Mahomet’s Poem on “Destructive War”

Due for next Thursday (11/3) or Tuesday (11/8), please complete the following blog post prompt:

Use Mahomet’s short elegy, an apostrophe to “destructive war,” as the main lens for understanding his prose descriptions of war-torn Indian landscapes, before and after this section.  Why does war lead “whole Empires to the grave?” (p. 123).  Focus on a close reading of ONE key textual passage, preferably on an idea or section we have not yet discussed in class.

Please categorize under “Indian English” and don’t to forget to create specific tags.

Reverse Orientalism: Scrutinizing western society rewrite

In Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin’s memoir “The Wonders of Vilayet: Being the Memoir,” the narrative openly participates in the discourse of Orientalism and takes the opportunity to criticize the Hellenic society from his elite Mughal perspective. However, at times he does criticize his own country, even praising the English as, “the most powerful race on earth.” During his travels, the I’tesamuddin recounts his observations of Western societies in Britain. This narrative is a Western account, the “othering” of an Indian as experienced by I’tesamuddin – which has implications of reverse Orientalism. Although I’tesamuddin is steadfast in his Islamic faith, there are moments in some of the tales that have the reader as well as I’tesamuddin questioning his own culture and Islamic faith. One example of reverse Orientalism can be seen during the Dover dance party scene, the English treated him as a “spectacle” and thought he was a dancer or actor dressed in costume to entertain them. Without knowing the English insulted I’tesamuddin, but at the same time he was not completely disapproving of their culture as well, he says, “in such attractive company, I mused, even the wisest were apt to lose the wits.” (53) The English exoticized I’tesamuddin, in the following scene describes children screaming, “Look! Look! A black man is walking down the street… Many children and small boys took me for the black devil and kept away in fear.” (54) The Wonders of Vilayet are a compilation of tales for entertaining, and although he is reluctant at first because of the way Indian culture and society view performers as low class, he eventually becomes one almost unconsciously and consciously as well. He begins to see himself as a performer at Captain Swineton’s dinner parties, one in particular where he defend’s Islam on marriage, polygamy, religion, wine and eschatology. He refers to the British as his “guests” and says, “My audience was vastly amused and burst out laughing.” (100) The shift in his reaction in the beginning to being appalled and insulted at the thought of being an entertainer to kind of embracing it is interesting to see.

Throughout his narrative, I’tesamuddin remarks on many aspects of the English culture and traditions both praising and denouncing them, but ultimately participating in the discourse of Orientalism.

The Inescapability of Orientalism: Reversing the Gaze does not Stop the Discourse REWRITE

I’tesamuddin’s narrative in and of itself does not seem to participate in the discourse of Orientalism. Orientalism concerns itself with the “othering” of Eastern culture, making it a spectacle to Western culture. I’tesamuddin’s narrative initially seems to be the reverse of Orientalism. In the case of The Wonders of Vilayet, it is Western culture which is made a spectacle to Eastern culture. I’tesamuddin is essentially Joseph Pitts in reverse. Where Joseph Pitts gave an ethnographic account of the Middle East based upon his experiences, I’tesamuudin gives an ethnographic account of his experiences in the West. While Joseph Pitts was taken captive and continuously wronged and abused by the Turkish people, I’tesamudden was employed by the British East India company and wronged by his employer, Robert Clive. On the other hand, while the work itself does not enact Orientalism, Orientalism can be found within it given the exploitation of India by Clive and the East India Company. There is also the idea that Orientalism is inescapable, and perhaps so inescapable that even people in the Orient can perpetuate Orientalism themselves. Even if a Middle Eastern writer chooses to make a spectacle of Western culture, this is arguably still Orientalism. The reason being is that the Middle Eastern writer is still setting himself apart from Western culture by writing of it ethnographically. The fact that the roles have switched still does not trump the concept of Orientalism, as it seems to be ever present no matter which way. In writing his work he also opens himself up to becoming a spectacle to the West because Westerners may read his work, and the moment Western culture looks at his work as a spectacle, Orientalism is further perpetuated, and hence the discourse of Orientalism continues. The very fact that I’tessamudin’s work is being studied and discussed here shows a continued discourse of Orientalism.

