Quote:

---

they're often guilty of omitting important parts of the story

---

Quote:

---

Paradigm said:
In any case, enjoy the book, but take it with a grain of salt.

---

Quote:

---

bukkake said:

Quote:

---

Paradigm said:
In any case, enjoy the book, but take it with a grain of salt.

---

Then all US history books should be taken with a grain of salt. They're all either sort of sexually fixated with how wonderful our slave owning forefathers were or how wretched and greedy. Zinn's description being the latter and the one I'm more willing to agree with. Zinn doesn't deny being biased, most other history books do.

---

Quote:

---

bellylard said:
" Even if they don't outright lie, they have a tendency to spin things in an extremist way, and they're often guilty of omitting important parts of the story(at least Chomsky is)

can you show me where he does this paradigm?

---

Quote:

---

The goal of the imperial grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the "power, position, and prestige of the United States." The quoted words are not those of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the other statist reactionaries who formulated the National Security Strategy of September 2002. Rather, they were spoken by the respected liberal statesman Dean Acheson in 1963. He was justifying US actions against Cuba in full knowledge that Washington's international terrorist campaign aimed at "regime change" had been significant factor in bringing the world close to nuclear war only a few months earlier, and that it was resumed immediately after the Cuban missile crisis was resolved.

---

Quote:

---

I never read the book, but from the reviews I've read it seems like...

---

Quote:

---

kotik said:

Quote:

---

I never read the book, but from the reviews I've read it seems like...

---

---

Quote:

---

Paradigm said:

Quote:

---

bellylard said:
" Even if they don't outright lie, they have a tendency to spin things in an extremist way, and they're often guilty of omitting important parts of the story(at least Chomsky is)

can you show me where he does this paradigm?

---

From pg. 14 of Hegemony or Survival:

Quote:

---

The goal of the imperial grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the "power, position, and prestige of the United States." The quoted words are not those of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the other statist reactionaries who formulated the National Security Strategy of September 2002. Rather, they were spoken by the respected liberal statesman Dean Acheson in 1963. He was justifying US actions against Cuba in full knowledge that Washington's international terrorist campaign aimed at "regime change" had been significant factor in bringing the world close to nuclear war only a few months earlier, and that it was resumed immediately after the Cuban missile crisis was resolved.

---

Now, granted that I managed to figure out that this "international terrorist campaign" he refers to was the Bay of Pigs invasion, and perhaps you figured it out too, but a reader who is not as acquainted with history could easily be confused by this passage. Now, this is a minor point, but what I'm getting at is that the extremely partisan language he uses can be very misleading for the reader.

---

Quote:

---

kotik said:
either way, thats chomsky and not zinn, and this is the first time i had heard their names together.

---

Quote:

---

afoaf said:
by most standards, what we were doing to cuba and
later nicaragua would be considered international
terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

afoaf said:

Quote:

---

Paradigm said:

Quote:

---

bellylard said:
" Even if they don't outright lie, they have a tendency to spin things in an extremist way, and they're often guilty of omitting important parts of the story(at least Chomsky is)

can you show me where he does this paradigm?

---

From pg. 14 of Hegemony or Survival:

Quote:

---

The goal of the imperial grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the "power, position, and prestige of the United States."  The quoted words are not those of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the other statist reactionaries who formulated the National Security Strategy of September 2002.  Rather, they were spoken by the respected liberal statesman Dean Acheson in 1963.  He was justifying US actions against Cuba in full knowledge that Washington's international terrorist campaign aimed at "regime change" had been significant factor in bringing the world close to nuclear war only a few months earlier, and that it was resumed immediately after the Cuban missile crisis was resolved.

---

Now, granted that I managed to figure out that this "international terrorist campaign" he refers to was the Bay of Pigs invasion, and perhaps you figured it out too, but a reader who is not as acquainted with history could easily be confused by this passage.  Now, this is a minor point, but what I'm getting at is that the extremely partisan language he uses can be very misleading for the reader.

---

by most standards, what we were doing to cuba and
later nicaragua would be considered international
terrorism.

is the only quarrel that he uses inflammatory
rhetoric to describe things?

where is the ommission...where's the misleading?

---

i wouldn't call it misleading - i'd call it describing an event (bay of pigs, or nicaragua for that matter) from the standpoint of international law. when people make statements that go against the 'mainstream' rhetoric, they are often seen as inflammatory and down-right propaganda - however, in the instance of something like the bay of pigs, Chomsky is more correct calling it 'international terrorism' than a more conservative history book would be calling it 'covert operations' or something like that.

if i wrote a book, and instead of using the term 'collateral damage' i used the terms 'inadvertant murder of bystanders and civilians' would that be bias and/or distorting the truth? or would that description be closer to the 'truth' than the currently accepted one?

Quote:

---

Krishna said:
if i wrote a book, and instead of using the term 'collateral damage' i used the terms 'inadvertant murder of bystanders and civilians' would that be bias and/or distorting the truth? or would that description be closer to the 'truth' than the currently accepted one?

---