What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fate of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence
"The fortunes of Africa have changed dramatically in the fifty years since the independence era began. As Europe's colonial powers withdrew, dozens of new states were launched amid much jubilation and to the world's applause. African leaders stepped forward with energy and enthusiasm to tackle the problems of development and nation-building, boldly proclaiming their hopes of establishing new societies that might offer inspiration to the world at large. The circumstances seemed auspicious. Independence came in the midst of an economic boom. On the world stage, African states excited the attention of the world's rival power blocs; in the Cold War era, the position that each newly independent state adopted in its relations with the West or the East was viewed as a matter of crucial importance. Africa was considered too valuable a prize to lose." "Today, Africa is spoken of only in pessimistic terms. The sum of its misfortunes - its wars, its despotisms, its corruption, its droughts - is truly daunting. No other area of the world arouses such a sense of foreboding. Few states have managed to escape the downward spiral: Botswana stands out as a unique example of an enduring multi-party democracy; South Africa, after narrowly avoiding revolution, has emerged in the post-apartheid era as a well-managed democratic state. But most African countries are effectively bankrupt, prone to civil strife, subject to dictatorial rule, weighted down by debt, and heavily dependent on Western assistance for survival." "So what went wrong? What happened to this vast continent, so rich in resources, culture and history, to bring it so close to destitution and despair in the space of two generations?" Focusing on the key personalities, events and themes of the independence era, Martin Meredith's narrative history seeks to explore and explain the myriad problems that Africa has faced in the past half-century, and faces still. The Fate of Africa is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand how it came to this — and what, if anything, is to be done.
752 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
About the author
Martin Meredith
22 books224 followersMartin Meredith is a historian, journalist and biographer, and author of many acclaimed books on Africa.
Meredith first worked as a foreign correspondent in Africa for the Observer and Sunday Times, then as a research fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford. Residing near Oxford, he is now an independent commentator and author.
Meredith’s writing has been described as authoritative and well-documented, despite the pessimism inherent in his subject matter.
He is the author of Diamonds, Gold and War, Mugabe: Power, Plunder – which sold over 15 000 copies in South Africa, and The Struggle for Zimbabwe’s Future, The State of Africa and Nelson Mandela: A Biography, among many others.
His most recent book is Born in Africa, published by Jonathan Ball Publishers.
Meredith first worked as a foreign correspondent in Africa for the Observer and Sunday Times, then as a research fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford. Residing near Oxford, he is now an independent commentator and author.
Meredith’s writing has been described as authoritative and well-documented, despite the pessimism inherent in his subject matter.
He is the author of Diamonds, Gold and War, Mugabe: Power, Plunder – which sold over 15 000 copies in South Africa, and The Struggle for Zimbabwe’s Future, The State of Africa and Nelson Mandela: A Biography, among many others.
His most recent book is Born in Africa, published by Jonathan Ball Publishers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 560 reviews
January 9, 2012
Five stars for this plain, urgent, and very comprehensive account of Africa since the colonial powers packed up and left, or were booted out. And as far as I know, this is the only book which covers all of Africa in the last 50 years. But I think readers should be issued with a warning. You have to ask yourselves if you have a strong stomach. Because make no mistake, this is a horror story, and it has left me with a feeling close to despair. Let me give you some examples chosen at random. From page 173 :
President Omar Bongo of Gabon... ordered a new palace for himself with sliding walls and doors, rotating rooms and a private nightclub, costing well over $200 million.
From page 273:
The disruption caused by the `villagisation' programme nearly led to catastrophe (in Tanzania). Food production fell drastically, raising the spectre of widespread famine.... Drought compounded the problem.
From page 368:
By the mid-1980s most Africans were as poor or poorer than they had been at the time of independence.
From page 460:
Over a ten-year period (in Algeria) more than 100,000 people died. Nor was there any end in sight. The violence seemed to suit both sides - the military and the Islamist rebels.
The story of each African country from 1960 to 2000 seems to be the same. There is the early promise of independence, the charismatic new leader (it could be Nkrumah or Kenyatta or even Mugabe, of whom Ian Smith, the leader of white Rhodesia, said : "He behaved like a balanced, civilised westerner, the antithesis of the communist gangster I had expected"). There follows corruption and megalomania - palaces built, roads to nowhere commissioned, Swiss bank accounts opened, the president's tribal associates given all the top jobs. Then, the president bans all political parties except his own, because multi-party democracy is not the African way and just plays into the hands of unscrupulous tribal leaders (but of course it is the President himself - and in Africa there has only once been a herself - who's the biggest player of tribal politics). Then comes twenty - sometimes thirty - years of tyranny by the big man, with all political opponents jailed and tortured, and the country bankrupted. Then comes the military coup with the idealistic young military leader declaring a Council of National Salvation and a raft of anti-corruption laws. A few years later, the same young military leader (could be Samuel K Doe of Liberia, could be Yoweri Museweni of Uganda) has turned into a clone of the tyrant he deposed.
Slavery in Africa was followed by colonialism, and once that was ended, by USA/USSR proxy wars, and once they were over, by Aids. You would think that - plus the endemic disease and drought of course - was enough. But no, Africa suffers from another disease just as debilitating - the infestation of their own "vampire-like" (Meredith's term) ruling classes. By the end of Mr Meredith's book the horrors were not diminishing. We had had the Rwandan genocide, the children's armies of Liberia (ten year old kids high on cocaine shooting each other with Armalites) and the Lord's Resistance cult in Uganda. Still it goes on.
When Abdou Diouf of Senegal accepted defeat in an election in March 2000 he was only the fourth president to do so in four decades.
Or how about this :
The World bank estimates that 40% of Africa's private wealth is held offshore.
The author leaves no room for any false optimism. I salute every aid agency and every politician willing to even try to improve the dire situation. But if they read this book they will be wondering where to begin and how they could possibly summon up the energy to try.
****
Having reread the above and updated it slightly, I need to indicate at least two books which offer a different perspective :
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
President Omar Bongo of Gabon... ordered a new palace for himself with sliding walls and doors, rotating rooms and a private nightclub, costing well over $200 million.
From page 273:
The disruption caused by the `villagisation' programme nearly led to catastrophe (in Tanzania). Food production fell drastically, raising the spectre of widespread famine.... Drought compounded the problem.
From page 368:
By the mid-1980s most Africans were as poor or poorer than they had been at the time of independence.
From page 460:
Over a ten-year period (in Algeria) more than 100,000 people died. Nor was there any end in sight. The violence seemed to suit both sides - the military and the Islamist rebels.
The story of each African country from 1960 to 2000 seems to be the same. There is the early promise of independence, the charismatic new leader (it could be Nkrumah or Kenyatta or even Mugabe, of whom Ian Smith, the leader of white Rhodesia, said : "He behaved like a balanced, civilised westerner, the antithesis of the communist gangster I had expected"). There follows corruption and megalomania - palaces built, roads to nowhere commissioned, Swiss bank accounts opened, the president's tribal associates given all the top jobs. Then, the president bans all political parties except his own, because multi-party democracy is not the African way and just plays into the hands of unscrupulous tribal leaders (but of course it is the President himself - and in Africa there has only once been a herself - who's the biggest player of tribal politics). Then comes twenty - sometimes thirty - years of tyranny by the big man, with all political opponents jailed and tortured, and the country bankrupted. Then comes the military coup with the idealistic young military leader declaring a Council of National Salvation and a raft of anti-corruption laws. A few years later, the same young military leader (could be Samuel K Doe of Liberia, could be Yoweri Museweni of Uganda) has turned into a clone of the tyrant he deposed.
Slavery in Africa was followed by colonialism, and once that was ended, by USA/USSR proxy wars, and once they were over, by Aids. You would think that - plus the endemic disease and drought of course - was enough. But no, Africa suffers from another disease just as debilitating - the infestation of their own "vampire-like" (Meredith's term) ruling classes. By the end of Mr Meredith's book the horrors were not diminishing. We had had the Rwandan genocide, the children's armies of Liberia (ten year old kids high on cocaine shooting each other with Armalites) and the Lord's Resistance cult in Uganda. Still it goes on.
When Abdou Diouf of Senegal accepted defeat in an election in March 2000 he was only the fourth president to do so in four decades.
Or how about this :
The World bank estimates that 40% of Africa's private wealth is held offshore.
The author leaves no room for any false optimism. I salute every aid agency and every politician willing to even try to improve the dire situation. But if they read this book they will be wondering where to begin and how they could possibly summon up the energy to try.
****
Having reread the above and updated it slightly, I need to indicate at least two books which offer a different perspective :
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
March 1, 2022
"Kingdoms without justice are like criminal gangs --- remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?" St. Augustine, "City of God"
Reading this epic work by Martin Meredith, this quote echoed in my mind since it sadly rings too true with respect to so much of African history since independence.
This work is one of the finest histories I've ever read. Meredith manages successfully to tell the story of Africa since independence from the European powers in a way that captures in the import and humanity within each chapter --- but without getting inside baseball such that the reader gets lost.
While I am a history buff and have been since childhood, Africa has not been much in my reading. I grew up in the 70s and 80s --- the stories of Africa during that time: war, genocide, pestilence, famine. To my mind, if the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse owned an entire continent, then surely it would be Africa. The challenges and bottomless abyss of woe and suffering stunned my mind into insensibility. Like an aviation colleague of mine who served in Iraq, and describing its dysfunctionality, he'd just say "It's Iraq". And that has been my reaction on reading, most often in the back page of too many newspapers, "It's Africa".
But I think it's worth digging deeper than that, and Meredith fills that need. He goes in detail over Africa's history from World War 2 to 2010, covering the major crisis points with skill and objectivity.
If you asked the average person, why does Africa have so many problems, most might well answer, "Colonialism". And to some extent, colonialism has profoundly effected African nations. For one thing, most of what little infrastructure existed at independence was designed by colonial rulers with the purpose of transporting the colony's raw materials from the interior to the ports. This gave a new nation something, but not much to work with at independence. Another problem was the low level of education in Africa in the aftermath of colonialism ---- in a continent of 200 million, there were only 8,000 African college graduates ---- this in a continent that would have taxed the best of the best of the world's best academic institutions, so formidable the challenges faced by these newly independent African countries.
Another problem facing these newly independent countries was the lack of stable, universally accepted institutions --- there seems in most little common notion of rule of law, respect for property rights, pluralism, etc.
As one reads this chronicle, one keeps thinking, "Well, why don't they just try this" ---- only to find that something like it had been tried, only for it to fail. It's a humbling intellectual exercise ---- that nation building is very, very difficult --- and with respect to some of these nations, virtually impossible.
The most damaging feature of post-independence Africa, as Meredith relates, is the "Big Man" phenomenon --- where some demagogue, fanatic, rebel leader, or military general seizes power and, with their entourage, proceeds to pillage the nation. For every story you may have heard in Africa about this --- trust me --- it's just the tip of the iceberg. In most of Africa, it's done shamelessly and flagrantly --- the wealth of generations of Africans and the amazing raw material wealth in crops , diamonds, gold, oil --- wasted in corruption and theft.
But I found myself asking "Why" on this. And Meredith alludes to some answers: the lack of institutions that provide checks and balances -- and a standard by which their society can say "no"; the division of most countries along tribal lines, and exploitation of such weaknesses by both the "Big Men" and by outside powers (in some cases).
There are many shocking stories in this book. The Rwandan Holocaust was horrifying --- imagine if your neighbors turned on you without warning because of whatever ethnic or racial group you are in --- and went after you with lawn instruments, axes, machetes, clubs to kill you and your family --- no safe place to flee to -- not churches, not hospitals, not the police. I can't describe better than Meredith does in this book.
The account of the Congo Civil War also breathtaking. More people have died in that war than any war since WW2. I'll wager most don't know a thing about it. I knew little if anything. Until now.
Sadly, most African countries seem never to have had a Cincinnatus, George Washington, or Gandhi who could see beyond their own enrichment or empowerment to building a nation that could last with strength and a future.
There was one bright spot --- South Africa. That's not to say this nation is a paradise by any means.....but Nelson Mandela did build something there --- managing to keep corruption under control, build the economy, and avoid white flight of that nation's professional class.
I could go on, but I've said enough. This is book is an epic work. I do think it one of the finest histories I've read. Very thought provoking --- very, very interesting. And I do have hope for Africa --- that Africans are and will find their own way, on their own terms building societies that have learned from the bloody past, that will be stronger and better by the end of this century.
Reading this epic work by Martin Meredith, this quote echoed in my mind since it sadly rings too true with respect to so much of African history since independence.
