The West and Islamic Nations

Paper Summary:

This paper compares and contrasts the views of Edward Said and Bernard Lewis regarding the western understanding or misunderstanding of Islam and Islamic nations. The paper discusses publications by both Said and Lewis as a basis of this comparison.

From the Paper:

"Said spends a whole chapter on "The Iran Story". Of course, Americana put the Shah into power. No one still thinks that his government was repressive. We are told the shah kept the oil flowing, and therefore "the downfall of the Shah was a calamity for American national interests" (98). Said wonders why America has this need to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries: American politicians, somehow, were "denying that other people have the right to produce a change in the form of their own form of government" (99). Said cites only a few media columnists (Walter Pincus and Dan Morgan of the Washington Post). They pointed out the Shah's "lucrative deals" (100). When some politicians, like Sen. Ted Kennedy, tried to find some compromise with Iran, the media pounced. It was as if he was a traitor. Said implies there was a collusion between the U.S. government and the media to continue to show Iran as a totally evil Islamic nation. Of course, the hostage crisis did not help."

More papers on The West and Islamic Nations:

• Essay # 60935 : "The Crusades and Islam"
• Analytical Essay # 15844 : "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations"
• Research Paper # 92780 : "The War on Terror"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: