Best south african history books according to redditors
We found 143 Reddit comments discussing the best south african history books. We ranked the 76 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
8. The Fate of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence
2 mentions
Used Book in Good Condition
Germany and the Allies were signers to the Hague Convention of 1907 which outlawed sawtooth bayonets because of the terrible way these weapons killed. Or didn't kill to be more specific. Here is a pic of one.
When the weapon is pulled out all your guts come out with it and you die a very painful death but not for many hours and possibly days later. All the while screaming in agony. There was nothing doctors of the time could do for you. If you're lucky maybe some morphine.
If you had been stuck with a straight edge bayonet your chances of survival aren't very good but they were better than if you had no more intestines.
The practice of using saw tooth bayonets started in the Boer Wars.
The Germans issued these weapons to engineering and pioneer corps and they were not intended to be used as a weapon (Supposedly) but as a tool for cutting wood. They pretty much sucked at cutting wood. I was not aware the allies were issued these weapons.
Here is an exert form All Quiet On The western Front
>During the day we loaf about and make war on the rats. Ammunition and hand-grenades
become more plentiful. We overhaul the bayonets--that is to say, the ones that have a saw on the blunt edge. If the fellows over there catch a man with one of those he's killed at sight. In the next
sector some of our men were found whose noses were cut off and their eyes poked out with their
own saw-bayonets. Their mouths and noses were stuffed with sawdust so that they suffocated.
Some of the recruits have bayonets of this sort; we take them away and give them the ordinary
kind. But the bayonet has practically lost its importance. It is usually the fashion now to charge with
bombs and spades only. The sharpened spade is a more handy and many-sided weapon; not only
can it be used for jabbing a man under the chin, but it is much better for striking with because of
its greater weight; and if one hits between the neck and shoulder it easily cleaves as far down as
the chest. The bayonet frequently jams on the thrust and then a man has to kick hard on the
other fellow's belly to pull it out again; and in the interval he may easily get one himself. And
what's more the blade often gets broken off.
Edit: Wow this blew up. My highest rated comment ever and I don't believe I earned it. First I got to say I am by no means an expert. I read a couple books once. For an expert you really should ask this over at /r/askhistory and hope someone replies. /u/civex and /u/rsgort makes a great point about it being mostly perception and used as fuel for the Allied propaganda machine and that makes total sense in hindsight. Let's face it. Neither side felt beholden to the Hague Convention.
/u/Citizen_Bongo makes a great point about the development of the multi-tool bayonet being developed much earlier than the Boer Wars however I believe it is equally true that due to the nature of the commando style in which the Boers waged war, these types of weapons were much more common in that theater then in others. I'm basing this opinion on The Boer War but I cannot find a soft copy to search or cite my source. I particularly remember a section which went into great detail about some very brutal things both sides did to each other one of which was pulling the intestines out of POWs with these sawtooth bayonets. On purpose! You want to read about brutally, torture, holocaust and just generally fucked up sadistic things humans can do to each other make sure to read up on that war.
As far the guts not coming out, I think the point is irrelevant. Whether guts came out or not the soldiers that fought these wars believed that guts came out so I think there is some truth to it.
Either way good job reddit! I like this sub better then askhistory because even if we aren't totally correct and cite every last fact we can discuss things without getting a bunch of shit deleted.
Can we make political history a thing in the US?
We've had 5 to 6 party systems in the US depending on who you talk to. We are not a two party system, yet we naturally only ever have two dominant parties. One of the things that has always separated the parties is the rights and freedoms of black citizens.
I think Trump election fit in the timeline of when the US goes through political shifts. Of course we don't know what the long term effects of Trump will be, but I would guess white identity and white nationalism will be a new banner for politicians going forward. Certainly as we see a decline in the white population, there will more efforts to "protect" that majority. We will see more calls to establish English as the national language. The idea that [white is a race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification) is wrong, and more people are recognizing there aren't different races of humans. This movement highlights the decline of whites in America. However, the decline in whites will be the result of cross race breeding and people no longer recognizing white as a race. The figures often cited of white decline typically never mention that by 2060 it is predicted whites will be 74% of the population and still the largest group.
I debate whether Trump is a natural progression of White Supremacy or more of a reaction against Obama. I think the point is somewhat moot, because if Trump is only a reaction to a black president or if he a progression of white supremacy, he is still promoting racist ideology.
^(edited for spelling when noticed)
Edited for links to maps of each era. Edited for more info. Book about this topic: White Supremacy by George Fredrickson.
It's still not worth it bud...
I'm really upset that these guys died because of this.
We also did the hearts and minds thing as seen here
And here
And here is a Buffel which was used alongside the Casspir
Casspir Patrol
The hearts and minds was never conducted by our Special Forces A.K.A Recces. We would have our "grunts" SADF troops do that after securing the area yet they would always be patrolling with armoured vehicles to avoid this exact incident that happened to these US troops...
I'm not blaming the troops by the way. This comes from a sad heart to see something like this that could have been avoided.
An MRAP or any other armoured vehicle didn't make much of a difference for us with the Hearts and minds tactics in the Border War in Angola and northern Namibia/South West Africa.
Hearts and Minds will only work if you can convince the locals that they would be better off supporting the US presence and the local government than the insurgents.
And the US needs to find out what it takes to convince the locals... obviously for us we weren't fighting religious radicals. We were fighting Communist rebels so it was easier to convince the locals in our war than I reckon it is for US forces in the Niger COIN.
