What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of South Africa
Presents a comprehensive history of the country, from its earliest human settlements, to events prior to European colonisation, to the Dutch occupation and the years of apartheid, to its success in becoming an independent nation.
416 pages, Paperback
First published September 10, 1990
209 people are currently reading
1607 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews
November 5, 2016
Free read online - Only a click away!
http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/h...
http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/h...
August 29, 2019
Among the top 5 countries with the highest homicide and rape rates, South Africa doomed half of its population to live below the line of poverty.
But why is it? The unblushing historian L. Thompson claims, it is because the ANC government was very slow to privatize the public sector and to fully open its markets for neoliberal plundering. He says the ANC has been too tolerant to the labour unions and that is why the country could not attract the almighty foreign investment that would quickly develop the country. Pathetic.
This Yale scholar is not even trying to look egalitarian when he says economic growth and welfare cannot go hand in hand together. That is right! The "developing world" should pay its tribute to their western developers first by letting them freely exploit its resources.
I recommend Making of South Africa by MacKinnon and South Africa Pushed to the Limit by Hein Marais, if you are really interested to learn about South Africa. Not this bullshit.
***
Dünyanın en çok cinayet işlenen, en çok tecavüz yaşanan ülkesi. Bugün nüfusun yarısı yoksulluk sınırının altında.
Peki ülke neden bu hale gelmiş? Utanmaz tarihçi yazıyor: ANC özelleştirmede yavaş kalmış, sendikalara fazla müsamahalı davranmış, süreci iyi yöntememiş, o yüzden ülke yabancı sermaye çekememiş. İlerledikçe Güney Afrika'yı talan eden neoliberal saldırının utanmaz bir savunusuna dönüşen bir tarih kitabı.
But why is it? The unblushing historian L. Thompson claims, it is because the ANC government was very slow to privatize the public sector and to fully open its markets for neoliberal plundering. He says the ANC has been too tolerant to the labour unions and that is why the country could not attract the almighty foreign investment that would quickly develop the country. Pathetic.
This Yale scholar is not even trying to look egalitarian when he says economic growth and welfare cannot go hand in hand together. That is right! The "developing world" should pay its tribute to their western developers first by letting them freely exploit its resources.
I recommend Making of South Africa by MacKinnon and South Africa Pushed to the Limit by Hein Marais, if you are really interested to learn about South Africa. Not this bullshit.
***
Dünyanın en çok cinayet işlenen, en çok tecavüz yaşanan ülkesi. Bugün nüfusun yarısı yoksulluk sınırının altında.
Peki ülke neden bu hale gelmiş? Utanmaz tarihçi yazıyor: ANC özelleştirmede yavaş kalmış, sendikalara fazla müsamahalı davranmış, süreci iyi yöntememiş, o yüzden ülke yabancı sermaye çekememiş. İlerledikçe Güney Afrika'yı talan eden neoliberal saldırının utanmaz bir savunusuna dönüşen bir tarih kitabı.
April 15, 2022
A History of South Africa by Leonard Thompson is a colossal effort. It’s explicit purpose is to provide a definitive and accurate historical account of the region that isn’t tainted by the revisionist and reactionary forces of white minority parties. This book dispels a great deal of apartheid mythology about the history of Southern Africa, most notably, that the Bantu were not “recent” arrivals possessing the same settler history as the Dutch or British. Further, Thompson’s research shows that Africans did not in any way shape or form enslave or colonize each other in a manner resembling what the Europeans did. Rather, pre-colonial Southern Africa was a combination of different indigenous cultural practices, from the San hunter-gathers, the Khoikhoi pastoralists, and the Bantu mixed-farmers, living among each other in relative peace. While these groups sometimes clashed and fought, they managed to live alongside each other and share cultural practices, connecting with each other through trade and language. This all changed when Europeans came.
Thompson did a solid job demonstrating the differences between pre-colonial societies in Southern Africa, and Europe. While private property existed in the various pre-colonial societies, it greatly differed from the property relations in Europe. The same can be said about the social hierarchy that existed in these societies. Land in pre-colonial Southern Africa was commonly “owned.” Even those with direct use and control over land did not have the ability to do with the land whatever they pleased. Wealth was rooted in cattle accumulated and concentrated in the hands of men. This created socioeconomic hierarchy. Additionally, pre-colonial societies were not “closed” and ethnic divisions were often malleable based on what activities a person engaged in (hunting, herding, or farming). This is a stark juxtaposition to the rigid ethnic and racial divisions created by Euro-colonialism and that existed in Europe at the time.
Pre-colonial Southern African societies were also far less repressive than European ones. There were no standing armies, no police, and no jails, despite the fact that “crime” as we know it did exist—especially relating to the theft of cattle and copper. This dynamic can be attributed to the social cohesion that existed in these communities. Repression was simply not necessary. The existence of village and chiefdom democracy was evidenced by the limited powers of the Chief, wherein subjects (typically male) were given free reign to criticize the chief and oppose certain agendas. Subjects could also “vote with their feet,” indicating they were free to leave the chiefdom at any time. While political power was concentrated in the hands of men, this was not due to the assumption of inherent inferiority of women. Rather, it was a consequence of the division of labor that gave men more time to run the affairs of the Chiefdom. These Indigenous African democratic traditions were made possible due to the environment. The abundance of land served as a natural check on repressive and authoritarian rule. Devastating warfare, widespread enslavement, and abject colonization was a rarity because people had the ability and tradition of migrating whenever conditions worsened. Again, this is a major difference between Southern Africa and Europe. As Thompson explains, while the Xhosa and San did experience consistent warfare over the land, the result was never to destroy one’s culture or subjugate the entire population. Conquered parties were often assimilated as equals and allowed to retain important aspects of their culture, again, a major difference from Europe.
Thompson seamlessly transitions his analysis of pre-colonial Southern Africa to the modern day by centering European colonialism in the region. As he would come to explain, what would become modern-day South Africa was a slave and colonial society from the very beginning, as the Dutch East India Company handed out to European settlers land they stole from the natives, and brought in Africans from other parts of the continent to slave on these lands. This dynamic formed the basis of a vastly profitable colony. The Dutch—and later the British—initially coveted this area as a launching-point for their colonial endeavors in Asia (India, specifically), but this changed as the vast mineral wealth of Southern Africa was revealed. Thompson’s explanation of the underlying motivations of initial British colonial settlement of Xhosa territory in Southern Africa is fascinating. Not only was it rooted in gaining a foothold to India, it was in large part a reactionary effort by the British Government to stifle radical dissent within Britain. In effect, the British initiated this overseas settlement project for discontented British, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish people who were poised to challenge the socioeconomic hierarchy in British society. In other words, British imperialism in Southern Africa was meant to hinder revolt from their own citizens.
I was struck by the depiction of competing interests within Southern Africa. Thompson explained that settler-colonial (white) societies were just as divided as Bantu / Khoisan societies, but the former were able to take advantage of divisions in ways the latter could not. This was primarily a result of superior weaponry and a more forceful commitment to racial domination that whites possessed over the Africans. In short, notwithstanding the ethnic divisions among white South Africans—some of which were extremely violent and tenuous—white racial consciousness was rooted in and solidified by an explicit desire to subjugate and conquer Indigenous African lands. Unfortunately, Africans were unable to counter this consciousness with a racial consciousness of their own. Racial consciousness in the midsts of a race war for land was essentially the deciding factor between colonizer and colonized. Indeed, the “Union of South Africa”—formed out of the collaboration of the various Boer and British settlements—was borne out of a desire to enshrine and forcefully protect white rule over Indigenous African lands and labor. It was against this backdrop that modern South Africa came into being.
Thompson’s analysis of the segregation and apartheid era was precise and sobering. As he explained, apartheid was designed to entrench the economic standing of white South Africans. It confined Indigenous Africans to arid and dense reservation lands and created socioeconomic conditions that mandated white control over African labor. It was designed to maintain social separation and economic subordination at the same time. Thompson explained the rise and entrenchment of Apartheid rule in great detail, describing the various pieces of legislation designed to uphold strict segregation and white domination. One of the most fascinating and distributing aspects of this regime was the creation of African “homelands,” wherein the Apartheid government confined hundreds of thousands of Black South Africans in small, arid, and resource-deprived “independent” lands, so as to give off the impression that Black South Africans were taking part in the decolonial wave in Africa. In reality, these Homelands were nothing more than state-engineered ghettoes and reserves for African labor. Africans were not allowed to leave these lands unless they were under the employ of white managers, and since these lands were intentionally deprived of resources, Africans had no choice but to leave. Africans caught outside of these defined territories without work passes were arrested, or worse. This is strikingly similar to the segregation and ghettoization of Black communities in the United States during the Jim Crow era. The goal of both was to separate populations and control Black labor.
