I've been meaning to get more into Chomsky's writings, having become sufficiently interested in him from the odd article or speech of his that i've seen. Since his writings are so eclectic by nature, I tried Year 501 in order to get a footing in his thought through his interpretation of the broader trends of history. I've come away underwhelmed.
I'm reminded of the apocryphal comment attributed to Samuel Johnson, "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." Chomsky's narrative of post-1492 world history is standard fare: European ascendancy was brought about by a collusion of state power and corporate enterprise, which was brought to bare against indigenous peoples throughout the world; Europeans dominated and destroyed indigenous peoples to acquire riches, resources, cheap labor, military manpower, and the like, and this mission of conquest was driven by the perpetual hunger for more power, more plunder, new markets, etc. The United States, though often trumpeting itself as an exception to this rule, was and continues to be the new exploitative power par excellence, as its history from the genocide of the Native Americans to the colonial wars in the Philippines, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf suggest.
None of this is especially original. Maybe it's unfair of me to expect more out of it, considering that it was published over twenty years ago, and perhaps back then such an "alternative" reading of Euro-American history was not widely accepted. But it seems to me that most of what Chomsky says here has by now been said, better, by other academics. I would point any reader looking for a sober analysis of the history and workings of European imperialism in the direction of John Darwin. For a left-wing look at American history - well, wherever Chomsky goes in this book, Howard Zinn has been there first. Or if you want a more "triumphalist" look at imperial history, there's always Niall Ferguson. Each of these writers covers more-or-less the same ground, albeit in more nuanced and better-written books than this one.
Where Chomsky's unique voice does come through, is in the value judgements he renders about the events he describes. Sometimes he is poignant; at other times he is shrill and hyperbolic. The 1991 Gulf War, according to Chomsky, was actually the 1991 Gulf Slaughter [p. 23]: to call it a "war" apparently places one on the same moral footing as Colonel Chivington's butchers, who massacred Cheyenne and Arapahoe refugees at the "battle" of Sand Creek in 1864. Perhaps Saddam Hussein was merely counting coup when he invaded and annexed Kuwait.
Another thing that irked me: the writing is just not very good. Chomsky constantly interweaves quotes from different sources in his text, which constantly disrupts the "flow" of his writing. At times, it is hard to tell whether we are hearing from Chomsky or from one of the numerous people, academics or historical figures, whom he could be quoting at any given time.
I cannot think of any context in which I would recommend this book. Those with little knowledge of the history of imperialism would probably learn from it, but they would be better off reading more sober accounts, for which there are numerous sources. Those who already know a good deal about post-Columbian history would find themselves bored and underwhelmed, even if they largely agree with Chomsky's commentary.