Said's Orientalism, Today.

In essence, Said claims the very concept of world dominance fuels imperialism. The idea, not the riches or land, is impetus for conquering foreign peoples. As Said puts it, "the enterprise of empire depends upon the idea of having an empire."

Orientalism is the Western view of the East. Western culture is defined vis-a-vis the Orient, just as the Western notion of the Orient is defined as culturally juxtaposed with the West. He argues that Orientalism ceased being simply an idea, and became a discourse in European civilization, legitimized by self-fulfilling prophecies in studies of the East.

Said acknowledges that 'East' and 'West' are relative terms, that the two are far more similar than either believe, and specifically that the East needs to be understood as a thriving, complex concoction of civilizations, not reductively as a Western notion.

European cultural hegemony led to the 'Us' vs. 'Them' binary. Said concludes by warning against dangerous styles of Oriental critique. He says, taking a broad stance endorses Orientalism and fails to encompass the intricacy and nuance in Eastern culture. Yet, a fastidious attention to detail fails to address the issue, often straying from the discussion of East and West altogether.

I believe that the disparity between the concept of Orientalism and reality is dangerous. Americans are largely misinformed. Generalizations such as 'Islamic Terror' and 'Middle Easterner' oversimplify the issue, and reinforce the 'Us' vs. 'Them' binary.

We're not all that different from Colonial Britain. The idea fueling our mission is the same: to civilize populations. Don't believe it? Think about what we are really doing when we 'promote peace in regions that are undergoing turmoil'. Countries are having revolutions (Ex. Arab Spring) and we are entering the conflict to impose democracy under the guise of peace promotion and terror prevention. The key word here is democracy. We want to spread democracy. That's how we 'civilize' today. These nations whose histories stretch farther back than ours, whose people live by far more nuanced social and governmental structures, often don't believe democracy is the best option. But we do.

It boils down to an issue of Pluralism, which America does not fully endorse. Pluralism is the understanding that societies are different, and that this is acceptable. There is a correct way to live, but if people don't choose it, that's okay because they have made their choice, and that choice is theirs to make. We like to say we endorse Pluralism, but if we really did, we would be far more focused on domestic issues than foreign.

Peace Promotion is the banner we wave, and Terror is the Oriental enemy, but how can we hope to instill peace, if the very people we hope to instill it in, are those we believe to be sworn enemies of America?

It's paradoxical. Gunpowder doesn't reform ideas. You can't shove peace down throats. Solution? Realize that 'Terror' is largely a constructed term that is hyperbolized by media fear factor, and propagated by the weight we lend it. Come to terms with the fact that people from foreign nations are as complex, nuanced, advanced, intelligent, intricate, hardworking, deserving, and passionate for peace as we are. If we recognize the Other's substance, we will cease giving orientalism a negative connotation, our preconceptions will cease to fuel self-fulfilling stereotypes and the media fear factor, and, maybe, we can live harmoniously.