November Roundup: SparkNotes on Orientalism
Newsletter 027 -- Soviet Misinterpretations. The Huntington Belief. What's Turkiye doing off stage? And, Summits.
Hello again,
I hope you’re all enjoying your holiday season!
This month I decided to use Edward Said’s seminal text, Orientalism, to offer an alternative framework for understanding the world we’re living in today. As the Global South makes more and more space for itself on the international stage, the West is compelled to pay attention and take accountability for the ways it wields its power and performs its self-appointed duties as adjudicator. *My not-so-subtle hope is that this roundup is a compelling book recommendation for those of you who haven’t already read Orientalism by Edward Said!*
Many polls suggest that President Biden will have a difficult run for re-election in 2024, as Americans become more disillusioned with the Democratic party, in the wake of the failures in Afghanistan, and the government’s unwavering support for Israel against all reason. We have so much unlearning we have to do before we begin the difficult work of imagining new systems and better policies. An honest look at the legacy we have built is important to understand the ways we must rebuild. It is my great hope for what this country can be that forces me to keep a critical eye on our leaders and find ways to hold them accountable. This reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite movies: two transplants on the Muni are complaining about San Francisco, and the protagonist, a born-and-raised San Francisco resident, interrupts their diatribe to say, “You don’t get to hate it unless you love it.”
Let’s not give up on us. Stay engaged, and continue learning.
Enjoy the roundup!
» A Critical Reading of Orientalism by Edward Said
This debate about Orientalist art and the responsibilities of museums was set within the framework of Edward Said’s, Orientalism. The lasting effects and widespread influence of Orientalism by Western imperialism are carried into today through art, media, and movies stewarded by Orientalists in the West. When we don’t push back on these tropes, and instead passively consume Orientalist notions through these mediums, we’re lulled into complacency, and without knowing it, we accept the ways these Orientalist tropes show up in our politics. — Alexis
“On the one hand, Orientalism acquired the Orient as literally and as widely as possible; on the other, it domesticated this knowledge to the West, filtering it through regulatory codes, classifications, specimen cases, periodical reviews, dictionaries, grammars, commentaries, editions, translations, all of which together formed a simulacrum of the Orient and reproduced it materially in the West, for the West.” (p.166, Orientalism)
The Right to Speak for Ourselves
“Palestinians have been talking about apartheid for decades—we’re even past that now—but it took Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and B’Tselem decades to finally confirm it.” (quote from the article)
Mohammed El-Kurd, a Palestinian journalist, pushes back on Western media’s insistence on a perfect victim, their politics of appeal, and the false dichotomy they impose on Palestinians which frame them flatly, as either victims or terrorists. All of which refuse them full humanness and is a scathing articulation of their Orientalism. El-Kurd describes the politics of appeal as well-meaning journalists’ superfluous use of humanizing language to paint oppressed people, or victims, as exceptional to counter the racist, Orientalist, preconceived notions of Palestinians. Because of this effort to overcorrect, he says, they have brought about the idea of a “perfect victim”. The perfect victim is often found in women and children whose statements or pleas for help have to be pre-qualified by some kind of denunciation. There are many problems with the politics of appeal, the first of which is that it makes it difficult for people of color or oppressed groups to speak for themselves. To feel heard, to feel like they can share their experience without having to navigate the minefield of what we can, quite rightly, call racism. This leads to my next point: El-Kurd didn’t articulate this idea so explicitly, but what looms over the issue of the politics of appeal and the way the media tends to paint Palestinians, is Orientalism. Edward Said, in his popular book, Orientalism, lays out how this geographically specific brand of racism has informed Western politics and policy in the region since colonization. Orientalist views believe the men of these regions are violent, morally and ethically bankrupt, and the women as lewd, yet oppressed, in need of saving, even from themselves. All of which distances them from their humanity. The perpetuation of Orientalist ideas, through media outlets, is important to Western governments because it allows them to play into these tropes and garner Western society’s support for their policies in the region. Palestinians and those critical of the US and Israel, have been pushing back on the language used in the media to describe what is happening today. What would completely upend the West’s favored Orientalist narrative, is if Palestinians were able to speak for themselves. So many people have come to the Isreal-Palestine conflict this time around horrified and emboldened towards a pro-Palestine stance, because of the first-hand accounts being shared on social media. The West knows that it is dangerous to their policy objectives in the region to allow Palestinians to speak for themselves, but social media has upended their ability to control the narrative any longer. — Alexis
“The closeness between politics and Orientalism, or to put it more circumspectly, the great likelihood that ideas about the Orient drawn from Orientalism can be put to political use, is an important yet extremely sensitive truth. It raises questions about the predisposition towards innocence or guilt, scholarly disinterest, or pressure-group complicity, in such fields as black or women’s studies. It necessarily provokes unrest in one’s conscience about cultural, racial, or historical generalizations, their uses, value, degree of objectivity, and fundamental intent.” (p.96, Orientalism)
Remnick: “The wound to the Israeli psyche. The destruction of Gazan lives and Gazan infrastructure.”
Brooke Gladstone: “And, the brutalizing of a generation.”
Remnick: “Ya. People are not born this way. People are not born this way. Cruelty hands down cruelty.”
In this interview, the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, discusses what it was like to write about the war in Gaza. He doesn’t make light of how important and how difficult it is to hold many truths at once while assessing the heavy loss and fear people are experiencing right now, not to mention journalists’ inability to access Gaza. Remnick also adds that there is an additional layer of difficulty in reporting for a Western (more specifically an American) audience that insists on flattening the conflict for lack of wanting to be open to nuance and hold heavy truths, “How we react to things politically and emotionally is shaped by what we’re willing to admit into our minds. We live in a political culture of strident simplicity.” Remnick posing that the political culture of America is simplistic, is an unfortunate truth, one which will have elicited grave consequences for the Middle East at large. — Alexis
“Once we begin to think of Orientalism as a kind of Western projection onto, and will to, govern over the Orient, we will encounter few surprises.” (p.95, Orientalism)
Jo Bluen, from South African Jews for a Free Palestine, discusses why the group supported the Parliamentary vote to close the Israeli embassy, and what else she believes South Africa should do to stand in solidarity with Palestinian freedom. South Africa is part of a growing list of countries that have decided to suspend diplomatic relationships with Israel to push the country towards a permanent ceasefire and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. What do these countries stand to lose or gain by breaking diplomatic ties with Israel? First of all, embassies are established around the world as a channel of communication, a pathway to conduct government relations between one country and another and to protect the country’s interests abroad. The removal of an embassy, or the severing of diplomatic relationships results in the loss of real-time understanding of intelligence, and communication with the state, and strains the country’s ability to pursue their interests in the host country. By not allowing Israeli diplomats to operate within their borders, these countries make it difficult for Israel to collect and analyze information about the attitudes and actions of the country and its society. They hope that by cutting Israel off from important diplomatic information, the country will rethink its actions in the Occupied Territories. As news outlets report on the growing list of countries severing diplomatic ties with Israel, it’s important to know what part of the diplomatic relationship was severed. Part of an embassy’s job is to report on human rights, proliferation issues (this refers to the spread of nuclear weapons and other military systems and technologies), economic trends, and security concerns within their host country. All of this information is critical for us to know and keep a record of, especially right now. On-the-ground presence allows governments access to critical information about events that can assist in crisis management and negotiations later on, and responding to the humanitarian disaster effectively. Early on in the bombardment, South African leadership had stated that they would be willing to take on the task of leading negotiations and peaceful pursuits. If they were serious about this it would be necessary to maintain a diplomatic relationship with Israel and have representatives on the ground. Their decision to sever diplomatic ties with Israel is meant as a stand against Israel’s actions in Gaza, with the main objective being to cut Israel off from them. South Africa has a vested interest in keeping its diplomats and an embassy on the ground and in the country (and it seems like there have been no plans to remove them as of yet), especially since journalists aren’t being allowed to report on the situation freely. — Alexis
» Trust is Earned
Top Diplomats of South Korea, Japan, and China Meet to Restart Trilateral Summit
South Korea, Japan, and China account for 25% of the global GDP and are culturally and economically tied to each other. This trilateral summit was postponed for four years, but the countries are coming together to restart discussions. A few months ago we wrote about Japan and South Korea’s summit with the US, a series of meetings that has China unnerved. This trilateral meeting covered a host of important issues related to trade, nuclear threats, climate changes, and other issues concerning the relationships the three countries have with each other. Just as they did at the summit with the US, South Korea and Japan once again came up against the issue of Japan’s colonial history in Korea. South Korea has been working on repairing this stick-point in their relationship but has been met with the cold shoulder from Japan. Leading up to this trilateral summit, a court in Seol had ordered Japan to compensate Koreans who were forced into sex slavery by Japanese soldiers, but during the summit, the Japanese representative rejected this move. Reporting makes it seem as though this discussion didn't go much farther, or that it threw ice on the summit altogether, which is a good thing for all involved (but likely frustrating for South Korea). China sees itself as “a stabilizing force” in the region, but it is also North Korea’s major ally and as such, it’s unlikely China will honor South Korea’s request to get North Korea to denuclearize and stop levying nuclear threats on the region. I’m not sure any of the states got much out of this summit, but diplomacy is a long game, and sometimes it’s enough that the only thing gained from a summit like this is that the lines of communication are still open. — Alexis
