Communications

ARTICLES

To the Editor:

I would like to congratulate you on the geographic and intellectual range of the articles in your October 2000 issue. Andrew J. Rotter's "Saidism without Said" /journals/ahr/105.4/ah001205.html is an outstanding summary, with fine bibliographical notes, of the pros and cons of Edward Said's arguments and of the influence of some of these ideas outside his own field—probably partial parallelism more than influence in many cases. The article told me, as someone interested in Said's main area of interest, things I did not know, and should be of interest to people in many specialties.

     Also of great interest is Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet's "Hallmarks of Humanism: Hygiene and Love of Homeland in Qajar Iran," from which I learned many things, most of which are applicable to countries besides Iran. I will concentrate here on points I think should be clarified or modified in the author's continuing work on this topic.

     One involves the expansive and undefined use of "humanism" in this article. The author never clearly defines "humanism," which is, like many such terms, a term that means different things to different people. There is an implicit assumption, in talking of Qajar official concern to deal with disease and epidemics, that this was closely tied to humanism, while it could have had other, more obvious, motives: a desire not to have disease cause population decline or social disruption, a desire to expand the weak role of government, and danger even to the official classes and their associates.

     This is related to the author's tendency to ascribe to "Qajar" elements and also "the Qajar dynasty" motives that were mostly the province of reformist or revolutionary figures strongly critical of the Qajars, and secondarily of another minority of far-sighted men in the government. A very few governmental men worked to institute the rule of law, but other such men, who were also often called reformers, were primarily concerned with strengthening the government and making the country run more efficiently without special concern for the humanity or rights of Iran's subjects. On the first page, there is a reference to "the Qajar dynasty's embrace of humanism and patriotic thinking," surely an exaggeration even for the dynasty's last three monarchs. The text cited above this reference comes from a reformist newspaper that, like other such newspapers, could only publish because of a constitutional revolution that forced the dynasty to grant a constitution and considerable press freedom in 1906–1907. This crucial event is not introduced until late in the article, and the article often does not distinguish between writings produced by reformists and revolutionaries and official writings.

     Throughout the article, "Qajar" is used as an adjective when discussing these reformers, referred to, for instance, on page 1172 as "Qajar thinkers," while on the next page we hear of "the Qajar interest in studying the individual," and are told that "Qajar statesmen . . . advocated the pursuit of humanistic learning and culture," including "a scientific literacy aimed at a richer understanding of the physical environment." While this is true of some statesmen, there are many of whom it is not true. If the author intends to have "Qajar" refer only to a period, this should have been made clear from the first, as it is not self-evident. Even with this clarification, it could be misleading: we do not speak of "Bourbon thinkers" or "Hapsburg thinkers" when writing of European reformers and revolutionaries. Some distinction should be made also between those who thought major changes in the state were needed, including the rule of (new types of) law and sometimes a parliamentary system, whom I would call reformers, and those who thought that the benefits of medical and public health techniques could, without major political and social changes, be imported from the West.

     This said, the article is a pioneering work on the topic of public health in modern Iranian history that introduces a large number of important facts and thought-provoking arguments. It is a significant addition to the author's already important publications on nationalism and territory, and like them provides much food for thought for both specialists and nonspecialists.

Nikki Keddie

University of California, Los Angeles

Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet replies:

I would like to thank Nikki Keddie for reading my article and for taking the time to comment on it. A pioneer in the field of Iranian and Middle Eastern history, Keddie has raised interesting questions about the use of the word "Qajar"—a term that refers to the dynasty in power in Iran from the late eighteenth century until the early twentieth century and that is commonly applied to discuss the history of that period. Indeed, in her now classic work, Roots of Revolution: An Interpretive History of Modern Iran (1981), Keddie herself uses the word "Qajar" in various contexts, referring to the "Qajars' interest in these treaties," "Naser ad-Din Shah and the Qajars," "reforming Qajar leaders," who were not necessarily members of the ruling dynasty, while also talking about the "Qajar period" and "Qajar times." This convention thus is not my innovation but one widely used by other scholars, including Keddie herself. Yet her observations provide us with an opportunity to rethink the many applications of the word "Qajar."

     Two other points merit a brief response. First, I would simply like to note that I provide a definition and explanation of the terms insaniyat and adamiyat, connoting humanism, on page 1175 of my article. Second, I have attempted to be mindful of the likelihood that hygiene was pursued because "of its practical significance." As I argued, the "frequent outbreak of disease, which posed an ostensible threat to human life [italics added], spurred discussion of and innovation in modes of public sanitation." Other relevant passages supporting this notion can be found on pages 1183–84 and 1189, where I specifically mention "population decline" and state that medicine "gained prominence . . . because of its ability to offer treatments for prolonging and improving the quality of human life." However, while I stress the practical social need to pursue hygiene, I also contend that "humanism undergirded discussions of medicine and disease management."

     These minor cavils aside, I would once again like to express my gratitude to Nikki Keddie for offering her critique. Those of us in the field of Iranian and Middle Eastern history are greatly indebted to Keddie's prodigious and ground-breaking scholarship, and in this sense it is no exaggeration to say that we are all, in a way, "her" students. I am therefore deeply honored and humbled that Nikki Keddie has shown an interest in my work. I am also pleased that my article has generated debate, and I look forward to expounding on these ideas in other forums.

Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet

University of Pennsylvania

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

To the Editor:

In his review of Carl Benn's book The Iroquois in the War of 1812 (AHR 105 [April 2000]: 542–43), Cornelius J. Jaenen writes that the British failed to insist on a Iroquois homeland "because they became preoccupied with the threat posed in Europe by Napoleon Bonaparte." During the negotiations in Ghent from August 8 to December 24, 1814, Napoleon was in exile at Elba and no threat. On the other hand, the British were worried by controversies in Vienna during the Congress there, especially friction with Russia.

Bernard Sinsheimer

University of Maryland, European Division

Cornelius J. Jaenen replies:

Even if Napoleon were on Elba at the time, unease remained at the peace conference, and I believe Benn is correct when he writes (p. 176): "it was important to end the North American war and get the troops back to Europe, even if it meant giving up on demands for a better [American] border and an aboriginal homeland." The author was more precise than I was: "the government installed in Paris by the allies stood ready to collapse the moment Napoleon returned from exile."

     I think that brings more precision to the matter raised in Bernard Sinsheimer's observation.

Cornelius J. Jaenen

University of Ottawa

To the Editor:

I write in response to Gilbert A. Williams's "review" of my book, Fire in His Heart: Bishop Benjamin Tucker Tanner and the A.M.E. Church, published in the October 2000 issue [1314]. Should not a responsible reviewer provide readers with an overview of the book's contents? Williams offers very little description of the entire book, choosing instead to pick on a few points that he disagrees with. Readers who would like a more balanced review should look at the reviews published in the Journal of American History, Church History, Methodist History, the Journal of Southern History, and other journals. I do not understand how Williams can accuse me of resorting to a "Zip Coon stereotype" when Tanner called on African Americans to eschew fancy dress and lavish spending in order that they might acquire homes, land, and businesses. That was a common theme emanating from the editorial pages of the nineteenth-century black press. Williams writes that I used this "stereotype" to distinguish between Tanner and Henry M. Turner. Turner is not even mentioned on the page that he has quoted from (82). Clearly, the two men had differences on a host of subjects. So what? Is Williams angry at me for describing Turner's "bluster and threats," which his contemporaries complained about for years? As for Tanner's use of the word "Negro," it was a term he normally applied to Africans in biblical history or to contemporary Africans but not to African Americans, the majority of whom were racially mixed. Williams argued that Tanner could not be a "pioneer figure in black intellectual history" because he "did not write an autobiography and most of his writings are on religious themes." Is Williams suggesting that a biblical scholar cannot be an intellectual? I have never met Williams, yet he chose to characterize me in an unflattering way by concluding, "Finally, Seraile's inadequate and biased selection of secondary sources renders this work almost useless as a historical document. It is clear that Seraile not only shares the accommodationist and gradualist philosophy of Washington but has used Tanner as the vehicle through which to express it." First, Williams did not cite any "inadequate and biased" secondary sources, because he knows that I researched the standard works on African Methodism and nineteenth-century African-American history. Second, my involvement in the anti-apartheid movement in New York City, my activism on behalf of affirmative action on the college level, my efforts to add African-American studies to the public schools curriculum, and my running for Congress as an independent clearly indicate that I am not an accommodationist nor a gradualist. Would Williams call an attorney a murderer or rapist because his client was charged with those crimes? Gilbert Williams owes me an apology for his intemperate remarks.

