Amel’s Blog

An Open Letter to the Cast, Creative Team, and Audience of East Meets West: Orientalism, Colonial Memory, and the Responsibility of Representation.

Dear Cast, Creative Team, and Members of the Audience of East Meets West,

I am writing as a North African woman who was born under French colonialism. I carry the memory of colonialism in my body and mind. It runs deep in my family history, and I have spent decades trying to unlearn it. I have spent my life trying to reclaim the cultures, women, and artistic traditions that Orientalism reduced into fantasies. For many Western audiences, Orientalism may belong to art history but for me, Orientalism cannot be separated from colonialism because I am still living its consequences.

I was born in Algeria when my country was still colonized by France. Colonialism was outside my window and inside my mind. It was not just a history lesson in a book. It shaped the world I was born into. I grew up surrounded by a system controlled by Europeans. They had the authority to describe, classify, photograph, exoticize, and exploit us while denying us the right to define ourselves.
When Europeans imagined the “Orient,” they were not dreaming about an empty landscape. They were imagining real people living under unequal systems of power. North African and Middle Eastern women became particularly powerful objects of this fantasy. Our bodies were invaded along with our lands. We were objectified and turned into a show where Western audiences were invited to enter an imaginary world while the actual women behind those fantasies were exploited.

I understand the desire to create dialogue between these worlds, but placing colonial fantasies beside cultural traditions does not dismantle Orientalism. Without deeper context about the unequal power that created those fantasies, colonial representation remains at the center.

Orientalism was never simply “cultural curiosity.” It developed within structures of power and control that benefited those who were privileged. European artists could travel into colonized societies, take from them, mix what they encountered with their own imagination, and become celebrated for their fantasy concoctions. Meanwhile, the people they represented did not have an equal opportunity to challenge those representations. I cannot hear this music or see these dances only through the lens of “beauty.” Beauty does not erase power. Artistic ideas and intentions do not erase history, and admiration does not erase appropriation.

I must address what I believe is one of the most troubling contradictions of the statement accompanying this production. The director acknowledges that stereotypes emerge from colonial attitudes and describes Orientalist representations as “ignorant and harmful.” However, a few sentences later, she writes that fantasies can be “cathartic and even necessary.” (You can read it for yourself on the East Meets West program).

I find these two positions difficult to reconcile. If Orientalism is recognized as harmful, how can the fantasy that created and sustained it then be described as necessary? Necessary for whom? I cannot hear the word “necessary” innocently in this context. Orientalist fantasy is never necessary for the people who were turned into its objects. It was not and is not necessary for North African bodies to be exploited. It was not and is not necessary for cultures to be stolen and turned into spectacle for the Western eye. It was not and is not necessary to consume cultural traditions through the lens of Orientalism!

Fantasy serves those who have the privilege of imagining us without having to truly know us. A fantasy does not become harmless just because we acknowledge that it is a fantasy. Recognizing a colonial stereotype while continuing to take pleasure in it does not dismantle its power. It gives the stereotype permission to survive because it is now surrounded by language of cultural awareness.

The production was misinforming for audience members who do not already possess knowledge of Orientalism, colonial history, or the cultures being represented. What is an audience to understand when told that Orientalism grew from colonial attitudes, that it created harmful stereotypes, and that the category of the “Orient” itself is problematic, but is then invited to enter that fantasy and experience it as beautiful, evocative, cathartic, and necessary??! Some may leave believing that Orientalism is harmful only when we mistake it for reality and that once we identify it as fantasy, we are free to enjoy it. This is not education. It is confusing, and it is harmful.

There is a familiar American historical example of why this kind of framing is dangerous. Many American children are taught a sanitized story about Native peoples and European settlers. The story emphasizes Pilgrims and “Indians” sitting together, sharing food, helping one another, and creating a moment of friendship. None of that names the violence and harm created. The problem is what the story omits and what those omissions allow Americans not to confront. It is fantasy.

I am not saying that the history of French colonialism in North Africa and the history of Native peoples in the United States are identical. They are distinct histories. What I am comparing is the way colonial history is whitewashed. A small acknowledgment of violence followed by a larger celebration of togetherness causes people to forget the power structure that shaped history.

This is why context is not optional. Imagine a production about Native people and European colonizers that begins by acknowledging colonization and forced assimilation, but then spends most of the evening presenting beautiful fantasies about Native people, mixing sacred or culturally specific practices from different Native nations, calling the result “fusion,” and ending with everyone sharing food together. The audience still leaves with the emotional message that cultures met, exchanged traditions, shared something beautiful, and ultimately came together. That would not correct the whitewashed version of history.

This is what concerns me about the way “fusion” functions in East Meets West. The program describes a “buffet of cross cultural music and dance” and expresses a desire for a collective future of healing and exploration. Cultures are not ingredients in a buffet, and fusion does not create equality. When traditions from completely different cultures are taken out of their histories and combined under one broad idea of the “Orient,” fusion can become another form of flattening. Morocco is not Egypt. Iran is not Lebanon. Turkey is not North Africa. These cultures have their own histories, languages, artistic traditions, and relationships to colonialism. Putting them together without sufficient context reproduces the very idea of a vague “Orient” that the production says it wants to question.

The program acknowledges how easily people absorb stereotypes that originate in colonial attitudes. We must also recognize the responsibility that comes with putting these images on a stage. It cannot be left for an uninformed audience to figure out what is fantasy, culture, theatrics, or what has been taken out of context.

This performance became part of the education that some audience members now have about us. They may not know which images were created through the European colonial imagination and which expressions come from the cultures themselves. They may not recognize what has been removed from its context or understand what has been romanticized. They may not know the histories behind a gesture, a costume, a piece of music, or a dance. Because the fantasy is beautiful it becomes more memorable than the brief acknowledgment that Orientalism is problematic.

This is why Orientalism has endured. It does not survive because people are ignorant. It survives because its fantasies are seductive. They offer beauty while concealing power. They offer fascination while blurring history. They invite an audience to enjoy the image without encountering the history behind it. The harm does not remain on the stage, it follows us home.

To loop back around, the ending with tea reminded me immediately of the same story of the Pilgrims and Native people sitting together, sharing corn and celebrating what eventually became Thanksgiving. It is a comforting image of cultures meeting and becoming harmonious. When that image is presented without the history of violence that followed, it becomes a way of whitewashing history. The shared meal becomes more memorable than the unequal relationship surrounding it. The clinking of the tea glasses at the end of East Meets West created a similar problem. Tea in my culture is an expression of hospitality, but here it became the final image of cultures coming together after an evening built around Orientalist fantasies presented as cultural exchange. The audience is left with the pleasant feeling that East and West became friends and healed together (meanwhile a genocide is still happening)! Togetherness without the full history is not reconciliation. When the history of domination is minimized and the final image is one of harmony, the result is damaging.

There is another danger when Orientalist imagery is presented inside a production that announces its awareness of Orientalism. The audience may assume that what follows has already been critically examined and is culturally responsible. If a production tells its audience, “We know Orientalism is problematic,” people may naturally trust that the representations they are about to see have already been decolonized and are unproblematic. This makes misinformation even more difficult to recognize because it arrives with the authority of education.

Awareness is not the same as decolonization. Naming the colonial gaze does not free us from reproducing it. Calling something “fusion” does not erase unequal histories. Calling something “fantasy” does not erase its harm. Calling something “healing” does not mean healing has taken place.

The tea, the Moroccan dance, the Orientalist compositions, the insensitive inclusion of a Hebrew prayer as Palestinians are being murdered, and the mix of different cultures under the name of fusion are not separate concerns for me. Together they create a comforting narrative that we should be questioning rather than reproducing. For those of us whose cultures were historically placed inside this imagined “Orient,” the consequences are not theoretical. These are our homes. These are our mothers and grandmothers. These are our bodies. These are us.

I am asking the cast, the creative team, and those who witnessed this production to examine not only the intention of East Meets West, but what it actually teaches. Who is given the authority to frame these cultures? Whose history is explained and whose history becomes decoration? What does an audience unfamiliar with these cultures leave believing? Who benefits from the fantasy, and who continues to live with its consequences?

Intention is not enough. I do not question that the intention behind East Meets West may have been thoughtful. I do not question the sincerity or artistic commitment of the performers. Unfortunately, sincere intentions do not protect any of us from reproducing harmful narratives.

If the purpose of East Meets West is genuinely to create understanding then this cannot end with a comforting image of togetherness. It requires historical context and accountability. It requires being willing to reconsider artistic choices even when those choices were made with good intentions.

Otherwise, there is a real danger that an audience will leave with the same Orientalist fantasy in their head that has erased people and stories for generations.

We do not need to be imagined. We need to be heard.

With respect and in the hope of deeper dialogue,

Amel Tafsout