Gio yes but it pays immensely just discipline yourself have a dictionary handy after about 1 quarter of the way through his book it no longer was such a challenge best wishes!
When you can’t understand a certain culture and perceive the culture your own way, because it’s different than what you're used to. When you see a culture or something different that you're not used with a different perspective than anyone else. I believe this is what orientalism means.
@@ikramaniseet8126 Yes it is in somehow. He just needs to elaborate on it. However, orientalism is specifically about eastern culture. Orient means an eastern man
First it was the Indians, then the Africans, then the Asians, then it was the Germans, then the Russians, now its the Arabs and tomorrow it will be the Aliens.
Does no one else feel uncomfortable that they represented the orients as the party go-ers and the western as the professer. This example excuses one of the strongest point that Edward Said makes: that this orientalistic system of knowledge isn't pure but a discourse made by particular interest - mainly the display of dominance and power relation for and from the west. Not because it actually looked like the orients were less cultured or did anything to even imply that...Kind of felt like this example was already biased or implying something like it's understandable that the professer feels that the party go-ers were uncultured etc almost as if explaining that the west creating the idea of orients as people of inferiority was understandable.
I think what you suggest is possible, but it also could be an attempt (perhaps an insensitive one, admittedly) to represent the power dynamic that is characteristic of all Orientalist discourse-there is no Orientalism without the heavily unequal balance of power has that pervaded West-East relations since the colonial period-without necessarily making a value judgement. After all, it was Western scholars and academics that went to the East to compartmentalize and describe it, not the other way around, so from that standpoint it makes sense to portray the Orientalist as of a higher order of authority than the Oriental subjects of his work. Which isn't, again, to say that this wasn't perhaps an insensitive choice on the part of the animators.
Or it could also be, that you are just projecting your own worldview that every story anyone could tell has some sinister undertone to it, and you as the clever humanities student is able to uncover how the object of status, namely the presenter here, is in fact a bigot and is clouded by some false counsciousness, which is to be called out and lambasted. All other interpretations are to be bullied out, and the intentions the actors would have had for their actions are meaningless, where as your interpretation of the transaction is to be held as the truth.
Extremely uncomfortable. That vile example denies the existing power dynamics. It's not simply about "judging" something, but about the consumption, the dehumanization, the erasement and the extinguishing of the other. (The White professor does none of that with the White party-goers.)
The perfect comparison between the profesor's perspective on the party, and the Western's perspective on the Orient . Thank you for this simple explanation of the great ED.Said's work ; it was very helpful.
It would have been interesting to include at the end a few of the critics levied against Said’s thesis, such as the fact that most of the field of Orientalism was composed of translation work and the likes (thus not producing a Western discourse), that it was born in Germany which had no holdings in the East (so a discourse of domination justifying colonization would be useless), and that there were material reasons for colonization rather than pure discursive justifications. He was very partial in his study of evidence, showing a rather strong selection bias (again, ignoring scores of literary, artistic, and scientific works of Orientalism - which before Said only designated the field of study of the East - which either did not fit his narrative, or actively opposed it - as in, works that themselves criticized others for exhibiting bias and inserting value judgements where they did not belong, long before Said).
I believe that in your closing statement you are missing the entire essence of this man's life in that he was fighting specifically for his People and those "other" [brown] Europeans who live and exist in the region known as the Orient. Thank you though, this is beautiful otherwise
We have been crying for many years over the massacre of Diriasin and Kafrqasem. 100 to 200 Palestinians were massacred in Diriyasin and 48 in Kafr Qasim. Compared to today's war, these numbers are not huge! Is humanity moving forward or backward in terms of cruelty and violence? Weapons are becoming more destructive day by day and human lives are losing more and more value. Is this the result of Nietzsche's famous statement about God? Or is the debate still about what kind of worship of God is, contrary to Nietzsche's view, life? Or that selfish people have hidden God in the basement of their minds and, by claiming God for themselves, are taking the human race to the slaughterhouse? Or does the story have nothing to do with God? Murder and brutality have always challenged optimism about the nature of humanity. A new type of pessimism is emerging with regard to human nature. In my opinion, pessimism towards human nature can make the world more tolerable, because it lowers the level of expectations towards it! Expecting mercy, compassion, fairness, justice and morality from him over all his fellow human beings apparently seems more like stupidity and how stupid God has made me! 0:30
translation of this video for Turkish-EDWARD SAID’in ORYANTALİZM KİTABINA BİR GİRİŞ Oryantalizm, geç 20. Yüzyılda, Edward Said’in çok önemli bir kültür eseridir. 1978’de oryantalizm kitabında etkili bir argüman geliştirdi: Amerika ve Avrupa bilimsel yazımında sunulan, Doğu kültürü tektipinin yanlış ve yanıltıcı olduğunu söyledi. Onun iddiası şudur; Orient (Doğu), bütünüyle tüm doğu coğrafyasının sınırlandırıldığı bir aşamadır. Said, oryantalizm algısının, Doğuyu, Doğu Asyalı kültürleri gerçekten anlayabilmeyi engellediğine inanıyordu. Onun teorisini anlamak için, bir eğlence partisi sahnesi üzerine rapor yazan bir profesörü hayal edelim. Profesör partiye gitmeye karar verir. Gittiği zaman, partide misafirlerin rasgele giyinmiş, yüksek sesle elektronik müzikle dans ettiğini görür. Bazıları da yerde uzanarak oturup, gülüyor ve öpüşüyor. Tüm bu durum profesöre yabancıdır. O kendi değerler kümesine sahiptir. Partidekilerin davranışlarını anlamak ve takdir etmekte zorlanmaktadır. Kendini onlarla özdeşleştiremez ve onların kim olduklarını nasıl oluştuklarını anlayamaz. Said, Batılı bilim insanlarının Doğu çalışmalarının da buna benzer şekilde olduğunu söyler. Batılı bilginler Doğuyu anlayamaz, çünkü kendilerinden farklıdır. Bu yüzden Doğuyu hiç anlayamadan egzotik, esrarengiz ve meraklı olarak tanımlarlar. Partideki profesör, kendi içinde, kendi değerlerinin, partideki herkesten daha üstün olduğunu düşünür. O bir akademisyendir. Partiye katılanların yaşam tarzını sevmemesi, kendi bakış açısını da meşrulaştıracaktır. Profesör raporunu yayımlar. Partiye katılanları, kaba, şehvetli, kültürsüz ve akılsız olarak tasvir eder. Çünkü onlar profesörün değerlerine aykırı insanlardır. Tıpkı profesörün kendini içsel olarak üstün hissettiği parti sahnesinde olduğu gibi; Batı toplumları da Doğu’dan üstün olduklarını düşünmekteydiler. Ancak Said daha ileri gitti; o bu durumun bilimi elinde tutan güçlü emperyalist toplumlar tarafından üretildiğini düşünüyordu. Özellikle Batı bilimi, emperyalist toplumlarla güçlü bağlar kurulmasına neden oluyordu. Batı bilimi, doğal olarak politik ve entelektüel olarak şüpheliydi. O, oryantalizmin, Doğu ülkelerinin, Batılı devletlerce kolonileştirilmesinin bir gerekçesi olduğunu savunuyordu. Batı uygarlığa ihtiyaç duyan bir Doğu dünyasının resmini çizdi. Onların tembel, zevk düşkünü ve kendilerine odaklı doğalarından kurtarılması için işgal edilmeleri gerekiyordu. Said, Batının bazı başarısızlardan ötürü kör olduğunu, kendi kültürünü üstün saydığı bir kalıplanmışlık içinde olduğunu ve Doğuyu tanıyamayacağını ileri sürdü. Said’in kitabı post-kolonyal dönemdeki çalışmalar için temel bir metin oldu. Onun eleştirel teorisi, bu gün bizim literatürümüzün bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Oryantalizm, Batı kültürünün, diğer kültürlere karşı patronluk taslamasını açıklayan bir terimdir.
Japan is not included, because it doesnt fit in Said's discourse. His discourse simplified is: westernes(whites) stereotypes the people in "the orient" which means the east. And this is a tradition because westernes think they are superior in form of Social Darwinistic thought and therefore they colonized big parts of the world. Japan doesnt fit in his discourse because they are an asian country, who is an imperial power. The japanese seeked to expand their empire, and had more racist attitudes and opression of their subjects than most of the European powers. Said had degrees in art, litterature and philosophy and no history education, which makes him simplify this discourse in order to blame all of the worlds problems on Europeans. He also avoids to go into detail about The Ottoman Empire, which was a middle-eastern Empire that also seeked imperialism ever since the early 1400's. The Ottomans were also more cruel to their subjects than most Europeans, as persecution of jews and christians among other minorities were highly prioritized by some of the sultans. The turks (ottomans) killed over 1.5 million armenians during WW I, yet nobody is interested to mention this because they are not westernes.
@Blue Star This is the American definition of the Orient. Said's theory is based around the attitudes of European culture, this is literally one of the first things he says in his book.
This is one of the most insulting videos I have ever watched. Arabs depicted as noisy party goers? Complete ignorance of the artistic and intellectual tradition that lies within the Middle East.
To be fair to the west, everyone does this. East, west, south, north. Ethnocentrism is the status quo of humanity. Just look at the names of indigenous peoples had for themselves. A large portion of them derive from words like "man" or "human", in their respective languages. To blame the west for orientalism is to expect the west to have been better morally than all other peoples combined.
One must read Edward Said with a great deal of caution. His books contain mistakes and mischaracterizations, and misleading statements, yet many are willing to overlook these because of the politics of the time he published, a malady that continues today. In his writing, and this comes through in his interviews especially, his demeanor communicates anger, hostility -- one based perhaps on humiliation. As he came of age, he saw that Europeans dominated all scholarly fields and seems to have found it insulting that this included one called "Orientalism", a minor discipline in historical circles, but one that concentrated on his mother soil. These Westerners, Occidentals, Whites, had the temerity, the audacity, to analyze the "orient". They studied it, learned its languages, and worst, opined on it. What he does in "Orientalism" is lash out at these scholars. Why? It is likely Said feels they are in error in their assessment of the Orient, as then defined, but more, it seems he is very conscious of the fact that they have no counterparts -- the Arabs did not send scholars to Europe to study the "Occident" and learn their languages, attempt to understand their ways, and come to conclusions about them. The Islamic world, for most of its existence, has never displayed an inclination, much less a fascination, with other civilizations -- the arrogance and confidence of in their own made it seem time ill spent. To the extent they absorbed other intellectual material, it was at the beginning of the Arab invasions, and they took what they could use and discarded the rest. Even here, it was before the hammer of orthodoxy came slamming down, roughly at the time of the death of Averroes (aka Ibn Rušd) in A.D. 1198, and the triumph of Al-Ghazali and his rejection of all things not in strict conformance with Islam. Though he died in the early 12th century, his influence contributed to the burning of Averroes books shortly before he died. Ghazali does not show up in "Orientalism". The Turks attempted explore European ways after Napoleon's Egyptian expedition, when it became clear that the West was decidedly superior in military terms and they needed to catch up. This is not the same, of course, as scholarly exploration, and it failed even so. Further, by the time Said was writing his book, the Ottoman Empire had been gone for 55 years, and had the added problem that it was the primary colonizer of the area for a good breadth of history -- not the British, French, and Italians. In his abhorrence of the European colonial actions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Said places these Orientalist scholars, primary among them Bernard Lewis (becoming something of a bête noir for him over time) as handmaidens of empire, enemies and hostile to all those wretched souls who inhabit this alien land of the Orient. Nonsense. Reading them objectively, and then about them, it is entirely untrue -- these were academics who had great affection for their subject, and the people who lived there, and whatever their flaws, they were attempting to understand something that was different, that was a different world than theirs. One can criticize the results of their efforts, but Said goes the next step and his anger and plain meanness attacks their motives and the effect they had on Western policy. He seems to think the British and the French needed academic approval or guidance to ascertain the geostrategic policies appropriate to disposing of former Ottoman colonies after World War One. Hardly. He does not seem to appreciate, or understand, that it had become part of European culture, Western Civilization more properly phrased, to learn and study other cultures and other civilizations. It is invariably European, and then American, Canadian, and Australian, anthropologists who go digging into African hinterlands and Asian deserts and American jungles to painstakingly reconstruct ancient civilizations, prehistoric cultures, and in so doing, invented an entire area of study. This is something that he looks around in his own backyard, the Middle East (formerly "The Orient") and sees that the books written about it are all from Euro-American perspective, from the former colonialists, and the American replacements in "neo-imperialism" -- and absurd word for Cold War geopolitical maneuvering. In all his hostility toward the West, and speaking in flawless English, with an American accent indicating his upbringing, he ignores the swath of time, four centuries (at least), of Turkish colonial rule over the Arab world. Perhaps this is done because the Turks never bothered too much about studying the Arabs -- they held them in too much contempt (and still do), and hence never produced an academic field like Orientalism for him to attack. They also are not really "white", though that depends on who one asks -- the Indians and Africans, and even the Turks themselves may disagree, "Turkic" is a messy ethnographic business. The book "Orientalism" is worth reading, if only because others in the academic field think so, mostly because it became fashionable, and remains so, to attack Western Civilization in general, and the academic achievements of European and American scholarship of the century prior to about 1970 in particular. One should certainly read it in conjunction with a critique of it, to keep the perspective that Said so lacks. A good source for this is "For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies" by Robert Irwin, or Ibn Warraq's "Defending the West - A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism".
First of all, as an Arab, I feel the need to correct your phrase "Turkish colonial rule". There was no such a thing as a Turkish colonization of the Arab world. Most Arabs agree on this; those who do not, do so because of their country's political agenda. You make another impulsive remark when you say that the Arabs never bothered to send their scholars abroad to study other culture, when most Arab nations present today were under European colonization throughout half of the 19th century and 20th. You also manifest a certain impulse of "eurocentrism" and "presentism" when you narrow your opinion on the Arabs to the period at which Europeans get out of their shell. Arab dynasties present during Europe's Middle Ages and pre-Renaissance not only travelled the world to discover new things, but gave great importance to Translation and translated thousands of scriptures from not only European languages (Latin and Greek, mostly) but other languages, too, including Persian. Whereas Said is in my opinion too eager to demonize the "Orientalist" at all cost, I find that the latter had an important role, nonetheless, in the spreading of Arab literature, most notbaly with the Arabian Nights as an example. Said's importance lies in the fact that he was one of the first to point out to this "Eurocentric", "Racist" view from the West (best exemplified by your comment above) that dominated (and still tries to) the world of literature for so long, painting it however they pleased and getting compfortable in deciding which is "noble" and which is "minor" and provincial.
This theory is, to be honest, not very well thought through. First of all, by talking to others, looking at others, or even doing things such as reading books, you can actually understand others and their motives and motivations. That is what empathy is, and most of us are capable of it. Secondly, after Western civilization adopted rationalism instead of spiritualism (which was previously in the form of strong political theology), Europe flourished, enough that it could essentially take over the world. Note here that the so-called Islamic golden age was the age when Islam as a cultural force was at a minimum, which allowed science and philosophy to flourish for a while, and with that the civilization could dominate it's superstitious and tribal neighbors. Sadly for the Islamic world, theology took hold again, and those regions have yet to recover. Thirdly, at the very core of Western rationalism lies an ideal of objectivity. For example, when someone promotes a change to a law, it is assumed that the law will also apply to them. If people try to adhere to the ideal of objectivity, it will not, by definition, matter what part of the world they are from, or what cultural context. Fourth and final. All cultures of the world that have adapted Western notions of rationality have also flourished. All this combined means that, yes, Western civilization was "superior", if by "superior" someone means that the culture produced the most wealth, stability, happiness and justice of the different cultures that were compared. A great many things can be improved, but the reason why the West invaded the East was because Western culture was superior, just as Eastern culture was superior when Islam invaded the West, or that the culture of the Golden Horde was superior to both the East and West when they controlled the largest empire the world had seen. So Edward Said all in all had a pretty ill thought through idea all things considered. Too bad it has taken hold as a form of objective truth among the Left. And I say this as someone from the far north of Sweden. I hold many things from old "viking culture" close to my heart, but I know that objectively, that culture was simply put, inferior, even though it was the culture of my forefathers. Sometimes people are simply wrong, but it's easier to blame others than to admit that to yourself.
acknowledging that a civilization is superior is something and forcing your superiority on others is something different and this cant imply on any civilization on earth just the west who force its ideology on other human beings and by the name of being pure or superior they massacred each other in ww1 and ww2 and you compared it to islam for god sake muslims did not feel superior from others rather they admit that they are proud to be students of greek philosophers and they didnt feel ashamed of admitting such thing
@@sonGOKU-gy7rg Islam has a its core a hierarchy going from Muslims, to other "people of the book", to pagans. Pagans are to be killed if they do not convert, people of the book can live as second class citizen and at the top you have muslims, who are to rule the world. Or, to put it like this. Today, Spain (which is certainly not a major player in the world anymore) translates more books into Spanish per year than the total number of books that have been translated into Arabic since the formation of the first Caliphate. The Islamic world produces the least books per capita of any major region, and has the highest percentage of those books being on religious (i.e. nonsense) subjects. Do you not think that this complete disinterest in the rest of the world, and this unhealthy obsession with the Quran, is due to notions of superiority?
@@sonGOKU-gy7rg I have been reading books on history for the last 35 years, you need to be more specific on what topics I might have missed. Secondly, the reason I watched this was due to me taking an interest in the history of the Ottoman Empire lately, and watching lots of documentaries on that lead me to this video, which I had some objections to. The culture of many civilization both undergo progress and regress, and if a culture can progress, i.e. become better in comparison with its previous self, it must also be able to be better than other cultures. This video essentially claims that culture cannot progress, as it cannot be superior.
@@Superslemmet i think you are right in your objection on this video as so many arab schoolers who had objections on edward said work because they saw it as making the whole point about imperialism and this is totally wrong but the core idea of Said work is that we really dont or cant understand one another because our brains are so biased that it makes you focus on one subject and missing the others points i thought you look to the west as the right wing do of course no one can deny that western civilization is the biggest and far more advanced civilization in human history but as newton said i sit on the shoulders of the giants as the civilizations sits on one another and no civilization can rise without the others and i cant say its superior because it had it flaws as so any human civilization was and by using the terms that used by racist people we give bad impression of every word we say or speak because superior gives an itch in the throat not for its meaning but because it represents such a terrible experience i am for sure interested in all civilizations as being part of the human experience and if for one second i looked to any culture as being far or advanced from another i would miss the chance for experience this culture even if i know everything about it i hope u understand my point here even my expression of english is so weak
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
god bless this video; trying to read Said's paper is like an exercise in patience and willpower
Gio yes but it pays immensely just discipline yourself have a dictionary handy after about 1 quarter of the way through his book it no longer was such a challenge best wishes!
Thank you, I finally could fully understand Orientalism
ferdaous hayfa
ferdaous hayfa can you explain what's orientalism in more words
When you can’t understand a certain culture and perceive the culture your own way, because it’s different than what you're used to. When you see a culture or something different that you're not used with a different perspective than anyone else. I believe this is what orientalism means.
ferdaous hayfa no
@@ikramaniseet8126 Yes it is in somehow. He just needs to elaborate on it. However, orientalism is specifically about eastern culture. Orient means an eastern man
First it was the Indians, then the Africans, then the Asians, then it was the Germans, then the Russians, now its the Arabs and tomorrow it will be the Aliens.
The way the video uses the party goers to represent the East is th exact same problem Edward Said was talking about lo
I thought the same! It was just a bad and degrading comparison IMO
The partygoers are not representing the East, they're representing the old western view of the East. It's the entire point of the video.
EXACTLY - it infuriates me as to how even academics can misrepresent exactly what they intended on teaching.
this is 1 year later, but can you expand? I am just learning about orientalism and it has intrigued me.
So Beautifully Explained and deconstruction of western fallacies regarding eastern cultures, & traditions
Does no one else feel uncomfortable that they represented the orients as the party go-ers and the western as the professer. This example excuses one of the strongest point that Edward Said makes: that this orientalistic system of knowledge isn't pure but a discourse made by particular interest - mainly the display of dominance and power relation for and from the west. Not because it actually looked like the orients were less cultured or did anything to even imply that...Kind of felt like this example was already biased or implying something like it's understandable that the professer feels that the party go-ers were uncultured etc almost as if explaining that the west creating the idea of orients as people of inferiority was understandable.
I think what you suggest is possible, but it also could be an attempt (perhaps an insensitive one, admittedly) to represent the power dynamic that is characteristic of all Orientalist discourse-there is no Orientalism without the heavily unequal balance of power has that pervaded West-East relations since the colonial period-without necessarily making a value judgement. After all, it was Western scholars and academics that went to the East to compartmentalize and describe it, not the other way around, so from that standpoint it makes sense to portray the Orientalist as of a higher order of authority than the Oriental subjects of his work.
Which isn't, again, to say that this wasn't perhaps an insensitive choice on the part of the animators.
Or it could also be, that you are just projecting your own worldview that every story anyone could tell has some sinister undertone to it, and you as the clever humanities student is able to uncover how the object of status, namely the presenter here, is in fact a bigot and is clouded by some false counsciousness, which is to be called out and lambasted. All other interpretations are to be bullied out, and the intentions the actors would have had for their actions are meaningless, where as your interpretation of the transaction is to be held as the truth.
Extremely uncomfortable. That vile example denies the existing power dynamics. It's not simply about "judging" something, but about the consumption, the dehumanization, the erasement and the extinguishing of the other.
(The White professor does none of that with the White party-goers.)
@@polybian_bicycle You are the actual bully here who's intellectualising his/her intentions.
@@Analysis_Paralysis
Intentions don't matter anymore. You can interpret things any way you like and claim it's the unfettered truth.
it is the best video on orientalism I have ever come across, clear, well explained and illustrated thank you
The perfect comparison between the profesor's perspective on the party, and the Western's perspective on the Orient . Thank you for this simple explanation of the great ED.Said's work ; it was very helpful.
Perfectly articulated, I have now understood the surface of Orientalism. Thank you
thanks i wasn't trying to read that
It would have been interesting to include at the end a few of the critics levied against Said’s thesis, such as the fact that most of the field of Orientalism was composed of translation work and the likes (thus not producing a Western discourse), that it was born in Germany which had no holdings in the East (so a discourse of domination justifying colonization would be useless), and that there were material reasons for colonization rather than pure discursive justifications. He was very partial in his study of evidence, showing a rather strong selection bias (again, ignoring scores of literary, artistic, and scientific works of Orientalism - which before Said only designated the field of study of the East - which either did not fit his narrative, or actively opposed it - as in, works that themselves criticized others for exhibiting bias and inserting value judgements where they did not belong, long before Said).
Even the term "middle east" is orientalistic. The right term is west asia .
This explanation of Orientalism is much better than my professor's. Thanks so much!!!
Thank you! It was really useful!~ I'm grateful to you!
Enjoying the content, the narrator's voice was kinda like when Kate Winslet does an American accent lol
edward said is amazing
THANK YOU SO MUCH! I finally understood orientalism after a year of studying it.
great man.. may he be in the highest paradise..
Excellent video. Thank you.
Thank you!!!
from roisin coleman tv ?
thanks, it was a great summary of Saids orientalism
I believe that in your closing statement you are missing the entire essence of this man's life in that he was fighting specifically for his People and those "other" [brown] Europeans who live and exist in the region known as the Orient.
Thank you though, this is beautiful otherwise
Thank you
We have been crying for many years over the massacre of Diriasin and Kafrqasem. 100 to 200 Palestinians were massacred in Diriyasin and 48 in Kafr Qasim. Compared to today's war, these numbers are not huge! Is humanity moving forward or backward in terms of cruelty and violence?
Weapons are becoming more destructive day by day and human lives are losing more and more value. Is this the result of Nietzsche's famous statement about God? Or is the debate still about what kind of worship of God is, contrary to Nietzsche's view, life? Or that selfish people have hidden God in the basement of their minds and, by claiming God for themselves, are taking the human race to the slaughterhouse? Or does the story have nothing to do with God?
Murder and brutality have always challenged optimism about the nature of humanity. A new type of pessimism is emerging with regard to human nature. In my opinion, pessimism towards human nature can make the world more tolerable, because it lowers the level of expectations towards it! Expecting mercy, compassion, fairness, justice and morality from him over all his fellow human beings apparently seems more like stupidity and how stupid God has made me! 0:30
Well summarized! Thanks!
Check out the doctrine of Christian discovery by Daniel n Paul, Dr. Said was a new kid on the block.
Best explanation
translation of this video for Turkish-EDWARD SAID’in ORYANTALİZM KİTABINA BİR GİRİŞ
Oryantalizm, geç 20. Yüzyılda, Edward Said’in çok önemli bir kültür eseridir. 1978’de oryantalizm kitabında etkili bir argüman geliştirdi: Amerika ve Avrupa bilimsel yazımında sunulan, Doğu kültürü tektipinin yanlış ve yanıltıcı olduğunu söyledi.
Onun iddiası şudur; Orient (Doğu), bütünüyle tüm doğu coğrafyasının sınırlandırıldığı bir aşamadır.
Said, oryantalizm algısının, Doğuyu, Doğu Asyalı kültürleri gerçekten anlayabilmeyi engellediğine inanıyordu.
Onun teorisini anlamak için, bir eğlence partisi sahnesi üzerine rapor yazan bir profesörü hayal edelim. Profesör partiye gitmeye karar verir. Gittiği zaman, partide misafirlerin rasgele giyinmiş, yüksek sesle elektronik müzikle dans ettiğini görür. Bazıları da yerde uzanarak oturup, gülüyor ve öpüşüyor.
Tüm bu durum profesöre yabancıdır. O kendi değerler kümesine sahiptir. Partidekilerin davranışlarını anlamak ve takdir etmekte zorlanmaktadır. Kendini onlarla özdeşleştiremez ve onların kim olduklarını nasıl oluştuklarını anlayamaz.
Said, Batılı bilim insanlarının Doğu çalışmalarının da buna benzer şekilde olduğunu söyler. Batılı bilginler Doğuyu anlayamaz, çünkü kendilerinden farklıdır. Bu yüzden Doğuyu hiç anlayamadan egzotik, esrarengiz ve meraklı olarak tanımlarlar.
Partideki profesör, kendi içinde, kendi değerlerinin, partideki herkesten daha üstün olduğunu düşünür. O bir akademisyendir. Partiye katılanların yaşam tarzını sevmemesi, kendi bakış açısını da meşrulaştıracaktır.
Profesör raporunu yayımlar. Partiye katılanları, kaba, şehvetli, kültürsüz ve akılsız olarak tasvir eder. Çünkü onlar profesörün değerlerine aykırı insanlardır.
Tıpkı profesörün kendini içsel olarak üstün hissettiği parti sahnesinde olduğu gibi; Batı toplumları da Doğu’dan üstün olduklarını düşünmekteydiler.
Ancak Said daha ileri gitti; o bu durumun bilimi elinde tutan güçlü emperyalist toplumlar tarafından üretildiğini düşünüyordu. Özellikle Batı bilimi, emperyalist toplumlarla güçlü bağlar kurulmasına neden oluyordu. Batı bilimi, doğal olarak politik ve entelektüel olarak şüpheliydi.
O, oryantalizmin, Doğu ülkelerinin, Batılı devletlerce kolonileştirilmesinin bir gerekçesi olduğunu savunuyordu. Batı uygarlığa ihtiyaç duyan bir Doğu dünyasının resmini çizdi. Onların tembel, zevk düşkünü ve kendilerine odaklı doğalarından kurtarılması için işgal edilmeleri gerekiyordu.
Said, Batının bazı başarısızlardan ötürü kör olduğunu, kendi kültürünü üstün saydığı bir kalıplanmışlık içinde olduğunu ve Doğuyu tanıyamayacağını ileri sürdü.
Said’in kitabı post-kolonyal dönemdeki çalışmalar için temel bir metin oldu. Onun eleştirel teorisi, bu gün bizim literatürümüzün bir parçası haline gelmiştir.
Oryantalizm, Batı kültürünün, diğer kültürlere karşı patronluk taslamasını açıklayan bir terimdir.
great explanation !
can you please help me to gain na example of orientalism?
3:23 lol look at the map.. Japan is not included in the Eastern countries
I can see it.
Japan is not included, because it doesnt fit in Said's discourse. His discourse simplified is: westernes(whites) stereotypes the people in "the orient" which means the east. And this is a tradition because westernes think they are superior in form of Social Darwinistic thought and therefore they colonized big parts of the world. Japan doesnt fit in his discourse because they are an asian country, who is an imperial power. The japanese seeked to expand their empire, and had more racist attitudes and opression of their subjects than most of the European powers. Said had degrees in art, litterature and philosophy and no history education, which makes him simplify this discourse in order to blame all of the worlds problems on Europeans. He also avoids to go into detail about The Ottoman Empire, which was a middle-eastern Empire that also seeked imperialism ever since the early 1400's. The Ottomans were also more cruel to their subjects than most Europeans, as persecution of jews and christians among other minorities were highly prioritized by some of the sultans. The turks (ottomans) killed over 1.5 million armenians during WW I, yet nobody is interested to mention this because they are not westernes.
@Blue Star This is the American definition of the Orient. Said's theory is based around the attitudes of European culture, this is literally one of the first things he says in his book.
Blue Star how is it a sack of shit? Who do you think you are bitch?
btsimonsen it’s a criticism of european imperialism because thats what he understands best but he doesnt deny ottoman imperialism
if video lecture would be posted on Nation, Nationalism, region,regionalism and special on Postcolonial studied . thanks
did Said mention for whom he was writing this book for???
mmm yes... using a biased animation to portray the East... to 'educate' people... just like what Said had foretold... how interesting
Sociology at its finest :)
who else watched this in english class?
I appreciate the author defining the term. But the example he put out is pretty stupid lol
Cool.
Good.
Explained
Why did Macat delete their original uploads? Have they been compromised or something?
This is lit
Can Oriental means that only seen negative aspects of orients
it is funny bc macat means asshole in my language lol tbh great video on orientalism
Bad example, it would seem like innuendo
.
This is one of the most insulting videos I have ever watched. Arabs depicted as noisy party goers? Complete ignorance of the artistic and intellectual tradition that lies within the Middle East.
2:15
To be fair to the west, everyone does this. East, west, south, north. Ethnocentrism is the status quo of humanity. Just look at the names of indigenous peoples had for themselves. A large portion of them derive from words like "man" or "human", in their respective languages. To blame the west for orientalism is to expect the west to have been better morally than all other peoples combined.
Yo mencia tuig
A lot of nonsens!
One must read Edward Said with a great deal of caution. His books contain mistakes and mischaracterizations, and misleading statements, yet many are willing to overlook these because of the politics of the time he published, a malady that continues today. In his writing, and this comes through in his interviews especially, his demeanor communicates anger, hostility -- one based perhaps on humiliation. As he came of age, he saw that Europeans dominated all scholarly fields and seems to have found it insulting that this included one called "Orientalism", a minor discipline in historical circles, but one that concentrated on his mother soil. These Westerners, Occidentals, Whites, had the temerity, the audacity, to analyze the "orient". They studied it, learned its languages, and worst, opined on it.
What he does in "Orientalism" is lash out at these scholars. Why? It is likely Said feels they are in error in their assessment of the Orient, as then defined, but more, it seems he is very conscious of the fact that they have no counterparts -- the Arabs did not send scholars to Europe to study the "Occident" and learn their languages, attempt to understand their ways, and come to conclusions about them. The Islamic world, for most of its existence, has never displayed an inclination, much less a fascination, with other civilizations -- the arrogance and confidence of in their own made it seem time ill spent. To the extent they absorbed other intellectual material, it was at the beginning of the Arab invasions, and they took what they could use and discarded the rest. Even here, it was before the hammer of orthodoxy came slamming down, roughly at the time of the death of Averroes (aka Ibn Rušd) in A.D. 1198, and the triumph of Al-Ghazali and his rejection of all things not in strict conformance with Islam. Though he died in the early 12th century, his influence contributed to the burning of Averroes books shortly before he died. Ghazali does not show up in "Orientalism".
The Turks attempted explore European ways after Napoleon's Egyptian expedition, when it became clear that the West was decidedly superior in military terms and they needed to catch up. This is not the same, of course, as scholarly exploration, and it failed even so. Further, by the time Said was writing his book, the Ottoman Empire had been gone for 55 years, and had the added problem that it was the primary colonizer of the area for a good breadth of history -- not the British, French, and Italians.
In his abhorrence of the European colonial actions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Said places these Orientalist scholars, primary among them Bernard Lewis (becoming something of a bête noir for him over time) as handmaidens of empire, enemies and hostile to all those wretched souls who inhabit this alien land of the Orient. Nonsense. Reading them objectively, and then about them, it is entirely untrue -- these were academics who had great affection for their subject, and the people who lived there, and whatever their flaws, they were attempting to understand something that was different, that was a different world than theirs.
One can criticize the results of their efforts, but Said goes the next step and his anger and plain meanness attacks their motives and the effect they had on Western policy. He seems to think the British and the French needed academic approval or guidance to ascertain the geostrategic policies appropriate to disposing of former Ottoman colonies after World War One. Hardly. He does not seem to appreciate, or understand, that it had become part of European culture, Western Civilization more properly phrased, to learn and study other cultures and other civilizations. It is invariably European, and then American, Canadian, and Australian, anthropologists who go digging into African hinterlands and Asian deserts and American jungles to painstakingly reconstruct ancient civilizations, prehistoric cultures, and in so doing, invented an entire area of study.
This is something that he looks around in his own backyard, the Middle East (formerly "The Orient") and sees that the books written about it are all from Euro-American perspective, from the former colonialists, and the American replacements in "neo-imperialism" -- and absurd word for Cold War geopolitical maneuvering. In all his hostility toward the West, and speaking in flawless English, with an American accent indicating his upbringing, he ignores the swath of time, four centuries (at least), of Turkish colonial rule over the Arab world. Perhaps this is done because the Turks never bothered too much about studying the Arabs -- they held them in too much contempt (and still do), and hence never produced an academic field like Orientalism for him to attack. They also are not really "white", though that depends on who one asks -- the Indians and Africans, and even the Turks themselves may disagree, "Turkic" is a messy ethnographic business.
The book "Orientalism" is worth reading, if only because others in the academic field think so, mostly because it became fashionable, and remains so, to attack Western Civilization in general, and the academic achievements of European and American scholarship of the century prior to about 1970 in particular. One should certainly read it in conjunction with a critique of it, to keep the perspective that Said so lacks. A good source for this is "For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies" by Robert Irwin, or Ibn Warraq's "Defending the West - A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism".
First of all, as an Arab, I feel the need to correct your phrase "Turkish colonial rule". There was no such a thing as a Turkish colonization of the Arab world. Most Arabs agree on this; those who do not, do so because of their country's political agenda.
You make another impulsive remark when you say that the Arabs never bothered to send their scholars abroad to study other culture, when most Arab nations present today were under European colonization throughout half of the 19th century and 20th. You also manifest a certain impulse of "eurocentrism" and "presentism" when you narrow your opinion on the Arabs to the period at which Europeans get out of their shell. Arab dynasties present during Europe's Middle Ages and pre-Renaissance not only travelled the world to discover new things, but gave great importance to Translation and translated thousands of scriptures from not only European languages (Latin and Greek, mostly) but other languages, too, including Persian.
Whereas Said is in my opinion too eager to demonize the "Orientalist" at all cost, I find that the latter had an important role, nonetheless, in the spreading of Arab literature, most notbaly with the Arabian Nights as an example. Said's importance lies in the fact that he was one of the first to point out to this "Eurocentric", "Racist" view from the West (best exemplified by your comment above) that dominated (and still tries to) the world of literature for so long, painting it however they pleased and getting compfortable in deciding which is "noble" and which is "minor" and provincial.
This theory is, to be honest, not very well thought through.
First of all, by talking to others, looking at others, or even doing things such as reading books, you can actually understand others and their motives and motivations. That is what empathy is, and most of us are capable of it.
Secondly, after Western civilization adopted rationalism instead of spiritualism (which was previously in the form of strong political theology), Europe flourished, enough that it could essentially take over the world.
Note here that the so-called Islamic golden age was the age when Islam as a cultural force was at a minimum, which allowed science and philosophy to flourish for a while, and with that the civilization could dominate it's superstitious and tribal neighbors. Sadly for the Islamic world, theology took hold again, and those regions have yet to recover.
Thirdly, at the very core of Western rationalism lies an ideal of objectivity. For example, when someone promotes a change to a law, it is assumed that the law will also apply to them. If people try to adhere to the ideal of objectivity, it will not, by definition, matter what part of the world they are from, or what cultural context.
Fourth and final. All cultures of the world that have adapted Western notions of rationality have also flourished.
All this combined means that, yes, Western civilization was "superior", if by "superior" someone means that the culture produced the most wealth, stability, happiness and justice of the different cultures that were compared.
A great many things can be improved, but the reason why the West invaded the East was because Western culture was superior, just as Eastern culture was superior when Islam invaded the West, or that the culture of the Golden Horde was superior to both the East and West when they controlled the largest empire the world had seen.
So Edward Said all in all had a pretty ill thought through idea all things considered. Too bad it has taken hold as a form of objective truth among the Left.
And I say this as someone from the far north of Sweden. I hold many things from old "viking culture" close to my heart, but I know that objectively, that culture was simply put, inferior, even though it was the culture of my forefathers.
Sometimes people are simply wrong, but it's easier to blame others than to admit that to yourself.
acknowledging that a civilization is superior is something and forcing your superiority on others is something different and this cant imply on any civilization on earth just the west who force its ideology on other human beings and by the name of being pure or superior they massacred each other in ww1 and ww2 and you compared it to islam for god sake muslims did not feel superior from others rather they admit that they are proud to be students of greek philosophers and they didnt feel ashamed of admitting such thing
@@sonGOKU-gy7rg Islam has a its core a hierarchy going from Muslims, to other "people of the book", to pagans. Pagans are to be killed if they do not convert, people of the book can live as second class citizen and at the top you have muslims, who are to rule the world.
Or, to put it like this. Today, Spain (which is certainly not a major player in the world anymore) translates more books into Spanish per year than the total number of books that have been translated into Arabic since the formation of the first Caliphate. The Islamic world produces the least books per capita of any major region, and has the highest percentage of those books being on religious (i.e. nonsense) subjects. Do you not think that this complete disinterest in the rest of the world, and this unhealthy obsession with the Quran, is due to notions of superiority?
@@Superslemmet read some history please -_-
did u ask yourself why you look at video of orientalism ????
@@sonGOKU-gy7rg I have been reading books on history for the last 35 years, you need to be more specific on what topics I might have missed. Secondly, the reason I watched this was due to me taking an interest in the history of the Ottoman Empire lately, and watching lots of documentaries on that lead me to this video, which I had some objections to. The culture of many civilization both undergo progress and regress, and if a culture can progress, i.e. become better in comparison with its previous self, it must also be able to be better than other cultures.
This video essentially claims that culture cannot progress, as it cannot be superior.
@@Superslemmet i think you are right in your objection on this video as so many arab schoolers who had objections on edward said work because they saw it as making the whole point about imperialism and this is totally wrong but the core idea of Said work is that we really dont or cant understand one another because our brains are so biased that it makes you focus on one subject and missing the others points
i thought you look to the west as the right wing do of course no one can deny that western civilization is the biggest and far more advanced civilization in human history but as newton said i sit on the shoulders of the giants as the civilizations sits on one another and no civilization can rise without the others and i cant say its superior because it had it flaws as so any human civilization was and by using the terms that used by racist people we give bad impression of every word we say or speak
because superior gives an itch in the throat not for its meaning but because it represents such a terrible experience
i am for sure interested in all civilizations as being part of the human experience and if for one second i looked to any culture as being far or advanced from another i would miss the chance for experience this culture even if i know everything about it
i hope u understand my point here even my expression of english is so weak
what about the monguls the tzars and islam rulers ? they are non western but saw their culture also as better than the rest
Were they claiming to offer objective, scholarly views on other cultures?
not true you pig skin liar
@@ahmadfrhan5265 lol. A very intellectual response
anyone from school ?