I would like to thank Professor Nenadic for her thoughtful engagement with Gender and Enlightenment Culture in Eighteenth-Century Scotland. Perhaps I shouldn’t be, but I am somewhat gratified that I raise as many questions as I answer.
I would like to thank the reviewer for her comments. I am pleased that my argument has been appreciated and the originality of the approach praised.
By the looks of it, Dr. White has developed a profound interest in what he calls a refugee story. Indeed, half of this eight-page trashing of my recent book is reserved entirely to what could be construed as a framework to his forthcoming work. While I certainly look forward to any and all such contributions to the study of ‘the refugee’, I am disappointed that Dr.
I wish to thank Dr Moulton for her generous and thoughtful review of my book, and the editors of Reviews in History for inviting me to respond. Dr Moulton’s insightful comments made me think again about the difficulty of integrating women’s history into broader historical accounts and also about the need to keep insisting on such integration.
The authors are happy to accept this review but would also like to add a short comment.
The eminent environmental and world historian, John McNeill, apparently both loves and hates my book. He writes: ‘As a story of innovation and achievement in the history of the West, this is a fine book, with many insightful passages and interesting details. As a comparative history, it is peppered with intellectual disasters’.
I am grateful for the chance to respond to Elisabeth Mincin’s review of my book because, for all her goodwill and expertise, she does not engage far with my reading of the Alexiad and, where she does, she often misrepresents it.
As an historian, she makes two main points about the Alexiad itself: that it is a flawed history yet a history of real events nevertheless.
My argument is that racism, defined as prejudice against ethnic descent coupled with discriminatory action, is generally triggered by political projects. This explains my approach to the 20th century: I wanted to understand the changing scale and nature of racism which led to processes of genocide.
I very much welcome this review, partly because it is supportive of the book, but also because I think that the substantive criticism within it is entirely reasonable. Some of that criticism concerns things which I consciously omitted, but the most useful elements of it are about the things which I got wrong.
I thank Dr. Al-Gailani for his careful reading of and thoughtful reflections on my book, and I appreciate the uncommon opportunity to respond to a few of the interesting observations that he raised.