edward said-orientalism

[Gem]

Peder,

For myself I think that is the hardest thing to try to ignore about Edward Said, that he was the ardent spokesman for one side of what has been the most inflammatory and vitriolic of disputes that has gone on now for over 50 years. I think that is a true statement whichever side one takes.

I stopped myself from saying that as I really haven't read any other of his work, and unfortunately I haven't been inspired to go and seek his other work out. In fact I now remember why I hadn't reached the end of Orientalism the first time I read it. At that time I was too young to understand exactly what I found disagreeable about the book. But now I know that if his approach and manner had been different then perhaps I would have given more consideration to his works.

Perhaps i'm being naive but considering his subject matter and the whole Israel/Palestine dispute, I would have thought that he was obligated to present more balanced arguments rather than those that just supported his thesis. Especially considering the time the book was published and the activities that had been going on.
I've gotten my hands on a few Bernard Lewis books, but I can't seem to rouse myself to start reading them, not sure if I can take much more of the hammer em' style.

 

[Peder]

cI stopped myself from saying that as I really haven't read any other of his work, and unfortunately I haven't been inspired to go and seek his other work out.....I've gotten my hands on a few Bernard Lewis books, but I can't seem to rouse myself to start reading them, not sure if I can take much more of the hammer em' style.

Gem,
Well my own prior experience with Edward Said's views was not particularly organized or formal. I've read snatches here and there and parts of a review of one of his books, so I wondered also about the accuracy of my impressions. For a sanity check, I did a open-ended google search with key words: Edward Said spokesman for, and let google see what it found. There were a couple "spokesman for peace," but many more "spokesman for Palestinian cause," so I felt comfortable going with my own accumulated impressions. I doubt anyone is going to say he was a spokesman for the Israeli viewpoint.
But you are right. There is only so much vigorous animosity that is worth reading before one has absorbed the main point.
Peder

 

[Gem]

Peder,

I doubt anyone is going to say he was a spokesman for the Israeli viewpoint.

In the past I've tended to stick to history/culture books when it comes to subjects like the Middle East, it's only recently that i've waded in to the somewhat murky waters of Literary theory etc. And I have to say that so far the field appears to be filled with people using the same approach as Said. Is it perhaps the subject matter? Since it is such a contentious issue then perhaps Said's approach is the only way to get your point across? I am rather hoping that i'll stumble across a theorist/author who provides a balanced view in a sensible, objective manner. Heres hoping

 

[Peder]

I am rather hoping that i'll stumble across a theorist/author who provides a balanced view in a sensible, objective manner. Heres hoping

Gem,
Oddly enough, the book from which I learned most about how the whole sorry mess got started was Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem." I'm sure there can be complaints about it, but it has what I thought was a pretty clear rundown on the pre-history of the birth of Israel. Overall I thought it was a pretty calm and balanced view, much moreso than I would have expected.
Peder

 

[Gem]

Peder,

Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem." I'm sure there can be complaints about it, but it has what I thought was a pretty clear rundown on the pre-history of the birth of Israel. Overall I thought it was a pretty calm and balanced view

Thank you, it sounds like just the sort of thing that I need. Much appreciated.

 

[direstraits]

This is an interesting discussion, albeit, for me, a little confusing. Excuse me as I re-orient myself (sorry).

Firstly, I acknowledge Peder's excellent attempts at fostering a discussion despite disagreements. This indeed is a reason why forums exists, and differing views explained with rational thoughts. I have much to learn from you, sifu Peder, on objective thinking. I would have loved to hear more of Moshe's thoughts, with or without his zealousness; I simply want to know his point of view a little more.

Secondly, I want to preface my comments with the fact that I'm very interested in how others view 'orientalism', and what it means to other people. And from what I've read in this thread, it's very different indeed from what I had in mind. I've neither read Said's book, nor claim to know a lot about politics, antisemitism in all it's forms and history to align myself with the points presented so far in this thread. I'm simply bringing what I feel, my perspective, to the table.

I live, as some of you know, in the far east, but I've never considered my part of the world to be relevant to 'orientalism'. To me, I've always associated orientals with people from the regions of China, Korea, Japan. To put it crudely, people who look Chinese/Japanese/Korean.

Which is why I found it strange indeed that Orientalism would bring about discussions on Middle East. If Said wrote 'Asiatic' instead of 'Orientalism' I mind wouldn't have done a backflip it did on this thread, as, after all, Asia would cover Middle East.

Indeed, before this thread, I'd never have thought to look up the actual definition of Orientals, of which one is "Denoting or characteristic of the biogeographic region including southern Asia and the Malay Archipelago as far as the Philippines and Borneo and Java".

If someone were to tell me this instead of me looking it up in a dictionary, I'm not even sure I'd agree. Before this I wouldn't even think a Filipino, Arab or Indian is considered Oriental, but simply Asian. But, as I've not studied Orientalism, I'm probably wrong in my naive assumptions. Another definition for Orient is, after all, "countries of Asia".

Another observation I have has something to do with colonization, as stated from aniela's very early post. I don't like the idea of colonization, and for those who feel it's positive, try imagining your country of your birth and culture get overrun by foreigners.

However, one thing the British did for Malaysia that I'm mindful today is our education system. An ex-colleague from China once asked me why is it that Malaysians have English entrenched in its society, as opposed to China that generally doesn't speak foreign languages. I replied it's because of our former status as a British colony.

I'm not implying colonization is a good thing, but I'd say Malaysia did come out of it better than most.

ds

 

[aniela]

first of all, i have a question about Friedman. i have not read any of his articles, but as far as i heard about him he has quite a strong authoritarian view on what is happening in the world, and i think he is also a supporter of the war in Irak. i have begun to read some books on the history of the palestinian-israelian conflict, and by now i have relied mainly on texts with precise references to official documents, and less based on a certain ideologial side. in any case, Peder suggested that Friedman would have a rather objective view on this topic. but considering the information i have on him, can he really be that objective? to me he seemed to rely too much on imposing authority, which i think it is the last thing a conflict such as the palestinian-israelian one would need.

as for colonization, i do not know. Direstraits gave the example of education. is it that important for a coutnry to speak foreign language? or who decides what foreign language should be taught? in my country, Romania, we have some sort of russian occupation after the second world war on a part of our territory. and they were forced to learn russian in school. how about the native language. what made russian to be better than romanian? as about the use of english language, in my country which has never been colonized by england, english is very weel taught in school. apart from that, is it really necessary for a country to be colonized in order to progress? i think that the natural development of a country, under diverse external influences of course, leads to a state where people are free from frustrations and from a difficult load of past resentement. but my conclusions on colonization are drawn mainly from the situation of french colonies, since it is a problem that i have been directly confronted with.

 

[direstraits]

Clarification: Malay is still taught. It is the national language, after all. So is Mandarin and Tamil, depending on the school you are enrolled in.

Certainly nothing gives another the right to overrule one's life, freedom and culture. And as I've stated, being colonized is not exactly a great situation to be in.

I'm simply observing that some countries come out of being colonized better than others. And yes, I do think having English introduced is a good thing for us: it probably has enabled us to adapt rather more quickly than we probably would have otherwise.

India is probably the 2nd fastest growing Asian country this past 10 years because they are capitalizing on their human capital on one of the most important commodities in the world today: IT skillset. And what makes India the foremost choice for western countries when they look to invest and outsource? The ability of their general population, and therefore workforce, to use the English language.

I'm not saying that if we weren't colonized we wouldn't do just as well, or even better, but we wouldn't know that now, would we? At least we weren't plundered to a point of no return.

What did Said say about colonization, anyway? I know what he thought about those who were proud of it...

ds

 

[aniela]

well, in the book "orientalism" i cannot remember him saying anything clear about colonization as such. but neither do i remember him to say anything (exept maybe in the conclusion or introduction chapters) about the palestinian-israelian conflict. even though he expressed his views on these topics outside this specific books, and of course those views had an impact on his writing, still the book does not make an outspoken point on those matters. my commentary on the colonization was a personal one, since at the time there have been some arguments in france over the matter. so i just picked it up as an example.
as for the colonization as such, i think one cannot state its advantages since nations evolve all along history, so the outcome cannot be predicted. it is true that the colonizing countries have introduced changes in the colonized territories, but i think their utility in the long term is uncertain since those changes may have appeared in any case. i still find it very presomptuous for a government to pass a law stating that school children should be taught about the positive aspects of colonization. especially in a country like france where the scars of the colonization period are still very deep. and i think that every history teacher who has the minimum of respect for their work would present as much of an objective image of the past as possible. with all its complexities made of good and bad points interwoven.
as about India, i only know the basics about its history, but i wonder if its progress was not enhanced more by its independence than by the contributions of the english colonization. and china has a very good position too, without having been colonized like india.

 

[Gem]

Hello Direstraits & Aniela,

Very interesting posts.

I was born in India, and still have family out there. So Aniela when you say about Colonization leaving behind scars I completely understand that. With the stories i've read and heard personally from people who lived during that time I can say that yes Colonization was hardly a good or positive thing.

But in the interests of being objective i'd also point out that in India at least colonization has had some lasting effect. Things like the railway system was put in place by the British, the legal and government models are also pretty much identical to the British system. Of course Britain did hold India for such a long time - the East India company had a presence there from the 1600's and then the empire tookover rule from the 1850's - so their effects would be long lasting.

Of course we can't predict how things would have turned out without colonization. But I can think of a fair amount of positive and negative outcomes. The western world haven't been the only colonists, the Islamic empire too has had colonies. It'd be interesting to compare the methods and effects of eastern and western colonization, as in my view colonization is a human thing, i'm not expressing it properly, but basically it's not just something only westerners have done. I think its a human thing - to go beyond our borders to explore and then stamp our mark on it.

 

[Peder]

This is an interesting discussion, albeit, for me, a little confusing. Excuse me as I re-orient myself (sorry).
Secondly, I want to preface my comments with the fact that I'm very interested in how others view 'orientalism', and what it means to other people. And from what I've read in this thread, it's very different indeed from what I had in mind. I've neither read Said's book, nor claim to know a lot about politics, antisemitism in all it's forms and history to align myself with the points presented so far in this thread. I'm simply bringing what I feel, my perspective, to the table.

I live, as some of you know, in the far east, but I've never considered my part of the world to be relevant to 'orientalism'. To me, I've always associated orientals with people from the regions of China, Korea, Japan.

Direstraits,
Your questions about the meaning of "The Orient" certainly are relevant in a discussion of "Orientalism" that seems to roam all over the place. However they are also no accident, in that Edward Said takes a whole book to explain his views on the many facets of a very broad topic called Orientalism, and his views are not simple. The quotes on the back cover are very short-hand indications of Said's main ideas.

...Edward Said's ground-breaking critique of the West's historical, cultural, and political perceptions of the East....Said traces the origins of "orientalism" to the centuries-long period during which Europe dominated the Middle and Near East and, from its postion of power, defined "the orient" simply as "other than" the occident. This entrenched view continues to dominate western ideas....

Stimulating, elegant, yet pugnacious...Said .... observes the West observing the Arabs, and he does not like what he finds.

One sees, perhaps in astonishment, that Orientalism is a discussion of the West and not of the Orient! Mentions of China specifically, and for example, amount to only three lines in an Index which occupies 17 complete pages in the back of the book. [!]

As for "pugnacious" and "not liking what he finds," you really have to read for yourself the Preface dated May 2003, to feel the full fury of the wrath he directs principally at the United States, with its "book stores... filled with shabby screeds... and war-mongering expertise," the "CNN and Fox news channels of the world," its "leaders and lackeys," and the "military and Zionist lobbies of the United States."

His words, not mine, please let me empahsize!

Hope this clarifies things a bit,
Peder

 

[aniela]

the book at the library in here does not have the preface from May 2003. but a friend of mine brought me once his own book that has this part too, so i had the chance to read it. unfortunately i do nto have the text now, and my arguments over it may not be very well grounded.

as for the orient, the fact that Said chose to talk about the let's say Arab world is understandable for me. i asked people around me what do they understand by the orient, and all of them thought mainly of the Middle East. while countries like China, or India, are more thought of as being part of the Asia. it is not the first time when geography does not match our views on geography. to take an example that is familiar to me, countries considered from Eastern Europe are more situated in Central Europe. geographically speaking, the Tcheck Republic is in central Europe, but it is thought as being an Eastern European country. i understood Said's approach to orientalism as inscribing itself in the same line of thought. he approached the orient as it is perceived by the westerners, not as a geographical entity. and he justifies this distinction in the book.

as for the remarks in the 2003 preface, one shouls read the entire text in order to have a coherent view on it. as for some of the examples you mentioned i think some people may find them as being simple reality and not as unjust outbursts of fury. though i find it hard to stay out of anger especially when it comes to the military part of the american policy. but that is a personal stand of course.

 

[Peder]

as for the remarks in the 2003 preface, one shouls read the entire text in order to have a coherent view on it. as for some of the examples you mentioned i think some people may find them as being simple reality and not as unjust outbursts of fury. though i find it hard to stay out of anger especially when it comes to the military part of the american policy. but that is a personal stand of course.

aniela,
Yes, one should indeed read the entire text, which is what I thought I had suggested; it was just really longer than I could post. And indeed many people do regard the excerpts I gave as being factual, even when they do state them with wrath and fury; I would say Edward Said was one of them. All of which provides yet further reasons for reading the entire text -- to form one's own opinions of his intent and of his level of passion -- instead of relying on my post.
Peder