The reading so far is focused solely on Balfour’s speech to the House of Commons. It feels like a build up to a bigger claim, and I can slowly see, so to say, the different points come together to form a claim. What stands out as important is that Said takes a British man’s point of view that clearly advocated for colonialism, and instead of dismantling it, he uses sarcasm and irony to nudge the reader towards his own beliefs. The emphasis on “authority” also stood out. It breaks down how Balfour believes himself to have authority to speak on the matter with confidence when his opinions are entirely one-sided. To him, Egypt is just the way England’s knowledge of Egypt. He is uninterested in its people’s history beyond the “great contributions” ( he makes sure we know he thinks they’re great) made in the past.
What’s interesting about the reading is Said’s method of writing. So far, he relies heavily on sarcasm and trust in the reader to figure that out. I think it could be easy to get confused and think he is truly in support of what Balfour is saying unless we pay close attention to his words. Sentences like “It does not occur to Balfour, however, to let the Egyptian speak for himself..” (Said, p.33) make his stand pretty clear however.
I find the density of the reading a little challenging; I understand whats going on but feel the need to reread to actually retain the information. It matters to me that I be thorough with this since, although the text focuses on Egypt, being from India colonization and the thought processes behind it is a topic important and interesting to me.
