A cikin “Tunaninsa” akan Chomsky, a ƙarƙashin taken “Rashin Lafiyar Nawa ga Noam Chomsky: Khmer Rouge, Faurisson, Milosevic,” Brad DeLong ya daɗe yana kiran suna, yana lalata ta hanyar zaɓi na kalmomi da jumlolin da ba su dace ba. , da kuma ƙwaƙƙwaran da yawa waɗanda ba su da goyan bayan shaida (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html). Yana da gajeriyar juriyar ra'ayoyin da ba ya so kuma gajarta ce a fayyace mutuncin hankali. Girmama kansa da girman kai wajen daidaita Chomsky da "lambar ban mamaki" na "mabiya" shi ma yana da ban sha'awa.
A cikin sakin layi na farko guda biyu ya yi nuni da cewa masu sha'awar Chomsky "sun samar da wani nau'i na al'ada," amma ba a bayar da wata shaida da ke goyon bayan wannan cin zarafi ba, wanda wani nau'i ne na lalata don cin mutuncin mutanen da ke sha'awar wanda ba su yarda da shi ba. Sannan ya kwatanta koyar da irin wadannan mutane da koyar da Plato da aladu. Don haka budinsa tsantsar suna ne.
A cikin sakin layi na gaba yana ƙoƙarin shiga cikin abu, kuma wannan ƙoƙarin yana da daraja a duba sosai. Ya ce: “Ku yi la’akari da da’awar Chomsky cewa: ‘A farkon 1990s, da farko saboda manyan dalilai na izgili, Amurka ta zaɓi Musulmin Bosnia a matsayin abokan cinikinsu na Balkan…’ A fuskarsa wannan abin dariya ne. Lokacin da Amurka ta zaɓi abokan ciniki don manyan dalilai masu ƙarfi, ta zaɓi abokan ciniki masu ƙarfi: ba waɗanda aka tattara mutanen da ba su da makami kuma dubbai suka harbe su. Kuma Musulman Bosnia a matsayin mabuɗin dabarun siyasa da sojan Amurka a Turai? Kamar yadda Bismarck ya ce fiye da karni daya da suka wuce, 'Babu wani abu a cikin Balkan da ya dace da kasusuwan gurnati na Pomeranian guda ɗaya.' Yana da gaskiya a yau kuma: Amurka, ba ta da wata dabara ko tsaro ga Balkans da ya dace. mutuwar wani ma'aikacin kula da kashe gobara na Carolinian. Shigar da Amurka ta yi a yankin Balkan a cikin 1990s 'na ɗan adam' asali ne da niyya (ko da za mu iya jayayya game da tasirinsa). Lon goro ne kawai zai yi jayayya in ba haka ba.”
Bayanin mahimmanci na farko a cikin wannan sakin layi, cewa Amurka koyaushe tana zaɓar abokan ciniki masu ƙarfi, hakika “mai daɗi” ne: Amurka ta goyi bayan ɓatancin Nicaragua, Savimbi's UNITA a Angola, ƙaramin rag-tag sojojin a Nicaragua cewa ta shirya don mamaye Guatemala. a 1954, Somoza's Nicaragua, Florida da Nicaragua na mamayewa na Bay of Pigs, ragowar sojojin Chiang Kai Shek da suka sha kashi a arewacin Burma bayan nasarar 'yan gurguzu a China a 1949, Taiwan ta Chiang daga 1949, Tekun Fasha Emirates, da sauran masu yawa makamantan "abokan ciniki masu ƙarfi." Ma'anar cewa saboda an harbe musulman Bosniya da yawa ba za su iya zama abokan cinikin Amurka ba kawai ba tsari ba, yana kuma tashi a gaban manya-manyan hujjojin da suke kasance Abokan ciniki na Amurka, kamar yadda kowane littafi mai mahimmanci a kan batun ya bayyana (misali, Ubangiji David Owen's Balkan Odyssey, Susan Woodward's Bala'in Balkan, ko Diana Johnstone's Crusade Wawa). Wannan matsayin abokin ciniki ba shi da ma'ana. Jahilcin DeLong na wannan fanni da alama ya kusa kammalawa, domin ya kasa lura cewa abokan cinikinmu na Bosnia suma sun harbe wasu mutane da ba sa dauke da makamai, kuma mu tare da hadin gwiwar Saudiyya da Bin Laden, muka yi jigilar kayayyaki masu tarin yawa da sojojin mujahadin shiga Bosnia. (kamar yadda aka bayyana dalla-dalla a cikin rahoton Dutch kan Srebrenica) da kuma jefa bama-bamai a Sabiyawa a madadin abokin cinikinmu musulmin Bosnia a gaban yarjejeniyar Dayton.
