As soon as World War I broke out in Europe, American humanitarian organizations were deployed to France to rescue civilians and wounded soldiers. Specific philanthropic societies, such as the American Fund for French Wounded, the Commission for Relief in Belgium, and the Fatherless Children of France Society, were instrumental in aiding civilians and soldiers and giving visibility to American humanitarianism. Through these organizations and similar initiatives, Americans shipped clothing, parcels, and food to war-torn Europe to succor orphans, civilians, and wounded soldiers. In Constructing Disability after the Great War: Blind Veterans in the Progressive Era, Evan P. Sullivan directs attention to American responses to the plight of blinded soldiers and analyzes how American society “sought to determine the meanings of blind veteran identity in the context of World War I” (10).

Chapter one tracks American efforts to aid blinded French soldiers through two philanthropic organizations that emerged during the war: the Committee for Men Blinded in Battle and the British, French, and Belgian Blind Relief War Fund. As early as September 1914, Winnifred Holt organized the Committee for Men Blinded in Battle to establish homes in France to shelter blinded soldiers and help them develop skills to be self-sufficient. In order to garner financial support from Americans, Holt circulated accounts of German atrocities committed against Belgian and French soldiers and civilians, including mutilation, the gouging out of eyes, and the “physical act of blinding” (24). As a result of significant fundraising, the first home of the Committee for Men Blinded in Battle opened in June 1915 in Bordeaux, followed by other facilities in Sevres, Vichy, and Paris. Whereas Holt promoted vocational rehabilitation, in founding the British, French, and Belgian Blind Relief War Fund, Helen Keller and George Kessler stressed the dependence of blinded men, making American society aware of the need to help them support their wives and children. In their fundraising, Keller and Kessler had blinded soldiers speak to large audiences about their experiences and needs.

In chapter two, Sullivan analyzes American responses to blinded American soldiers. The media promoted the idea that “American soldiers had the capability to overcome such supposed calamity” (55). Rather than projecting sad narratives onto blinded veterans, the American Red Cross magazine Carry On disseminated pictures of robust, resilient blinded men, in contrast with French and other European visually impaired troops. Americans constructed an artificial image of the American blinded soldiers as determined, independent, and “full of happiness” (13). Blinded men were said to “take up their roles as male breadwinners of families” (50). Stories such as “Eyes That See” and “Doctor Matt” appeared in magazines and functioned as educational tools, inviting Americans to imagine the everyday life of courageous former soldiers. Sullivan also suggests that circulating stories of brave blinded men served a social function, permitting Americans “to shame unproductive nondisabled people” (6). In the aftermath of World War I, the presence of blinded men, and otherwise wounded and disabled veterans, permitted American and European societies to shame able-bodied men as unproductive burdens.

Chapter three follows the everyday lives of men at the rehabilitation institution for blinded soldiers that opened at Evergreen, Baltimore. An important aspect of rehabilitation for all wounded soldiers was their ability to develop skills to become self-sufficient and “acclimate to blindness” (78). At Evergreen, blinded soldiers learned how to cook, do household chores, and move around their communities. A tire repair shop and cigar factory opened in 1920 to help them earn a living and provide for their families. Along with occupational therapy and training, a range of recreational activities such as swimming, dinners, dances, and athletic competitions provided encounters with the outside world. Mothers, sisters, wives, and volunteers from the community took part in these activities. Even living arrangements were designed to provide privacy and normalcy. Single men lived in two-person dormitories, with married men sharing their rooms with their wives. Sullivan insists on the “emotional, psychological, and physical adjustment to blindness,” in contrast to the often-circulated image of joyful ex-servicemen (79). Most importantly, Sullivan shows that Black soldiers ate in separate dining rooms and organized their days around “segregated schedules for recreation” (98). Sullivan’s findings speak to often neglected debates on how racial attitudes shaped humanitarian and philanthropic responses to the suffering or situation of racial (and ethnic) minorities.

Chapter four focuses on two organizations that helped blinded American veterans in the aftermath of World War I: the United States Blind Veterans of the World War and the Blind Veterans’ Chapter of the Disabled American Veterans of the World War. In November 1922, blinded veterans gathered to organize the United States Blind Veterans of the World War. They petitioned for a permanent home for blinded veterans and launched the Blind Soldiers’ Week in October 1924. President Calvin Coolidge and other prominent politicians backed the efforts. Even though they had acquired skills and independence, many blinded veterans struggled to earn a living—hence the interest in public support. However, other blinded veterans refused to campaign for public funding, which they regarded as degrading, “exploitative, and overdramatic” (119). Consequently, they created the Blind Veterans’ Chapter in 1925. These veterans categorically refused “objectification” and felt humiliated by public narratives of dependency. According to them, there was no need for a permanent home (116). Only determination, mental strength, and hard work could elevate the blinded in American society.

In Constructing Disability after the Great War, Sullivan persuasively illustrates how important it was for humanitarian organizations to nurture affective commitments between the blinded and their benefactors. Problematically, though, Sullivan fails to engage with the authoritative contribution of French historians who specialize in disability studies and rehabilitation. For example, there is no reference to Sophie Delaporte’s pioneering research on trauma, disfigurement, reconstruction surgery, and the evolution of medicine during World War I. Any historian working in disability and conflict studies is deeply indebted to Delaporte’s research. Military doctor and psychiatrist Louis Crocq spent decades researching what was called shell shock and what is now called post-traumatic stress disorder. His work, too, needs to be acknowledged as it significantly furthered medical humanities from the 1980s onward. Similarly, Bruno Cabanes and Antoine Prost have blazed the trail in demobilization and rehabilitation studies, opening up the road to an entire generation of European historians. That such an important body of work is missing from Sullivan’s study suggests, perhaps, how difficult it is to cross national historiographical borders and incorporate the findings of different scholarly communities into one’s work.