Summary Of Indians By Edward Said
Through a unique combination of text and imagery, Edward Said crafts an essay about the crisis of identity caused by the Palestinian exile, and, by using Jane Tompkins essay “‘Indians’: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History”, his essay can be analyzed for a better comprehension of his position. In both essays, the authors, occasionally, employ harsh transitions between topics, with little to no transitional phrasing, which allows Said, specifically, to augment the feelings of discomfort and discontinuity he creates for the reader. However, when discussing history, Said shifts away from Tompkins and instead focuses on unquestionable historical information to assist in his formulation of general Palestinian perspectives. Although both
…show more content…
Tompkins’ essay, along with her analysis of historians, focuses on the qualitative aspects of European-Native American relations. And, until the end of her essay (Tompkins 9), she refuses to accept evidence, regardless of its contents, unless she perceives it as coming from a completely objective source. On the other hand, Said separates the qualitative and quantitative facts. Using undeniable facts, such as “In 1948 Israel was established” or “the 1967 war was followed shortly after by the Arab oil boom,” his essay shapes the situation of modern Palestinians, without needing qualitative history (Said 548). However, once Said has developed this understanding using facts, he uses them to project his idea of what all Palestinians are experiencing to some extent, using his own experiences as a medium: “thus Palestinian life is scattered, discontinuous, marked by the artificial and imposed arrangements of interrupted or confined space” (550). While, as Tompkins correctly states, a non-objective perspective results in an inaccurate conclusion, Said only looks to create a general perception, so that he can narrow it with specific cases, where he can ensure fact. The approaches of Tompkins and Said are clearly distinct, as Said focuses on the results of history on an individual’s perspective while Tompkins desires a broader, universal, objective
Tompkins’ essay, along with her analysis of historians, focuses on the qualitative aspects of European-Native American relations. And, until the end of her essay (Tompkins 9), she refuses to accept evidence, regardless of its contents, unless she perceives it as coming from a completely objective source. On the other hand, Said separates the qualitative and quantitative facts. Using undeniable facts, such as “In 1948 Israel was established” or “the 1967 war was followed shortly after by the Arab oil boom,” his essay shapes the situation of modern Palestinians, without needing qualitative history (Said 548). However, once Said has developed this understanding using facts, he uses them to project his idea of what all Palestinians are experiencing to some extent, using his own experiences as a medium: “thus Palestinian life is scattered, discontinuous, marked by the artificial and imposed arrangements of interrupted or confined space” (550). While, as Tompkins correctly states, a non-objective perspective results in an inaccurate conclusion, Said only looks to create a general perception, so that he can narrow it with specific cases, where he can ensure fact. The approaches of Tompkins and Said are clearly distinct, as Said focuses on the results of history on an individual’s perspective while Tompkins desires a broader, universal, objective