We had troops that were teachers in civilian life teaching the local children, we had SADF engineers building irrigation systems and so on which helped convince and win over support in most areas in South West Africa/Namibia. Much like what I believe US and Coalition troops did in Iraq and Afghanistan?
But again it is a grave mistake forfeiting armoured vehicles for the sake of Hearts and Minds... Because using armoured vehicles isn't going to affect the Hearts and Minds mission that much and if it does there are ways to compensate/offset that negative affect without endangering your troops with unarmored vehicles... I just cannot comprehend sending troops off in vehicles that can't withstand small arms fire, it is just not right.
RIP to those brave men and I pray it never happens again under these circumstances.
If you guys want to read up more about the South African Border War check out these two books. Or you can just look online for articles and check the Wikipedia page. Or search for the South African Border War on Pinterest or any images search engine. And you'll find plenty of pictures of our guys using MRAP and armoured cars which saved a lot of lives.
SADF in the Border War 1966-1989 by Leopold Scholtz
32 Battalion by Piet Nortje
Yes. He was. I would recommend giving this book a read if you have time. It covers Cubas involvement in Africa and the mess that was Cuban-South African-Soviet-American diplomacy, as told by one of the few U.S. scholars to get access to the Cuban archives.
39 years ago today in 1979, Operation Uric is carried out in Mozambique by a combined military force including Rhodesian and South African personnel.
During the Rhodesian Bush War, the Rhodesian government forces dealt with an increase of communist insurgents trained primarily in Zambia and Mozambique, the latter particularly keen on gaining independence from Portugal in 1975. The primary objectives of Operation Uric were to attack ZANLA forces in their command and training centers before they could penetrate Rhodesia’s borders. The secondary objectives were to cut supply lines into the Gaza province of Mozambique. It was thought that the destruction of communication and railway lines up to 200 miles into Mozambique would seriously hamper the economic support ZANLA received as well as weaken the morale of the ZANLA forces.
Before the battle commenced on the 5th of September, 200 Rhodesian troops were airlifted and deployed 100 miles deep into Mozambique to five sites targeted for demolition. Rhodesian aircraft bombed the target area and provided air support for the SAS troops. On the 6th of September, Hawker Hunter jets targeted and destroyed the command center and the radio command of a FRELIMO base. Rhodesian troops were then transported by helicopter to attack the base from the ground. During this transport a South African Puma helicopter was struck by an RPG-7, killing the 14 Rhodesian specialists as well as the 3 South African Air Force crew members aboard. The shooting down of the Puma helicopter resulted in the greatest loss of men the Rhodesian forces suffered during the entire Bush war. Heavy fighting took place on the ground as the Mozambique forces had reinforced their positions with criss-crossing trenches.
The battle resulted in the deaths of over 360 ZANLA and FRELIMO forces, as well as the destruction of multiple buildings and infrastructure. Despite a kill ratio of over 20:1 the Rhodesian forces viewed this engagement as a pyrrhic victory. It was becoming apparent that ZANLA forces would soon be better equipped by their Soviet and Chinese partners. Although Rhodesian forces were far better trained than their ZANLA counterparts, sanctions imposed by the UN as well as increased isolation led to complications in replacing the necessary arms and munitions required. Operation Uric is another example of Rhodesian Security Forces being one of the best counter-insurgency forces in modern history.
Authored by Louis William Botha
[Online References]
(http://rhodesianforces.org/OperationUric.htm )
(https://samilhistory.com/2016/09/06/joint-south-africanrhodesian-ops-the-loss-of-saaf-puma-164/comment-page-1/ )
(http://www.graves-at-eggsa.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1175039 )
[Book References]
Counter-insurgency in Rhodesia
By: Jackie Cillars
(https://www.amazon.com/Counter-Insurgency-Rhodesia-RLE-Terrorism-Insurgency-ebook/dp/B00W9YBYYQ )
Winds of Destruction: The Autobiography of a Rhodesian Combat Pilot
By: Petter-Bowyer
(https://www.amazon.com/Winds-Destruction-Autobiography-Rhodesian-Combat/dp/0954849035 )
The problems in Africa can mostly be boiled down to two words: Resources and politics. See, there are a lot of metals and liquids and so forth in Africa that other countries would like to have. Those things are resources. But things like food and medicine are also resources, and Africans don't have a lot of those. In part, it's because the first people came from Africa, so humans -- all humans -- are evolved from animals that grew up in that environment. And, among other things, that means there are lots of diseases in Africa that are dangerous to humans: moreso than diseases that developed in other parts of the world.
It also means that Africa filled up with people more quickly than other parts of the world. After a while, there were so many people in Africa that it was hard to farm enough to make sure that there would be food for new babies. At a certain point, large parts of Africa had as many people as it could hold.
About 5 or 6 centuries ago, people in two countries in Europe, Spain and Portugal, figured out how to make really good boats that would let them sail all over the world, and not just close to Europe. They decided that they could use those boats to trade with far away countries, and then they decided that it might even be easier to just to take over those counties, and kill anyone who got in their way. They took over parts of America, but to make money off of those places, they needed people who could work hard in the hot weather, and who wouldn't catch disease too easily. They tried doing it with the Native Americans they found, but some died too easily, and the Church, which had a lot of say in those days, took the others under their protection, so that Europeans had to treat them mostly the same way they'd treat other Europeans. About that time, the Spanish and Portuguese realized that Africa had another resource they could use: people. So they'd pay Africans who lived on the coast to capture Africans who lived inland. Then they'd buy those Africans, put them in big boats, sail them over to the New World, and force them to work, mostly until they died.
