A simplification of the lard language in Noam Chomsky’s Failed States

Below, sentence by sentence, Noam Chomsky’s Failed States is in a 123 format, and my simplifications are in an ABC format. More comments follow.

NOAM CHOMSKY
FAILED STATES
THE ABUSE OF POWER AND THE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY
Pusblished under Penguin Books in 2007

Preface:
1. The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. 2. But, there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. 3. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world’s leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. 4. It is important to stress the ‘government’, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree. 5. That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that “the American ‘system’ as a whole is in real trouble–that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy.

6. The “system” is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the popuilation from severe internal threats (like Haiti). 7. Though the concept is recognized to be “frustratingly imprecise,” some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. 8. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. 9. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out agreession and violence. 10. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious “democratic deficit” that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.

11. Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. 12. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the chahracteristics of “failed states” right at home. 13. That recognition of reality should be deeply troubling to those who care about their countries and future generations. 14. Countries, plural, beause of the enormous reach of US power, but also because the threats are not localized in space or time.

15. The first half of this book is devoted mostly to the increasing threat of destruction caused by US state power, in violation of international low, a topic of particular concern for citizens of the world dominant power, however one assesses the relevant threats. 16. The second half is concerned primarily with democratic institutions, how they are conceived in the elite culture and how they perform in reality, both in “promoting democracy” abroad and shaping it at home.

17. The issues are closely interlinked, and arise in several contexts. 18. In discussing them, to save excessive footnoting I will omit sources when they can easily be found inrecent books of mine.

A. What the most important issues of human rights and welfare [actually] are depends on opinion.
B. But there are a few points that are very important for most people.
C. At least three are Nuclear war, Natural Catastrophe and The U.S. worsening these.
D. “Government” is an important word because the U.S. people disagree with [it] and what [it] is doing.
E. A fourth issue is this very disagreement, which makes people afraid that the American [system] is in trouble, which might lead to the end of its historic values: equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy.
F. The [system] is starting to resemble a “failed state,” a word used for countries that need outside help to rescue their population or that are dangerous to other countries.
G. According to some people, “failed state” is “frustratingly imprise,” though “failed states” do share some common points.
H. One point is the “failed state’s” inability or refusal to protect its population.
I. Another point is the “failed state’s” tendency to ignore world laws and to act violently and agressively.
J. A third point is: if the “failed state’s” population can sometimes elect some of its own government, then their democracy has a lot of problems and is perhaps not a real “democracy.”
K. One of the hardest and most important choices to make is to look at one’s self for what s/he truly is.
L. If the U.S. looked in the mirror, it would see the points in sentences eight to ten, which make it like a “failed state.”
M. This should be very disturbing for people who care about their country and children(s).
N. Everybody, not just Americans, because the U.S. has world power and threatens a lot of the rest of the world, too.
O. Fifty percent of this book is mostly about how the U.S. government threatens parts of the rest of the world and almost or does destroy them, and how it breaks international law, which should matter to Americans, even if the threats seem meaningless.
P. The other half: organizations of democracy and how these structures are understood (by the most powerful people), and what their actual role is overseas and at home.
Q. The subjects are tightly woven and can be looked at in a lot of different ways.
R. When I talk about these subjects, I will not footnote if the references are easily found in my recent books.

