Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnirizon
As a fervent subscriber to postcolonial theory, I have to mention this book is Orientalism 
so typical of the French... |
So is:..."so typical of the French"
vis-a-vis Anglo-Saxon modalities vs romance or more specifically Gaulist ones.
In fact if you are sufficiently fervent its difficult to comment on any other culture except to grovel at its superiority in every fashion to ones own.
Which renders it rather puerile doesn't it? Said himself said Shakespeare was the same (orientalism) - yet even were it so (and I disagree) its as if saying Shakespeare was devoid of merit because he told a story from a certain point of view. Neglecting the validity of that view, the power of the prose, the compelling nature of the story.
*Every* author brings preconceived notions and points of view. Focusing every discourse through the prism of a politically correct prism is rather like interjecting discussion about ones medical ailments into a dinner party.
Finally, I've always been slightly offended by labelling especially when the point is to prevent expression or prejudice acceptance. Putting it succinctly: Ok - the book may present a story from the point of view of the french..
So what?
Why is a *french* or occidental, or ulan batorian mindset inferior to any other, or make the book anything less of a good read?
The idea of Orientalism, itself suffers from several criticisms. Borrowing from Wiki:
a). Langer: 'Orientalism assumes that Western imperialism, Western psychological projection, "and its harmful political consequences are something that only the West does to the East rather than something all societies do to one another." '
b. Langer again paraphrased: How useful is Said's "dramatic assertion that no European or American scholar could `know` the Orient."
c. 'Ibn Warraq complains Said's belief that all truth was relative undermined his credibility'
d. Said] finally admitted that he had "no interest in, much less capacity for, showing what the true Orient and Islam really are.