After about three hundred years, people started to change their mind about that. So they ended the Atlantic Slave trade (that's what they called it), and abolished slavery. By that time, the United States had been founded, and they held onto the practice of slavery for almost another 100 years, but only slaves that were already in the U.S., since no one was shipping slaves across the ocean anymore.
But even though the Europeans had decided slavery was bad, they still kept control of Africa, because, by now, they realized that there were other kinds of resources they could get from Africa, and that they could still make Africans work for them so long as they didn't treat them too much like slaves. To make it easier to get the resources they wanted, they created counties with borders and their own governments. They divided the Africans up into "tribal" groups in the way that suited the European businesses best, and forced the Africans to learn their languages, especially French and English, since the main countries now were no longer Spain and Portugal (they had bet heavily on South America), but Belgium and England. Sometimes, when the Africans resisted, the Europeans fought wars against them, and sometimes they made other Africans help them win those wars.
Then, about 50 years ago, Europeans started to change their minds again, and one by one, they let the countries they had made in Africa start to rule themselves. Some people said that they were only doing that because Europe had just gone through an expensive and devastating war, and could no long afford to deal with both the problems at home and the problems in their African colonies. But even if that's true, most people imagined that giving the African countries independence would make life a whole lot better for the Africans.
Some African countries did get better for a little while, but the problems they had when they were ruled by Europeans didn't just disappear, and those problems were hard to solve. For one thing, most Africans didn't know how to run government by themselves. They had been ruled by Europeans for hundreds of years, and were used to being ruled, even if they didn't like it. So when they took over their own governments, they made lots of mistakes.
For another thing, even though the European countries were giving them the countries they had made, most of them still wanted to be able to use African resources, so they kept troops there, or worked out special deals where only the country that used to rule them would get to buy their resources. Because the Europeans still had a lot of power in those countries, Africans who wanted power for themselves would sometimes cheat or even murder their fellow Africans to get the Europeans to give them more power. The more that happened, the worse their governments got. Sometimes, people who wanted their governments to get better would rebel against bad rulers (called dictators), and sometimes those rebels would even win, but it didn't always turn out good, even when they did. Sometimes they were just as power-mad as the dictators they had beaten, or they found that they had to work with other greedy governments to stay in power. Sometimes, the European governments (or the U.S., who had grown up since the 19th century) would get involved to try and decide who should win, and they usually wanted to make sure that the winner was someone who would let them buy their resources for cheap, even if that someone was a bad ruler.
In some cases, Africans would fight one another just because they belonged to different groups. In Rwanda, for example, a group called the Hutu decided they didn't like another group called the Tutsi, and they tried to kill all of the Tutsi in their country -- twice! The strange part about it is that the Hutu probably didn't hate the Tutsi before the Belgians took over several hundred years ago, and there may not have even been a Hutu and Tutsi. The Belgians decided who was a Tutsi and who was a Hutu, and they issued cards like drivers' licenses that said whether a person was one or the other. The Hutu learned to hate the Tutsi because the Belgians liked the Tutsi more, and treated them better, and many of them kept on hating, even decades after the Belgians let the Rwandans rule themselves.
If you want to know more about it, I recommend you read Africa: A Biography of the Continent by John Reader. If nothing else, it lists a lot of great books and articles on the subject that will let you find out more.
Thanks man, appreciate that.
Ja I have read several books on the war, I'll list them all so you can maybe pick one up one day.
The South African Border War 1966-1989 by Leopold Scholtz - I highly recommend this book. This is the book that really got me to understand the overall picture of the war although reading the other books and online material as well as speaking to relatives that fought in the war helped fill in the gaps for me.
32 Battalion by Piet Nortje - This book is also excellent. Goes into a lot of detail about personal accounts and experiences of members of 32 Battalion. They were tough buggers, 32Bn was made up of many Angolan nationals that were once part of the FNLA but were cut off and abandoned by their leader Holden Roberto so Jan Breytenbach trained them and thus 32 Battalion was born. Sad what happened to these poor guys after the war... The ANC just prior to coming to power demanded they be disbanded 1993. There is footage of their last parade and disbandment on Youtube. They were real battle hardened soldiers... They deserved better.
Zulu Zulu Foxtrot by Arn Durand - This is a book about his experience in the police COIN unit called Koevoet. These okes were hard as nails driving Casspirs over the enemy insurgents and tied them to their vehicles after killing them. Brutal... There is no such thing as a gentleman's war. No side played fair. SWAPO conducted many atrocities and Koevoet did the same. So it is futile for either side to claim evil yet SWAPO often complained to the UN about Koevoet and when South Africa complained to the UN about SWAPO atrocities which fell on deaf ears. The political bias was clearly evident and is revealed and mentioned many times in every book I've listed here.
Teenage Safari by Evan Davies the memoirs of a 61 Mech mortar man. 61 Mech was South Africa's iron fist our primary mechanized unit. They were the ones that smashed the Angolan and Cubans on the ground time and time again. They were primarily used for conventional battles although they did see some action against SWAPO as well which was almost exclusively COIN/guerrilla warfare.
LZ HOT! by Nick Lithgow - Memoirs of a South African Air Force helicopter pilot. He flew SAAF Alouette III gunships as well as Puma and Atlas Oryx transport helicopters. He also did a stint on the border as part of the infantry prior to receiving pilot training IIRC.
