It's about the Truth, 08 Nov 2008
I don't know much about "Orient" or "Orientalism" and after all this book is not about what I thought it would be but as a History undergraduate student I found this book very revealing. It's about the necessity for searching for the Truth, without contenting yourself with superficial findings based not on the Truth itself but what it is convenient for you to call true.

Utter Drivel, 04 Apr 2008
I do not know how Americans view Islam but as an Englishman/European it seems to me that Said's views are so much poppycock.To make a couple of points in a limited space.

Of course we have a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile .So what? For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europes colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous direct competitor to our interests.Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed .On a local scale the threat lasted even longer - Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and that was at the height of the British Empire ! .By a strange inversion left wing academics and Said have made Europeans and Americans see these things entirely from the point of view of Islam ie as uniquely a problem of western imperialism largely ignoring about a thousand years of history.

Common sense would suggest that as our knowledge of these societies grew in the 19th century so stereotypes would break down.Said says the opposite - they served to reinforce them. Common Sense is right - stereotypes did break down.He makes much of the fact that as a boy he saw these european pictures of the east and they bore no relation to the societies he knew.It never seems to occur to him that as a Palestinian/American he might not be seeing these pictures as a European sees them and a 19th century European at that. 19th century Europeans , for whom these pictures were intended , were preoccupied with the dehumanising and mechanising aspects of industrial society ,their own society, and used other societies to show up these concerns.European attitudes were complex and contradictory but they were not attempting to give an accurate view of oriental society as their viewers well understood. When Gauguin paints a picture of a naked Tahitian girl we dont think he is trying to justify French imperialism nor do we think that he is saying much about Tahiti. Naked Tahitian girls did not buy his paintings. He was saying a great deal however about 19th century France with its rigid stifling conventions compared with the natural grace of a simpler more primitive world. Said is himself guilty of a kind of mental colonialism.He assumes that he understands what these pictures are about and is going to tell us what they mean. But he does not understand them because he does not understand 19th century Europe and he gets it wrong.

Finally Said does not seem to understand that the British did not need to justify their oriental empire by regarding other societies as inferior and their rule as necessary to bring enlightenment to the natives. He assumes that, like the Roman Empire, it was acquired through conscious effort.Nothing could be further from the truth. The British Empire in India was acquired in a haphazard way through chance .They thought that as it had been delivered into their hands by fate they had as much right to be there as their Moghul predecessors. Early British colonialists simply adopted the customs of the dominant Muslim culture which they much admired.- even to the point of practising polygamy.It was only after the Indian mutiny in the late Victorian period when the British were forbidden to intermarry with the natives that they turned into a caste and thought that they had to justify their presence in the country by adopting spurious notions of superiority.

In short western attitudes to the orient mirror by and large oriental attitudes to the west - often confusing and contradictory. Americas particular support for Israel owes much to a particular sense of their own identity and is not shared by European countries. Said's thesis is in my view nonsense..



Said too much..?, 01 Feb 2008
Drawing upon the work of Michel Foucault, Edward Said claims that Western ideas of the `Orient' are not based upon objective facts but are created through academic and cultural `discourses' which serve to promote Western imperialism - often despite `liberal' intentions.

This mythical `East' is the antithesis of the West, a negative or inversion of the Occident, and is used to define both in binary opposition to each other and to facilitate the political and domination of the East.

However in order to demonstrate the existence of this `Orientalism' Said falls back on an equally stereotypical and monolithic `West' which he constructs entirely from the carefully selected writings of a handful of 19th Century middle-class, white, male English and French authors.

This tactic not only ignores or misrepresents a large body of Western authors sympathetic to the East and sensitive to differences within it, but also glosses over Western heterogenities of class, race, sex, religion and generation in order to manufacture a homogenous `Occident' devoid of differences.

Said is as guilty of *Occidentalism* as those he criticises are of *Orientalism*.

Said fails to provide any evidence that the `West' defines itself in binary opposition to a mythical `East' that Western scholars have created for just this purpose, he simply *manufactures* the kind of `West' necessary to explain the `East' that he himself has constructed from a very limited number of Western texts about the `Orient'.

He has created his own mythical `East' and `West' from a small number of secondary sources which he then projects onto others and thinks he has *discovered* rather than *invented*.


Well past its sell-by date, 14 Mar 2006
Books, however good or bad they are, can gather a momentum of their own once they become best-sellers. So it is with Orientalism. People will continue to read it because so many have read it. All the same it is time to touch base and say loud and clear that this is a very bad book. It is full of unjustified vitriol against people Said does not like. It is completely unscholarly in that Said has clearly not read some of the material about which he offers opinions. It is unreliable in that he gets many important facts wrong. It is animated by the idea that anyone who doesn't have the same political opinions as Said cannot possibly have anything useful to say. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Said showed himself to be impervious to criticism and did not even both to correct clearly established errors. This is a work of great arrogance. The case for all of these points is made by Robert Irwin in For Lust of Knowing (2006). Anyone reading Said's book must also read Irwin if they want to have a balanced view.

An utterly outstanding book that demands reading, 14 Jan 2005
Few works are more deserving of the 'Modern Classic' label that Penguin has given this book. Perhaps it is only after nearly twenty year since its first publication that we are able to appreciate the prophetic and uniquely influential nature of Said's insights into the roots of the 'West's' antagonism towards the 'Orient'. For what is, in effect, little more than a book of literary criticism, the ramifications for all areas of scholarly research and investigation are remarkable. On a personal level it is a book that has profoundly affected both my political and academic outlook and forced a re-evaluation of my attitudes (and not just towards the Middle-East) and, more significantly, the underlying deceits or conspiracies of history on which they are founded. I urge every person in a position of power to study this canonical work. That it is hard reading does not detract from but adds to the power of the work; at every moment Said's intimidating (but inspiringly humanistic and humane) scholarship is in evidence and one can only marvel at his analytical dexterity. Those who see the book as repetative and hypocritically reductive have failed to grasp the true substance which is in the criticism and not primarily in the conclusions which are, for the most part, self-evident, as Said himself declares from the outset.
There will, I am sure, continue be numerous wilful misreadings of 'Orientalism' and that it continues to provoke such controversy is a testament to its brilliance. Ignore them and read it.

It's about the Truth, 08 Nov 2008
I don't know much about "Orient" or "Orientalism" and after all this book is not about what I thought it would be but as a History undergraduate student I found this book very revealing. It's about the necessity for searching for the Truth, without contenting yourself with superficial findings based not on the Truth itself but what it is convenient for you to call true.

Utter Drivel, 04 Apr 2008
I do not know how Americans view Islam but as an Englishman/European it seems to me that Said's views are so much poppycock.To make a couple of points in a limited space.

Of course we have a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile .So what? For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europes colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous direct competitor to our interests.Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed .On a local scale the threat lasted even longer - Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and that was at the height of the British Empire ! .By a strange inversion left wing academics and Said have made Europeans and Americans see these things entirely from the point of view of Islam ie as uniquely a problem of western imperialism largely ignoring about a thousand years of history.

Common sense would suggest that as our knowledge of these societies grew in the 19th century so stereotypes would break down.Said says the opposite - they served to reinforce them. Common Sense is right - stereotypes did break down.He makes much of the fact that as a boy he saw these european pictures of the east and they bore no relation to the societies he knew.It never seems to occur to him that as a Palestinian/American he might not be seeing these pictures as a European sees them and a 19th century European at that. 19th century Europeans , for whom these pictures were intended , were preoccupied with the dehumanising and mechanising aspects of industrial society ,their own society, and used other societies to show up these concerns.European attitudes were complex and contradictory but they were not attempting to give an accurate view of oriental society as their viewers well understood. When Gauguin paints a picture of a naked Tahitian girl we dont think he is trying to justify French imperialism nor do we think that he is saying much about Tahiti. Naked Tahitian girls did not buy his paintings. He was saying a great deal however about 19th century France with its rigid stifling conventions compared with the natural grace of a simpler more primitive world. Said is himself guilty of a kind of mental colonialism.He assumes that he understands what these pictures are about and is going to tell us what they mean. But he does not understand them because he does not understand 19th century Europe and he gets it wrong.

Finally Said does not seem to understand that the British did not need to justify their oriental empire by regarding other societies as inferior and their rule as necessary to bring enlightenment to the natives. He assumes that, like the Roman Empire, it was acquired through conscious effort.Nothing could be further from the truth. The British Empire in India was acquired in a haphazard way through chance .They thought that as it had been delivered into their hands by fate they had as much right to be there as their Moghul predecessors. Early British colonialists simply adopted the customs of the dominant Muslim culture which they much admired.- even to the point of practising polygamy.It was only after the Indian mutiny in the late Victorian period when the British were forbidden to intermarry with the natives that they turned into a caste and thought that they had to justify their presence in the country by adopting spurious notions of superiority.

In short western attitudes to the orient mirror by and large oriental attitudes to the west - often confusing and contradictory. Americas particular support for Israel owes much to a particular sense of their own identity and is not shared by European countries. Said's thesis is in my view nonsense..



Said too much..?, 01 Feb 2008
Drawing upon the work of Michel Foucault, Edward Said claims that Western ideas of the `Orient' are not based upon objective facts but are created through academic and cultural `discourses' which serve to promote Western imperialism - often despite `liberal' intentions.

