Right Wing Discussion Thread The Fourth

[Dushan]

On that note however, I think that today his book has even more value than it did in the past. How much do we really know about the Orient today compared to 50 years ago even? How much more has mass media shaped our cultural perspectives and stamped its authority on the way we view things? I would argue that it has even more so today. The sort of portrayal of the ME as weak and decadent has only spread. Just ask people on how they think Arabs should be governed. You'll find alot more saying "they can't understand democracy and need a strong leader" than I think you would in the past.

I think that is very true in quite some ways. Current Media coverage is - safe from some exceptions like Robert Fisk, whose Independent column I can wholeheartly recommand - kinda biased in the one or other way. Either they're going indepth to explain why Islam is the Religion of Peace or why it is evil. Historical or Regional connections are completly disregarded and only mentioned if they do fit into the main narrative.

Most of my knowledge about the Middle East, Orient and ultimatively Arab world and Islam is comming from the Books of Peter Scholl-Latour, a german-french Author who published afaik mostly in german language. To my knowledge none of his Books but the Vietnam one have been translated.

[Minzerland II]

Well, I've never read it, but I've heard of it.

Not a bad read so far. Prose is a little dense though.

I've only read a summary, one moment, I might be able to find it.

EDIT: Ah, here it is: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B07bsm ... JZVUE/edit

I only read the first page however, due to the writing being prose.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Yeah...heheh...Said and Chomsky and such...How delightful...Such intelligent commentators. Really. I love it when Leftist Liberals try to defend good causes. Because they always just do such a good job and totally don't ruin it for anyone else trying to actually give valid, useful commentary on the subject. Haaa.

[Bakery Hill]

Yar, the book and the concept by Edward Said.

Yes I have read it and I do agree with much the ideas in his book. I do disagree with his blanket assertions on European writing and analysis of the Orient though. For myself, I have found that the old British books of Empire on culture or experiences of travelers had great value to myself. Infact, I would argue that while his book had a very valid point, it has caused a chilling effect on Western literature coming out about the region. When I say chilling, authors are totally afraid to give their frank opinion or record the totality of every thing they had seen. I know that when I went there the first time, I was totally unprepared. It was only afterwards that I learned how little I knew and took steps to educate myself accordingly. I had to pay quite a pretty penny for some out print books to get familiar with things the right way. Thankfully, things haven't changed too much in a hundred years or so it wasn't so bad.

Interesting. Need to be a balance I suppose where Westerner travellers can give frank opinions on what they're witnessing, while being conscious of their own biases?

On that note however, I think that today his book has even more value than it did in the past. How much do we really know about the Orient today compared to 50 years ago even? How much more has mass media shaped our cultural perspectives and stamped its authority on the way we view things? I would argue that it has even more so today. The sort of portrayal of the ME as weak and decadent has only spread. Just ask people on how they think Arabs should be governed. You'll find alot more saying "they can't understand democracy and need a strong leader" than I think you would in the past.

This is where I'm really agreeing with what he's writing. You can't help but see the correlation between what's going on in media and culture and the heightened interest in the Middle Eastern world with the advent of the War on Terror. I reckon you can see the dividends of this in the rhetoric of people like Trump, Le Pen, Farage and Hanson etc. But maybe that's too long a bow to draw.

[Bakery Hill]

Any of you lot know much about Orientalism?

Heard about it, know the general concept, as well as its criticisms. Have yet to read it for myself, unfortunately.

Very relevant to what's going on in the colonialism thread at the moment haha

[The East Marches]

On that note however, I think that today his book has even more value than it did in the past. How much do we really know about the Orient today compared to 50 years ago even? How much more has mass media shaped our cultural perspectives and stamped its authority on the way we view things? I would argue that it has even more so today. The sort of portrayal of the ME as weak and decadent has only spread. Just ask people on how they think Arabs should be governed. You'll find alot more saying "they can't understand democracy and need a strong leader" than I think you would in the past.

I think that is very true in quite some ways. Current Media coverage is - safe from some exceptions like Robert Fisk, whose Independent column I can wholeheartly recommand - kinda biased in the one or other way. Either they're going indepth to explain why Islam is the Religion of Peace or why it is evil. Historical or Regional connections are completly disregarded and only mentioned if they do fit into the main narrative.

Most of my knowledge about the Middle East, Orient and ultimatively Arab world and Islam is comming from the Books of Peter Scholl-Latour, a german-french Author who published afaik mostly in german language. To my knowledge none of his Books but the Vietnam one have been translated.