Jumlarsa ta gaba game da Musulman Bosniya a matsayin "mabudi ga dabarun siyasar Amurka da soja a Turai" bata bayyana ba kuma don haka karya game da harshen Chomsky: Chomsky bai ce "maɓalli… a Turai ba," in ji shi kawai cewa Amurka ta zaɓi musulmin Bosnia. a matsayin abokan ciniki a cikin Balkans, sanarwa mai kunkuntar. Daga nan DeLong ya ba da zancensa daga Bismarck, faretin batsa na ''ilimi'' kamar yadda ba za mu iya sanin ko Bismarck ya yi daidai ba ko kuma ya gaskata abin da ya faɗa, kuma abin da yake gaskiya a ƙarni baya baya iya zama gaskiya yanzu.
DeLong ya ci gaba da cewa, gaskiya ne a yau cewa Amurka ba ta da wata manufa ko tsaro a yankin Balkan. Yana tafiya ba tare da faɗin cewa ba ya bayar da shaida a kan wannan batu ko kuma ya tattauna batutuwa da ra'ayoyi da suka saba wa juna. Yawancin manazarta sun yi nuni da: (1) babban sansanin sojan Amurka da aka gina a Kosovo, wanda dole ne ya kasance yana da wasu ayyukan sha'awar tsaro; (2) gaskiyar cewa shiga tsakani na NATO ya lalata ƙungiyar siyasa mai cin gashin kanta a Turai ba ta shiga cikin tattalin arzikin siyasar yammacin Turai - Yugoslavia - kuma ya sauƙaƙe wannan haɗin gwiwa; (3) Muhimmancin yankin mai na Caspian da kuma sha'awar kamfanonin mai na Yamma a cikin yiwuwar hanyoyin sufuri na Balkan; (4) haɗin kai tsakanin Yaƙin Kosovo da bikin Afrilu 1999 na bikin cika shekaru 50 na haifuwar NATO tare da samun nasarar soji na NATO; (5) yuwuwar sha'awar Amurka don sake tabbatar da mamayar NATO ta hanyar jagorantar gwagwarmayar Balkans; da (6) shigar da Clinton, Blair, da Sakataren Tsaro Cohen suka yi cewa "amincin NATO" shine babban dalilin tashin bam.
Amma DeLong ya san cewa duk wannan ba shi da mahimmanci saboda shiga tsakani na Amurka ya dogara ne akan dalilan "dan adam"! Wannan shine ɗayan waɗannan manyan gaskiyar kishin ƙasa waɗanda DeLong ya fahimta ta hanyar hankali. Amma ko da yake Clinton da Blair sun ci gaba da tafiya bisa dalilai na jin kai, za ku iya tabbata DeLong ba zai tsaya yin bayanin dalilin da ya sa duka wadannan masu aikin jin kai suka kasance masu goyon bayan Suharto da kuma gwamnatin Turkiyya da ke kawar da kabilanci ba. Kurdawa a cikin 1990s. Blair guda wanda yayi gwagwarmaya don jin kai ya ƙare da Clinton a 1999 kuma ya yi iƙirarin cewa ya yi gwagwarmaya don kare jin kai tare da Bush a Iraki a 2003. Ina mamakin ko DeLong ya sayi wannan layin na kishin ƙasa a yanzu, ko kuma ɗan Democrat ne mai ɗabi'a kamar Clinton ne kawai zai yi. bi ayyukan jin kai? Ya kamata in ambaci cewa littafin Andrew Bacevich na kwanan nan, Daular Amurka, wanda aka yaba sosai a cikin al'ada, yana tabbatar da cewa Amurka ba ta da damuwa ko kadan a yakin Balkans kuma cewa Clinton ta yi amfani da karfi ne kawai don kafa "haɗin kai na NATO da amincin ikon Amurka."
To, wane ne “yaron na goro”: Chomsky, ko kuma mutumin da ya ba da labarin yaren da ake son ya yi, ya sake maimaita gaskiyar wauta ta kishin ƙasa, ya nuna jahilci mai banƙyama a kan batutuwan da ya rubuta a kai a matsayin hukuma, kuma ya kawar da hujja da magana ta hankali a kan waɗannan batutuwa. ?
Bayan wannan hujja ta Chomsky a matsayin ɗan goro, DeLong yana da ƴan layika kan abin da masu sha'awar Chomsky ke faɗi lokacin da ya gabatar musu da waccan jumlar ɗan goro akan Bosnia. Babu magana daga masu sha'awar, kawai zarge-zargen da ake zargi, tare da kalmomi kamar "bututun mai!" tare da ma'anar motsin rai, amma babu wani bincike mai mahimmanci ko amsoshi: kawai kyawawan ƴan ɗimbin ɓangarorin.
Amsa ɗaya da aka fassara ta ambaci “hasken” Chomsky. DeLong sannan ya ci gaba kamar haka: “Haske? Kamar yadda ya rubuta gabatarwar littafi na Robert Faurisson," wanda ya biyo baya tare da wasu zaɓaɓɓun maganganu kamar haka Chomsky ya ce Faurisson ya kasance kamar "mai sassaucin ra'ayi ne" kuma Chomsky ya yarda da "babu ilimi na musamman" na batun Faurisson. Faurisson bai karanta wani abu ba "wanda ke nuna cewa mutumin ya kasance mai goyon bayan Nazi."
Chomsky ko "mabiyansa" ba su taɓa yin da'awar waɗannan jimlolin "hankali" ba ne: wannan shine dabarar mai zane mai lalata, wanda ke neman yare mai rauni a cikin maƙasudi, ya ɗauke kalmomin daga mahallin, kuma yana ɗaukaka su zuwa "haskoki." Ka lura kuma da rashin fahimta: “hankali” ne da ake zargi da rubuta “gabatarwa.” Lura kuma rashin gaskiya a cikin rashin ambaton cewa gabatarwar an rubuta shi ne kawai a matsayin mai zaman kanta avis kuma an saka shi a cikin littafin a matsayin gabatarwa ba tare da amincewar Chomsky ba (duba Chomsky's "The Right to Say It," The Nation, Fabrairu 28, 1981: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html).
Mafi mahimmanci a cikin wannan lokaci na kasuwancin lalata shine ƙin DeLong don gane cewa avis kare hakkin 'yancin fadin albarkacin baki ne kawai, kuma daga farko zuwa karshe wannan shine duk gwagwarmayar da ake yi wa Chomsky. Tabbas ba batun ra'ayin Faurisson ba ne ko kuma ta kowace hanya don kare waɗannan ra'ayoyin, kuma DeLong ya kasa faɗin cewa an kori Faurisson daga aikinsa na koyar da adabin Faransanci saboda hukumomi sun yi iƙirarin ba za su iya kare shi daga abokan gabansa ba, kuma an kawo shi. zuwa kotu ba don ra'ayinsa na siyasa ba, amma don "Ƙarya Tarihi" (a game da ɗakin gas) da kuma "ba da izinin wasu" suyi amfani da aikinsa don mummuna. Wannan shi ne babban shari'ar 'yancin ɗan adam wanda, watakila a karon farko a Yamma, wata kotu ta yanke shawarar cewa jihar tana da 'yancin tantance gaskiyar tarihi.
DeLong yana so ya karkatar da hankali daga wannan muhimmin batu zuwa ra'ayoyin Faurisson, wanda ya gabatar a cikin wani zance maras tushe wanda ke nufin Faurisson a matsayin "mutumin da ya rubuta. alama ya zama” (sannan kuma ya zo da wata magana game da babbar ƙarya). DeLong ya ci gaba da yin amfani da kalmomin Chomsky a cikin avis Faurisson ya zama kamar "mai sassaucin ra'ayi ne kawai," kuma ba lallai ba ne mai goyon bayan Nazi - ra'ayin Chomsky ya zo bayan ya tattauna da wasu manyan masu sukar Faurisson a Faransa, wadanda ba su iya ba da wata kwakkwarar hujja ta kyamar Yahudawa ko kuma neo. -Naziism–amma DeLong ya kasa lura da bayanin Chomsky a cikin avis cewa Faurisson na iya zama mai adawa da Yahudawa ko Nazi kamar yadda aka yi iƙirarin, amma hakan ba zai rasa nasaba da batun 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki ba (duba littafin avis a:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8010-free-expression.html). DeLong kuma ya kasa ambaton maimaita kalaman ta'addanci na Chomsky a Holocaust a matsayin "mafi kyawun fashewar hauka a cikin tarihin ɗan adam" da kuma bayaninsa cewa "muna rasa ɗan adam" idan har muka shiga muhawara tare da waɗanda suka musanta ko ƙoƙarin ragewa. Laifukan Nazi. Ka lura kuma da rashin gaskiya a cikin murkushe maganganun Chomsky da aka maimaita cewa ya sanya hannu kan koke-koke na 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki ga yawancin rukunin Soviet waɗanda aka kashe ba tare da sanin ra'ayinsu ba, ko ma tare da sanin rashin mutuncinsu - wanda bai ambata ba - amma bai taɓa shan suka ba, ko DeLong- rubuta ayyukan lalata, don rashin bincika ainihin imanin waɗannan ƴancin yancin ɗan adam.
DeLong ya ce, “Shin zai fi kyau kada a bata akidar Faurisson? Ba don a ce shi ɗan siyasa ne mai sassaucin ra'ayi ba? Ba a ce ka ga babu wata shaida da ke nuna cewa Faurisson yana goyon bayan Nazi? Yana da, bayan haka, mafi karfi da tsaro na 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki a ce kuna kare haƙƙin Holocaust-mai hana 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki saboda 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki ne, sannan a ce matalauta Faurisson: ɗan sassaucin ra'ayi na siyasa: ana tsananta wa don haka. ba wani dalili face wasu sun ki amincewa da ‘kammalawarsa’ (ba a fayyace) ba.” Kamar yadda aka gani, bayanin DeLong cewa Chomsky "ya nuna rashin yarda da imanin Faurisson" karya ne. Batunsa na biyu kuma karya ce, domin idan batun 'yancin fadar albarkacin baki ya shafi kare mutumen da ake zargi da ra'ayi na "abin kyama", wanda ake kai wa wannan ra'ayi hari, duka yanayin wadannan ra'ayoyi da kuma cewa ana kai masa hari ne saboda su. na wasu mahimmanci, koda kuwa ba su kasance na tsakiya ba. Amma Chomsky ya bayyana karara cewa yana tunanin ra'ayoyin 'yancin walwala na jama'a: abin kyama ko a'a: ba su da mahimmanci a cikin yanke shawara game da ko ya kamata a kare su, batun da kowane mai 'yanci na farar hula ya ɗauka a hankali. Makasudin lalatar DeLong ya tilasta masa yin tsalle a kusa da wannan matsayi mai ma'ana.