——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–

1. Can you see the difference between his political pretext for complicated language and everyday English?
2. I am disappointed after reading Failed States because of its complicated style.
3. I think Chomsky’s complicated choice of words excludes a lot of the English-speaking world.
4. I once watched a public debate with Alan Dershowitz against Noam Chomsky.
5. At the end of the debate, a student critized Chomsky for not providing any solutions and for only complaining about U.S. foreign policy.
6. Had the Havard student (‘Havard’ suggesting ‘very educated and capable’) understood the debate or any of Chomsky’s writings; or had any of the other Harvard students or Harvard audience understood what they were supposed to understand, the Harvard student and the Harvard audience would not have told Chomsky that he had not provided solutions, nor would they have there applauded.
7. Chomsky replied: “All you have to do is read my books, I have been offering the same solutions since the seventies.”
8. On a Hardtalk epsiode on BBC, Stephen Sackur says to Dr. Chomsky “Your parents…your father was originally Ukrain… your father was from Ukraine, your mom was from what’s now known as Belarus; both were…both were Jews, both arrived in the United States, and it’s perhaps fair to say that had they not made it to the United States…they would have been killed–faced terrible turmoil. Your work for more than forty years has focused on what you call the…terrorism; the criminal acts of the United states… and yet, your parents knew America as a safe haven; as a place of opportunity, of security: how do those two elements of your life fit together?” The response came: “Very simply, the same way they do for my parents. Yes, it’s a land of opportunity and in fact we know why. It’s a land of opportunity because the British colonists came and effectively exterminated the indigenous population…uh…, which is a typical property of settler colonialism–the worst kind of imperialism–conquered half of Mexico, instituted slavery…I mean, committed huge crimes, and created a rich prosperous country from which I benefit, enormously. Uh, well…there’s an elementary moral principle–and since then, have gone on to carry out horrendous crimes everywhere; I mean, the Viatnam war alone is, probably, I think, the worst crime since the second world war, uh… maybe four million people killed, three countries devastated; these are real crimes, and there are many others…”
Steven Sackur: “Uh…I don’t want to get into too much detail, it’s really the style of argument that I’m getting at now… you, you…”
Chomksy, “I think the style of argument should be that we tell the truth. About important things. And, for each of us–and this is an elementary moral principle–the most important thing for each of us is the predictable consequences of our own actions. It’s very easy to condemn the crimes of others. So, you know, Stalinist hacks condemn the crimes of the West–I don’t applaud them for that…I applaud the Soviet dissidents who condemn the crimes of the Soviet Union; and, it’s the same for each of us; individual life or anywhere else.”
Steven Sackur: “But…but, Noam Chomsky’s world is a black and white world when it comes to the United States; you constantly focus upon what you regard as the evils done, the crimes committed by the United States.”
Noam Chomsky, “For a reason.”
Steven Sackur: “What about the good things the United States does, what about the reasons which drive millions of people from the poorest parts of this planet to want to live in the United States…and be American!!?”

Noam Chomsky: “… and, and the richest country in the world and, and I’m glad my parents came here otherwise they would have been in death camps. But…uh, sure, that’s true. And, in fact, what you say is not, and, just consider these last few minutes of discussion, one of the things I did was… PRAIse the United States; praise it for the significant changes that civilize the society…substantially… uh…in the last forty years, coming from popluar activism. Or, take, say, freedom of speech, which I talk about all the time–it’s one of the highest values–it’s protected in the United States beyond any country in the world that I know of; it’s a major achievement; it doesn’t go back to the Bill of Rights, it substantially comes from the civil rights movement. The major Supereme court cases establishing a high standard of speech were in connection with civil rights movement’s actions; so, yes, there are very great things that have happened. I talk about them all the time. They come primarily from popular activism, which is directed against the crimes of the country; in fact I’m struck by the changes in the last forty years which have come from an organized active public, much of it initiated by young people–students and others–and it’s had a huge effect.
Steven Sackur: “Well, it hasn’t affected the basic power structures that you’ve…”
Noam Chomsky: “…No, it’s not affected the institutions but it has affected the way they act, and that’s quite important” Opposition to the Iraq war was FAR higher than the Vietnam war in any comparable stage, and it’s had an impact. Uh…in Iraq, it was bad enough but uh…the U.S. and Britain COULD NOT do what they did in Vietnam, the population would’ve never tolerated it; uh…yes, those are imortant changes.

9. Do not worry about the fact that Steven Sackur asked Noam Chomsky why he focused so much on the crimes and evils of the U.S. (government) when it is a place to which millions of the earth’s poorest people gather to live, nor focus on the fact that Chomsky responded by focusing on the people of the united states rather than the accomplishments of the government (since that is what he attacks and was asked about by Steven Sackur), but focus on the fact that Noam Chomsky disagrees and says that he does not always say bad things about the U.S. (government), and that he does talk about the good ones (as in, it’s people) all the time; even though this is an confused response.

