Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

Orientalism Revisited

We still view the east from the Crusaders' battlements, writes Julian Glover at CiF. (Julian Glover? He's the Guardian's chief leader writer):

"This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation," Tony Blair said, not long before stepping down. He was denying his enemies even the small tribute of standing for values of their own. The Crusaders at Krak had greater respect for Saladin.

The Guardian once again comes to the aid of Islamists everywhere. Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are the new crusades, inspired by Western contempt for Islam. 

And, apparently, al-Qaeda represent a set of values for which we should have respect – which may come as a surprise to, among others, a great many Muslims.
Posted in

3 responses to “Orientalism Revisited”

  1. Bob-B Avatar
    Bob-B

    As you say, it is quite extraordinary how similar Glover’s line is to the standard islamist talk about crusaders. The whole thing is basically nonsense, but I was particularly struck by the suggestion that the Iraq invasion was a result of ‘the western imagination’s association of Islam with vicious reaction, as if every inhabitant of the east was under the sway of a mad mullah’. Surely a major factor behind the invasion was the very different belief that inhabitant of the east are not fundamentally different from us and that if given democratic institutions they support moderate politicians and not Islamic extremists of one kind or another. Recent developments seem to provide some support for this view

    Like

    Reply
  2. sackcloth and ashes Avatar
    sackcloth and ashes

    ‘The Crusaders at Krak had greater respect for Saladin’.
    Mainly because he was a humane and honourable warrior who treated prisoners and civilians with compassion. Obviously, he lived in a different era, but I wonder whether he would have been happy with crashing planes into buildings packed with civilians, or bombing mosques, or kidnapping people and sawing their heads off on camera.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Kellie Strøm Avatar
    Kellie Strøm

    Incredibly stupid. The blatant contradiction in this bit for example: “But we have chosen to blot out the existence of that vast proportion of the world’s Islamic population that does not want conflict. In that 2006 speech Blair claimed to be fighting for such people too […]” What? If ‘we’ have chosen to blot out such people, how come we claim to be fighting for them? An absolute nitwit.
    His interpretation of Blair’s comments denying a clash of civilisations is also an incredibly crude distortion. Blair obviously believed that Islamic civilisation was not the property of the market bombers and head-choppers, but rather of that vast proportion that Glover thinks ‘we’ simultaneously blot out and yet claim to fight for. Does Glover believe the head-choppers represent Islamic civilisation?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Bob-B Cancel reply