or others saying the exact same thing he's already been saying."

Yes, you're exactly correct that it's exactoy like me to link to things which are the things I've been saying. That's why I linked to them. These are more in corresponding with the reality of the situation. Here. Time for another example:

Andrew's Logic:

Prof. X: If you touch fire it will burn you.
kb: Professor X said that if you touch fire it will burn you.
Andrew:(inferring that kb doesn't know what he's talking about or using spurious sources) Of course kb would say that, and take us to the links where Prof. X said that in order to prove his point.
kb: Uhhh...Yeah, you're correct.
Andrew: Yep! KB up to his old tricks.
kb: Huh?
Tanuki: Yes, I...I...I think I can see it, too. Yes, there it is! His tricks!
kb: Huh? Anyway, read any Chomsky lately?
Andrew and Tanuki:(For the next 4 years neither of them answer this question ((this is a fact incidentally)). They continue to talk about Chomsky any time they have a chance while STILL demonstrating in most every sentence they know nothing about the subject. They are happy, sitting there, rubbing their small pieces of velvet, and humming Souza songs. KB returns to reading everything he can get his hands on regarding various topic of interest, and waits for the next outburst from Andrew or Tanuki so that he can give them their pills.)
The End

That's always his "evidence."

Once again, yes, you're correct. I DO go to the sources whenever possible, or to those who have demonstrated that they know the subject. Kamm doesn't and never has. Not even close. Another elementary school example for you:

Chomsky: I think X, Y, Z.
Reviewer 1: Chomsky's position is X, Y, and Z.
Reviewer 2: Chosmky's position is X, Y, and Z.
Reviewer 3: Chomsky's position is X, Y, and Z.
KB: Chomsky's position is X,Y, and Z.
Tandrew: What!!! He says D,E,F.
KB: Where the hell did you get that? Have you read any of his books?
Tandrew: I don't need to read any of his books to know he says D,E,F.
KB: Yes, you do.
Tandrew: Well, Interviewer 183,989 and Interviewer 589,253 both said he said D,E,F. Where's you evidence he didn't?
KB: Okay, well, go to what Chomsky said up above. Then go to the other 183,988 reviewers before your first one, and those between the two you mentioned, and the 12 million after those you mentioned. That's where I get my information.
Tandrew: Yep! That's where KB usually gets his evidence.
The End

"What I want to know is, how a discussion about one letter of Zinn's turned into a Chomsky debate."

Ahhh...Yes, as Tanuki noticed AFTER I did.kb

"KB's usual method is to call someone a liar or apologist for crimes and then to declare the matter over."

Huh? What the hell are you talking about again? Did you have some example or evidence, or is this just sort of falling from your butt? However, since YOU brought this up, from somewhere, I'll respond as a courtesy. If someone lies or is an apologist for crimes, then, yes, you're again exactly correct. I'll say that they lied and that they're an apologist for crimes. You make it sound as though this is a bad thing. I should pat them on the back, or perhaps vote them into office, knowing that they've lied and committed crimes. Sorry, but us "lefties" don't usually make decisions this way. This is more of a tradition of the right.kb

"Then he will change topics and go on a long rambling rant usually involving Chomsky or someoone who had the audacity to challenge the infallibility of Chomsky."

Evidence? Nothing. More butt-talk. I didn't change any topic, not have you demonstrated that I have. And I almost never bring up Chomsky first. Almost never have. I'd say less than 10 times in 4 years, probably fewer. Any I've never once said ONE word about thinking that it was bad to challenge Chomsky at all. On the contrary, I've said the exact opposite on hundreds of occasions, and have done so here again today (above). In fact, the reason I encourage those who have never read the subject to actually read the subject is precisely so that they can do this very thing. Picking out a few incorrct references by other folks who don't know the subject, as it has been demonstrated time and time again, doesn't come close to qualifying as criticism. This is little more than neighborhood gossip between bored housewives. As I've said several thousand times now, you can try and make criticisms all you want, but if you're going to make ANY, and I mean even ONE, serious one(s), the very FIRST STEP you will have to take si to read the topic and study it as you would any other topic. Until then you're blowing wind and nothing else. Yes, yes, ues, I know you've already dug your hole of embarrassment SOOOO deep that you will probably never be able to get out of it, I mean, you SURE will never let me know if you ever DO read Chomsky and discover that what I've been saying was exactly correct. That's okay. Do it for yourself though. You can come back to the blog world with a different name and start bitch-slapping, I mean teaching, those few buffoons who may still be hanging around saying those silly things you used to say, but, finally, after reading the books in question, grew out of.kb

[kb]

Marin said, politely and resonably, after quoting me:

((("Let me ask you a question, Marin. If you were to assign the students to study a particular person's writings, would you allow for them to use only sources which were hostile to the person as primary sources, or would you perhaps recommend that they read the person in the original so that the person may know what the person had actually said...")))kb

"I guess the best way to answer your question is that I have never limited the information or sources that a student may wish to use."