Layin ƙarshe na DeLong shine ƙwararren ƙwararru wanda ya yi tuntuɓe game da ɓacin rai na kansa: Faurisson ana "zalunta" - wannan abin mamaki ne, yana nuna cewa ya sami abin da ke zuwa gare shi, kodayake DeLong hakika mai imani ne a cikin 'yancin magana! Kuma “wasu abin da ya shafi ‘kammalawar’sa”: kuma, baƙin ciki mai nauyi wanda a cikinsa mugayen ra’ayoyin Faurisson, waɗanda mutane irin su Chomsky ba sa son amincewa ko ƙaryatãwa, mutanen kirki suna adawa da su da ake zargin “ tsanantawa” shi. Lokacin da ya ce mugayen mutane suna gunaguni cewa an tsananta wa Faurisson “ba don wani dalili ba” face ƙin yarda da shawararsa da ba a bayyana ba, shin yana nufin cewa akwai wani dalili da zai bi bayansa, ko kuma yana ƙarfafa batun cewa “( unpecified) ƙarshe” sun isa sosai?
Kamar yadda yake a Bosnia, DeLong ya ba da jerin amsoshi uku na bambaro a kan Faurisson daga Chomsky "magoya bayansa," kuma ba tare da ambato ko zance ba, amma tare da zagi da izgili, yayin da ya ci gaba da aikinsa na lalata da kuma gudu.
Daga nan DeLong ya ɗauki laifukan Chomsky wajen jinyar Cambodia. Ya fara da zance daga littafinmu na 1979 Bayan Bala'i (ATC):
"Idan an gudanar da bincike mai zurfi ... a wata rana, za a iya ganowa ... cewa shirye-shiryen Khmer Rouge sun haifar da amsa mai kyau ... saboda sun magance matsalolin da suka samo asali a cikin abubuwan da suka faru a baya kuma tsarin mulkin mallaka ya tsananta ... Irin wannan binciken, duk da haka. , har yanzu ba a yi ba.”
DeLong yayi sharhi: "Ka tuna cewa an buga shi cika shekaru uku bayan Holocaust na Cambodia na Shekarar Zero. Ka tambayi kanka shin wannan tonawa ne ko kuma rufa-rufa ne na laifuffukan da suka aikata na mugunyar mulki.” Amsar ita ce, zance guda ɗaya da aka cire daga cikin mahallin da kuma hasashe game da abin da zai iya fitowa daga nazari na gaba ba zai gaya wa mai gaskiya komai ba. DeLong a zahiri ya kasa yarda cewa manufarmu da aka bayyana a cikin littafin ba shine don gano laifuffuka ba amma don ganin yadda "an fassara, tacewa, gurbata ko kuma canza su ta hanyar cibiyoyin akida na Yamma" (ATC, vii). Ga DeLong, amma ga al'ada, wannan haramtacciyar manufa ce.