This work is one of the finest histories I've ever read. Meredith manages successfully to tell the story of Africa since independence from the European powers in a way that captures in the import and humanity within each chapter --- but without getting inside baseball such that the reader gets lost.
While I am a history buff and have been since childhood, Africa has not been much in my reading. I grew up in the 70s and 80s --- the stories of Africa during that time: war, genocide, pestilence, famine. To my mind, if the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse owned an entire continent, then surely it would be Africa. The challenges and bottomless abyss of woe and suffering stunned my mind into insensibility. Like an aviation colleague of mine who served in Iraq, and describing its dysfunctionality, he'd just say "It's Iraq". And that has been my reaction on reading, most often in the back page of too many newspapers, "It's Africa".
But I think it's worth digging deeper than that, and Meredith fills that need. He goes in detail over Africa's history from World War 2 to 2010, covering the major crisis points with skill and objectivity.
If you asked the average person, why does Africa have so many problems, most might well answer, "Colonialism". And to some extent, colonialism has profoundly effected African nations. For one thing, most of what little infrastructure existed at independence was designed by colonial rulers with the purpose of transporting the colony's raw materials from the interior to the ports. This gave a new nation something, but not much to work with at independence. Another problem was the low level of education in Africa in the aftermath of colonialism ---- in a continent of 200 million, there were only 8,000 African college graduates ---- this in a continent that would have taxed the best of the best of the world's best academic institutions, so formidable the challenges faced by these newly independent African countries.
Another problem facing these newly independent countries was the lack of stable, universally accepted institutions --- there seems in most little common notion of rule of law, respect for property rights, pluralism, etc.
As one reads this chronicle, one keeps thinking, "Well, why don't they just try this" ---- only to find that something like it had been tried, only for it to fail. It's a humbling intellectual exercise ---- that nation building is very, very difficult --- and with respect to some of these nations, virtually impossible.
The most damaging feature of post-independence Africa, as Meredith relates, is the "Big Man" phenomenon --- where some demagogue, fanatic, rebel leader, or military general seizes power and, with their entourage, proceeds to pillage the nation. For every story you may have heard in Africa about this --- trust me --- it's just the tip of the iceberg. In most of Africa, it's done shamelessly and flagrantly --- the wealth of generations of Africans and the amazing raw material wealth in crops , diamonds, gold, oil --- wasted in corruption and theft.
But I found myself asking "Why" on this. And Meredith alludes to some answers: the lack of institutions that provide checks and balances -- and a standard by which their society can say "no"; the division of most countries along tribal lines, and exploitation of such weaknesses by both the "Big Men" and by outside powers (in some cases).
There are many shocking stories in this book. The Rwandan Holocaust was horrifying --- imagine if your neighbors turned on you without warning because of whatever ethnic or racial group you are in --- and went after you with lawn instruments, axes, machetes, clubs to kill you and your family --- no safe place to flee to -- not churches, not hospitals, not the police. I can't describe better than Meredith does in this book.
The account of the Congo Civil War also breathtaking. More people have died in that war than any war since WW2. I'll wager most don't know a thing about it. I knew little if anything. Until now.
Sadly, most African countries seem never to have had a Cincinnatus, George Washington, or Gandhi who could see beyond their own enrichment or empowerment to building a nation that could last with strength and a future.
There was one bright spot --- South Africa. That's not to say this nation is a paradise by any means.....but Nelson Mandela did build something there --- managing to keep corruption under control, build the economy, and avoid white flight of that nation's professional class.
I could go on, but I've said enough. This is book is an epic work. I do think it one of the finest histories I've read. Very thought provoking --- very, very interesting. And I do have hope for Africa --- that Africans are and will find their own way, on their own terms building societies that have learned from the bloody past, that will be stronger and better by the end of this century.
May 14, 2021
Adding.a note for those who share my take on this horrible mess of a book. A much much better place to go is Bruce Nugent's Africa Since Independence. Not an easy ready, but I recognize the Africa he writes about and learned a ton.
Back to the original:
The problems with this book begin with the second word of the title, recur in the subtitle and never diminish until Meredith limps home with a final paragraph attributing the problems of what he might as well just call "the dark continent" to the personal failures of Africa's leaders and elites. I'll detail these criticisms in a moment, but first I want to identify the book's fundamental failure: it gives no attention to *Africans* as anything other than a faceless mass; to make matters worse, he's not particularly adept at decoding the significance of the statistics he sprinkles in from time to time when he can tear himself away from recounting the excesses of Mobutu or Amin or Toure (most of which are real enough). He doesn't seem to know anything, or give a damn, about ordinary Africans. He misses everything that made the two weeks I spent in Tanzania a couple of years go fascinating and, despite the chaos of trying to figure out when the next bus might arrive, etc., not entirely dispiriting.
I want to make it clear that I'm not romantic about Africa. I know too many Africans and too many people who have spent extended time in various places on the continent, to downplay the many many things that have gone wrong. It can be very difficult to recover any of the hope that greeted independence when looking into the near- or mid-future. On that level, I'm not disputing some of what Meredith, a journalist who spent many years in Africa, concludes.
Nonetheless, I'll stand by the one star. As I probably should have done before reading this book, I've consulted colleagues who know more about the literature of Africa than I do, and been informed that I should have started with Frederick Cooper's history of the same time period. It's up next.
Now to the specifics behind the snarky first sentence. The invocation of "fate" is part and parcel of what seems to me a fundamentally dishonest intellectual strategy based on downplaying the importance of a global political economy in which the interests of the African people were, at best, secondary. His presentation of the colonial order is borderline nostalgic: while he's at least sharp enough to figure out that Belgium didn't do a good job in the Congo, he gives the British high marks for their treatment of their colonies, gives the French slightly grudging respect--he is, after all, British--and pays next to no attention to the impact of international markets on African economies. Although he gives passing attention to the scramble for Africa and the absurdity of the national boundaries imposed on the continent--which created many of the problems that render a "nation" like Nigeria ungovernable--he largely ignores them once the magic moment of "independence" arrives. From that point on, Africa's problems are attributed to the bad behavior and flawed character of its leaders and the unbridled greed and stupidity of the elites (which pretty much deserve his scorn). His rhetoric is contemptuous, dismissive; he lavishes endless paragraphs on details concerning the palaces and cars, and the brutality with which the leaders treated their opponents. He clearly takes great pride in debunking the status of almost every one of the leaders who brought Africa out of the colonial era. He's ever so pleased with himself that he doesn't believe a single good word about Nkrumah or Kenyata. Meredith has a bit more trouble condescending to Tanzania's Nyerer, who he's forced to admit was not personally corrupt or stupid. But he manages well enough. He repeatedly glosses over complex historical situations by attributing all of the problems to the character of leaders. One of many many examples is his treatment of the Six Days War between Egypt and Israel, which receives less than a paragraph. He's utterly incoherent in his treatment of Mobutu, who he praises as an ally of the US who established stability in the Congo just a few pages before returning to the Friday Night Creature Features festival on the beasts of Africa.
I finished reading this because I'm looking for factual information; there's a bit mixed in with the drivel. But it would have been a much better idea not to have picked up the book in the first place.
Back to the original:
The problems with this book begin with the second word of the title, recur in the subtitle and never diminish until Meredith limps home with a final paragraph attributing the problems of what he might as well just call "the dark continent" to the personal failures of Africa's leaders and elites. I'll detail these criticisms in a moment, but first I want to identify the book's fundamental failure: it gives no attention to *Africans* as anything other than a faceless mass; to make matters worse, he's not particularly adept at decoding the significance of the statistics he sprinkles in from time to time when he can tear himself away from recounting the excesses of Mobutu or Amin or Toure (most of which are real enough). He doesn't seem to know anything, or give a damn, about ordinary Africans. He misses everything that made the two weeks I spent in Tanzania a couple of years go fascinating and, despite the chaos of trying to figure out when the next bus might arrive, etc., not entirely dispiriting.
I want to make it clear that I'm not romantic about Africa. I know too many Africans and too many people who have spent extended time in various places on the continent, to downplay the many many things that have gone wrong. It can be very difficult to recover any of the hope that greeted independence when looking into the near- or mid-future. On that level, I'm not disputing some of what Meredith, a journalist who spent many years in Africa, concludes.
Nonetheless, I'll stand by the one star. As I probably should have done before reading this book, I've consulted colleagues who know more about the literature of Africa than I do, and been informed that I should have started with Frederick Cooper's history of the same time period. It's up next.
Now to the specifics behind the snarky first sentence. The invocation of "fate" is part and parcel of what seems to me a fundamentally dishonest intellectual strategy based on downplaying the importance of a global political economy in which the interests of the African people were, at best, secondary. His presentation of the colonial order is borderline nostalgic: while he's at least sharp enough to figure out that Belgium didn't do a good job in the Congo, he gives the British high marks for their treatment of their colonies, gives the French slightly grudging respect--he is, after all, British--and pays next to no attention to the impact of international markets on African economies. Although he gives passing attention to the scramble for Africa and the absurdity of the national boundaries imposed on the continent--which created many of the problems that render a "nation" like Nigeria ungovernable--he largely ignores them once the magic moment of "independence" arrives. From that point on, Africa's problems are attributed to the bad behavior and flawed character of its leaders and the unbridled greed and stupidity of the elites (which pretty much deserve his scorn). His rhetoric is contemptuous, dismissive; he lavishes endless paragraphs on details concerning the palaces and cars, and the brutality with which the leaders treated their opponents. He clearly takes great pride in debunking the status of almost every one of the leaders who brought Africa out of the colonial era. He's ever so pleased with himself that he doesn't believe a single good word about Nkrumah or Kenyata. Meredith has a bit more trouble condescending to Tanzania's Nyerer, who he's forced to admit was not personally corrupt or stupid. But he manages well enough. He repeatedly glosses over complex historical situations by attributing all of the problems to the character of leaders. One of many many examples is his treatment of the Six Days War between Egypt and Israel, which receives less than a paragraph. He's utterly incoherent in his treatment of Mobutu, who he praises as an ally of the US who established stability in the Congo just a few pages before returning to the Friday Night Creature Features festival on the beasts of Africa.
I finished reading this because I'm looking for factual information; there's a bit mixed in with the drivel. But it would have been a much better idea not to have picked up the book in the first place.
May 13, 2007
There are history books written by historians, and there are history books written by journalists. Martin Meredith is first and foremost a journalist, and this book focuses on telling stories and bringing the expansive personalities of African big men to the fore. Yet Meredith doesn't skimp on the statistics and the "hard facts," although I do wish he had a few more citations. And many of the standard criticisms of history can be leveled against this work: it tells the story of the elite, and covers less on the commoners; hardly any women are mentioned. It is the story of African political leadership and conflict, though, and in that, this work excels. If you want a complete understanding of how Africa came to be so poor and so prone to violence, this book is indispensable.
Meredith doesn't dwell on colonialism, and hardly mentions the slave trade. It doesn't try to pin all of Africa's woes on nefarious westerners, a tropical climate, or any other factory beyond its control. It certainly does not let European and American leaders off the hook, but they play supporting roles, complicit in the massacres and economic disasters rather than instigating them. So The Fate of Africa may offend some who want to see Africans as victims.
The stories that come out of this book are the stories, mostly, of brilliant but brutal men, charismatic leaders who emerge from chaos (first at independence, but then later in the wake of coup after coup) and use all means at their disposal to exert their will. He tears apart heroes like Nkrumah, Nyerere, Senghor, and Houphouët-Boigny, exposing their follies and their autocratic tendencies. He recalls, in detail, so many ugly and horrific occurrences that by halfway through you'll find yourself saying, "Well, only 20,000 died. That's not so bad." And the story you'll find is that African leaders have, since independence, been primarily responsible for the suffering of this continent. Which is true.
One final note: this book complements John Reader's book Africa: biography of a continent extraordinarily well. Reader's 700 page masterpiece tells how African cultures developed from the first man to modern times, and highlights all the ways that African cultures have been victimized and misunderstood by the West. Meredith picks up where Reader left off, taking another 700 pages to explain how, for the last 50 years, African leaders have failed their peoples.
Meredith doesn't dwell on colonialism, and hardly mentions the slave trade. It doesn't try to pin all of Africa's woes on nefarious westerners, a tropical climate, or any other factory beyond its control. It certainly does not let European and American leaders off the hook, but they play supporting roles, complicit in the massacres and economic disasters rather than instigating them. So The Fate of Africa may offend some who want to see Africans as victims.
