- Joined
- Nov 5, 2019
- Messages
- 611
- Reaction score
- 162
Bernard Lewis is, what he qualifies as, an Orientalist.
Pretty much a non-Near/Middle/Far Eastern dude who specializes in Near/Middle/Far Eastern culture, specifically Arab and Islamic culture. A historian and linguist.
Anyways, I am re-reading his book, Islam and the West, and in a chapter that delves into the question of the "Orientalist", Lewis starts tearing a fellow scholar (an Arab scholar) a new asshole for, more or less, condemning the White Western American and European Scholars for dipping their toe into the history of the Arab, and subsequently, rebuts this Arab scholar-guys' research and nativist position as being absolute shit.
But that's not the point. He rips off this screed, below in italics, that pretty much sums up what I see as the problematic way discourse and dialogue has evolved lately, at least in the US. Motherfuckers can just throw shit out there and claim it as valid, truthful and correct and their minions will latch on and parrot that stance (see Donald J Trump and his barnacles; see Adam Schiff and his coven of mongoloids) And while Lewis is focusing his disgust at a very specific dude with a very specific agenda in a specific field of study, the spirit of it explains our current Far Left vs Far Right, Progressive vs Conservative, Jones 3-2 vs Reyes 3-2, etc. And old boy called it back in '93:
According to the currently fashionable epistemological view, absolute truth doesn't matter; facts don't matter. All discourse is a manifestation of a power relationship, and all knowledge is slanted. Therefore, accuracy doesn't matter; evidence doesn't matter. All that matters is the attitude--the motives and purposes--of the user of the knowledge, and this may be simply claimed for oneself or imputed to another. In imputing motives, the irrelevance of truth,facts, evidence, and even plausibility is a great help. The mere assertion suffices. The same rules apply to claiming a motive; goodwill can be established quickly and easily by appropriate political support.
Pretty much a non-Near/Middle/Far Eastern dude who specializes in Near/Middle/Far Eastern culture, specifically Arab and Islamic culture. A historian and linguist.
Anyways, I am re-reading his book, Islam and the West, and in a chapter that delves into the question of the "Orientalist", Lewis starts tearing a fellow scholar (an Arab scholar) a new asshole for, more or less, condemning the White Western American and European Scholars for dipping their toe into the history of the Arab, and subsequently, rebuts this Arab scholar-guys' research and nativist position as being absolute shit.
But that's not the point. He rips off this screed, below in italics, that pretty much sums up what I see as the problematic way discourse and dialogue has evolved lately, at least in the US. Motherfuckers can just throw shit out there and claim it as valid, truthful and correct and their minions will latch on and parrot that stance (see Donald J Trump and his barnacles; see Adam Schiff and his coven of mongoloids) And while Lewis is focusing his disgust at a very specific dude with a very specific agenda in a specific field of study, the spirit of it explains our current Far Left vs Far Right, Progressive vs Conservative, Jones 3-2 vs Reyes 3-2, etc. And old boy called it back in '93:
According to the currently fashionable epistemological view, absolute truth doesn't matter; facts don't matter. All discourse is a manifestation of a power relationship, and all knowledge is slanted. Therefore, accuracy doesn't matter; evidence doesn't matter. All that matters is the attitude--the motives and purposes--of the user of the knowledge, and this may be simply claimed for oneself or imputed to another. In imputing motives, the irrelevance of truth,facts, evidence, and even plausibility is a great help. The mere assertion suffices. The same rules apply to claiming a motive; goodwill can be established quickly and easily by appropriate political support.
Last edited:
