What do you think?
Rate this book
Africa: A Modern History
The end of the Second World War heralded the rapid end of European African empires. In 1945, only four African countries were independent; by 1963, thirty African states created the Organization of African Unity. Despite numerous problems, the 1960s were a time of optimism as Africans enjoyed their new independence. By the 1990s, however, the high hopes of the 1960s had been dashed. Dictatorships by strongmen, corruption, civil wars, genocide, widespread poverty, and the interventions and manipulations of the major world powers had all relegated Africa to the position of a Third World “basket case,” the poorest and least-developed continent on the planet. In A Modern History , Guy Arnold brings a lifetime of thought and experience to his examination of the continent during these momentous years. He argues that imperialism has cast a long shadow and differentiates between external pressures to control Africa and the internal failures of its leadership. Additionally, he asks whether twenty-first-century Africa can promote its own recovery and renaissance. At one thousand pages, and with more than fifty maps and fifty illustrations, A Modern History will become the definitive reference work on Africa in the twentieth century.
1000 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2005
44 people are currently reading
462 people want to read
About the author
Guy Arnold
79 books3 followersGuy Arnold (born 1932) is a British author based in Marylebone, London, and a specialist in north-south relations who writes mainly in the areas of African history and politics, and international affairs. Over the course of his career, he has worked with the Overseas Development Institute, he created a National Youth Service in Zambia in the period before its independence in 1964, and was Director of the Africa Bureau (a non-governmental lobby group) from 1968 to 1972, as well as working as a consultant in the field. He is the author of more than 50 books including travelogues and educational books for children. He is an older brother to Bruce Arnold, a novelist and journalist based in Dublin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 4, 2022
This was an expansive, fascinating and thought-provoking - if a little dry at times - survey of African postwar history. I've read the version with the 2017 Afterword, and it's taken me over a year (or almost a year, I think) to read all 1019 pages. I'm going to have to be honest and say I struggle to remember much specifically from the first half of the book - I sort of put it down for a while in the middle of the year to read other things - but it has been absorbed into the intellectual soup of my wet mushy brain.
When I picked it up I thought "huh, I don't know much about Africa. I need to learn about Africa. This'll do". I looked up the author and found out he was a Tory, which didn't bode well but to be honest it really doesn't show (except perhaps with some of his attitudes towards aid dependency). In fact, at times it felt like a very postcolonial account of African history in the second half of the 20th century (and into the 21st).
Particularly interesting to me was how Arnold outlined the behaviours of the West towards Africa, particularly the USA, UK and France. Spoiler alert: it's pretty disgusting and makes for hard reading, especially in the section about the 1990s. In fact, the 1990s was the most compelling section of the book, particularly the exploration of Rwanda during the period. South African history is also fascinating, and it is covered well in this book. Arnold's identification of a "new scramble for Africa" is an interesting concept albeit disheartening. His call for an abandonment of aid dependency was a compelling perspective too, and I think I will have to read more widely before I come down on either side of that. It was also great simply to have a full on survey of such an unfortunately overlooked continent, including of smaller countries that I really didn't know much about. This has filled a lot of blind spots for me, and for that I am grateful.
My only gripes are really to do with structure: breaking it up chronologically was a little frustrating at times, as it was hard to follow what had been happening in the countries addressed in previous decades (the book is split by decade). Ultimately however, I'm not sure if this had been done better - having it split by decade has the bonus of showing Africa's history more holistically and emphasising the interconnected histories of the continent, which I think is important. So that is not really a gripe then. The only other thing was that it felt like some countries were overlooked/simply dropped off at points. I don't remember a section on Angola in the 1990s for instance - that being said I could simply not remember it. South Sudan was a conspicuous blindspot in the 2017 afterword though, I would've liked to learn about that immensely, as with the Horn of Africa. I understand why it wasn't included though.
