Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Because We Say So (City Lights Open Media) (original 2015; edition 2015)by Noam Chomsky (Author)Many of my favourite books cover many areas, especially where non-fiction is concerned. I wish this collection of essays and articles, all written by Noam Chomsky (except for the one where David Barsamian interviews Chomsky), were -fiction, but it's not. This collection covers many areas, ranging from a short description of anarchy to Obama's drone-wielding terrorist campaign, over climate change, into the more-than-apartheid campaign of Israel against Palestine. It's a lot, but it's so well written, and so thoroughly researched, that it's impossible to withstand, even if one tried to. From the introduction: The commentaries presented in this book are a collection of columns penned between 2011 and 2014, distributed to the international press by the New York Times Syndicate, and widely published in newspapers abroad. Few, if any, are published on the op-ed pages of American papers, and U.S. military censors even banned distribution of an earlier collection of his commentaries, INTERVENTIONS. That's right. That book wasn't allowed into the reading list at Guantánamo Bay. Chomsky's writing is, as always, simple and plain, even providing insight that extraterrestrials would find easy to get (not that we're hard to crack as a species, despite our wont to deplete ourselves): To gain perspective on what’s happening in the world, it’s sometimes useful to adopt the stance of intelligent extraterrestrial observers viewing the strange doings on Earth. They would be watching in wonder as the richest and most powerful country in world history now leads the lemmings cheerfully off the cliff. Chomsky's "Anniversaries from 'Unhistory'" is great, so much that it deserves a chapter of its own in this review. Instead, I will link to some highlights of mine, from that chapter: https://www.highly.co/hl/55ffa39b6c696c77a11e0000 Naturally, Chomsky delves into the concept of terrorism, what it actually means, not only the word, but how terrorism is defined by the UN, and how the USA continually deceive its population and the rest of the world on that note: In three years we may—or may not—commemorate another event of great contemporary relevance: the 900th anniversary of the Magna Carta. This document is the foundation for what historian Margaret E. McGuiness, referring to the Nuremberg Trials, hailed as a “particularly American brand of legalism: punishment only for those who could be proved to be guilty through a fair trial with a panoply of procedural protections.” Chomsky's tips are always interesting: In his penetrating study IDEAL ILLUSIONS: HOW THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CO-OPTED HUMAN RIGHTS, international affairs scholar James Peck observes, “In the history of human rights, the worst atrocities are always committed by somebody else, never us”—whoever “us” is. Also, his views on companies and corporations that go hand-in-hand with government seldom disappoint to shock: Joining the Vietnamese appeal against Dow are the government of India, the Indian Olympic Association, and the survivors of the horrendous 1984 Bhopal gas leak, one of history’s worst industrial disasters, which killed thousands and injured more than half a million. Union Carbide, the corporation responsible for the disaster, was taken over by Dow, for whom the matter is of no slight concern. In February, Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation for the victims and prosecution of those responsible. His words on Israel, on the perennial US support for Israel, are always clarifying: The possibility that Iran might develop nuclear weapons arises in the electoral campaign. (The fact that Israel already has them does not.) Two positions are counterposed: Should the U.S. declare that it will attack if Iran reaches the capability to develop nuclear weapons, which dozens of countries enjoy? Or should Washington keep the “red line” more indefinite? The latter position is that of the White House; the former is demanded by Israeli hawks—and accepted by the U.S. Congress. The Senate just voted 90–1 to support the Israeli position. His words on how the USA perceive Iran as "a major threat", or, indeed, "the biggest threat", are also crystal clear: As numerous polls have shown, although citizens of Arab countries generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United States; and many, sometimes considerable majorities, regard Iranian nuclear weapons as a counter to these threats. And, on capitalism: CAN CIVILIZATION SURVIVE CAPITALISM? March 4, 2013 His human insights and retellings of stories from Gaza are very touching: While a showcase for the human capacity for violence, Gaza is also an inspiring exemplar of the demand for dignity. Ghada Ageel, a young woman who escaped from Gaza to Canada, writes about her 87-year-old refugee grandmother, still trapped in the Gaza prison. Before her