This mythical `East' is the antithesis of the West, a negative or inversion of the Occident, and is used to define both in binary opposition to each other and to facilitate the political and domination of the East.

However in order to demonstrate the existence of this `Orientalism' Said falls back on an equally stereotypical and monolithic `West' which he constructs entirely from the carefully selected writings of a handful of 19th Century middle-class, white, male English and French authors.

This tactic not only ignores or misrepresents a large body of Western authors sympathetic to the East and sensitive to differences within it, but also glosses over Western heterogenities of class, race, sex, religion and generation in order to manufacture a homogenous `Occident' devoid of differences.

Said is as guilty of *Occidentalism* as those he criticises are of *Orientalism*.

Said fails to provide any evidence that the `West' defines itself in binary opposition to a mythical `East' that Western scholars have created for just this purpose, he simply *manufactures* the kind of `West' necessary to explain the `East' that he himself has constructed from a very limited number of Western texts about the `Orient'.

He has created his own mythical `East' and `West' from a small number of secondary sources which he then projects onto others and thinks he has *discovered* rather than *invented*.


Well past its sell-by date, 14 Mar 2006
Books, however good or bad they are, can gather a momentum of their own once they become best-sellers. So it is with Orientalism. People will continue to read it because so many have read it. All the same it is time to touch base and say loud and clear that this is a very bad book. It is full of unjustified vitriol against people Said does not like. It is completely unscholarly in that Said has clearly not read some of the material about which he offers opinions. It is unreliable in that he gets many important facts wrong. It is animated by the idea that anyone who doesn't have the same political opinions as Said cannot possibly have anything useful to say. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Said showed himself to be impervious to criticism and did not even both to correct clearly established errors. This is a work of great arrogance. The case for all of these points is made by Robert Irwin in For Lust of Knowing (2006). Anyone reading Said's book must also read Irwin if they want to have a balanced view.

An utterly outstanding book that demands reading, 14 Jan 2005
Few works are more deserving of the 'Modern Classic' label that Penguin has given this book. Perhaps it is only after nearly twenty year since its first publication that we are able to appreciate the prophetic and uniquely influential nature of Said's insights into the roots of the 'West's' antagonism towards the 'Orient'. For what is, in effect, little more than a book of literary criticism, the ramifications for all areas of scholarly research and investigation are remarkable. On a personal level it is a book that has profoundly affected both my political and academic outlook and forced a re-evaluation of my attitudes (and not just towards the Middle-East) and, more significantly, the underlying deceits or conspiracies of history on which they are founded. I urge every person in a position of power to study this canonical work. That it is hard reading does not detract from but adds to the power of the work; at every moment Said's intimidating (but inspiringly humanistic and humane) scholarship is in evidence and one can only marvel at his analytical dexterity. Those who see the book as repetative and hypocritically reductive have failed to grasp the true substance which is in the criticism and not primarily in the conclusions which are, for the most part, self-evident, as Said himself declares from the outset.
There will, I am sure, continue be numerous wilful misreadings of 'Orientalism' and that it continues to provoke such controversy is a testament to its brilliance. Ignore them and read it.

Brilliant, Impressive and Urgently Topical., 14 Feb 2004
This is a truly masterful and enigmatic work that is immensely readable despite its well-earned reputation. Consequently this is a book that will and should be of interest to everyone, from the specialist to the casual reader who has never encountered theory before.
So why then Culture and Imperialism?
Western societies seem to have entered a phase of collective amnesia whereby colonialism, if it is remembered at all, is envisioned as ending somewhere along the length of the Suez Canal.
Said's thoughtful analysis challenges the modern myth of the end of Empire and of the slow decline of an age of economic and cultural imperialism which came to an end sometime after 1948 with the final dropping of the Union Jack in the final colonially occupied territory.
In many ways economic and cultural imperialism is as pervasive and violent today as it ever was, if not a little more so. Indeed, Said's brilliance in this book is to fundamentally disrupt and deconstruct the modern Western amnesia. Far from being back then and over there Said helps us to trace the links, connections, and complicities between writers as diverse as Jane Austen, J. S. Mill and W. B. Yeats.
For anyone with an interest in postcolonialism Culture and Imperialism is an essential grounding. Not only does the text follow on from Said's brilliant and ground-breaking Ur text of postcolonial studies Orientalism, but it suggests the possibility and methodology of subjecting imperialism to a systemic analysis.
Said has always been controversial, and rightly so. Unlike the quite frankly shoddy and poorly argued vitriol of some of his detractors (and reviewers) Said's work is always superbly well argued and controlled. Whether you support Said's point of view or not you cannot but fail to be impressed by his depth of insight and by the humanism of his intelligence.

It's about the Truth, 08 Nov 2008
I don't know much about "Orient" or "Orientalism" and after all this book is not about what I thought it would be but as a History undergraduate student I found this book very revealing. It's about the necessity for searching for the Truth, without contenting yourself with superficial findings based not on the Truth itself but what it is convenient for you to call true.

Utter Drivel, 04 Apr 2008
I do not know how Americans view Islam but as an Englishman/European it seems to me that Said's views are so much poppycock.To make a couple of points in a limited space.

Of course we have a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile .So what? For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europes colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous direct competitor to our interests.Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed .On a local scale the threat lasted even longer - Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and that was at the height of the British Empire ! .By a strange inversion left wing academics and Said have made Europeans and Americans see these things entirely from the point of view of Islam ie as uniquely a problem of western imperialism largely ignoring about a thousand years of history.

Common sense would suggest that as our knowledge of these societies grew in the 19th century so stereotypes would break down.Said says the opposite - they served to reinforce them. Common Sense is right - stereotypes did break down.He makes much of the fact that as a boy he saw these european pictures of the east and they bore no relation to the societies he knew.It never seems to occur to him that as a Palestinian/American he might not be seeing these pictures as a European sees them and a 19th century European at that. 19th century Europeans , for whom these pictures were intended , were preoccupied with the dehumanising and mechanising aspects of industrial society ,their own society, and used other societies to show up these concerns.European attitudes were complex and contradictory but they were not attempting to give an accurate view of oriental society as their viewers well understood. When Gauguin paints a picture of a naked Tahitian girl we dont think he is trying to justify French imperialism nor do we think that he is saying much about Tahiti. Naked Tahitian girls did not buy his paintings. He was saying a great deal however about 19th century France with its rigid stifling conventions compared with the natural grace of a simpler more primitive world. Said is himself guilty of a kind of mental colonialism.He assumes that he understands what these pictures are about and is going to tell us what they mean. But he does not understand them because he does not understand 19th century Europe and he gets it wrong.

Finally Said does not seem to understand that the British did not need to justify their oriental empire by regarding other societies as inferior and their rule as necessary to bring enlightenment to the natives. He assumes that, like the Roman Empire, it was acquired through conscious effort.Nothing could be further from the truth. The British Empire in India was acquired in a haphazard way through chance .They thought that as it had been delivered into their hands by fate they had as much right to be there as their Moghul predecessors. Early British colonialists simply adopted the customs of the dominant Muslim culture which they much admired.- even to the point of practising polygamy.It was only after the Indian mutiny in the late Victorian period when the British were forbidden to intermarry with the natives that they turned into a caste and thought that they had to justify their presence in the country by adopting spurious notions of superiority.

In short western attitudes to the orient mirror by and large oriental attitudes to the west - often confusing and contradictory. Americas particular support for Israel owes much to a particular sense of their own identity and is not shared by European countries. Said's thesis is in my view nonsense..



Said too much..?, 01 Feb 2008
Drawing upon the work of Michel Foucault, Edward Said claims that Western ideas of the `Orient' are not based upon objective facts but are created through academic and cultural `discourses' which serve to promote Western imperialism - often despite `liberal' intentions.

This mythical `East' is the antithesis of the West, a negative or inversion of the Occident, and is used to define both in binary opposition to each other and to facilitate the political and domination of the East.

However in order to demonstrate the existence of this `Orientalism' Said falls back on an equally stereotypical and monolithic `West' which he constructs entirely from the carefully selected writings of a handful of 19th Century middle-class, white, male English and French authors.

This tactic not only ignores or misrepresents a large body of Western authors sympathetic to the East and sensitive to differences within it, but also glosses over Western heterogenities of class, race, sex, religion and generation in order to manufacture a homogenous `Occident' devoid of differences.

Said is as guilty of *Occidentalism* as those he criticises are of *Orientalism*.

Said fails to provide any evidence that the `West' defines itself in binary opposition to a mythical `East' that Western scholars have created for just this purpose, he simply *manufactures* the kind of `West' necessary to explain the `East' that he himself has constructed from a very limited number of Western texts about the `Orient'.

He has created his own mythical `East' and `West' from a small number of secondary sources which he then projects onto others and thinks he has *discovered* rather than *invented*.