Ultimately, this is a great if dense read, and all-in-all was surprisingly readable for its length. I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't had a chance to learn about African history (which I think is most people in Australia and much of the West because it isn't really covered very much unfortunately). IN the end I kind of feel sad, as I have after reading any immense tome. So much of my life has changed since I started reading this, for good (mostly), and at the risk of sounding incredibly trite I think I have changed quite a bit. I suppose I will have to see what changes are to come...
But that's irrelevant. tl;dr READ THIS BOOK (or at least the section about the 1990s).
When I picked it up I thought "huh, I don't know much about Africa. I need to learn about Africa. This'll do". I looked up the author and found out he was a Tory, which didn't bode well but to be honest it really doesn't show (except perhaps with some of his attitudes towards aid dependency). In fact, at times it felt like a very postcolonial account of African history in the second half of the 20th century (and into the 21st).
Particularly interesting to me was how Arnold outlined the behaviours of the West towards Africa, particularly the USA, UK and France. Spoiler alert: it's pretty disgusting and makes for hard reading, especially in the section about the 1990s. In fact, the 1990s was the most compelling section of the book, particularly the exploration of Rwanda during the period. South African history is also fascinating, and it is covered well in this book. Arnold's identification of a "new scramble for Africa" is an interesting concept albeit disheartening. His call for an abandonment of aid dependency was a compelling perspective too, and I think I will have to read more widely before I come down on either side of that. It was also great simply to have a full on survey of such an unfortunately overlooked continent, including of smaller countries that I really didn't know much about. This has filled a lot of blind spots for me, and for that I am grateful.
My only gripes are really to do with structure: breaking it up chronologically was a little frustrating at times, as it was hard to follow what had been happening in the countries addressed in previous decades (the book is split by decade). Ultimately however, I'm not sure if this had been done better - having it split by decade has the bonus of showing Africa's history more holistically and emphasising the interconnected histories of the continent, which I think is important. So that is not really a gripe then. The only other thing was that it felt like some countries were overlooked/simply dropped off at points. I don't remember a section on Angola in the 1990s for instance - that being said I could simply not remember it. South Sudan was a conspicuous blindspot in the 2017 afterword though, I would've liked to learn about that immensely, as with the Horn of Africa. I understand why it wasn't included though.
Ultimately, this is a great if dense read, and all-in-all was surprisingly readable for its length. I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't had a chance to learn about African history (which I think is most people in Australia and much of the West because it isn't really covered very much unfortunately). IN the end I kind of feel sad, as I have after reading any immense tome. So much of my life has changed since I started reading this, for good (mostly), and at the risk of sounding incredibly trite I think I have changed quite a bit. I suppose I will have to see what changes are to come...
But that's irrelevant. tl;dr READ THIS BOOK (or at least the section about the 1990s).
January 14, 2019
Hard to know what to say about this one. It’s an important book, it’s an enormous book, it’s an extremely informative book. But also, Arnold is not much of a “dramaturg” - at times this felt like reading a 1000-page long Wikipedia article and the going was pretty tough.
May 27, 2020
This is the best history book I've read since Tony Judt's Postwar and covers a similar period, starting just before I was born to the present.
It's hard to convey the author's anger, frustration, pity and sorrow at the events in a continent he obviously loved. Split into 60's, 70's, 80, 90's and after, it covers the main regios (Arab North), East, West, Central and Southern in each section, so if you had a particular country or area you wanted to focus on you could skip through, at 1200+pp it is a big book, but very worth it.
Writing from a British point of view, he doesn't hide his views on the majority British and French Imperialism, the well known Belgium horrors and the last to leave Portugal, the modern imperialism of the USA and EU propping up dictator they did business with, while lecturing and paying lip service to governance and democracy. He also covers the nascent Asian neo-colonialism of China and now India. He also have very strong views on the NGO in Africa, IMF and World Bank particularly being tools of EU and USA imperialism and trade, he doesn't spare UN, WTO and NGOs who work in the "Aid" and "Debt" industries.
