The best
African Politics books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of African Politics books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning African Politics books:
Read up on your history before making assumptions
King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618001905/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_aB8TBbCQ7Q6M1
Great article again by Robert Fisk. I'd be fairly certain, there is no Western journalist who has spent more time of the frontlines of the Middle East than Fisk has.
His book "The Great war for Civilisation" is a fantastic 1,000+ page book of similar reporting over 30 years. Covering the frontlines of the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanon Civil War (he lived in Beirut during the majority of the war and still lives there today), Palestine-Israel's various wars, First Gulf war, and the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's a great introduction book for people who want to know more about the Middle East and how we got to the current situation.
Highly recommend reading "King Leopold's Ghost" to anyone interested in the history of Belgian colonialist atrocities in Africa. Warning: it makes for grim reading.
> it coudl be argued much of africa has a better life and opportunity under colonialism
Read King Leopold’s Ghost from cover to cover before you ever make this claim again.
King Leopold's Ghost is a powerful book on Beligian atrocities in the Congo during its colonial period. Highly recommended for understanding what's taking place there to this day.
Anbefaler alle som er interessert i bistandspolitikk å lese Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa av Dambisa Moyo. Jeg synes FrP er en gjeng klovner, men ser man tilbake på alle de pengene som har gått med til bistand så er det grunn til å spørre seg hvorfor det ikke har fungert i Afrika.
The article doesn't really seem to answer the question about Senegalese "wanting" Peace Corps Volunteers, most RPCVs/PCVs know that the host country government has to buy into Peace Corps and local communities have to ask for a volunteer. I think that the interesting thing is that a president of Senegal said that pursuing free markets helped pull a lot of countries out of poverty, and Africa didn't pursue that course so that is a problem and that countries that receive foreign aid haven't been able to develop as fast. I ran across a book on Amazon I didn't purchase:
It seems to promulgate the same idea that massive amounts of foreign aid cause problems as there is, obviously, corruption in a lot of countries and the massive influx of money destabilizes things.
HOWEVER, the Peace Corps, IMHO, isn't foreign aid, it is living with communities to promote change and capacity building, and not dumping in a lot of cash.
I'd take the article and the book (which I haven't read yet) with a big grain of salt as Forbes praises both of them, in addition to the Wall Street journal for the book. But I guess it is good to challenge your beliefs about how development should function and being too proud that America pumps billions into foreign aid every year.
Jimmy Carter, the only president to negotiate a lasting peace in the Mideast, wrote a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Dobro pitanje, hvala. Uzeh knjižicu kojom sam bila oduševljena kao tinejdžerka, "Almodovarova teorema", od Antoni Kazas Rosa. Prevedena je samo na nekolicinu jezika, francuski, turski i srpski koliko znam, nešto tako. Na engleskom je nema.
Sećam se da sam u njoj saznala za Aphex Twin, i da mi je svaka rečenica bila toliko pitka i značajna da sam mislila bih je mogla istetovirati na sebe.
Fast forward, nisam mogla ni da je završim, mislim da sam je prerasla ili sam samo predugo u apatiji za svu tu romantiku. Ali preporučujem je možda za jedno čitanje.
Sad sam počela da čitam Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World, da razumem malo bolje svet. Spoiler: Kosovo je već u predgovoru.
​
A ti?
​
Or read a book. Shit, if you even read your own comment it shows that Belgium only sent troops to protect the white civilians. If you actually read that thread you'd see that the other UN members were opposed to providing support to the Belgian-backed secessionists and eventually even intervened to block and engage them. The only reason the US ended up involved on the behalf of the secessionists was because after they didn't want to back up the rebel factions those factions sought and received aid from the Communist bloc.
Though you did remind me that if we get any Free French forces for the Paris Liberation phase, we should probably get some Senegalese representation.
Eh, Israel would definitely lose this war. Arab militaries are mostly weak and poorly run (1, 2), but Turkey, Nigeria, and Indonesia all have fairly effective militaries. Also, Morocco and Egypt, the two most powerful and effective Arab militaries, would not be sitting this war out like they have more recent Arab-Jewish wars.
Of course, that disparity in military effectiveness sort of explains why this whole idea is laughable. This entire pseudo-state would effectively result in a few powerful cultures and militaries dominating everyone else, supposed brotherhood in Islam be damned. It would basically be a renewed Ottoman Empire, with Turks in the drivers' seat alongside Indonesians and a few other chosen peoples. I'm fairly certain the last time this happened there were one or two Arab revolts.
The Great War for Civilisation is a good book if you really want to learn about it.
Related note, this is a very good study of Arab military ineffectiveness: https://www.amazon.com/Armies-Sand-Present-Military-Effectiveness/dp/0190906960
I've been recommended to read Armies of Sand to explain how Arab militaries consistently go to shit and lose wars they have no right losing; so maybe I'll be able to get some answers from that, since it takes a deep look into Arabic culture and the background of the various countries in the region.
Book doesn't come until Saturday though and it'll probably take me a few weeks to get through it if work is busy.
Taliban had mountains that they entrenched themselves in. See the book Prisoners of Geography Afghanistan is essentially a giant valley and so even the US marines aiding there were at a significant disadvantage, coupled with the corruption within the Afgani military as well as religious intimidation within their ranks by the Taliban.
Al shabaab doesn't appear to have a similar geopolitical advantage.
Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa:
"A national bestseller, Dead Aid unflinchingly confronts one of the greatest myths of our time: that billions of dollars in aid sent from wealthy countries to developing African nations has helped to reduce poverty and increase growth. In fact, poverty levels continue to escalate and growth rates have steadily declined―and millions continue to suffer. Debunking the current model of international aid promoted by both Hollywood celebrities and policy makers, Dambisa Moyo offers a bold new road map for financing development of the world's poorest countries.
Much debated in the United States and the United Kingdom on publication, Dead Aid is an unsettling yet optimistic work, a powerful challenge to the assumptions and arguments that support a profoundly misguided development policy in Africa. And it is a clarion call to a new, more hopeful vision of how to address the desperate poverty that plagues millions."
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Working-Better-Africa/dp/0374532125
I recently read King Leopold's Ghost per a recommendation in one of the "audiobooks similar to HH episodes" threads:
https://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905
It definitely explores the history in a way that is reminiscent of a HH episode.
That said I would also like to hear Dan's take.
Read King Leopold’s Ghost. It’s horrifying and very well done.
King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618001905/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_i_YKPBDYMEWV8HBP12BTMC
Buying a commodity is not anything remotely close to the same as controlling its production. It isn't about making sure his people are fed. It is about controlling the production because if he does then he has the world by the balls. If Putin has almost a quarter of the global corn trade and almost 30% of the world's wheat he can use that as a weapon whenever he chooses. But, like I said, it isn't just about resources.
And why is Ukraine so important from a land/geopolitical perspective? The Carpathian mountains on the western side of the country are much easier to defend than the plains of eastern Ukraine. If NATO is allowed into Ukraine NATO (aka the US) is within spitting distance of the majority of Russia's grain and oil production and all that is between NATO and Russia is an open plain that can easily be moved across. On the contrary, if Russia takes Ukraine then the only path into Russia from a NATO country is through a small, easily defendable border with Poland to Ukraine's northwest, through the buffer state of Belarus, or through Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia. Considering Russia's is Kaliningrad immediately south of those 3 states they are not a very strong threat since Russia could easily cut them off from the rest of Europe. There is an interesting book about this exact topic and offers great insight into the geopolitics that have shaped our world.
https://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Geography-Explain-Everything-Politics/dp/1501121472
The setting - the Congo (country and river), and the occasional rogue soldier, stationed during Leopold's reign, in isolated areas upriver during the rubber boom.
I'd advise King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618001905, it explains Leopold's history in the Congo in very vivid detail.
Omg, this book is devastating…
From Wikipedia:
> They also burned recalcitrant villages, and above all, cut off the hands of Congolese natives, including children. The human hands were collected as trophies on the orders of their officers to show that bullets had not been wasted. Officers were concerned that their subordinates might waste their ammunition on hunting animals for sport, so they required soldiers to submit one hand for every bullet spent.[53] These mutilations also served to further terrorize the Congolese into submission. This was all contrary to the promises of uplift made at the Berlin Conference which had recognized the Congo Free State.
The Congo Free State was a vanity project of Leopold II of Belgium. The book King Leopold's Ghost is a fascinating and depressing read.
Joseph Conrad's book Heart of Darkness is believed to have been inspired by what happened there. The movie Apocalypse Now is a modern interpretation of Heart of Darkness.
For those who want to know how the sausage was really made, The number one ranked book in Amazon under Belgian history that goes into the grisly details :
https://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905/ref=nodl_
Quite a riveting read.
It’s called hyperbole…. Evidently not everyone saw the irony. Oh well. Most American “Right” are more concerned about masks and toilet paper…. As long as it doesn’t concern or upset my comfortable life, I’ll ignore it. Even to the point of destroying the planet.
If you want to read an interesting book on African wars, read “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda”
https://www.amazon.com/Wish-Inform-Tomorrow-Killed-Families/dp/0312243359
Hey there! I recently finished Kenneth Pollack's Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness , and it's fantastic! Pollack provides a comprehensive overview of the socio-cultural, economic and political factors that impacted the development and effectiveness of Arab militaries. Definitely worth a read!
On the heels of that, I also recently finished Gawdat Bahgat and Anoushiravan Ehteshami's Defending Iran: From Revolutionary Guards to Ballistic Missiles . The book provides an excellent overview of Iran's offensive and defensive capabilites, accounting for its strategic vision and both its hard and soft power capabilities.
Hey there! I recently finished Kenneth Pollack's Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness , and it's fantastic! Pollack provides a comprehensive overview of the socio-cultural, economic and political factors that impacted the development and effectiveness of Arab militaries. Definitely worth a read!
On the heels of that, I recently picked up Gawdat Bahgat and Anoushiravan Ehteshami's Defending Iran: From Revolutionary Guards to Ballistic Missiles . The book provides an excellent overview of Iran's offensive and defensive capabilites, accounting for its strategic vision and both its hard and soft power capabilities.
I actually agree that foreign aid is extremely fucked up (I read this back when it came out).
I was trying to argue the secular charity= angels, religious= toxic was an unfair dichotomy.
Oh they've definitely changed dramatically. I am not a military historian, I've just read a handful of books on the subject. But the two broad categories in which things have changed:
1) Disposability
Up to and including WWII, soldiers were still more or less like pawns on a battlefield. To be used and, if necessary, sacrificed.
These days, the army really really really doesn't want their dudes to die, if they can help it. Because a dude dying means like a million dollars worth of gear and training going up in smoke, and months of time to replace him
2) Independence
Up to and including WWI, soldiers were expected to follow orders, stay in formation, and generally shut off their brains. In modern warfare it is very, very, very not like this.
I was recently reading a book called Armies of Sand that seeks to answer the question (I'm paraphrasing) of "why does Israel consistently curbstomp Arab armies 10x their size?" One of the answers given is that Arab armies haven't adapted to modernity. They wait for orders instead of taking initiative and acting independently. The book points out that the IDF (as well as other modern western forces) devolve a considerably higher amount of planning and decisionmaking to lower levels of command than in the past, and how this is necessary on a modern battlefield. Modern battlefields just move too damn fast to keep the (eg) napoleonic army norms of "follow orders and stay in formation even under fire"
Hey there! I recently picked up Kenneth Pollack's Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness , and it's fantastic!
Pollack providesa comprehensive overview of the socio-cultural, economic and political factors that impacted the development and effectiveness of Arab militaries. Definitely worth a read!
Another reason is the aid/charity industries which over the past 50 years have negatively impacted African countries that they have set out to “fix”. Dead Aid is an excellent book by a Zairean economist on the complete failure of aid to help African Countries, and how aid actually created more poverty for Africans while benefiting the donor countries economically.
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Working-Better-Africa/dp/0374532125