Orientalism as a Tool of Colonialism

[asianobserve]

Please give me some concrete examples rather than meaningless abstractions. There is no change in "culture" - eating burgers and wearing faded jeans is not what constitutes "Western culture" and "westernization". An example of true "westernization" and adoption of "Western culture" would be the profound sociopolitical changes that Turkey underwent under Ataturk, such as the enforcement of secularism and dissolution of the Caliphate, introduction of a constitutional government and the rule of law, institutionalization of liberal democracy, and even the replacement of Arabic script with Latin script. We see nothing similar to this in places like West Asia and China; what we have instead are people who dress the same as Americans, eat much of the same food as Americans, listen to the same music, etc. but whose actual values and worldviews remain quite different. There is no "universal civilization" in the making.

As Energon stated globalization is still in its infancy. But make no mistake the trend is irreversible. I think however that globalization is not only one-directional, ie. from the West to the East. More and more Asian influences are permeating the West from food, religious practices, even business models. But of course the liberating ideas from the West like democracy will be more pervasive.

Of course nationalism fueled the protests in Egypt. The whole idea of nationalism is that the people (the nation) constitute the polity (the state), that the state should work in the interests of the nation rather than for the small group of people that make up the ruling elite, and that the state should continue to exist irrespective of whoever is ruling in the government. Nationalism by nature is inextricably linked with the masses; the Egyptian people were opposed to a foreign-backed government that increasingly failed to meet the needs of the nation (the people) and therefore demanded its ouster. You can draw a direct parallel to the French Revolution, which was (AFAIK) the first true nationalist revolution.

I would also like you to explain to me why tens of thousands of Egyptians were waving national flags and carrying signs saying "We Love Egypt" and other such slogans, if their protests had nothing to do with nationalism.

Don't be fooled by the flag waivings. Note that Mubarak is always officially photographed with the Egyptian flag behind him -

And also note that his supporters too were waiving the Egyptian flag -

I don't think you can argue that Mubarak and his supporters were less nationalistic than the forces that ousted him/them.

What about the cultural and political divide of the forces that ousted Mubarak after the revolution? So now the same people are no longer feeling nationalistic since they're already at each other's throat?

The fact is that nationalism as a feeling will always be present among people in a nation. All people have this feeling from the "elites" to the "middle class" to the "masses," the prominence of this feeling may vary among people but not among classes (I don't believe that nationalism is naturally more prominent among the masses). But what is in question is the dominance of this feeling as globalization progresses. I am of the humble opinion that nationalism will take a back seat more and more as people becomes more affluent and globalized.

 

[civfanatic]

As Energon stated globalization is still in its infancy. But make no mistake the trend is irreversible. I think however that globalization is not only one-directional, ie. from the West to the East. More and more Asian influences are permeating the West from food, religious practices, even business models. But of course the liberating ideas from the West like democracy will be more pervasive.

Wake me up in 10 or 15 or 50 years when you have some concrete examples of societies throughout the world "westernizing" because of globalization. Until you provide such examples, I see no reason to believe anything you have said. The people who think globalization will produce some kind of uniform global culture are in for a surprise. The world in the 21st century and beyond will remain culturally heterogeneous and differences between civilizations and cultures will persist. The increased levels of communication between peoples across the world may make us wiser and more informed than our predecessors, but it will not make us all the "same".

I don't think you can argue that Mubarak and his supporters were less nationalistic than the forces that ousted him/them.

Did I ever argue that? I argued that those Egyptians who did protest against Mubarak were spurred by nationalism. The Egyptians who supported Mubarak may have also been spurred by nationalism. The perception of the state in the eyes of the people is not uniform, and different people are bound to have different views on the direction in which the nation-state should head. A good example is the fact that in America, the Democrats and Republicans disagree on many issues but both are undeniably patriotic and nationalistic. You see plenty of flag-waving at both Democrat and Republican rallies.

What matters in the case of Egypt, however, is that the majority of Egyptians were opposed to Mubarak and those who supported him (for whatever reason) were in the minority. The Egyptian people as a whole clearly wanted a change of government, meaning they thought that Mubarak and his regime was not acting in the best interests of the Egyptian nation-state.

What about the cultural and political divide of the forces that ousted Mubarak after the revolution? So now the same people are no longer feeling nationalistic since they're already at each other's throat?

