^
I don't think that was what he was going for... instead, he was countering a dominant trend in "Western" historical, anthropological, philosophical, and political disciplines of trying to fit every one who happened to be geopolitically Arab, Indian, and Chinese into a preconceived notion of what it meant to be from the Orient... which was not all the same thing as his trying to dislocate liberal political institutions, which he valued as much as most intellectuals of our day.
Indeed, you're doing exactly what he was complaining about... slotting "Eastern" culture into a certain mold and drawing big conclusions about what it means to be from this fabricated "Orient".
He also didn't denigrate all outsider perspectives... he denigrated outsider perspectives which came into an alien territory and attempted to fit data into a preconceived schema rather than actually observing what was on the ground and then drawing conclusions... in other words, he was advocating responsible inductive thinking over unrealistic instances of deductive thinking when applied to anthropology and related or overlapping disciplines.
Also, he's not the opposite of Huntington... it's not like he disavows the reality of culture or civilizational zeitgeists... he does, however, object to the traditional views which have ossified and held people's rational thinking about other societies in thrall for the past few centuries...
___
At the risk of sounding know-it-all, I don't think you understand Said at all.