DeLong yana tunanin cewa "holocaust" ya faru nan take a lokacin da aka karbe mulkin KR a cikin 1975. Ya yi riya cewa cikakkun bayanai game da wannan rufaffiyar tsarin mulki suna cikin shirye don littafin da aka buga bayan shekaru uku. Ya kasa ambaton cewa a cikin hasashe a nan Chomsky (kuma wannan marubuci, marubucin marubucinsa) ya kuma nuna yiwuwar cewa mafi munin zarge-zarge na iya zama gaskiya lokacin da duk gaskiyar ke ciki, kuma cewa ba mu yanke shawara game da inda za a yi ba. gaskiya tana cikin wannan kewayon bayanin (ATC, 293). Ya kawar da gaskiyar cewa batunmu game da "madaidaicin amsa" an ɗauke shi ne daga na Francois Ponchaud. Cambodge annee zero, Inda Ponchaud yayi magana game da "sabon juyin juya hali na gaskiya," "sabon girman kai" na talakawa da aka zalunta a cikin aiki mai ma'ana, da kuma shigar mata na farko. An ambaci littafin Ponchaud a matsayin tushe mai tushe da kuma la'antar KR, don haka ambaton shi da kuma yarda da gano abubuwan da suka dace a cikin juyin juya halin KR ba zai dace da manufar DeLong ba; ba kuma Dogon kai hari ga Ponchaud a matsayin mai ba da uzuri ga "laifi na wannan gwamnati mai banƙyama" ko da yake kyawawan maganganun Ponchaud ba su cancanta ba, yayin da DeLong ya shiga cikin fushi game da hasashe na mu yana cewa waɗannan ƙayyadaddun ƙaddarar na iya zama daidai. Mun nakalto irin wannan abu daga David Chandler da Richard Dudman, manazarta na Cambodia da ake girmamawa sosai. DeLong yana murkushe amfani da waɗannan hanyoyin da muke amfani da su don ganin cewa duk wani ra'ayi mai kyau ya keɓanta da burin sa na ɓarna. Ya hana gaskiyar cewa Ponchaud da kansa ya yaba wa Chomsky saboda "halayensa na alhaki da daidaiton tunani" a cikin rubuce-rubucensa kan Cambodia.
DeLong ya ci gaba da cewa: “Amma yana kara muni. Koma zuwa naku Nation na 1977, kuma kuyi la'akari da sakin layi": sa'an nan kuma ambaton mu cewa "Iyakokin sararin samaniya sun hana cikakkiyar ra'ayi," amma ƙwararrun masana suna rubutawa a cikin Binciken Tattalin Arzikin Gabas Ta Tsakiya, Economist, Da kuma Jaridar Siyasa ta Melbourne sun yi nazarin shaidun kuma sun kammala "cewa hukuncin kisa ya kai dubbai..." DeLong ya yi tsokaci mai tsawo da wani abokin kawance yana kai hari ga wadannan bayanan, kuma DeLong da kansa ya ce ya duba Economist kuma ba a sami wani abu da aka rubuta ba Economist ma'aikata a kan batun. "Don haka me yasa Chomsky ya yi ƙarya game da waɗannan' ƙwararrun kwararru '? Da'awar cewa 'ƙayyadaddun sararin samaniya' maimakon 'rashin wanzu' ya hana a ambaci sunansu ba zai iya zama da'awa cikin bangaskiya mai kyau ba, ko? Kuma me ya sa wani zai yi ƙarya ga Pol Pot, sai dai idan sun kasance ɗan goro ne ko kuma suna da ɓarna da ɓarna don neman wata muguwar manufa da ɓoye?
Maganar DeLong cewa Chomsky ya yi karya a nan ita kanta karya ce karara. Nassoshinmu sun yi daidai. DeLong bai iya samun wani abu da aka rubuta ba Economist "ma'aikata," amma ya sani sarai cewa abin da ake nufi da wasiƙa ne ga editan, wanda aka buga a ciki kuma don haka ya bayar da ita, takarda, ta Cambodia demographer W.J. Sampson, masanin kididdigar tattalin arziki wanda ke zaune a Phnom Penh kuma ya yi aiki a kusa. tuntuɓar ofishin ƙididdiga na gwamnati. An ambaci aikin Sampson tare da girmamawa daga Nayan Chanda, a lokacin ɗan jarida mafi girma a kudu maso gabashin Asiya, yana rubutawa ga Binciken Tattalin Arziki na Far Gabas (ATC, 231f). Sampson ya kasance aƙalla a matsayin "ƙwararren ƙwararren ƙwararren" kamar kowa a cikin ma'aikatan Economist. DeLong ya san cewa mun ambaci wasu “ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararrun ƙwararru” da yawa bayan shekara guda Bayan Bala'i, don haka ba'a game da "rashin wanzuwa" na waɗannan tushe wani zalunci ne na rashin gaskiya kuma yana nuna cewa "imani mai kyau" da amincinsa na hankali ba su wanzu.