The stories that come out of this book are the stories, mostly, of brilliant but brutal men, charismatic leaders who emerge from chaos (first at independence, but then later in the wake of coup after coup) and use all means at their disposal to exert their will. He tears apart heroes like Nkrumah, Nyerere, Senghor, and Houphouët-Boigny, exposing their follies and their autocratic tendencies. He recalls, in detail, so many ugly and horrific occurrences that by halfway through you'll find yourself saying, "Well, only 20,000 died. That's not so bad." And the story you'll find is that African leaders have, since independence, been primarily responsible for the suffering of this continent. Which is true.
One final note: this book complements John Reader's book Africa: biography of a continent extraordinarily well. Reader's 700 page masterpiece tells how African cultures developed from the first man to modern times, and highlights all the ways that African cultures have been victimized and misunderstood by the West. Meredith picks up where Reader left off, taking another 700 pages to explain how, for the last 50 years, African leaders have failed their peoples.
July 2, 2023
This tome can be rough reading precisely because of the horrendous events and people it describes. It is what it says in the title, a history of Africa from independence from colonial overlords to the early 2000's. There are few bright spots.
Independence brought with it the opportunity for the nations of Africa to reclaim their land as well as their future. Many are resource rich and could use those resources to enrich the economies of their countries as well as the people living within them. A few have- South Africa and Botswana have struggled but have been able to establish stable governments, productive economies, and the systems within their countries that enrich their people and offer the opportunities for education and advancement. Unfortunately, they have stood virtually alone according to this author.
After the violence and bloodshed of colonialism, the leaders who emerged after independence held out the promise that their respective countries could join the western world as self-supportive countries contributing to the world. Unfortunately, in most places, that has not happened. Replacing governments led by white European countries, Africans have generally been as tyrannical and sometimes even more tyrannical than the leaders they replaced. The book provides a steady parade of men, seizing power only to enrich themselves and their tribes and/or followers and enforcing their governments with frightening violence and bloodshed, benefitting only themselves.
What has been equally appalling has been the support and at times acquiescence of western leaders. France stands out in this respect, funding and supporting the Hutus during and following the genocide. Of course, leadership from the UN during the Rwandan genocide from Boutras Boutras Gali, then Sec. General, is little short of scandalous. Other nations, like the U.S. have funded tyrants in the knowledge that they were brutally oppressing their people. During the Cold War, all the tyrant needed to say was that they were anti-communist to receive boat loads of aid.
One is not left with much hope after reading the book although I would be interested in reading updates, if for no other reason than to provide some hope from that troubled part of the world. I recommend this well researched and well-written book to learn, in detail what has happened on the African continent, with the understanding that you will not come away with a great deal of hope for change.
Independence brought with it the opportunity for the nations of Africa to reclaim their land as well as their future. Many are resource rich and could use those resources to enrich the economies of their countries as well as the people living within them. A few have- South Africa and Botswana have struggled but have been able to establish stable governments, productive economies, and the systems within their countries that enrich their people and offer the opportunities for education and advancement. Unfortunately, they have stood virtually alone according to this author.
After the violence and bloodshed of colonialism, the leaders who emerged after independence held out the promise that their respective countries could join the western world as self-supportive countries contributing to the world. Unfortunately, in most places, that has not happened. Replacing governments led by white European countries, Africans have generally been as tyrannical and sometimes even more tyrannical than the leaders they replaced. The book provides a steady parade of men, seizing power only to enrich themselves and their tribes and/or followers and enforcing their governments with frightening violence and bloodshed, benefitting only themselves.
What has been equally appalling has been the support and at times acquiescence of western leaders. France stands out in this respect, funding and supporting the Hutus during and following the genocide. Of course, leadership from the UN during the Rwandan genocide from Boutras Boutras Gali, then Sec. General, is little short of scandalous. Other nations, like the U.S. have funded tyrants in the knowledge that they were brutally oppressing their people. During the Cold War, all the tyrant needed to say was that they were anti-communist to receive boat loads of aid.
One is not left with much hope after reading the book although I would be interested in reading updates, if for no other reason than to provide some hope from that troubled part of the world. I recommend this well researched and well-written book to learn, in detail what has happened on the African continent, with the understanding that you will not come away with a great deal of hope for change.
February 13, 2013
A Very Powerful Book
This is a history of Africa since the end of the colonial era. The author does not tread lightly on Africa's rulers' since that time. The level of brutality and corruption is exposed and elucidated relentlessly. Crimes against humanity are so common that one wonders why the cycle is so self-perpetuating. Although statistics and trends are analyzed the main focus is primarily on the personalities - history is made by people.
Chapters are well sectioned and the writing is very clear and to the point. Although the book is 'long' (close to 700 pages), it did not take me long to read it - it is a page turner.
Nelson Mandela is one of the few personalities who stands far above and beyond the rest of the African leaders - most of whom are tyrants at best and megalomaniac sadists at worst. One dictator after another is shown as un-caring for his people; most use tribal nationalism for their own benefit.
There is a line in the movie "Gandhi" where the great leader says: "An eye for eye and the whole world goes blind" - this is currently happening in Africa. Fortunately Nelson Mandela has shown magnanimity towards his fellow man, so maybe this ruthless pattern can be changed?
As we sit reading this book comfortably in our living rooms in North America and Western Europe, one is reminded of the quote by John Dunne; "No man is an island ...never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
This is a history of Africa since the end of the colonial era. The author does not tread lightly on Africa's rulers' since that time. The level of brutality and corruption is exposed and elucidated relentlessly. Crimes against humanity are so common that one wonders why the cycle is so self-perpetuating. Although statistics and trends are analyzed the main focus is primarily on the personalities - history is made by people.
Chapters are well sectioned and the writing is very clear and to the point. Although the book is 'long' (close to 700 pages), it did not take me long to read it - it is a page turner.
Nelson Mandela is one of the few personalities who stands far above and beyond the rest of the African leaders - most of whom are tyrants at best and megalomaniac sadists at worst. One dictator after another is shown as un-caring for his people; most use tribal nationalism for their own benefit.
There is a line in the movie "Gandhi" where the great leader says: "An eye for eye and the whole world goes blind" - this is currently happening in Africa. Fortunately Nelson Mandela has shown magnanimity towards his fellow man, so maybe this ruthless pattern can be changed?
As we sit reading this book comfortably in our living rooms in North America and Western Europe, one is reminded of the quote by John Dunne; "No man is an island ...never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
June 25, 2020
I began this doorstop-sized history of Africa in the second half of the twentieth century as research for my 2022 novel, but it grew from "homework" to "unputdownable." It's beautifully written, utterly fascinating, and a guide to the political changes on the continent since the Second World War.
February 20, 2012
A history of the fifty years of independent Africa was never going to be a pretty read but I have to say it was traumatic in the extreme. Meredith is an incredibly well informed and articulate writer who dissects and analyses the debacle of the descent of a whole continent into misery and terror.
The initial hope-filled rush to Independence was swiftly tripped up by incompetence and inexperience, the fault of which has to be laid heavily at the feet of the ex-colonial powers of Europe, but the kicking of the creature when it had fallen and the stamping on its face and hands until they bled and were useless can only be lain at the feet of the brutal, vicious, self centred fucks who took the countries from understandable confusion and ill-prepared governance to rape, pillage and emptiness.
Each chapter unfurls a little more of the useless mess and like some sort of monstrous tapestry you get more and more glimpses of the inevitable. Most of these nations began their freedom joyous if hamstrung by inexperience but that was no fault of the people themselves but was rather the blind stupidity and arrogance of the colonial powers who had ruled paternalistically for decades but without any real approach to prepare the actual Africans to take over. These European Powers had swept in to sometimes ancient kingdoms and tribal lands and had imposed artificial structures and boundaries and had forced into nationhood men and women who had no fellow feeling beyond being human. Then after forty or fifty years of this enforced subjugation there was a rush to withdraw from responsibility and leave. In fairness sometimes the European powers did try to help and supprt but understandably the new nations wanted support not rule, suggested options not imposed advice.
From the moment the 'independences' began inept and ill-thought out plans, coups and countercoups, murder and oppression became the norm. Towards the end of Meredith's account he points out the ridiculous fact that 'When Abdou Diouf of Senegal accepted defeat in an election in March 2000, he was only the fourth African President to do so in four decades'.
The lining of pockets, the corruption and repression, the living in obscene wealth in farcically expensive palaces whilst milions of your countrymen, the people for whom you had supposed responsibility, starved was so commonplace it was like the refrain of some apalling children's nursery rhyme where the same few sentences occur at the end of each page so as to enable a child to learn. The rampantly depressing thing about this refrain is nothing was learnt. These men, and they were with a few exceptions mostly men though their wives and daughters violated and benefited just as much, simply took up the reins of greed and violent oppression that their overthrown and hopefully brutally murdered predecessor had dropped.
Re-reading that last phrase I realize it is totally out of order and unworthy but i have to say the apalling brutality and uncaring greed of these bastards has really shocked me. Equally shocking is the turning a blind eye which seems to have been the common pose of so many Western leaders for so long as the brutes were useful to them.
I am not going to begin to quote exmples and lay out statistics because once started I would find it hard to stop. Each example wuld simply lead on to another and each time I would think no I must put that one in too. The best thing is to encourage you to read this. It made me so angry on so many levels; I find it hard to understand how any person can be so uncaring of the oppressed who are literally living just outside your home. I appreciate the reality of poverty and wealth differentials, I accept that these things exist but when millions upon millions of aid is siphoned off to pay for a lifestyle for you and your support system whilst your country careers off the road into not penury but total ruin, my mind cannot grasp that. I appreciate war and battle is sometimes tragically the way of nations but when leaders purposefully sabotage peace discussions or slaughter by the thousands innocent men and women purely to stay in power, my mind melts.
This was not a book of celebration. Initially, when I began I knew there would be horror and tragedy but I had hoped there would be accounts of success and cultural riches and a hope on the horizon but so much of this well written study underlines the uselessness of leadership in Africa. A vicious circle of greed and embezzlememt. Where will the genuinely caring leaders come from? What example have the new generation been set ? From this account I can see very little.
This is a story of real sadness but that just makes me even more admiring of the actual people of the many nations of Africa who continue to hope and befriend and move forward. I realize Meredith was writing from one very specific direction, of the uslessness of Governance and that there is a good deal more to be said of the wonder of the people themselves, of the way they continue to rise up and start again but this book just made me wonder how the corruption at the heart of governement can be removed. Everytime one thief and murderer was ovrthrown he was invariably succeeded by another just the same but with a different name or army rank.
This has been a rant rather more than a review for which I apologize but sometimes things get you like that and having read this I do not think i could have written anything else.
The last paragraph says it all
'Time and again, its potential for economic development has ben disrupted by the predatory politics of ruling eltes seeking personal gain, often precipitating violence for their own ends. The Ngerian academic Claude Ake observed ' The problem is not so much that development has failed as that it was never really on the agenda in the first place'....African States have become hollowed out........African governments and the vampir-like politicians who run them are regarded by the populations they rule as yet another burden they have to bear in the struggle for survival'.
The initial hope-filled rush to Independence was swiftly tripped up by incompetence and inexperience, the fault of which has to be laid heavily at the feet of the ex-colonial powers of Europe, but the kicking of the creature when it had fallen and the stamping on its face and hands until they bled and were useless can only be lain at the feet of the brutal, vicious, self centred fucks who took the countries from understandable confusion and ill-prepared governance to rape, pillage and emptiness.
Each chapter unfurls a little more of the useless mess and like some sort of monstrous tapestry you get more and more glimpses of the inevitable. Most of these nations began their freedom joyous if hamstrung by inexperience but that was no fault of the people themselves but was rather the blind stupidity and arrogance of the colonial powers who had ruled paternalistically for decades but without any real approach to prepare the actual Africans to take over. These European Powers had swept in to sometimes ancient kingdoms and tribal lands and had imposed artificial structures and boundaries and had forced into nationhood men and women who had no fellow feeling beyond being human. Then after forty or fifty years of this enforced subjugation there was a rush to withdraw from responsibility and leave. In fairness sometimes the European powers did try to help and supprt but understandably the new nations wanted support not rule, suggested options not imposed advice.
From the moment the 'independences' began inept and ill-thought out plans, coups and countercoups, murder and oppression became the norm. Towards the end of Meredith's account he points out the ridiculous fact that 'When Abdou Diouf of Senegal accepted defeat in an election in March 2000, he was only the fourth African President to do so in four decades'.
The lining of pockets, the corruption and repression, the living in obscene wealth in farcically expensive palaces whilst milions of your countrymen, the people for whom you had supposed responsibility, starved was so commonplace it was like the refrain of some apalling children's nursery rhyme where the same few sentences occur at the end of each page so as to enable a child to learn. The rampantly depressing thing about this refrain is nothing was learnt. These men, and they were with a few exceptions mostly men though their wives and daughters violated and benefited just as much, simply took up the reins of greed and violent oppression that their overthrown and hopefully brutally murdered predecessor had dropped.
Re-reading that last phrase I realize it is totally out of order and unworthy but i have to say the apalling brutality and uncaring greed of these bastards has really shocked me. Equally shocking is the turning a blind eye which seems to have been the common pose of so many Western leaders for so long as the brutes were useful to them.
I am not going to begin to quote exmples and lay out statistics because once started I would find it hard to stop. Each example wuld simply lead on to another and each time I would think no I must put that one in too. The best thing is to encourage you to read this. It made me so angry on so many levels; I find it hard to understand how any person can be so uncaring of the oppressed who are literally living just outside your home. I appreciate the reality of poverty and wealth differentials, I accept that these things exist but when millions upon millions of aid is siphoned off to pay for a lifestyle for you and your support system whilst your country careers off the road into not penury but total ruin, my mind cannot grasp that. I appreciate war and battle is sometimes tragically the way of nations but when leaders purposefully sabotage peace discussions or slaughter by the thousands innocent men and women purely to stay in power, my mind melts.
This was not a book of celebration. Initially, when I began I knew there would be horror and tragedy but I had hoped there would be accounts of success and cultural riches and a hope on the horizon but so much of this well written study underlines the uselessness of leadership in Africa. A vicious circle of greed and embezzlememt. Where will the genuinely caring leaders come from? What example have the new generation been set ? From this account I can see very little.
This is a story of real sadness but that just makes me even more admiring of the actual people of the many nations of Africa who continue to hope and befriend and move forward. I realize Meredith was writing from one very specific direction, of the uslessness of Governance and that there is a good deal more to be said of the wonder of the people themselves, of the way they continue to rise up and start again but this book just made me wonder how the corruption at the heart of governement can be removed. Everytime one thief and murderer was ovrthrown he was invariably succeeded by another just the same but with a different name or army rank.
This has been a rant rather more than a review for which I apologize but sometimes things get you like that and having read this I do not think i could have written anything else.
The last paragraph says it all
'Time and again, its potential for economic development has ben disrupted by the predatory politics of ruling eltes seeking personal gain, often precipitating violence for their own ends. The Ngerian academic Claude Ake observed ' The problem is not so much that development has failed as that it was never really on the agenda in the first place'....African States have become hollowed out........African governments and the vampir-like politicians who run them are regarded by the populations they rule as yet another burden they have to bear in the struggle for survival'.
October 27, 2020
Meredith's account captures all the main political action in Africa from the 1950s to 2010. A few of the stories are at least momentarily inspirational, from the momentous wave of independence movements to the fall of apartheid and Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution. But for the most part Meredith relentlessly delivers a stream of horror stories in which government often seems to be nothing but a traditional contest for spoils through killing contests. The egomania of despotic kleptocracts and their propensity to solve problems through mass murder seem so pervasive as to present a permanent, insurmountable block to almost every child's future. The conniving of foreign powers for geo-strategic advantage by backing and arming selected "friendly" dictators, not to mention their subsidizing of foreign agro-businesses while restricting African exports, make foreign aid to Africa look worse than a Wall Street mega-scandal. Only around the edges so we see quiet glimmers of bottom-up progress, such as the slow rise of legalization for alternative political parties or Botswana's impressive example of sound management.
Overall, the book is big and dramatic. It reads like a journalist's string of breaking news essays. But it captures only political life at the national or international levels. The rising women's or environmental movements fly below Meredith's radar.
Overall, the book is big and dramatic. It reads like a journalist's string of breaking news essays. But it captures only political life at the national or international levels. The rising women's or environmental movements fly below Meredith's radar.
June 30, 2018
For the most part, I thought this was an excellent book. A comprehensive account of 50 years post-independence for an entire (extremely diverse) continent. Meredith is a story teller and links various events across the continent in a way that makes one have several Eureka moments while reading as he provides sufficient context with his facts.
My criticism of him would be his Afropessimism, for lack of a better word. There’s no denying Africa has been more than “blessed” with greedy, corrupt, self-serving leaders. However his tendency to demonize all of them was off-putting. He highlights individual’s flaws with little mention of the systemic challenges that are a direct product of colonialism. More could be done to celebrate the African states that are not in complete chaos: Botswana, Senegal... He doesn’t adequately mention Western governments propping up multiple dictatorships across the continent. He is obviously biased against the East/ Soviet and attacks African individuals affiliated with them. The last chapter, Out of Africa, is almost completely pessimistic and his attempts to offer hope are wanting. (I also think the book’s title is a massive generalization but I can’t tell you what a better alternative would have been)
Overall, this book is great. I learned a whole lot about my own continent from a non-African of whom I was skeptical. If able to read past the biases and tones of disillusionment, and take the facts for what they are, it really is a must read for all Africans and non-Africans alike. I hope he writes a more up-to-date version as a lot has happened since this edition- Arab Spring, South Sudan cessation, Mbeki and Zuma being recalled, Mugabe being overthrown...
My criticism of him would be his Afropessimism, for lack of a better word. There’s no denying Africa has been more than “blessed” with greedy, corrupt, self-serving leaders. However his tendency to demonize all of them was off-putting. He highlights individual’s flaws with little mention of the systemic challenges that are a direct product of colonialism. More could be done to celebrate the African states that are not in complete chaos: Botswana, Senegal... He doesn’t adequately mention Western governments propping up multiple dictatorships across the continent. He is obviously biased against the East/ Soviet and attacks African individuals affiliated with them. The last chapter, Out of Africa, is almost completely pessimistic and his attempts to offer hope are wanting. (I also think the book’s title is a massive generalization but I can’t tell you what a better alternative would have been)
Overall, this book is great. I learned a whole lot about my own continent from a non-African of whom I was skeptical. If able to read past the biases and tones of disillusionment, and take the facts for what they are, it really is a must read for all Africans and non-Africans alike. I hope he writes a more up-to-date version as a lot has happened since this edition- Arab Spring, South Sudan cessation, Mbeki and Zuma being recalled, Mugabe being overthrown...
May 23, 2019
I read this book in 2005 when it first came out. It fits all the stereotypes of how Africa (treated as one big country, not a diverse continent) is falsely written about. Kenyan writer and intellectual, Binyavanga Wainaina, calls out the stereotypes in this article.....
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsand...
The unspoken thesis of "The Fate of Africa" is that post-colonial Africa (all lumped together) is a failure. Africa's "Big Men" have taken over and old tribal conflicts have emerged, wreaking havoc. (Interesting to note that when I saw this book at the Capetown airport, it had a different title there, "The State of Africa').
=========
I read the last book by Hans Rosling and saw how it called into question the accuracy of the Fate book. Too many generalizations and the false notion that the past is prologue to more of the same.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Also true of Thomas Sowell's "Ethnic America" which indulges in stereotypes and seems to lock people into some kind of cultural determinism.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsand...
The unspoken thesis of "The Fate of Africa" is that post-colonial Africa (all lumped together) is a failure. Africa's "Big Men" have taken over and old tribal conflicts have emerged, wreaking havoc. (Interesting to note that when I saw this book at the Capetown airport, it had a different title there, "The State of Africa').
=========
I read the last book by Hans Rosling and saw how it called into question the accuracy of the Fate book. Too many generalizations and the false notion that the past is prologue to more of the same.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
Also true of Thomas Sowell's "Ethnic America" which indulges in stereotypes and seems to lock people into some kind of cultural determinism.
January 1, 2023
A very accessible account on the predictible tragedy of Africa as whole. Even though there are fifty something countries in the continent, with diverse geography and culture,rich in resources, the recent history of every country can be boiled down to a basic template:
- Colonizers colonize the lands, enslaving the locals and squeezing out natural resources.
- Pan african resistance
- Colonizers forced to leave the lands either due to local political pressure or african resistance, ensuing a messy exit with stupid borders (while colonizers take the blame for messy borders, like the obvious cases of Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, even the countries as big as DRC and tiny as Rwanda have issues same as others. Imagine killing almost a million people in three months with machetes and hand grenades for tribal hate and then migrating to another country to continue further), half-formed govt bodies, and general unrest altogether.
- Independence, One party african govt, a megalomaniac dictator, lucky economic boom, and then economic plunge
- Coups, rebel groups,civil wars, seperatist movements along the tribal lines, cue Cold war politics, radical islam
- Second line of dictators, same as the first one, economic trouble
- AIDS
- Mass rape, genocide, even bigger wars, international aids funding regimes
Even the one man shows, the nutjobs who take over the whole country fit a certain template:
- Anti-colonialism as a political move
- Establishes one party system, no deviation possible whatsoever
- Improper economic planning
- Revenue used directly to personal needs, lavish palaces, personal military
- Crazy personalities - some even cannibals, witchcraft practitioners, sex maniacs, and extremely profligate
- Owning the country for 20-30 years, and resisting to leave until killed or resistance gets stronger.
While wars, civil wars, genocides, mass rapes were catastrophic in volume(Congo wars even compared to ww2), there's an absolute lack of media coverage outside africa due to 1] absence of western presence in later years of twentieth century, 2] nature of guerilla warfare, hard to document and chronologize, 3] A general disinterest, considering few regimes a lost cause.
One book tries to fit in 5-6 decades of African history, and does justice. Wish there's the sequel to this book, detailing Chinese neo-colonization.
- Colonizers colonize the lands, enslaving the locals and squeezing out natural resources.
- Pan african resistance
- Colonizers forced to leave the lands either due to local political pressure or african resistance, ensuing a messy exit with stupid borders (while colonizers take the blame for messy borders, like the obvious cases of Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, even the countries as big as DRC and tiny as Rwanda have issues same as others. Imagine killing almost a million people in three months with machetes and hand grenades for tribal hate and then migrating to another country to continue further), half-formed govt bodies, and general unrest altogether.
- Independence, One party african govt, a megalomaniac dictator, lucky economic boom, and then economic plunge
- Coups, rebel groups,civil wars, seperatist movements along the tribal lines, cue Cold war politics, radical islam
- Second line of dictators, same as the first one, economic trouble
- AIDS
- Mass rape, genocide, even bigger wars, international aids funding regimes
Even the one man shows, the nutjobs who take over the whole country fit a certain template:
- Anti-colonialism as a political move
- Establishes one party system, no deviation possible whatsoever
- Improper economic planning
- Revenue used directly to personal needs, lavish palaces, personal military
- Crazy personalities - some even cannibals, witchcraft practitioners, sex maniacs, and extremely profligate
- Owning the country for 20-30 years, and resisting to leave until killed or resistance gets stronger.
While wars, civil wars, genocides, mass rapes were catastrophic in volume(Congo wars even compared to ww2), there's an absolute lack of media coverage outside africa due to 1] absence of western presence in later years of twentieth century, 2] nature of guerilla warfare, hard to document and chronologize, 3] A general disinterest, considering few regimes a lost cause.
One book tries to fit in 5-6 decades of African history, and does justice. Wish there's the sequel to this book, detailing Chinese neo-colonization.
March 10, 2012
From now on, when I'm trying to explain to someone what 'irony' does not mean, I'll use this example: while I was on a plane between LA and Phillie, the entire world was watching a half hour documentary about a repulsive lunatic, and being encouraged to start a war in Uganda (i.e., the wrong country) in order to 'bring him to justice.' I finished this book just as we landed (I'd started it before I flew; it's very, very long), checked my email, and... you can guess the rest. That is not irony. It's just sad.
This book should be mandatory reading for human beings. Meredith writes beautifully about the twentieht century's biggest cluster-cuff, patiently showing how pretty much everything that could have gone wrong for Africa did go wrong; how almost every legitimate attempt to help out was ruined by African politicians, Western politicians and businessmen, and Soviet/Chinese politicians. It's incredibly depressing, but you know what? It is depressing. It's no use banging on about how 'we have to believe in hope' and 'you shouldn't deny Africans' agency'. Of course we do. But the history of Africa's problems is complex, and so is the present; part of that complexity is the fact that the heads of state in Africa are almost inevitably 'cut the Gordian knot' types; that type of person tends to deny the 'agency' of his/her population. Hope without some understanding of the situation leads to... Kony2012.
It's a little frustrating that Meredith offers no solutions to even localized problems, but it's also to his credit that he avoids simplistic solutions or explanations. Creating 'civil society' won't help much when rich countries pay their farmers to produce food that could be produced more cheaply, for export, in Africa. Cutting those tariffs won't do much good unless someone puts a stop to the insanity that is African politics. Improving leadership won't do much good if 'investors' continue to treat the continent like their own private money tree. And so on. This is not a rejection of hope, it's a demand that *everyone* accepts their part of the blame, and works to pay off their debts to the unluckiest people on the planet.
