000			02086nam a22002417a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20231002205944.0
008			231002b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aMSU _cMSU _erda
100			_aMORRISON, Alexander
245			_a“Applied Orientalism” in British India and Tsarist Turkestan
264			_aCambridge _bCambridge University Press _c2009
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_aComparative Studies in Society and History _vVolume , number ,
520			_aWriting in 1872, Sir Alfred Lyall, Governor of the North-Western Provinces of British India, was talking about the reluctance amongst many of the old Muslim scholarly class of North India to embrace the modern, enlightened learning of the West. For Lyall, to be an “Orientalist” was to be one of those Anglo-Indian advocates of state support for “Oriental Learning”—the study of Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit—in the tradition established by Warren Hastings and Sir William Jones, who had been worsted by the “Anglicists” led by Lord Macaulay in 1835. To adopt the meaning popularized by Edward Said, we might say that while Lyall makes a classic “Orientalist” judgment about the value of Eastern civilization, he is also making an observation about the relationship between knowledge and power that still resonates today. Lyall is consciously echoing Macaulay's notorious statement, “A single shelf of a good European Library was worth the whole literature of India and Arabia,” which has often been taken as a byword for the arrogance of Europeans confronted with an Orient to which they felt themselves superior. The obvious point is that Macaulay had no interest in Oriental knowledge or knowledge of the Orient: he was not an Orientalist at all. Perhaps this is why Said dealt with him only tangentially.
650			_aorientalism
650			_aBritish India
650			_atsarist turkestan
856			_u https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417509000255
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c163403 _d163403