Inactive Your Take ... Talking Back to the Media
Historical Perspectives on the Khmer Rouge
Alex Munro would very much like your help/comments!
I am conducting a study into the Khmer Rouge, and the nature of their actions in Cambodia. However, more important to my study (it is primarily focused on historiography) is the conflicting opinions of a wide range of scholars, and how these have been able to develop.
My understanding of the whole issue i have to admit is rather basic. My research into this topic has been rather extensive, yet it seems that alot of this debate has branched off into further debate about the validity or inadequacy of the comments of Noam Chomsky. As i feel like i am only catching on the end of a long running debate between, somewhat bitterly, divided historical camps, i would appreciate anyone who could briefly sketch the source of this conflict. ONe aspect which has left me profoundly confused (although it is probably quite embarrassing to admit it) is at what point and in what context did these polarised viewpoints (the STAV and its critics) emerge? I know that Chomsky and Herman, do not sit neatly on any one side of this debate, yet what i am unclear on is if both these scholars, and those who they have often been affiliated with (the 'apologists'), continue to deny the or 'play down' the atrocities of the khmer rouge, or were these arguments presented in the context of the 1970's and reviewed later?? is there today a general scholarly concensus on Cambodia that favours a view of the Khmer Rouge as responsible for genocidal acts (or at least mass murder) or one which views much of the reported actions of the Khmer Rouge to be invented or exaggerated by the western Media, and governents such as the US preoccupied with emphasising the atrocities of thier enemies? I know i seem dreadfully naive in my understanding of this subject, yet i would very much like to investigate this issue further. It seems to me a that it can be used as a perfect example of the problems associated with the construction of history, and the concept of history itself. Would if be fair to state that the debate on this issue continues, and the ambiguity of the events as highlighted by the presence of various historical interpretations, supports the postmodernist assertion that truth, and indeed history, is 'subjective'.
- Khmer Rouge is guilty as hell, but so is the US by Arnold Shcherban (June 17, 2007 at 4:18 PM)
When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to the blog.