Eye of the Firestorm by Roland de Vries - This is a long one... The memoirs of a Commander of 61 Mech. There is a lot more to say about this book but my comment is getting quite long! It's very detailed and goes into the whole history of 61 Mech and the overall war itself. Though is quite complicated to read at times due to the complex nature of the war and all the operations, units involved and so on.
Recce by Koos Stadler - A book about the Recces (South African Special Forces) and Koos Stadler a very renowned Recce. The accomplishments and actions of the Recces are something else entirely... Ranging from sitting right inside enemy camps to gather intel for weeks if not months on end. To directing artillery and airstrikes strikes over enemy positions deep inside Angola, cutting off supply lines to destroying the SWAPO headquarters, shooting down Russian transport aircraft such as Antonov AN-12's with Soviet officers on board. There are many insane stories about the Recces a truly hard bunch as well as a small unit being only a few hundred members strong IIRC.
Mobility Conquers: The Story of 61 Mechanised Battalion Group 1978-2005 by Willem Steenkamp (Author), Helmoed-Römer Heitman (Author) - Haven't read this one either also very expensive! But apparently a very in depth book about South African mobile warfare doctrine during the Border War.
Mobile Warfare for Africa by Roland de Vries - Haven't read this either but should be a good one since Roland de Vries is one of the founding fathers of South African mobile warfare doctrine and tactics during the Border War.
Obviously there's Arabic but there's a bunch of other scripts : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_systems_of_Africa
There's no such thing as "truthful history" because history is always viewed through a prism, but I've heard good things about John Reader's Biography of the Continent:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/067973869X/ref=pd_aw_sim_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZC56YTYN2PH4VYTDAQCT&dpPl=1&dpID=51vnkPaUS6L
Part 2
In Angola, and for most of the Op Carlotta, the MMCA and the FAR had roughly the same number of troops like the SADF, yet they had to maintain three frontlines: one in the Cabinda enclave, against the FLEC; another north of Luanda, against the FNLA; and the 600-kilometres long one south of Luanda, against the SADF and UNITA. Still, and together with Angolans (few times also 'despite' the latter), they smashed the FLEC; beat back the FNLA and stopped the South African advance (Pretoria subsequently withdrew its troops, when these failed to reach Luanda by the Angolan Independence Day, and the USA then withdrew their support). In the case of the SADF's attack on Cassinga, the GT-2 was rushed to the battlefield without any preparation, and suffered havy losses to the SAAF air strikes and ambushes by the paras.
The Cuban generals in Angola were quick in recognizing the importance of air power and manoeuvre. Furthermore, they insisted on not scattering MMCA's and FAR's troops amid allied forces. Correspondingly, they usually didn't move their troops outside the range of their combat aircraft, and they nearly always deployed them at least in company-sized formations. Finally, they had a major issue with the leadership of the MPLA (which, after Neto's death, converted into a gang of corrupt opportunists, that couldn't care less about what was going on in Angola south of Namibe, and east and south-east of Huambo).
But, when they moved, then often in a fashion that prompted South Africans into thinking 'it must've been East Germans' that were in command. Actual situation was such that troops were few, supplies meagre, and distances immense. Mind that everything - except for water and some of the food - had to be brought to the country, and then distributed to the units often deployed hundreds of kilometres away from each other. Still, whenever a Cuban unit was threatened by the enemy, the FAR's reaction can only be described as 'vicious'.
In offensive operations, the Cuban commanders frequently applied the so-called 'Auftragstaktik'. A 'classic' example for such operations would be the advance of the 2 Bon I (an Angolan motorised infantry battalion led by the Cubans) east and north-east of Luanda, in December 1975 and January 1976: acting entirely on his own (after receiving the order to move out, of course), and out of radio-range to his superiors, the Cuban commander of that unit outflanked any of FNLA's positions recognized on time and, even if advancing very cautiously, found a 'gap' in these and then run something like 300 kilometres deep into the enemy territory, thus collapsing the entire insurgent position in north-western Angola.
In defensive operations, the Cubans proved though opponents, that had to be destroyed in order to fall back. Their commanders usually applied quite 'classic' methods, like 'two up and third in reserve' - i.e. two elements would hold the frontline, and the reserve launching flanking counter-attacks.
IMHO, it's the Cuban COIN methods that experienced the biggest development over the time. No matter how little means they've got assigned, generals like Tomassevic proved highly successful, actually. Their major problem was that their and allied COIN units and garrisons were de-facto left on their own device (at least by the MPLA), and scattered all over central, eastern and southern Angola. Thus, they were easy pickings for the insurgents: whenever the UNITA attacked them, it took days for help to arrive. Even so, during the battle of Cangamba, in 1983, they performed stellar, holding their positions (and thus maintaining cohesiveness of their Angolan allies, too), even when their defence perimetre was penetrated by insurgents in multiple places. They were not too shy from heliborne deployment of special troops deep within insurgent-controlled territory, adapting their units and equipment to local requirements: actually, it's rather so that the Cuban deployment of MRAPs based on chassis of the Soviet-made Ural trucks and formation of special units for COIN operations remains next to unknown in the West.
