> Ukrainians now strongly identify with “Europe” and “the West”. Unfortunately, these concepts are haunted by the memories of colonialism and racial segregation. Orientalism, as Edward Said put it memorably, “is never far from… the idea of Europe, a collective notion identifying ‘us’ Europeans against all ‘those’ non-Europeans”.
It's farcical to use the Orient as some kind of contrast to European colonialism and racism, when the Ottomans had one of the largest colonial empires (colonizing large parts of Europe itself!), and the trans-Saharan slave trade imported more black slaves than both Americas [1].
But he is correct that, of all empire and colonial forces, only the European ones are haunted by the memories, and amnesiac to their own history of colonial subjugation - at the hands of the Moors, the Ottomans, the Mongols, ... Europe is small, but the parts never colonized by non-Europeans are smaller still. Of course, Said deftly constructed the study of 'Orientalism' to exclude Oriental colonialism of Europe.
> EU’s moves to turn itself into Fortress Europe —by militarising its external borders and maintaining a liberal commitment to the free movement of peoples across internal borders — is not a pretty picture either.
Shouldn't it be up to Europeans to decide what kind of Europe qualifies as a pretty picture, instead of foreign political studies professors?
This is an excellently well put argument. It's easy to forget how horrible, bloody and inhumane wars of conquest for much of the last millennium were, be they conducted by Ottomans, Mongols, or the various factions making up 'christendom'. Nearly 80 years of substantive peace on the continent of Europe is a huge achievement, and one I hope can be replicated worldwide again. That cry of "never again" is very much worth listening to.
> But he is correct that, of all empire and colonial forces, only the European ones are haunted by the memories, and amnesiac to their own history of colonial subjugation
And rightly so. Unlike Europeon colonialism, the Islamic empire sought to integrate the conquered population within its empire and tried to be egalitarian. (Yes, they had slavery and slave trade was a part of their economic system, but Islamic philosophies allowed a slave to be freed and treated at par as a citizen once he bought his freedom or was freed. There are even freed slaves who rose up to rule the kingdoms they were citizens of). Contrast that with European colonialism that witnessed the most brutal and greatest exploitation and transfer of wealth from the east to the west. Europeans created two types of colony - one which they repopulated (after nearly wiping out the indigenous people) and other which they conquered and subjugated but the local population still outnumbered them. Yet, the treatment of the "citizens" of these colonies in the empire was dictated by race and religion. In the "christian" white man's colonies - USA, Australia, Canada etc. - the white man was treated nearly at par with the coloniser. But in the occupied colonies - like in most of Africa and Asia - the original "coloured" inhabitant was never even considered a legitimate "citizen" of the empire. (Ofcourse, that slightly changed later after the french revolution and the US freeing itself from the British necessitated a political change).
> Shouldn't it be up to Europeans to decide what kind of Europe qualifies as a pretty picture,
Sure, but that isn't going to stop others from showing Europe a mirror to themselves to highlight the reality of the world you are building -
“It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed, children being killed every day by [Russian President] Putin’s missiles, helicopters and rockets,” said David Sakvarelidze.
On CBS News, the foreign correspondent stated, “With all due respect, this isn't a place like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflicts raging for decades... This is a relatively civilized, relatively European city where you wouldn’t expect this.” On Al Jazeera, the anchor said, “What's compelling is that these are prosperous, middle-class people. These are not refugees trying to get away from the Middle East or North Africa. They look like any European family that you'd live next door to."
On NBC, correspondent Kelly Cobiella ... said, "Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria, these are refugees from neighbouring Ukraine. That, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians, they’re white, they’re very similar people."
Doesn't this racist, colonial narration reek of the very philosophies that lead to the rise of the worst of Europe (like the British empire and the Nazis)?
> In its statement, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association condemned "orientalist and racist implications that any population or country is 'uncivilised' or bears economic factors that make it worthy of conflict".
> Yes, they had slavery and slave trade was a part of their economic system, but Islamic philosophies allowed a slave to be freed and treated at par as a citizen once he bought his freedom or was freed. There are even freed slaves who rose up to rule the kingdoms they were citizens of
If their slaves were treated so well, where are the descendants of their sub-Saharan slaves? They imported more than both Americas combined, so their black population should be much larger than that of the US.
Others also had good reason to avoid falling under the Ottoman Empire:
The Ottoman Turks conducted a large-scale genocide and ethnic cleansing of the ancient and indigenous, Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, and Maronite Christian inhabitants of Anatolia, north western Iran, the fringes of northern Iraq and northern Syria and Mount Lebanon during and immediately after World War I, resulting in well over 3 million deaths and large-scale deportations in the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, Greek genocide, and Great famine of Mount Lebanon. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Middle_Eas...
> If their slaves were treated so well, where are the descendants of their sub-Saharan slaves?
If you are talking about the middle-east, the slaves were obviously traded, worked till dead or freed and sent back. (Even today, the number of foreigners working in the GCC outnumber the Arabs by 2x-3x, and while the middle-east welcomes foreigners to work in their country, none of the GCC countries give citizenship to them.)
Islamic empires were on a wane and the collapse of the Ottoman empire sealed its fate. Ofcourse, the Christian vs Islam political narrative was instrumental in this, and obviously there is a lot of exaggeration on this end by western historians, especially after imperialism peaked. The west was very much concerned if the old empires would rise again, and clash with the west, and thus created a lot of political propaganda to show themselves as more civilised and knowledgeable than the east.
Note that Ukraine is slavs, who have been looked down on historically by "real" europeans. Current new support for Ukraine is a clear reversal of that and as such an expression of anti-racism.
7 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 30.2 ms ] threadIt's farcical to use the Orient as some kind of contrast to European colonialism and racism, when the Ottomans had one of the largest colonial empires (colonizing large parts of Europe itself!), and the trans-Saharan slave trade imported more black slaves than both Americas [1].
But he is correct that, of all empire and colonial forces, only the European ones are haunted by the memories, and amnesiac to their own history of colonial subjugation - at the hands of the Moors, the Ottomans, the Mongols, ... Europe is small, but the parts never colonized by non-Europeans are smaller still. Of course, Said deftly constructed the study of 'Orientalism' to exclude Oriental colonialism of Europe.
> EU’s moves to turn itself into Fortress Europe —by militarising its external borders and maintaining a liberal commitment to the free movement of peoples across internal borders — is not a pretty picture either.
Shouldn't it be up to Europeans to decide what kind of Europe qualifies as a pretty picture, instead of foreign political studies professors?
[1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-tcc-worldciv2/chapter/...
And rightly so. Unlike Europeon colonialism, the Islamic empire sought to integrate the conquered population within its empire and tried to be egalitarian. (Yes, they had slavery and slave trade was a part of their economic system, but Islamic philosophies allowed a slave to be freed and treated at par as a citizen once he bought his freedom or was freed. There are even freed slaves who rose up to rule the kingdoms they were citizens of). Contrast that with European colonialism that witnessed the most brutal and greatest exploitation and transfer of wealth from the east to the west. Europeans created two types of colony - one which they repopulated (after nearly wiping out the indigenous people) and other which they conquered and subjugated but the local population still outnumbered them. Yet, the treatment of the "citizens" of these colonies in the empire was dictated by race and religion. In the "christian" white man's colonies - USA, Australia, Canada etc. - the white man was treated nearly at par with the coloniser. But in the occupied colonies - like in most of Africa and Asia - the original "coloured" inhabitant was never even considered a legitimate "citizen" of the empire. (Ofcourse, that slightly changed later after the french revolution and the US freeing itself from the British necessitated a political change).
> Shouldn't it be up to Europeans to decide what kind of Europe qualifies as a pretty picture,
Sure, but that isn't going to stop others from showing Europe a mirror to themselves to highlight the reality of the world you are building -
“It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed, children being killed every day by [Russian President] Putin’s missiles, helicopters and rockets,” said David Sakvarelidze.
On CBS News, the foreign correspondent stated, “With all due respect, this isn't a place like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflicts raging for decades... This is a relatively civilized, relatively European city where you wouldn’t expect this.” On Al Jazeera, the anchor said, “What's compelling is that these are prosperous, middle-class people. These are not refugees trying to get away from the Middle East or North Africa. They look like any European family that you'd live next door to."
On NBC, correspondent Kelly Cobiella ... said, "Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria, these are refugees from neighbouring Ukraine. That, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians, they’re white, they’re very similar people."
Doesn't this racist, colonial narration reek of the very philosophies that lead to the rise of the worst of Europe (like the British empire and the Nazis)?
> In its statement, the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association condemned "orientalist and racist implications that any population or country is 'uncivilised' or bears economic factors that make it worthy of conflict".
If their slaves were treated so well, where are the descendants of their sub-Saharan slaves? They imported more than both Americas combined, so their black population should be much larger than that of the US.
Others also had good reason to avoid falling under the Ottoman Empire:
The Ottoman Turks conducted a large-scale genocide and ethnic cleansing of the ancient and indigenous, Greek, Armenian, Assyrian, and Maronite Christian inhabitants of Anatolia, north western Iran, the fringes of northern Iraq and northern Syria and Mount Lebanon during and immediately after World War I, resulting in well over 3 million deaths and large-scale deportations in the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, Greek genocide, and Great famine of Mount Lebanon. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Middle_Eas...
If you are talking about the middle-east, the slaves were obviously traded, worked till dead or freed and sent back. (Even today, the number of foreigners working in the GCC outnumber the Arabs by 2x-3x, and while the middle-east welcomes foreigners to work in their country, none of the GCC countries give citizenship to them.)
Islamic empires were on a wane and the collapse of the Ottoman empire sealed its fate. Ofcourse, the Christian vs Islam political narrative was instrumental in this, and obviously there is a lot of exaggeration on this end by western historians, especially after imperialism peaked. The west was very much concerned if the old empires would rise again, and clash with the west, and thus created a lot of political propaganda to show themselves as more civilised and knowledgeable than the east.