10. Remember that he said ‘I do say good things about the U.S. all the time’ (even though he was supposed to be showing good things about the government and not the people) as we work our way through my simplified version of his 2007 book, ‘Failed States’; this way, everyone can understand the first read through, (the way language is meant to work) and this way we can actually verify in an easy way.

11. Generally, how and why we are supposed to know people like Noam Chomsky and as ‘knowledgeable people’ sit through hours of his speaking or preaching or teaching, knowing that he is a teacher to society and has published half a hundred books for us to read, is by doing this specific exercise: Reading and Understanding his work; Studying it and thinking critically about it.
12. Yet, at Harvard, where the students are supposed to be elite learners, and even on BBC, Steven Sackur apparently could not see these points, which Chomsky says he so often talks about–all these “great things” about the United States and all these “Solutions”, and the Harvard student nor the Harvard audience nor Steven Sackur even realized that they are supposed to say, “excuse us, but we don’t understand about 50% or more of what you are saying when we read your writing, (or listen to some of your debates, like on Iraq) and this is obviously not because we as speakers are supposed to be educated in every domain of knowledge before being able to understand English but because in your work and often when you speak about government problems and those of war, you use unnecessary terms that leave people unsure of your points, except their general tenure being against the U.S. government and war; other than that, we can’t recall the last time you ‘praised’ the U.S. government nor mentioned any intelligible solutions to all its terrorism.”

13. And, if Noam Chomsky does indeed list solutions all the time, then why are so intelligent a people unable to recognize these solutions with even basic understanding, memory, or words?–simple, his style of expression and listing of technical facts intimidates and confuses people.

14. Imagine if 50% of the time speakers used Chinese, (with English) not for translation but because they liked Chinese and English equally.
15. English and or Chinese listeners would not understand most of the essential meaning, let alone the superficial words in the foreign language.
16. Yet, when listeners do not understand 50% of the political complications, they forget that while there are certain parts of the words they do understand (like plurality or whether a word is used in finance or literature, etc.) they do not actually understand the most important part of the used language; and this is the essential point which would allow people to actually THINK about what is being said and come up with their own ideas, or solutions, god forbid.
17. Isn’t THIS what is supposed to happen?

18. Unless experts at politics, and even numerous of these have heavily criticized Chomsky’s corpus-like use of words and facts, a lot of people will not understand a great deal of what he publishes, though they would be keen on saying they do.

19. Beyond his style of expression, his factual message can be unfairly suggestive, irresponsible, and stereotypical, and this unfair suggestiveness and stereotyping and irresponsibility are much easier to see in everyday English; the actual content of the facts being more a matter (and profession) of research than everyday knowledge (debate aside).

20. Obviously, Noam Chomsky has done a lot to advance knowledge in Linguistics and U.S. politics.
21. I applaud his efforts and say easily that he [has done] an excellent job at helping people of our time and future generations.
22. As any of you can check in the first ten sentences of his preface, (by comparing my simplifications) I would bet that you originally missed the fact that sentence eight and nine are repetitions of sentence six; yet if I had asked you whether the language was simple and straight-forward enough, I think the more stubborn of you would have said that the language was simple and not at all difficult: you are wrong–and it does get much worse.
23. So, as you can see, complicated language does indeed absorb a lot of our attention and make basic critical thinking and even understanding very difficult, if at all even possible in a lot of people.

24. I think any of us can understand style and discourse enough to grant a bit of embellishment or extra words; certainly there is no rule that says “use the least possible number of words or base your expression on the minds of ten year olds.”
25. Why, though, should so much understanding be compromised by style and lard language?
26. If you read the original sentences, 123, and then the simplified sentences, ABC, you can see how much you miss in just this basic preface, his entire work and the other fifty books still ahead of us!
27. I wonder, though, how much positivity or how many solutions we saw in the title or his overview of the work ahead.

——————————————————————————————————–
The following ten sentences will be coming in the next couple of days; today is the 13th of February, 2010.
Thank you for reading.