It was striking to read about just how bound up the Nationalist Party’s apartheid regime and economy was with British and American investment. The capitalist world powers had major interests and holdings in apartheid South Africa, both before and after South Africa left the direct orbit of the British in 1961. While the British economy was a major trade player and investor, the United States military machine counted on South African minerals for strategic reasons. After describing the social, economic, and cultural components of apartheid, Thompson would go on to evaluate the forces that led to its gradual demise. First, he pointed out that the South African government found itself isolated on the world stage following the U.S. Civil Rights movement. The livers “progress” made by Afro-descended people in thee U.S. left South Africa as lone overtly racist government in the Euro-American world. Thompson also identified demographic changes—including a steep decline in the white population and an unceasing flood of Africans into the cities—as a major reason for the decline of apartheid. Further, economic destabilization—partially as a result of the vast costs of enforcing apartheid—led to its decline. Finally, apartheid could not withstand the changing geopolitical climate that came with the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of the Communist Bloc, as both the apartheid regime and the anti-apartheid struggle relied on the Soviet Union as a scapegoat and supporter, respectively.
In detailing the resistance to the apartheid era, Thompson evaluated the rise of middle class-oriented organizations like the ANC (along with the equivalents orgs for Indian and “Coloured” people), demonstrating how from the very beginning these orgs were interested in bourgeois equality with whites, as opposed to self-determination. Ultimately, the ANC was able to carve out gains for a burgeoning Bantu middle class, but the masses were left behind in destitution. Thompson did a good job detailing the limitations of the ANC political agenda, while still highlighting them as pursuers of justice in a fundamental unjust society. Despite this, I couldn’t help but feel that the “non-racial” agenda of Mandela and the modern ANC seemed wrong. White South Africans got to retain all of the benefits of centuries of violent racism (via settler colonialism and apartheid), but as soon as the Black majority got political power they were expected to abide by “democratic norms” and not offend the white minority. I wish Thompson would have given more attention to this terrible contradiction, rather than dismissing the more radical element of the ANC and PAC as unrealistic troublemakers.
Ultimately, Mandela’s commitment to “racial reconciliation” in the face of obscene inequality and unpunished colonial domination is part of the reason why South Africa hasn’t progressed, along with the many other reasons Thompson identified. This is a must read for anyone interested in the history of this part of Africa.
Thompson did a solid job demonstrating the differences between pre-colonial societies in Southern Africa, and Europe. While private property existed in the various pre-colonial societies, it greatly differed from the property relations in Europe. The same can be said about the social hierarchy that existed in these societies. Land in pre-colonial Southern Africa was commonly “owned.” Even those with direct use and control over land did not have the ability to do with the land whatever they pleased. Wealth was rooted in cattle accumulated and concentrated in the hands of men. This created socioeconomic hierarchy. Additionally, pre-colonial societies were not “closed” and ethnic divisions were often malleable based on what activities a person engaged in (hunting, herding, or farming). This is a stark juxtaposition to the rigid ethnic and racial divisions created by Euro-colonialism and that existed in Europe at the time.
Pre-colonial Southern African societies were also far less repressive than European ones. There were no standing armies, no police, and no jails, despite the fact that “crime” as we know it did exist—especially relating to the theft of cattle and copper. This dynamic can be attributed to the social cohesion that existed in these communities. Repression was simply not necessary. The existence of village and chiefdom democracy was evidenced by the limited powers of the Chief, wherein subjects (typically male) were given free reign to criticize the chief and oppose certain agendas. Subjects could also “vote with their feet,” indicating they were free to leave the chiefdom at any time. While political power was concentrated in the hands of men, this was not due to the assumption of inherent inferiority of women. Rather, it was a consequence of the division of labor that gave men more time to run the affairs of the Chiefdom. These Indigenous African democratic traditions were made possible due to the environment. The abundance of land served as a natural check on repressive and authoritarian rule. Devastating warfare, widespread enslavement, and abject colonization was a rarity because people had the ability and tradition of migrating whenever conditions worsened. Again, this is a major difference between Southern Africa and Europe. As Thompson explains, while the Xhosa and San did experience consistent warfare over the land, the result was never to destroy one’s culture or subjugate the entire population. Conquered parties were often assimilated as equals and allowed to retain important aspects of their culture, again, a major difference from Europe.