Overall, this is actually a very interesting topic, that's experiencing something like 'boom' lately, foremost thanks to 'opening' of Cuba and thus the availability of a host of publications released by local veterans, but also the availability of official documentation. My references are corresponding. For political aspects of most of these affairs - and that based on Cuban documentation - see such (meanwhile 'classic') works by Piero Gleijeses like
For military histories, see:
Note: interestingly, the accumulated Cuban experiences proved highly successful in Nicaragua of 1987-1988, when General Ochoa not only convinced the Sandinistas into launching a general counter-offensive against the Contras, but also 'externals' into Honduras. These proved crucial for the eventual outcome of that war (for details, see Nicaragua 1961-1990).
I'm going to be lazy and simply repost a post of mine from a year ago. :)
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A combination of history, science and biography and so very well written.
A few of my favourite biographies include the magisterial, and also Pulitzer Prize winning, Peter the Great by Robert Massie. He also wrote the wonderful Dreadnaught on the naval arms race between Britain and Germany just prior to WWI (a lot more interesting than it sounds!). Christopher Hibbert was one of the UK's much loved historians and biographers and amongst his many works his biography Queen Victoria - A Personal History is one of his best. Finally, perhaps my favourite biography of all is Everitt's Cicero - The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician. This man was at the centre of the Fall of the Roman Republic; and indeed fell along with it.
Speaking of which, Rubicon - The Last Years of the Roman Republic is a recent and deserved best-seller on this fascinating period. Holland writes well and gives a great overview of the events, men (and women!) and unavoidable wars that accompanied the fall of the Republic, or the rise of the Empire (depending upon your perspective). :) Holland's Persian Fire on the Greco-Persian Wars (think Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes! Think of the Movie 300, if you must) is equally gripping.
Perhaps my favourite history book, or series, of all is Shelby Foote's magisterial trilogy on the American Civil War The Civil War - A Narrative. Quite simply one of the best books I've ever read.
If, like me, you're interested in teh history of Africa, start at the very beginning with The Wisdom of the Bones by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman (both famous paleoanthropologists). Whilst not the very latest in recent studies (nothing on Homo floresiensis for example), it is still perhaps the best introduction to human evolution available. Certainly the best I've come across. Then check out Africa - Biography of a Continent. Finish with the two masterpieces The Scramble for Africa on how European colonialism planted the seeds of the "dark continents" woes ever since, and The Washing of the Spears, a gripping history of the Anglo-Zulu wars of the 1870's. If you ever saw the movie Rorke's Drift or Zulu!, you will love this book.
Hopkirk's The Great Game - The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia teaches us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I should imagine that's enough to keep you going for the moment. I have plenty more suggestions if you want. :)
There's a very approachable book which discusses Africa's recent history: The Fate of Africa by Martin Meredith.
Before the 19th century rush to colonize Africa, some parts of it were relatively well off (notably west Africa, with empires like Songhai and Mali and advanced city-states like Hausa or Timbuktu) and others were still fairly isolated and primitive (most of eastern sub-Saharan Africa). There are various theories as to why - one common but controversial theory is that Africa's north-south geography limited the plants, animals and diseases that could spread in its climates (it varies from European temperate in South Africa to jungle to desert to Mediterranean in Algeria and Morocco), so it failed to make the most of its natural resources until explorers such as the Polynesians brought crops that had high yields. Others have suggested that tsetse flies made it hard to spread domesticated animals to sub-Saharan Africa, or that jungle soil is particularly bad for growing crops, or that they were simply unluckily late in adopting gunpowder and that European imperialism retarded the growth of democracy and modern infrastructure in the continent by 50+ years.
It's probably too facile to argue that imperialism caused all of Africa's problems, but there's some truth to it: all three countries you mention suffered problems because of it. In general, when Europe left its colonies, it drew nice, straight lines on the map that rarely conformed to ethnic or religious divisions. Rwanda is a country with two very distinct, very different ethnic groups forced to live together in a small country - a recipe which Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia found abhorrent. Liberia was created by the U.S.A. as a place to send freed slaves to in order to get them out of the U.S. and "back" to their homeland - no matter that there were already people living there who spoke no English and were not Christians, no matter that the blacks they were shipping there were not used to the climate, the plants or animals of the region...is it any wonder they had ethnic problems?
Sorry for the late response here.
Basically, the British established these camps as refugee camps initially. These camps became very crowded as the British destroyed land as they came across it (think Russia's scorched earth in World War II). However, when the Boer's insurgent warfare methodology was proving difficult to defeat militarily (very similar to how America found itself unable to defeat insurgents in the Middle East), they began turning the refugee camps in to concentration camps.
Conditions were poor, food was scarce, and Boers were dying in droves from disease. The British essentially gave the Boer fighters the ultimatum of continuing to fight and having their families die in these camps, or forfeit and have their families back.
To this day, it is one of the rare examples of an effective anti-insurgent strategy.
Good books for further reading:
Diamonds, Gold, and War by Martin Meredith
The Boer War: A History by Denis Judd
Africa: A Biography of the Continent by John Reader
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann
Both cover some of the same concepts as GG&S, but in a much more rigorous fashion. Both are better reads with a less self-congratulatory tone and much more interesting information. GG&S is a kids book compared to these works, which is fine because GG&S is a great introduction to these sorts of concepts. Now you can get down to reading the good stuff.
It is not beyond me. In fact, I would agree that if you only voted for Hillary to avoid appearing as sexist than you've behaved in a sexist way that is degrading to women. My point is that you don't have to have done something consciously to have made your decisions in a sexist way.
I don't think that most people who voted for Trump thought to themselves "I don't think a woman should be president because women are less competent than men." Some did, I saw them on TV. But prejudice is more subtle and pernicious than blatant thoughts like that. That is why I provided an example to try to illustrate my point. You could have, while weighing the facts in front of you, weighed them differently for the man than the woman because of your internal biases.