Note: there's a new edition of this book out, which, as far as I can tell, lengthens the chapters on Sudan, Zimbabwe and South Africa, for obvious reasons.
This book should be mandatory reading for human beings. Meredith writes beautifully about the twentieht century's biggest cluster-cuff, patiently showing how pretty much everything that could have gone wrong for Africa did go wrong; how almost every legitimate attempt to help out was ruined by African politicians, Western politicians and businessmen, and Soviet/Chinese politicians. It's incredibly depressing, but you know what? It is depressing. It's no use banging on about how 'we have to believe in hope' and 'you shouldn't deny Africans' agency'. Of course we do. But the history of Africa's problems is complex, and so is the present; part of that complexity is the fact that the heads of state in Africa are almost inevitably 'cut the Gordian knot' types; that type of person tends to deny the 'agency' of his/her population. Hope without some understanding of the situation leads to... Kony2012.
It's a little frustrating that Meredith offers no solutions to even localized problems, but it's also to his credit that he avoids simplistic solutions or explanations. Creating 'civil society' won't help much when rich countries pay their farmers to produce food that could be produced more cheaply, for export, in Africa. Cutting those tariffs won't do much good unless someone puts a stop to the insanity that is African politics. Improving leadership won't do much good if 'investors' continue to treat the continent like their own private money tree. And so on. This is not a rejection of hope, it's a demand that *everyone* accepts their part of the blame, and works to pay off their debts to the unluckiest people on the planet.
Note: there's a new edition of this book out, which, as far as I can tell, lengthens the chapters on Sudan, Zimbabwe and South Africa, for obvious reasons.
February 19, 2022
The Fate of Africa by Martin Meredith
I view this book now as a jumping off point for further exploration. It does a good job of treating Africa as fifty-four individual countries. The book is not story focused however and it is by nature a large number of historical summaries. Even at nearly 800 pages, this barely scratches the surface on most of the history and is understandable given the vastness and diversity of the African continent and her people. The narrative does comes from a white historian's perspective so it is not terribly nuanced. Less a criticism than a fact.
4 stars. Very solid.
I view this book now as a jumping off point for further exploration. It does a good job of treating Africa as fifty-four individual countries. The book is not story focused however and it is by nature a large number of historical summaries. Even at nearly 800 pages, this barely scratches the surface on most of the history and is understandable given the vastness and diversity of the African continent and her people. The narrative does comes from a white historian's perspective so it is not terribly nuanced. Less a criticism than a fact.
4 stars. Very solid.
June 10, 2019
'Like Laying Down a Track in Front of an Oncoming Express'
The Fate of Africa is a monumental survey of Africa's modern post-colonial history. It reads like a political play-by-play of the rise and fall of a series of African leaders presented chronologically in loose 'generations.' But, the reader will not lose sight of the fact that this work is a textbook level presentation of the continent's current state of affairs. And, it is huge, both in size and impact.
To clarify up front the reason for my rating of four stars, though it is an essential work on understanding Africa today, and it flows in a highly readable format; it would benefit from a few basic tables presenting an overview of some of the reams of information presented. For example: a table of leaders of the different countries would be a huge benefit. And, it is somewhat lacking in structural helps such as an introduction and conclusion. So, the quip the author includes about the Gold Coast Experiment (which I made the title of my review) holds true for this book as well. The reader will find himself on an express train around and around the continent as tracks are laid in every country.
I think this style of writing history serves the purpose well in this case. Though it was a whirlwind ride, I learned an immense amount of history in a relatively short time. The book begins with the first generation of leaders who take over as the nations achieve their independence from colonial leaders. It points out the fact that the continent's own native leadership had been exterminated. Many individuals who were protesting colonial indignities were imprisoned to quash rebellions. So, by the time colonialists handed over government control, it usually meant releasing the elected president from prison.
From there, the author follows waves of corrupt dictatorial leaders who never step down willingly, nor allow anyone to run against them, while siphoning as much wealth into their offshore accounts as possible. Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya, Felix Houphouet-Boigny in Cote d'Ivoire, Kasa Vubu, and then Mobutu in the Congo, and many more leaders fill the pages. Leopold Senghor in Senegal, a poet, was the first African ruler to voluntarily give up power for an election.
I was entranced and then shocked to hear the story of the reign and end of Ethiopia's Haile Selassie. The book covers famine, disease, revolts, coups, and revolutions; the 'too little/ too late' intervention of the UN & US in Somalia, the Arab Spring, the Rwandan Genocide, and other events of these decades. I also was mesmerized by the story of Nelson Mandela. Needless to say, I highly recommend this book as a basic macro account of modern African history.
I read this for my stop in Cameroon on my Journey Around the World in 80 Books for 2019. But, there is much about every country on the continent. I started with the Audible and a hardback copy from the library, but quickly downloaded the Kindle for the search features. The Audible is narrated well. And, the Kindle solves the problem of the lack of charts somewhat. Both the hardback and the Kindle include numerous photos that are intriguing. My next stop is Gabon.
The Fate of Africa is a monumental survey of Africa's modern post-colonial history. It reads like a political play-by-play of the rise and fall of a series of African leaders presented chronologically in loose 'generations.' But, the reader will not lose sight of the fact that this work is a textbook level presentation of the continent's current state of affairs. And, it is huge, both in size and impact.
To clarify up front the reason for my rating of four stars, though it is an essential work on understanding Africa today, and it flows in a highly readable format; it would benefit from a few basic tables presenting an overview of some of the reams of information presented. For example: a table of leaders of the different countries would be a huge benefit. And, it is somewhat lacking in structural helps such as an introduction and conclusion. So, the quip the author includes about the Gold Coast Experiment (which I made the title of my review) holds true for this book as well. The reader will find himself on an express train around and around the continent as tracks are laid in every country.
"By the end of the 1980s, not a single African head of state in three decades had allowed himself to be voted out of office. Of some 150 heads of state who had trodden the African stage, only six had voluntarily relinquished power. They included Senegal’s Léopold Senghor, after twenty years in office; Cameroon’s Ahmadu Ahidjo, after twenty-two years in office; and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, after twenty-three years in office."
"Benin thus became the first African state in which the army was forced from power by civilians and the first in which an incumbent president was defeated at the polls."
I think this style of writing history serves the purpose well in this case. Though it was a whirlwind ride, I learned an immense amount of history in a relatively short time. The book begins with the first generation of leaders who take over as the nations achieve their independence from colonial leaders. It points out the fact that the continent's own native leadership had been exterminated. Many individuals who were protesting colonial indignities were imprisoned to quash rebellions. So, by the time colonialists handed over government control, it usually meant releasing the elected president from prison.
"It was to become a familiar experience for British governors in Africa to have to Come to terms with nationalist politicians whom they had previously regarded as extremist agitators."
From there, the author follows waves of corrupt dictatorial leaders who never step down willingly, nor allow anyone to run against them, while siphoning as much wealth into their offshore accounts as possible. Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya, Felix Houphouet-Boigny in Cote d'Ivoire, Kasa Vubu, and then Mobutu in the Congo, and many more leaders fill the pages. Leopold Senghor in Senegal, a poet, was the first African ruler to voluntarily give up power for an election.
"The loss of so many productive adults through illness and death had a profound impact on every level of society, leaving households and communities struggling to cope with a stream of orphans and cutting into national reservoirs of skilled personnel – teachers, doctors, nurses, administrators and industrial workers."
"Botswana stands out as a unique example of an enduring multiparty democracy with a record of sound economic management, that has used its diamond riches for national advancement and maintained an administration free of corruption."
I was entranced and then shocked to hear the story of the reign and end of Ethiopia's Haile Selassie. The book covers famine, disease, revolts, coups, and revolutions; the 'too little/ too late' intervention of the UN & US in Somalia, the Arab Spring, the Rwandan Genocide, and other events of these decades. I also was mesmerized by the story of Nelson Mandela. Needless to say, I highly recommend this book as a basic macro account of modern African history.
"Some $850 billion of Western aid has been sunk into Africa, but with little discernible result."
"Although Africa possesses enormous mineral wealth, its entire economic output is less than 2 per cent of world GDP."
I read this for my stop in Cameroon on my Journey Around the World in 80 Books for 2019. But, there is much about every country on the continent. I started with the Audible and a hardback copy from the library, but quickly downloaded the Kindle for the search features. The Audible is narrated well. And, the Kindle solves the problem of the lack of charts somewhat. Both the hardback and the Kindle include numerous photos that are intriguing. My next stop is Gabon.
April 10, 2016
The author tries to argue that colonialism in Africa ended sooner than it should have. It neglects two facts one that colonialism should not have happened in the first place because it short circuited the development process that was already taking place albeit at a slow pace. Secondly he glosses over the atrocities of colonialism, the looting of African wealth, the beheadings, mental colonialism and social disintegration. He then presents the mistakes of post colonial African governments as a failure of Africans to lead themselves ignoring the ever present neo colonial sword of Damocles that these leaders have had to contend with. You will learn nothing about Africa by reading this book. In Zimbabwe, the land reform program is producing more food than was produced by the colonial farmers and this is despite the racist sanctions and economic sabotage by the white power structure.
What is indeed true as reflected in the book and of Africa in general, is that the colonial governments mostly transferred power to former collaborators who ensured that the colonial state structure remained intact and continued to service the interests of the masters rather than their people. The struggle for power that followed was more about personal privilege not about the peasant and certainly no developmental ideology. There is however a need to understand whether these leaders were driven by ill-motive at the onset or were overwhelmed by the challenges they faced?
African leaders are awaking up to the need to free their people from exploitation but the challenges to the nationalistic programs, the external debt burden, huge skills deficit and the naysayers like Meredith makes it difficult to attain Asian levels of transformation in a short time.
In conclusion, this book is misleading because it creates an impression that despite the good will from the world at large to uplift the African continent from the current situation, the Africans are an “unhelpable” lot. The white man’s burden.
What is indeed true as reflected in the book and of Africa in general, is that the colonial governments mostly transferred power to former collaborators who ensured that the colonial state structure remained intact and continued to service the interests of the masters rather than their people. The struggle for power that followed was more about personal privilege not about the peasant and certainly no developmental ideology. There is however a need to understand whether these leaders were driven by ill-motive at the onset or were overwhelmed by the challenges they faced?
African leaders are awaking up to the need to free their people from exploitation but the challenges to the nationalistic programs, the external debt burden, huge skills deficit and the naysayers like Meredith makes it difficult to attain Asian levels of transformation in a short time.
In conclusion, this book is misleading because it creates an impression that despite the good will from the world at large to uplift the African continent from the current situation, the Africans are an “unhelpable” lot. The white man’s burden.
December 19, 2011
A great history reference but gets stuck on the narrative of Africa being so victimized that it neglects the hope somewhere in there and intentionally or not, seems to throw its hands up in surrender. And maybe that's part of the point of the book, but I refuse to believe that an entire continent and its people are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the colonists and corrupt governments over and over again. It's likely unfair of me to judge it based on that since the author specifically points out what time periods he was writing about, but I had such a strong reaction to the book's determination to paint the continent as a pit of misery -- and I'm in no way denying or minimizing that many regions of the continent have been witness to unimaginable horror due to its colonial past and corrupt governments -- but there's light there too, and it's to the book's detriment that it ignores that throughout its entirety.
May 11, 2014
A pitifully biased synopsis. Reading this was likened to a government social worker scolding its recipient. It troubles me that Mr. Meredith summarizes this continent so bleakly. I wonder if he would recommend re colonization as a solution. The real issue here is not how corrupt some of these governments have been, but why has corruption been so profitable. It is easy to conclude failure when that is what the money giver expects. I implore those reading this to also look into the developments and projects in Africa now funded by non colonial powers.
Progress can be made when it is expected.
Progress can be made when it is expected.
January 30, 2008
I went into this knowing little about Africa's history, whether before or after independence; now I have a better idea about the political events that followed the latter. The author, Martin Meredith, focuses on this angle more than any other. Focusing on one state at a time, he establishes the conditions of the state on the eve of independence, then describes the action of the leaders that took power and the subsequent consequences. Given that nearly every leader took full control of executive affairs and hijacked the economy, this means that much of Meredith's narrative follows a depressing pattern. This is not a happy read.
At first, I had trouble understanding how individuals, however charismatic or terrible they were, could damage entire states for decades on end before being deposed by old age or uprising. How, I kept asking myself, could anyone put up with such abuse for so long? Then it occurred to me that I don't understand the countless African tribes and their history well enough to even begin to ask that question. I need to learn more, and while this book was a good starting point, I will have to seek out others to do so.
