ism was blasted out of existence in 1945.nMoreover, the authors claim, Americanninvestment and aid in Latin Americanand the high economic growth fosterednby regimes like that in Brazil actuallynimpoverish people—evidently by anneconomic process so arcane that it can-never, Chomsky and Herman polish thentarnished myths of the Indochina warnand defend the new communist regimes.nThe amount of straddling required tondefend both the Vietnamese and PolnPot regimes would give most leftistsnideological hernias, but Chomsky andn”Chomsky ts our contomporary Orwdl. And not t-ven Sivifi could .surpass thf .sava/jenindignation of The Political liconomy ofliuniiin Ri/fh/s. “n— Village Voicennot be explained. One wonders whynCanada has not been ruined by the hugenconcentration of American foreign investments.n(In their explanation ofnLatin America’s troubles, Chomsky andnHerman manage to avoid mentioningnits rapid population increase, whichnindeed manages to neutralize much ofnits economic growth.) Latin Americanis described in a quite undifferentiatednmanner and is assimilated into then”Third World,” African and Asian underdevelopednlands. Rather carelessly,nChomsky and Herman discuss Argentinanin this context and manage to blamenits troubles on the United States. Argentina,na basically rich nation which,ntwo generations ago, was about to catchnup with the most advanced countries,nbecame underdeveloped thanks to theneconomic cretins it chose as leaders—nmostly anti-American cretins, as it happens.nThe vicious treatment of the Indiansnof Paraguay and Brazil is blamednon the Americans too—by “guiltnthrough association.” Any Americannaid whatever seems to constitute a sealnof approval for a Latin American rengime—which, of course, does not stopnthem from demanding American aid fornIndochina. In dealing with the Allendenregime and terrorists like the UruguayannTupamaros, Chomsky and Hermannapply thick coats of whitewash. “Terrorism”nis just another of the “manynsymbols used to frighten and manipulatenthe populace of the democraticnstates,” an example of “brainwashingnunder freedom.”nWith even greater enthusiasm, how-nHerman rise—or rather, descend—tonthe occasion. They even manage to insinuatenthat the Western press is responsiblenfor the Vietnamese invasionnof Cambodia!nAll of the old myths of the war arentrotted out again. Yet again the unwarynreader is informed that the United Statesnsteadily supported French colonialismnfrom 1945, though in fact the Americansnaided France only after it promisednindependence to the Indochina statesnin 1950. The outbreak of the secondnIndochina war is blamed on anticommunistnviolations of the Geneva conferencenagreements and the failure to holdna free election. As usual, the Franco-nVietminh armistice that split the countryninto two zones is confused with thenunsigned Final Declaration, which, overnAmerican and South Vietnamese protests,npromised elections to reunite Vietnamnin 1956. (The Declaration did notneven obligate the countries that issuednnnit.) Like most antiwar critics, Chomskynand Herman fail to mention that thenUnited States pushed reunification bynfree elections during the Geneva conference,nrequiring only that they be runnunder U.N. supervision rather thannhaving a structure allowing a communistnveto. Though the communists arensupposed to have been utterly confidentnof popular support, they adamantly refusednthis. Once more we are told thatnthe Vietcong were essentially independentnof Northern controls—a really absurdnargument at this date.nIt is characteristic of Chomsky andnHerman’s sectarian, hysterical attitudenthat they are particularly harsh in theirncomments on people, Theodore Draper,nfor example, who did not share theirnanti-Americanism and tried to opposenthe war on rational grounds. They areneven more bitter when noting the remarksnof these former doves, who werenwilling to admit that there was truth onnboth sides in the dispute over the war,nor who have otherwise reconsideredntheir views.nIn dealing with the postwar era innIndochina, however, Chomsky and Hermannsurpass themselves. The evacuationnof Vietnamese children becomesna “most cynical example of atrocitynmanagement,” though the authors havenno compunction about detailing fantasticnstories about Israeli atrocities againstnArabs. The flight of the boat people isndismissed. The authors prate about thenlack of corruption under the new regime,nignoring the well-establishednpractice of “squeezing” funds from thosenwho take to the sea. The remarks ofnNguyen Cong Hoan (a former SouthnVietnamese peace advocate) that therenare 200,000 political prisoners in thenconquered South are wished away. Thenassurances supplied by people on guidedntours is considered infinitely more reliablenthan such^homsky and Herman reach rocknbottom in their treatment of Cambodia.nCambodian atrocities are allegedly beingnused to “whitewash Western imperial-nJanttary/Febrttary 1981n