No individual’s knowledge of a country is neutral or whole.

Evidence

If one has ‘known Pakistan for a long time’ and yet, because of circumstance, ‘learned’ it only ‘by slices’, the question naturally arises: which ‘slices’ has one chosen to ‘learn’? For, if we do not choose our own ‘bits’ of reality, those ‘bits’ will then be chosen for us by our class origin, our jobs, the circuits of our friendships and desires, our ways of spending our leisure time, our literary predilections, our political affiliations – or lack of them. There are no neutral ‘bits’, not even of not-knowing. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 238

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to standpoint theory and the idea that all perception is socially situated — mirrors the reader’s earlier curations on communication as culture and the social construction of knowledge. — connects to: No selection of what to know is politically or socially neutral.
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that even not-knowing is non-neutral — that omission itself is chosen by social position — is a genuinely dense, paradigm-shaping idea about epistemology and representation.

Related

• No selection of what to know is politically or socially neutral. (similarity 0.88)
• The bits of reality one knows are selected by class position, never neutrally. (similarity 0.87)