My point is, most people don't think in blatant sexist, racist, bigoted terms. That type of thinking doesn't jive with the values that most people in this country hold. But it's not that easy to identify prejudices! That is a super oversimplified way to view bias and prejudice. I would suggest further reading on the subject because it is very complex and I clearly didn't explain it in a way that you understand. A book I read in my South African history class was pretty helpful in this regard - White Supremacy. It was really awkward to walk around campus with that book. But it really gets into the elaborate mental frameworks people will build to double-think their way around blatant racism.
Just did a quick search on Amazon and found this:
http://www.amazon.com/Africa-Biography-Continent-John-Reader/dp/067973869X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416807357&sr=8-2&keywords=history+of+africa
It looks like a good overview of the entire continental history (both North African and Sub-Saharan), and it's not written like a textbook. That's usually a plus in my opinion.
I might actually pick it up myself as my knowledge of the continent isn't too strong.
Starting at $1.22 used doesn't hurt either.
Bring back a bottle of wine and some rooibos tea then stop by Out of Africa in OR Tambo and you'll find something interesting to bring back as well.
You should read a book on the history of South Africa so you can gain some context as well. I would recommend this book.
By the way, this guy Robert Hoyland, is considered one of the best scholars of pre-Islamic Arabia.
https://nyu.academia.edu/RobertHoyland
His articles are awesome. He also wrote a really good book:
http://www.amazon.com/Arabia-Arabs-Bronze-Peoples-Ancient/dp/0415195357
I could never get into Cry, the Beloved Country. I really liked Kaffir Boy, about a little boy growing up in the Alex Township in the 70s and 80s. It's an autobiography but it flows like fiction.
For the history I read a straight up textbook, which was really dry but very informative. When I moved to SA I felt like I knew more about the country's long-term history than most of the people I met, which mattered about as much as encountering a Romanian who was an expert on 1600s America. I read the first edition of A History of South Africa. The link is for the 3rd edition but the 1st edition is what my library had. The 3rd edition is now $0.01 if you're in the US so I guess there's another new edition out.
Fate and State
>We are advised to buy 'Fate of Africa' together with 'State of Africa', but they are the same book - 'Fate' is the US edition, 'State' is the UK edition. It's a very good account of the history of Africa, but I for one don't need two copies and would not have bought 'Fate' if I'd known it was the same as 'State', which I bought from Amazon 2 years ago. This is not the first time I have been misled in this way; Amazon really needs to provide better bibliographic details to help customers avoid wasting their money. From Amazon review
In any case, I read the "Fate" version and I thought it was a fantastic read. Like rickhunter333 said, it did seem to be a little repetitive as he goes through each region where similar events unfolded, but that is as it must for the history of the region.
He also does a very good job in (briefly) summarizing the entire colonial history of Africa and the state of the African continent prior to colonialism before getting into the specifics of the last 50 years.
Disclaimer: I've not read much about the continent and don't have much to compare it to aside from university history textbooks, but I was happy with the book and would recommend it.
Edit: grammar
Diamonds, Gold, and War: The British, the Boers, and the Making of South Africa by Martin Meredith is much more than military history, but it does give a great account of the British/Boer conflict. The entire book is great, and his other works on Africa are also very much worth picking up. His book on Mugabe is a really quick, deft, and concise look at the dictator and is one of the great although tragic stories of Africa in the last 50 years.
It's from a book published by University of South Carolina Press
Mid thirties, white male. I was 14 when apartheid ended.
1.) Our country refers to itself as the rainbow nation. On TV this means people of all ethnicities and all backgrounds jumping around and dancing and waving their arms in the air. In practice, to me atleast, this is reflected in the amazing degree to which most people who interact in South Africa get along. All the different "groups" show great patience and restrain, despite personal frustration, as a collective effort to move forward. As an example, in most of the truly big social atrocities like the genocide against the native americans, the australian aborigines and the jews in Germany, the victims were not around afterwards, and as such forgiveness and self forgiveness might be much easier. In South Africa, victims and perpetrators lived side by side for many years. It took a lot of restraint and it will keep going for a long time. I think younger people, who were born after apartheid ended have a hard time figuring out how to feel about it. To what degree to adopt the feelings of their parents and to what degree to explore the new country that is forming around us.
2.) Sporting emblems, like the national flower "the protea", and "the springbok". Nelson Mandela is probably the most unifying emblem.
3.) The dominant language in South Africa is english. Zulu and Xhosa are both spoken by more people as a first language, but English drives the national debates, business and education. Languages are often seen as mapping on races perfectly which is a pretty big mistake. This unfortunately leads to some misguided policies around languages.
4.) Our constitution is one of the most friendly ones when it comes to minorities. South Africa is home a growing number of immigrants from other african countries. Their is tension between unemployed people in South Africa who feel that the immigrants take their jobs. I believe this is the case in all countries in the world, so nothing new here.
5.) The original french people who came to South Africa fled for their religion. It was a pretty far out place to come to so I reckon people held their religion close to their heart. The african people, as far as I understand, are to a very large extent christian, while to some extent entertaining the non-christian religions of their ancestors, sometimes, in parallel. Our constitution protects all religions. Im not sure all are welcomed equally, although I strive for this.
