Encyclopedia > Talk:Pol Pot
Talk:Pol Pot
Is this an accepted number? I've heared about 500.000, more or less equal to the casualties from American bombings, a few years earlier.
- Estimates I've read range from a low of 900,000 to a high of 2 million. Ed Poor
- The Vietnamese installed a puppet government of Khmer Rouge who had fled to Vietnam to avoid the purges, but Pol Pot kept fighting from his base on the Thai border, again supported by China, Thailand and the US.
Was Pol Pot actually supported by the US? I can't make sense of this sentence. -- GayCom
- I I remember correctly, the answer is yes. The US supported Pol Pot in his fight against (also Communist) Vietnam. Andre Engels
- Yes, the U.S. was directly supporting Pol Pot even WHILE he was executing a large proportion of Cambodians, and the U.S. government was quite aware of this. It is one of the worst, bloodiest blots on United States foreign policy. --John Knouse
- The text that is being discussed reads again supported by ... the US. Higher up the article it has (unusually) been found necessary to specifically assert that the US was anti-communist. The US asserted that its bombings were in support of, or were sanctioned by, the Lon Nol government which was opposed to Pol Pot (and Sihanouk). The use of the word again therefore looks like an attempt to smuggle Chomsky's thesis past NPOV. A comparison of this article with those for History of Cambodia and Khmer Rouge is illuminating. -- Alan Peakall 18:36 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
I can't tell if this article is correct or is some kind of a whitewash. Several phrases have the ring of propaganda. I'm tempted to move the whole thing to talk and request everyone to start over! --Ed Poor
- Ed, where do you see the whitewash? This paragraph seems to be quite clear:
For the record, let me begin by saying that I happen to think that the word genocide is appropriate when describing what was inflicted on Cambodia by Pol Pot. But we have to be consistent here. On the one hand, is it perfectly legitimate to use what some might describe as an emotionally charged label like "genocide" without qualification to describe the actions of political rulers (like Pol Pot), but on the other hand it isn't acceptable to use the word "torture" to describe beatings, sleep deprivation, and witholding of pain medication, because it is an emotionally charged label and we we should let people decide for themselves whether those activities constitute torture rather than telling them? Can we tell the readers when something constitutes genocide, but we can't tell the readers when something constitutes torture? Out of consistency, since it is apparently disallowed to describe anything as "torture" in this encylopedia, I have modified the referenct to genocide by Pol Pot to make it clear that human rights activists consider it genocide. soulpatch
- Oh yeah, I forgot. The US and the Khmer Rouge are comparable so the same standards apply. My bad. --mav
- Your sarcastic response doesn't bother to address the point that I made. The question is whether we are going to have a consistent policy on the use of words to describe atrocities in this encylopedia. You yourself said elsewhere that we should not characterize something as "torture" in this encylopedia, since that would be telling people what to think, and instead we should let them decide for themselves whether an act is one of torture. So this same standard should also apply towards the use of the word "genocide". soulpatch
- What the CIA has done is in the gray area as far as I am concerned (like most of the stuff they do and have done). Now if they pulled out the fingernails of the detainees and made them eat their own feces then that is obviously torture. Likewise the directed mass murder of millions of people can be, without much controversy, labled as genocide. BTW, I am a liberal who hates to have to defend Bubba and his posse of cowboys while my rights as a US citizen are degraded for so-called security purposes. But I will not at the same time sit idly by while some people exaggerate the facts. --mav
- Well, some of the very activities that the CIA has done according to the Post investigation are described further down in the torture article as bullet-point examples of what constitutes torture (beatings, for example), so I am wondering how we can cite those examples of CIA activity at one point while tiptoeing around the word "torture" even though the article's definition includes them as examples of torture. Do we change the definition? And I might add that there actually is some dispute about the meaning of the word "genocide" in this encyclopedia, where it was debated at one point over whether the term "genocide" applied only to ethnically-based slaughter or also to other types of mass murder. There is actually controversy with just about any emotionally charged label, whether it be torture or genocide or anything else. It seems to me that if we can settle on a definition, we should use it. If you think that the CIA activities are not torture or are in a gray area, it might benefit the article to lay out in detail what you consider to be unquestionable acts of torture versus those that are borderline, and that can be hashed out and discussed in detail in the torture article's talk page, in some attempt at working out a definition. My concern is that we don't apply a double standard here, where actions by the US are whitewashed and labels that we would apply to countries the US doesn't like are never used to describe US activities. soulpatch
- I'll take a look at the torture article. There is a whole continuum of severity involved in "beatings" though. I got beat-up rather severely once but I wouldn't call that "torture" at all. Torture is inflicting unbearable physical pain with some goal in mind - even if that goal is simply to cause unbearable pain. So simply beating somebody up isn't necessarily torture. --mav
- I am curious if your definition of torture is universally accepted by human rights organizations. I honestly don't know what these organizations would say on the subject. I would say that I consider your definition to be more limited than my own. I do view beatings of prisoners to be a form of torture. Obviously it is not as elaborate as, say, electric shocks, removing skin or nails, or other such actions, but I think the unbearable thing is not easy to define, since that is subjective (one person may have more tolerance for certain kinds of pain than others). Perhaps we should consult the definitions from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations. soulpatch
I'm not sure about the purpose of the new paragraph about the US and Pol Pot. The same point is essentially made earlier in the same article, in the paragraph that reads:
Prior to 1970, the Khmer Rouge was an insignificant factor in Cambodian politics. However, in 1970 Lon Nol deposed Sihanouk, because the latter was seen as supporting the Viet Cong. In protest, Sihanouk threw his support to Pol Pot's side. Sihanouk's popularity, along with the United States invasion of Cambodia shortly after the coup, and subsequent bombings by the US (which continued illegally even after Congress voted to suspend them) drove many to Pol Pot's side and soon Lon Nol's government controlled only the cities. Sihanouk was soon side-lined by his more radical colleagues.
Why repeat or elaborate on the same point further down? If there is additional information about US involvement in the rise of Pol Pot, it should be merged with the above paragraph that I quoted, or else the above paragraph that I quoted should be merged with the new section. soulpatch
The US acted despicably in Cambodia without any sound strategic reason to be there, or in Indochina at all, but if they (we) killed 2 million people in a country with 12 million population then it was the most spectacularly successful civilian bombing of all time and deserves full documentation and maybe even a separate article. That is to say, prove it or take it out. Ortolan88
Did a merge. Also marked the bit about U.S. bombing of Cambodia leading the Khmer Rouge victory as controversial (which it is) and separated out the death tolls (which aren't controversial).
Moved Marxism -> Maoism. Much of the Khmer Rouge ideology was derived from Maoism (such as the focus on agricultural development of the peasant which isn't in classical Marxism at all). Basically, the Khmer Rouge undertook Cultural Revolution like policies with the belief that Mao wasn't radical enough.
One quote is that the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was "Maoist ends with Stalinist means".
I still wonder why you reverted my last edit. Of course the Khmer Rouge were maoist. But I don't like the phrase "Though adherents to a form of Maoism, the Khmer Rouge were anti-Soviet..." it was normal for a maoist to be anti-Soviet at the time why not "Adherents to a form of Maoism, the Khmer Rouge were anti-Soviet..." ?? User:Ericd
- Oopss.. I see what you were trying to do. Changed the sentence.
Ericd:
Roadrunner's right. The Khmer Rouge, in addition, favored a direct route to communism.
172
I changed it a little. Something has to be mentioned to distinguish the ideologies of the Khmer Rouge and the Cultural Revolution.
- Changed perverted to extreme. This actually gets some larger debates on how one chooses to view the Cultural Revolution.
“Perverted” was the apt term, not extreme. Pol Pot diverted from the principles of Maoism ideologically, hence “perversion”. ‘More extreme’ implies a contrast in ideological fervency and dedication.
- I agree completely with the difference between perversion and extreme, which is why I made the change. As I said before the problem is how we view Maoism and the Cultural Revolution. I changed the language again try to avoid the issue.
---------------------
“Virulent” is not a compromise between “perverted” and “extreme”. So far, only the word “perverted” can account for the ideological contrasts. The reference to Stalinism is way off. Pol Pot was quite the enemy of Stalinist-style modernization. 172 172
The paradox is that the USA were supporting maoists (realpolitik ?). The paradox is not that the Khmer Rouge were anti-soviet.
About perverted/extreme : It's not an easy question to connect the Cambodian genocide with Khmer Rouge ideology, ideology doesn't explain all.
- The US directly and indirectly supported Pol Pot, even though he was an adherent to a perverted form of Cultural Revolution-era Maoism.
Is this the intended meaning? --mav
- How does "perverted" keep showing up? Why not "called himself a Maoist" or "adherent to a form of Cultural-Revolution-era Maoism" or "adherent to a Maoist sect". It's not as if there was a Maoist Bureau of Standards. The "perverted" can't be anything but POV. Ortolan88
Pol Pot altered Maoism. That's why it's a "perverted" form. He also drew a lot from Khmer nationalism. You people put me in the unusual position of having to defend Maoism, which I oppose.