All the major African figures of the late 20th century are covered, the waste of talent and the tranformations into dictatorships and or civil wars are covered. Not a happy book, but truly affecting and brilliant
If I had a (small) reservations, the editing could have been a bit tighter, spelling of names, particularly in the Arab North are mixed, even in the same paragraph and there is a bit of repetition especially near the end, but I felt exhausted by then and perhaps the proofer did as well
Unforgettably brilliant
It's hard to convey the author's anger, frustration, pity and sorrow at the events in a continent he obviously loved. Split into 60's, 70's, 80, 90's and after, it covers the main regios (Arab North), East, West, Central and Southern in each section, so if you had a particular country or area you wanted to focus on you could skip through, at 1200+pp it is a big book, but very worth it.
Writing from a British point of view, he doesn't hide his views on the majority British and French Imperialism, the well known Belgium horrors and the last to leave Portugal, the modern imperialism of the USA and EU propping up dictator they did business with, while lecturing and paying lip service to governance and democracy. He also covers the nascent Asian neo-colonialism of China and now India. He also have very strong views on the NGO in Africa, IMF and World Bank particularly being tools of EU and USA imperialism and trade, he doesn't spare UN, WTO and NGOs who work in the "Aid" and "Debt" industries.
All the major African figures of the late 20th century are covered, the waste of talent and the tranformations into dictatorships and or civil wars are covered. Not a happy book, but truly affecting and brilliant
If I had a (small) reservations, the editing could have been a bit tighter, spelling of names, particularly in the Arab North are mixed, even in the same paragraph and there is a bit of repetition especially near the end, but I felt exhausted by then and perhaps the proofer did as well
Unforgettably brilliant
December 8, 2023
A detailed and lengthy study, with lots of useful maps and illustrations, this book is nevertheless deeply flawed. It is impossible to write a comprehensive modern history of every African state in 1000 or so pages, and so the concentration is on the big fish like South Africa or Nigeria, which get chapters to themselves. As for the minnows, the effect is to raise expectations which cannot be fulfilled: although I cannot say my life is incomplete without a detailed study of countries such as Sao Tomé & Principe or Togo, I was nevertheless disappointed that many such places barely get a mention. For many of the smaller countries you would learn more in a wikipedia article than in here. Indeed, the book often reads like a (very) lengthy wikipedia article, as another reviewer has mentioned. It is not great literature, and the final chapters especially feel a bit rushed and repetitious.
The biggest problem, however, is the author’s very strong bias. Everything is the fault of the white man, and he especially hates the US and the UK, which he sees as racist neo colonialists always and everywhere only out to further their own interests at the expense of Africa. Of course, the Belgian record in the Congo is utterly indefensible: they left a country of 14 million with 14 graduates. And any smugness a Briton might have about our record is countered by the sobering statistic that after 157 years of British rule, Sierra Leone had a literacy rate of only 5%. That colonialism was exploitative and brought many evils in its wake is not disputed. But this point is overdone, laboured, and at times almost hysterical, with no real attempt at balancing the narrative.
In this book the motives of the West are always suspect. Aid is considered as a mix of Cold War politics, western guilt, and neo colonialism – but never as altruism. For Arnold, the West is never altruistic, it is just plain evil. France is accused of “balkanising”, Britain of “centralising”: damned if they do, damned if they don’t. In a criticism of Portugal, he says “the vast majority of Africans could in no way benefit from Portuguese racial tolerance.” To which the reader’s response is – “What – wait – racial tolerance!?” Funnily enough the discussion prior to this point has all been about how evilly racist the Portuguese were. In fact – as Arnold accidentally lets slip here - Portugal’s right wing dictatorship was arguably the least racist of all the European colonial powers. Arnold sneers at the half million Portuguese settlers leaving Mozambique “with their tails between their legs” instead of staying to help make a success of that country – without mentioning the fact that they were subjected to violence, terror and property confiscations. There is something unpleasant at his crowing over human misery, especially when innocent civilians are the targets. (And just as in the Russia Ukraine conflict, it is interesting that he labels as “mercenaries” any soldiers whose views he disagrees with – UNITA, RENAMO, and the black soldiers who formed at least half of the Rhodesian army are all therefore damned with this demeaning and inaccurate label).
Very few African countries are ethnically homogenous, which is of course a legacy of colonialism. Botswana – Africa’s sole success story – is one of the rare exceptions. And yet Botswana is an unlikely success story too, landlocked, agriculturally poor, and surrounded by neighbours who at different times have been hostile or deeply unstable. It would be instructive to examine why Botswana has bucked the trend. Wise political leadership and an avoidance of the socialist policies which destroyed the economies of so many other African countries seems to be the answer. Arnold doesn’t give this sufficient attention, in my view. And the reason for Botswana’s success isn’t just down to having the good luck to be relatively ethnically homogenous – after all, the most ethnically and culturally homogenous country in all Africa is Somalia – which is also one of the most spectacular failures.
Arnold points out the massive contrast between the educational resources spent on blacks and whites in apartheid South Africa. What he does not point out is the huge differential in the racially classified taxation system: the top rate of tax for blacks was only 10%. I do not believe this in any way justifies apartheid, but it is at least interesting to note that the differential tax regime was because of a recognition by Afrikaners that it was morally wrong to make blacks pay as much aswhites into the public purse when whites were getting more out of it. The collapse of the apartheid regime was to a large extent because Afrikanerdom’s intellectual theoreticians – especially in the Dutch Reformed Church – could no longer justify it on moral or ethical grounds. A belated realisation, no doubt, but I believe a result of a genuine change of heart. Of course, Arnold gives no credit for this. And he suggests English speaking whites were just as racist as the Afrikaners, ignoring the fact that the South African Chamber of Commerce – which in the 1980’s was almost exclusively white English speaking – was extremely anti apartheid not indeed for reasons of justice and morality but because apartheid made no economic sense.
South Africa is now a failed state, comprehensively pillaged by the ANC. This is the fault of nobody except the ANC. Sometimes, the evidence of African failure is so extensive and appalling that Arnold is almost forced to admit it: the regimes of those such as Idi Amin, “Emperor” Bokasa, or Nguema of Equatorial Guinea he concedes were marked by “ruthless brutality, massacres and murders...indifference to international opinion, contempt for the people…” And yet he still makes excuses. It is all the fault of the West, you see - either for supporting them, or for removing support. Just as he damns the West for giving Aid, and for not giving enough; for attaching conditions to its support, or for not showing enough oversight. Nothing satisfies him: it is always and forever the white man’s fault, because the African is a perpetual victim who has no agency over his affairs. An opinion which seems to me both patronising and hopeless.
This book does contain some factual inaccuracies (such as denying genocide in Biafra, or claiming the Battle of Cuito Cuinavale was a Marxist victory). The omissions are even worse – for example, Mugabe’s genocide against the Matabele is never even mentioned – a shameful omission considering the many pages devoted to Zimbabwe. Whenever Arnold’s language gets angry and intemperate, you can be sure he is on shaky ground – like the old story of the clergyman who wrote in the margin of his sermon “Argument weak – shout”. This book has too many omissions to be a really good modern history of Africa, and although that is perhaps understandable in a mere one thousand pages, what is not so easy to overlook is its heavy load of bias and intemperance. Although I read every page and even learned a few things along the way, its lack of balance means I cannot recommend it.
The biggest problem, however, is the author’s very strong bias. Everything is the fault of the white man, and he especially hates the US and the UK, which he sees as racist neo colonialists always and everywhere only out to further their own interests at the expense of Africa. Of course, the Belgian record in the Congo is utterly indefensible: they left a country of 14 million with 14 graduates. And any smugness a Briton might have about our record is countered by the sobering statistic that after 157 years of British rule, Sierra Leone had a literacy rate of only 5%. That colonialism was exploitative and brought many evils in its wake is not disputed. But this point is overdone, laboured, and at times almost hysterical, with no real attempt at balancing the narrative.
In this book the motives of the West are always suspect. Aid is considered as a mix of Cold War politics, western guilt, and neo colonialism – but never as altruism. For Arnold, the West is never altruistic, it is just plain evil. France is accused of “balkanising”, Britain of “centralising”: damned if they do, damned if they don’t. In a criticism of Portugal, he says “the vast majority of Africans could in no way benefit from Portuguese racial tolerance.” To which the reader’s response is – “What – wait – racial tolerance!?” Funnily enough the discussion prior to this point has all been about how evilly racist the Portuguese were. In fact – as Arnold accidentally lets slip here - Portugal’s right wing dictatorship was arguably the least racist of all the European colonial powers. Arnold sneers at the half million Portuguese settlers leaving Mozambique “with their tails between their legs” instead of staying to help make a success of that country – without mentioning the fact that they were subjected to violence, terror and property confiscations. There is something unpleasant at his crowing over human misery, especially when innocent civilians are the targets. (And just as in the Russia Ukraine conflict, it is interesting that he labels as “mercenaries” any soldiers whose views he disagrees with – UNITA, RENAMO, and the black soldiers who formed at least half of the Rhodesian army are all therefore damned with this demeaning and inaccurate label).
Very few African countries are ethnically homogenous, which is of course a legacy of colonialism. Botswana – Africa’s sole success story – is one of the rare exceptions. And yet Botswana is an unlikely success story too, landlocked, agriculturally poor, and surrounded by neighbours who at different times have been hostile or deeply unstable. It would be instructive to examine why Botswana has bucked the trend. Wise political leadership and an avoidance of the socialist policies which destroyed the economies of so many other African countries seems to be the answer. Arnold doesn’t give this sufficient attention, in my view. And the reason for Botswana’s success isn’t just down to having the good luck to be relatively ethnically homogenous – after all, the most ethnically and culturally homogenous country in all Africa is Somalia – which is also one of the most spectacular failures.
Arnold points out the massive contrast between the educational resources spent on blacks and whites in apartheid South Africa. What he does not point out is the huge differential in the racially classified taxation system: the top rate of tax for blacks was only 10%. I do not believe this in any way justifies apartheid, but it is at least interesting to note that the differential tax regime was because of a recognition by Afrikaners that it was morally wrong to make blacks pay as much aswhites into the public purse when whites were getting more out of it. The collapse of the apartheid regime was to a large extent because Afrikanerdom’s intellectual theoreticians – especially in the Dutch Reformed Church – could no longer justify it on moral or ethical grounds. A belated realisation, no doubt, but I believe a result of a genuine change of heart. Of course, Arnold gives no credit for this. And he suggests English speaking whites were just as racist as the Afrikaners, ignoring the fact that the South African Chamber of Commerce – which in the 1980’s was almost exclusively white English speaking – was extremely anti apartheid not indeed for reasons of justice and morality but because apartheid made no economic sense.
South Africa is now a failed state, comprehensively pillaged by the ANC. This is the fault of nobody except the ANC. Sometimes, the evidence of African failure is so extensive and appalling that Arnold is almost forced to admit it: the regimes of those such as Idi Amin, “Emperor” Bokasa, or Nguema of Equatorial Guinea he concedes were marked by “ruthless brutality, massacres and murders...indifference to international opinion, contempt for the people…” And yet he still makes excuses. It is all the fault of the West, you see - either for supporting them, or for removing support. Just as he damns the West for giving Aid, and for not giving enough; for attaching conditions to its support, or for not showing enough oversight. Nothing satisfies him: it is always and forever the white man’s fault, because the African is a perpetual victim who has no agency over his affairs. An opinion which seems to me both patronising and hopeless.