In chapter 8, I’tesamuddin tells a story of a painter who killed someone for the sake of having an object to paint, and he was acquitted for the crime rather than executed so that he could finish his paining. At first glance, it seems that I’tesamuddin is criticizing European culture, asserting that it values art and innovation over human life. This could be seen as a reverse form of Orientalism. However, later on he explains that anyone who is innovative and artsy in India will not be met with respect, but rather shunned and disregarded. At the end of this point he says, “Under such circumstances it is a wonder that anyone at all should apply himself to the sciences and arts” (74). He then goes on to describe his fascination with the observatory at Oxford. What seems like a criticism of European culture in the beginning turns out to be more of a critique of Eastern culture in the end. This could be interpreted as I’tesamuddin inflicting Orientalism on his own culture, or it could still be seen as the reverse. Perhaps, rather than inflicting Orientalism on himself, he is actually using the same writing tactics as Joseph Pitts in reverse. Much like how Pitts would point out what Eastern culture does “right” for the sake of critiquing his own culture, I’tesammudin is drawing from the spectacle of Western culture to improve upon Eastern culture. Just as Pitts admired the reverence of Muslims, I’tesamuddin admires Europe’s passion for art and science, and he feels that his culture should enter into this sector to compete with Western culture.

I’tesamuddin’s narrative in and of itself does not seem to participate in the discourse of Orientalism. Orientalism concerns itself with the “othering” of Eastern culture, making it a spectacle to Western culture. It involves the stereotyping and subjugating of the “orient”, under the guise of critique or outright racism. We see examples of such Orientalism in Joseph Pitt’s account, as well as flecks of such in Lady Mary Wortley’s travels. Upon reading I’tesamuddin’s narrative, initially it seems to be the reverse of Orientalism, also known as Occidentalism. In the case of The Wonders of Vilayet, it is Western culture which is made a spectacle to Eastern culture. I’tesamuddin is essentially Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley in reverse. Where Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley give a critical ethnographic account of the Middle East based upon his experiences, I’tesamuddin gives a critical ethnographic account of his experiences in the West. While Joseph Pitts was taken captive and continuously wronged and abused by the Turkish people, I’tesamuddin was employed by the British East India company and wronged by his employer, Robert Clive. Similar to other voices we have explored thus far, like that of Lady Mary Wortley and Joseph Pitts, who focus on primarily on giving objective observations (though they often fail at the objective part), I’tesamuddin likewise describes with his lens the new world into which he has been thrust; however, he does not do so with an unclouded gaze.

On the other hand, while the work itself does not enact Orientalism, and instead facets of Occidentalism (or appeared Occidentalism), Orientalism can be found within it given the exploitation of India by Clive and the East India Company. There is also the idea that Orientalism is inescapable, and perhaps so inescapable that even people in the Orient can perpetuate Orientalism themselves. Even if a Middle Eastern writer chooses to make a spectacle of Western culture, this is arguably still Orientalism. One must not forget that I’tesamuddin criticizes his own country several times, considering it not as advanced as its British counterpart. We see this when I’tesamuddin shames India for not celebrating learning and the arts as much as Britain does. In this same passage, he laments how India is not as technologically advanced (73-4), mentioning in a separate passage that they are stupid people everywhere, not just Britain, but India as well.

In chapter 8, I’tesamuddin tells a story of a painter who killed someone for the sake of having an object to paint, and he was acquitted for the crime rather than executed so that he could finish his paining. At first glance, it seems that I’tesamuddin is criticizing European culture, asserting that it values art and innovation over human life. This can be seen as Occidentalism. However, later on he explains that anyone who is innovative and artsy in India will not be met with respect, but rather shunned and disregarded. At the end of this point he says, “Under such circumstances it is a wonder that anyone at all should apply himself to the sciences and arts” (74). He then goes on to describe his fascination with the observatory at Oxford. What seems like a criticism of European culture in the beginning turns out to be more of a critique of Eastern culture in the end. This could be interpreted as I’tesamuddin inflicting Orientalism on his own culture, or it could still be seen as the reverse. Perhaps, rather than inflicting Orientalism on himself, he is actually using the same writing tactics as Joseph Pitts in reverse. Much like how Pitts would point out what Eastern culture does “right” for the sake of critiquing his own culture, I’tesamuddin is drawing from the spectacle of Western culture to improve upon Eastern culture. Just as Pitts admired the reverence of Muslims, I’tesamuddin admires Europe’s passion for art and science, and he feels that his culture should enter into this sector to compete with Western culture.

Another example of Orientalism within I’tesamuddin’s narrative is the fact that the Middle Eastern writer is still setting himself apart from Western culture by writing of it ethnographically. The fact that the roles have switched still does not trump the concept of Orientalism, as it seems to be ever present no matter which way. In writing his work he also opens himself up to becoming a spectacle to the West because Westerners may read his work, and the moment Western culture looks at his work as a spectacle, Orientalism is further perpetuated, and hence the discourse of Orientalism continues. The very fact that I’tesamuddin’s work is being studied and discussed here shows a continued discourse of Orientalism.

 

Re-editing “Europeans, the most powerful race on earth!!”

In The Wonders of Vilayet, Mirza Skeikh submits to an orientalist conversation that depicts Europeans as the beholders of all knowledge, at least more than the knowledge found in the East. For example, when recounting stories of shipwrecks, I’tesamuddin notes “Note only are Europeans very able navigators, but they endeavor continuously to increase their competency. The new skills and knowledge they acquire are simplified and systematized, so that they may be easily taught to novies” (34). Here, I’tesamuddin admires the way Europeans learn and how they organize things to make knowledge accessible to many. His admiration for Europeans serves as a model on how successful a society can be by placing knowledge as a source of power. Being apart of the Mughal court and noticing its demise, I’tesamuddin becomes critical of his society and emphasizes an importance for change. If knowledge is looked to be the main source of power and they are able to adapt that change then they too can become “the most powerful race on Earth” (34). We can note his desire for change, the emphasis for knowledge, like the Europeans to be the only thing he admires about Europeans. His countless stories about Highlanders, such as the potato scene discussed in class are great examples in which I’tesamuddin does not want to be European, but admires English pursuit of knowledge. It is also a classist perspective, for those who hold power should obtain knowledge. If you are not in a position of power, do you need knowledge? Just like the highlander, who is “unfamiliar with the English language”, even though he lives in London; ignorance is bliss because no knowledge is required for the powerless (83).

The Travels of I’tesamuddin: Reversing the Readers’ Gaze

For this Thursday (10/27), students will revise their own post from last week (10/20) by incorporating complicating textual evidence: ONE passage from I’tesamuddin’s travel narrative that challenges their main argument (thesis).  The goal of this exercise is to qualify, challenge, and refine the thesis statement by introducing a close reading of new textual evidence, preferably from the second half of the narrative.  Students could adopt an opposing argument if warranted by complicating evidence, although the focus should be on revising the previous post from last week rather than writing a completely new one.  Please directly edit your post rather than publish a new one.

The two students who signed up for blog comments last week should choose ONE of their peer’s post for revision, rewriting the blog post in their own words.  These two students will publish their own separate posts.

Keep the posts categorized under “Reversing the Gaze” and please feel free to add, delete, or revise tags as necessary.

 

To help you with this post, here are 5 close reading guidelines you should follow:

1. Note key words or phrases that repeat in that passage.

2. Look for irony, paradox, ambiguity, and tension.

3. Note those words or phrases that seem odd or out-of-place.

4. Note any important symbols, motifs, and themes.

5.  Is there anything missing from the text that should be there?

Europeans,the most powerful race on earth!!

In The Wonders of Vilayet, Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin starts explaining how the difference of the on survivor skills between the East and the West. When we start talking about power , we can approach this subject in a lot of different ways. For example; physically strongest race, sports, or color. In this case, we are focusing on skills and knowledge. I’tesamuddin states that “Europeans endeavor continuously to increase their competency”(34). Europeans are already good at navigation, and they try to keep on improving this skills and therefore they increase their knowledge on the subject. They have quickly figured that knowledge and practice increased the quality of life.To be able to transmit this new information, every time this new skills are more simplified and systematized. He explains how all this knowledge can bring people to declare themselves as “the most powerful race on earth”(34). By this, I think he means that will all this power and knowledge and advance tools give them the advantage of power over everyone.  Economic advantage positioned Europe as the first financial power in the world during the post-Napoleonic era. Having a well structure skill and knowledge advantage provides Europe with the economic advantage and the power of bribe and bargain. 

Europeans the Most Powerful?: Knowledge Equals Power

In, The Wonders of Vilayet, I’tesamuddin observes that the Europeans are, “…the most powerful race on earth” (34). This is an interesting statement considering the author is not, in fact, European. I’tesamuddin is a mushi (which is a scribe) and a scholar, so what would be important to him is knowledge. His entire memoir is a catalog of information about his journey. Chapter II is entitled, “On the Sea and Sailing,” and catalogues the types of nautical mechanisms used in long sea voyages, and speaks in great length about European ships. I’tesamuddin explains, “Truly the Europeans have attained astonishing mastery over the science of navigation,” (30).

So, the reason that I’tesamuddin thinks that the Europeans are, “… the most powerful race on earth,” (34) is their use of and collection of knowledge. He admires their ingenuity and intelligence, he spends a great deal of time, for example, talking about the compass (and how useful and helpful it is for sea voyages). He sums this up by saying,  “Not only are the Europeans very able navigators, but they endeavor continuously to increase their competency. … This they do not only in the case of navigational sciences but of other branches of learning as well,” (34). It is this trait, that he claims is singular to the European race, that makes them so superior. As, I’tesamuddin is a scholar and knowledge is clearly important to him it is understandable that he would recognize their greatness; and yet in some of his stories there is a warning about the folly of gaining knowledge at any cost.

I’tesamuddin tells a story about an artist who murders a man in order to create a masterpiece. This artist is in the end pardoned to preserve his beautiful piece of art. I’tessamuddin does not say anything negative about this in fact he writes, “The English hold artists in such high regard that they are prepared to spend lakhs of rupees for a painting or a drawing on paper- or, as we have seen, pardon a murder by an artist of genius,” (73). There is in this story a subtle reprimand, it seems he is pleased by England’s love of art as he compares it with the lack of love for art in his own culture, yet the story doesn’t have to most positive of messages. The Europeans love art so much they would pardon a murderer, in this story he is not being particular loving towards the English even if he admires their love of knowledge and art. I’s tesamuddin does admire knowledge and this is part of why he considers Europeans, “the greatest race on earth,” but he tempers it with this story and others like it because knowledge at all costs is not always a good thing, even if he finds a certain novelty in the ideas of those who live in Vilayet.

 

Reverse Orientalism: Scrutinizing the Western Society

Blog #8 (10/27):

I know that for all bloggers on this particular site, you know what I am referring to when I use the term “orientalism”. And for readers of these blogs on this site, well, I am confident that most of you, if not already, then are now familiar with the definition of the term ‘orientalism.’ The definition synonymous to the term are stereotypes compiled from Middle-Eastern attitudes. In Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin’s memoir “The Wonders of Vilayet: Being the Memoir,” the narrative offers a unique perspective developed from his travels in Scotland and England. I began reading the synopsis expecting for sure traces of orientalism, and quickly realized that the text in fact openly participates in the discourse of Orientalism. I was searching for passages in the text that promoted the common stereotypes that are known in England, and in Scotland. However, for every passage of reverse orientalism that I observed, there was a remark that promoted equality. This is theory was expressed during a session of discussion with a couple of my peers. In his text, I’tesamuddin invites his audience to understand that all societies are equal through the admirations of the English and the Scottish societies that he voices aloud and his seemingly snide remarks.

Mirza of India is a character that is strong in his Islamic faith and culture traveling through the Western societies. During his travels he experiences a society rich in food, and intellect. He comments on their passion for art and literature. He even at one point exclaims, “It would be surprising if knowledge and the arts didn’t flourish in this country.” (Page 74). He goes on to discuss the affinity for knowledge in his home country. Supposedly, “In India, by contrast, even if one devotes all of one’s life to learning and the arts, and is acknowledged the world’s greatest master in these fields, the leaders of society will not pay him any respect; rather they will despise and condemn him…” It is understandable that both lines contradict each other, for they literally do. However, they contradict each other in a manner that compliments each other. He is not condemning India for not pursuing to enrich its citizens academically the way England does, but he is highlighting the values that each society is struck by.

During his travels, the Mirza considerably recounts his observations of Western societies. At one part, the narrator recaps a story told of a Highlander – a story that takes place on Scottish territory (Starting page 83, and ends page 84). He then continues to make the observation, “There are amusing stories about the English too, particulary their country people.” (Page 84). An obvious key observation is that he is focused on enlightening his readers with humor and adventures generated from his experiences in Western societies. He relates his experiences with what he knows from India. His method may appear to be reverse orientalism because of his focus. But I believe that he in fact promotes equality. After all, he is a man born and raised in India, who is a devout Muslim, traveling and befriending English and Scottish people.

Blog #7 (10/20):

I know that for all bloggers on this particular site, you know what I am referring to when I use the term “orientalism”. And for readers of these blogs on this site, well, I am confident that most of you, if not already, then are now familiar with the definition of the term ‘orientalism.’ The definition synonymous to the term are stereotypes compiled from Middle-Eastern attitudes. In Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin’s memoir “The Wonders of Vilayet: Being the Memoir,” the narrative openly participates in the discourse of Orientalism. This narrative is a Western account experienced from Mirza of India – implying orientalism in reverse, which just means the stereotypes that have become evident from Western societies. Mirza is a character that is strong in his Islamic faith and culture and one that values his familiarities from when he had explored the Western society with his friend Captain Swineton.

During his travels, the Mirza considerably recounts his observations of Western societies. Such observations include the undeniable greed for more territory obtained through methods of war – as Westerners are notoriously known for; fighting for what they want, even if what they want isn’t something they should just take. This notion comes from the western subculture that is derived from Western Eurpeans. In his narrative, the Mirza points this particular stereotype out on page 24, “Their arrogance rose to such heights that they prepared to attack the Faujdar. Even though they had only thirty European soldiers and one hundred and fifty Eurasian and native Christian sepoys, they were bent on taking on the Mughals.” These soldiers had rushed into war upon the first sign of chaos – they ultimately created more chaos.

In his narrative, I’tesamuddin remarks on many of the English culture and traditions, ultimately participating in the discourse of Orientalism.

The “Other’s” Voice

In The Wonders of Vilayet, Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin is narrating his travels and gives the reader the version of the “other.” This character is sent by Badshah Shah Alam II to a diplomatic mission to the British Court. However, I’tesamuddin did not accomplish this mission, and it was a fiasco. I’tesamuddin’s journey took almost three years; years in which he had the opportunity to appreciate, from a different perspective, the different islands and its people. Some of these citizens took advantage and got richer; while, the poor people were sold as slaves. As he narrates, “Sobhan Allah! How ironical is fate! Those who only yesterday were supplicants for forty bighas of land are today masters of one half of India and have brought to their knees a host of proud and arrogant chieftains!” (p. 26). In this scene, I’tesamuddin is describing how the Portuguese took advantage and got richer in land and in goods. In other scenes, he gives a description of the ships, the wind, and how the sea is structured. Even if he failed in his mission, it is important to write these accounts and to hear the “other’s voice.” In his introduction Kaiser Haq says that I’ tesamuddin is consider to be the first India who left literary traces of his extraordinary journey to British (p. 8). Now, readers can observe or view history by reading an Asians’ version. In previews reading, to be more specific, Lady Mary’s letter, she is narrating what she observes in her journeys. However, it is normal to read a chronicle from Wester writer, but not from an Asian chronicler. In the recounting, he gives the reader another perspective. The perspective of the “otherness.” For instance, I’tesamuddin talks about Alexander, and gives his version. As he says, “This is notoriously true of their writings about Alexander, whom they make out as a paragon of virtue. They describe him as a model of justice, whereas in reality he was a tyrant” (p. 29). Here this character is giving the reality of who Alexander was, and tells the readers directly to do not believe everything that they hear or read. As he continues, “Surely there is a world of difference between what one hears and what one sees with one’s own eyes” (p.29). As any other chronicler, he has the urgency to give his version, and say that there might be different version of history, which may or may not be true. In conclusion, I’tesamuddin writes a memoir of his travels to leave account of his extraordinary journey, and to give voice to the voiceless. Also, he was the first Asian writer to leave written documents of his extraordinary  travels, and it is important to have into account his version, and learn more about what the minority group think about history or simply about the world in general.

The Diplomatic Thug: Can This Be Possible?

4. Why would I’tessamudin write a memoir of his travels if his diplomatic mission in England ended in failure?

The memoir of I’tessamudin’s travels exists because it really happened, despite the failure of the diplomatic mission in England. It is an historical account of “the first Indian to visit Britain and write about it,” (8). This brings me to decontextualize the question and re-ask, should I’tessamudin’s memoir represent an allegiance to his mother country, or rather, do the work of restoring humanity and relations between these countries? I’tessamudin sees the might and wealth of European industry, and wants his country to also pursue such a development. India too deserves the same scientific, technological, and economic developments as the West, and in writing this autoethnography, he inspires such equality.

I’tessamudin writes the memoir as an anti-hero who engages in diplomatic thuggery. The mafia mobster- one who acts in accordance with his barrio or community in efforts to improve the local economy- is analogous to the character of I’tessamudin. When the mafia needs to enforce their values, they send a thug to beat up the subject, collect the money, and take care of business. We may liken this behavior to I’tessamudin’s own mission, in which he has chosen/been given multiple identities (tax collector, scholar, translator, Tahsildar and Munshi) and allegiances by serving both the Mughal Emperor and the British Crown, and then proceeds to publish his memoir, The Wonders of Vilayet. I’tessamudin wrote his memoir because he knew it would sell, and he was going to be famous from a readership already fascinated by his “exotic” presence in Britain, and so he publishes and does so with a respect for the West. Imagine the Orientalist readers and how pleased they will be in reading within his memoir the lines that embellish European race, praise European industry as being the greatest, and then cherishes his white companions, “Mr. Strachey, who had lent me generous support in my career, suddenly died. I was utterly bereft at the loss of this kind man and for a month I wore a tearful countenance; even now when I remember him I am overcome with sorrow,” (17). Is this not an achievement of interiority for a character that, in modern times, we are quick to point our “scholarly” fingers to vindicate his participation in Orientalist discourse? Admittedly, I have hit a brick wall and stumbled upon my own, unfortunate construct of Orientalism while reading The Wonders of Vileyet.

At this point I will allude to the scene in which our narrator, I’tessamuddin eats with Mr.Sargeant. This indicates a distortion of I’tessamuddin’s own interiority. I have already identified the significance of the inner-voice that represents I’tessamuddin’s historical and personal account. However, the notion of interiority becomes troubled as we take note of I’tessamuddin’s conflicted celebrations of European culture, yet refusal to eat the same meal. The ascetic faith that separates the Indian from Mr. Sargeant illustrates, “Mr. Sargeant knew that Muslims do not eat meat that has not been ritually sacrificed, so he brought three partridges to me and asked me to sacrifice them,” (133). The Vilayeti influence begins to turn I’tessamuddin inside-out. This is a problem for reversing the gaze because we can no longer trust our narrator to be acting either in allegiance to his Sunni faith nor to his European associates. We may qualify this double-voiced narrator as a device for exploring the notion of a diplomatic thug; although he is employed as a Munshi, there is an element of thuggery in his narrations that the scholarly reader must consider with skepticism.

Booker T. Washington- a figure in American history who was accused of being an “Uncle Tom,” a well-paid, black man who sits at the same table with post-Civil War racists- is a parallel figure who spoke in terms of compassion to his white oppressors; he claimed that oppression is not the white man’s fault, for he is also a victim of racial institutions. I’tessamudin extends this courtesy to his white companions to the point where he sheds a tear at the loss of one. He is a diplomat, and he shows this skill in his choosing to embellish European society. Where this diplomacy faces the oxymoron of elevating into thuggery is when the modern-reader by affect accuses I’tessamudin of importing the omnipotent, life-force-entity called Orientalism as the reason that explains why he depreciates his own homeland. The problem with such a reader-response is that the words of hundreds-of-years-ago shouldn’t be enforcing the outlet for anger, racial accusations, or categorical bias as the lens for which we interpret the text. The Orientalism-as-God argument is flawed because it disregards the actual circumstance of the author and ignores the colonial impositions that dominated the author’s homeland in the subsequent centuries. As scholars we must depart from this diplomatic thuggery and acknowledge that the reversal-of-the-gaze does not signify a participation in the Orientalist subjugations, but rather, an opportunity to restore the humanity of our characters. Last time I checked, our universities and their scholarly discourse serve to spread knowledge for preventing- not endorsing- the empowerment of elitism and academic reconstructions for sociopolitical propaganda. There’s no hitmen outside the classroom waiting to shake us down and scare us into saying or writing or repeating the ideas of the Mafia; so why are we so quick to shakedown our texts by transforming the narrative into one in which the character is “an Orientalist,” are we, the readers, the Mafia hitmen who conspire and question against I’tessamuddin for writing a memoir even if his diplomatic mission in England ended in failure?