I do recommend this to casual readers of history and those desiring to learn more about a country they know little about. This is written by a Westerner with an approach and structure that Westerner's can readily relate to. Meredith's choice to focus on one state at a time was a wise one, and allows the reader a chance to cover Africa's complicated territory one piece at a time.
I am very glad that I read this.
At first, I had trouble understanding how individuals, however charismatic or terrible they were, could damage entire states for decades on end before being deposed by old age or uprising. How, I kept asking myself, could anyone put up with such abuse for so long? Then it occurred to me that I don't understand the countless African tribes and their history well enough to even begin to ask that question. I need to learn more, and while this book was a good starting point, I will have to seek out others to do so.
I do recommend this to casual readers of history and those desiring to learn more about a country they know little about. This is written by a Westerner with an approach and structure that Westerner's can readily relate to. Meredith's choice to focus on one state at a time was a wise one, and allows the reader a chance to cover Africa's complicated territory one piece at a time.
I am very glad that I read this.
January 8, 2010
This book covers African states from independence to the present in a fairly straightforward narrative. Political instability is stressed to the point that a more appropriate title might be "What Went Wrong in Africa". The story is told in a generally matter-of-fact, journalistic style and concentrates on failed states. By concentrating on the coups and dictatorships the book leaves out important and possibly revealing counter-examples. Botswana, for example, enjoyed decades of stable democracy and economic growth before the HIV pandemic began to affect the economy. Was this the result of demographics, their path to independence, relationships with other countries, or something else? What about Equatorial Guinea and Gabon? Leaving out the relatively successful African states makes understanding the failures very difficult.
I also find it surprising that Africa's massive health problems (AIDS, malaria, etc) are hardly mentioned. I find it difficult to believe that the last 20 years of African political history can be understood without taking such immense economic forces into account.
I also find it surprising that Africa's massive health problems (AIDS, malaria, etc) are hardly mentioned. I find it difficult to believe that the last 20 years of African political history can be understood without taking such immense economic forces into account.
December 11, 2018
This is a very large book and goes over the history of many African countries since independence in the 50's and 60's. Very depressing. Bottom line is that corruption has quickly taken hold of almost all of the new nations (and S. Africa and Rhodesia after white rule was ended) and robbed the people of any chance to succeed in the world. The story is repeated ad nauseum. "Big Men" take over, drag their cronies with them, loot the economy and send profits to personal overseas bank accounts, all the while blaming the western neo-colonial powers for their plight. There is plenty of blame to go around for the western powers, but this book focuses on the African side of the equation. It briefly mentions that China is moving in and getting influence by being deliberately anti-political (in other words, supporting the cronies) and seen as a non-meddling super-power.
October 19, 2017
Excellent crash course on African history. I was sceptical at first - even considering the considerable length of the book - 700 pages - it seemed impossible to cover the whole continent in one book. Nevertheless, instead of trotting through each country one by one, the author managed to logically link the events in different countries, draw parallels and point out differences. This made it much easier to see the bigger picture.
What I did miss though was the story of Botswana - despite brief references to its unique success in development and democracy, there was not much written on it. Would have loved to get better insight into the background and reasons of Botswana's success.
What I did miss though was the story of Botswana - despite brief references to its unique success in development and democracy, there was not much written on it. Would have loved to get better insight into the background and reasons of Botswana's success.
January 28, 2019
Meredith's journalistic style makes his excellent historical account more readable, even if his subject matter is extremely difficult to digest. Other books may provide more detail, but this is the only book I've found that gives insightful overviews into what has happened across countries in Africa. I would like to own a copy myself to use as a reference for future consultation. After reading the entire work cover to cover, I had to ruminate on it a bit before I was able to pull together these thoughts.
The centerpiece of Africa's degradation is revealed to be it's own governments, or rather the megalomaniac leaders who gained control, and their hang ons that form elite classes, for the accumulation of wealth and power. After reading Tokunboh Adeyemo’s “Is Africa Cursed?” (see my review at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I have started to see this mismanagement as a continuation of traditional practices, rather than an aberration. It almost seems that Africa’s traditional patchwork kingdoms limited the impact of militaristic and/or greed driven rulers. The accelerated nationalism of post-colonialism (along boundaries that did not consider previous ethic or jurisdictional designations) created a breeding ground for nihilistic rulers to consume their own kingdoms. Starting with a minuscule amount of intellectual assets, these despots eliminated the educated, democratic minded, skilled professionals upon whom successful modernization would have been dependent by either forcing them (the lucky ones) into exile or simply killing them, to consolidate their own power.
Numerous wars were fought, with outside sustenance by foreign powers (specifically, the UK, USA, France and Russia, as well as regional powers within Africa) both in hopes of freeing countries from tyranny and in promoting the interests of said former powers. The French come out looking horrible, the Russians opaquely culpable, the US a bit better (probably due to lack of colonial responsibility), and the English somewhat pragmatically principled (which could be colored by the author’s English descent). Billions of dollars of humanitarian aide are showered upon Africa by the western powers, particularly the US and Europeans, not to mention the lives and livelihoods of the missionary population and aide professionals. Additionally, investors the world over gamble on emerging countries time and again. All of these well meaning individuals and entities eventually have to face the challenge of either supporting the tyrants or losing their ministry, investment or aide portal via failure to comply. And those that do accommodate, et cetera are eventually disenfranchised by changing schemes of the tyrants to further enhance their control (such as nationalizing or de-nationalizing utilities, mines, etc.). Relief for the destitute is ultimately inhibited by the sovereignty of African states held captive by own their rulers. Millions have perished. Millions more suffer.
I have come to believe there are three segments to the challenge of Africa, though I cannot determine the weight of each factor. Colonialism obviously comes to mind, and the continuing world system that favors the stronger countries and locks out African competition in the global market (I found this discussion on pages 684-687 to be very interesting and wish I understood it better), as well as inhibits Africa's ability to procure life saving medications. Africans, however, those in government and those who help them retain power, are also part of the challenge. The injustice runs deep. The revival of South Africa stands out as the only country able to even begin binding it’s deep wounds and end the warring among factions, though the current leadership appears to lack the wisdom of Mandela who started the peace process. Finally, there is the natural factor. While Africa is blessed with tremendous natural resources, disease, drought, and extreme climates have all played their part in the devastation of the continent.
Amidst all of this, two things stand out to me; 1) Is the struggle of Africa really unique? Surely Europe went through it’s difficult ages of war, horrible rulers with absolute power, plague and devastation. The US had the colossal struggle of the Civil War, Asian and South African kingdoms have risen and fallen, many or most of which were not known for servanthood toward their subjects. And while history has preserved the story of the elite with greater clarity, the reality is that most people in the history of this world defined success as mere survival. For thousands of years there has been a struggle between good and evil, selfish indulgence of leaders and the needs of the people, health and disease, life and death, peace and war. Truly the wickedness of sin is confined neither to a single time nor place. I’m not trying to minimize the magnitude of Africa’s challenges, or deny the need for action, but to put in perspective humanity’s recurrent penchant for evil’s enticements and the reverberating affect this has on people and government throughout the ages.
And, 2) Can anyone really deny the innate human capability for evil, Biblically known as sin? Honestly? A debate that even contemplates the possibility man could be innately good seems the luxury of individuals preserved by the triumph of good over evil in previous generations. The cruelty of injustice is vivid in the story of Africa. The thoughts of Elizabeth van Lew, a southern woman who spied for the Union during the Civil War have come back to me. Her observation of the corrosive affect of injustice on the OPPRESSOR, as well as the oppressed was so insightful. While it may appear that some are weak and overcome while others are strong and triumphant, Van Lew hit upon the destructive impact of injustice upon all individuals in society. In the end game, the weak may lose their lives, but the strong lose their souls as well as threaten the prosperity of future generations by bringing about the collapse of the society they seek to dominate. While she was locked in the struggle of the Civil War in the USA, I think her wisdom also applies to the current state of Africa.
"Succession represented for Van Lew... both a catastrophe and an epiphany.
Van Lew's critique of slavery, forged in the firestorm of secession, was a cost accounting of the price white Southerners paid to maintain the system of human bondage. Slavery, she attested, had made Southern whites anti-democratic, coercive, intellectually backward, and dangerously self-righteous... Van Lew wrote, "Slave power is arrogant-- is jealous, and intrusive-- is cruel -- is despotic." Until the secession crisis, she had taken refuge, as so many "gradualists" did, in the notion that time was on the side of slavery's opponents -- that "slave power was losing strength before the increasing influence of honest and enlightened free labor."
But secession illustrated just how far slavery's partisans were willing to go to maintain their power [willing to fight a war, demanding independence from the Union, intimidating any who dared speak moderately against the absolute assertion that slavery, under the guise of rights of state, must be maintained:]. Watching helplessly as moderate Virginia politicians... were ushered off the political stage [by being minimized or imprisoned:], Van concluded that "slave power crushes freedom of speech and opinion." She was appalled to see how quickly the press and the pulpit were co-opted by the disunionists... The "Origin of Secession," Van Lew was convinced, lay in the "false teaching-- false preaching-- corrupt press" of the "slave power"."
— Elizabeth Varon, "Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew…”
Is Africa Cursed?, Adeyemo, 2009
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew, Varon, 2005
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The centerpiece of Africa's degradation is revealed to be it's own governments, or rather the megalomaniac leaders who gained control, and their hang ons that form elite classes, for the accumulation of wealth and power. After reading Tokunboh Adeyemo’s “Is Africa Cursed?” (see my review at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I have started to see this mismanagement as a continuation of traditional practices, rather than an aberration. It almost seems that Africa’s traditional patchwork kingdoms limited the impact of militaristic and/or greed driven rulers. The accelerated nationalism of post-colonialism (along boundaries that did not consider previous ethic or jurisdictional designations) created a breeding ground for nihilistic rulers to consume their own kingdoms. Starting with a minuscule amount of intellectual assets, these despots eliminated the educated, democratic minded, skilled professionals upon whom successful modernization would have been dependent by either forcing them (the lucky ones) into exile or simply killing them, to consolidate their own power.
Numerous wars were fought, with outside sustenance by foreign powers (specifically, the UK, USA, France and Russia, as well as regional powers within Africa) both in hopes of freeing countries from tyranny and in promoting the interests of said former powers. The French come out looking horrible, the Russians opaquely culpable, the US a bit better (probably due to lack of colonial responsibility), and the English somewhat pragmatically principled (which could be colored by the author’s English descent). Billions of dollars of humanitarian aide are showered upon Africa by the western powers, particularly the US and Europeans, not to mention the lives and livelihoods of the missionary population and aide professionals. Additionally, investors the world over gamble on emerging countries time and again. All of these well meaning individuals and entities eventually have to face the challenge of either supporting the tyrants or losing their ministry, investment or aide portal via failure to comply. And those that do accommodate, et cetera are eventually disenfranchised by changing schemes of the tyrants to further enhance their control (such as nationalizing or de-nationalizing utilities, mines, etc.). Relief for the destitute is ultimately inhibited by the sovereignty of African states held captive by own their rulers. Millions have perished. Millions more suffer.
I have come to believe there are three segments to the challenge of Africa, though I cannot determine the weight of each factor. Colonialism obviously comes to mind, and the continuing world system that favors the stronger countries and locks out African competition in the global market (I found this discussion on pages 684-687 to be very interesting and wish I understood it better), as well as inhibits Africa's ability to procure life saving medications. Africans, however, those in government and those who help them retain power, are also part of the challenge. The injustice runs deep. The revival of South Africa stands out as the only country able to even begin binding it’s deep wounds and end the warring among factions, though the current leadership appears to lack the wisdom of Mandela who started the peace process. Finally, there is the natural factor. While Africa is blessed with tremendous natural resources, disease, drought, and extreme climates have all played their part in the devastation of the continent.
Amidst all of this, two things stand out to me; 1) Is the struggle of Africa really unique? Surely Europe went through it’s difficult ages of war, horrible rulers with absolute power, plague and devastation. The US had the colossal struggle of the Civil War, Asian and South African kingdoms have risen and fallen, many or most of which were not known for servanthood toward their subjects. And while history has preserved the story of the elite with greater clarity, the reality is that most people in the history of this world defined success as mere survival. For thousands of years there has been a struggle between good and evil, selfish indulgence of leaders and the needs of the people, health and disease, life and death, peace and war. Truly the wickedness of sin is confined neither to a single time nor place. I’m not trying to minimize the magnitude of Africa’s challenges, or deny the need for action, but to put in perspective humanity’s recurrent penchant for evil’s enticements and the reverberating affect this has on people and government throughout the ages.