This book does contain some factual inaccuracies (such as denying genocide in Biafra, or claiming the Battle of Cuito Cuinavale was a Marxist victory). The omissions are even worse – for example, Mugabe’s genocide against the Matabele is never even mentioned – a shameful omission considering the many pages devoted to Zimbabwe. Whenever Arnold’s language gets angry and intemperate, you can be sure he is on shaky ground – like the old story of the clergyman who wrote in the margin of his sermon “Argument weak – shout”. This book has too many omissions to be a really good modern history of Africa, and although that is perhaps understandable in a mere one thousand pages, what is not so easy to overlook is its heavy load of bias and intemperance. Although I read every page and even learned a few things along the way, its lack of balance means I cannot recommend it.
July 12, 2007
Wow. A big book. I had to haul this thing around for weeks before I finished it.
It's extremely thorough and goes through history country by country. By the end of the book, pieces come together to make a clear picture. I'd recommend it because it really drives the point on evils of neo-colonialism and the corruption of world politics and "humanitarianism." It's enough to make you jaded for the rest of your life.
It's extremely thorough and goes through history country by country. By the end of the book, pieces come together to make a clear picture. I'd recommend it because it really drives the point on evils of neo-colonialism and the corruption of world politics and "humanitarianism." It's enough to make you jaded for the rest of your life.
Read
December 30, 2012Breathtaking and refreshing read. Never regretted buying it or reading it.
June 14, 2024
"Africa: A Modern History 1945-2015" by Guy Arnold is an extensive and informative account of Africa's political and social changes post-World War II. Covering the rise of independence movements, the formation of the Organization of African Unity, and the subsequent challenges of dictatorship, corruption, and civil wars, Arnold provides a comprehensive overview. The book's depth is both its strength and weakness; while it is highly detailed and educational, it can sometimes feel overwhelming, akin to reading an exhaustive Wikipedia entry.
It’s challenging to summarize this book. It’s significant, voluminous, and packed with information. However, Arnold's writing can be dense and lacks dramatic flair, making it sometimes feel like a long Wikipedia article, which made for tough reading at times. Rather better read jumping from one part to another depending on the interest of the day.
Overall, it is a good read for those looking to understand modern African history in depth.
It’s challenging to summarize this book. It’s significant, voluminous, and packed with information. However, Arnold's writing can be dense and lacks dramatic flair, making it sometimes feel like a long Wikipedia article, which made for tough reading at times. Rather better read jumping from one part to another depending on the interest of the day.
Overall, it is a good read for those looking to understand modern African history in depth.
February 29, 2024
This book is an attempt to cover the history of the entire continent in the post-WW2 era, however challenging this goal should be. In reality, the author focuses solely on the political part of the story, as if reading old newspapers in chronological order. If Guy Arnold had ever been to Africa, I have failed to find any clue of his personal experience there.
The book provides a broad framework of personalities and events, which might facilitate further reading. At the same time, I can't avoid feeling that the author had a political statement in front of him, which he was filling with his narration.
The book provides a broad framework of personalities and events, which might facilitate further reading. At the same time, I can't avoid feeling that the author had a political statement in front of him, which he was filling with his narration.
April 18, 2020
Fascinating. A very thorough history of modern Africa (post-independence). If you ever wondered why western countries give aid to African countries, why African countries are stuck in a poverty cycle and why there are so many civil wars in Africa, this book spells out the answers. Thorough examination of the issues surrounding neo-colonialism. The author may have had some bias, it appears that he worked in the Kaunda government of Zambia or at least worked adjacent to it. Nonetheless, an extremely important and well-researched historical document.
February 22, 2021
A massive work, well researched and very detailed. More an encyclopedia than a thematic, historical study, however, reflecting in this way the continent it covers.
The author covers regional topics and national histories across the decades over the period 1945-2015.
A worthwhile reference tome for students of the region.
The author covers regional topics and national histories across the decades over the period 1945-2015.
A worthwhile reference tome for students of the region.
August 6, 2023
Excellent overview of the history of the 50+ countries on the continent. Though I suspect he's gone over a bit fast on some topics, and has... ratherstrong opinions (see the Rwanda section and who is guilty of shooting down the plane of President Habyarimana in April 1994), I believe Guy Arnold gave a strong convincing overview of the trajectory of the continent in 70 years.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews