Said distorted Marx’s writings in Orientalism
Evidence
Karl Marx was not an academic Orientalist, nor a desert adventurer, nor an imperialist proconsul. Although there was no compelling reason to include him in a book on Orientalism, Marx did feature and his writings were travestied. — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 531
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Marx’s Indian writings were conjectural, not theoretical
Related
- Marx’s Indian writings were conjectural, not theoretical (similarity 0.88)
- Orientalism functions as a self-enclosed Western text rather than knowledge of an actual Orient. (similarity 0.81)
- Marx’s orientalism concerned land tenure and government, not racial feeling (similarity 0.80)
- Marx’s colonial writings were conjectural speculation, not worked-out theory (similarity 0.80)
- The Orientalist expert becomes the representative Oriental himself (similarity 0.80)
- Orientalism is only the visible tip of a larger modern structure. (similarity 0.80)
- Orientalism turned scattered testimony into a domesticated, categorical simulacrum of the Orient (similarity 0.80)
- Orientalist texts reveal the metropolitan culture that produced them most deeply (similarity 0.79)
- Orientalism is chiefly a British and French cultural enterprise (similarity 0.79)
- Orientalism’s power lies in its practitioners’ ignorance of what they are doing. (similarity 0.78)
- Orientalist texts functioned as blueprints for material re-creation, not just misrepresentation (similarity 0.78)
- Orientalist writing is pre-eminently a visual regime of expert and beholding self. (similarity 0.78)