Well past its sell-by date, 14 Mar 2006
Books, however good or bad they are, can gather a momentum of their own once they become best-sellers. So it is with Orientalism. People will continue to read it because so many have read it. All the same it is time to touch base and say loud and clear that this is a very bad book. It is full of unjustified vitriol against people Said does not like. It is completely unscholarly in that Said has clearly not read some of the material about which he offers opinions. It is unreliable in that he gets many important facts wrong. It is animated by the idea that anyone who doesn't have the same political opinions as Said cannot possibly have anything useful to say. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Said showed himself to be impervious to criticism and did not even both to correct clearly established errors. This is a work of great arrogance. The case for all of these points is made by Robert Irwin in For Lust of Knowing (2006). Anyone reading Said's book must also read Irwin if they want to have a balanced view.

An utterly outstanding book that demands reading, 14 Jan 2005
Few works are more deserving of the 'Modern Classic' label that Penguin has given this book. Perhaps it is only after nearly twenty year since its first publication that we are able to appreciate the prophetic and uniquely influential nature of Said's insights into the roots of the 'West's' antagonism towards the 'Orient'. For what is, in effect, little more than a book of literary criticism, the ramifications for all areas of scholarly research and investigation are remarkable. On a personal level it is a book that has profoundly affected both my political and academic outlook and forced a re-evaluation of my attitudes (and not just towards the Middle-East) and, more significantly, the underlying deceits or conspiracies of history on which they are founded. I urge every person in a position of power to study this canonical work. That it is hard reading does not detract from but adds to the power of the work; at every moment Said's intimidating (but inspiringly humanistic and humane) scholarship is in evidence and one can only marvel at his analytical dexterity. Those who see the book as repetative and hypocritically reductive have failed to grasp the true substance which is in the criticism and not primarily in the conclusions which are, for the most part, self-evident, as Said himself declares from the outset.
There will, I am sure, continue be numerous wilful misreadings of 'Orientalism' and that it continues to provoke such controversy is a testament to its brilliance. Ignore them and read it.

Brilliant, Impressive and Urgently Topical., 14 Feb 2004
This is a truly masterful and enigmatic work that is immensely readable despite its well-earned reputation. Consequently this is a book that will and should be of interest to everyone, from the specialist to the casual reader who has never encountered theory before.
So why then Culture and Imperialism?
Western societies seem to have entered a phase of collective amnesia whereby colonialism, if it is remembered at all, is envisioned as ending somewhere along the length of the Suez Canal.
Said's thoughtful analysis challenges the modern myth of the end of Empire and of the slow decline of an age of economic and cultural imperialism which came to an end sometime after 1948 with the final dropping of the Union Jack in the final colonially occupied territory.
In many ways economic and cultural imperialism is as pervasive and violent today as it ever was, if not a little more so. Indeed, Said's brilliance in this book is to fundamentally disrupt and deconstruct the modern Western amnesia. Far from being back then and over there Said helps us to trace the links, connections, and complicities between writers as diverse as Jane Austen, J. S. Mill and W. B. Yeats.
For anyone with an interest in postcolonialism Culture and Imperialism is an essential grounding. Not only does the text follow on from Said's brilliant and ground-breaking Ur text of postcolonial studies Orientalism, but it suggests the possibility and methodology of subjecting imperialism to a systemic analysis.
Said has always been controversial, and rightly so. Unlike the quite frankly shoddy and poorly argued vitriol of some of his detractors (and reviewers) Said's work is always superbly well argued and controlled. Whether you support Said's point of view or not you cannot but fail to be impressed by his depth of insight and by the humanism of his intelligence.

Very Good, 08 Oct 2008
The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Pakenham is a very good book which deals with the remarkable last two decades in the nineteenth century when Africa was carved up by the nations of Europe. It is an immensely readable book which deals with a number of different areas and time periods but also goes further and deals with individuals and more forgotten examples of European colonisation such as the Belgians in the Congo. All in all a remarkable book which is a pleasure to read.

Great book of a harrowing journey of a continent. , 11 Jun 2008
This is a great book, and like other readers, I think it gave account of every region fairly evenly. Pakenham shows that mistreatment of the native population was endemic across the continent, regardless of the ruling European power. He also managed to avoid romanticizing the situation prior to colonization, bringing to life the personalities of the Kings, Sultans and Chiefs that ruled before the europeans arrived.

Pakenham did however get mixed up with what was British and what was English, as English historians often do.

Best history book ever!, 17 May 2008
Pakenham gives you the detail without the drudgery; the tale without the tediousness; takes you right into the heart of history but manages to make the ride effortless. His story spans two continents, includes a myriad of characters and covers many years of imperial intrigue in Africa. Yet, he not only stays true to the facts, he also gives you a human story. You can close your eyes and see Leopold or Lobengula or any of the hundreds of actors that claimed this stage of human history. Here is a priceless account of how and why it happened; the partition of Africa in the nineteenth century by several European nations. A must read!

Superb, i finished it at 5am!, 09 Apr 2007
This book covers every issue you could possibly think of in colonial africa in just enough detail to give you a pan-african diorama without getting bogged down in any individual area (each of which deserves a book on their own). The only other example ive read got so bogged down with the Boer war that lesser known colonial hi-jinx such as the Sudan and Uganda were lost within a sea of Zulus. A rarely touched subject, especially relevant with current events in Zimbabwe.
If you can splash out on the Hardback do- the paper used for the paperback is appalling.


An enlightening read, 20 Dec 2006
This is a beautifully written work that provides a fascinating insight into the continent's history, underdevelopment and civil strife. Devoid of sentimentality and full of objectivity, the author conveys the deep message, which explains not only the resilience of the continent but also the ravages that it has been subjected to throughout its turbulent history. Behind the tragedies of the continent are the heavy hands of the ex-colonial masters and the exploitative drives of some business concerns working in partnership with African dictators, psychopaths and administrative kleptomaniacs that have power and are excluding the people in the running of the land. With more piteous prospects than any other continent, Africa mirrors the failures of humanity as well as its hopes and reams.
Other titles that treat this African malaise are DISCIPLES OF FORTUNE , AFRICA UNCHAINED, THE SCHACKLED CONTINENT, TRIPLE AGENT DOUBLE CROSS. Together these titles exposed the personal and collective problems of the people and the personal and collective efforts made, and the means and ways to take the Africa forward despite all the constrains.

It's about the Truth, 08 Nov 2008
I don't know much about "Orient" or "Orientalism" and after all this book is not about what I thought it would be but as a History undergraduate student I found this book very revealing. It's about the necessity for searching for the Truth, without contenting yourself with superficial findings based not on the Truth itself but what it is convenient for you to call true.

Utter Drivel, 04 Apr 2008
I do not know how Americans view Islam but as an Englishman/European it seems to me that Said's views are so much poppycock.To make a couple of points in a limited space.

Of course we have a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile .So what? For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europes colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous direct competitor to our interests.Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed .On a local scale the threat lasted even longer - Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and that was at the height of the British Empire ! .By a strange inversion left wing academics and Said have made Europeans and Americans see these things entirely from the point of view of Islam ie as uniquely a problem of western imperialism largely ignoring about a thousand years of history.

Common sense would suggest that as our knowledge of these societies grew in the 19th century so stereotypes would break down.Said says the opposite - they served to reinforce them. Common Sense is right - stereotypes did break down.He makes much of the fact that as a boy he saw these european pictures of the east and they bore no relation to the societies he knew.It never seems to occur to him that as a Palestinian/American he might not be seeing these pictures as a European sees them and a 19th century European at that. 19th century Europeans , for whom these pictures were intended , were preoccupied with the dehumanising and mechanising aspects of industrial society ,their own society, and used other societies to show up these concerns.European attitudes were complex and contradictory but they were not attempting to give an accurate view of oriental society as their viewers well understood. When Gauguin paints a picture of a naked Tahitian girl we dont think he is trying to justify French imperialism nor do we think that he is saying much about Tahiti. Naked Tahitian girls did not buy his paintings. He was saying a great deal however about 19th century France with its rigid stifling conventions compared with the natural grace of a simpler more primitive world. Said is himself guilty of a kind of mental colonialism.He assumes that he understands what these pictures are about and is going to tell us what they mean. But he does not understand them because he does not understand 19th century Europe and he gets it wrong.

Finally Said does not seem to understand that the British did not need to justify their oriental empire by regarding other societies as inferior and their rule as necessary to bring enlightenment to the natives. He assumes that, like the Roman Empire, it was acquired through conscious effort.Nothing could be further from the truth. The British Empire in India was acquired in a haphazard way through chance .They thought that as it had been delivered into their hands by fate they had as much right to be there as their Moghul predecessors. Early British colonialists simply adopted the customs of the dominant Muslim culture which they much admired.- even to the point of practising polygamy.It was only after the Indian mutiny in the late Victorian period when the British were forbidden to intermarry with the natives that they turned into a caste and thought that they had to justify their presence in the country by adopting spurious notions of superiority.

In short western attitudes to the orient mirror by and large oriental attitudes to the west - often confusing and contradictory. Americas particular support for Israel owes much to a particular sense of their own identity and is not shared by European countries. Said's thesis is in my view nonsense..



Said too much..?, 01 Feb 2008
Drawing upon the work of Michel Foucault, Edward Said claims that Western ideas of the `Orient' are not based upon objective facts but are created through academic and cultural `discourses' which serve to promote Western imperialism - often despite `liberal' intentions.

This mythical `East' is the antithesis of the West, a negative or inversion of the Occident, and is used to define both in binary opposition to each other and to facilitate the political and domination of the East.

However in order to demonstrate the existence of this `Orientalism' Said falls back on an equally stereotypical and monolithic `West' which he constructs entirely from the carefully selected writings of a handful of 19th Century middle-class, white, male English and French authors.

This tactic not only ignores or misrepresents a large body of Western authors sympathetic to the East and sensitive to differences within it, but also glosses over Western heterogenities of class, race, sex, religion and generation in order to manufacture a homogenous `Occident' devoid of differences.

Said is as guilty of *Occidentalism* as those he criticises are of *Orientalism*.

Said fails to provide any evidence that the `West' defines itself in binary opposition to a mythical `East' that Western scholars have created for just this purpose, he simply *manufactures* the kind of `West' necessary to explain the `East' that he himself has constructed from a very limited number of Western texts about the `Orient'.

He has created his own mythical `East' and `West' from a small number of secondary sources which he then projects onto others and thinks he has *discovered* rather than *invented*.


Well past its sell-by date, 14 Mar 2006
Books, however good or bad they are, can gather a momentum of their own once they become best-sellers. So it is with Orientalism. People will continue to read it because so many have read it. All the same it is time to touch base and say loud and clear that this is a very bad book. It is full of unjustified vitriol against people Said does not like. It is completely unscholarly in that Said has clearly not read some of the material about which he offers opinions. It is unreliable in that he gets many important facts wrong. It is animated by the idea that anyone who doesn't have the same political opinions as Said cannot possibly have anything useful to say. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Said showed himself to be impervious to criticism and did not even both to correct clearly established errors. This is a work of great arrogance. The case for all of these points is made by Robert Irwin in For Lust of Knowing (2006). Anyone reading Said's book must also read Irwin if they want to have a balanced view.

An utterly outstanding book that demands reading, 14 Jan 2005
Few works are more deserving of the 'Modern Classic' label that Penguin has given this book. Perhaps it is only after nearly twenty year since its first publication that we are able to appreciate the prophetic and uniquely influential nature of Said's insights into the roots of the 'West's' antagonism towards the 'Orient'. For what is, in effect, little more than a book of literary criticism, the ramifications for all areas of scholarly research and investigation are remarkable. On a personal level it is a book that has profoundly affected both my political and academic outlook and forced a re-evaluation of my attitudes (and not just towards the Middle-East) and, more significantly, the underlying deceits or conspiracies of history on which they are founded. I urge every person in a position of power to study this canonical work. That it is hard reading does not detract from but adds to the power of the work; at every moment Said's intimidating (but inspiringly humanistic and humane) scholarship is in evidence and one can only marvel at his analytical dexterity. Those who see the book as repetative and hypocritically reductive have failed to grasp the true substance which is in the criticism and not primarily in the conclusions which are, for the most part, self-evident, as Said himself declares from the outset.
There will, I am sure, continue be numerous wilful misreadings of 'Orientalism' and that it continues to provoke such controversy is a testament to its brilliance. Ignore them and read it.

Brilliant, Impressive and Urgently Topical., 14 Feb 2004
This is a truly masterful and enigmatic work that is immensely readable despite its well-earned reputation. Consequently this is a book that will and should be of interest to everyone, from the specialist to the casual reader who has never encountered theory before.
So why then Culture and Imperialism?
Western societies seem to have entered a phase of collective amnesia whereby colonialism, if it is remembered at all, is envisioned as ending somewhere along the length of the Suez Canal.
Said's thoughtful analysis challenges the modern myth of the end of Empire and of the slow decline of an age of economic and cultural imperialism which came to an end sometime after 1948 with the final dropping of the Union Jack in the final colonially occupied territory.
In many ways economic and cultural imperialism is as pervasive and violent today as it ever was, if not a little more so. Indeed, Said's brilliance in this book is to fundamentally disrupt and deconstruct the modern Western amnesia. Far from being back then and over there Said helps us to trace the links, connections, and complicities between writers as diverse as Jane Austen, J. S. Mill and W. B. Yeats.
For anyone with an interest in postcolonialism Culture and Imperialism is an essential grounding. Not only does the text follow on from Said's brilliant and ground-breaking Ur text of postcolonial studies Orientalism, but it suggests the possibility and methodology of subjecting imperialism to a systemic analysis.
Said has always been controversial, and rightly so. Unlike the quite frankly shoddy and poorly argued vitriol of some of his detractors (and reviewers) Said's work is always superbly well argued and controlled. Whether you support Said's point of view or not you cannot but fail to be impressed by his depth of insight and by the humanism of his intelligence.

Very Good, 08 Oct 2008
The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Pakenham is a very good book which deals with the remarkable last two decades in the nineteenth century when Africa was carved up by the nations of Europe. It is an immensely readable book which deals with a number of different areas and time periods but also goes further and deals with individuals and more forgotten examples of European colonisation such as the Belgians in the Congo. All in all a remarkable book which is a pleasure to read.

Great book of a harrowing journey of a continent. , 11 Jun 2008
This is a great book, and like other readers, I think it gave account of every region fairly evenly. Pakenham shows that mistreatment of the native population was endemic across the continent, regardless of the ruling European power. He also managed to avoid romanticizing the situation prior to colonization, bringing to life the personalities of the Kings, Sultans and Chiefs that ruled before the europeans arrived.

Pakenham did however get mixed up with what was British and what was English, as English historians often do.

Best history book ever!, 17 May 2008
Pakenham gives you the detail without the drudgery; the tale without the tediousness; takes you right into the heart of history but manages to make the ride effortless. His story spans two continents, includes a myriad of characters and covers many years of imperial intrigue in Africa. Yet, he not only stays true to the facts, he also gives you a human story. You can close your eyes and see Leopold or Lobengula or any of the hundreds of actors that claimed this stage of human history. Here is a priceless account of how and why it happened; the partition of Africa in the nineteenth century by several European nations. A must read!

Superb, i finished it at 5am!, 09 Apr 2007
This book covers every issue you could possibly think of in colonial africa in just enough detail to give you a pan-african diorama without getting bogged down in any individual area (each of which deserves a book on their own). The only other example ive read got so bogged down with the Boer war that lesser known colonial hi-jinx such as the Sudan and Uganda were lost within a sea of Zulus. A rarely touched subject, especially relevant with current events in Zimbabwe.
If you can splash out on the Hardback do- the paper used for the paperback is appalling.


An enlightening read, 20 Dec 2006
This is a beautifully written work that provides a fascinating insight into the continent's history, underdevelopment and civil strife. Devoid of sentimentality and full of objectivity, the author conveys the deep message, which explains not only the resilience of the continent but also the ravages that it has been subjected to throughout its turbulent history. Behind the tragedies of the continent are the heavy hands of the ex-colonial masters and the exploitative drives of some business concerns working in partnership with African dictators, psychopaths and administrative kleptomaniacs that have power and are excluding the people in the running of the land. With more piteous prospects than any other continent, Africa mirrors the failures of humanity as well as its hopes and reams.
Other titles that treat this African malaise are DISCIPLES OF FORTUNE , AFRICA UNCHAINED, THE SCHACKLED CONTINENT, TRIPLE AGENT DOUBLE CROSS. Together these titles exposed the personal and collective problems of the people and the personal and collective efforts made, and the means and ways to take the Africa forward despite all the constrains.

You'll never look at Europe the same way again, 06 Jun 2001
This is the most enjoyable history book I have ever read. If the history of Europe is a long and interminably complicated one, then I would suggest that this single volume could be the key to unlocking that history and explaining the remarkable diversity of nations and cultures that co-exist within this single, small continent today. The author's clear, unpretentious prose style further enhances the readability of the book and while it is likely to be a must-read for students and academics, the general reader will find this book accessible and entertaining. Bartlett takes the reader on a rapid and utterly fascinating tour of medieval Europe, from the Celtic fringes of the British Isles to the uncharted wildernesses of Eastern Europe, and south to newly-reconquered Spain, between the tenth and fourteenth centuries. Amidst the profound social, religious, political and economic - not to mention shamelessly opportunistic - forces taking hold across the continent in this period, we can already begin to see the origins of the Europe we recognise today beginning to emerge. With countless examples drawn from historical sources from literally every corner of Europe, the reader is nonetheless given a refreshing perspective of the story of our continent as a whole - in human terms, rather than as colours and lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. I would advise anyone with an interest in Europe as it is today, and how it came to be, to read this book. I noticed with interest that Simon Schama cited it in the bibliography of his "History of Britain". This book actually affected me quite deeply; I now see European current affairs in a new but much richer context, and I've been compelled to re-examine the way I look at history and its implications for future generations. On another level, I found this book helped me to re-evaluate my outlook on some of the concepts we often take for granted, such as nationality, culture and identity. I can't help thinking, therefore, that by reading this book and reflecting on its implications, many fellow Europeans might want to take a fresh look at the meaning of their own identities and prejudices; ethnic, religious, nationalistic, cultural and linguistic sources of tension and conflict can be identified, often at source, throughout the pages of this stunning book. And, for all the bloodshed and medieval argy-bargy, there's the unexpected bonus of the occasional giggle. Splendid.

It's about the Truth, 08 Nov 2008
I don't know much about "Orient" or "Orientalism" and after all this book is not about what I thought it would be but as a History undergraduate student I found this book very revealing. It's about the necessity for searching for the Truth, without contenting yourself with superficial findings based not on the Truth itself but what it is convenient for you to call true.

Utter Drivel, 04 Apr 2008
I do not know how Americans view Islam but as an Englishman/European it seems to me that Said's views are so much poppycock.To make a couple of points in a limited space.

Of course we have a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile .So what? For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europes colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous direct competitor to our interests.Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed .On a local scale the threat lasted even longer - Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and that was at the height of the British Empire ! .By a strange inversion left wing academics and Said have made Europeans and Americans see these things entirely from the point of view of Islam ie as uniquely a problem of western imperialism largely ignoring about a thousand years of history.

Common sense would suggest that as our knowledge of these societies grew in the 19th century so stereotypes would break down.Said says the opposite - they served to reinforce them. Common Sense is right - stereotypes did break down.He makes much of the fact that as a boy he saw these european pictures of the east and they bore no relation to the societies he knew.It never seems to occur to him that as a Palestinian/American he might not be seeing these pictures as a European sees them and a 19th century European at that. 19th century Europeans , for whom these pictures were intended , were preoccupied with the dehumanising and mechanising aspects of industrial society ,their own society, and used other societies to show up these concerns.European attitudes were complex and contradictory but they were not attempting to give an accurate view of oriental society as their viewers well understood. When Gauguin paints a picture of a naked Tahitian girl we dont think he is trying to justify French imperialism nor do we think that he is saying much about Tahiti. Naked Tahitian girls did not buy his paintings. He was saying a great deal however about 19th century France with its rigid stifling conventions compared with the natural grace of a simpler more primitive world. Said is himself guilty of a kind of mental colonialism.He assumes that he understands what these pictures are about and is going to tell us what they mean. But he does not understand them because he does not understand 19th century Europe and he gets it wrong.

Finally Said does not seem to understand that the British did not need to justify their oriental empire by regarding other societies as inferior and their rule as necessary to bring enlightenment to the natives. He assumes that, like the Roman Empire, it was acquired through conscious effort.Nothing could be further from the truth. The British Empire in India was acquired in a haphazard way through chance .They thought that as it had been delivered into their hands by fate they had as much right to be there as their Moghul predecessors. Early British colonialists simply adopted the customs of the dominant Muslim culture which they much admired.- even to the point of practising polygamy.It was only after the Indian mutiny in the late Victorian period when the British were forbidden to intermarry with the natives that they turned into a caste and thought that they had to justify their presence in the country by adopting spurious notions of superiority.

In short western attitudes to the orient mirror by and large oriental attitudes to the west - often confusing and contradictory. Americas particular support for Israel owes much to a particular sense of their own identity and is not shared by European countries. Said's thesis is in my view nonsense..



Said too much..?, 01 Feb 2008
Drawing upon the work of Michel Foucault, Edward Said claims that Western ideas of the `Orient' are not based upon objective facts but are created through academic and cultural `discourses' which serve to promote Western imperialism - often despite `liberal' intentions.

This mythical `East' is the antithesis of the West, a negative or inversion of the Occident, and is used to define both in binary opposition to each other and to facilitate the political and domination of the East.

However in order to demonstrate the existence of this `Orientalism' Said falls back on an equally stereotypical and monolithic `West' which he constructs entirely from the carefully selected writings of a handful of 19th Century middle-class, white, male English and French authors.

This tactic not only ignores or misrepresents a large body of Western authors sympathetic to the East and sensitive to differences within it, but also glosses over Western heterogenities of class, race, sex, religion and generation in order to manufacture a homogenous `Occident' devoid of differences.

Said is as guilty of *Occidentalism* as those he criticises are of *Orientalism*.

Said fails to provide any evidence that the `West' defines itself in binary opposition to a mythical `East' that Western scholars have created for just this purpose, he simply *manufactures* the kind of `West' necessary to explain the `East' that he himself has constructed from a very limited number of Western texts about the `Orient'.

He has created his own mythical `East' and `West' from a small number of secondary sources which he then projects onto others and thinks he has *discovered* rather than *invented*.


Well past its sell-by date, 14 Mar 2006
Books, however good or bad they are, can gather a momentum of their own once they become best-sellers. So it is with Orientalism. People will continue to read it because so many have read it. All the same it is time to touch base and say loud and clear that this is a very bad book. It is full of unjustified vitriol against people Said does not like. It is completely unscholarly in that Said has clearly not read some of the material about which he offers opinions. It is unreliable in that he gets many important facts wrong. It is animated by the idea that anyone who doesn't have the same political opinions as Said cannot possibly have anything useful to say. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Said showed himself to be impervious to criticism and did not even both to correct clearly established errors. This is a work of great arrogance. The case for all of these points is made by Robert Irwin in For Lust of Knowing (2006). Anyone reading Said's book must also read Irwin if they want to have a balanced view.

An utterly outstanding book that demands reading, 14 Jan 2005
Few works are more deserving of the 'Modern Classic' label that Penguin has given this book. Perhaps it is only after nearly twenty year since its first publication that we are able to appreciate the prophetic and uniquely influential nature of Said's insights into the roots of the 'West's' antagonism towards the 'Orient'. For what is, in effect, little more than a book of literary criticism, the ramifications for all areas of scholarly research and investigation are remarkable. On a personal level it is a book that has profoundly affected both my political and academic outlook and forced a re-evaluation of my attitudes (and not just towards the Middle-East) and, more significantly, the underlying deceits or conspiracies of history on which they are founded. I urge every person in a position of power to study this canonical work. That it is hard reading does not detract from but adds to the power of the work; at every moment Said's intimidating (but inspiringly humanistic and humane) scholarship is in evidence and one can only marvel at his analytical dexterity. Those who see the book as repetative and hypocritically reductive have failed to grasp the true substance which is in the criticism and not primarily in the conclusions which are, for the most part, self-evident, as Said himself declares from the outset.
There will, I am sure, continue be numerous wilful misreadings of 'Orientalism' and that it continues to provoke such controversy is a testament to its brilliance. Ignore them and read it.

Brilliant, Impressive and Urgently Topical., 14 Feb 2004
This is a truly masterful and enigmatic work that is immensely readable despite its well-earned reputation. Consequently this is a book that will and should be of interest to everyone, from the specialist to the casual reader who has never encountered theory before.
So why then Culture and Imperialism?
Western societies seem to have entered a phase of collective amnesia whereby colonialism, if it is remembered at all, is envisioned as ending somewhere along the length of the Suez Canal.
Said's thoughtful analysis challenges the modern myth of the end of Empire and of the slow decline of an age of economic and cultural imperialism which came to an end sometime after 1948 with the final dropping of the Union Jack in the final colonially occupied territory.
In many ways economic and cultural imperialism is as pervasive and violent today as it ever was, if not a little more so. Indeed, Said's brilliance in this book is to fundamentally disrupt and deconstruct the modern Western amnesia. Far from being back then and over there Said helps us to trace the links, connections, and complicities between writers as diverse as Jane Austen, J. S. Mill and W. B. Yeats.
For anyone with an interest in postcolonialism Culture and Imperialism is an essential grounding. Not only does the text follow on from Said's brilliant and ground-breaking Ur text of postcolonial studies Orientalism, but it suggests the possibility and methodology of subjecting imperialism to a systemic analysis.
Said has always been controversial, and rightly so. Unlike the quite frankly shoddy and poorly argued vitriol of some of his detractors (and reviewers) Said's work is always superbly well argued and controlled. Whether you support Said's point of view or not you cannot but fail to be impressed by his depth of insight and by the humanism of his intelligence.

Very Good, 08 Oct 2008
The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Pakenham is a very good book which deals with the remarkable last two decades in the nineteenth century when Africa was carved up by the nations of Europe. It is an immensely readable book which deals with a number of different areas and time periods but also goes further and deals with individuals and more forgotten examples of European colonisation such as the Belgians in the Congo. All in all a remarkable book which is a pleasure to read.

Great book of a harrowing journey of a continent. , 11 Jun 2008
This is a great book, and like other readers, I think it gave account of every region fairly evenly. Pakenham shows that mistreatment of the native population was endemic across the continent, regardless of the ruling European power. He also managed to avoid romanticizing the situation prior to colonization, bringing to life the personalities of the Kings, Sultans and Chiefs that ruled before the europeans arrived.

Pakenham did however get mixed up with what was British and what was English, as English historians often do.

Best history book ever!, 17 May 2008
Pakenham gives you the detail without the drudgery; the tale without the tediousness; takes you right into the heart of history but manages to make the ride effortless. His story spans two continents, includes a myriad of characters and covers many years of imperial intrigue in Africa. Yet, he not only stays true to the facts, he also gives you a human story. You can close your eyes and see Leopold or Lobengula or any of the hundreds of actors that claimed this stage of human history. Here is a priceless account of how and why it happened; the partition of Africa in the nineteenth century by several European nations. A must read!

