The Imaginary Orient

Linda Nochlin, the author of this article, quotes Donald Rosenthal as saying "The unifying charateristic of ninteenth-century Orientalism was its attempt at documentary realism".
At a later point, Nochlin quotes Edward Said defining Orientalism: "a mode for defining the presumed cultural inferiority of the Islamic Orient..part of the vast controling mechanism of colonialism, designed to justify and perpetuate European dominance".
Nochlin feels that Orient studies and criticisms are not clearcut. Like all postcolonial topics, Orientalism also contains tensions that are constantly being revised and changed. She uses the example of Jean-Leon Gerome's Snake Charmer to outline some of these tensions.

It is a a "visual document of ninteenth-century colonialist ideology". However, Nochlin points out that both the boy and his audience are the subjects of this painting. The audience is part of the spectacle because we, the viewers, can not identify with the intensity and concentration that the boy's audience looks at him. We also can not identify with their placement within the frame- they sit opposite us, instead of amongst us.

Nochlin, using this painting as an example, outlines "absences" in depictions of the Orient:

1- History- Time stands still. Changes to the Western world are alien to the Orient. It lives in a constant state of stillness, a still picture complete with its people, rituals and traditions. The people in the painting know nothing of the historical and political processes that were taking place in the Near East. There is an absence of temporal change and of history.
2- Western Man- There is no depiction of the European settlers in such paintings. Nochlin says that such paintings exist because the Westerner's presence is abset. Thus Orientalist paintings show a world of timeless rituals and customs untouched by the West. However, the Westner's presence is implied in the controlling gaze.
3- Representation- Orientalist paintings, like Snake Charmer hide the fact that they are depictions/representations from the painter's subjective point of view. They are observances remapped onto the canvas. They try to convice the viewer that they are scientific reflections of the Oriental reality.
4- Art- Since Orientalist works aspire to pass for realist work, they refrain from reminding the viewer of the fact that it really is a question of art. There are no clues to the artwork as a literal flat surface. In other words, there is no human creativity. Gerome does this by making his paintings very real: by concealing the evidence of his brush and by emphasising authenticating details, often unnecessary ones.
5- Sense of Labour- Scenes of work and industry are absent from Orientalist paintings due to the Western view that the Islamic world is lazy.

Nochlin strongly asserts that Gerome's paintings are not accurate reflections of Orientalist reality, but arranged, subjective constructions of meanings.

Hottentot Venus

There was a tribe in South Africa that called itself the KhoiKhoi. Since most of these tribes married within the tribe, each tribe had its own physical attributes. Some were known for their long necks, others were known for their long buttocks- like the KhoiKhoi. The Europeans (who have an annoying habit of assuming that everybody understands English), referred to the KhoiKhoi as the Hottentot. Their large buttocks were quite the urban legend in Europe.
Saatchi, or Sara Baartman as the Europeans called her, was a slave for a Dutch man. He took her all over Europe, putting her on display for a small ticket fee. People came to look at her naked body and her big bottom. Eventually, their curiosity for her buttocks and genitals killed her. Even though she had died, they did not give up their interest in her genitals. Her genitals were cut off and sold to a musuem- another peculiarity.

In her article, Sadiah Qureshi mentions that nobody knows Sara Baartman's real name. I wonder then, why do the historians in the film refer to her as Satchi?
In 1995, South Africa requested France to return her body parts for a proper burial- two centuries after her death. It became a long political battle to the extent that even Nelson Mandela had to intervene and request for the body to be returned. The parts in question: her breasts, buttocks and labia- which the Musee de l'Homme in Paris had on display. Qureshi thinks that the attempt to reclaim her body is a metaphor for black artists to reclaim their image and sexuality.

In the 17th century, colonial representations of the Khoikhoi showed them as the link between human and ape.They were thought to be without religion, savages, barbarians and bestial. People, plants and objects were collected and displayed- as was Sara Baartman. As Qureshi says, Sara "served as both an imperial success and a prized specimen of the 'Hottentot'".
Qureshi then answers my earlier query on Baartman's name. The historians in the film refer to her as Saartjie, not Satchi....Saartjie means little Sara in Dutch. Saartjie's travels are not those of a slave being traded, but are analogous to a live, rare, animal specimen being traded and displayed.

London, back in the day, "provided a host of possibilities: theatres, museums, pleasure gardens, panoramas, circuses, menageries, freak shows and fairs". In 1810, the public could view the "Hottentot Venus" for two shillings at 225 Picadilly. She was displayed there as a rare specimen, not as a human. She had to walk up and down in her cage, while the audience pinched, poked and made faces at her. Such treatment of "living curiousities" was not uncommon in those days. (I can not believe how one person could treat another person like that!)

Thankfully, there were a handful of Europeans who believed in human rights. One of them, "An Englishman", wrote a letter claiming "It was contrary to every principle of morality and good order" to let Baartman's show continue because it was offending to public decency and hinted at slavery. Baartman's owner at the time, Cezar, responded saying that she was not a slave, but participated in the display of her own will. This developed into a court case, which of course, Cezar won. Saartjie remained a curiosity.

However, her court case won her the most fame and attention. As Qureshi writes, "It is Baartman's politicization and not her exhibition that proved unusual". Also, Qureshi notes that Baartman's "status as an imperial spectacle" was not due solely to her status as a black person, nor a black woman- since Europeans were well acquainted with blacks. It was due, largely, to her status as a Khoikhoi woman, which the British had never encountered before.

In 1815, after having been displayed at several venues across Europe, "Baartman spent three days at the Jardin des Plantes under the observation of the professors of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle". Stemming from this examinatin, illustrations of her alongside mammals were published in a journal. She died later that year, and her body was preserved at the Museum h'Histoire Naturelle.

Qureshi outlines how Cuvier examined Saartjie's body both before and after her death, and how the Europeans were interested in the genitalia of a Khoikhoi woman. Depictions/illustrations made at the time of Khoikhoi woman shown them reclining, with their breats uncovered and legs spread apart to invite examination. Qureshi expresses offense at these illustrations, and I agree with her.

Qureshi, in the latter half of her article, talks about an ehibit called "Two Undiscovered Amerindians Visit", a performance by Coco Fusco. Two "Amerindians" were displayed in a cage while Western audiences looked on. Some paid money to get a glimpse of the male's primitive genitalia, others paid to watch the female dance. Fusco noted that their audiences felt they had to play the role of the colonizer. As Qureshi states, this exhibition brings attention to "the power that an observer possesses to construct the significance of a subject and how location shapes meaning. The lack of self-reflexivity on the part of the audience is partly the consequence of staging the perfomrance in a museum".

So why are Western museum practices so twisted? Why must be make a spectacle out of everything, and assume that we establish the norm? Even today, we view First Nations and Africans as something to preserve behind a museum's walls. Surely, the West has bigger issues to worry about.

On the Remaking of History: How to Reinvent the Past- Janet Abu-Lughod

If the rise of the West can not be attributed to a unique genius, then the fall of the West can also not be attributed to the lack of a virtue. There are other factors that can account for the rise and fall of nations. When researching history, there are three problems with the methods:
1- Truims: The truisms that historical accounts are constructions instead of descriptions are still not accepted. Social events are not recorded constructions, they are observed descriptions and are not as objective as sociologists and historians would think. The solution to this problem is triangulation: "We assume that somewhere between the accounts given, duly discounted for 'distortions' due to partial perspectives and vested interests, one can 'find' an approximation of social reality that might have been constructed by an unbiased and virtually omniscient narrator, had such an observer been possible" (Abu-Lughod). Thus, any account of the other is from one perspective only. All accounts need to be taken into consideration and then a common detail must be found- which can be an approximation for the actual event.
2- Backwards constructions: All sociological accounts are constructed backwards. Only after an event takes place do the narratives and explanations form. We build narratives to explain historical events by looking at what factors made the events inevitable. Instead, we should look at the whole picture of factors surrounding the events. The solution to this problem is to assert relative conditions at successive points in time of the historical eent and then to analyze how these various states could have hapened. If the endpoint determines the history, then we need to take a series of different endpoints and find a common ground in their histories.
3- Starting point: Each narrator begins his account at a point that interests him/her. Starting points of history are relative to the historian, making for different and inaccurate accounts of the same history.

Abu-Lughod for the remainder of the article refutes accounts that claim that "Europe's leap into modernity was achieved solely by its own strengths and virtues" (Abu-Lughod) and explains how this history was written.
There are two biases in the making of European historical accounts. The historians start with the present hegemony of the West as a predetermined outcome. And then they explain why this outcome happened. The two biases:
-The starting point they use makes the outcome inevitable. The year 1400 is the earliest starting point used. It is the earliest point when the rise of the West could have been predicted. Historians should start earlier, in the thirteenth century, when they can examine the outcome whereby the East fell. This account would explain that the East declined in power at the same time that Portugese men-of-war entered Eastern waters and eventually helped the West rise. Western scholars tend to begin too late and even then, they only consider partial accounts. They should work together with archivists and synthesizers to make increase the chances of a complete history instead of making partial histories. The archivists would research material and compile their findings which the synthesizers would use this research and produce accounts/narratives.
Synthesis happens at two levels: Socio-economic or intellectual histories of smaller regions and global histories of wider regions.
Histories written by the hegemony creators will natually hold biases towards the hegemonized. We tend to gravitate towards facts and accounts in our language, and pull out relevant facts that are relevant to us. We need to apply triangulation and include non-Western accounts in order to prevent biases.
An example Abu-Lughod brings up is that historical accounts of the fall of Rome are in binary opposition to accounts of the Rise of the West. They place the East as backward and undeveloped. If that had been true, the East would have been of no interest nor use to the West. We know, now, that historical evidence points to the contrary. She goes on to present numerous examples of the East's technological innovations that the West was simply not capable of producing at the time. She traces history back to the point where it was inevitable that the East was declining in the mid-fifteenth century. There was a vacuum of power in the Indian Ocean that the Portugese men-of-war filled- and that led to the rise of the West. At the end of her article, she predicts a new world hegemony about to arrive. Could it be the Pacific?

Robert Young on Colonialism and Imperialism

Robert Young reading
"POST COLONIALISM"
Reading Summary

• Even though the terms "colonialism" and "imperialism" are sometimes used synonymously, they are not the same. This is evident in the fact that we have "post colonial studies" but not "post imperial studies".
• Common factors between colonialism and imperialism:
• Both involve "forms of subjugation" by another.
• Domination
• Historically:
• Empires expand over one land mass...they grow out to conquer lands joined to them. Example: Chinese empire, empire of the Moors, Roman empire (which grew so large that it broke into two divisions- byzantine and holy roman)
• Sixteenth century water travel evolved and allowed Europe to build empires past the limits of the sea. Sea travel allowed geographical expansion as well as the ability of populations to stay in touch with their homeland.
• Empires became geographically incoherent. Eg: SPanish and Portugese empires in South/Central America. They extracted riches from the land and converted the indigenous people to Christianity.
• Spanish imperialism was based on Ottoman and Roman model- tribute structure.
• British Empire in North America was concerned about settlement and was colonial.

Imperial versus Colonial

Imperialism: "an empire that was bureaucratically controlled by a government from the center, and which was developed for ideological as well as financial reasons". Driven by ideology from a metropolitan center. Concerned with expansion of state power.

Colonialism: "an empire that was developed for settlement by individual communities or for commercial purposes by a trading company". Developed in an unorderly fashion on the periphery. Economically driven.

Imperialism was of two types- Roman, Ottoman and Spanish....and late nineteenth century Europe.

Colonialism was also of two types- Colonization aand Domination...or Dominions and Deprendencies...or Settlement (British North America, Australia, New Zealand, French Algeria) and Exploitation (American Philippines, Peurto Rico, British India, Dutch East Indies, French India, German Togo, Japanese Taiwan).

Colonies have two groups: the settled and the exploited. Today's former setttler colonies have two existances: they have freed themselves from colonialization of the mother country (Eg: US, Canada, Australia), and the settlers who went to those regions and ended up oppressing the indigenous peoples. Young calls them "persecuted minorities emigrating and then themselves persecuting minorities". Colonialism did not come without its share of geographical violence. The colonizers exterminated natives to take over the formerly occupied land. Also, the plantations on the land needed labor which came in the form of slaves taken from the native population.

As far as imperialism is concerned, the Spanish created the first European empire in the Americas. The British empire though, predated British Imperialism by several centuries. The word "imperialism" is a hybrid term; a political system of actual conquest and occupatoion, and a general system of economic domination. Imperialism consists of direct conquest through politcal and economic domination, and is ruled from the political center. Young's example of this power structure is the Pentagon and CIA in Washington. It is a dominating ideology.