Roughly 50% of the continent’s population identifies as Muslim, making it an ideal place for Turkiye to try to expand its global influence. In 2011, Muslim leaders in Africa asked that Turkiye take on a greater role in Islamic education on the continent. In comparison to the US, Russia, or China, Turkiye is believed to be a more desirable option for a soft power partner with the continent because of its geographical location which is situated amid important world markets, and conflict zones, and because it shares some important cultural similarities with those living across the continent. Turkiye hopes to use its position as a nation without a colonial past in Africa, and with proximity to Europe, to become a trusted mediator to some of Africa’s ongoing conflicts. A deeper relationship with African leaders will serve to harness geopolitical relevance and cache for Turkiye on the world stage. — Alexis
On Bangladesh and Democracy, America’s Approach is Undermined by History
For those who are unfamiliar: Bangladesh is a South Asian nation that was separated from India during Partition in 1947, it is also the eighth most populated country in the world and has a Muslim majority. The Awami League has been the ruling party for three consecutive terms (with their eyes set on a fourth term) and thus far has had a consistent working relationship with the US: “The U.S. is the largest foreign investor in Bangladesh, its third largest trading partner, the largest market for Bangladesh’s ready-made garments, and the biggest investor in Bangladesh’s energy sector.” But in the lead-up to elections in January, the US has begun pushing the country to uphold meaningful democratic values. This past September, the US imposed visa restrictions on Awami League party members because it believes the party has and continues to undermine the democratic process. The notable inconsistency in the US’s relationship with Bangladesh is what policy experts believe will ultimately undermine American efforts in the country and possibly agitate this relationship. But the important question here is, why now? Perhaps the US is feeling emboldened by their continued strengthening relationship with India, and no longer sees Bangladesh as a necessary political partner. It cannot be Bangladesh’s lack of democratic consistency because, in the early aughts, the US had cooperated with, and even trained, the Rapid Action Batallion (a paramilitary group tasked with the job of suppressing opposition resistance in the streets and who had committed human rights violations). Another inconsistency that has led to skepticism for US involvement in upholding democracy in Bangladesh is the US’s support of several military regimes in Pakistan. In much of the Global South, the US has upheld the Huntington belief, originally dictated in Samuel Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he states that future wars would be fought between cultures and religions and not states. He suggests that for this reason, military rule would offer more stability in third-world countries than democratic civilian governments. The Pakistan example of the US’s upholding of the Huntington belief and other inconsistencies is, that the Awami League seems to feel, instructive for Bangladesh. The question here is: how will the US walk the line as the peddler of democracy, and maintain its interests in Bangladesh? Further, this pokes at the larger question of whether Western nations will be able to rebrand themselves as trusted partners with nations in the Global South, who are quickly gaining more relevance on the world stage. — Alexis
» Unintended Events That Changed the World
“The way we travel now, we have this sense of how tourism is good for these places, how we as tourists are helping [...] pouring our dollars into the economy, how these places really desperately need our money. And so tourism has changed the story about travel so that instead of us looking for hospitality, we feel like we’re already sort of saving these places that we travel to, and were looking for customer service. It's become a very transactional experience.” (quote from interview)
The Marshall Plan, signed by President Truman in 1948 laid out how the US was going to provide economic assistance to Western Europe to help their economies bounce back after the war. The US sent its best and brightest (white, Ivy League-educated men) to France to set the plan in motion. The plan also funneled money into encouraging Americans to travel to Europe — another way to bring economic vigor back to Europe. Julia Child’s (a well-known American chef) husband was one of the many diplomats brought to France to help roll out the Marshall Plan. After her time in France, Julia Child came back home and garnered an audience interested in the cooking techniques she had learned. It wasn’t long before French cooking was then popularized in America. Because of the institutional framework of the Marshall Plan and the efforts at the time to bridge America and Europe economically, it’s no surprise that Julia and her French cooking took America by storm. This is a great example of how soft power, travel, and investment into tourism (and by tourists) can be an extremely powerful combination for countries looking to boost their economies. It's also why tourism is such an alluring industry for many countries. — Alexis
“The most important event in Congo over the past 100 years, I would say, would be the installation of Mobutu in 1960. And that was a period in which the country was utterly run into the ground, the most fabulously corrupt dictator you could imagine…and then that country collapsed in 1997. And even to this day, Congo is still suffering from the consequences of that collapse; which was the result of 30 plus years of Mobutu, who was the result of outside interference, largely American.” (quote from interview)
There is a long history of violent exploitation of Congo’s natural resources, beginning with the Rubber Terror which lasted from 1885 to 1908 under King Leopold II of Belgium, up to today where the topic of conversation around the mining of cobalt has led consumers to push American corporations for labor protections. In his new book, The Lumumba Plot, Stuart Reid discusses how the West has kept its thumb on the country, destabilizing it, and keeping it vulnerable to exploitation, even as it worked hard to build itself up after independence. The Congo we see today is the work of American Imperialism and capitalist exploitation. The story of Lumumba is also the story of how this successful American foray popularized American covert action worldwide: “It was seen as a win for covert action. That behind the scenes you could carefully tip events, and make things happen in America’s favor, and no one will really even see the CIA’s hand. Over the rest of the Cold War you have a lot of [...] you have a string of covert operations [...] and a lot of that was perfected in Congo.” — Alexis
The history of US settlement on Native lands is a violent one, but we must also remember that it was methodical and political by nature as well. In this story about American settler colonialism and its mechanisms, the two examples presented show us how the Ojibwe people in Minnesota took on the US government, and the cause and effect of the different choices made by the Red Lake and Leech Lake tribes. The Allotment Act of 1887 was seen as progressive at the time, and it was supported by liberal Native reformers. Allotment was a federal policy that divided up the land into privately owned parcels given to tribal members with the idea that Natives would own their land and be able to build generational wealth. Once the allotment process began to take place, timber companies, banks, and politicians conspired to systematically dispossess Natives of these allotted pieces of land. In Red Lake, where they staved off allotment policies by refusing to give up their land through the Nelson Agreements, Natives enjoy a level of sovereignty not all tribes in the US have access to. This episode calls attention to the fact that not all Indian reservations are owned by the Native tribes that may still live there. It also recounts the sordid history of American settler colonialism. — Alexis
Maria Popova and Oxana Shevel discuss their new book, Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States, and pose that the origin of modern discontent between these two countries is how their understanding of the collapse of the Soviet Union diverged. On the one hand, Russia viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to reinvent the idea of the common statehood (or commonwealth), and proof that the Soviet Union as an institution didn’t work. On the other hand, Ukrainians understood the collapse as a divorce and an altogether end to the idea of a commonwealth (a group of countries that have political or economic connections to each other). This meant that Russian leaders were working towards a political future where reunification was inevitable, and Ukrainian leaders were not. There were a host of political theories swirling around during this time as newly independent post-Soviet states began the difficult work of state-making. The interview dives deep into the history of this very significant period and draws a fuller picture of what we are witnessing today. — Alexis
If you found this newsletter helpful and engaging, please subscribe and share us with your friends! We’re always looking for contributors so if you’re interested, shoot us an email at [ 823newsletter@gmail.com ]!
In Solidarity,
The 823 Team