Abstract: Since the late 20th century, both Western and Chinese scholars have brought Derrida and his deconstructivism into the discussion of Said and post-colonial criticism.Here we provide a condensed overview of the underlying logic of deconstructivism.It is not difficult to find out that deconstructivism and post-colonial criticism are far apart from each other in terms of their underlying logic, which can be verified by ample theoretical literature.Deconstructivism challenges the transcendental philosophical issues regarding "metaphysics of presence" in the noumenal world, while post-colonial criticism resists the empirical geopolitical issues forced by the hegemony of Western colonial and post-colonial suzerains in the phenomenological world.A practical question could be asked: What is the "center" to be "deconstructed" by post-colonial criticism? We do not believe that as long as we simply grasp the logocentrism and ethnocentrism (人种中心主义) penetrating the history of Western philosophy, and substitute Western-centrism and ethnocentrism (种族中心主义) in Western colonial or postcolonial history for them, the academia can determine that post-colonial criticism was deeply influenced by Derrida's deconstructivism, and therefore identify deconstructivism as the Archimedean point of Said and post-colonial criticism.This is undoubtedly a mutual misreading of Said and Derrida.