6.) One of the biggest challenges to our national identity is our government. It is an extremely polarising force. The general ineffectiveness, cronyism and corruption force staunch supporters to turn a blind eye and everyone else to be very upset, and patient at the same time. In the next 10-20 years the children of today will hopefully not feel a particular historic allegiance to the current government, and be willing to evaluate them on their merit.
7.) South Africa was colonized by the Dutch and the British. A large number of immigrants came from France and Germany. There are also a large number of Portugese, Greek and Italian people as well as Jews. Indian people, as well as people of Malay background are also prevalent. South Africa has the biggest Indian population outside of India. South Africa has a long history with Zimbabwe and Namibia as neighbours. South Africa has a very strong history with the UK. We were a colony and fought a big war against the British at the beginning of the 20th century. The bravery and genius of the afrikaner people in this war is seldom discussed and many liberal afrikaans south africans mistakenly feel that they need to disown this wonderful part of our history in order to distance themselves from what came 60 years later with apartheid. For a great book that helps to illustrate this war form a first hand account of a 17year old boy you should read Commando. It is a great way of understanding the mutual respect that the people of these two countries had for one another.
Ok, enjoy and good luck! As you can see South Africans are very proud of our country and we love talking about it :)
This one http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0349104662?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00
I hate when history books have an obvious bias, it takes so much away from the story telling.
I am a fervent atheist, but that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Many of Africa's problems stem from outside exploitation of its people and resources, and yes, much of that exploitation, through colonization, was initiated under the banner of "saving" Africans by introducing Christianity to Africa. And radical Islamic regimes haven't exactly improved the lives of many Africans either. But outsiders would have plundered Africa whether they had the excuse of religion or not, because greed exists independent of religion.
Economic exploitation has historically caused many more problems in Africa than religion. This Wikipedia article sums up part of that history pretty well. I recommend this book as an interesting read on the subject of the (mostly) post-slavery exploitation of Africa by colonizing nations (and greedy corporations).
A History of South Africa by Leonard Thompson is a good general history of the region. It covers from the first human inhabitants to the late 1990s.
Amazon link
Unless I'm mistaken Arabia and the Arabs by Robert G. Hoyland is the most extensive book on pre-Islamic Arabia.
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.com
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
Deneys Reitz - Commando
It describes the Anglo-Boer war (South Africa 1899-1902) very accurately
From the amazon description
"(Revised in May 2009) Deneys Reitz was 17 when the Boer War broke out in 1899. Reitz describes that he had no hatred of the British people, but "as a South African, one had to fight for one's country." Reitz had learned to ride, shoot and swim almost as soon as he could walk, and the skills and endurance he had acquired during those years were to be made full use of during the war. He fought with different Boer Commandos, where each Commando consisted mainly of farmers on horseback, using their own horses and guns. Commando describes the tumult through the eyes of a warrior in the saddle. Reitz was fortunate to be present at nearly every one of the major battles of the war. Commando is a straightforward narrative that describes an extraordinary adventure and brings us a vivid, unforgettable picture of mobile guerrilla warfare, especially later in the war as General Smuts and men like Reitz fought on, braving heat, cold, rain, tiring horses, and lack of food, clothing, and boots."
http://www.amazon.com/Commando-Deneys-Reitz/dp/1920265686
The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Pakenham
Fantastic book on the colonization of Africa. Impartial, well written and thorough.
The british did a shit ton to end slavery.
http://www.amazon.com/Scramble-Africa-Conquest-Continent-1876-1912/dp/0380719991
I'm not aware of any academic histories that have the wide scope that you are after, but there are a few introductory texts that do attempt it. Shillington's History of Africa is the most famous one. It stretches way back to the first written accounts from Greek expansion, but is particularly interesting for trying to provide an African perspective of the colonial period.
Africans and Their History has a similar scope, but also extends way back into pre-history and the beginnings of human evolution. I haven't read it myself, but I believe it is well-written.
Someone else has mentioned The Scramble for Africa, by Thomas Pakenham, which deals specifically with the period of European imperialism between about 1860 and 1910. It's probably worth while taking a look at it just because offers insight into what Africa was like when Europeans found it. Also, it's probably worth reading because it is just really rare to find a history that is so griping, despite being so ambitious.
Similar to the above, the many of he great river explorers between 1600 and 1900 wrote accounts of their journeys that form the only primary sources that we really have (although, there are certainly earlier accounts of Northern Africa and the Horn). Stanely is quite famous, but he is a product of his time. He is entertaining, and includes all sorts of interesting diagrams and charts, but he regards the native people with a fair bit of ridicule. Mungo Park's Travels is probably the most readable, and he was writing a full century prior to Stanely, prior to the racism of the Imperial era, and in a continent much freer of European involvement.
If you like fiction, Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart gives an African perspective of tribal lifestyle as it was before colonisation.
Arabia and the Arabs is good.It tells the story of Arab civilization from the Bronze Age till the rise of Islam-https://www.amazon.com/Arabia-Arabs-Bronze-Peoples-Ancient/dp/0415195357
> African countries can't prosper without white intervention, Apartheid wasn't so bad in the grand scheme of things, it was harder to develop in Europe
At no point was it said nor eluded to that African countries can't prosper without white intervention. Only that trends indicate that African countries struggle to prosper if they were not an ex-colony of a more technologically developed civilization.
> I mean let's delve into some of these views that you call truth..
Let's
> Climate: Africa is supposedly the hottest continent. 60% of it is desert. Forget the Sahara, Botswana and Namibia are largely desert countries. Very dry, very hot in summer, very cold in winter. So I'm not too sure where this idea of Europe having a harsher climate comes from. Yet it is supposedly "truth".