I concur, I have not read Scholl-Latour's work on the ME and my German is quite rusty. It would be very unsuitable for reading a proper author like that. I'd write my own book about my experiences in the area "Adventures in my Youth: Mistakes were Made" but I doubt a publisher would want to pick it up for the reason that it might be a bit too honest.

[Bakery Hill]

Yes I have read it and I do agree with much the ideas in his book. I do disagree with his blanket assertions on European writing and analysis of the Orient though. For myself, I have found that the old British books of Empire on culture or experiences of travelers had great value to myself. Infact, I would argue that while his book had a very valid point, it has caused a chilling effect on Western literature coming out about the region. When I say chilling, authors are totally afraid to give their frank opinion or record the totality of every thing they had seen. I know that when I went there the first time, I was totally unprepared. It was only afterwards that I learned how little I knew and took steps to educate myself accordingly. I had to pay quite a pretty penny for some out print books to get familiar with things the right way. Thankfully, things haven't changed too much in a hundred years or so it wasn't so bad.

On that note however, I think that today his book has even more value than it did in the past. How much do we really know about the Orient today compared to 50 years ago even? How much more has mass media shaped our cultural perspectives and stamped its authority on the way we view things? I would argue that it has even more so today. The sort of portrayal of the ME as weak and decadent has only spread. Just ask people on how they think Arabs should be governed. You'll find alot more saying "they can't understand democracy and need a strong leader" than I think you would in the past.

The decadent part is only for the Gulf states as well, and it's to bribe the populace essentially. It is rather infuriating that people conflate the Gulf states with the rest of the wider ME.

Orientalism is all about conflation though isn't it? We as 'the West' attempting to understand this generalised 'East'. Should we surprised when our generalisations about Arabs, Muslims etc. turn out to be inaccurate? Is that, to an extent, their purpose?

[Bakery Hill]

On that note however, I think that today his book has even more value than it did in the past. How much do we really know about the Orient today compared to 50 years ago even? How much more has mass media shaped our cultural perspectives and stamped its authority on the way we view things? I would argue that it has even more so today. The sort of portrayal of the ME as weak and decadent has only spread. Just ask people on how they think Arabs should be governed. You'll find alot more saying "they can't understand democracy and need a strong leader" than I think you would in the past.

I think that is very true in quite some ways. Current Media coverage is - safe from some exceptions like Robert Fisk, whose Independent column I can wholeheartly recommand - kinda biased in the one or other way. Either they're going indepth to explain why Islam is the Religion of Peace or why it is evil. Historical or Regional connections are completly disregarded and only mentioned if they do fit into the main narrative.

Most of my knowledge about the Middle East, Orient and ultimatively Arab world and Islam is comming from the Books of Peter Scholl-Latour, a german-french Author who published afaik mostly in german language. To my knowledge none of his Books but the Vietnam one have been translated.

Speaking from a far left perspective this is unbearably annoying thing to hear from more liberal commentators.

[Bakery Hill]

Yeah...heheh...Said and Chomsky and such...How delightful...Such intelligent commentators. Really. I love it when Leftist Liberals try to defend good causes. Because they always just do such a good job and totally don't ruin it for anyone else trying to actually give valid, useful commentary on the subject. Haaa.

Is there some sarcasm here?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

The decadent part is only for the Gulf states as well, and it's to bribe the populace essentially. It is rather infuriating that people conflate the Gulf states with the rest of the wider ME.

Orientalism is all about conflation though isn't it? We as 'the West' attempting to understand this generalised 'East'. Should we surprised when our generalisations about Arabs, Muslims etc. turn out to be inaccurate? Is that, to an extent, their purpose?

You should witness some of the generalisations that 'The East' have for 'The West', Hong Kong was a fun time.

[The East Marches]

Yes I have read it and I do agree with much the ideas in his book. I do disagree with his blanket assertions on European writing and analysis of the Orient though. For myself, I have found that the old British books of Empire on culture or experiences of travelers had great value to myself. Infact, I would argue that while his book had a very valid point, it has caused a chilling effect on Western literature coming out about the region. When I say chilling, authors are totally afraid to give their frank opinion or record the totality of every thing they had seen. I know that when I went there the first time, I was totally unprepared. It was only afterwards that I learned how little I knew and took steps to educate myself accordingly. I had to pay quite a pretty penny for some out print books to get familiar with things the right way. Thankfully, things haven't changed too much in a hundred years or so it wasn't so bad.

Interesting. Need to be a balance I suppose where Westerner travellers can give frank opinions on what they're witnessing, while being conscious of their own biases?

