Edward Said

My book, orientalism, is that western's the inhumainzation of the estern by intentional emphasis of difference between western and estern.
I made an apporoach with 3 ways.
1) the regulation and system of social inner strucuture is formed by elites' discourse. So, by accepting this point of view, I argured that any history is not standardized but something dynamic. The relation between imperialism and orientalism can be explained in this context.
2) the second hegemony is about holding a general public by an act of pursuation. And it's dpne unconciously. It makes subultern regard the surpression as a natural and anchangable thing.
3) the division between western's epistemology and estern's ontology originated from the contrast of dichotomy of self and others. And it developed as division between 'development/barbarity' 'advanced/uncivilized' 'rational/irrational'. This provided a foundation and excuse to western's imperialist for occupying the 3rd world under the name of civilization.

What I want to say is that we have to call in question about the history which is interpreted at the point of western, in order to avoid ideological consumption that is accepting western's hegemony and fallacy as a truth.