What cultural divide, and who is at each other's throat? The Muslim Brotherhood? The Islamists are not nationalists and never can be; Pan-Islamism and nationalism are two antithetical ideals. They despise Egypt and all other nation-states.

 

[asianobserve]

What cultural divide, and who is at each other's throat? The Muslim Brotherhood? The Islamists are not nationalists and never can be; Pan-Islamism and nationalism are two antithetical ideals. They despise Egypt and all other nation-states.

But you said the protesters in Tahrir Square, of which the Muslim Brotherhood mustered the most numbers, we're inspired to do so because of "nationalism?"

Did I ever argue that? I argued that those Egyptians who did protest against Mubarak were spurred by nationalism.

 

[blank_quest]

Nationalism is regime specific. A citizen will be more nationalistic under one regime and less under the other. Its like being supporter of Left or Right. A left wing supporter would be More Nationalistic and a GOOD citizen under Communist regime and more so a Right Winged under Theocratic regime..

 

[civfanatic]

But you said the protesters in Tahrir Square, of which the Muslim Brotherhood mustered the most numbers, we're inspired to do so because of "nationalism?"

Not all protesters in Tahrir Square were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Most were simply young nationalistic Egyptians who wanted change. In fact, as we speak, there are ongoing protests by hundreds of thousands of Egyptians against Mohammad Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamists. Those Egyptians are the true nationalists.

 

[blank_quest]

Not all protesters in Tahrir Square were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Most were simply young nationalistic Egyptians who wanted change. In fact, as we speak, there are ongoing protests by hundreds of thousands of Egyptians against Mohammad Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Those Egyptians are the true nationalists.

There can be no "one" true nationalism. Every nationalism is true in itself. it just varies in degrees.

 

[asianobserve]

Not all protesters in Tahrir Square were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Most were simply young nationalistic Egyptians who wanted change. In fact, as we speak, there are ongoing protests by hundreds of thousands of Egyptians against Mohammad Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamists. Those Egyptians are the true nationalists.

That's true. But the bulk of the protesters that ousted Mubarak were from the Muslim Brotherhood. The protesters now in Tahrir against Morsi are mostly young urbanised Egyptians who want the freedoms enjoyed by their peers in democratic countries (if you ask me a strong proof of globalization) under a real liberal democracy.

 

[civfanatic]

There can be no "one" true nationalism. Every nationalism is true in itself. it just varies in degrees.

First understand what "nationalism" means. I attempted to give a definition in Post #20.

Nationalism and Islamism are incompatible.

 

[asianobserve]

First understand what "nationalism" means. I attempted to give a definition in Post #20.

Nationalism and Islamism are incompatible.

These are pictures of rallies by Islamic Brotherhood in support of Morsi -

The scenes are awash with Egyptian flags...



My humble opinion is that these Muslim Brotherhood are also feeling nationalistic (and they are).

 

[blank_quest]

First understand what "nationalism" means. I attempted to give a definition in Post #20.

Nationalism and Islamism are incompatible.

If I don't know I would be happy to learn. The point is that the Leaning of the Political affiliation and the the present Regime decides the Nationalism. Nationalism arises in correlation of synergy of Regime and the will of the people to abide by it. Nationalism is not a static entity, Regimes do decides the Nationalism level in the people. don't confuse b/w Patriotism and Nationalism. "Patriotism is based on affection and nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. One can say that nationalism is militant by nature and patriotism is based on peace."

 

[civfanatic]

These are pictures of rallies by Islamic Brotherhood in support of Morsi -
Morsi are mostly young urbanised Egyptians who want the freedoms enjoyed by their peers in democratic countries (if you ask me a strong proof of globalization) under a real liberal democracy.

The Egyptian protesters want a modernized country, not necessarily a Westernized one. As Energon stated before, there is a distinction between the two terms.

Also, can you cite me some source that the bulk of protesters that ousted Mubarak were from the Muslim Brotherhood? Thanks in advance.

My humble opinion is that these Muslim Brotherhood are also feeling nationalistic (and they are).

The average Egyptians who support Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are probably just conservatives rather than actual Islamists. This is what real Islamists believe in:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...g-calls-islamists-egypt-destroy-pyramids.html

Accordingly, while many Egyptians—Muslims and non-Muslims alike—see themselves as Egyptians, Islamists have no national identity, identifying only with Islam's "culture," based on the "sunna" of the prophet and Islam's language, Arabic. This sentiment was clearly reflected when the former Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Akef, declared "the hell with Egypt," indicating that the interests of his country are secondary to Islam's.