And, 2) Can anyone really deny the innate human capability for evil, Biblically known as sin? Honestly? A debate that even contemplates the possibility man could be innately good seems the luxury of individuals preserved by the triumph of good over evil in previous generations. The cruelty of injustice is vivid in the story of Africa. The thoughts of Elizabeth van Lew, a southern woman who spied for the Union during the Civil War have come back to me. Her observation of the corrosive affect of injustice on the OPPRESSOR, as well as the oppressed was so insightful. While it may appear that some are weak and overcome while others are strong and triumphant, Van Lew hit upon the destructive impact of injustice upon all individuals in society. In the end game, the weak may lose their lives, but the strong lose their souls as well as threaten the prosperity of future generations by bringing about the collapse of the society they seek to dominate. While she was locked in the struggle of the Civil War in the USA, I think her wisdom also applies to the current state of Africa.
"Succession represented for Van Lew... both a catastrophe and an epiphany.
Van Lew's critique of slavery, forged in the firestorm of secession, was a cost accounting of the price white Southerners paid to maintain the system of human bondage. Slavery, she attested, had made Southern whites anti-democratic, coercive, intellectually backward, and dangerously self-righteous... Van Lew wrote, "Slave power is arrogant-- is jealous, and intrusive-- is cruel -- is despotic." Until the secession crisis, she had taken refuge, as so many "gradualists" did, in the notion that time was on the side of slavery's opponents -- that "slave power was losing strength before the increasing influence of honest and enlightened free labor."
But secession illustrated just how far slavery's partisans were willing to go to maintain their power [willing to fight a war, demanding independence from the Union, intimidating any who dared speak moderately against the absolute assertion that slavery, under the guise of rights of state, must be maintained:]. Watching helplessly as moderate Virginia politicians... were ushered off the political stage [by being minimized or imprisoned:], Van concluded that "slave power crushes freedom of speech and opinion." She was appalled to see how quickly the press and the pulpit were co-opted by the disunionists... The "Origin of Secession," Van Lew was convinced, lay in the "false teaching-- false preaching-- corrupt press" of the "slave power"."
— Elizabeth Varon, "Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew…”
Is Africa Cursed?, Adeyemo, 2009
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Southern Lady, Yankee Spy: The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew, Varon, 2005
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
August 28, 2020
The State of Africa is a large book, both in its page count (the version I have is ~860 pages) and the scope of the material covered.
It is (as the subtitle indicates) a history of the continent of Africa after the end of Colonialism, and the 19th century Scramble for Africa .
Author Martin Meredith goes through most of the countries, and the book moves in a somewhat chronological fashion.
Although The State of Africa covers many dozens of different countries, the stories it tells have common threads that tie them together. The book is replete with almost endless tales of warlords seizing political power, violent insurgencies, ideological conflict, civil war, massive corruption, murder, mass-murder, rape, genocide, ethnic violence, cannibalism and blood rituals, among other features of daily African life...
The post-colonial governments and societies of African countries are the most dysfunctional in the world. Hearing about the mass atrocities that fill the recent history of this continent was honestly mind-boggling.
In the post-Colonial era of Africa, a period of Big Man Rule began to take hold in many different countries. The term refers to corrupt, autocratic and often totalitarian rule of countries by a single person. Meredith covers many of the "Big Men" here.
Meredith drops this quote, near the end of the book, telling Africans to get their collective shit together. I agree:
The State of Africa was a very comprehensive, well-research, written, formatted, and presented book. The writing here is very good. Meredith writes with an engaging style, that doesn't struggle to hold the reader's attention; this is a common problem in many of the history books I've read...
The State of Africa also makes for great reference material, and I would recommend it to anyone interested.
4.5 stars.
It is (as the subtitle indicates) a history of the continent of Africa after the end of Colonialism, and the 19th century Scramble for Africa .
Author Martin Meredith goes through most of the countries, and the book moves in a somewhat chronological fashion.
Although The State of Africa covers many dozens of different countries, the stories it tells have common threads that tie them together. The book is replete with almost endless tales of warlords seizing political power, violent insurgencies, ideological conflict, civil war, massive corruption, murder, mass-murder, rape, genocide, ethnic violence, cannibalism and blood rituals, among other features of daily African life...
The post-colonial governments and societies of African countries are the most dysfunctional in the world. Hearing about the mass atrocities that fill the recent history of this continent was honestly mind-boggling.
In the post-Colonial era of Africa, a period of Big Man Rule began to take hold in many different countries. The term refers to corrupt, autocratic and often totalitarian rule of countries by a single person. Meredith covers many of the "Big Men" here.
Meredith drops this quote, near the end of the book, telling Africans to get their collective shit together. I agree:
"...Yet however much foreign aid is pumped into Africa – whether from China or from the West – it provides no lasting solution. For the sum of Africa’s misfortunes over the past half-century – its wars, its despotisms, its corruption, its droughts, its everyday violence – presents a crisis of far greater magnitude.
At the core of the crisis is the failure of African leaders to provide effective government. Few countries have experienced wise or competent leadership."
The State of Africa was a very comprehensive, well-research, written, formatted, and presented book. The writing here is very good. Meredith writes with an engaging style, that doesn't struggle to hold the reader's attention; this is a common problem in many of the history books I've read...
The State of Africa also makes for great reference material, and I would recommend it to anyone interested.
4.5 stars.
December 2, 2023
" সব ঠাঁই মোর ঘর আছে,
আমি সেই ঘর লব যুঝিয়া,
দেশে দেশে মোর ঘর আছে,
আমি সেই ঘর লব খুঁজিয়া!"
ইতিহাস আদতে একটা গল্প। অতীতের গল্প, বর্তমানের গল্প, ভবিষ্যতের আশাবাদ। এই গল্প মানুষের, এই গল্প এই মহাবিশ্বের প্রতিটা বস্তকণার। যার সাথে আমাদের মায়ার বন্ধন, চলার পথের অনিবার্য অনুষঙ্গ। তাই, A historty of something ( এ ক্ষেত্রে The Fate of africa) দিয়ে লেখক সেই সুদূর কালো মানুষগুলির সাথে মায়ার বন্ধন পেতেছেন।
বইটা কিন্তু যাকে বলে পণ্ডিতি চালের বই৷ মেরিডিথ আদতে একজন সাংবাদিক, বইটাও তাই নিউজ রিপোর্টের মত পড়তে। পণ্ডিতি, কিন্তু সহজপাচ্য।
১৯৬০ সালে ঘানার পর ১৯৭০ এর মধ্যেই আফ্রিকার ছোটবড় দেশগুলি স্বাধীনতা লাভ করে। এরপর?? সেই গল্পই শুনিয়েছেন মেরিডিথ আমাদের। স্বাধীনতা অর্জনের চেয়ে স্বাধীনতা রক্ষা করা কেন যে কঠিন, সে কথাই বই পড়তে গিয়ে বারবার উপলব্ধি করলাম।
ভূপ্রকৃতির ইতিহাস, প্রভাব, দোষেগুণে ভরা মানুষের অস্তিত্ব,সংগ্রাম ও প্রভাব, রাজনীতি, অর্থনীতি সবকিছুই খুবই অথেন্টিক ভাষায় মেরিডিথ লিখে গেছেন আমাদের জন্য, আমরা, যারা আফ্রিকার সাথে দূরতম সম্পর্কেও সম্প��্কিত নই, তাদের জন্য।
উঠে এসেছে ঘানার স্বাধীনতা সংগ্রামের কথা, অত্যাচারী ফারুকের বিরুদ্ধে গামাল নাসেরের অভ্যুত্থান এর গল্প, কঙ্গোর স্বাধীনতার গল্প, আলজেরিয়ার গেরিলাদের গল্প, আরব বসন্তের গল্প, ইউরোপীয় শাসনের গল্প।
অতীত, বর্তমান এর গল্প শেষে, লেখক আমাদের শুনিয়েছেন আশার বাণীও। একদিন..হ্যাঁ..একদিন....তারপর দীর্ঘনিশ্বাস ফেলে বলেছেন, আলো আসবেই..
"ভোর হয়নি, আজ হবে না,
কাল হবে কিনা, তাও জানি না;
পরশু ভোর, ঠিক আসবে,
এই আশাবাদ আমাদের।"
নেহাত পন্ডিতি চালের বই থেকেও উঠে এসেছে ওই পশ্চাদপদ, কালো মানুষগুলির জন্য অপরিসীম দরদ, অনুভূতিলব্ধ ভালোবাসা।
বইটা পড়তে পড়তে আমার সম্রাজ্ঞীর সাথে কথা হচ্ছিল। তিনি বলছিলেন, যা কাজে লাগে না, তা কেন পড়েন? জানি, হয়ত কাজে লাগবে না৷ কিন্তু কি জানেন, একটা বই একটা বোধ জন্ম দেয়। ফিকশন নয়, বানিয়ে বলা নয়, ৮১৬ পৃষ্ঠার বিশাল বড় বইটা শেষ করেছি ওই বোধের জন্যই। কালো, গরীব, মানবেতর জীবনযাপন করা ওই লাল রক্তের প্রাণীগুলির জন্যই!
দেশে দেশে, কালে কালে, সকল সংগ্রামী মানুষের সাথে নিজের যোগসূত্র খুঁজে পাওয়া সকল ভালো খারাপ, উচিত অনুচিত, যুদ্ধ ও শান্তির দূতদের, সর্বোপরি বিশ্বমানবতার জন্য সশ্রদ্ধ আভূমিনত প্রণাম।
"যে মোরে করেছে পথের বিবাগী,
পথে পথে আমি ফিরি তার লাগি,
......
আপন করিতে কাদিঁয়া বেড়াই,
যে মোরে করেছে পর!"
আমি সেই ঘর লব যুঝিয়া,
দেশে দেশে মোর ঘর আছে,
আমি সেই ঘর লব খুঁজিয়া!"
ইতিহাস আদতে একটা গল্প। অতীতের গল্প, বর্তমানের গল্প, ভবিষ্যতের আশাবাদ। এই গল্প মানুষের, এই গল্প এই মহাবিশ্বের প্রতিটা বস্তকণার। যার সাথে আমাদের মায়ার বন্ধন, চলার পথের অনিবার্য অনুষঙ্গ। তাই, A historty of something ( এ ক্ষেত্রে The Fate of africa) দিয়ে লেখক সেই সুদূর কালো মানুষগুলির সাথে মায়ার বন্ধন পেতেছেন।
বইটা কিন্তু যাকে বলে পণ্ডিতি চালের বই৷ মেরিডিথ আদতে একজন সাংবাদিক, বইটাও তাই নিউজ রিপোর্টের মত পড়তে। পণ্ডিতি, কিন্তু সহজপাচ্য।
১৯৬০ সালে ঘানার পর ১৯৭০ এর মধ্যেই আফ্রিকার ছোটবড় দেশগুলি স্বাধীনতা লাভ করে। এরপর?? সেই গল্পই শুনিয়েছেন মেরিডিথ আমাদের। স্বাধীনতা অর্জনের চেয়ে স্বাধীনতা রক্ষা করা কেন যে কঠিন, সে কথাই বই পড়তে গিয়ে বারবার উপলব্ধি করলাম।
ভূপ্রকৃতির ইতিহাস, প্রভাব, দোষেগুণে ভরা মানুষের অস্তিত্ব,সংগ্রাম ও প্রভাব, রাজনীতি, অর্থনীতি সবকিছুই খুবই অথেন্টিক ভাষায় মেরিডিথ লিখে গেছেন আমাদের জন্য, আমরা, যারা আফ্রিকার সাথে দূরতম সম্পর্কেও সম্প��্কিত নই, তাদের জন্য।
উঠে এসেছে ঘানার স্বাধীনতা সংগ্রামের কথা, অত্যাচারী ফারুকের বিরুদ্ধে গামাল নাসেরের অভ্যুত্থান এর গল্প, কঙ্গোর স্বাধীনতার গল্প, আলজেরিয়ার গেরিলাদের গল্প, আরব বসন্তের গল্প, ইউরোপীয় শাসনের গল্প।
অতীত, বর্তমান এর গল্প শেষে, লেখক আমাদের শুনিয়েছেন আশার বাণীও। একদিন..হ্যাঁ..একদিন....তারপর দীর্ঘনিশ্বাস ফেলে বলেছেন, আলো আসবেই..
"ভোর হয়নি, আজ হবে না,
কাল হবে কিনা, তাও জানি না;
পরশু ভোর, ঠিক আসবে,
এই আশাবাদ আমাদের।"
নেহাত পন্ডিতি চালের বই থেকেও উঠে এসেছে ওই পশ্চাদপদ, কালো মানুষগুলির জন্য অপরিসীম দরদ, অনুভূতিলব্ধ ভালোবাসা।
বইটা পড়তে পড়তে আমার সম্রাজ্ঞীর সাথে কথা হচ্ছিল। তিনি বলছিলেন, যা কাজে লাগে না, তা কেন পড়েন? জানি, হয়ত কাজে লাগবে না৷ কিন্তু কি জানেন, একটা বই একটা বোধ জন্ম দেয়। ফিকশন নয়, বানিয়ে বলা নয়, ৮১৬ পৃষ্ঠার বিশাল বড় বইটা শেষ করেছি ওই বোধের জন্যই। কালো, গরীব, মানবেতর জীবনযাপন করা ওই লাল রক্তের প্রাণীগুলির জন্যই!
দেশে দেশে, কালে কালে, সকল সংগ্রামী মানুষের সাথে নিজের যোগসূত্র খুঁজে পাওয়া সকল ভালো খারাপ, উচিত অনুচিত, যুদ্ধ ও শান্তির দূতদের, সর্বোপরি বিশ্বমানবতার জন্য সশ্রদ্ধ আভূমিনত প্রণাম।
"যে মোরে করেছে পথের বিবাগী,
পথে পথে আমি ফিরি তার লাগি,
......
আপন করিতে কাদিঁয়া বেড়াই,
যে মোরে করেছে পর!"
January 8, 2019
I am amazed at how Meredith was able to put this book together in a way that made it half-way readable, taking into account all the different countries involved. What a task! But he does an admirable job, incredible research, and if some parts the reader finds too detailed, well he can skip that and go on. Generally speaking, it is a pretty sobering read. There was so much energy and hope evolving when the African countries, one after another, gained their independence, but the great majority of them ended up with corrupt, greedy and extremely brutal governments. Some would be tempted to say they were better off under colonial power...It is true that with all the wealth they have from land and natural resources, they should be much better off than they are. What is it that blocks them? Is it because there were, from the very beginning, so many diffrent tribes and languages? I compare them in this way, for example, to England, which had English as the official common language since around the year 1000, which was similar for most other European countries. One could also speculate that a similar situation existed in North America before the Europeans arrived (that is, many different tribes with many different languages).
This is a must read for anyone wanting to get a grip on the history of Africa from the era of independance until recent times.
This is a must read for anyone wanting to get a grip on the history of Africa from the era of independance until recent times.
October 3, 2013
puzzle: why is it called the state of africa in britain and the fate of africa in the united states?
a totally fine run through of major developments in african politics since independence. because it is mostly a narrative of the proximate causes of political events (X dude overthrew X dude), it privileges leadership-focused explanations.
its long but I kind of wish it was a bit longer.
three takeaways:
1 - its difficult to distinguish between poor leadership (incompetence, incapacity) and malicious leadership (corruption, abuse), but they often fuel each other.
2 - there is very little correlation between the stated ideology of a leader and the outcome of their rule.
3 - personal wealth and the the trappings of power are often much more important to leaders than actual material power over their people. leaders often chose the former at the expense of developing the latter.
a totally fine run through of major developments in african politics since independence. because it is mostly a narrative of the proximate causes of political events (X dude overthrew X dude), it privileges leadership-focused explanations.
its long but I kind of wish it was a bit longer.
three takeaways:
1 - its difficult to distinguish between poor leadership (incompetence, incapacity) and malicious leadership (corruption, abuse), but they often fuel each other.
2 - there is very little correlation between the stated ideology of a leader and the outcome of their rule.
3 - personal wealth and the the trappings of power are often much more important to leaders than actual material power over their people. leaders often chose the former at the expense of developing the latter.
December 1, 2021
I would give this 3.5 rather than 3. It is an interesting and ambitious project to boil about 70 years of history of an entire continent into one book. The issue was the wild inconsistencies of the chapters. Some chapters were very interesting and shed light on topics that I have briefly read about. Others were 50 pages of the same exact thing, just in different counties. That really affected my view of this work. I think that Mr. Meredith could have achieved the same effect of what he was trying to get across if he talked about themes and highlighted examples from different countries. A great effort, and a good history, especially when he ties world affairs to the African governments. However, there were moments that just dragged on that could have been condensed.
June 3, 2022
The book is well researched and quite a gloomy read. It presents a history of mismanagement and corruption, and a bleak future.
It is somewhat difficult for someone not very familiar with the history of Africa to follow all the details and history of the specific countries. I would maybe have preferred a more focus around themes, although this is attempted.
I am also missing some discussion about the validity of discussing the “History of Africa”. Is this then neglecting the differences between countries? In comparison, I think a reaching a conclusion of “The history of Europe” that encompasses both Norway and Moldova to be futile. I don’t know to what degree this is similar in Africa, but I lack some discussion around it.
It is somewhat difficult for someone not very familiar with the history of Africa to follow all the details and history of the specific countries. I would maybe have preferred a more focus around themes, although this is attempted.
I am also missing some discussion about the validity of discussing the “History of Africa”. Is this then neglecting the differences between countries? In comparison, I think a reaching a conclusion of “The history of Europe” that encompasses both Norway and Moldova to be futile. I don’t know to what degree this is similar in Africa, but I lack some discussion around it.
February 1, 2021
Invaluable but Incomplete.
Martin Meredith poured 40 years of experience as a journalist in Africa into this compulsively readable doorstop of a book. If you include the revisions and expansions made in the 2011 edition I read, it's nearly 50 years. He seems to have an educated opinion, if not actual experience of, every internationally known catastrophe to have effected the continent since the mid 20th century.
From the perspective of a white guy living in the United States it's all here. Nkrumah, Nasser, Biafra, Mobutu, Rwanda, Mugabe, Mandela The Arab Spring, and everything in between. It's a staggeringly ambitious book, and it largely meets that ambition. It's a valuable record because it pulls together everything that the European and the US publics paid attention to in Africa over more than half a century. It also provides valuable added context to all of those stories. It was tremendously useful for me personally, expanding my knowledge beyond half remembered throwaway sentences in Economist articles. I'm contemplating a broader history of US empire and the cold war, and reading this book was an essential part of that process. I know that I'll be returning to this book over and over, as a launching pad for research projects on any number of countries.
But this book's view is also limited in some really fundamental ways. It's a view of catastrophe, almost exclusively. After painting on such an epic canvas, the final pages of the book feel really small. Meredith has (well earned) contempt for almost all of Africa's leaders, and finishes the book with a few trite sentences on better government that wouldn't be out of place in an IMF or World Bank report. As a journalist, Meredith has likely spent his decades in Africa being sent from one telegenic disaster to the next. That's what sells after all. The bloody revolution that ends a long period of stability is fundamentally more interesting than the decades of stability that precede or follow that catastrophe.
The thing is, those decades of stability matter. One of the saddest things one learns after observing Africa for a couple decades is that the happy stories rarely last. As of this writing, Tunisia's successfully established democracy looks shaky. Ethiopia's two decades of economic progress look like they are toppling into murderous war. But why focus so exclusively on the screw-ups? Ethiopian and Tunisian history are both so much more than the disasters they may be falling into. If we looked at French history just in terms of the bloody revolutions or strong men it has experienced, as recently as the 1960s, we'd never be able to see that one of the world's most wealthy and distinct cultures was established despite all that disorder.
I'm doomed to reading history written by English speakers. Most of us are, in fact, due to the wealth and institutional wherewithal that the British and US empires have attained. We've just got more people with the leisure time, or even the salaries, necessary to write history. Anglo historians come from societies that have experienced, or at least tell themselves they have experienced, uniquely friction free development paths. Gradualism rather than revolution seems to have been our lot. It's likely that these more stable paths have provided outsize rewards, though you get into a bit of a chicken or the egg question there. Has our stability led to our luck, or has our luck led to our stability? Regardless, this assumption by Anglo writers that every revolution and massacre is a reason to toss up one's hands and give up on a country strikes me as a weakness. I fear that this weakness permeates Meredith's account.
It's not that I see any particularly egregious bias in any of the individual stories that Meredith tells, I don't know the subject well enough to detect those biases if they exist. It's that the entire course of what makes up the Western understanding of Africa's post-independence history is suspect. Botswana is mentioned on maybe three occasions as a success story. I think at one point that success story gets a paragraph, or maybe a page and a half. The horrors of The Republic of Congo/Zaire get three full 20 page chapters in a book with only 35 chapters. There are more than 50 countries in Africa! On multiple occasions we get a paragraph or two of "this country had done fairly well for x years/decades until..." and then a full chapter discussing some horrific civil war. Why do Zimbabwe's horrifically abused 14 million people get so much more attention than Kenya's 50 million people who seem to be muddling along quite decently?
I don't want to pillory Meredith too much. He set himself an impossible task, and has pulled it off to some extent. This is a valuable chronicle of Africa's tragedies. But it should not hold itself out as the complete story of Africa. Because it is not.
Martin Meredith poured 40 years of experience as a journalist in Africa into this compulsively readable doorstop of a book. If you include the revisions and expansions made in the 2011 edition I read, it's nearly 50 years. He seems to have an educated opinion, if not actual experience of, every internationally known catastrophe to have effected the continent since the mid 20th century.
From the perspective of a white guy living in the United States it's all here. Nkrumah, Nasser, Biafra, Mobutu, Rwanda, Mugabe, Mandela The Arab Spring, and everything in between. It's a staggeringly ambitious book, and it largely meets that ambition. It's a valuable record because it pulls together everything that the European and the US publics paid attention to in Africa over more than half a century. It also provides valuable added context to all of those stories. It was tremendously useful for me personally, expanding my knowledge beyond half remembered throwaway sentences in Economist articles. I'm contemplating a broader history of US empire and the cold war, and reading this book was an essential part of that process. I know that I'll be returning to this book over and over, as a launching pad for research projects on any number of countries.
But this book's view is also limited in some really fundamental ways. It's a view of catastrophe, almost exclusively. After painting on such an epic canvas, the final pages of the book feel really small. Meredith has (well earned) contempt for almost all of Africa's leaders, and finishes the book with a few trite sentences on better government that wouldn't be out of place in an IMF or World Bank report. As a journalist, Meredith has likely spent his decades in Africa being sent from one telegenic disaster to the next. That's what sells after all. The bloody revolution that ends a long period of stability is fundamentally more interesting than the decades of stability that precede or follow that catastrophe.
The thing is, those decades of stability matter. One of the saddest things one learns after observing Africa for a couple decades is that the happy stories rarely last. As of this writing, Tunisia's successfully established democracy looks shaky. Ethiopia's two decades of economic progress look like they are toppling into murderous war. But why focus so exclusively on the screw-ups? Ethiopian and Tunisian history are both so much more than the disasters they may be falling into. If we looked at French history just in terms of the bloody revolutions or strong men it has experienced, as recently as the 1960s, we'd never be able to see that one of the world's most wealthy and distinct cultures was established despite all that disorder.
I'm doomed to reading history written by English speakers. Most of us are, in fact, due to the wealth and institutional wherewithal that the British and US empires have attained. We've just got more people with the leisure time, or even the salaries, necessary to write history. Anglo historians come from societies that have experienced, or at least tell themselves they have experienced, uniquely friction free development paths. Gradualism rather than revolution seems to have been our lot. It's likely that these more stable paths have provided outsize rewards, though you get into a bit of a chicken or the egg question there. Has our stability led to our luck, or has our luck led to our stability? Regardless, this assumption by Anglo writers that every revolution and massacre is a reason to toss up one's hands and give up on a country strikes me as a weakness. I fear that this weakness permeates Meredith's account.
It's not that I see any particularly egregious bias in any of the individual stories that Meredith tells, I don't know the subject well enough to detect those biases if they exist. It's that the entire course of what makes up the Western understanding of Africa's post-independence history is suspect. Botswana is mentioned on maybe three occasions as a success story. I think at one point that success story gets a paragraph, or maybe a page and a half. The horrors of The Republic of Congo/Zaire get three full 20 page chapters in a book with only 35 chapters. There are more than 50 countries in Africa! On multiple occasions we get a paragraph or two of "this country had done fairly well for x years/decades until..." and then a full chapter discussing some horrific civil war. Why do Zimbabwe's horrifically abused 14 million people get so much more attention than Kenya's 50 million people who seem to be muddling along quite decently?
I don't want to pillory Meredith too much. He set himself an impossible task, and has pulled it off to some extent. This is a valuable chronicle of Africa's tragedies. But it should not hold itself out as the complete story of Africa. Because it is not.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 560 reviews