The weight and power of the book come from its observation that this testimony has become a political act, and in so doing, the concept of trauma has trivialized matters of great political import and politicized emotional pain. Much of the book is taken up with a history of humanitarian psychiatry and humanitarian medicine. The authors tell this history through a series of disasters: the violent factory explosion in Toulouse in 2001, the Armenian earthquake of 1988, the difficulty in offering humanitarian psychiatry in Africa (the victims felt too different) and, inevitably and painfully, Palestine. There are, they say, three consequences of the emphasis on trauma to individuals as a perspective on world events: personalization, psychologization, and the production of emotion. They argue that it becomes difficult for the humanitarian psychiatrists to see the politics on the ground without the haze of emotionality through which the individual stories are filtered and difficult to separate out the role of witnessing from the role of delivering actual help. This point they make most powerfully in their account of political asylum seekers in France, where a psychiatrist's diagnosis of trauma is now almost required for authenticity, but the very insistence on the emotional specificity of the story means that all trauma stories sound alike. They call these case reports histories without history. "Both before and after the tsunami, the survivors in Aceh were already victims of political domination, military repression, and economic marginalization. Both before and after Hurricane Katrina, the people of New Orleans were already victims of poverty and the discrimination that reinforced class inequalities through racial distinctions. Trauma is not only silent on these realities; it actually obscures them." (p. 281)