Anti-imperialist historians of India contradict the portrayal of Marx as an Orientalist

Evidence

American literary posrsrrucruralisms - and nor only literary, nor only poststructuralisms - where one routinely encounters a dense system of mutual citations and invocations of Foucault and/or Said which portrays Marx as an Orientalistic enthusiast of colonialism, based almost always on that same passage which Said quotes. Jli A striking feature of this portrayal of Marx as an Orientalist, based as it is on some journalistic observations about India, is that it never even refers to how those same observations may have been seen by India’s own anti-imperialist historians. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 73

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s Ahmad project: parallels how discourse-determinist critique (Said on Marx) erases materialist/anti-imperialist readings, mirroring Ahmad’s charge that postcolonial theory obscures material/class structures. — connects to: Anti-Marx poststructuralist critique ignores how Indian historians read Marx — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 26; Marx’s dispatches on India require contextual scholarship, not summary dismissal — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1036; Indian criticism of British colonial economics predates Marx. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 732 (+4 more)
  • SEED: Possible essay angle: how Indian anti-imperialist historiography of the 1850s reads Marx’s journalism as materially grounded rather than Orientalist — a test case for valuing non-Eurocentric materialist reception over discourse-first indictment.

Broader Connections