William Seraile

Herbert H. Lehman College

Gilbert A. Williams replies:

I write in response to William Seraile's criticism of my review of his book, Fire in His Heart. As to Seraile's first point concerning an overview of the book's contents, I should point out that the American Historical Review's guidelines required 700 words. That is not enough space to provide a detailed overview of the book's contents. Instead of attempting to provide an overview, I focused on the book's organizing metaphor, which characterizes Tanner as a "stoic, intellectual scholar" and those who disagreed with his approach and views as "emotional, loud and threatening." Seraile extended this metaphor in an effort to discredit others that may not share his ideology or approach to addressing American society's ills. For example, Seraile referred to W. E. B. Du Bois's work as a "manifesto" and used similar descriptions for the activities of Ida B. Wells and William Monroe Trotter.

     Perhaps the most egregious use of this metaphor occurs on page 82, where Seraile chose to refer to African Americans as "dressing like peacocks." There is absolutely no documentation that supports the author's use of this stereotype. Once again, Seraile has used this organizing metaphor to demonstrate how Tanner differed from most other African Americans.

     Moreover, I didn't argue that Tanner was not an intellectual because he wrote only on religious topics. Clearly, he was a scholar, but my point was that he could not be sufficiently compared to other black intellectuals, such as Du Bois, whose writings provide an explanation of their ideological and intellectual understandings of the significant issues of their day. I am aware of, for instance, Daniel A. Payne and others, such as C. Eric Lincoln, whose works focus on religious issues and themes. They are intellectuals.

     Additionally, it seems that Seraile chose to selectively omit several important works that may have suggested that he modify his ideological orientation. V. P. Franklin's Black Self-Determination: A Cultural History of the Faith of the Fathers and Nell Irvin Painter's The Exodusters: Black Migration to Kansas after Reconstruction would have informed Seraile's views on black self-determination and helped provide some balance to his understandings of Tanner's motives and opposition to the back-to-Africa movement, for example. Edwin S. Redkey's Respect Black: The Writings and Speeches of Henry McNeal Turner is an excellent source of material on Bishop Turner and challenges the well-worn notion that he was only full of "bluster and threats." James D. Anderson's The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935 would have provided Seraile with greater insight into Du Bois's opposition to Booker T. Washington's and Tanner's ideas about education, which are somewhat muddled. My own book The Christian Recorder, Newspaper of the African Methodist Episcopal Church: History of a Forum for Ideas, 1854–1902, covers some of the same ground as Seraile's book but offers a different ideological orientation. None of these works are referenced in the Seraile text or listed in the bibliography.

     Finally, I am unaware of Seraile's work with the anti-apartheid movement, efforts to promote affirmative action in public schools, and other civil rights activities. He is to be commended for his work. This review was not about that aspect of Seraile's life. My role was to review what he has written. If my words hurt, I am sorry. But his words hurt, as well, especially the characterizations of Du Bois, Wells, Trotter, and Turner, which tended to discredit their ideas and work. He should apologize to the memory of these activists/intellectuals. I will not apologize for my review.

Gilbert A. Williams

Michigan State University

LOCKSS system has permission to collect, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.