edward said-orientalism

[Peder]

Response I - Area of possible agreement

Moshe,
It seems that you registered with TBF for the single purpose of contending with my post. I hope your exasperation with me does not prevent your joining in further dicussion of what you claim our differences to be. To try to approach the variety of your points, however, I hope you will allow me to separate your own post into an area where we might have a common ground, and to treat the contentious issues that you raise in one or more separate posts. You mentioned that Edward Said was an

... advocate that we are one civilization under this very tiny earth, and it does not serve any purpose to face each other as enemies but to comprehend that we have inherited from each other..that today's culture is a mixture of all that has already existed before...
May be Emerson puts it best when he says" The intuition of the moral sentiment is an insight of the perfection of the laws of the soul.these laws execute themselves. They are out of time, out of space, and not subject to circumstance.Thus; in the soul of man there is a justice whose retributions are instant and entire. He who does a good deed, is instantly ennobled. He who does a mean deed, is by the action itself contracted.He who puts off impurity, thereby puts on purity."

I have no particular disagreement with those ideas, even if my own phrasing is somewhat different. In fact, I do believe that we all, repeat all, are children of God, and that we stand in sight of His continual judgement of the extent to which we love our fellow man, and one day, for better or worse, we shall each stand before Him in our nakedness and His full awareness of how we have lived the entire lives with which He has entrusted us.

I offer this in conciliation and, if you have disagreement with that much of what I believe, I hope I shall hear from you again in the future.

I shall discuss your insults and complaints separately, if I may,
Even if it takes a little time to formulate individually accurate replies,
Peder

 

[pontalba]

I have not read the book, but I find this discussion fascinating. It could even (gasp) inveigle me into (another gasp!) buying the book.

Or not.

 

[Peder]

I have not read the book, but I find this discussion fascinating. It could even (gasp) inveigle me into (another gasp!) buying the book.

Or not.

Pontalba,
I'm inclined to say skip it. Unless you enjoy being pounded over the head endlessly with a hammer.
Peder

 

[pontalba]

Pontalba,
I'm inclined to say skip it. Unless you enjoy being pounded over the head endlessly with a hammer.
Peder

Heh, heh, heh...not on the list for today. That was last week.

 

[Peder]

Well, Moshe,
I regeret the hiatus; but it was not of my own choice.
I see that you are keeping to your promise to hide your presence from us. Or perhaps in the manner of a latter-day Stephen Grellet you have decided that you will pass this way but once and that you will therefore do what good you can because you might never pass this way again. In either event, perhaps your ears are still here.
We have our differences with respect to what Edward Said said in his book, and they would take many posts to point out and resolve, judging from my own marginal notes. But I definitely have some differences with respect to yourself, and your own post alone, and I will therefore definitely take exception right here. Let me begin with your opening thoughts

This is my first and last foray on book forum. I read with interest Peder's constipated reactions/opinions to orientalism .... and my comments are mostly directed to Peder's. You ....shift very quickly and accuse him of antisemitism

First of all, I never used used the words semitic or anti-semitic (unless I have forgotten and you can point out the occasion). You are the one who has wildly and injudiciously introduced them into this conversation. And I don't confuse Jewishness with Zionism either. I have in fact been wondering whether the same can be said for yourself and Mr. Said.

...I want it to be clearly known that Said was neither an antisemite( how could he be? he is a semite himself),

So I have to leave you to straighten out the contorted logic raised by your own question.

I'll now take the liberty of excising your lengthy and gratuitous moralizing toward me about world humanity, as i believe I have already tried to find common ground between us in an earlier post. So I'll proceed directly to your closing thoughts.

And so Peder, do not confuse jewishness with zionism. jewishness is a purity of heart, and zionism is a scourge similar to nazism or fascism.

I've already remarked regarding jewishness and Zionism, once should be enough in any civilized discussion. However, the added notion that you would compare Jewish people, whom I believe Mr. Said would also call Zionists (Theodore Herzl? Chaim Weizsman? David Ben Gurion?), with Nazism and Fascism, I would say only indicates a new level of hostility and irrationality on your part.

In fact , as you continue to read orientalism, with complete objectivity of course, you will realize Said's humanity coming through very clearly

In fact, what does come through very clearly in the book is where we seem to differ. You sneer at my objectivity. Allow me to say that it is challenging enough to read an objective book objectively. It is even more challenging to read a polemically slanted book objectively, so I commend the exercise to you, Moshe, using Mr. Said's book itself as the example of a deliberately slanted text.
In fact, have you read the book at all? Or are you just talking?

.....and your constipated reactions/opinions receding to the bins of forgotten hitory.

Very poetic, Moshe. Very poetic! Tell me, shall my bones also be cast outside the city gates to be eaten by dogs. Hunh? Hunh?

In closing, allow me to suggest that, although your mode of conversation may be appropriate and acceptable among your friends and family, I think that in such a discussion as this, the use of the word "constipated" as a personal accusation is in poor form.

Yours very sincerely,
Peder

 

[aniela]

why can't people just talk about the "Orient" without getting into the jewish-muslim discussion?! and Moshe's comments were really out of the place, and based on one remark on Peder's post (the time when he mentioned zionism). it is not surprising to find out that he has been Said's student. apparently they work on the same method. sticking to one detail that proves their ideas. ignoring the general context. and even if Moshe's intention was to "protect" Said from the base comments on this thread, i think by using that language in his post all he did was to show that apparently Said did not have a very well educated student.
and the fact that Moshe did not want to get involved into a discussion casts a doubt on his ability to sustain his point of view in front of critics.

 

[Peder]

why can't people just talk about the "Orient" without getting into the jewish-muslim discussion?!

Aniela,
It certainly looks like a book that can bring the entire middle-eastern conflict right here into this thread to re-fought yet again on a new front. On the one hand I wish Moshe would come back, on the other hand I don't thnik that would be good for the future of any discussion. Either way I'm sure TBF rules would prevent political discussion and the fighting of any wars, thankfully..
I'm now rereading the book with a view to seeing Said's frame of mind as he wrote it. Its multiple sections -- Preface, Introduction, main text, and Afterword -- were written at different times during 25 years, and it is interesting to see how he adjusts his posture as time goes by.
Peder

 

[aniela]

i do not see to what extent "Orientalism" can bring into the discussion the problems in the middle east. unless someone really wants to find in it a reason to go into that topic. personally, i did not perceivethe book as being overly political, even though one cannot escape the historical implications of the topic.
i did not know the chapters were written with a large difference of time between them. hm. i really have to start to be interested in additional information about the conditions in which a book has been written. the parts of the book where i found that the author began to do a good job with his argument were the introduction and the afterword. for me that was a little bit strange, since i considered that he was not able to back his ideas witht he core of his book.

 

[Peder]

i do not see to what extent "Orientalism" can bring into the discussion the problems in the middle east. unless someone really wants to find in it a reason to go into that topic.

Aniela,
Perhaps I am overly sensitized on the topic. That is entirely possible. On other forums than TBF, however, I have noticed that there is no neutral ground with respect to the Middle-East. One is assumed to be either for or against, and then one gets slurred accordingly with very extreme invective. (As witness Moshe. He is nothing new.) Which is why I think it is great that there is no political discussion allowed on TBF. And which is why I noticed when I saw Said's one-sided partisanship showing thorugh his quasi-historical treatment of Orientalism.
I would much prefer to discuss the book rather than politics, but Said's purposes and intentions can hardly be ignored IMO, insofar as they do color what he says and the way he says it in the book.
And if that is too far afield for this thread, then that is no problem either. I can moderate my remarks accordingly and still hopefully be constructive..
Peder

 

[aniela]

i do not think there is any problem with your remarks. i think that, in general, there are not enough discussions about what is happening in middle-east, discussions that include the perspectives of all the sides involved, but unfortunately TBF is not a place that allows them, and it is a sign of respect from the members to respect that.
i did not perceive the book like dealing with sensitive topics about the middle east. it is true that the reader could imply from the book Said's possible stand on that issue, but i did not see it as the main focus of the book. i read the book as being a stand on the issue of stereotyping a certain culture and the way it is done through literary or non-fiction works. and, even if i agree with Said that people from europe have been and, to a certain extent, are still biased when it gets to the "orient" (and not necessarily the region considered to be arab, but also regarding the far orient, for countries like india, china, or japan) and have a "ready-made" view on it, i disagree with his arguments (he does not have so many, in any case) and with the examples he chose to make his point.
so, viewing the topic, one could find in the book some "propagandistic" tendencies, but i did not see that as the central issue of the book. one cannot disregard the fact that the author's background influences his stands, but i think that the focus should be mainly on the book and less to what is tangentially mentioned in it, but implied.

 

[aniela]

and i am certain that your remarks are constructive, even if they do not rigidy stick to a certain topic. after all, deviating from the topic is the charm of any discussion and insures its richeness. i hate those "business" talkings where everybody focuses on one thing and any side comment is seen as distracting, not as enhancing the imagination and contributing to the development of ideas.

 

[Peder]

... i think that the focus should be mainly on the book and less to what is tangentially mentioned in it, but implied.

Aniela,
I'll be glad to try to stay wihin that framework and see where a discussion of the book goes. My own main issues with the book have already been stated in condensed form and in miniature, so there is no need for me to blugeon them further to death with citations or proofs from the text.
Peder

 

[aniela]

hi Peder,
it is true that you have made some very good pertinent remarks about the boo with direct references to the text. i found them to be very interesting. but, for example, you also mentioned a possible relation between the evolution of Said's ideas in the book and the fact that the chapters have been written at different times. if you found something interesting about that, you can share it.

 

[Peder]

hi Peder,
it is true that you have made some very good pertinent remarks about the boo with direct references to the text. i found them to be very interesting. but, for example, you also mentioned a possible relation between the evolution of Said's ideas in the book and the fact that the chapters have been written at different times. if you found something interesting about that, you can share it.

Aniela,
I'v been considering the possibility and have been rereading the book for that purpose, marking the text as I go. However, I'm afraid that my reaction to most of those remarks is rather negative or at least critical (and I'll even forebear saying why), so I don't think a detailed rendition by me would sound particularly constructive. Perhaps another person would provide a different viewpoint and see the overall book in a better light, or maybe the remarks I noticed are not so important. After all, the reader-reviewers over at amazon rather uniformly seem to regard the work positively, as being fact-filled and an important contribution, except for one gentleman who challenges Said's veracity. And I think many also say that the book has generated considerable argument which is still going on. So WDIK?
It is probably best for me at this point simply to heed my mother's advice of long ago, if I can't say something good, then better not to say anything at all.
Peder

 

[aniela]

i went on amazon to read the comments in there on said's book. and i found them very pertinent. the excessive praising ones and the very critical posts are quite few. i had the feeling that the readers had a general good impression about the book, but they were also aware about its flaws.

 

[Peder]

Aniela,
I agree, and I hope my comments about the amazon reviewers did not suggest otherwise.
Peder

 

[Gem]

Hello,

I stayed away longer then expected, needed a holiday from the holidays.

As usual, I seem to have missed some interesting developments. Bravo Peder for your excellent response, you truly are a gentleman.

I also wasn’t aware that the book had been written over such a long time period, which helps to settle some questions I had but at the same time manages to raise others. Never mind, I’ll figure it all out in the end.

Since a great deal of valid points have already been raised, I shall only add that I felt that his basic assertion is valid or at least it is when it comes to the Oriental representation in commercial cinema & the media. But his ‘pick &choose’ method and polemicist nature undermines his thesis.

But Peder, I’m guessing you enjoyed the book far more than I did

 

[Peder]

But his ‘pick &choose’ method and polemicist nature undermines his thesis.

But Peder, I’m guessing you enjoyed the book far more than I did

Gem,
Your one sentence there says it better and more succinctly than I could have. But regarding "enjoyed" I'm not sure that is quite the right word. I think it may be more like the book 'engaged my attention' more than most. I have to say that I am exceedingly impressed with the detailed research that must lie behind Said's assiduous ennumeration of what sounds like every scurrilous and unjustified remark any prominent western personage has ever said against "orientals," including the racist words found in the mouth of even Chaim Weizsman. (My personal feeling is that Said had to regard them as quite a coup and must have been overjoyed to find those words!)

And BTW thanks for your kind remarks. Being civil is the only way to respond to firebrands like that, certainly not getting down in the gutter with them IMO.

Peder

 

[Gem]

Peder,

I have to say that I am exceedingly impressed with the detailed research that must lie behind Said's assiduous ennumeration of what sounds like every scurrilous and unjustified remark any prominent western personage has ever said against "orientals," including the racist words found in the mouth of even Chaim Weizsman. (My personal feeling is that Said had to regard them as quite a coup and must have been overjoyed to find those words!)

Not even a hint of sarcasm

I hadn't known that it was written over a 25year period. What I had in mind was the Arab-Israeli war that occured just a few years before the book was published. So obviously i have to reconsider certain impressions - ie. things that I thought had been influenced by the mini war.

Being civil is the only way to respond to firebrands like that, certainly not getting down in the gutter with them IMO.

Well said (no pun intended )

 

[Peder]

What I had in mind was the Arab-Israeli war that occured just a few years before the book was published. So obviously i have to reconsider certain impressions - ie. things that I thought had been influenced by the mini war.

Gem,
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.
Peder