may also

this itself is interpretive

why

moral obligation, or even the definition of what that is, is so individualized and up for interpretation that I think it could be argued that the fact that these "factual" representations appeal to our sense of moral obligation, which is received differently amongst individuals, photographs are again interpretive

these powerful images may do more harm than good in some situations

I have a hard time setting with the idea that photographs are factual, albeit selective, representations of reality. There is an art to photography (composition, angling, subject, etc.) and because of that I think that there's a serious arguemetn for photography being interpretive as well

the most blatant form of embedded reporting seems to equate to censorship

Israel has been Westernizing itself too, moving away from Middle Eastern clothing and artifacts that can be found in Arab countries.

This reminds me of a speaker I heard when I was in Israel last winter. He was a Palestinian fighter and he basically put out the question/argument: "What do you expect a regular person to do when they have the boots of the Israelis on their necks?"

I think that its an increasingly popular things for Americans to be blissfully unaware of things they don't want to understand, like foreign policy. If it doesn't affect Americans directly, which is highly unlikely thanks to the US' geographical position, then they'd rather ignore it and go on with their lives.

I think that Said is trying to communicate that these differences between cultures and whatnot are (and I'm not sure to what extent he's arguing) individual driven as opposed to community driven.

I think this is exemplified in the growing progressive movement amongst young adults

I think this segment communicates a conflict between the naturalized definition of tradition and their true volatile nature.

This can go back to Stuart Hall's assertion that there is no definite "truth" or identity. This identity is constantly able to change as one's experiences, and therefore interpretation, change.

I really like this segment because it can quite literally be applied to just about any grouping. Even in the US, President Obama speaks for the United States, but there are plenty of Americans (which he represents) that vehemently disagree with what he defines as the US' best interest.

I think that this is interesting because afrocentricity is often thought of in more of a prideful sense among African Americans, but yet it still hurts the overall fight for unity.

But from the Cold War we also got moments of international cooperation, like the NPT Treaty. I wonder where instances like this fall on the spectrum. On one hand you have nations coming together to solve a pressing issue, but on the other hand the only reason they are there in the first place is because of rigid, conflicting culture interpretations.

I just read this interesting article in the Economist about the effectiveness of the Arab Spring and why it did not work in nearly any other Arab nation besides Tunisia (https://www.evernote.com/l/ADSm5GRzBu1JJ7ljg6bDgc0POVpxcGmInv4). Sure, they may have claimed their independence from the fairer skinned imperialists, but that power vacuumed was filled rather quickly with an oppressor from their own.

This is really interesting to me because last semester I had done a lot of research on the Philippine Revolution for a project I had. What Said is talking about here, right down to the timeframe, embodied the Philippine's struggle for independence. It's also interesting because at the same there was a growing movement amongst the French people that rejected pessimistic and imperialistic ideologies in favor of freedom and independence.

alright and then this is taking it farther than I am arguing above

This is a very popular criticism that is currently being used by Republican candidate, Donald Trump. It's crazy how this is still so relevant 10 years later.

This is another statement that I think touches on a hot issue in today's politics. Progressives are increasingly championing the cause against stereotyping, which can be seen utilized by many politicians today. Stereotyping limits the range of meaning that can be interpreted by the audience (Stuart Hall).

This is much appreciated.

Said basically used that paragraph to question Huntington's evidence base

Again from Stuart Hall, the West is trying to "fix" the meaning of language and communication. What Said is stating can also be thought of as the West trying to force the communication towards them, as opposed to other different-minded nations, in order to close practice of representation and naturalize Western ideals.

I think that, especially given the current political climate, many of today's young adults/my generation/young progressives have really championed the movement against this classic Western tactic. During the earlier parts of our parents' lives, this ideology wouldn't seem so morally reprehensible. However, now this exploitation is openly criticized by people within the West and abroad.

This part also made me think of Stuart Hall's lecture. It is as if the West is the ultimate truth, and all other things are compared to it. But according to Stuart, there is no absolute truth and therefore Western Culture can not be indisputably correct.

We can't win a war waged on nothing. Like Said stated, this paranoia is reminiscent of the Cold War. To me, I find that interesting, and almost sad, how easy it is for such a large group of people to forget/ignore such a thing.

A few other people commented on the harshness of this selection, however, I didn't really interpret it that way. As I was reading it, I envisioned more of a laugh at how cruel society can be. It sucks, but that's the way it goes.