- There is a point of view that argues that Pol Pot refined Maoism and that the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was more purely Maoist than the ideology of the Communist Party. This gets into the really messy question of what is Maoism
- IMHO it's better in Wikipedia to explicitly state a debate
--- User:Roadrunner
I changed the sentence to emphasize the contradiction that ericd was trying to get at without getting into messy ideological debates. That one word (perverted vs. extreme) is the tip of an iceberg and its better to describe the iceberg elsewhere.
Talking about a perverted form of maoism mean the is an non-perverted form of maiosm that's not sure... we will never get out of such a debate so it's better not to go in in the article.
- Actually, I think we should to into the debate somewhere in the article. It's just too complicated to express in one word.
- Also I reverted, moving the article up makes it sound like the United States intentionally supported Pol Pot in the early 1970's.
No the right place is in the Khmer Rouge article !!!
There seems to be a lot of text in this article that isn't directly related to the subject (sic Pol Pot). This text needs to be moved or deleted. Please keep the subject of the article in mind while editing. --mav
Pol Pot studied in Paris I still wonder to what extend if he wasn't more influenced by Robespierre than Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao. User:Ericd
Removed sentence about U.S. support. The United States most certainly was not supporting Pol Pot in the early 1970's.
Also the Shawcross thesis is highly controversial and the whole section needs balance.
I agree with you US supported Pol Pot after 1978. Not before. 172 moved one paragraph. I think his attitute is not really NPOV. On About the Shawcross thesis it seemsz accepted by historian than american bombing destabilized Cambodia and served Pol Pot's propaganda but the sentence "would probably not have come to power without" his highly speculative and controversial.
This probably belongs in the Khmer Rouge section but there the main reason the Shawcross thesis is controversial is that it gets into the very painful question of "who in the United States is responsible for the Khmer Rouge". While it is necessary to mention Shawcross, I think that the article is quite unbalanced without mentioning the views of American Conservatives who point out that funding for the Lon Nol government was cut by Congress, and that a number of leftist intellectuals (namely Noam Chomsky) were quite supportive of the Khmer Rouge until it became clear how awful they were.
I think that the claim that Chomsky ever "supported" the Khmer Rouge is itself highly controversial.
- It is somewhat controversial in the sense that Chomsky denies it, but personally I find his denials rather unconvincing. It probably would be better to hash it out in the Chomsky article.
Also, even if it were true that he did (and I doubt that it is), that bears no relationship that I can see to the historical events surrounding how US government policy helped or didn't help the Khmer Rouge come to power, which is the revelant question for purposes of this article.
- Actually "what is the relevant question" is itself a controversial question.
- How is it relevant? Even if what many consider the slander against Chomsky were true, he didn't set US policy (he had 0% influence on US policy), and his views on the Khmer Rouge after they came to power have absolutely nothing to do with what the the events and policies were that led to them coming to power. The people in the White House during that period were Nixon and Ford, not Noam Chomsky. soulpatch
- This is getting far afield of Pol Pot, but I think that Chomsky understates
- The national mood was one of being tired of a very long war. Chomsky had nothing to do with creating the national mood, and he CERTAINLY had no influence on Ford. I also don't agree that Chomsky's views on one thing bear necessarily any connection to his views on anything else; people can be wrong about one thing without being wrong about something else. It happens all the time. Who is right about everything? In any case, if that does belong somewhere, it is relevant in the Chomsky article, not here. soulpatch
- On the other hand, I would agree that the Lon Nol funding issue is relevant to the subject. (That being said, I also think that if the Khmer Rouge had not developed into a major opposition force, which happened after 1970, it would have been a moot point, since Lon Nol wouldn't have anybody to need US funding to help put down, so the question of what led the Khmer Rouge to develop into a major force after 1970, and the degree of US government's complicity thereof, still seems like a fundamental issue.)
- What this basically comes down to is that both pro-war conservatives and anti-war liberals would like to tar the other with the taint of being war criminals and responsible for the actions of the Khmer Rouge.
- I actually don't think either side is accusing the other of conscious complicity in this matter. See my comments below. I would point out that the "anti-war liberals" weren't conducting the war, it was the "pro-war conservatives". You can't blame people who aren't in power for how those who were in power conduct a war. That is why the whole Noam Chomsky thing is not relevant to this article.
- I think regardless of the outcome of this debate, Chomsky's attitudes toward the Khmer Rouge are relevant in an article about the Khmer Rouge.
