but, maybe what you're saying about said's imperialistic relativism, so to say, is actually an insight, rather than a defect. i would certainly agree that anybody arguing that western imperialism is somehow unique in history is wrong - turks, arabs, mongols, etc had imperialism at the centre of their existence, as well, and should be analyzed in the same way, in their historical turn.
the idea that everything every empire ever did is caused by the same forces is of course silly, but i want to point to two historical examples to back up his argument, which i'd argue is partially useful, although not the reason i tend to cite said, myself - i find him useful in deconstructing this tendency to masquerade racism as agency, which leads to pseudo-leftists aligning with conservative and reactionary forces under the misguided argument that they're supporting "liberation movements". in truth, they're just aligning with the far right and can't figure it out, or don't care or have conservative sympathies that get exposed that way.
you can and should oppose imperialism by aligning with the left, not the right - and arguing that you're upholding cultural differences is....well, that's what the book is for.
but, the two examples i want to try draw attention to are the french invasion of algeria and the existence of christianity.
if you look at the historical justifications for the french invasion of algeria, they fit the description said laid out fairly clearly. the reason the french went into algeria was to stop slave raids and piracy in southern france. it really wasn't economic or material, it was practically self-defense. and, over time, the french ended up integrating algeria in a way that's somewhat unusual, and maybe only has the british relationship to india as a parallel. that is one example where said's description is correct, even if you can find a dozen more where it's really not.
i would argue that tracing the issue back to the greeks actually demonstrates the opposite point, because islam is a fundamentally greek religion, like buddhism and christianity are. i've tended to make the opposite argument - there is no such thing as the east at all. we're all greeks! we're still living in panhellenism, from the tip of ireland to the depths of malaysia. a careful historical analysis indicates there is no such thing as the east, at all, and othering them doesn't actually make any sense. but, the western fascination with eastern mystery cults in the roman period is widespread. you had mithraism, for example. and, the most obvious outcome was christianity - an eastern mystery cult that found widespread adoption amongst westerners, partly voluntarily and partly not.
this isn't to say that said's models are universally applicable. but, this topic doesn't lend itself to broad statements, anyways; there simply aren't universal models to describe colonialism, it's complicated and doesn't generalize well. i would agree that he sometimes made statements that were too broad, but if you wind them back and apply them more carefully, they can be quite powerful.
"only the west engages in empire"
i mean, that's a ridiculous, empirically wrong statement.
==
i should also point out that chomsky himself is enormously critical of marx & lenin - because he's an anarchist. as were bakunin & kropotkin & ....
i wouldn't place said in that category, certainly. but, criticism of marx is nothing new on the left.
but, what chibber is doing here is fundamentally bad thinking, in defining sides and good and bad people, rather than looking at arguments and separating them from the people making them. i don't need to agree with everything said says, or even most of the things he says, to realize the value of his contribution in pointing out a certain strain of blurry thinking that needs to be corrected. citing said in one context doesn't mean citing him or even endorsing him in another. and, it would be a ridiculous strawman to suggest otherwise.
==
deathtokoalas
at the end of the talk, all i got from this is that these guys largely missed the point that there isn't a difference between east and west and it's racist to insist there is - a position that would align them with post-structuralism, rather than it's negation.
Red Authority
Of course there is a difference between East and west. There is a difference between all nations. What are you talking about?
deathtokoalas
i'm talking about basic egalitarianism; no there is not a difference between east and west and is not a difference between any "nations", the latter of which is an artificial construct of capitalism. if you get anything at all from said, it has to be that the "orient" doesn't actually exist, and neither of these guys got that.
===
deathtokoalas
specifically, said is useful and powerful in deconstructing the phenomenon of leftists supporting far right groups like isis, or even groups like the khmer rouge, even if he's only weakly applied to many other scenarios. that's where said is useful and how he will continue to be cited, not in a broader post-structuralist framework.
ViolentHexameter
Not really. You just happen to have read Said and now see everywhere where you can apply your mediocre education. Like most people with a university education who are not, well, over 40 at least.
deathtokoalas
well, i can tell you that i'm going to keep citing said in this context, and that i'm going to keep thinking it's useful and powerful, whether you want to keep throwing non-arguments about it at me or not.
nothing these guys said here is convincing in undoing said at all.