Everyone's commenting about the turkey being Arabic thing but in context it just sounds like he meant to say "Turkey is also very much [Oriental]" but misspoke.
either you wanted to say it is oriental or it is Arabic, both are deadly mistakes that you couldn't grasp what said meant about the "Orient"@@TheoryPhilosophy
In the context of occidental a little occidental ism. How do you describe Turkey or even how do you describe the Middle East now? I understand Edward Saenz position and how basically the middle east was put there by the west, so any kind of look into the middle east west vert would be orient in nature, but how would they describe? Themselves is my question
Did you really start off this video with: "Here's a book about why clearly defining this region as the 'Orient' and this region as the 'Occident' is harmful and a tool of colonialism - I've read it and my major criticism is that he just doesn't clearly define the 'Orient' and 'Occident' in the book!" Honestly a truly mind-blowing example of missing the point entirely.
he generalizes the middle East which is a colonial term itself, and uses it as the same of the Arab world. Which is not. Neither Iran nor Turkey are Arab countries. Which is a big chunk of the West Asia. Islamic yes, Arabic no.
What do you mean Said "dodges around" defining Orient and Occident? The Orient is an imaginary place, filled with imaginary people and things, created by European intellectuals and serving as a pillar of European colonialism. Orientalism was an elaboration of European mythology representing the Ottoman Empire, Islam, Semitic people. It's akin to racism. It is an important part of the European White Christian supremacist colonial project. Edward Said and his family and country were victims of it, and he witnessed it in action from start to finish, from within both the English core and the Palestinian periphery. Places in Asia farther to the east, beyond the "Near East" as defined by Europeans, as they are progressively farther removed from Europe/Christendom are considered to be progressively foreign and divorced from Western "civilizing" influences. "China" was a common metaphor for "completely alien" or "opposite" in Europe up through the 1920s. There is a hierarchy of geography in Orientalism, just as there is a hierarchy of color in racism. Would you expect a critic of Nazi racial theory to define race for you?
You should expect that critics understand the things they are criticizing. But yeah, there is a misunderstanding of the text on T&P's part. I would like it if Said presented a positive identity in the book, but that's just not what the book is about.
I guess he was misled by Turkey being heavily involved with Islam. People often make the same mistake with Iran assuming that they are Arabic when they are actually Persian.
Recent Iraq and Afghanistan occupation was of opposite kind. Neocons assumed not that oreint is predisposed to despotism but that they can supplant democracy in less than a decade.
Turkey has a lot of connection and mutual cultural exchanges over the decades, however neither Arabs are Turks nor Turks are Arabs. There are nuances and this is just ignorant to comment inattentively.
Read Ibn Warraq's Occidentalism. It's a decent critique of Edward Said even though it really sucks up to the west at times, also a lot of Arab thinkers agree with the theory but admit that it came too soon and really hindered the region's and people's progress since even fundamentalists started blaming everything on orientalism. And that point about Turkey being pretty much Arabic was the stupidest thing I've heard lmao, felt like listening to a Karen describing her trip
If Said identifies an organic origin for stereotyping foreigner people within human nature, the specificity you want him to assign to the European case may in principle not be necessary at all. Even though its application has been exceptional and extreme. Think "banality of evil."
I don't think you are qualified to code Edward Said. We are not talking about the context. you need to educate yourself on region and the cutures living within. Simply saying ARABS, or ARAB isn't enough. I think you should leave Edward Said to scholars like him. You are aint the one.
Israel is a really interesting case because, although its political project is explicitly and intentionally patterned on European style settler colonialism, it is built up on the claim that it's doing this for Jews or somehow on behalf of Jewish culture. Prior to the political Zionist project, however, the European attitudes towards Jews developed with the development of Orientalism -- Jews were seen as intruders or outsiders in Europe because we were seen as having more in common with or coming from the chaotic, dangerous, non-Christian East. The scientificizing of anti-Jewish sentiment in the form of the concept of "anti-Semitism" illustrates this. German "race scientists" lumped Jews and Arabs into one Orientalized mass of "Semites." One can see the modern political project of Zionism as an attempt to carve out and cement a place in "Western" culture for Jews (or at least white Jews) by differentiating and distancing ourselves from Arab culture by joining in the Orientalist project of subjugation of the Muslim world.
Yes, the idea did not appeal to all Jews all at once either. Everyone could agree on the necessity for some sort of a safe haven for Jews, but very few would have approved of the current Israel.
Mmmmm at times your argument seems to move dangerously close to European exceptionalism, with how you characterise the "uniqueness" of European imperialism and colonial projects. No other critiques though, love your breakdown
And to think I was interested in knowing Said's works! This guy presents his negative critique. I will look elsewhere for a fair account of the work of Edward Saïd.
Everyone's commenting about the turkey being Arabic thing but in context it just sounds like he meant to say "Turkey is also very much [Oriental]" but misspoke.
Before I could even correct myself in the next episode!
either you wanted to say it is oriental or it is Arabic, both are deadly mistakes that you couldn't grasp what said meant about the "Orient"@@TheoryPhilosophy
@@ouaeeshommous Care to explain?
@@ouaeeshommous thought not
In the context of occidental a little occidental ism. How do you describe Turkey or even how do you describe the Middle East now? I understand Edward Saenz position and how basically the middle east was put there by the west, so any kind of look into the middle east west vert would be orient in nature, but how would they describe? Themselves is my question
Did you really start off this video with: "Here's a book about why clearly defining this region as the 'Orient' and this region as the 'Occident' is harmful and a tool of colonialism - I've read it and my major criticism is that he just doesn't clearly define the 'Orient' and 'Occident' in the book!"
Honestly a truly mind-blowing example of missing the point entirely.
I find it especially weird when he retells the book and is contradicting himself without realizing it.
Yeah, am like... how are you trying to explain a book you apparently don't even understand sir? Take several seats.
By saying "Turkey is very much Arabic", you have proven Said's point - your attempt to interpret Said is through your own Orientalist lense it seems.
he generalizes the middle East which is a colonial term itself, and uses it as the same of the Arab world. Which is not.
Neither Iran nor Turkey are Arab countries.
Which is a big chunk of the West Asia. Islamic yes, Arabic no.
I’m so happy you talked about this book! I’ve always wanted to know it.
Thank you 🙏
What do you mean Said "dodges around" defining Orient and Occident?
The Orient is an imaginary place, filled with imaginary people and things, created by European intellectuals and serving as a pillar of European colonialism. Orientalism was an elaboration of European mythology representing the Ottoman Empire, Islam, Semitic people. It's akin to racism. It is an important part of the European White Christian supremacist colonial project. Edward Said and his family and country were victims of it, and he witnessed it in action from start to finish, from within both the English core and the Palestinian periphery.
Places in Asia farther to the east, beyond the "Near East" as defined by Europeans, as they are progressively farther removed from Europe/Christendom are considered to be progressively foreign and divorced from Western "civilizing" influences. "China" was a common metaphor for "completely alien" or "opposite" in Europe up through the 1920s. There is a hierarchy of geography in Orientalism, just as there is a hierarchy of color in racism.
Would you expect a critic of Nazi racial theory to define race for you?
You should expect that critics understand the things they are criticizing.
But yeah, there is a misunderstanding of the text on T&P's part. I would like it if Said presented a positive identity in the book, but that's just not what the book is about.
Read the first chapter, will have tp pick it up again soon
Uh, can you maybe explain what you mean by “Turkey is very much Arabic?” Do you mean Middle Eastern? I’m genuinely confused lol
Yeah, our guy made a boo-boo.
Don't take everything he says seriously lmao, he hits but he misses a lot of shit sometimes.
I guess he was misled by Turkey being heavily involved with Islam.
People often make the same mistake with Iran assuming that they are Arabic when they are actually Persian.
Please can you do a review about Culture and Imperialism (1993) by Edward Said ?
Just bought this!
Recent Iraq and Afghanistan occupation was of opposite kind. Neocons assumed not that oreint is predisposed to despotism but that they can supplant democracy in less than a decade.
Turkey is very much Arabic?
I think he doesn’t mean now, in the past from the orientalists prespective
Turkey has a lot of connection and mutual cultural exchanges over the decades, however neither Arabs are Turks nor Turks are Arabs. There are nuances and this is just ignorant to comment inattentively.
Read Ibn Warraq's Occidentalism. It's a decent critique of Edward Said even though it really sucks up to the west at times, also a lot of Arab thinkers agree with the theory but admit that it came too soon and really hindered the region's and people's progress since even fundamentalists started blaming everything on orientalism.
And that point about Turkey being pretty much Arabic was the stupidest thing I've heard lmao, felt like listening to a Karen describing her trip
"Arabic and Muslim are pretty much the same, right?" - Americans
In his mind he meant muslim world. But probably to be politically correct he said arabic world.
Turkey isn't arabic. He is talking about Meditarania. Please get info straight, study that area first.
If Said identifies an organic origin for stereotyping foreigner people within human nature, the specificity you want him to assign to the European case may in principle not be necessary at all. Even though its application has been exceptional and extreme. Think "banality of evil."
I don't think you are qualified to code Edward Said. We are not talking about the context. you need to educate yourself on region and the cutures living within. Simply saying ARABS, or ARAB isn't enough. I think you should leave Edward Said to scholars like him. You are aint the one.
Israel is a really interesting case because, although its political project is explicitly and intentionally patterned on European style settler colonialism, it is built up on the claim that it's doing this for Jews or somehow on behalf of Jewish culture. Prior to the political Zionist project, however, the European attitudes towards Jews developed with the development of Orientalism -- Jews were seen as intruders or outsiders in Europe because we were seen as having more in common with or coming from the chaotic, dangerous, non-Christian East. The scientificizing of anti-Jewish sentiment in the form of the concept of "anti-Semitism" illustrates this. German "race scientists" lumped Jews and Arabs into one Orientalized mass of "Semites." One can see the modern political project of Zionism as an attempt to carve out and cement a place in "Western" culture for Jews (or at least white Jews) by differentiating and distancing ourselves from Arab culture by joining in the Orientalist project of subjugation of the Muslim world.
Yes, the idea did not appeal to all Jews all at once either. Everyone could agree on the necessity for some sort of a safe haven for Jews, but very few would have approved of the current Israel.
Great point
Mmmmm at times your argument seems to move dangerously close to European exceptionalism, with how you characterise the "uniqueness" of European imperialism and colonial projects. No other critiques though, love your breakdown
Turks are nor Arabs ( different languages, ethnic roots, history etc.).
Turkey is not Arabic at all. Nice start. Don't need to watch any more. obviously speaker has no idea wbat he is talking about. Pity
Hello.
I started to listen, then stopped immedietly. You clearly missed/messed up the whole idea of the book.
Care to explain? Or, do you have no idea what you're saying?
And to think I was interested in knowing Said's works! This guy presents his negative critique. I will look elsewhere for a fair account of the work of Edward Saïd.
You messed up the concept of constituative other.
Read Derrida
Please add a "join" button...I will be your first subscriber...
This is a terrible video
Actually there is nothing significantly new in Said other than his subject (which is fascinating)