DeLong da abokansa sun yi iƙirarin cewa Chomsky ya ce kashe-kashen Khmer Rouge “aƙalla cikin dubbai ne,” kuma Chomsky ya nuna cewa wannan “ƙarshen labarin ne…[Nayan Chanda in] the Binciken Tattalin Arzikin Gabas Ta Tsakiya.” DeLong da aboki kuma sun lura cewa marubucin Chanda ya ce "lambobin da aka kashe ba su yiwuwa a ƙididdige su." Abokin DeLong ya tabbatar da cewa "Chomsky ya gabatar da Binciken Tattalin Arzikin Gabas Ta Tsakiya kamar yadda yake musanta yiwuwar kashe-kashen ya fi yawa, amma Chanda ta musanta irin wannan ilimin da kwarin gwiwa." Da farko, ba mu dangana bayanin "aƙalla a cikin dubbai" ga Chanda ba, amma ga Sampson. Na biyu, mu da kanmu mun nakalto kalaman Chanda cewa "lambobin da aka kashe ba za a iya ƙididdige su ba," cewa DeLong yana nufin mun yi sakaci (ATC, 229). Na uku, mun ambaci Chanda yana cewa shaidar da 'yan gudun hijirar da wasu suka bayar "ba ta bar shakka ba: adadin wadanda suka mutu ya yi yawa" (229), don haka bayanin da Chomsky ya musanta "yiwuwar cewa kashe-kashen ya fi girma" wata ƙarya ce.
DeLong ya ƙare a Cambodia yana mai tabbatar da cewa "Chomsky ba wai kawai ya ce babu tabbataccen shaida cewa Khmer Rouge mahauta ne na kisan kiyashi ba, ya rubuta: a ƙarya: akwai tabbataccen tabbaci cewa su ba mahauta ne na kisan kiyashi ba." Wannan ita ce karin fa'ida, karya. Ba mu taɓa cewa, ko ba da alama, wani abu makamancin haka ba. Mun kawo kowane tushe mai mahimmanci da aka samu a lokacin akan kisan KR, ciki har da Ben Kiernan, Michael Vickery, Stephen Heder, David Chandler, Chanda, Ponchaud, da ƙwararrun ma'aikatar Jiha Cambodia Charles Twining da Timothy Carney. Mun nakalto kiyasin Twining na kisan-a cikin "dubban ko ɗaruruwan dubbai," amma da wahalar samun ingantattun lambobi. Mun nakalto kiyasin babban magatakardan Twining Richard Holbrooke na "dubban idan ba dubbai" don "mutuwa" daga kowane dalili. Timothy Carney na Ma'aikatar Harkokin Wajen Amurka ya kiyasta mutuwar daga "m, canji mai sauri" (ba wai "kisan kare dangi ba") kamar yadda a cikin daruruwan dubban (ATC, 159-160). Ba mu dau matsaya kan daidaiton waɗannan lambobin ba, amma mun lura cewa sun yi ƙasa da yawan iƙirarin da aka yi na kisan gilla miliyan biyu. A kan ka'idodin DeLong, manazarta Ma'aikatar Jiha da Holbrooke maƙaryata ne kuma masu neman gafara ga Pol Pot, suna yin watsi da "tabbatacciyar shaida" cewa shi mai kisan kare dangi ne.