Thompson seamlessly transitions his analysis of pre-colonial Southern Africa to the modern day by centering European colonialism in the region. As he would come to explain, what would become modern-day South Africa was a slave and colonial society from the very beginning, as the Dutch East India Company handed out to European settlers land they stole from the natives, and brought in Africans from other parts of the continent to slave on these lands. This dynamic formed the basis of a vastly profitable colony. The Dutch—and later the British—initially coveted this area as a launching-point for their colonial endeavors in Asia (India, specifically), but this changed as the vast mineral wealth of Southern Africa was revealed. Thompson’s explanation of the underlying motivations of initial British colonial settlement of Xhosa territory in Southern Africa is fascinating. Not only was it rooted in gaining a foothold to India, it was in large part a reactionary effort by the British Government to stifle radical dissent within Britain. In effect, the British initiated this overseas settlement project for discontented British, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish people who were poised to challenge the socioeconomic hierarchy in British society. In other words, British imperialism in Southern Africa was meant to hinder revolt from their own citizens.
I was struck by the depiction of competing interests within Southern Africa. Thompson explained that settler-colonial (white) societies were just as divided as Bantu / Khoisan societies, but the former were able to take advantage of divisions in ways the latter could not. This was primarily a result of superior weaponry and a more forceful commitment to racial domination that whites possessed over the Africans. In short, notwithstanding the ethnic divisions among white South Africans—some of which were extremely violent and tenuous—white racial consciousness was rooted in and solidified by an explicit desire to subjugate and conquer Indigenous African lands. Unfortunately, Africans were unable to counter this consciousness with a racial consciousness of their own. Racial consciousness in the midsts of a race war for land was essentially the deciding factor between colonizer and colonized. Indeed, the “Union of South Africa”—formed out of the collaboration of the various Boer and British settlements—was borne out of a desire to enshrine and forcefully protect white rule over Indigenous African lands and labor. It was against this backdrop that modern South Africa came into being.
Thompson’s analysis of the segregation and apartheid era was precise and sobering. As he explained, apartheid was designed to entrench the economic standing of white South Africans. It confined Indigenous Africans to arid and dense reservation lands and created socioeconomic conditions that mandated white control over African labor. It was designed to maintain social separation and economic subordination at the same time. Thompson explained the rise and entrenchment of Apartheid rule in great detail, describing the various pieces of legislation designed to uphold strict segregation and white domination. One of the most fascinating and distributing aspects of this regime was the creation of African “homelands,” wherein the Apartheid government confined hundreds of thousands of Black South Africans in small, arid, and resource-deprived “independent” lands, so as to give off the impression that Black South Africans were taking part in the decolonial wave in Africa. In reality, these Homelands were nothing more than state-engineered ghettoes and reserves for African labor. Africans were not allowed to leave these lands unless they were under the employ of white managers, and since these lands were intentionally deprived of resources, Africans had no choice but to leave. Africans caught outside of these defined territories without work passes were arrested, or worse. This is strikingly similar to the segregation and ghettoization of Black communities in the United States during the Jim Crow era. The goal of both was to separate populations and control Black labor.
It was striking to read about just how bound up the Nationalist Party’s apartheid regime and economy was with British and American investment. The capitalist world powers had major interests and holdings in apartheid South Africa, both before and after South Africa left the direct orbit of the British in 1961. While the British economy was a major trade player and investor, the United States military machine counted on South African minerals for strategic reasons. After describing the social, economic, and cultural components of apartheid, Thompson would go on to evaluate the forces that led to its gradual demise. First, he pointed out that the South African government found itself isolated on the world stage following the U.S. Civil Rights movement. The livers “progress” made by Afro-descended people in thee U.S. left South Africa as lone overtly racist government in the Euro-American world. Thompson also identified demographic changes—including a steep decline in the white population and an unceasing flood of Africans into the cities—as a major reason for the decline of apartheid. Further, economic destabilization—partially as a result of the vast costs of enforcing apartheid—led to its decline. Finally, apartheid could not withstand the changing geopolitical climate that came with the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of the Communist Bloc, as both the apartheid regime and the anti-apartheid struggle relied on the Soviet Union as a scapegoat and supporter, respectively.
In detailing the resistance to the apartheid era, Thompson evaluated the rise of middle class-oriented organizations like the ANC (along with the equivalents orgs for Indian and “Coloured” people), demonstrating how from the very beginning these orgs were interested in bourgeois equality with whites, as opposed to self-determination. Ultimately, the ANC was able to carve out gains for a burgeoning Bantu middle class, but the masses were left behind in destitution. Thompson did a good job detailing the limitations of the ANC political agenda, while still highlighting them as pursuers of justice in a fundamental unjust society. Despite this, I couldn’t help but feel that the “non-racial” agenda of Mandela and the modern ANC seemed wrong. White South Africans got to retain all of the benefits of centuries of violent racism (via settler colonialism and apartheid), but as soon as the Black majority got political power they were expected to abide by “democratic norms” and not offend the white minority. I wish Thompson would have given more attention to this terrible contradiction, rather than dismissing the more radical element of the ANC and PAC as unrealistic troublemakers.
Ultimately, Mandela’s commitment to “racial reconciliation” in the face of obscene inequality and unpunished colonial domination is part of the reason why South Africa hasn’t progressed, along with the many other reasons Thompson identified. This is a must read for anyone interested in the history of this part of Africa.
May 21, 2008
3 1/2 stars. The book was overflowing with facts and all the key events that lead up to South Africa as it is today: spanning from the earliest inhabitants to the presidential term of Thabo Mbeki. The reason I didn't give this book four stars is not the information per se, but more so the way the information was presented. In short, good content, poor execution. Although the book is set up in a generally chronological order, the author constantly jumps around when discussing specific dates. The sheer amount of information that you are taking in makes it very difficult to keep track of all of the dates and span them out in a timeline in your head. This structure proves to be confusing and makes recollecting certain events, groups, or short periods of history very difficult.
June 28, 2011
I read this book when I traveled to South Africa, and it was excellent. It gave me so much information, that everything about my visit was enhanced. I highly recommend it, in spite of what some people might consider a textbook-like flow.
June 29, 2019
A credible overview of South Africa, smoothly written, fully aware of the difficulties of writing a complete history with no agenda. While no history book can contain everything about a country, there are noticeable pieces of information missing and important gaps in the history of the resistance movements. But, for most needs, a good book.
December 20, 2015
Very helpful overview of South Africa's history
January 27, 2021
As someone who has grown up in the current deplorable education system of South Africa, this book has given me the education in the nation’s history that the system could (would?) not. I really look forward to updated editions covering “state capture”, Ramaphosa’s tenure and the impacts of COVID.
December 19, 2025
Easy to read and to the point. I suspect parts of the reading had a little bias, but overall it gives a good timeline to contextualize modern SA.
July 14, 2018
I recommend this book to everyone interest in South Africa. It's a short overview of a huge and complex history. If you have interest only in Apartheid I think that the history of South Africa before 1948 presented in the book is useful but its treatment of the issue is only superficial.
December 22, 2014
I must confess - I only read half of the book. I started in the middle because I wanted to learn about how apartheid came about and how it ended. The second half of this book was very good. It is concise, even compressed. The book aims to tell the story of South Africa in one volume, so it has to be. I had just read a couple of really great books by Albie Sachs, so I wanted to learn the bigger picture. This book does a good job of showing the big picture. Perfect for the beginner to South African history.
July 29, 2023
Multicultural societies like the United States have apotheosized diversity to such an extent that they risk abstracting away, and thus forgetting, what, in a truly concrete sense, made societies like the segregationist Southern U.S. and apartheid South Africa so repugnant. Most today would probably say that it is the mere fact of separation or segregation itself: that "living apart" is a moral abomination and should never be tolerated in any form, under any circumstances. And it shouldn't. But it isn't separation that, in some Platonic, even theological sense, is evil in itself. It is evil because of the material circumstances of unacknowledged at best, but usually downright deceitful at worst, exploitation that in the age of modernity (to which now the entire world is subject) accompanies this separation.
Start with even just the weakest form of this hypocrisy in the form of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States and Europe. The slogans are variations of the following: "we must protect our Western values" or "we don't have enough to share", etc. Mexicans don't speak English. Muslims don't endorse Western values of equality and liberalism. They all want to take our resources. Let's leave aside the adjudication of the truth of these assertions and, for the sake of argument, assume their truth. Let's grant to cultural interests a political stake that is as worthy of consideration as any material interest. (Not patently absurd, as it turns out, but we shall refrain--except in a fit of paralipsis like this one--from evaluation). Let's even assume a finite set of resources. (Much more patently absurd, given the proofs of the geometrical growth of prosperity offered by Adam Smith, but, again, we shall refrain.) Assuming the truth, then, of these claims, they all seem to amount to a firm justification for isolation: you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.
But the Western half of the bargain--we'll leave you alone--is never upheld. Instead, in practice, it is: you leave us alone and we will make use of you as we see fit. So, the American South created prosperity on the backs of slave labor but then turned around and mandated separate facilities. Europe and the United States today still want the oil and minerals of Africa, the Middle East, and South America, even while they reject their people.
Some of the contradiction goes beyond hypocrisy into sheer blindness bordering on self-destructive stupidity: the naive belief on the Right that the West, with its abysmal birth rate (and East Asia participates in the stupidity here as well) can circle the wagons of cultural insularity and hoist the postmodern flag of a past that never was and thereby square the circle of maintaining (or even improving) its standard of living, even while it rejects any influx of newcomers.
Apartheid South Africa, though mangled in contortions of contradiction so severe as to be unrecognizable even to the most ardent Rightist in the West, was a creature of the same stripe. "Separate development" was always only a unilateral vector of separation. It was never: you have your country and we have ours. It was always: we have the entire country and you play the role that we determine for you. So, Whites who made up a fraction of the total population appropriated nearly all of the land, adding insult to injury with the travesty of "Homelands" into which they crammed non-Whites. Whites maintained a monopoly on political power, claiming the superior status of "ward" of civilization to Blacks by virtue of their Western origin (presumably this superior civilized status encompassed also the members of the neo-Nazi AWB who rammed their vehicles into the World Trade Center in Johannesberg and pissed on the carpet during the political negotiations between the National Party and the ANC for a new constitution). And, most telling of all, throughout the history of Afrikaner presence in South Africa, it was never: you make your money and we'll make ours. Rather, it was: you work for us in order to survive and we keep the profits. The pattern is always the same: radical economic subordination (and intermingling) at the material level that is then denied at the cultural and political level under the lie of "separation".
The lesson is clear. The Afrikaners could have had true apartheid any time they wanted it. There was plenty of space in South Africa for an amount of space for the Afrikaners proportional to their numbers. Such a true apartheid, as, hopefully, the above demonstration makes clear, would have been primitive and even stupid but not really evil. Not truly evil. What made apartheid evil and repugnant was the combination of material exploitation of land, resources, and labor with the dishonesty and guile that attempted to mask it.
Wanting to have one's melktert and eat it, too.
Start with even just the weakest form of this hypocrisy in the form of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States and Europe. The slogans are variations of the following: "we must protect our Western values" or "we don't have enough to share", etc. Mexicans don't speak English. Muslims don't endorse Western values of equality and liberalism. They all want to take our resources. Let's leave aside the adjudication of the truth of these assertions and, for the sake of argument, assume their truth. Let's grant to cultural interests a political stake that is as worthy of consideration as any material interest. (Not patently absurd, as it turns out, but we shall refrain--except in a fit of paralipsis like this one--from evaluation). Let's even assume a finite set of resources. (Much more patently absurd, given the proofs of the geometrical growth of prosperity offered by Adam Smith, but, again, we shall refrain.) Assuming the truth, then, of these claims, they all seem to amount to a firm justification for isolation: you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.
But the Western half of the bargain--we'll leave you alone--is never upheld. Instead, in practice, it is: you leave us alone and we will make use of you as we see fit. So, the American South created prosperity on the backs of slave labor but then turned around and mandated separate facilities. Europe and the United States today still want the oil and minerals of Africa, the Middle East, and South America, even while they reject their people.
Some of the contradiction goes beyond hypocrisy into sheer blindness bordering on self-destructive stupidity: the naive belief on the Right that the West, with its abysmal birth rate (and East Asia participates in the stupidity here as well) can circle the wagons of cultural insularity and hoist the postmodern flag of a past that never was and thereby square the circle of maintaining (or even improving) its standard of living, even while it rejects any influx of newcomers.
Apartheid South Africa, though mangled in contortions of contradiction so severe as to be unrecognizable even to the most ardent Rightist in the West, was a creature of the same stripe. "Separate development" was always only a unilateral vector of separation. It was never: you have your country and we have ours. It was always: we have the entire country and you play the role that we determine for you. So, Whites who made up a fraction of the total population appropriated nearly all of the land, adding insult to injury with the travesty of "Homelands" into which they crammed non-Whites. Whites maintained a monopoly on political power, claiming the superior status of "ward" of civilization to Blacks by virtue of their Western origin (presumably this superior civilized status encompassed also the members of the neo-Nazi AWB who rammed their vehicles into the World Trade Center in Johannesberg and pissed on the carpet during the political negotiations between the National Party and the ANC for a new constitution). And, most telling of all, throughout the history of Afrikaner presence in South Africa, it was never: you make your money and we'll make ours. Rather, it was: you work for us in order to survive and we keep the profits. The pattern is always the same: radical economic subordination (and intermingling) at the material level that is then denied at the cultural and political level under the lie of "separation".
The lesson is clear. The Afrikaners could have had true apartheid any time they wanted it. There was plenty of space in South Africa for an amount of space for the Afrikaners proportional to their numbers. Such a true apartheid, as, hopefully, the above demonstration makes clear, would have been primitive and even stupid but not really evil. Not truly evil. What made apartheid evil and repugnant was the combination of material exploitation of land, resources, and labor with the dishonesty and guile that attempted to mask it.
Wanting to have one's melktert and eat it, too.
November 7, 2023
I'm not sure whether it helps, in these troubled times, to read about the world's troubled past, or whether it makes it all feel even worse and more hopeless, as if humanity is stuck in an infinite loop of terrible choices that keep compounding.
Still it is at least enlightening in an era of radicalism, when the US seems close to throwing away its own democracy in favor of something at least as destructive and vicious as apartheid, to read about the long scope of history in another troubled land.
How easy it is to make all the wrong choices: how easy it is to justify them: how hard it is to repair the damage done.
Thompson, having been brutally forthright about the impact of European imperialism and colonization, white racial pathologies, and apartheid, doesn't shy away from identifying the catastrophic flaws and failures, as well as the greatness, of the anti-apartheid movement and post 1994 governance.
Several decades after publication, Thompson's most pessimistic observations and analyses still seem relevant. South Africa, despite progress on some fronts, is mired in violence and corruption, made worse by white nationalist subversion (now part of a global movement).
The white minority had laid track for catastrophe well before 1994. The nation was in the grip of spiraling crime, inflation, economic stumbles, stagnant bureaucracies and crippling inefficiencies long before the end of apartheid. White nationalists like to ascribe the troubles to black rule, but the fact is, white rule was itself an abysmal failure.
That said, Thompson doesn't let the post-apartheid government off the hook for its failures, sometimes relatively minor, sometimes immense and grotesque.
Still it is at least enlightening in an era of radicalism, when the US seems close to throwing away its own democracy in favor of something at least as destructive and vicious as apartheid, to read about the long scope of history in another troubled land.
How easy it is to make all the wrong choices: how easy it is to justify them: how hard it is to repair the damage done.
Thompson, having been brutally forthright about the impact of European imperialism and colonization, white racial pathologies, and apartheid, doesn't shy away from identifying the catastrophic flaws and failures, as well as the greatness, of the anti-apartheid movement and post 1994 governance.
Several decades after publication, Thompson's most pessimistic observations and analyses still seem relevant. South Africa, despite progress on some fronts, is mired in violence and corruption, made worse by white nationalist subversion (now part of a global movement).
The white minority had laid track for catastrophe well before 1994. The nation was in the grip of spiraling crime, inflation, economic stumbles, stagnant bureaucracies and crippling inefficiencies long before the end of apartheid. White nationalists like to ascribe the troubles to black rule, but the fact is, white rule was itself an abysmal failure.
That said, Thompson doesn't let the post-apartheid government off the hook for its failures, sometimes relatively minor, sometimes immense and grotesque.
January 3, 2017
Read this book to get some background on South Africa ahead of a trip we were doing. This gave a great background to the country and was relatively easy to read.
A couple of notes:
- It's more focused on 1902 onward with a relatively cursory overview of the colonial period (not more detail than I've read before as part of general introduction to African history)
- Quite revealing in terms of history of segregation, apartheid, and New South Africa. Gave me a new appreciation of the uniqueness of the country
- Last chapter (that is written later) is a bit dry and overly formulaic. It's also reads as quite critical of the ANC government. As I don't have much context beyond this book, I cannot comment on whether this is warranted or not
Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about South Africa.
A couple of notes:
- It's more focused on 1902 onward with a relatively cursory overview of the colonial period (not more detail than I've read before as part of general introduction to African history)
- Quite revealing in terms of history of segregation, apartheid, and New South Africa. Gave me a new appreciation of the uniqueness of the country
- Last chapter (that is written later) is a bit dry and overly formulaic. It's also reads as quite critical of the ANC government. As I don't have much context beyond this book, I cannot comment on whether this is warranted or not
Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about South Africa.
February 3, 2025
Seems to provide a strong foundation for understanding South Africa's history up until a few years into the ANC's rule. Seems relatively unbiased, although I did feel that a real evidence based and detailed description of the suffering inflicted by the Apartheid system would have been useful, as opposed to the high level impersonal descriptions provided (if that makes sense). Very interesting explanation of South Africa's economic history. While the author has a clear sympathy for the prevailing global capitalist system, it doesn't seem to render him overly hostile or dishonest towards describing communist/socialist tendencies in South Africa. He certainly avoids covering this subject in detail though.
September 22, 2019
Woah. From when the Dutch East India Company first settled in what today is known as Cape Town to the death of Nelson Mandela in 2013, Leonard Thompson and Lynn Berat offer a stunning portrait of South Africa.
It leaves readers wondering about what is to come, especially for the ANC, now that the controversy-prone Jacob Zuma has been replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa. Although Berat does not draw any sure conclusions, she draws a significant number of illuminating parallels between the apartheid and post-apartheid governments that might prevent ZA from repeating past mistakes. Which is what Madiba always sought to avoid.
It leaves readers wondering about what is to come, especially for the ANC, now that the controversy-prone Jacob Zuma has been replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa. Although Berat does not draw any sure conclusions, she draws a significant number of illuminating parallels between the apartheid and post-apartheid governments that might prevent ZA from repeating past mistakes. Which is what Madiba always sought to avoid.
February 18, 2025
I found lots of problems with it that might just be errors in my copy, like 'Jonger' being used as a word instead of 'longer'.
Otherwise I found problems with the later chapters, the author's specific word choice gave off strong biases. Often these strange word choices would be accompanied by claims that have no provided sources. Not that many of the claims were untrue upon further research (Although some were). It just seems lazy and a little poorly edited for a proper dense history of South Africa.
Otherwise I found problems with the later chapters, the author's specific word choice gave off strong biases. Often these strange word choices would be accompanied by claims that have no provided sources. Not that many of the claims were untrue upon further research (Although some were). It just seems lazy and a little poorly edited for a proper dense history of South Africa.
November 16, 2021
A very credible and unbiased account of the South African history. It is doing away with all the glorifications and myths previously created to propagate social and political half-trues and lies.
It is well researched and based only on real and documented facts excluding fiction or political bias.
The emphasis is on truthfulness and the reader must not expect some kind of 'novel style'.
It is a honest scientific account of the region's history.
It is well researched and based only on real and documented facts excluding fiction or political bias.
The emphasis is on truthfulness and the reader must not expect some kind of 'novel style'.
It is a honest scientific account of the region's history.
August 5, 2022
Its been quite amazing to get some context to my childhood. I grew up in Kwazulu Natal until I was seven, and I feel like I've finally been told plainly the reasons why things were the way things were.
A good reminder of how much democracy and anti racism is so much a continuous struggle, rather than all sorted after a victory. This feels like a very wide reaching and important book.
Anyway, Mandela is a badass. ✌️
A good reminder of how much democracy and anti racism is so much a continuous struggle, rather than all sorted after a victory. This feels like a very wide reaching and important book.
Anyway, Mandela is a badass. ✌️
March 19, 2023
I actually read volume 2 of The Rise of South Africa and just logged a random book as Goodreads does not have an entry for volume 2. This is just so that at least something is logged on my book list. Volume 2 is a great read however. If you would like to know of the British settlements in South Africa, this is a great source of information. Well worth a read!
January 11, 2019
A great overview of South African history. I especially enjoyed the sections up until the 20th century, particularly the Mfecane, as I feel this part of South African history is least known. This is an essential book for those who want to understand the present-day South Africa.
July 7, 2022
Incredibly thorough and well written. This is a very complicated country politically and the author did a great job explaining all of the groups that make up South Africa and taking the reader through the country’s history.
June 5, 2024
great review of South African history
Very much enjoyed this in depth read that goes way back and gives lovely context to the Mandela story we know well. Worrying times for a great nation.
Very much enjoyed this in depth read that goes way back and gives lovely context to the Mandela story we know well. Worrying times for a great nation.
June 19, 2024
A really interesting book. It was a bit of a slog getting through the initial quarter or so, but purely because there is a lot going on and sometimes difficult to keep track of, but worth a read if it interests you.
January 21, 2025
A well written book that covers the colonial era through the Zuma presidency in the 2010's in a reasonable number of pages.
A standard "history book" but provides a balanced and in-depth accounting of this fascinating country.
A standard "history book" but provides a balanced and in-depth accounting of this fascinating country.
November 3, 2025
Very interesting. Gives a very good overview of the history of South Africa, especially the earlier years before Apartheid where books are limited. The book also had a good balance between the different time periods and was not too lengthy or complex to read
July 23, 2017
a cautionary tale to which no one is listening
December 9, 2017
This book is succinct for me to understand the long history about SA.
December 1, 2017
always real
May 17, 2018
5 stars for the history.
4 stars because it is so dense!
4 stars because it is so dense!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews