More broadly I would think that the negative attitude towards Orientalism is a little xenocentric, because it suggests somehow only Orientalists were a problem of that type during that era. I'd argue it was probably a common 'ism' in the world given one cultures view of another, and frankly demure compared to most past activity. At least Napoleon brought 'scientists' who'd be keenly trying to study something. That's already miles beyond what most entities would do.

Side note: Napoleon is weirdly unreferenced entity in North America, I think due to the fact he was French and not part of the Anglosphere directly. So much fodder for pop culture there, It'd be great to see a decent film about his foray into Egypt, or rather, a film in which that was the setting. Or even a cheesy netflix 'game of thrones' type thing that went through the revolution, his rise and demise. So many actual crazy stories there, they don't even need to wait for the author to write it ...

The unity of Europe in that era was never such to consider the East "an existential threat"

1683 must have felt pretty existential in Vienna

At least we got croissants

They weren't pirates. The Barbary traders were responding to the European inquisition that saw pogroms all over Europe that slaughtered and tortured Muslims and Jews alike. And the attacks and conquest by Christians against Andalusia. There was also a sense of containing European expansion after the crusades. For instance, many of the Jews that settled in North Africa were Iberian refugees rescued by those "pirates".

I think you regard this article as a tidbit to be understood by itself, but it's more of a reflection on the book.

You seem to be aggrieved with it, can I ask why? Or is it specifically because the Ottoman colonization of Greece was not mentioned? Because I can think of many other significant historical events that are not mentioned, but I fail to see how that's relevant.

> You seem to be aggrieved with it, can I ask why?

I think I was very clear as to why: the article heavily implies Arab-European relations were that of one-sided colonization by Europeans, when in fact, until very recently, the opposite was the case. This would be understandable if it had limited itself to more recent history, but as it stands, I consider it lying by omission.

That's what Said's book is for and it couldn't be much clearer:

"Not for nothing did Islam come to symbolize terror, devastation, the demonic. hordes of hated barbarians. For Europe. Islam was a lasting trauma. Until the end of the seventeenth century the "Ottoman peril" lurked alongside Europe to represent for the whole of Christian civilization a constant danger"

The article reflects on the impact the book had since publication, it's not even close to be mistaken for an introduction or recollection of the whole topic.

https://books.google.de/books?id=npF5BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&dq=Not...

That's not an "existential threat". No European state bothered to care about that piracy until Sweden and the US in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars . The bigger states were evidently happy to pay the tribute—this is cost cutting not defense.

Don't know about the Barbary corsairs and piracy, but in Slovenia we very much saw Ottoman invasions as an existential threat. Our history is littered with reference to "The big bad Turk who steals your kids, razes your fields, and rapes your wives".

That shit happened. Regularly. To the point that a whole cultural heritage around fortified churches developed. The peasants would retreat into their church behind battlements, and hunker down until the Ottomans left. The village would get burned down and the crops were gone, but at least almost everyone survived.

It didn't help that the Habsburg monarchy saw this as a successful strategy. Oh okay they're just burning the peasants, at least they're not getting as far as Vienna. This is working.

Of course once or twice they did get as far as Vienna and it was bad ...

This period of history left a deep seated distrust of islamic nations so strong that the whole "islam vs. catholic/orthodox" thing still featured as a driving force in the mid 90's Balkan wars. As an interesting curiosity, if you go to Bosnia around the Mostar region you can see a very interesting divide. Left side of the river littered with church spires, right side full of minarets. Barely any mixing.

Barbary pirates != Ottoman empire. What you talk about was the effect of a strong empire. A weakened one that couldn't effectively control North Africa also could dominate south-eastern Europe as much.

Everything you say is true and unrelated.

> That's not an "existential threat". No European state bothered to care about that piracy until Sweden and the US in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars . The bigger states were evidently happy to pay the tribute—this is cost cutting not defense.

That strikes me as a West European-centric view, "the big West European nations weren't threatened and nobody else matters". From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empir...

> Sixteenth- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1453 to 1700.[4]

Also

> In the devşirme, which connotes "draft", "blood tax" or "child collection", young Christian boys from the Balkans and Anatolia were taken from their homes and families, converted to Islam, and enlisted ...

The Barbary pirates cities were in the western med, so presumably did mainly assail Western Europe(an ships). You are talking about Ottoman proper stuff on land. Totally different.

Some paid, some fought -- it was the fact that they no longer flew the British flag that meant the Americans had to start playing this game too.

Piracy certainly wasn't existential. But also wasn't the whole threat -- 1683 must have felt pretty existential in Vienna. As did 1453 in Constantinople. Of course that's not a European state... but that's pretty much the definition.

>As did 1453 in Constantinople. Of course that's not a European state... but that's pretty much the definition.

Well, it [Constantinople and Byzantium] certainly was a European state, the Eastern Roman Empire, which kept the lights on when as the Western one was dissolving and finding itself again after Rome declined.

Sure, it was.

My point is that claiming something like "no European state faced an existential threat from Arabs" is a bit circular -- the definition of Europe is very close to being those parts of the Roman world which were not (permanently) conquered. (Or if you think it's a geographic term, then the reason this particular geographic lumping is important, as opposed to say Mediterranean.)

Actually there were tons of naval fights, patrolling, outlooks, huge defense areas and castles created to defend communities and cities from pirates, and so on by all kinds of states.

The idea that only "Sweden and the US" did anything is misguided (in fact those were some of the least affected by piracy).

Yeah my point is in part that it was the least affected people which means that it was not an existential threat.

The start of the French colonization of North Africa, in 1830, was caused (in part) by the Barbary piracy.

It was certainly not an 'existential threat', I mean 12 million Africans were taken as slaves between the 16th and 19th century,about 1.5 million died on board ship, Yet Africa do not name these nations as an existential threat.

You sure? Think about the kingdoms that existed in say what's now Tanzania, before the some guys from Oman showed up (and some guys from Portugal, and maybe a few earlier too)... they certainly seem to have vanished from the map.