It is well considered that Elizabeth Hamilton uses a tiny friction of anti-Islamic rhetoric to promote a counter-hegemonic discourse and prove that Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism as a reliable theory. This could go to the point that when Hamilton tries to prove Said’s theory of Orientalism as trustworthy, she tries to help us overcome the long hated legacy of racism, xenophobia, and imperialism. This could give us a sense that Hamilton is using anti-establishment rhetoric to prove Said’s theory of Orientalism dependable. It is well consisted that Hamilton was keenly aware that “writers in every branch of Oriental literature, have to contend with disadvantages, too numerous and too powerful to be easily overcome” (Hamilton 55). This could go to the point that most Oriental writers “will operate with equal force on the most beautiful passages of Homer, or Virgil, and the names of Glaucus and Sarpedon, of Anchises and Eneas, be found as hard to remember, and as difficult to pronounce, as those of Krishna and Arjoun” (Hamilton 55-56). This clearly demonstrates how numerous Oriental writers were blind by their hate and ignorance. This brings the issue of social acceptance. It is will consisted that most Oriental writers were championing social rejection due to their pathological lying. This could give us a sense on how numerous Oriental writers were lying all of the time to justify white supremacy and traumatize people of color. This could also give us a sense on how Chris Hedges would view Orientalism and compare it to how the liberal elites who poisoned our societies. This comparison is very clear in the Death of the Liberal Class (2010) when Hedges would describe the true characteristic of most Oriental writers in which “the liberal class, especially its most elitists and snobbish elements, was used to help distance art from the masses” (Hedges 113). This could go to the point that most Oriental writers “appointed themselves as the appointed themselves as the arbiters of high culture” (Hedges 113). This clearly demonstrates how numerous Oriental writers equate white supremacy as a way to adopt themselves as the arbiters of high culture. This could give us a sense on how Elizabeth Hamilton is revealing the darker side of Orientalism which is fueled by deep seated racism and xenophobia.
It is also well considered that Elizabeth Hamilton is revealing the dark side of Islamophobia in a sense that Hamilton is revealing that most Oriental writers were lying for centuries about their description of Islam. One lie that Hamilton is revealing to us is that “the Mussulman jurisdiction was fully established, Mussulman courts of justice were erected” (Hamilton 68). This is considered to be completely false mostly because the European court system was racist to the point of traumatizing people of color. On the other hand, the Islamic court system was based on law, compassion, and social acceptance. Another lie that Hamilton is revealing to us is that “the imposter of Mecca had established, as one of the principles of [The Prophet Muhammad] his doctrine, the merit of extending it, either by persuasion, or the sowrd, to all parts of the earth” (Hamilton 67). This is considered to be completely false mostly because of the European nature of violence towards the Orient. On the other hand, the Islamic doctrine were the ones advocating for peace and prosperity. But there is one greater importance in which these lies about Islam clearly demonstrates how numerous Oriental writers were the true champions of social rejection. This could give us a sense on how imperialism reflects on racial stereotypes that is being inflicted by the West. This could also give us a sense on how imperialism traumatized people of color.
It is also well considered that these lies about Islam is very relevant to the point that it was implemented by the British as a way to colonize India and suppress the Hindu population. One obvious lie that the British is perpetuating is that they claimed that India “have fallen under the dominion of Great Britain, it is hoped that the long-suffering Hindoos have experienced a happy change” (Hamilton 70). This is considered to be a very big lie when in reality the British were traumatizing the Hindu population by exploiting their natural resources. Another lie that the British is perpetuating is that the Hindus had experienced “the horrid modes of punishment, inflicted by the Mahommedans, have been abolished” (Hamilton 70). This is considered to be a very big lie when in the fact that the British colonization was designed to stoke racial fear and tension between the Muslims and Hindus. This could go to the point to what Edward Said said that “the native has perceived himself with a sort of general despair which was really poignant since he [Sylvain Lévi] felt that the sum of his well-being, in the moral sphere more than in sheer material terms, instead of increasing had in fact diminished” (Said 249). This could also go to the point when Said also said that “if because of laziness or incomprehension Europe does not make the effort that its interest alone require from it, then the Asiatic drama will approach the crisis point” (Said 249). This clearly demonstrates how Hamilton is an rigorous opponent of imperialism. This could give us a sense on how Elizabeth Hamilton is using such an immense amount of anti-establishment rhetoric to promote a counter-hegemonic discourse to the point of proving Michel Foucault’s theory of bio-power as a reliable theory. It is well consisted that in promoting a a counter-hegemonic discourse, Foucault was able to demonstrate in The History of Sexuality (1978) that Elizabeth Hamilton tries to help us in overcoming the long hated legacy of racism and xenophobia. It is also well consistent that Elizabeth Hamilton tries to prove her point in a sense that it relates to what Foucault said that “biological existence was reflected in political existence” (Foucault 142). This proves how Elizabeth Hamilton used a tiny friction of anti-Islamic rhetoric to promote a counter-hegemonic discourse as a way to help us overcome the long hated legacy of racism and xenophobia. In promoting a counter-hegemonic discourse, Elizabeth Hamilton was able to give us a sense that “the human race is about to be abruptly reminded of the fragility of life and the danger of hubris” (Hedges 194).
The People's Friend 