Edward Said's Definition Of Orientalism

According to Edward Said, orientalism is defined as

“Foreign policy flows from cultural hegemony affirming “America’ as a manly, racially

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

The writers from the U.S. looks stuck in Orientalism; the perspective which believes that the Western perspective is the only way to describe the international politics in recent situations.

The notion that we do not need foreign policy, or that it is an antiquated concept is greatly misleading. In fact, we need a strong foreign policy now more than ever. We are living at a time when the world’s geographical divides are shrinking due to ever increasing advancements in communication, technology, trade, and a strong global economic interdependence. Even though the notion that we are somehow economically dependent upon other countries is not something new for the US, we still see a strong indifference to foreign policy. In order to understand the problems, let us take a step back and examine the history of US foreign policy.

All things considered, the contradictions over outside arrangements between the US and different nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside differences over staging, and disconnectedness of power and tact have partitioned the nation of America itself with the neighbouring nations and have broken associations between social orders for at any rate the previous two decades if not more. Internationalists, solely marked liberal internationalists, have as far back as anyone can remember accepted that remote arrangement is to a great extent a matter of goodwill, understanding, and determined participation with different states to accomplish normal and aggressive points of multilateral choice making, financial globalization, non-expansion,

In modern time, the U.S. has had a stronger presence. It has been an area deemed to unpredictable. Part of this unpredictability stems from the belief of terrorist groups originating from this area. The United States policies, decisions and overall image to other states in the international systems has continuously fluctuated. The U.S. has ranged from rejecting political responsibility in the Middle East to acceptance of responsibility of it based off a global power foundation. The past image of U.S. foreign policy, during the Cold War, could have been considered inclusive. There was a sense of willingness to embrace any country that opposed communism. When the United States had faced the Soviet Union, they held militarily strength. However, during the war on terror, the U.S. has not been as inclusive.

Problem: In 1789 George Washington’s Farewell Address contained one major piece of advice to the county regarding relations with other nations: “avoid entangling alliances.” Those words shaped United States foreign policy for more than a century (Policy Making, American Government). Today some Americans think that Washington’s words are still wise ones, and that the United States (U.S.) should withdraw from world affairs whenever possible. In truth, however, the United States has been embroiled in world politics throughout the 20th century, and as a result, foreign policy takes up a great deal of government’s time, energy, and money.

Throughout the semester Joseph Nye’s signature concepts of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power have been analyzed amongst the backdrop of U.S. foreign relations. ‘Hard power’ is the use of “coercion i.e. military and economic means to influence the behavior of other political bodies” (Hudson). This contrasts to ‘Soft power’ which is the use of “attraction to produce desired foreign policy results [by focusing] on three key resources: culture, political values, and foreign policies” (Hudson). Through the wielding and usage of the tools of ‘soft power’ ideas about U.S. values and culture have been able to attract partners and support to Washington without the use of force and/or threat of further war and atrocity. Due to this fact it appears ‘soft power’ is more integral to influencing foreign relations, especially when considering the effects of actions such as President Woodrow Wilson’s establishment of a Committee on Public Information, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms Speech, and President Harry Truman’s support for the Marshall Plan.

American policy abroad highly influences the identity of the nation. Through international political acts Americans are characteristically expressing their aims and ambitions in the world. There is a definite co-dependence between the national and world-wide view of America, which can’t be separated.

I believe that discussing different views on global issues allows one to learn new concepts while advancing his or her own opinion on these issues. Programs similar to this one, allow me to better grasp the concepts of the US in world politics and American foreign policy and help me to form my own opinions and potential solutions through both peer and instructed learning. With plans to study international affairs in college, during this program I hope to learn more about the different functions and roles in American diplomacy. This program will hopefully teach me more about the ways I can be involved in international affairs, the foundations to American foreign policy, and America’s current involvement in world politics. After this program, I hope to translate what I have learned at “Summer at Brown” to my future college and professional careers. I can contribute to this program with my passion for foreign affairs and my own perspective on America’s involvement in world politics. Although many people approach international affairs with legal and economic mindsets, I focus on the cultural, political, and historical elements of international affairs and politics. My particular emphasis on culture and how it

Besides all the awards and the technology this movie has presented, the clear depiction of Orientalism idea in this movie becomes the main reason Avatar is chosen to be the subject of this study. The plot of this movie tells about the exploitation done by human towards Planet Pandora, the place in which the valuable mineral can be obtained. In that place, human has to face and overcome the struggle of the native called Na’vi who opposes the land exploitation. Human scientists invent the avatar program which enables human to drive their avatar body, a genetically-bred human-Na’vi hybrid, and therefore human can freely observes and persuades the native to surrender their land. Here, the idea of Orientalism clearly depicted in the way human represents the native as primitive and uncivilized and how human tries to educate and build the native in the way human believes to be the best way.

William J. Fulbright, a democratic Senator from Arkansas, was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1966 when The Arrogance of Power was published. In an excerpt from Fulbright’s book, he analyzes the misguided thinking behind America's global interventionism and its delusion of righteous all-powerfulness. These symptoms are a confusion of power and virtue. Fulbright defines the arrogance of power as, “a psychological need that nations seem to have in order to prove that they are bigger, better, or stronger than other nations” (2). William J. Fulbright uses persuasive appeals in his well structured book, The Arrogance of Power to help convey his views on U.S. war

I want to research whether portrayals of Orientalism in the media are used to retroactively justify decisions such as imperialism or the Vietnam War. I chose this topic because I found Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism very thought-provoking and wondered if it can apply to contemporary society. In addition to that, I have not seen a lot of contemporary analysis on Orientalism of Southeast Asia. My initial inspiration was when I watched the film No Escape, which seemed blatantly racist and problematic. I narrowed and refined my topic by further researching the concepts of Orientalism and otherness, and considered how they could be applied to this film. Sources that have been key in defining my research topic include scholar articles on Orientalism

In spite of our achievements in many fields of endeavour, we still have a strong sense of psychological dependence on things external particularly North American, Europe, and some of the bigger countries of Latin America. We still (as good ex-colonials) see big countries in the hemisphere and in Europe as being some sense better (intrinsincally and not just economically) than out individual countries and the other West Indian countries and we sometimes carry this perception into the field of international relations.