Guy Arnold has specialised in African and Third World affairs for the last 40 years and is the author of books on these themes.
In this text, he provides a landmark modern history of the world's most troubled and misunderstood continent.
- Format: Paperback
- Pages: 1076 pages, 4 x 4pp plates
- Publisher: Atlantic Books
- Publication Date: 10/08/2006
- Category: African history
- ISBN: 9781843541769
Showing 1 - 1 of 1 reviews.
Review by johnthefireman
A truly monumental work, this is the history of post-colonial Africa.Arnold is very sympathetic towards Africa. He analyses variousinfluences on newly-independent African states, including the Cold War,and neo-colonialism - the unwillingness of the former colonial powersto give up economic power even though they had surrendered politicalcontrol. His analysis of the emergence of the one-party state is verygood. He is critical of the aid industry, a position I agree withwholeheartedly.He makes some errors in his treatment of Sudan, which is my ownarea of specialist expertise. On p649 he refers to the 1985 overthrowof Numayri as a "coup", whereas it is generally regarded as an intifada(popular uprising). More seriously, on p650 he attributes the 1989 coup(which was a coup) to "army officers who had been pressing for peace inthe South". This was erroneously believed by many during the first fewdays after the coup, particularly as army officers had issued anultimatum to the government shortly beforehand demanding peace in thesouth. However it quickly became clear that this was an Islamist coupby a different group of officers, deliberately intended to pre-emptmoves towards peace which resulted from the earlier ultimatum. I was inSudan during all these events and witnessed all of this first hand.Spelling mistakes such as "Rumbuk" for Rumbek (p840) and "Hegliz" forHeglig (p841) should not have passed the proof-readers. "Western aidagencies... pulled their operations..." (p841) during the infamousMemorandum of Understanding dispute in 2000 is a grossover-simplification and reproduces the propaganda of those sameagencies. In fact, as I documented at the time, only around six out offorty or so agencies actually withdrew. The section on Sudan onpp838-843 is actually one of the weakest in the whole book. It readslike a list of short facts with no real attempt at analysis.A more general criticism is that the book could have benefited froma little more editing for continuity. In many instances successiveparagraphs seem to have been researched separately and put togetherwithout regard for repetition of some facts and phrases.But for all this, it remains an excellent book.