Wost 3002 Blog

I found McClintock's article interesting since it brought to light, for me, some of the problems of feminism. Her discussion of the separation of black and white females in the feminism movement shows that there are still obstacles to overcome. The white feminists are blind to ther race and class power. Like in Mill's reading, there is "white misunderstanding, misrepresentation, evasion and self-deception on matters related to race." These white feminists viewed the black feminists as different and therefore making them not an integral part of the movement. In relation to class today I can picture the white feminists simply tolerating the black feminists instead of respecting, accepting and working together. Another piece of her article that I found interesting was in her conclusion. McClintock mentioned that although women are beginning to fulfill stereotypical male roles, the males have yet to take on the stereotypical female roles which questions the "familial norm."

“Orientalism” by Edward W. Said
What a reading, one thing that I got out of this article is that Said is
slightly angry about the depiction “middle east” in the past and the
present. That was quiet surprise for me, his tone seemed to me very heated
and aggravated. But still it was a very interesting article and very
enlightening. Where should I start to discuss there are so many points that
he covers in his article.
His main point is that European came invaded the “orient” and depicted in
the history books and scholar works the “orient” as the lands of mystery,
adventure, spices and the land of the inferior people. His point is that
the “orient” was observed and named by the Europeans and the “orient” was
very passive by this process. What Said argues in article is that during
the colony period European scholars have a set a standard characterization
road of a typical “orient” culture style, humans and lifestyle with the
great hint of “prejudicesim” and the superiority of Europe. After World War
II the European involved in the “oriental” declined but therefore the
American involvement increased. However the boost of American involvement
in the “orient” did not bring more respect for the orient. The American
scholars continued the same path as the European; they also depicted the
“orient”, untrustworthy, anti-Western, and antidemocratic culture. I had
the feeling that Said felt responsible to change something and clarify that
history and scholar work was written with biasness and “prejudicesim”.

Well, this is something new that I have learned from Anne’s article. I know that back then, other people from outside of a nation was not considered citizens but I never knew that in the post-French Revolution Europe, women were not directly nation-state citizens, they were left out. Also I agree with this quote and like how they word it, “We women can no longer remain in the background or concern ourselves only with domestic and sports affairs. The time has arrived for women to enter the political field and stand shoulder to shoulder with their men in the struggle.” For a long time, women have had very little rights and were not allow to do many things which led them to protest for their rights.
In the reading by Edward Said,it seems that he is saying that Orientalism is almost like a representation of the orient through discourse. And maybe it was already mentioned but how did the word Orientatalism ever came to be and how if it is still exists today, then how does it play a role in today’s society? Since reading it and finding out that the western culture has produced an assumption way of thinking about the Eastern countries, I wonder if it is the other way around too?

McClintock's article was really something! There were so many interesting points she made its going to be hard to pick just a few to talk about. Well I guess I must start somewhere.
One thing that she said that I found extremely interesting was how she said that white-middle class men were seen to "embody the forward thrusting agency of national 'progress'." I find this to be so true in the fact that it seems to happen quite often today; especially in the political world. Everything that is seen to be considered "progress" is done by men; in my opinion at least.
At the very end of this article it talked about how male nationalists have condemned feminism and want women to wait until after the revolution to speak about their disempowerment. But as she McClintock said, they are trying to silence something that is already being silenced. I believe this has to do with the male figure still wanting or trying to take hold of the power they have as long as possible.

Said’s article, Orientalism, was quite a challenge for me. I have to reread the article again. However, it was still hard for me to really get his point about Orientalism because he talks about Orientalism in so many ways. In his article, he defined Orientalism in three different meanings, which then made me wonder about which meaning of orientalism is the correct one. So if orientalism a system of knowledge being construct to other people from the Western. Then why does he bring up those three qualifications. It seem to me like he is using those qualification to implies that in order to being a orient person, a person must have those qualification. It is shown when he give the example of Flaubert's encounter with an egyptian courtesan. Where this Flaubert guy tell the world about what Oriential women she is without her own expressions( pg.6). So what if a western doesn't have those three qualification, then does that mean that he or she is not a oriental. I think he say that being oriental involve other espect of culutral, natural, and political concern, which will made one dominant as human being.

As for the reading of McClintock, I enjoy reading it a lot because the reading bring up important problems that feminist still face as of today withnin a nation and family status. One of the problem that feminist still face is that male are still more dominant than them in a nation and family, but now they are in a contest with other female for domination. It is amazing how McColintock point out that nationlism is all about gender construction of power, which are invented and dangerous. This article capture an important issues from the Mill's "Racical Contract" which is domination of white to people of color. However, in this article is more of white female power over other other people of color. Female are still being compared in this article with men, but I think that without female roles, then male are not that dominant. Every man will seem equally because they don't have someone who is lower than them in comparisions.

In the article "Orientalism" I agree with Kalia, because the article did take many different paths in explaining the different ways that orientalism can be percieved.
I found the line interesting in explaining the 'domination' of the orient: "Until the end of WWII Frnace and Britain dominated the Orient and Orientalism; since WWII America has dominated the Orient and approaches it as France and Briain once did." This shows the view of the Orient as a submissive one. Said puts it this way: Orientalism as a sign of European-Atlantic power over the orient. It seemed to me that the Orient was discussed mostly in the light of being controlled/dominated by 'mainstream'. This labels the Orient as the "other".

I had a difficult time with the bulk of Said's article; While he is a good writer in one sense, the overall content of this introduction suggests that it could have been a lot shorter. It appears that Said is stating the same mechanism of perpetuated dominance as Mills does in The Racial Contract: "[Orientalism] has less to do with the Orient than it does with 'our' world" (77). This statement brings about the concept of cultural relativism which is one of the fundaments of racism. It entails that a person of one culture views others through a "cultural lense" (a phrase used in the video we watched today). It thus makes sense that Said is not putting much emphasis on what kind of information Orientalism is made up of because it is an endless list -an "etc." of generalizations made about this OTHERed culture (so othered that it is categorized as merely one culture)as perceived by Western society. Basically, Orientalism and all other supposed race sciences are more reliable as sources of information about the arbitors of these theories than about the exoticized people and cultures that are studied.

Edward Said's piece on "Orientalism" reminded me of Charles Mills' theory on the "Racial Contract." They both believe that white people are the one's dominating the non-white people of this world without any direct planning, but instead by just going along with the tradition of history. I was particularly intrigued by Said's statement on truth. He states, "I believe it needs to be made clear about cultural discourse and exchange within a culture that what is commonly circulated by it is not "truth" but representations" (21). Traditions are not truths, but only representations with what is thought to be true. I firmly believe that people's truths are distorted, which in turn causes these misinterpretations with how things are suppossed to be. Which in turn causes this cycle with white people constantly unknowenly, and of course knowenly, creating more and more oppression along with more and more negative labels associated with non-white people.