Desertification has only taken hold of 40% of the African landmass, not 60%.
Source: Africa: A Biography of a Continent. Logic dictates that it makes no sense for more advanced civilizations to seek colonies in Africa if their own continents were far more fertile in natural resources.
> English is not an African language, yet in South Africa you won't get far if you can't speak it. Does that mean the other African languages are inferior? No.. it simply means that our society does not give the freedom and room for the African to prosper in his own way. In SA, the more white you act, the further you'll get.
Language was never brought up as part of the original discussion put forward. Besides which, this argument is weak, English is an international standard used to govern the world's institutions. This is not Africa-specific. Furthermore, the English spoken in South Africa is South African English, along with the other 11 official languages of which 75% are Bantu languages. Would you prefer Africa to be isolated from the rest of the developed world by enforcing ?
> So in terms of states, the question is.. can we mock African states for struggling to adapt to a world that tells them to not be African?
No one is mocking anyone. Again, this is only a factual discussion. Emotions are not allowed here.
> Suffering of Africans: I don't think you or the other commenter fully grasp the dehumanization that Africans underwent. Think of your pet (if you've ever had one) and then consider that there was once a time when your pet was treated to a higher standard than some black Africans.
No one is denying the historical struggle of Africans but what does this have to do with the original discussion? Many humans have been subjugated throughout history, Africans are not exclusive to struggle. Refer original discussion.
> We live in a world where bullying is known to be mentally scarring. Now imagine what happened to Africans under colonialism and apartheid.. to be treated as if you are fundamentally and inherently lesser. And then you have the nerve to call that a 'holiday'?!? How do you even contrast such atrocities? And of course when they're contrasted, it's the black struggle that's made to seem lesser.
This has already been compared and contrasted. The point being made here was that Apartheid was far less dehumanizing than say the Rwandan Genocide, Soviet Forced Labour Gulags, Nazi Concentration Camps to name just a few. In light of this comparison Apartheid could be seen as a holiday in contrast.
> The reason I was so unwilling to discuss with the other commenter is because I'm tired of having to convince people that I am just as human as they are. That my blackness does not make me lesser.
No one is saying that you are less human for being black. The point being made is ...the realisation that the multicultural, rainbow experiment has failed and people are now turning to tried and tested governance strategies. We know that very homogeneous societies can work really well. We have not figured out how to deal with highly diverse societies because long term they tend towards instability.
> When people discuss this kind of stuff here, it's never from a human aspect. It's never "post-colonial African states fail because any human would struggle to find success under those settings" .. it's always "post-colonial African states fail because of blacks"
Failed post-colonial states could be made up of neon green one-eyed man-girls, the fact remains that they are failed post-colonial states no matter what the people look like that live in them.
> Even in this day and age, in 2018.. you still, as a black human, have to fight to try convince people that you're just as human as they are.
This strikes at the heart of the issue. You needn't convince anyone that you are human, I have only seen people being treated with dignity and respect, on this sub and on the street, both black and white. It is only those that have to fight to try convince people that reduces the inherent human respect that already existed. Those that fight for no valid reason (ie. you are not being subjugated nor dehumanized) create their own undoing.
I trust this clarifies.
- "The Dead Will Arise: Nongqawuse and the Great Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement of 1856-7" by J. B. Peires (Jeffrey B. Peires), published in 1989: http://books.google.com/books?id=Rcqy3c0go7QC&pg=PA78 ("CHAPTER 3 Nongqawuse", "1. Down by the Gxarha", "On a certain day in April 1856, two young girls left"), http://books.google.com/books?id=Rcqy3c0go7QC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&ots=uchISFdom_ ("CHAPTER 3 Nongqawuse", "1. Down by the Gxarha", "Nongqawuse and Nombanda returned home and related what had happened"), http://books.google.com/books?id=Rcqy3c0go7QC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&ots=uchISFenv5 ("CHAPTER 3 Nongqawuse", "1. Down by the Gxarha", "Notes", "There are three main sources for Nongqawuse’s vision. Gqoba")
- "The Dead Will Arise: Nongqawuse and the Great Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement of 1856-7" by Jeff Peires (Jeffrey B. Peires), published in 2013: http://www.amazon.com/Dead-will-Arise-Nongqawuse-killing-ebook/dp/B00DFM70P8
(b) Read Very Carefully
#2a at http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/dxux3en
and
"Number 12" at http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/dtzhc5x
Source: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
(c) Read
"South Africa" (#4) at http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/df4v7pp
Source: http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006
"Zimbabwe" (#1) at http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/dej9c0w
Source: http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006
SectionID: eysvyjr
Lots of relevant material on the topic, pretty interesting book:
[Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860] (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Slaveowners-Masters-Carolina-1790-1860/dp/1570030375)
Have you read the book it's based on? It's pretty awesome.
White Slaves
Black Slave Owners
What's also interesting is that the first slave owner in the colonies was black, Anthony Johnson
There's also William Ellison who's famous for offering his 60 or so slaves to fight for the Confederate Army, when even his own sons were denied enlistment for being black.
> NO ONE used the term supremacist term 2 years ago
Here's a book called "White Supremacy" from 30 years ago, which talks about a racial superiority concept that has been around since the 1700s (the concept has been around for longer).
>We used to live in relative harmony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1954%E2%80%931968)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
You seem to be ill-informed of American history.