- My feeling is that his views would only be relevant in such an article if he were actually a signficant figure in the history of the Khmer Rouge; but he wasn't. He had no influence on the Khmer Rouge coming to power, and he had no influence on the US policy that (many believe) led to the Khmer Rouge coming to power. He was just one voice on the sidelines. I just think that any discussion about his views on the Khmer Rouge belong in the Chomsky article, not here. soulpatch
- If people want to discuss the charges (which many consider slander) that Chomskey "supported" the Khmer Rouge, then discuss it in his own article, but any discussion of how people on the sidelines of policymaking felt about the war has no bearing on the central question of how those policies affected the outcome in Cambodia. soulpatch
- However, I think for which there is general agreement is that no one in the United States government in 1973 wanted the Khmer Rouge to win, and no one in the anti-war movement in 1973 really understood what sort of policies that the Khmer Rouge were going to implement.
- I would agree, except to go further to say that no one in the West really undestood what was going to happen in Cambodia. I think the important point about US complicity in Cambodia was, as Shawcross put it, Cambodia was a "sideshow". The US just didn't really care what was happening in Cambodia enough to bother with the implications of its policies.
- I think the more difficult question is whether a reasonable person who
- I don't think anyone is accusing the US of deliberating setting up the Khmer Rouge so that it would commit those atrocities. The problem with US policy was simply that it cavalierly engaged in policies that did not take into account what it was doing to Camodia. I don't think anyone in 1973 knew what was going to happen in 1975. soulpatch
- David Horowitz has quoted Chomsky (possibly unfairly) in such a way that he appears to be making such an accusation. I agree that all the Chomsky related discussion should go in his article. However I am happy that my earlier removal of again has withstood the storm. I had not realised that I was treading on eggshells at the start of last month. Incidentally, has anyone checked whether Sino-Vietnam War[?] is any better an article title than Anglo-French War would be? -- Alan Peakall 17:57 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Personally, one thing that utterly amazes me is little people complain about Nordom Sihanouk's actions in the matter.
- That is a good point. I agree that Sihanouk does deserve blame in this matter. soulpatch
- U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge in the 1980's is somewhat more difficult to morally defend, but even there one could point out that the Khmer Rouge were one part of a general anti-Vietnamese coalition and that the government of Hun Sen (and Hun Sen himself) consisted largely of former Khmer Rouge officials and didn't exactly have clean hands.
Guys, please. Anything that changes the meaning of an entry is not a "minor change". WTF is going on with this article?
Rewrote section about the 1970's to remove references about U.S. support. U.S. support for the KR was in the 1980's and is mentioned below.
172 Read:
That same year, Richard Nixon ordered a military incursion into Cambodia in order to destroy Viet Cong sanctuaries bordering on South Vietnam. Sihanouk's popularity, along with the United States invasion of Cambodia, and subsequent bombings by the US (which continued illegally even after Congress voted to suspend them) drove many to Pol Pot's side and soon Lon Nol's government controlled only the cities. It has been argued that the Khmer Rouge may not have come to power without the destabilization of the Vietnam War, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to 'clear out the Vietamese sanctuaries' in Cambodia. William Shawcross argued this point in his 1979 book "Sideshow".
As you can see above the US role is already in the article. I'm going to resote Roadrunner's version which removed the duplication. --mav
It’s not redundant. Roadrunner said it himself: Rewrote section about the 1970's to remove references about U.S. support. U.S. support for the KR was in the 1980's and is mentioned below.
Nixon's bombing is referenced in one context, the def-facto alliance in another --172
I'll wait to see what Roadrunner has to say. --mav
was a Cambodian politician most famous for his leadership of the Khmer Rouge
I don't think the words politician or famous are the best way to describe this tyrant and mass murderer. "Infamous" would be more accurate. --Uncle Ed
- well, I think of politician as a morally neutral word. So is famous. The problem with "tyrant" is, not everyone may agree. Many people think Ronald Reagan and other US presidents are responsibile for massive suffering around the world, but -- whether I agree with them or not -- I would want such people labled in clearly pejorative ways in Wikipedia.
- I think the article must include discussion of mass murder in Cambodia. But "infamous mass murderer" smacks of editorializing that violates NPOV. Please don't misunderstand me -- I am not defending the guy. I hate Hitler, but the article on him rightfully begins by describing him as a leader of Germany. Slrubenstein
- Is my version OK? Zocky 21:14 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
- The word famous carries a connotation of approval. "Well known" is neutral. "Notorious" carries a connotation of disapproval. Just thought I'd point this out. Zocky's version is probably better than mine :-) --Uncle Ed
- I think leader is better than politician in that case.