DeLong bai taba ambaton cewa littafin namu yana da niyya a fili don tinkarar babbar farfagandar farfagandar karya a Cambodia da ta fara a lokacin da KR ta shiga Phnom Penh a watan Afrilun 1975, baragurbi da karya wanda kawai ya yi amfani da manufar siyasa da akida kuma bai taimaka ba. Cambodia ta kowace hanya. DeLong ba shakka ya yi watsi da nazarin kwatancenmu na bambancin jiyya na Indonesia a Gabashin Timor da Pol Pot a Cambodia. Mafi girman kaso na mutanen Gabashin Timor sun mutu a sakamakon harin Indonesiya fiye da wanda ya mutu a Cambodia a karkashin Pol Pot (inda yawancin mutuwar suka kasance rago daga yanayin yunwar da ke fuskantar KR a cikin Afrilu 1975). Kisan kisa na Gabashin Timore yana da goyon baya daga gwamnatin Amurka, kuma sabanin yadda Pol Pot ya kashe wadanda ke Gabashin Timor sun kasance cikin tasiri da iko na Amurka. Brad DeLong bai yi Allah wadai da wadannan kashe-kashen a matsayin kisan kare dangi da kuma kai hari ga wadanda suka aikata shi da masu neman afuwarsu ba don nuna goyon baya ga kisan kare dangi. Shin wannan ba zai sa ya zama mai ba da uzuri ga mahauta da suka yi kisan kare dangi ba?
DeLong bai taba ambata cewa kiyasin adadin da sojojin saman Amurka suka kashe a harin bam a Cambodia daga 1969 zuwa 1975 ya kai dubunnan daruruwan, wanda bisa ga sharuddan sa yakamata Nixon da Kissinger su zama “masu kisan kare dangi.” Bai taɓa kwatanta su ba, kuma bai kai wa waɗanda suka yi watsi da wannan “kisan kiyashi” ba. Bai taba ambata cewa Amurka ta kare da kuma ba da KR bayan hambarar da ta da Vietnamese a 1978, wanda ya ba da damar KR ta ci gaba da kai hari ga Cambodia; wannan ba ya tayar da hankalinsa kan goyon bayan mahauta da ke kisan kare dangi. Tare da juyowar manufofin Amurka game da Sin da Khmer Rouge a cikin 1977-1978, mun sami Douglas Pike, tsohon kwararre a gwamnatin Amurka kan Vietnam, kuma daga baya shugaban Jami'ar California Indochina Archives, yana rubutu a cikin Nuwamba 1979 game da "shugaba mai kwarjini" Pol Pot, shugaban "juyin juya halin ƙauye mai cike da jini amma nasara tare da ragowar goyon baya mai yawa" kuma inda yawancinsu "ba su dandana sosai ta hanyar zalunci ba." Wannan babban zafi ga mahauta na kisan kiyashi, da dadewa bayan bayanan gaskiya, da kuma bayan kashe-kashen KR a 1977 da 1978, bai haifar da wani rashin lafiyar Brad DeLong ba.
A littafinsa Ruhi da Tsarin Fascist na Jamus, a cikin wani babi mai jigo “Science: Handmaden of Inspired Truth,” Robert A. Brady ya lura sau da yawa masana kimiyya cikin sakaci “suna ɗaukan cewa ƙoƙarin yin tunani mai zurfi a fage ɗaya kai tsaye yana nufin yin tunani sosai a duk lokacin da mutum ya yi tunanin wani abu kwata-kwata.” Lokacin da ya yi wannan “yana ƙyale kansa ne kawai ya bar ma'auni masu ma'ana don goyon bayan imani mara ƙima." Brady ya nuna cewa irin wannan "imani maras zargi" galibi shine hikimar al'ada, wanda Allah da ƙasa ke ɗaukaka matsayi. Shin zai iya zama kamar yadda Brad DeLong, ta hanyar bangaskiyar kishin ƙasa, ya bayyana yaƙe-yaƙe na Clinton a cikin Balkans bisa dalilai na jin kai, haka ma ya ba da uzuri ga manufofin Amurka a Cambodia da Gabashin Timor daga zurfafa iri ɗaya. zaunar da chauvinistic son zuciya? Shin waɗannan za su iya haifar da "rashin lafiyarsa" da aikin lalata da rashin gaskiya a kan Chomsky?
ZNetwork ana samun kuɗi ta hanyar karimcin masu karatun sa.
Bada Tallafi