Said’s acknowledgement list misrepresents the works he actually engaged

Evidence

The most sweeping claim of originality is thus balanced against disclaimer of all originality; the most uncompromising attack on historicism is balanced against a list of authors several among whom would have little difficulty in associating themselves with historicism. The list of authors and dates is itself passing strange, I might add, since it is drawn up in the manner, more or less, of the postmodern pastiche. Tibawi, Laroui and Abdel Malek probably appear here because Robert Irwin, in his review of Orientalism, had also raised the issue of Said’s unacknowledged debts and had cited precisely these three writers. Then, as one turns to Said’s actual citations of Romila Thapar, one finds that the only publications of hers that he cites are the two textbooks on ancient and medieval India which she wrote, very much on the side, for middle-school pupils. The idea that Thapar’s seminal work on Indian history is to be known only through her little textbooks is somewhat breathtaking. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 317

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth verifying: does Said’s Orientalism genuinely cite only Thapar’s middle-school textbooks, or is Ahmad overstating the point?

Related

• Said’s originality disclaimers draw on authors who would embrace the very historicism he attacks (similarity 0.81)
• Said contradicts himself by also crediting the prior critics he dismisses. (similarity 0.81)
• Said never corrected factual errors in Orientalism and refused to concede points (similarity 0.79)
• Said conceded his Orientalism arguments had all been made by earlier non-Western critics (similarity 0.78)