Orientalism differs from Hellenism by accompanying colonial conquest

Evidence

Not Lewis. He proceeds by distorting the truth, by making false analogies, and by innuendo, methods to which he adds that veneer of omniscient tranquil authority which he supposes is the way scholars talk. Take as a typical example the analogy he draws between my critique of Orientalism and a hypothetical attack on studies of classical antiquity, an attack which, he says, would be a foolish activity. It would be, of course, but then Orientalism and Hellenism are radically incomparable. The former is an attempt to describe a whole region of the world as an accompaniment to that region’s colonial conquest, the latter is not at all about the direct colonial conquest of Greece in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; in addition, Orientalism expresses antipathy to Islam, Hellenism sympathy for classical Greece. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 860

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the core definition of Orientalism: scholarship tethered to colonial conquest, contrasted with a field (Hellenism) that is not.
• XREF: Connects to later Islamophobia readings on how ‘expertise’ about Islam is produced in service of empire. — connects to: British Oriental imagination was constrained by actual colonial possession; Colonization was not Islam-specific but Orientalism shaped its distinct form; Orientalism’s paradigms confirm rather than contest imperial domination (+4 more)
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 860

Broader Connections

• Colonization was not Islam-specific but Orientalism shaped its distinct form #expands (0.85)
• Orientalism justified colonial rule in advance, not after the fact #corroborates (0.85)
• Orientalism’s paradigms confirm rather than contest imperial domination #corroborates (0.80)
• Orientalism functioned as fuel for colonial conquest before American independence. #exemplifies (0.80) — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 162