Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (33962)	7/8/2002 9:26:39 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

. . . he just indulges in one long ad hominem attack. Sorry, but he, as I've posted before, offers a series of quite serious criticisms of Lewis' work--the overgeneralization, the lack of evidence, the lack of first hand knowledge, we could go on. As for the ad hominem character of the essay, most of what troubles you is Said's critique of a disciplinary attitude, a condescension toward the subject. As for the textual citations, he does his share. After all this is a book review and at least one that knows something about the subject as opposed to Paul Kennedy's gift. He says Islam is complex. Well sure it is. Christianity is complex too. You're implying here that Said is against the generalization business. Not so. Two points. First, Said argues that Lewis never makes a case for why the basis for the generalization about these worlds should be a religious one rather than an economic, political, or social one. Good point. Second, he argues that Lewis never pauses to justify his generalizations, never takes a moment to comment about those instances which don't fit the rule and how he, Lewis, has taken that into account. Just assumes you will understand that he speaks with sufficient authority that you should not raise questions. The trouble with this field, is that the westerners in it can only escape the charges of "Orientalism" by imitating Said. Oh, I doubt that's true. I don't know the field but were to read more seriously in it, I would expect to find a great deal of deference to the founder, and a great deal of vigorous criticism in the form of moving to new arguments. I recall some rather strong criticisms of Said's work from the postcolonialist crowd. Again, just relax, Nadine. Said definitely has his flaws. I could turn it around and argue against some of his stuff. But this argument with Lewis is a very powerful one. I find the most telling point is the Turkey point and the lack of first hand knowledge, though he (Lewis) writes as if he has it.