- Ericd
The article seems more a history of the Khmer Rouge than a biography of Pol Pot. Should it be recast? --Uncle Ed
- Probably a bit... But Ed, please bear NPOV in mind. I'm sure that even in this issue, one side wasn't all good and the other all bad. "Forced to flee" sounds about right to me.Zocky 21:25 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
- No, "forced to flee" carries the connotation of persecution. Someone who is trying to subvert a government to create a murderous tyranny isn't being "persecuted". Let's not be pro-Pol Pot, as that would violate the NPOV you just cited. --Uncle Ed
- Persecution is the function of the state, not of the individual. I'm sure (in fact, I know) that many of the Soviet dissidents had very distasteful world-views (remember, not all opposition to soviet government was liberal democratic), but persecuted they still were. I don't know enough about Cambodian government before Khmer Rouge, but from what I have, I don't get a picture of idyllic democracy. Zocky 21:32 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
- I disagree that "force to flee" carries any connotation of sympathy for the person who fled. It simply connotes the fact that the person was being pursued, and in order to save themselves they ran away. Lots of people, good and bad, have historically been pursued and thus have been "forced to flee". There is no POV inherent in that phrasing. soulpatch
172, we have gone over this before: "virulent and deviant" are NOT NPOV terms. --mav
The deleted content was NPOV because it asserted an empirically verifiable fact, not an opinion. Can anyone reasonably conclude that Pol Pot’s variant of Maoism wasn’t changed substantially and radicalized? Can anyone conclude that Khmer nationalism wasn’t a very important factor? I understand the bad connotation surrounding the word “deviated”. In this context though it denotes major modifications worth mentioning in any illuminating article pertaining to Pol Pot.
Either choose more neutral sounding adjectives or use as few adjectives as possible. Words like "virulent" and "deviant", while possibly true in an objective sense, still do evoke an emotional response in the reader which is far from NPOV. Please see your talk page. --mav
Fine, then resotre that text with better adjetives. I can’t think of any off-hand, but I’m sure that you can. Otherwise, I’m sure that we can all agree that this article needs to address his ideology.
- "radically revised" is much better. BTW you shouldn't expect others to NPOV your edits. That is your job. --mav
---
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize the connotative suggestiveness of those words in that context since I’ve grown accustomed to reading those words in the literature about Pol Pot’s ideology. In that context I was expecting a more denotative interpretation. But this is an encyclopedia article, and I should have been more careful.
OK... I've removed the highly speculative bit ("or perhaps it was...") for the 3rd time. 172, you're really hung up on that bit, aren't you? It's completely non-informative and it is speculation, and it doesn't have the encyclopaedic feel to it. Write it matter-of-factly or just leave it out. Any other opinions? Zocky 14:52 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
It is a vast oversimplification to say that Pol Pot was anti-modernist. OPne reason for the forced relocation of many people to the countryside was to increase rice production in order to increase foeign capital that could be invested in industry. I am not saying that the ends justified the means or that the means were even effective, I am saying that the reasons for Khmer policies are not so simple, and not so easy to classify. Slrubenstein
This paragraph has to be revised right away:
"Some believe that under Pol Pot's regime Cambodia was the country that came the closest to existing as a pure Marxist state. Pol Pot believed that Communism was incompatible with an industrial civilization and thus attempted to deurbanize society and eliminate all forms of industry. Collective farms were implemented as the sole form of egalitarian, susitance living, and the campaigns of killings were implemented as a way of eliminating the intelectual[?] opposition of those who refused to particiapte in the system."
I don't know where to begin explaining where that notion is way off. Perhaps “communalism” instead of “Marxist” would be appropriate. Bypassing socialism and favoring a direct route to communism goes against all the conceptions of Marxism.
For now, I'm going to change "Marxist" to "communalist". But this is only a temporary solution pending dialogue and more revisions to that paragraph. 172
- It doesn't matter if it's "way off" or not. Some people believe this, so it's worth mentioning. user:J.J.
Yes, some people misinformed people believe things that are incorrect. I haven't read the work of a single expert, however, who claimed that Pol Pot was a "pure" or orthodox Marxist. By his own account, by-passing the intermediate stage of socialism means that he's not a "pure" Marxist. I think that the writer, by mistake, meant "communist" or "communalist" rather than "Marxist". I've heard some saying that Pol Pot's regime came close to pure "communism", and there's a good argument for that, but I’ve never heard any expert claiming that Pol Pot’s regime closely adhered to Marxist ideology. It's sometimes easy, however, to confuse terms like e "socialist", "Marxist", "communist", "communitarian", etc.
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|