grandmother’s expulsion from a now-destroyed village, “she owned a house, farms and land and she enjoyed honor, dignity and hope.” Amazingly, like Palestinians generally, the elderly woman hasn’t given up hope. “When I saw my grandmother in November 2012 she was unusually happy,” Ageel writes. “Surprised by her high spirits, I asked for an explanation. She looked me in the eye and, to my surprise, said that she was no longer worried about” her native village and the life of dignity that she has lost, for her irrevocably. The village, her grandmother told Ageel, “is in your heart, and I also know that you are not alone in your journey. Don’t be discouraged. We are getting there.” A few words on Edward Snowden and people like Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning: Washington has made clear that any country that refuses to extradite Snowden will face harsh punishment. The United States will “chase him to the ends of the earth,” Senator Lindsey Graham warned. His words on anarchy: Anarchism is, famously, opposed to the state, while advocating “planned administration of things in the interest of the community,” in Rocker’s words; and beyond that, wide-ranging federations of self-governing communities and workplaces. On the current drone campaign: For example, President Obama’s drone-driven global assassination program, by far the world’s greatest terrorist campaign, is also a terror-generating campaign. General Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan until he was relieved of duty, spoke of “insurgent math”: For every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. This concept of “innocent person” tells us how far we’ve progressed in the last 800 years, since the Magna Carta, which established the principle of presumption of innocence that was once thought to be the foundation of Anglo-American law. I love how Chomsky displays the thoughts of major publications and how they follow the lead of their government: Recently the NEW YORK TIMES reported the “anguish” of a federal judge who had to decide whether to allow the force-feeding of a Syrian prisoner who is on a hunger strike to protest his imprisonment. No “anguish” was expressed over the fact that he has been held without trial for 12 years in Guantánamo Bay military prison, one of many victims of the leader of the Free World who claims the right to hold prisoners without charges and to subject them to torture. A bit more on companies/corporations vs the environment: It is unfair to omit exercises of “soft power” and the role of the private sector. A good example is Chevron’s decision to abandon its widely touted renewable energy programs, because fossil fuels are far more profitable. Exxon Mobil in turn announced “that its laserlike focus on fossil fuels is a sound strategy, regardless of climate change,” BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK reports, “because the world needs vastly more energy and the likelihood of significant carbon reductions is ‘highly unlikely.’” It is therefore a mistake to remind readers daily of the Nuremberg judgment. Aggression is no longer the “supreme international crime.” It cannot compare with destruction of the lives of future generations to ensure bigger bonuses tomorrow. Brilliant. Simple. Plain. Insightful. A must-read. From changing our Cuba policy to be in alignment with both our neighbors and with Europe, who are not embargoing or punishing Cuba for exercising their right to be human beings , to adopting a Humane drug policy by treating drug addiction as a health care issue, which it clearly is, Chomsky again points out all of the United States policy that desperately needs changing. From changing our Cuba policy to be in alignment with both our neighbors and with Europe, who are not embargoing or punishing Cuba for exercising their right to be human beings , to adopting a Humane drug policy by treating drug addiction as a health care issue, which it clearly is, Chomsky again points out all of the United States policy that desperately needs changing. Concise and very ideologically charged. It's refreshing to read a well-informed leftist critique of U.S. foreign policy, instead of the standard, uninformed cop-out critique of international conflict that one so often has to suffer through. A large part of this collection focuses on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, where Chomsky makes strong but somewhat repetitive points. Then again, Israeli policy, backed by the U.S., is repetitive, at the cost of the Palestinians and their dignity and lives. Another issue that comes up frequently is climate-change, and North America's idiotic dedication to fossil fuel and its shameful neglect of the warnings of scientists. If future generations look back, one can't help but almost know for sure that they'll despise the people currently in charge and their thoughtless destruction of our planet. Except for the inherent repetitivity of essay collections, this one was very readable, clear, well-informed and powerful. Whatever the world may think, U.S. actions are legitimate because we say so. The principle was enunciated by the eminent statesman Dean Acheson in 1962, when he instructed the American Society of International Law that no legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its “power, position, and prestige”. Because We Say So contains thirty short articles by Noam Chomsky written between 2011and 2014. Chomsky is a world-renowned academician who is often considered ‘the father of linguistics’ and is Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he has taught since 1955. But he is probably best known for his political activism and radical commentary – as Henry A. Giroux points out in the Foreword, something of an American tradition but which have made him ‘appear to be an exile in his own country by virtue of his constant dissent, the shock of his acts of translation, and his displays of fierce courage’. So much so, in fact, that Interventions, a collection of his commentaries released in 2007 was banned for distribution in Guantanamo Bay by the U.S. military. Yet, despite the fact that he gets little notice by the mainstream media in the US and is frequently shunned by both conservatives and liberals, he is probably the most well-known and respected American intellectual throughout most of the rest of the world. Given that he is an outspoken critic of America’s role in the world and its refusal to sign accords concerning such issues as poverty, making the Middle East a WMD-free zone, and climate change all of which he discusses in these essays, it is perhaps not surprising. But, unlike too many intellectuals and academicians, Chomsky never uses ‘university-speak’ and he never talks down to his audience – he speaks from his knowledge and his intellect, yes, but he also and always speaks from his heart. And these short essays go a long way in explaining why he holds such a place of renown throughout most of the world. His commentaries always provide a well-informed, well-thought-out and principled counterpoint to the messages offered by the mainstream media whether it is the accepted justification for drone strikes, giving aboriginal or ‘unpeople’ a voice, the falsehoods of accepted history, the urgency of climate change, or what constitutes the Common Good. Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments, they are always well-researched, well thought out, cogent, on point, and timely and they give you a perspective you will never get in those mainstream news outlets including the so-called liberal ones. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)909.83History and Geography History World history 1800- 2000-2099, 21st CenturyLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
Because We Say So contains thirty short articles by Noam Chomsky written between 2011and 2014. Chomsky is a world-renowned academician who is often considered ‘the father of linguistics’ and is Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he has taught since 1955. But he is probably best known for his political activism and radical commentary – as Henry A. Giroux points out in the Foreword, something of an American tradition but which have made him ‘appear to be an exile in his own country by virtue of his constant dissent, the shock of his acts of translation, and his displays of fierce courage’. So much so, in fact, that Interventions, a collection of his commentaries released in 2007 was banned for distribution in Guantanamo Bay by the U.S. military. Yet, despite the fact that he gets little notice by the mainstream media in the US and is frequently shunned by both conservatives and liberals, he is probably the most well-known and respected American intellectual throughout most of the rest of the world. Given that he is an outspoken critic of America’s role in the world and its refusal to sign accords concerning such issues as poverty, making the Middle East a WMD-free zone, and climate change all of which he discusses in these essays, it is perhaps not surprising. But, unlike too many intellectuals and academicians, Chomsky never uses ‘university-speak’ and he never talks down to his audience – he speaks from his knowledge and his intellect, yes, but he also and always speaks from his heart.
And these short essays go a long way in explaining why he holds such a place of renown throughout most of the world. His commentaries always provide a well-informed, well-thought-out and principled counterpoint to the messages offered by the mainstream media whether it is the accepted justification for drone strikes, giving aboriginal or ‘unpeople’ a voice, the falsehoods of accepted history, the urgency of climate change, or what constitutes the Common Good. Whether you agree or disagree with his arguments, they are always well-researched, well thought out, cogent, on point, and timely and they give you a perspective you will never get in those mainstream news outlets including the so-called liberal ones. ( )