Its entirely possible I think to pull off such a project I think. Whether or not such a thing would get published is another matter entirely. The big problem is as another poster noted, there is no independent path that can be tread in the current climate.

On that note however, I think that today his book has even more value than it did in the past. How much do we really know about the Orient today compared to 50 years ago even? How much more has mass media shaped our cultural perspectives and stamped its authority on the way we view things? I would argue that it has even more so today. The sort of portrayal of the ME as weak and decadent has only spread. Just ask people on how they think Arabs should be governed. You'll find alot more saying "they can't understand democracy and need a strong leader" than I think you would in the past.

This is where I'm really agreeing with what he's writing. You can't help but see the correlation between what's going on in media and culture and the heightened interest in the Middle Eastern world with the advent of the War on Terror. I reckon you can see the dividends of this in the rhetoric of people like Trump, Le Pen, Farage and Hanson etc. But maybe that's too long a bow to draw.

Yes, yes I can. My thoughts on the current crisis aside, it is rather telling that despite the refugees disparate origins, they are all treated as being apart of the same amorphous blob or mass. Especially with the War on Terror. What we (America) and by default our media machine sought was an easily identifiable enemy. To distinguish between Sunni/Shia or to admit the Afghanistan isn't really a country so much as it a patchwork of varying tribes would be too much effort. Instead, its easier to present a generic face to the masses to hate.

[Napkiraly]

The decadent part is only for the Gulf states as well, and it's to bribe the populace essentially. It is rather infuriating that people conflate the Gulf states with the rest of the wider ME.

Orientalism is all about conflation though isn't it? We as 'the West' attempting to understand this generalised 'East'. Should we surprised when our generalisations about Arabs, Muslims etc. turn out to be inaccurate? Is that, to an extent, their purpose?

To be frank, I think it's a human condition. We conflate various parts and people's about in our own corner of the world. Same as they do to us in the East with their conflations of Europe. We tend to generalise as it makes our lives easier and allows us to make quick decisions when needed. It most likely has its roots in surviving the harsh wilderness.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Yeah...heheh...Said and Chomsky and such...How delightful...Such intelligent commentators. Really. I love it when Leftist Liberals try to defend good causes. Because they always just do such a good job and totally don't ruin it for anyone else trying to actually give valid, useful commentary on the subject. Haaa.

Is there some sarcasm here?

Whaaa? Where.

[Napkiraly]

Heard about it, know the general concept, as well as its criticisms. Have yet to read it for myself, unfortunately.

Very relevant to what's going on in the colonialism thread at the moment haha

Indeed, it is. I should note that I'm not in favour of colonialism as it was generally practiced during the age of European imperialism in the 19th century. I would only be willing to implement colonialism of a kind reminiscent of the Roman model with a number of tweaks. It however, is rather unrealistic and idealistic for our current world. C'est la vie.

I've also always maintained that imperialism should only be a phase that eventually gives way to equality between the state that was the target of imperialism and the one was pursuing imperialism (if the former state still exists). So that empire gives way to commonwealth.

[Bakery Hill]

Orientalism is all about conflation though isn't it? We as 'the West' attempting to understand this generalised 'East'. Should we surprised when our generalisations about Arabs, Muslims etc. turn out to be inaccurate? Is that, to an extent, their purpose?

You should witness some of the generalisations that 'The East' have for 'The West', Hong Kong was a fun time.

That's addressed in the book too. Occidentalism and self-Orientalism. Haven't got to that yet.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Orientalism is all about conflation though isn't it? We as 'the West' attempting to understand this generalised 'East'. Should we surprised when our generalisations about Arabs, Muslims etc. turn out to be inaccurate? Is that, to an extent, their purpose?

Leftist conflations are just as bad. Their "realism" of Muslims is based on sentimentalism and misunderstanding just as agonizing to listen to as some Mu'tazila fanboy too arrogant to get off his ass and talk to a Sheikh.

Hell, Bernard Lewis at least knew of and acknowledged actual, debatable problems in Islam and their historical roots. Despite being another type of liberal that can't be trusted.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

You should witness some of the generalisations that 'The East' have for 'The West', Hong Kong was a fun time.

That's addressed in the book too. Occidentalism and self-Orientalism. Haven't got to that yet.

As insane as it sounds, a man of Chinese descent kneeled in front of me, and I quote, "Don't take me into your slave ship, please white man"; I broke down laughing.

[Bakery Hill]

Its entirely possible I think to pull off such a project I think. Whether or not such a thing would get published is another matter entirely. The big problem is as another poster noted, there is no independent path that can be tread in the current climate.

True, it's a little depressing isn't it?

Yes, yes I can. My thoughts on the current crisis aside, it is rather telling that despite the refugees disparate origins, they are all treated as being apart of the same amorphous blob or mass.

Definitely, I mean we live in an environment where Sikhs are abused and physically attacked because of ISIS. They also get pork sent to their gurdwaras, which they think is sort of amusing apparently.

Especially with the War on Terror. What we (America) and by default our media machine sought was an easily identifiable enemy. To distinguish between Sunni/Shia or to admit the Afghanistan isn't really a country so much as it a patchwork of varying tribes would be too much effort. Instead, its easier to present a generic face to the masses to hate.

100%. Have you watched of Adam Curtis' documentaries? He does a great one on Afghanistan and the West called Bitter Lake that goes right into this.

[Napkiraly]

That's addressed in the book too. Occidentalism and self-Orientalism. Haven't got to that yet.

As insane as it sounds, a man of Chinese descent kneeled in front of me, and I quote, "Don't take me into your slave ship, please white man"; I broke down laughing.

What the hell?

[Bakery Hill]

Orientalism is all about conflation though isn't it? We as 'the West' attempting to understand this generalised 'East'. Should we surprised when our generalisations about Arabs, Muslims etc. turn out to be inaccurate? Is that, to an extent, their purpose?

To be frank, I think it's a human condition. We conflate various parts and people's about in our own corner of the world. Same as they do to us in the East with their conflations of Europe. We tend to generalise as it makes our lives easier and allows us to make quick decisions when needed. It most likely has its roots in surviving the harsh wilderness.

This is true and Said goes into this. I remember reading an article about ultra-nationalist Turks attacking South Korean tourists and restaurants for China's abuses against its Uighur population. I think where this relationships differs is the historical context and the power imbalance between "East and West".

[The East Marches]

True, it's a little depressing isn't it?

Indeed it is. You need only look at our election choices for more proof of this environment.

Definitely, I mean we live in an environment where Sikhs are abused and physically attacked because of ISIS. They also get pork sent to their gurdwaras, which they think is sort of amusing apparently.

I can't really say I am surprised as sad as it is to hear. I heard something similar happened post-Boston Bombings.

100%. Have you watched of Adam Curtis' documentaries? He does a great one on Afghanistan and the West called Bitter Lake that goes right into this.

I have not but I will give it a watch now that you have recommended it. It would be nice to see somebody cover that topic properly for once.

[Minzerland II]

As insane as it sounds, a man of Chinese descent kneeled in front of me, and I quote, "Don't take me into your slave ship, please white man"; I broke down laughing.

What the hell?

Not so much 'kneel' more like bending his legs a little.

[Bakery Hill]

Very relevant to what's going on in the colonialism thread at the moment haha

Indeed, it is. I should note that I'm not in favour of colonialism as it was generally practiced during the age of European imperialism in the 19th century. I would only be willing to implement colonialism of a kind reminiscent of the Roman model with a number of tweaks. It however, is rather unrealistic and idealistic for our current world. C'est la vie.

Roman model? That sounds frightening haha

I've also always maintained that imperialism should only be a phase that eventually gives way to equality between the state that was the target of imperialism and the one was pursuing imperialism (if the former state still exists). So that empire gives way to commonwealth.

I can see very few cases where this has happened unfortunately.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

As insane as it sounds, a man of Chinese descent kneeled in front of me, and I quote, "Don't take me into your slave ship, please white man"; I broke down laughing.

What the hell?

I have no idea if he was simply jesting, he seemed rather serious about it.

[Bakery Hill]

Orientalism is all about conflation though isn't it? We as 'the West' attempting to understand this generalised 'East'. Should we surprised when our generalisations about Arabs, Muslims etc. turn out to be inaccurate? Is that, to an extent, their purpose?

Leftist conflations are just as bad. Their "realism" of Muslims is based on sentimentalism and misunderstanding just as agonizing to listen to as some Mu'tazila fanboy too arrogant to get off his ass and talk to a Sheikh.

Typically yes, I'd agree. Not any Western leftists I'd bother to read, but I read polemics filled with this shit all the time, and it's tiring.

Hell, Bernard Lewis at least knew of and acknowledged actual, debatable problems in Islam and their historical roots. Despite being another type of liberal that can't be trusted.

What do you know about Lewis? Reading an article of his at the moment in response to Said's criticisms.