That's good. But if a student uses a comic book as a source, which has little or nothing at all to do with the subject other than perhaps a few similar names, would you, perhaps, mention that his sources may need to be reconsidered. I mean, if he wishes to pass the course? kb

"I only want them to be able to complete the task and defend their research results."

And so if you were able to demonstrate that the data from the comic book wasn't factually correct, that the author had just made it up, and that the student wasn't the least bit interested in reading the materials written by the historical person in question, assuming that it's a historical figure of some sort, what would you do? Would you not tell him that this is little more than a fairy tale? Or knock off a few dozen points for not even trying? I mean, bacially, he just doesn't want to read the work because he prefers comic books and is trying to worm his way around studying (as can easily be demonstrated on this very blog when Andrew and Tanuki try and talk about Chomsky)kb

"From that point we can then have open and informed dialogue and debate."

Sounds good. So, there you are, using any number of the top recognized scholars in the field, and there your student is with his BLADE comic book. What do you say to him?kb

"...NOT what they heard someone say who has been preoven time and time again to be a lying buffoon?"

"To respect all opinions even for those who are ignorant or wrong is necessary."

Yes, on a higher level I agree 100%. Unfortunately, the folks I've been referring to are NOT coming from this more admirable level. Not only that, they don't understand it for the most part. It's like trying to prove a political point with a football player using poetry or something. They do NOT get it, nor do many of them wish to. They understand being slapped upside the head, and that's about it. Sorry, this is the realist position. When I'm discussing topics with folks who are calm, collect, intelligent, etc...I talk this way. Whn I'm in the middle of the drunken rabble, while my "higher self" may think it more proper to keep my head up in the clouds and resist dipping into the mud, for the most part it's little more than a waste of time, other than perhaps an exercise in meditation. Personally, I'm coming more and more to think it's exactly this which is the problem with the so-called left in the U.S. They attempt NOT to lower themselves into the vile places where the right often dwell, try and stay more intellectual, and end up looking like wimps and not getting anything done. AExactly one of the reasons why Zinn appeals so much to so many, including many of the dispossed, blacks, etc..."You can't be neutral on a moving train". And why on earth would anyone want to? Buddha wasn't even that neutral.kb

"Everyone makes mistakes or lapses into poor judgement."

I agree. And when they have been shown to do this, if they don't first discoverit on their own, they should have the honesty to admit the mistake, take in the ocrrection, and move on.kb

"These are the kinds of lessons I try teach students. History reflects this."

Sounds good. And how does this apply to what we've been talking about regarding Zinn?kb

"I know that you may disagree with me and that is fine."

Not at all. I agree with pretty much everything you've just stated, as well as appreciate your calm way of saying it. It's much more productive. Actually, a while back there was another fellow with a similar disposition to yourself who came here or to another similar blog. I warned them that while it may seem nice at first, don't be surprised if it got nasty pretty quickly. It did. They left. Personally, I wish they would have stayed because it made those who were more rational, primarily from the left, appear if more rational. I hope you stay. Perhaps you can moderate between the few foks here. Also, we have a long history with each other here, so this hasn't just jumped out from nowhere. I'm all for you sticking around.kb

"I try to teach with resources and materials, as Zinn states, come from "...the work of several generations of scholars, especially the current generation of historians who have done immense work in the history of blacks, indians, women and working people of all kinds."

Great! Sound like a good teacher so far.kb

"Also as Zinn continues, "... the work of many people, not professional historians, who were stimulated by social struggles around them to put together material about the lives and activities of ordinary people trying to make a better world, or just trying to survive." (From the Bibliography of "A Peoples History of the United States")"

Yes, this is great! Hence it's why he called his book "The People's History..."kb

"I would like to think that this discussion board offered by Tanuki is a forum for us "ordinary people trying to make a better world". I want to respect that."

Great! Sounds good. Now, if you had written a book on, let's say, Madison, had read every book ever written by the man, including both critical books and complimentary books, etc....and Tanuki or Andrew came here saying that Madison was a black female opera singer who was Catholic, 3 foot tall, and jogged in the nude ever morning by elementary schools, what would you say to them? AND, after you've tald them that this was not true, asked them to read a book or two on the subject and they refused saying, even insisting that this was not necessary, and the constantly referring to Madison by qoting the very people who they found out the information from in the first place about him being black, etc....What would you do? If they repeatedly said that they DID NOT need to read anything to know about it, what would you think of their integrity, or even honesty? If they called you a "Madisonite" and said that you "worshipped him" or that he was you "master" simply because you were aware that he wasn't a black, Catholic, etc....what would you say or do? kb

[andrew]

Wow. KB has issues. Isn't it poor manners to write a book on somebody's blog? And I swear he referred to himself in the third person somewhere in there.

"Hey, I'm not telling you this because I care an iota about Chomsky. I'm doing this so you guys won't keep on making yourselves look like fools."

