Read and respond by Audrey Ke Zhao

Reminder:

kzhao28 — 2025-07-09 05:02:50 UTC

Post your thoughts about the reading. Try to identify what made you think and what you'll take away from the reading. （Please write down your name.）

kzhao28 — 2025-07-09 05:07:37 UTC

Finley

2025-07-09 21:04:24 UTC

In these excerpts, Said defines 'the Orient' as a collection of vague European ideas about Egypt and Asia, which glorifies a misremembered history between it and Europe. This fascination incentivizes European countries to exert their control over the area, to alter it to their will and ignore the present realities of the people living there in favor of colonization.

Ryder

2025-07-09 21:04:43 UTC

This view on the mystery of faraway lands is intriguing to me. The Suez canal as a way of removing the mystery of Asia is an interesting take on something that I had previously viewed as purely for ease of trade. I hadn’t thought of the word “Orient” as a loose term for the mystery of Asia, enabling Europeans to change it to their liking.

Yutao

yzhao142 — 2025-07-09 21:06:11 UTC

What struck me most from the reading is how the Orient is not represented as it is, but as how Europe wanted it to be remembered and controlled. The idea that Egypt had to be “taken” to fulfill history, or that Western powers must “re-create” the Orient through scholars and soldiers, made me reflect on how knowledge can be a tool of domination.

Claire

2025-07-09 21:06:42 UTC

I think that the ideological and Eurocentric nature of orientalism is really interesting. A lot of colonialism in Africa was not explicitly resource-based to begin with, but rather, was a self-contained European race / land grab; the land might be useful at some point, so everybody in western Europe wanted to take it first, both as an investment and as a sign of political and military power/dominance. This lines up a lot with Said's comment that land annexation would "justify history" to Europeans, and put them in the same position as other historical colonists.

Jonathan

jwstenge — 2025-07-09 21:06:44 UTC

To me, the reading illustrated how the richness and complexity of Egyptian knowledge, culture, and power came to be annexed by Europeans where they would then take these established pillars and make them their own, rewriting the history and subsequent destiny of Egypt to fit their Eurocentric and Christian ideologies. This passage made me reflect on the consequences of imperialism and where people draw the boundaries for ownership of land, knowledge, and culture.

2025-07-09 21:07:03 UTC

Raul:

Egypt was seen as an asset for its arts sciences etc. Because of that the French saw it as justifiable, if they were to win the war they would have "freed" the Egyptians and also gained an advantage over Britain. While Napolean and his crew of scientists were there, they were able to find the Roseta Stone.

Sunny Jam

sunjam — 2025-07-09 21:08:46 UTC

The first paragraph made me feel a bit bitter but also felt kinda cathartic to read (even though I wasn't the one who wrote it). It feels almost passive-aggressive, but in a very satisfying way. Being labeled as 'exotic' is not a compliment, and all these things that are glamorized and sensationalized as these non-Western, mysterious traditions is a really irritating phenomenon. I know the author must have felt a lot of emotional ties to this topic, and I feel them despite his scholarly way of writing.

Tamara

2025-07-09 21:09:34 UTC

From the text, I understood that for the West, Egypt (and the East) had cultural significance, but not because of what it is or because of its people, but because of the western image of Egypt. Western standards valued the cultural and scientific impact that the East made in the past, but disregarded the people or culture that exist in this place at the moment, thinking of them as inferior. In simple words, Orientalism is an idea that portrays the East as exotic, mysterious, and different from, and often inferior to, the West.

Quinn

2025-07-09 21:09:43 UTC

In this section, the author argues that Eastern societies such as Egypt were understood and defined solely in relation to Europe and European powers. For Europeans, claiming control of a society that used to be an ancient power full of science and art was a way to demonstrate the strength of modern European powers. Instead of recognizing the knowledge, abilities, and humanities of Eastern societies, Europe needed to possess them.

Ruby

2025-07-09 21:10:04 UTC

Said's reading discusses the term "the Orient" or "Orientalism," referring to a set of values and concepts created by modern Europe and Western scholars to categorize Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East. It is Europe's way of understanding races, cultures, and communities outside of the West, but it is harmful and inaccurate. It largely erases realities, instead, creating fictions about different languages, histories, and cultures.