British rule was justified by claiming deeper knowledge of Egypt than Egyptians had.

Evidence

I take up no attitude of superiority. But I ask [Robertson and anyone else] … who has even the most superficial knowledge of history, if they will look in the face the facts with which a British statesman has to deal when he is put in a position of supremacy over great races like the inhabitants of Egypt and countries in the East. We know the civilization of Egypt better than we know the civilization of any other country. … We know it further back; we know it more intimately; we know more about it. It goes far beyond the petty span of the history of our race, which is lost in the prehistoric period at a time when the Egyptian civilisation had already passed its prime. Look at all the Oriental countries. Do not talk about superiority or inferiority. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 106

Categorization

• DEFINE: The exact formula of Orientalist justification: knowledge of the other legitimizes supremacy over the other — ‘we know it better’ is the warrant for rule.
• XREF: This is the very epistemic premise the Islamophobia field inherits: knowing-about the Muslim Other as grounds for paternalistic oversight. Direct scaffold.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how does this ‘knowing better’ claim survive when the subaltern speaks back — the limit case Balfour’s formula cannot handle.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 106