Tanuki, one of the funniest things that KB does is to deny that he's a fan of Chomsky, in other words he's just here to set the record straight. There must be in psychology some term for him saying that.

[kb]

Androoled:

"Wow. KB has issues."

I DO hope you plan on giving evidence for THIS statement. I mean, you haven't given any evidence for any of the the other topics discussed here.(snore)kb

"Isn't it poor manners to write a book on somebody's blog?"

Who said anything about "manners"? Oh, I see. This is your attempt to try and get Tanuki to go back to his banning hobby. Sorry, but I believe he grew out of that phase and has now realized that banning only makes him look bad. This usually happens when the state cracks down on freedom of speech. Perhaps you've read something about this from history? Oops! (that was a joke) Perhaps you wish to challenge something or try and make an argument?kb

"And I swear he referred to himself in the third person somewhere in there."

Well, it's possible. So what? Were you going to present evidence? And then were you going to demonstrate what was wrong with doing this. And then were you going to run away from my demonstrating how your demonstration fell flat? No, didn't think so. It would never have reached the second step because you never provide evidence for anything. Perhaps rather than trying to make yourself or Tanuki think you're practicing manners by making short, empty of content, sound bites, it would be better to use a little more space (write a book) and actually make an argument, challenge something, give evidence for something, and attempt to debate, for once. Not everyone can be so easily duped by a few lines like "You're either with us, or you're with the enemy".kb

"Hey, I'm not telling you this because I care an iota about Chomsky. I'm doing this so you guys won't keep on making yourselves look like fools."kb

"Tanuki, one of the funniest things that KB does is to deny that he's a fan of Chomsky"

Who denied that he appreciates Chomsky's work. Perhaps if you read the words written above you would see that I say that I do. I appreciate his work, along with millions of others, as well as the works of several hundred other people. So? Was this supposed to mean something.

Andrewianism at it Best:

Chomsky: I think a,b,c.

Tandrew: Chomsky thinks k,r,s. Kamm told me so. And he knows because he doesn't like Chomsky.

kb: Huh? Chomsky thinks a,b,c. See? He says it just two comments up.

Andrew: See?! There it is again! He's a Chomsky fan! I mean, true, he almost never mentions Chomsky's name except for in response to one of my or Tanuki's incorrect and uninformed references, after all, neither of us have actually read any of his work, but KB DOES respond to us when WE bring him up by saying something stupid, so...uhh...I guess HE likes to talk about him and HE is a "fan". The logic is obvious! Not to mention how I proved my point.

kb: Evidence?

Tandrew: I've just given it. Can't you read? You're projecting! You worship Chomsky! You can't stop talking about Chomsky! You say Chomsky every time you have a chance! If you could say only one word all day long it would be Chomsky! Chomsky! Chomsky! Chomsky! All he ever talks about.

kb: Read any Chomsky lately?

Tandrew:(..............I sorry, but the number you have dialed is no longer in service. For the new number please call the John's Hopkins Mental Health Facili.......)

The End

"in other words he's just here to set the record straight."

If you say something incorrect, and I'm aware that you've said something incorrect, yes, I WILL set the record straight. Example for Androol?

Andrew: 1+2=12

kb: No, it equals 3.

Andrew: Prove it! You always do this! You're just here to cause trouble! Tanuki ban him! Ban him! He's a Chomsky fan! He keeps talking about CHOMSKY every time he has a chance. He worships Chomsky!!! It's 12! It's 12!!!

(A few moment later the ambulance arrives to take Androol back to his padded cell which he managed to slip out of by saying that he was Chomsky and was there to see a patient named Andrew)

See?! Chomsky even helps Andrew without him being aware of it.

The End

"There must be in psychology some term for him saying that."

Yes, I'm quite well aware of many psychology terms. (Master's Degree. Would you like to discuss THIS subject as well? I mean, have you studied it at all, or were you just going to use some bits and pieces you got from Geraldo? Oh, and there are MANY psychologists I'm a "fan" of as well. And basketball players, musicians,...) I've even used a few of them on you when they've presented themselves, the more obvious a simple ones, like projection, cognitive dissonance, and a few others. However, I've been rather considerate by not mentioning the more severe ones, yet. Shall I? Personally, rather then focusing on your slwoly degenerating psychological profile, I'd rather you just read a book, or made an argument, or done something to demonstrate that you haven't just wasted your time by being here.kb

[kb]

By the way, Tanuki, could you please tell me how to get ahold of Williamson? He doesn't seem to accept comments (i.e., public demonstrations of his idiocy) on his "blog". Nor does he seem to even have an email address where one could reach him to ask him why, or to challenge his nonsense in private. It's called the 'Scream ignorant-ass statements from a safe distance and roll up the window as fast as possible' method. Yes, anyone like this is sure someone one should count on for information. On the other hand, we have "the man" Andrew can't keep talking about openly giving his personal email adress for anyone to write at any time. I have many times, and I believe he's always answered. Anyway, if you can find a way to contact him I'd appreciate it.kb