Superb, i finished it at 5am!, 09 Apr 2007
This book covers every issue you could possibly think of in colonial africa in just enough detail to give you a pan-african diorama without getting bogged down in any individual area (each of which deserves a book on their own). The only other example ive read got so bogged down with the Boer war that lesser known colonial hi-jinx such as the Sudan and Uganda were lost within a sea of Zulus. A rarely touched subject, especially relevant with current events in Zimbabwe.
If you can splash out on the Hardback do- the paper used for the paperback is appalling.


An enlightening read, 20 Dec 2006
This is a beautifully written work that provides a fascinating insight into the continent's history, underdevelopment and civil strife. Devoid of sentimentality and full of objectivity, the author conveys the deep message, which explains not only the resilience of the continent but also the ravages that it has been subjected to throughout its turbulent history. Behind the tragedies of the continent are the heavy hands of the ex-colonial masters and the exploitative drives of some business concerns working in partnership with African dictators, psychopaths and administrative kleptomaniacs that have power and are excluding the people in the running of the land. With more piteous prospects than any other continent, Africa mirrors the failures of humanity as well as its hopes and reams.
Other titles that treat this African malaise are DISCIPLES OF FORTUNE , AFRICA UNCHAINED, THE SCHACKLED CONTINENT, TRIPLE AGENT DOUBLE CROSS. Together these titles exposed the personal and collective problems of the people and the personal and collective efforts made, and the means and ways to take the Africa forward despite all the constrains.

You'll never look at Europe the same way again, 06 Jun 2001
This is the most enjoyable history book I have ever read. If the history of Europe is a long and interminably complicated one, then I would suggest that this single volume could be the key to unlocking that history and explaining the remarkable diversity of nations and cultures that co-exist within this single, small continent today. The author's clear, unpretentious prose style further enhances the readability of the book and while it is likely to be a must-read for students and academics, the general reader will find this book accessible and entertaining. Bartlett takes the reader on a rapid and utterly fascinating tour of medieval Europe, from the Celtic fringes of the British Isles to the uncharted wildernesses of Eastern Europe, and south to newly-reconquered Spain, between the tenth and fourteenth centuries. Amidst the profound social, religious, political and economic - not to mention shamelessly opportunistic - forces taking hold across the continent in this period, we can already begin to see the origins of the Europe we recognise today beginning to emerge. With countless examples drawn from historical sources from literally every corner of Europe, the reader is nonetheless given a refreshing perspective of the story of our continent as a whole - in human terms, rather than as colours and lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. I would advise anyone with an interest in Europe as it is today, and how it came to be, to read this book. I noticed with interest that Simon Schama cited it in the bibliography of his "History of Britain". This book actually affected me quite deeply; I now see European current affairs in a new but much richer context, and I've been compelled to re-examine the way I look at history and its implications for future generations. On another level, I found this book helped me to re-evaluate my outlook on some of the concepts we often take for granted, such as nationality, culture and identity. I can't help thinking, therefore, that by reading this book and reflecting on its implications, many fellow Europeans might want to take a fresh look at the meaning of their own identities and prejudices; ethnic, religious, nationalistic, cultural and linguistic sources of tension and conflict can be identified, often at source, throughout the pages of this stunning book. And, for all the bloodshed and medieval argy-bargy, there's the unexpected bonus of the occasional giggle. Splendid.

Very interesting book, 20 Nov 2008
The book covers a period of around four hundred years and deals with the fluctuating fortunes of the British Empire. At its peak the British Empire included about a quarter of the population of the world and occupied an approximately equal area of the earth's landmass. This is well written account of an interesting and complex subject.

Good but blinkered, 22 Apr 2006
This is a very well written and detailed account of the empire. The writer keeps you interested and covers most of the main events very well. However, where it fails is in the blinkered attitude towards English misbehaviour during the existence of the empire. Almost no mention is made of the countless attrocities carried out in the name of the empire. 2 key examples are the Irish and Indian famines, both at least in part a result of British behaviour. These 2 incidents which killed millions are given no more than a few sentences. British war crimes are barely mentioned whereas native crimes are often described. A good read, but casts doubt on whether a British writer can subjectively write about the empire, which was effectively just the pillaging of the world and the subjugation of anyone who got in the way. From reading this book, you would seriously think that the empire existed for the benefit of all, not simply the english upper classes.

not much of a navel gaze, 25 Apr 2004
Anyone looking for some deep understanding of the 'fall' of the BritishEmpire will be disappointed. Some introspective view would have been anice addition. For a non-Brit many assumptions of fact may be a littlehard to swallow. The relationships Britan had with its Carribean & Africancolony's is covered in good level of detail.
overall not a bad lookfor a survey of the period.

not much of a navel gaze, 25 Apr 2004
Anyone looking for some deep understanding of the 'fall' of the BritishEmpire will be disappointed. Some introspective view would have been anice addition. For a non-Brit many assumptions of fact may be a littlehard to swallow.
overall not a bad look for a survey of the period.

Serious scholarship brought to life, 17 Mar 2002
I was lucky enough to be taught by Mr James, a wit and gentlemen of a rare order. It was a real treat reading this survey of the British Empire. I remember Mr James as a brilliant story teller, with a deep love and respect for the Empire. His book confirms these impressions and provides not only a scholarly survey of this monumental subject, but finds room for a myriad of telling detail brilliant reconstructed in sparkling prose butressing his overarching themes. There surely are few books of such wide canvess which are so readable and satisfying. The book illuminates many facets of the English nation and its peoples which for example Paxman's "The English" never quite pins down and in that sense is very valuable too. Don't miss "Raj",a history of the English in India, another subject very close to Mr James's heart as I recall.

Edward Said is one of the most celebrated cultural critics of the post-war world. Of his many books of literary, political and philosophical criticism, at least two have become classics. As a thinker, Said's career spans literature, politics, music, philosophy and history. As a dispossessed Palestinian growing up in the Middle East and subsequently living in the USA, he has witnessed the impact of the Second World War upon the Arab world, the dissolution of Palestine and the birth of Israel, the rise of Nasser and the PLO, the Lebanese Civil War and the faltering peace process of the 1990s. As a result, the publication of Said's memoir, Out of Place, is a particularly significant event. This is a fascinating account of the personal development of a critic and thinker who has straddled the divide between East and West and in the process has redefined Western perceptions of the East and of the plight of Palestinian people. However, as the title suggests, Said's memoir is a far more ambivalent and, at times, personally painful account of his early years in Palestine, Egypt and the Lebanon, and the often paralysing embrace of his loving but often overbearing parents. Said's memoir is powerfully informed by his sense of personally, geographically and linguistically "always being out of place". Born to Christian parents, caught between expressing himself in Arabic, English and French, Said evokes a vivid but often very unhappy portrait of growing up in Cairo and the Lebanon under the crushing weight of his emotionally intense and ambitious family. The early sections of the book paint a poignant picture of the oppressive regime established over the awkward, painfully uncertain young "Edward" by his loving mother and expectant, unforgiving father. Those expecting an account of Said's subsequent intellectual development will be disappointed; apart from the final 50 pages that deal with Said's education at Princeton and Harvard, Out of Place is, as Said says, primarily "a record of an essentially lost or forgotten world, my early life". Composed in the light of serious illness, Out of Place is an elegantly written reflection on a life that has movingly come to terms with "being not quite right and out of place". --Jerry Brotton Edward Said is one of the most celebrated cultural critics of the post-war world. Of his many books of literary, political and philosophical criticism, at least two have become classics. Orientalism is a brilliant analysis of how Europe came to dominate the Orient through the creation the myth of the exotic East, while the monumental Culture and Imperialism has redefined our understanding of the impact of European imperialism upon the shape of modern culture. As a thinker, Said's career spans literature, politics, music, philosophy and history. As a dispossessed Palestinian growing up in the Middle East and subsequently living in the USA, he has witnessed the impact of the Second World War upon the Arab world, the dissolution of Palestine and the birth of Israel, the rise of Nasser and the PLO, the Lebanese Civil War, and the faltering peace process of the 1990s. As a result, the publication of Said's memoir, Out of Place is a particularly significant event. This is a fascinating account of the personal development of a critic and thinker who has straddled the divide between East and West and in the process has redefined Western perceptions of the East and of the plight of Palestinian people.

However, as the title suggests, Said's memoir is a far more ambivalent and at times personally painful account of his early years in Palestine, Egypt and the Lebanon, and the often paralysing embrace of his loving but often overbearing parents. Said's memoir is powerfully informed by his sense of personally, geographically and linguistically "always being out of place." Born to Christian parents, caught between expressing himself in Arabic, English and French, Said evokes a vivid but often very unhappy portrait of growing up in Cairo and the Lebanon under the crushing weight of his emotionally intense and ambitious family. The early sections of the book paint a poignant picture of the oppressive regime established over the awkward, painfully uncertain young "Edward" by his loving mother and expectant, unforgiving father, both of whom cast the longest emotional shadows over the book. Those expecting an account of Said's subsequent intellectual development will be disappointed; apart from the final 50 pages that deal with Said's education at Princeton and Harvard, Out of Place is, as Said says, primarily "a record of an essentially lost or forgotten world, my early life." It is this carefully disclosed record that accounts for Said's deeply conflicting relationship towards both his family and the Palestinian cause. Composed in the light of serious illness, Out of Place is an elegantly written reflection on a life which has movingly come to terms with "being not quite right and out of place." - -Jerry Brotton

It's about the Truth, 08 Nov 2008
I don't know much about "Orient" or "Orientalism" and after all this book is not about what I thought it would be but as a History undergraduate student I found this book very revealing. It's about the necessity for searching for the Truth, without contenting yourself with superficial findings based not on the Truth itself but what it is convenient for you to call true.

Utter Drivel, 04 Apr 2008
I do not know how Americans view Islam but as an Englishman/European it seems to me that Said's views are so much poppycock.To make a couple of points in a limited space.

Of course we have a stereotypical view of Islam just as Islam has a stereotypical view of us - and these views are largely hostile .So what? For century after century Islam was an enormous threat to what might loosely be called Christendom. It shaped every aspect of European history and was directly responsible for Europes colonial empires. Up till around 1750 they were a dangerous direct competitor to our interests.Gibbon writing in the 1780s was the first to think that the danger had passed .On a local scale the threat lasted even longer - Barbary pirates ravaged the coast of England up till the 1830s carting off coastal villages into slavery and at even later dates on the west coast of Ireland and that was at the height of the British Empire ! .By a strange inversion left wing academics and Said have made Europeans and Americans see these things entirely from the point of view of Islam ie as uniquely a problem of western imperialism largely ignoring about a thousand years of history.

Common sense would suggest that as our knowledge of these societies grew in the 19th century so stereotypes would break down.Said says the opposite - they served to reinforce them. Common Sense is right - stereotypes did break down.He makes much of the fact that as a boy he saw these european pictures of the east and they bore no relation to the societies he knew.It never seems to occur to him that as a Palestinian/American he might not be seeing these pictures as a European sees them and a 19th century European at that. 19th century Europeans , for whom these pictures were intended , were preoccupied with the dehumanising and mechanising aspects of industrial society ,their own society, and used other societies to show up these concerns.European attitudes were complex and contradictory but they were not attempting to give an accurate view of oriental society as their viewers well understood. When Gauguin paints a picture of a naked Tahitian girl we dont think he is trying to justify French imperialism nor do we think that he is saying much about Tahiti. Naked Tahitian girls did not buy his paintings. He was saying a great deal however about 19th century France with its rigid stifling conventions compared with the natural grace of a simpler more primitive world. Said is himself guilty of a kind of mental colonialism.He assumes that he understands what these pictures are about and is going to tell us what they mean. But he does not understand them because he does not understand 19th century Europe and he gets it wrong.

Finally Said does not seem to understand that the British did not need to justify their oriental empire by regarding other societies as inferior and their rule as necessary to bring enlightenment to the natives. He assumes that, like the Roman Empire, it was acquired through conscious effort.Nothing could be further from the truth. The British Empire in India was acquired in a haphazard way through chance .They thought that as it had been delivered into their hands by fate they had as much right to be there as their Moghul predecessors. Early British colonialists simply adopted the customs of the dominant Muslim culture which they much admired.- even to the point of practising polygamy.It was only after the Indian mutiny in the late Victorian period when the British were forbidden to intermarry with the natives that they turned into a caste and thought that they had to justify their presence in the country by adopting spurious notions of superiority.

In short western attitudes to the orient mirror by and large oriental attitudes to the west - often confusing and contradictory. Americas particular support for Israel owes much to a particular sense of their own identity and is not shared by European countries. Said's thesis is in my view nonsense..



Said too much..?, 01 Feb 2008
Drawing upon the work of Michel Foucault, Edward Said claims that Western ideas of the `Orient' are not based upon objective facts but are created through academic and cultural `discourses' which serve to promote Western imperialism - often despite `liberal' intentions.

This mythical `East' is the antithesis of the West, a negative or inversion of the Occident, and is used to define both in binary opposition to each other and to facilitate the political and domination of the East.

However in order to demonstrate the existence of this `Orientalism' Said falls back on an equally stereotypical and monolithic `West' which he constructs entirely from the carefully selected writings of a handful of 19th Century middle-class, white, male English and French authors.

This tactic not only ignores or misrepresents a large body of Western authors sympathetic to the East and sensitive to differences within it, but also glosses over Western heterogenities of class, race, sex, religion and generation in order to manufacture a homogenous `Occident' devoid of differences.

Said is as guilty of *Occidentalism* as those he criticises are of *Orientalism*.

Said fails to provide any evidence that the `West' defines itself in binary opposition to a mythical `East' that Western scholars have created for just this purpose, he simply *manufactures* the kind of `West' necessary to explain the `East' that he himself has constructed from a very limited number of Western texts about the `Orient'.

He has created his own mythical `East' and `West' from a small number of secondary sources which he then projects onto others and thinks he has *discovered* rather than *invented*.


Well past its sell-by date, 14 Mar 2006
Books, however good or bad they are, can gather a momentum of their own once they become best-sellers. So it is with Orientalism. People will continue to read it because so many have read it. All the same it is time to touch base and say loud and clear that this is a very bad book. It is full of unjustified vitriol against people Said does not like. It is completely unscholarly in that Said has clearly not read some of the material about which he offers opinions. It is unreliable in that he gets many important facts wrong. It is animated by the idea that anyone who doesn't have the same political opinions as Said cannot possibly have anything useful to say. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Said showed himself to be impervious to criticism and did not even both to correct clearly established errors. This is a work of great arrogance. The case for all of these points is made by Robert Irwin in For Lust of Knowing (2006). Anyone reading Said's book must also read Irwin if they want to have a balanced view.

An utterly outstanding book that demands reading, 14 Jan 2005
Few works are more deserving of the 'Modern Classic' label that Penguin has given this book. Perhaps it is only after nearly twenty year since its first publication that we are able to appreciate the prophetic and uniquely influential nature of Said's insights into the roots of the 'West's' antagonism towards the 'Orient'. For what is, in effect, little more than a book of literary criticism, the ramifications for all areas of scholarly research and investigation are remarkable. On a personal level it is a book that has profoundly affected both my political and academic outlook and forced a re-evaluation of my attitudes (and not just towards the Middle-East) and, more significantly, the underlying deceits or conspiracies of history on which they are founded. I urge every person in a position of power to study this canonical work. That it is hard reading does not detract from but adds to the power of the work; at every moment Said's intimidating (but inspiringly humanistic and humane) scholarship is in evidence and one can only marvel at his analytical dexterity. Those who see the book as repetative and hypocritically reductive have failed to grasp the true substance which is in the criticism and not primarily in the conclusions which are, for the most part, self-evident, as Said himself declares from the outset.
There will, I am sure, continue be numerous wilful misreadings of 'Orientalism' and that it continues to provoke such controversy is a testament to its brilliance. Ignore them and read it.

Brilliant, Impressive and Urgently Topical., 14 Feb 2004
This is a truly masterful and enigmatic work that is immensely readable despite its well-earned reputation. Consequently this is a book that will and should be of interest to everyone, from the specialist to the casual reader who has never encountered theory before.
So why then Culture and Imperialism?
Western societies seem to have entered a phase of collective amnesia whereby colonialism, if it is remembered at all, is envisioned as ending somewhere along the length of the Suez Canal.
Said's thoughtful analysis challenges the modern myth of the end of Empire and of the slow decline of an age of economic and cultural imperialism which came to an end sometime after 1948 with the final dropping of the Union Jack in the final colonially occupied territory.
In many ways economic and cultural imperialism is as pervasive and violent today as it ever was, if not a little more so. Indeed, Said's brilliance in this book is to fundamentally disrupt and deconstruct the modern Western amnesia. Far from being back then and over there Said helps us to trace the links, connections, and complicities between writers as diverse as Jane Austen, J. S. Mill and W. B. Yeats.
For anyone with an interest in postcolonialism Culture and Imperialism is an essential grounding. Not only does the text follow on from Said's brilliant and ground-breaking Ur text of postcolonial studies Orientalism, but it suggests the possibility and methodology of subjecting imperialism to a systemic analysis.
Said has always been controversial, and rightly so. Unlike the quite frankly shoddy and poorly argued vitriol of some of his detractors (and reviewers) Said's work is always superbly well argued and controlled. Whether you support Said's point of view or not you cannot but fail to be impressed by his depth of insight and by the humanism of his intelligence.

Very Good, 08 Oct 2008
The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Pakenham is a very good book which deals with the remarkable last two decades in the nineteenth century when Africa was carved up by the nations of Europe. It is an immensely readable book which deals with a number of different areas and time periods but also goes further and deals with individuals and more forgotten examples of European colonisation such as the Belgians in the Congo. All in all a remarkable book which is a pleasure to read.

Great book of a harrowing journey of a continent. , 11 Jun 2008
This is a great book, and like other readers, I think it gave account of every region fairly evenly. Pakenham shows that mistreatment of the native population was endemic across the continent, regardless of the ruling European power. He also managed to avoid romanticizing the situation prior to colonization, bringing to life the personalities of the Kings, Sultans and Chiefs that ruled before the europeans arrived.

Pakenham did however get mixed up with what was British and what was English, as English historians often do.

Best history book ever!, 17 May 2008
Pakenham gives you the detail without the drudgery; the tale without the tediousness; takes you right into the heart of history but manages to make the ride effortless. His story spans two continents, includes a myriad of characters and covers many years of imperial intrigue in Africa. Yet, he not only stays true to the facts, he also gives you a human story. You can close your eyes and see Leopold or Lobengula or any of the hundreds of actors that claimed this stage of human history. Here is a priceless account of how and why it happened; the partition of Africa in the nineteenth century by several European nations. A must read!

Superb, i finished it at 5am!, 09 Apr 2007
This book covers every issue you could possibly think of in colonial africa in just enough detail to give you a pan-african diorama without getting bogged down in any individual area (each of which deserves a book on their own). The only other example ive read got so bogged down with the Boer war that lesser known colonial hi-jinx such as the Sudan and Uganda were lost within a sea of Zulus. A rarely touched subject, especially relevant with current events in Zimbabwe.
If you can splash out on the Hardback do- the paper used for the paperback is appalling.


An enlightening read, 20 Dec 2006
This is a beautifully written work that provides a fascinating insight into the continent's history, underdevelopment and civil strife. Devoid of sentimentality and full of objectivity, the author conveys the deep message, which explains not only the resilience of the continent but also the ravages that it has been subjected to throughout its turbulent history. Behind the tragedies of the continent are the heavy hands of the ex-colonial masters and the exploitative drives of some business concerns working in partnership with African dictators, psychopaths and administrative kleptomaniacs that have power and are excluding the people in the running of the land. With more piteous prospects than any other continent, Africa mirrors the failures of humanity as well as its hopes and reams.
Other titles that treat this African malaise are DISCIPLES OF FORTUNE , AFRICA UNCHAINED, THE SCHACKLED CONTINENT, TRIPLE AGENT DOUBLE CROSS. Together these titles exposed the personal and collective problems of the people and the personal and collective efforts made, and the means and ways to take the Africa forward despite all the constrains.

You'll never look at Europe the same way again, 06 Jun 2001
This is the most enjoyable history book I have ever read. If the history of Europe is a long and interminably complicated one, then I would suggest that this single volume could be the key to unlocking that history and explaining the remarkable diversity of nations and cultures that co-exist within this single, small continent today. The author's clear, unpretentious prose style further enhances the readability of the book and while it is likely to be a must-read for students and academics, the general reader will find this book accessible and entertaining. Bartlett takes the reader on a rapid and utterly fascinating tour of medieval Europe, from the Celtic fringes of the British Isles to the uncharted wildernesses of Eastern Europe, and south to newly-reconquered Spain, between the tenth and fourteenth centuries. Amidst the profound social, religious, political and economic - not to mention shamelessly opportunistic - forces taking hold across the continent in this period, we can already begin to see the origins of the Europe we recognise today beginning to emerge. With countless examples drawn from historical sources from literally every corner of Europe, the reader is nonetheless given a refreshing perspective of the story of our continent as a whole - in human terms, rather than as colours and lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. I would advise anyone with an interest in Europe as it is today, and how it came to be, to read this book. I noticed with interest that Simon Schama cited it in the bibliography of his "History of Britain". This book actually affected me quite deeply; I now see European current affairs in a new but much richer context, and I've been compelled to re-examine the way I look at history and its implications for future generations. On another level, I found this book helped me to re-evaluate my outlook on some of the concepts we often take for granted, such as nationality, culture and identity. I can't help thinking, therefore, that by reading this book and reflecting on its implications, many fellow Europeans might want to take a fresh look at the meaning of their own identities and prejudices; ethnic, religious, nationalistic, cultural and linguistic sources of tension and conflict can be identified, often at source, throughout the pages of this stunning book. And, for all the bloodshed and medieval argy-bargy, there's the unexpected bonus of the occasional giggle. Splendid.

Very interesting book, 20 Nov 2008
The book covers a period of around four hundred years and deals with the fluctuating fortunes of the British Empire. At its peak the British Empire included about a quarter of the population of the world and occupied an approximately equal area of the earth's landmass. This is well written account of an interesting and complex subject.

Good but blinkered, 22 Apr 2006
This is a very well written and detailed account of the empire. The writer keeps you interested and covers most of the main events very well. However, where it fails is in the blinkered attitude towards English misbehaviour during the existence of the empire. Almost no mention is made of the countless attrocities carried out in the name of the empire. 2 key examples are the Irish and Indian famines, both at least in part a result of British behaviour. These 2 incidents which killed millions are given no more than a few sentences. British war crimes are barely mentioned whereas native crimes are often described. A good read, but casts doubt on whether a British writer can subjectively write about the empire, which was effectively just the pillaging of the world and the subjugation of anyone who got in the way. From reading this book, you would seriously think that the empire existed for the benefit of all, not simply the english upper classes.

not much of a navel gaze, 25 Apr 2004
Anyone looking for some deep understanding of the 'fall' of the BritishEmpire will be disappointed. Some introspective view would have been anice addition. For a non-Brit many assumptions of fact may be a littlehard to swallow. The relationships Britan had with its Carribean & Africancolony's is covered in good level of detail.
overall not a bad lookfor a survey of the period.

not much of a navel gaze, 25 Apr 2004
Anyone looking for some deep understanding of the 'fall' of the BritishEmpire will be disappointed. Some introspective view would have been anice addition. For a non-Brit many assumptions of fact may be a littlehard to swallow.
overall not a bad look for a survey of the period.

Serious scholarship brought to life, 17 Mar 2002
I was lucky enough to be taught by Mr James, a wit and gentlemen of a rare order. It was a real treat reading this survey of the British Empire. I remember Mr James as a brilliant story teller, with a deep love and respect for the Empire. His book confirms these impressions and provides not only a scholarly survey of this monumental subject, but finds room for a myriad of telling detail brilliant reconstructed in sparkling prose butressing his overarching themes. There surely are few books of such wide canvess which are so readable and satisfying. The book illuminates many facets of the English nation and its peoples which for example Paxman's "The English" never quite pins down and in that sense is very valuable too. Don't miss "Raj",a history of the English in India, another subject very close to Mr James's heart as I recall.

A real life story, 07 Sep 2008
A great read,Edward Said has exposed warts and all for the reader creating a truly honest and frank story of his very interesting life. This book helps to paint a background for this very important modern philosopher way of thinking and writings. The way he weaves his narrative between the events in his personal life and the political events of the time is to me the most interesting.

Tale of cultural domination and a repressive adolescence, 04 Nov 2001
Said is the voice of the displaced Arab. Most Arabs based in the West are there because they know that there is a better life for them, but this sits uncomfortably with the contradiction that the world order that provides these opportunities is the same one in which the Arab continues to be a second class citizen. The Arab's sense of sadness and sense of continual injustice has never truly been given the level of media exposure it merits.

This book touches on themes of displacement, dissolusionment, crises of identity, and ultimately unexpected sources of freedom and resolvings with an honesty associated more with the poet than the academic. Qualities of honesty and emotion that surface in Said's academic texts can be embraced more fully in the less structured genre of autobiography, this one written under the shadow of a terminal illness. Rather than analysing his career we are treated to an insight into his formative years.

There are perhaps two main themes: the first is education under an anachronistic British system and an alienating American one. In a British school in Cairo, resistance to the power took the form of talking Arabic: a people resisting merely by using their mother-tongue.

The second is the enduring influence of his parents upon him. His overbearing father's almost total control over his time, direction and sexuality in his early life. The mixed blessing of his mother's love, having an almost spiritual quality in the way it nourishes him and yet leaving him with crippling guilt as he attempts to develop adult relationships with women.

To relate to this book is to acknowledge one's pain, and to become more aware of the life long project of coming to terms with one's self. Though I write from the perspective of a half-english, half-arab adult of English culture, I feel that this has something to say to every citizen of the world that is willing to grapple with questions of his identity.

A must read, beyond the intellectual world.

Superb!, 03 Feb 2000
Edward Said can do no wrong, I couldn't put the book down. Both informative and touching a real gem!

Different to any other Biography I have read!, 07 Dec 1999
Edward Said's book describes in great detail the "in between" stages of life, i.e. as in the supposedly less interesting moments, totally overrunning what would classically be emphasised upon, i.e. the "highlights". So we get endless passages describing his new watch, where as a marriage and subsequent divorce get only a fleeting remark. For an excruciatingly detailed account of a childhood, this book although surprisingly very easy to read, is painful to experience because of the author's incredible capacity to convey how it felt like more than how it was like. Therefore we go with him through the difficult stages of adolescence with the backdrop of the death of a nation, i.e. Palestine and the birth of another, feeling a constant sense of anxiety perfectly conveyed to us by a witness, victim and survivor of 20th Century Arab History.

Stunning!, 15 Oct 1999
Fantastic memoir!If you ve ever read any of Said's other work and appreciated his adept handling of many difficult issues,then 'Out of Place' sheds light on the personal background and beginnings. A ransacking journey through his early life and the incidents and contradictions of colonial-era Cairo and all the other settings of his life; a catalogue of the experiences that would ultimately produce such immense contributions to the largely white-dominated intellectual landscape through important works such as 'Culture and Imperialism' and 'Orientalism'. Definately one to read if even if you are a not a card carrying sympathizer of the Palestinian cause and/or a fan of his thoughts on Orientalism , which may even make for a bigger reason to do so.