Doesn't seem like a very nationalistic thing to say, does it?

 

[asianobserve]

The Egyptian protesters want a modernized country, not necessarily a Westernized one. As Energon stated before, there is a distinction between the two terms.

Did I say such thing? Anyway, I think you're misreading what the "Egyptians" want, or to be more precise you're confusing the 2 major groups of anti-Mubarak Egyptians from another. The bigger and more solid one, the Muslim Brotherhood, wants Egypt to be Islamized while the more fractious and smaller one wants Egypt to be liberal democratic and freer.

Also, can you cite me some source that the bulk of protesters that ousted Mubarak were from the Muslim Brotherhood? Thanks in advance.

And can you show me sources that conclusively says that the majority of the protesters that ousted Mubarak are not from the Muslim Brotherhood? All I know is that Morsi won in the election (this should tell you about the extent of the membership or at least popular support of this group, members that no doubt were in Tahrir Square during the anti-Mubarak rallies).

The average Egyptians who support Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are probably just conservatives rather than actual Islamists. This is what real Islamists believe in:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...g-calls-islamists-egypt-destroy-pyramids.html



Doesn't seem like a very nationalistic thing to say, does it?

So you're earlier claims about nationalism driving the anti-Mubarak forces was not correct then?

 

[civfanatic]

Did I say such thing? Anyway, I think you're misreading what the "Egyptians" want, or to be more precise you're confusing the 2 major groups of anti-Mubarak Egyptians from another.

You were claiming earlier that globalization would lead to a "confluence of culture" and, presumably, the spread of Western culture. I am saying it won't, since the spread of modernity (which is bound to happen) is not synonymous with Westernization or the spread of Western culture.

I do not deny the role that globalization can play in bringing diverse peoples together, by making communication and interaction between them easier. What I dispute is the notion that globalization will lead to Western culture spreading over the planet and the creation of some kind of homogeneous "universal" culture, based on Western culture. Globalization will lead to increased emphasis on multiculturalism and coexistence, not the removal of differences between cultures.

And can you show me sources that conclusively says that the majority of the protesters that ousted Mubarak are not from the Muslim Brotherhood?
All I know is that Morsi won in the election (this should tell you about the extent of the membership of this group, members that no doubt were in Tahrir Square during the anti-Mubarak rallies).

WTF? It was you who made the claim that the majority of anti-Mubarak protesters were from the Muslim Brotherhood, and so the burden of proof is on you to support your claim. If you can't support the claim, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

In the Egyptian presidential elections last year, Morsi won only 51.7% of the vote, while the opposing candidate Ahmad Shafik won 48.3%. If we use these ratios to derive the proportion of anti-Mubarak protesters who were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, as you suggest, it would mean that only about half of the protesters were backers of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hardly a great "majority".

So you're earlier claims about nationalism driving the anti-Mubarak forces was not correct then?

No, because it is also possible for some right-wing nationalists to support the Muslim Brotherhood due to a lack of better options (from their perspective). As stated before, many Egyptian conservatives who are uncomfortable with the "liberalism" being demanded by the youth may chose to vote for the Islamist parties, even if their own beliefs do not align completely with those of the Islamists. But this doesn't change the fact that the ideology of Islamism espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood is fundamentally opposed to nationalism, as it advocates the supremacy of Islam over all nation-states.

Moreover, I see no reason to believe that a vast majority of the anti-Mubarak forces were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist parties, since you have failed to provide sources proving this.

 

[Bhadra]

Actually, the point that Said makes in the video is that Western nations (or at least, the Western public at large) are grossly uninformed about the "East" (which is not a collective entity in the first place) and that the general views of the West towards the "East" are still tainted and distorted by what Said calls "Orientalism", which he identifies as the ideological counterpart of colonialism which emerged in the 19th century. I agree that seething over past "wrongs" is a waste of time, but this video is not about that. The video is about a contemporary issue with roots in recent history, namely the problems in the depiction and image of the "East" in contemporary Western media.

I do recommend watching the video.

Mr Said has described "Orientalism" to mean Western and now American dipiction and understanding of the Middle East and the Arab Muslim world. His focus is Islam Vs the West.

The word "Orientalism" covers much largers canvass to include western dipiction amd understanding of India, Hinduism, Far East, Budhism and China.

The central theme that it is coloured vision of Colonialism is absolutely correct and tainable. It is an extension of Imperialism's ideas of " Poor Man's Burdon" or "White Man's Burdon".

"The Poor Man's Burden": Labor Lampoons Kipling


The same idea is well dipicted in "A Passage to India" (1924) a novel by English author E. M. Forster.

Indology distorted Indian history, literature and Indian systems many a times to justfy English rule or rather to perpetuate the same including the permanent division they created between the Hindus and the Muslims in the subcontinent. Like Indian system of Thuggery was very well publicised to annex Central India to British Raj as an act of Whitemans burdon.

But Mr Said views are tunneled and confined to Islam.

 

[asianobserve]

You were claiming earlier that globalization would lead to a "confluence of culture" and, presumably, the spread of Western culture. I am saying it won't, since the spread of modernity (which is bound to happen) is not synonymous with Westernization or the spread of Western culture.

I did not define globalization as Westernization although it's incontrovertible that it's principally driven by Western values. What I said it's leading to a confluence of cultures or values.

Globalization will lead to increased emphasis on multiculturalism and coexistence, not the removal of differences between cultures.

That's why I said nationalism will take a back seat since national identities are not going to be totally erased.

WTF? It was you who made the claim that the majority of anti-Mubarak protesters were from the Muslim Brotherhood, and so the burden of proof is on you to support your claim. If you can't support the claim, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

In the Egyptian presidential elections last year, Morsi won only 51.7% of the vote, while the opposing candidate Ahmad Shafik won 48.3%. If we use these ratios to derive the proportion of anti-Mubarak protesters who were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, as you suggest, it would mean that only about half of the protesters were backers of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hardly a great "majority".

No, because it is also possible for some right-wing nationalists to support the Muslim Brotherhood due to a lack of better options (from their perspective). As stated before, many Egyptian conservatives who are uncomfortable with the "liberalism" being demanded by the youth may chose to vote for the Islamist parties, even if their own beliefs do not align completely with those of the Islamists. But this doesn't change the fact that the ideology of Islamism espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood is fundamentally opposed to nationalism, as it advocates the supremacy of Islam over all nation-states.

Moreover, I see no reason to believe that a vast majority if the anti-Mubarak forces were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist parties, since you have failed to provide sources proving this.

Look whose making unsubstantiated "assertions?" At least my claim is supported by the outcome of the Presidential election in Egypt. How about yours?

 

[asianobserve]

@ civfanatic

Anyway, since you yourself has admitted that "globalization" will lead to "multicultural" with emphasis on "coexistence" why do we still need "Pan-Orientalism?"

 

[asianobserve]

err: not "Pan-Orientalism" but "Pan-Asianism"

 

[afako]

I have no idea what you're trying to say

Once the 'Nations' as an entity represented by an Official Government and as a member of UN/League of Nations were Formed, does past get erased?
You mean to say there is no connection between What happened 100 Years back and Today?

Your attempt to disconnect the Past does not Work here!

Your Mindset, Your Thought Process, Your Outlook towards History, Your View of Others (Read West) everything is defined by certain events in History affecting you which has been the Guiding Force of your Actions will today and will continue to be.

What you are attempting is a Western Taqqiya.

 

[civfanatic]

I did not define globalization as Westernization although it's incontrovertible that it's principally driven by Western values. What I said it's leading to a confluence of cultures or values.

There will be increased awareness of different cultures and increased contact between them, and with the increased awareness and intercultural contact will come a certain exchange of ideas. But there will be no wholesale adoption of Western values by non-Westerners. Civilizations and nation-states will continue to exist and will continue to shape history.

Look whose making unsubstantiated "assertions?" At least my claim is supported by the outcome of the Presidential election in Egypt. How about yours?

What assertions are you referring to?

If you are referring to the outcomes of the 2012 Egyptian presidential elections, they are not exactly a secret.

Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi declared president of Egypt | World news | guardian.co.uk

Sixteen months after the fall of his predecessor, the dictator Hosni Mubarak, official election results gave Morsi, a US-educated engineer, 51.7% of the vote against 48.3% for his rival, Ahmed Shafiq, a former prime minister under Mubarak. The turnout was reported to be 51.6%

 

[afako]

I did not define globalization as Westernization although it's incontrovertible that it's principally driven by Western values. What I said it's leading to a confluence of cultures or values.

Define Western Values?