The critics were many, and came from every angle. For one, Said seemed less interested in documenting the similar systems of “power-knowledge” that had been developed in the East to justify the subjugation of various underclasses within the subaltern world itself. As Mishra has observed, “The book displayed no awareness of the vast archive of Asian, African, and Latin-American thought that had preceded it, including discourses devised by non-Western élites—such as the Brahminical theory of caste in India—to make their dominance seem natural and legitimate.”
