What do you think?
Rate this book
New History of South Africa
Since the last illustrated history of South Africa was published, far-reaching changes have affected not only the country, but the writing of history itself. In the New History of South Africa, 31 of South Africa s foremost share fresh insights and new approaches to the story of this country. Up-to-date international research is woven into a readable narrative history that makes the past come alive. Readable, yet authoritative, this is the story of South Africa, as it has not been told before.
454 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 2010
15 people are currently reading
215 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 27, 2011
Back in the 1970s there was a school of Marxist historians who attacked the "liberal" school that had flourished 30-40 years earlier.
According to the "liberal" school, the biggest problem in South African society was "race", and in particular "native policy", which they saw as retarding the development of the country.
The Marxist historians believed (with some justification) that the liberal historians had missed the role of capitalism in promoting poverty, oppression and misery. Capitalism was largely invisible to the "liberal" historians, because they assumed that it was part of a normal society, and if they thought about it at all, they thought of it being largely beneficial. Any glitches were simply teething troubles in the development of an industrialising society, and so in an industrial society those problems would be things of the past, just as when a baby learns to chew solid food and enjoy new tastes, it forgets the discomfort of the eruption of milk teeth.
The Marxist historians, or some of them at least, tended to deny that there was such a thing as racism. Racism, to them, was simply a cover up for class warfare, a rationalisation and an excuse for exploitation of the working class. All economic activity, and even government policies were described in terms of "extracting surpluses".
So there were two competing views of South African history -- one with the view that the central issue was "race" and the other with the view that the central issue was class.
Now this is a gross over-simplification, and I've been exaggerating the extremes and playing down the middle to try to make the two tendencies clearer, but these tendencies were nevertheless there.
There were other schools of history too -- for example, the Afrikaner nationalist school, which tended to dominate school text books in the mid-20th century, and protrayed the main theme of history as the rise and development of the Afrikaner nation, with its own language, culture and territory (which God had given them by displacing the savages who had previously occupied it). Central to this story was the Great Trek.
Marxist historians, on the other hand, tended to see the Great Trek as just one of several similar population migrations (like that of the Ndebele to Matabeleland in the present Zimbabwe) which put the ruling classes in the various groups in a better position to extract surpluses from their own groups or their neighbours.
More recently there has been, in the true Marxist dialectical pattern, a synthesis. If "liberal" historiography was the thesis, and Marxist historiography the antithesis, then the synthesis combines the two into a new synthesis. And that seems to be the role of New history of South Africa
According to the "liberal" school, the biggest problem in South African society was "race", and in particular "native policy", which they saw as retarding the development of the country.
The Marxist historians believed (with some justification) that the liberal historians had missed the role of capitalism in promoting poverty, oppression and misery. Capitalism was largely invisible to the "liberal" historians, because they assumed that it was part of a normal society, and if they thought about it at all, they thought of it being largely beneficial. Any glitches were simply teething troubles in the development of an industrialising society, and so in an industrial society those problems would be things of the past, just as when a baby learns to chew solid food and enjoy new tastes, it forgets the discomfort of the eruption of milk teeth.
The Marxist historians, or some of them at least, tended to deny that there was such a thing as racism. Racism, to them, was simply a cover up for class warfare, a rationalisation and an excuse for exploitation of the working class. All economic activity, and even government policies were described in terms of "extracting surpluses".
So there were two competing views of South African history -- one with the view that the central issue was "race" and the other with the view that the central issue was class.
Now this is a gross over-simplification, and I've been exaggerating the extremes and playing down the middle to try to make the two tendencies clearer, but these tendencies were nevertheless there.
There were other schools of history too -- for example, the Afrikaner nationalist school, which tended to dominate school text books in the mid-20th century, and protrayed the main theme of history as the rise and development of the Afrikaner nation, with its own language, culture and territory (which God had given them by displacing the savages who had previously occupied it). Central to this story was the Great Trek.
Marxist historians, on the other hand, tended to see the Great Trek as just one of several similar population migrations (like that of the Ndebele to Matabeleland in the present Zimbabwe) which put the ruling classes in the various groups in a better position to extract surpluses from their own groups or their neighbours.
More recently there has been, in the true Marxist dialectical pattern, a synthesis. If "liberal" historiography was the thesis, and Marxist historiography the antithesis, then the synthesis combines the two into a new synthesis. And that seems to be the role of New history of South Africa
Read
July 8, 2025I specialise in the history of Southern Africa so I have covered a lot of book shelves so to say.This book covers the political history quite well and I found some very interesting facts/insights in what otherwise is generally neglected.A lot of other factors that happened here is not touched on which is a pity because SA truly has a rich and diversified history.Politics is only a small part.This book can stand in the centre as the study of the SA's complete history though.(English is my second language).
9
9
March 10, 2024
An absolut fantastic and holistic approach to describe the history of (what is today) South Africa.
The amount and ethnic background of the various authors as well as their specialised fields allows the book to give multiple perspectives on the history of the land. Most impressive is that through this it is possible to understand all the different groups and their fears and resulting from this their intentions.
Imo THE standard work for South African History up until today.
The amount and ethnic background of the various authors as well as their specialised fields allows the book to give multiple perspectives on the history of the land. Most impressive is that through this it is possible to understand all the different groups and their fears and resulting from this their intentions.
Imo THE standard work for South African History up until today.
October 13, 2022
It's definitely a textbook. The writing, thankfully, was pretty good. As far as I can tell the accounts are balanced. The book could use more maps and graphics. Most of the photographs are not very good, lots of similar- looking portraits and outdated illustrations out of copyright.
August 21, 2013
This is one of my favorite resources to use as a history teacher. It is well presented, logical, easy to read and well chosen. What an amazing book!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews