Culture and Imperialism

Rating:
Summary: Tough Read
Review: In 'Culture and Imperialism', Said describes Western Imperialism of the late 19th century through the literature of the time. Although I find this premise rather intriguing, the book left a lot to be desired for me, especially because Said's writing style is so complicated, that it makes the Internal Revenue Code appear as a leisurly read.

Rating:
Summary: Culture of resistance meets the exception of culture
Review: In Culture And Imperialism American professor and lecturer Edward W. Said addresses the obscure and hitherto overlooked subject of the culture of the empire. More specifically, Said connects the previously dotted lines of culture, literature and the intelligentsia with colonization and subsequently racism.
The concept is both valid and largely original: imperialism has traditionally been associated with politics and economics and not so much with culture. The direct connection is elucidated given Said's definition of Imperialism (p.9) as "the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory." The book discusses the hubris inherent in Western attitude towards its own supposed superiority, a discussion in which the works of mainstream writers like Conrad, Austen and Kipling figure prominently. The author argues vehemently that a cultural work of fiction can be imperialistic - intentional or not.
The book is indeed thought-provoking and free of nostalgia and hostility. Having said that much of the prose is shrouded in unnecessary convoluted writing. The notions put forth are not easily digested and not necessarily because of the novelty of the topic, but also the heavy-handed and complex text.
As such, Caveat Lector!

Rating:
Summary: A riveting book by a learned man.....
Review: In this book, Edward Said (also author of the classic Orientalism) shows the broad grasp of imperialism (i.e. the possession of one culture/group fo people by another) through analysis of 'Western' authors and texts. First, this book differs from most, if not all other major 'revisionist' kinds of texts because its author never sets aside the value of reading anything: Said uses his erudition in order to illustrate the plight of the oppressed, as opposed to many others, who view erudition, developed through culture, as a device that can only bind one more into a group of people. Whereas others read stories of Conrad and see mainly a story of the white upper class, Said reads between the lines and shows Conrad's implications toward other people.

I guess that explanation was relatively unclear: I don't have the book in front of me. This is an important book for any person who wishes to consider themself either educated or worldly to read. Setting aside that it is brilliant for what it is about, just having the oppurtunity to read the words of its author would provide value enough.

Rating:
Summary: Universally true, but only applied selectively
Review: It is hard to evaluate this book.

Said has done a magnificent job of cataloguing the various ways that European authors, principally British and French, have acquiesced in, reinforced or justified imperialism.

The trouble is that this is almost universally true of most literature for most times and places for most of human history.

Historically, literature has been the product of a literate class, with both the education and leisure to write.

These have almost always occured at the hearts of power structures or nexus, such as kingdoms or empires, commanding both the resources, human and material, and the traditions and information out of which literature has usually, if not always, been composed (Said himself addresses the traditional origins of literature, quoting Elliot).

Homer wrote at the heart of a Hellenic colonial society; the Hebrew bible was composed of court records and redacted in the imperial Babylon that permitted the Jewish exiles to restore their state; the New Testament was composed or redacted, chiefly in Alexandria and Rome and, along with most Patristic literature assumes the right of Rome to rule and often censures the Jews for their rebelliousness; the Quran is the pamphlet for Jihad, the conquest of unbelievers by believers or Arab Islamic imperialism, itself modelled on the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

Islam, the community, society and culture that Said often defends and qualitatively counterposes to modern European imperialism, came into existences as a religious community composed of those who converted to an 'ideology' that de facto justified the original conquests of Arab and other Islamic conquerors in the first place.

A case can be made that 'ideological justification' for empire does not begin with modern Europe.

Said undermines his otherwise excellent thesis by making a qualitative distinction between modern European Christian and postChristian empires, and those that preceded them, be they Arab or Turkish Islamic, classical pagan or Christian.

I think this a little problematical.

Surely the difference between modern and ancient imperialism is one of degree, not kind?

Surely the urge to acquire land and resources, human and material, by force is, in at least some sense, common to all?

Historically, the literature produced in all these structures, has reflected their imperial situation.

Human nature has rarely refused the benefits that empire accrues, and this is as true for the ancient Athenian tragedians and comics as for Austen or Dickens.

The Arabian nights assumes imperial power structures (Scheherezade is a queen after all).

The mercantile adventures of Sinbad the sailor assume a right to sail and trade in a wider Islamic empire: surely Dombey and Son, whom Said singles out for this assumption, are not alone in this.

Similarly, Aristotle's Politics assume and justify an inherent Hellenic right to rule the world and, as the traditional tutor of Alexander the great, Aristotle could be said to have played his part in establishing the 'legitimacy' of the Hellenistic empire (including, ultimately, the province of Syria Palaestina, the origin of Said's native 'Palestine').

Indeed, some of Aristotle's arguments later appear in Islamic literature.

Said leaves himself open to the charge of applying a universal principle in a highly selective and partisan manner.

To pursue his own agenda, Pro Palestinian Arab and culturally Islamic, he has criticised modern European literature but left the culture of, say, imperial Islam unscathed.

His work is undoubtedly worth reading as a catelogue of the many evils of modern European empires committed against subject non Europeans.

It is also, as far as I am any judge, a comprehensive survey of postimperial and postcolonial indigenous literary and historiographical responses to empire and its ravages.

Said's partisanship is understandable.

Yet, one cannot help but feel, as a work of universal merit, it is flawed and one sided.

Rating:
Summary: Universally true, but only applied selectively
Review: It is hard to evaluate this book.

Said has done a magnificent job of cateloguing the various ways that European authors, principally British and French, have acquiesced in, reinforced or justified imperialism.

The trouble is that this is almost universally true of most literature for most times and places for most of human history.

Historically, literature has been the product of a literate class, with both the education and leisure to write.

These have almost always occured at the hearts of power structures or nexus, such as kingdoms or empires, commanding both the resources, human and material, and the traditions and information out of which literature has usually, if not always, been composed (Said himself addresses the traditional origins of literature, quoting Elliot).

Homer wrote at the heart of a Hellenic colonial community; the Hebrew bible was composed of court records and redacted in the imperial Babylon that permitted the Jewish exiles to restore their state; the New Testament was composed or redacted, chiefly in Alexandria and Rome and, along with most Patristic literature assumes the right of Rome to rule and often censures the Jews for their rebelliousness; the Quran is the pamphlet for Jihad, the conquest of unbelievers by believers or Arab Islamic imperialism, itself modelled on the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

Said undermines his otherwise excellent thesis by making s qualitative distinction between modern European Christian and postChristian empires, and those that preceded them, by they Arab or Turkish Islamic, classical pagan or Christian.

I think this a little problematical.

Surely the difference between modern and ancient imperialism is one of degree, not kind?

Surely the urge to acquire land and resources, human and material, by force is, in at least some sense, common to all?

Historically, the literature produced in all these structures, has reflected their imperial situation.

Human nature has rarely refused the benefits that empire accrues, and this is as true for the ancient Athenian tragedians and comics as for Austen or Dickens.

The Arabian nights assumes imperial power structures (Scheherezade is a queen, for heaven's sake!).

The mercantile adventures of Sinbad the sailor assume a right to sail and trade in a wider Islamic empire: surely Dombey and Son, whom Said singles out for this assumption, are not alone in this.

Similarly, Aristotle's Politics assume and justify an inherent Hellenic right to rule the world and, as the traditional tutor of Alexander the great, Aristotle could be said to have played his part in establishing the 'legitimacy' of the Hellenistic empire (including, ultimately, the province of Syria Palaestina, the origin of Said's native 'Palestine').

Indeed, some of Aristotle's arguments later appear in Islamic literature.

Said leaves himself open to the charge of applying a universal principle in a highly selective and partisan manner.

To pursue his own agenda, Pro Palestinian Arab and culturally Islamic, he has criticised modern European literature but left the culture of, say, imperial Islam unscathed.

His work is undoubtedly worth reading as a catelogue of the many evils of modern European empires committed against subject non Europeans.

It is also, as far as I am any judge, a comprehensive survey of postimperial and postcolonial indigenous literary and historiographical responses to empire and its ravages.

Said's partisanship is understandable.

Yet, one cannot help but feel, as a work of universal merit, it is flawed and one sided.

Rating:
Summary: Literature and History
Review: No serious literary scholar would now argue that literature is somehow independent of history or (in the anthropological sense) culture. Indeed, it is difficult to know what such an argument might mean. Thus there is hardly anything revolutionary about Said's basic premise. What Said seeks to do is to excavate the assumptions which his chosen texts work with and which they either reproduce or attempt to question. Thus he, situates Conrad's work within the context of imperialism - a familiar enough move. More interesting is his analysis of Mansfield Park and its silent assumption of a certain imperial space. In analysing these texts, Said refutes those uncomprehending old style critics who protest that the texts are not "about" imperialism or whatever, since we are dealing here with the ASSUMPTIONS on which the texts are based. That a text can not be "about" its own assumptions or conditions of possibility is (as Said shows)little more than a truism. It is from these simple truisms that Said begins. His actual analyses, though,
often lack rigour and real knowledge. His essay on Yeats is largely silent about the particularities of Yeats' Ascendancy background. The concept of the "anti-colonial" writer effaces the particularities of Yeats' class status and his problematic relation to Nationalism. There are many other criticisms I could make. Nonetheless, this is an interesting book....

Rating:
Summary: Pointing the finger at the west to excuse terrorists
Review: On the surface of it, this book is about how litterature, Western litterature, promoted imperialism. But in reality,the author is trying to blame the West and get the West to blame itself for the terrorist acts such as those of September 11. As such, he is being an appologists for terrorists. Yet the author refuses to acknowledge the culture of prejudice that is prevalent in the Arab world.

As a Christian woman who lives in the Cairo neighbourhood of Choubra, there is hardly a day when I walk in the street without suffering abuse, not only the abuse that girls whose head is not covered suffer, but abuse reserved for Christians. The author, a Christian from an Arab country himself, knows only too well that this is happening, yet he refuses to write about it. Instead, he chooses to blame the West and to distract it from the plight of Christians in Egypt and other Arab countries. Christians like himself fled to the West, are safe, and their defense of the Arab world does not help the rest of us; it only encourages more persecution against us.

There is a quiet ethnic cleansing campaign that started since Nasser came to power in 1952. The Jews left, and people like Said blame Israel. But that is not the reason, because the Armenian Christians left, the Greek Christians left, the Maronite Christians left. Many Copts escaped, and those of us who are still there want to leave. There is a culture of prejudice in the Arab world, and a conspiracy of silence by Christians who believe that defending the Arab world will improve our lot. It will not, and authors like Said are being manipulated, and manipulating the West.

Rating:
Summary: Pointing the finger at the west to excuse terrorists
Review: On the surface of it, this book is about how litterature, Western litterature, promoted imperialism. But in reality,the author is trying to blame the West and get the West to blame itself for the terrorist acts such as those of September 11. As such, he is being an appologists for terrorists. Yet the author refuses to acknowledge the culture of prejudice that is prevalent in the Arab world.

As a Christian woman who lives in the Cairo neighbourhood of Choubra, there is hardly a day when I walk in the street without suffering abuse, not only the abuse that girls whose head is not covered suffer, but abuse reserved for Christians. The author, a Christian from an Arab country himself, knows only too well that this is happening, yet he refuses to write about it. Instead, he chooses to blame the West and to distract it from the plight of Christians in Egypt and other Arab countries. Christians like himself fled to the West, are safe, and their defense of the Arab world does not help the rest of us; it only encourages more persecution against us.

There is a quiet ethnic cleansing campaign that started since Nasser came to power in 1952. The Jews left, and people like Said blame Israel. But that is not the reason, because the Armenian Christians left, the Greek Christians left, the Maronite Christians left. Many Copts escaped, and those of us who are still there want to leave. There is a culture of prejudice in the Arab world, and a conspiracy of silence by Christians who believe that defending the Arab world will improve our lot. It will not, and authors like Said are being manipulated, and manipulating the West.

Rating:
Summary: Culture and Imperialism
Review: Said (Columbia Univ.) is internationally recognized as a scholar with exceptional insight on wide-ranging cultural phenomena. Here he brings the same skills exhibited in his widely heralded work Orientalism (CH, Apr'79) to bear on the age of imperialism. Said makes extensive use of literary masterpieces, intermingling them with a solid understanding of political developments, to present an interesting and original view of the pervasive legacy of imperalism. He sees the impact of imperialism as a "consolidated vision" of the sort Kipling had in mind when he spoke of the "white man's burden." Set against this Eurocentric view were the thoughts and writings of indigenous peoples who struggled valiantly, even as decolonization was in progress, to retain and reassert their own distinct cultural identity. Said's scope is wide; his arguments deep. Yet this book is one that no serious student of modern empire can afford to ignore. Those who seek greater understanding of today's interaction between the West and the Third World cannot overlook its message of the true oneness of the human community.

Rating:
Summary: Grow up, Professor Said!
Review: Said has hit on an interesting idea, studying imperialism through literature. And the breadth of knowledge he brings to the discussion is often impressive. But he ultimately gives what seems to me not only a largely mistaken, but a shallow and even childish reading of history.

Politically, Said frankly lets us know where his sympathies lie, and where they do not lie. He seldom misses a chance to make a snide remark about American "Captain Ahab" adventures against foreign dictators. Desert Storm was "an imperial war against the Iraqi people." America fights such wars to put "lesser peoples, with lesser rights, morals, claims" in their places. Americans "love to think that whatever it wanted was just what the human race wanted." Said probably changed the channel when he saw Kabul residents cheering American intervention. While he qualifies his theories on details, one of his chief faults is to look the other way when evidence disconfirms them in big ways.

Said sees himself as fighting a lonely battle. He feels "outnumbered and outorganized," with all the wealthy universities and media outlets taking up "a strident chorus of right-wing tending damnation, in which they separate what is non-white, non-Western, and non-judeo-Christian from the acceptable." Anyone who reads the Western press as a vast, right-wing conspiracy may appreciate such jeremiads. The rest of us an only stare in awe.

Human beings are not angels, and Western history is certainly not all crumpets and tea. It is legitimate, though a bit late, to attack Western colonialism, and express disgust at pretensions that Great Powers acted solely for the benefit of those they conquered.

Said exagerates without shame or limit, however. "No one with any power to influence public discussion on policy demurred as to the basic superiority of the white European male, who should always retain the upper hand." This comes shortly after Said condemns Kipling (and Europeans) for over-generalizing about Indian character. And it is bunk. Loyalties of the 19th Century were not so neatly divided. There were public figures whose first loyalties were not to their own state, nor even to native peoples, but to God, for example. Christian leaders and thinkers like Wesley, Wilberforce, Booth, Carey, Farquhar, and WAP Martin often said and did all that should have been said and done, somestimes better than any armchair Marxist alive now does. In his deathbed letter to Wilberforce, John Wesley contrasted "civil, reasonable, industrious" Africans, with "villainous" slavetraders in a way that would make a modern liberal feel sorry for the slavetraders. ("Are you a man? Then you should have a human heart. The Great God will deal with you as you have dealt with them!") Indian writer Mangalwadi notes that Wilberforce never seemed to act in England's best economic interests. Wesley and Wilberforce were two of the most influential men who ever lived.

The truth is, the period Said covers involved a long, complex battle for the soul of Western culture. Commercial self-interest usually had the upper hand, but within nominally Christian empires, the teachings of Jesus slowly conquered self-interest in many cases to bring reform, as Mangalwadi and Farquhar have described in India. Crusaders Against Opium tells a similiar story of how some Westerners (missionaries) unanimously fought against England's obvious commercial interests in China as well.

But Said, being influenced by Matthew Arnold, looks for "sweatness and light" in the world of letters, rather than among the followers of the light that really did make a difference. Said implies feminism sprang up in non-Western cultures out of thin air. The great Chinese skeptic, Hu Shi, said however, that missionaries "taught us to look at women as people." It was missionaries again who fought the first and most important battles for the elevation of women in India, China, and Japan. While Said's "leading lights" of Western civilization were piddling around on the margins, these people not only conceived of the "natives" taking charge, they empowered them to do so, sometimes at the cost of their lives. Said almost ignores these people, for the health of his theory. In general, Said reveals a naive and rather petulant understanding of human nature, (as opposed to really illuminating social critics like Solzhenitsyn and Rene Girard) and overlooks the true source of the light that brings liberation.

The book could also be better written. "Conrad's way of demonstrating this discrepancy between the orthodox and his own views of empire is to keep drawing attention to how ideas and values are constructed (and deconstructed) through dislocations in the narrator's language." This, from a fan of George Orwell?

...