Orientalism was internally divided rather than a monolithic colonial tool

Evidence

In sum, the Orientalist view of the East as it emerged in the nineteenth century was based on a racial and civilizational vilification of Muslims. This is not, however, to suggest that Orientalist scholarship existed or was used in colonial contexts without contradiction. There were Orientalists who rejected notions of racial superiority; at the same time, however, they agreed that race was a useful category of analysis. There were those who admired Islam and others who disparaged it; some actively aided the colonial mission while others saw themselves as producing objective knowledge. Orientalist ideas were used differently in various contexts. Put simply, the relationship between Orientalist thought and the project of empire-building is complex. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 132 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Orientalist scholarship was internally divided between empire servants and anti-colonial critics; Orientalism was internally contradictory rather than a monolithic colonial tool.; Orientalist scholarship varied internally but shared the racial category — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 132 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Orientalism was internally contradictory rather than a monolithic colonial tool. #corroborates (0.98)
• Institutional Orientalism, not all Orientalist scholarship, served colonial power #qualifies (0.85)
• Orientalist scholarship varied internally but shared the racial category #corroborates (0.82) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 132
• Orientalism’s paradigms confirm rather than contest imperial domination #qualifies (0.75)
• Treating orientalism as mere colonial discourse is analytically hindering #corroborates (0.72) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 81