Reddit reviews Orientalism
We found 34 Reddit comments about Orientalism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Orientalism
Reddit reviews OrientalismWe found 34 Reddit comments about Orientalism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Hey, bud. I get you're upset at reddit's circlejerks. I get how you're trying to build solidarity by trying to find parallels in the treatment of other oppressed or disempowered groups.
That being said, comparing reddit circlejerks to the Rwandan Genocide or the Nuremberg Laws is a bit out of the scope of the issue it looks like you're taking issue with. Sure, the circlejerk of the "shitty chinese tourist" is probably an effect of european imperialism, just like some of the shitty things in Africa are also a result of european imperialism. But the "shitty things in africa" include genocide, while the "shitty chinese tourist" trope is a probably very real circlejerk on reddit that is not comparable to genocide, even if you can make the broadest of connections between reddit circlejerks and the Rwandan Genocide.
I get that you don't like how reddit circlejerks about an important aspect of your identity. But respectfully, you're overestimating how important reddit circlejerks are in broader cultural discourse.
If you're looking for academic books that look at orientalism and imperialism and identity and all that jazz, to situate your thoughts in the broader context I think you're searching for, here are some books:
http://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426553762&sr=8-1&keywords=orientalism+edward+said
http://www.amazon.com/Rescuing-History-Nation-Questioning-Narratives/dp/0226167224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426554057&sr=8-1&keywords=rescuing+history+from+the+nation
http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Orient-Rendering-Pasts-History/dp/0520201701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426553687&sr=8-1&keywords=japan%27s+orient+stefan+tanaka
> and I always thought "oriental" referred to the Far East, so really not sure what the article was on about.
The article is drawing upon Orientalism by Edward Said, which is a important and popular text among cultural studies types. And is specifically about European attitudes towards the Middle East.
if you give me her address i'll send her this book
This review literally made me laugh out loud. I never think about kids getting angry about books in school and then writing bad reviews on the internet, but I suppose that's a thing now.
I'm a historian by major but working outside the profession. That said, I don't often post here but when I do, I hope I'm writing within the rules. Apologies in advance.
What OP is refering to is Historiography . The rest of the question depends completely on what you're reading/watching etc. If you're reading scholarly publications typically bias level is very low. If you're watching a documentary on any cable channel you need to be much more aware. One of the first things you're taught is to examine the source of the information and intent of the author.
The end goal of creating original historical scholarly work would be a product with as little bias (exaggerations and hearsay) as possible. I say as little because Historiography tells us it's impossible to create work completely free of bias.
It's impossible to remove our understanding and experience from the material because we use everything as context. If this is a subject that interests you I would highly recommend reading Orientalism by Edward Said. It's focus is the idea of our understanding of anything (person, event, time period, etc) is formulated based on our own culture.
I recognize linking wikipedia isn't a great thing to do in this sub however, I felt it appropriate to the topic.
If you're interested in a book that examines HOW Foucault's ideas work and their relationships to the writing of history, I'd suggest Mark Poster's [*Foucault, Marxism and History*](https://www.amazon.com/Foucault-Marxism-History-Production-Information/dp/0745600182). He argues that Foucault marked a fundamental shift in the writing of history and the construction of historical analysis and narrative because Foucault reoriented the focus away from the (Marxian) laboring subject, and toward the discourse, the ways of knowing and communicating that shape human experience and through which power flows. I don't recall his precise language, but the phrase that stuck with me was something like "The forces that govern us are not visible at the level of the subject." In other words, for Marx, and for so many historians before and since, if you wanted to understand change over time, you look at people: their experience as an "objective" thing, and their responses to those experiences.
So, in a Marxian account of historical change, you'd look at the material conditions of people in a society and then attach their actions to those material experiences. Say, for example, you study the condition of the working classes in Britain in the mid-19th century, and you find that they're terrible because their wages are low. When those same people develop class consciousness, organize into trade unions, have strikes, organize a Labour party, and so on, then you have an essentially Marxian, laboring-subject focused history. Foucault would argue, however, that because of the mutually constitutive nature of power and knowledge, we have to look not to the apparently objective experience of certain historical subjects, but rather to the discursive field that serves as the medium for communicating and effecting power. Power for Foucault is therefore diffuse, spread throughout society, and not visible in the actions of any single person or even necessarily in a single group.
Now, if you want to see this idea applied more broadly, let me suggest a couple, in different areas. A really important, well-known example of Foucauldian analysis is Ann Stoler's Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power, in which the author examines colonial power and sex in Southeast Asia. The idea is to understand how the discussion of sexuality, race, and gender, by and through the colonial state, shape the way that power relationships are constituted.
Edward Said's Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism both deal with imperialism as a discursive construction.
A final example, right in line with Stoler and Said, would be Ann McClintock's Imperial Leather.
"Orientalism" By Edward Said, professor of Comparative Literature in Columbia University
https://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X
Said's Orientalism.
You're giving cultural studies authors too much credit, read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290541545&sr=8-1
>I know asian music = pentatonic scale
I would direct you to Edward Said's Orientalism.
Pakistan: A Hard Country by Anatol Lieven
Orientalism by Edward Said
The second one is not South Asia specific but rather how we are viewed in occidental intellectual traditions.
Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior. (Wikipedia)
So for the first part you are right, but stereotypes are bigger than race, they go way beyond that. In a stereotype you can include all races, sexes, sexual orientations and what not, while a "race" is pretty narrow-minded. Btw, stereotypes are not necessarily a bad thing, it's just the way our brain handles stuff that is new to us. It happens everywhere as well, it's not just us rich Swiss judging evil foreigners, it goes both ways.
If you're interested, I'd recommend giving this a read: James G. Carrier - Occidentalism, Images of the West
and Edward Said - Orientalism
We don't really proselytize, so you wouldn't be "sold" necessarily. Also, are you thinking of an academic primer or something more basic?
There's the [Idiot's Guide to Jewish History and Culture] (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-History-Culture-Edition/dp/1592572405/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341422012&sr=1-2&keywords=Idiot%27s+guide+to+judaism) and Essential Judaism. Those are both pretty good books. Also, Chabad has an excellent and very informative website, though in person they're a bit too much for me.
On a tangential note, I highly recommend From Beirut to Jerusalem and Orientalism if you're interested in the Middle East.
NB: While I'm expecting to catch some flack for the idiot's guide link, it is basically an "Explain Like I'm Five" book series.
It is indeed a complex situation, but these would be a good start:
Earlier history:
For more contextual books, I would recommend:
I can suggest some books that are really helpful in filling in the blanks.
For a basic overview of Islam's history and the reality of Islamic countries in the modern world I'd recommend "Introducing Islam."
For a seriously compelling look at the Sunni/Shia split and the conflict between the two sects I highly recommend "After the Prophet". Not only is this good history, it's a very well written.
And for a really excellent look at the misconceptions westerners have about Islam, and the ways in which those misconceptions are transmitted and perpetuated, you can't beat the works of Edward Said. He wrote three books on the subject that he considered a trilogy. They are:
Orientalism
The Question of Palestine
and
Covering Islam
Also, here's a documentary that is largely an interview with Said on the topic of Orientalism.
And a documentary called "Reel Bad Arabs" that examines the way the middle east is portrayed by western media.
My only experience is in Nepal, where Buddhism is just one of the unorthodox streams within the spectrum of ordinary spirituality. Nepali people think it's kind of funny how westerners feel the need to organize and label religion into a bunch of -Isms. (This is the sort of western bossiness Edward Said described in his classic book Orientalism.)
WE vs THEY eh?
Orientalism is a huge concept that I can try and brush over quickly. (Check out the book if you ever have time.) Generally speaking, Orientalism is the process of essentalization, mystification, and commodification of the "East" as opposed to the "West" (in a geographic, cultural, and sociological sense). It functions on and reproduces the false binary of "us" vs. "them" and enforces value judgments that result in institutional racism and general misinformation. For example, the West is seen as enlightened, classical, and logical as opposed to the East which is mystical, romantic, and irrational. This produces and is produced by the mindset that we, as the more rational, evolved people, have a responsibility to enlighten the Oriental masses who otherwise will end up wallowing in their own sad, sad cultural practices.
Cultural imperialism is the act of enforcing one's cultural patterns/beliefs/etc. onto another community, often without meaning to or realizing what's happening and often without any outright violence or what would commonly be called "imperialism."
I find both of these concept severely degrading to the actual, real people at whom they are targeted.
I can only stress this point so many times: if this is an issue about the subjugation of and violence towards women, then let's make it about that. The niqab is not a catchall for structural violence, and banning it creates more problems than it solves. There are many other ways to deal with sexism and misogyny that will have more lasting, real impacts.
>Dude believe what you want but for every manuscript written by an islamic person there are ten thousand written non muslim that portray a brutal life under muslims.
This is something you want to be true, but isn't. You want it to be true, so you will never seek out information that contradicts it. I get the impression that you've never read a primary source written from within the Muslim empire. You've been told these things, but you're too intellectually lazy to wonder if they might be lies, misunderstandings, and myths. If you want to be spoonfed you interpretation of history instead of researching it yourself, that's your business. But don't claim to have knowledge of history if second hand accounts and Crusades-era anti-Islam propaganda are the shaky foundation you want to build your worldview on.
Once again, the image of Islam would be seriously shaken if you read something written by scholars, like No God but God or After the Prophet, or Orientalism. Unfortunately it's pretty clear that you lack the curiosity to verify what you believe.
As for whether or not Christian is any more real in the finale than in the first episodes, we receive a straightforward explanation as to why he appears in the island timeline, and a straightforward explanation as to why he appears in the finale. Seems difficult to debate.
I think a lot of the resistance to your theory is coming from the fact, as the creators insisted throughout the run of the series, Lost was a character-based show. The mythology of the island and the genre elements were a lot of fun, but the characters were meant to be the main event.
If the entirety of the series is taking place in Jack's head, it negates the importance of the very large cast; including the favorite characters of many (if not most) of the viewers. Further, a major thematic concern of the series is the dichotomy of "us vs. them," and the manner in which this breaks down given familiarity with those around us -- naturally, this theme cannot exist if all is within Jack's mind. Finally, the series presentation of the afterlife in season 6 is entirely based on the idea that what is most important in life is those around us ("nobody does it alone"), and that we should embrace others, no matter what that circumstances are that bring us together.
You mentioned an interest in the literary traditions Lost mentions; you might be interested in Edward Said's literary criticism, in particular his work on "Orientalism". This concerns the creation of an "Other," the implications of which should be clear with regard to its relation to the series, and a vital thematic element which must be negated if all is within Jack's head.
Sidebar: thanks for taking the time to continue the discussion here. Even though I disagree with your theory, the discourse surrounding the show always has been (and continues to be) the best thing about the series, and a large part of what makes it so worthwhile.
It would be well worth your time to read Orientalism by Edward Said.
The bro force has come out to defend this fetishization.
If you want to take the academic/intellectual high road then at least read Edward Said's Orientalism to understand why people are criticizing this post. The crux of his argument is every bit as applicable here.
Yes. https://smile.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X
It's important to look at modern Muslim-majority nations within the context of post-colonialism, and it's also important to note the biases of western media, authors, and audiences when discussing. The fact that you think that Muslims cannot objectively comment on on narrate their own histories or politics is a really problematic point of view. Do you think western perspectives on Islamic societies are unbiased towards and unaffected by western colonialist and imperialist involvement in said societies? Do you seek out Muslim, Chinese, Russian, or African narrations of western history and society too? Deeming non-western narratives of and contributions to historical or political discourse, among many other subjects, as being deficient is frankly a hallmark of western exceptionalism.
As for the first topic, the subject is really broad, and each Muslim-majority country has its own post-colonial narrative, but The Oxford History of Islam has three chapters specifically dealing with what you're trying to learn about - Ch 13 European Colonialism and the Emergence of Modern Muslim States, Ch 14 The Globalization of Islam, & Ch 15 Contemporary Islam: Challenges and Opportunities. Keep in mind though that this book just scratches the surface in terms of covering the historical development of modern-day Muslim states and the discussion doesn't really delve into the details of each individual country.
Secondly, I think you should maybe read some work by Edward Said. Specifically, you should look at Orientalism and Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. Orientalism is a critique of western perspectives on and representations of eastern societies. Covering Islam is a bit more specific obviously, and it analyzes objectivity of western narratives on modern-day Islam and Muslim-majority society.
Actually, you know what, if you want some real perspective on the matter read this book
Related.
Mmm... ideas of civilized/uncivilized still exist today (War Hawks in DC/Dawkins quote/Fedora wearing redditors). These distinctions, ideas of the other, racial difference, are precisely what allowed colonialism to take place. That and theft of an unbelievable amount of resources from other nations. Hell, civilizing language is used still today to justify bombing places from Yemen, to Pakistan. So your point about how this racist language is of some distant past is pretty mistaken.
Western liberalism, not really what it has been made out to be for people in the third world.
Worth checking out
[1.] (http://www.amazon.com/Colonising-Egypt-Timothy-Mitchell/dp/0520075684)
[2.] (https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/questions-of-modernity)
[3.] (http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=5403)
[4.] (http://www.amazon.com/Genealogies-Religion-Discipline-Reasons-Christianity/dp/0801846323)
[5.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039474067X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687562&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0801846323&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1KMC8521248PRF1SVZWR)
[6.] (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Imperialism-Edward-W-Said/dp/0679750541/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0DGP4PNK0H2QA1BP0STF)
The very recent Western civilization (if it could in fact be called a civilization) has a tendency to project it's own modern standards onto the entire history of mankind, as if it's the one and only proper worldview, according to whose standards every other past and present civilization on Earth must be judged. I challenge you to go read Orientalism by Edward Said to try to ameliorate any such unfelt tendencies. And don't worry, even the colonized end up measuring their own worldviews by the colonizer's standards, given the inferiority complex resulting post-colonization.
What I'm trying to say is that when you want to judge any far away culture (in time OR space) from your own, be very careful what elements you measure by your specific modern standards, and what elements you should judge by their distant standards. The prophet ﷺ was under constant attack by his enemies at the time, and his possible marriage to a 9 year old (many sources actually say 19, others 14, others 12 btw, but of course, the media will want to stick with the youngest of these), or the fact that he married multiple women weren't ones of the points of attack. Let that tell you something for starters: that both practices were considered normal at the time.
On another note, do you think a 9 year old female (or male for that matter) of 6th century Arabia would be the same as a 9 year old female in modern California, for instance? I'm talking in terms of maturity. Even today, have you ever met aboriginals? beduins? any community that still have not become completely westwashed and modernized? I have. And their 12 year old women can put our 21 year old women to shame in their maturity. Same with men, btw. At 21 years old, Mohammad alFatih led the Muslim army into Constantinople. There are many other examples. My own great grandmother, Syrian, married when she was 14.
Polygamy makes evolutionary sense more than polyandry, and our species have always been polygamous. So this, again, will have to be measured not by our current modern Western standards.
Actually, at the time of the prophet ﷺ, Islam came and limited polygamy to 4 wives, when the number was unlimited and when they had nothing to ensure the rights of the wives to inheritence and custody of children etc. Islam came to curb that and provided specific details about their rights.
I advise you also to read about the different understandings of "marriage" across human history. The model we're currently living (the marriage of romance and feelings) is but one of many in the genealogy of this institution.
Do you know anything about the wives of the Prophet ﷺ? We call them the Mothers of the Believers in Islam. Why don't you read and get to know them and understand the relationship going on in 6th century Arabia? For example, one of the common reasons behind marriage in premodern civilizations was for bigger tribal/societal reasons, like ending decade-long feuds between tribes and building alliances. Not to mention, marrying to provide divorced women and widows a safe haven to belong to a family and community.
That's not to say there was no love or beautiful romance. Go read about the Prophet's love to his first wife: Khadija, who was actually his employer at the time; one of the biggest business women of Mecca. Go read about his love for this wife Aisha you speak of. Talk about romance? He used to drink from the same spot where she placed her lips. They used to race and she'd always win (until she gained some weight, peace be upon her soul XD and he won for the first time.) He once ordered the entire army to stop and look for her necklace. She used to climb on his back and watch Africans dances when they come to Mecca. When he was dying, he asked the permission of his other wives that he be nursed and end his life in her appartment on her lap. He asked her for siwak before he died which she moisturized with her own mouth.
This Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) became one of the most prominent scholars of Islam, she was the scholar of scholars. The love story of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and Aisha is one of the most beautiful stories of Muslim civilization.
Read a book.
The shallowness people call out in Danys plot and character in the east is due to the very overused western trope, Orientalism.
As great as Martin is he does have to resort to this literary style with her because otherwise she would have no purpose for the first few books/seasons. It offers substance to a plot that western entertainment can grab on to.
It boils down to the idea that her atrocities as a super white and perfect and westerosi raised person and a young women to boot, are justified because what the ordered "normal" west do in terms of culture and law are the "correct" ways in our minds and in the character minds of the West. And that the east are in news of this reform regardless of how harsh it comes off as. Because they are considered, lower, more savage and animalistic. The examples in the show are everywhere.
Examples in western entertainment are everywhere too, one that everyone can relate to is the scene in Indiana Jones when Indie squares off with the masked "Arab" who is too I'll educated to not back down from a gun fight with a knife, and he pays.
An anthropologist Edward Seid coined the trope.
https://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X
I'm just going to leave this here
Weren't we done with this type of imagery ?
https://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X
Not sure how you could take Asian history courses without being introduced to this, but if you haven't read it, I suggest you do. If you have, I find it bizarre you would make a mod like this...
I seriously doubt that was the problem that they had with using simplified definitions over nuanced ones (and yeah, there's a big, important difference between or-ee-ent-tal-ism and Orientalism) in a discussion that was clearly complicated enough to call for them was that those were the "white man's" definitions. Unless, of course, you went to college in a blaxploitation movie, in which case I have so, so many more questions for you.