BOOK REVIEWSThe Story of Maize and the Farmers' Co-op Ltd. By R. Cherer Smith (comp.)(Salisbury, Farmers' Co-op Ltd, 1979), viii, 190 pp., illus., Z$10.00.Those wanting to acquaint themselves with the history of maize in colonialZimbabwe have to content themselves with a rather thin gruel. The story of thatcommodity takes up only fifteen per cent of the book, the bulk of which is devoted toa straightforward account of the growth of the Farmers' Co-op, laced here and therewith brief anecdotes of the personalities involved.Mention of such 'characters' as former Co-op chairman John Pascoe (who saton the roof of a wagonette during the 1896 Rebellion, firing at the enemy as theyattacked the party of women that he was riding to safey from Alice Mine toSalisbury), and of Murdo MacCauley (largest maize producer in the Banket areawho, when a button fell off his trousers, would replace it with a mimosa thorn) setsthe tone of the Co-op story, which is presented more as a popular narrative than as aserious piece of historical analysis.Indeed, the historian will find only 22 references, mostly citing issues of theRhodesia Agricultural Journal and Sports and Sportsmen in South Africa andRhodesia, with only one reference to an original archival document.Because of this reliance on published sources, the book manages to repeatmost of the misconceptions about maize control in the 1930s, in which the Co-opwas so closely involved. As the author notes, the establishment of the MaizeControl Board was 'a very important landmark in the history of the Co-op' with thelatter not only playing the main part in introducing the maize control arrangements,but also in managing the scheme for the Government.All the more pity, therefore, that the author failed to delve a little deeper intothe mechanics of control. Had he done so, he might have been less eager to acceptthe allegation by White maize growers at the time that African-produced maizerendered the 1931 Maize Control Act unworkable. Historians now know betterthan to accept the assertion that African maize ousted European maize from thelocal market to the extent that 'by far the greater part of all maize produced in themaize belt' by the big European growers had to be exported at a loss. The simplefact is that Africans were being made the scapegoat for the large unmarketablesurpluses which were not of their making.More pertinently: to blame Africans for capturing the local market in'exempted' areas at the Control Board's expense is to ignore the basic truth that lessthan ten per cent of African sales of maize was delivered at places on rail fortransport to the main urban markets where it could compete with European-grownmaize (see my Maize Control in Southern Rhodesia 1931-41 (Salisbury, TheCentral Africa Historical Association, Local Series 34, 1978), 2). Such African-grown maize as did reach central markets certainly did not benefit African growers,but European speculators who bought African maize at depressed prices to sell at aprofit at the Control Board's standard prices (ibid., 8).Neither did African peasants benefit from the privilege granted them underthe 1934 Maize Control Act of selling through more than one outlet. For whetherAfricans sold their maize to traders, or to European farmers and prospectors, ordirectly to the Control Board, there was no way they could escape receiving less183184BOOK REVIEWSthan already depressed export prices. This was ensured by an elaborate 'rake offsystem whereby traders, miners, ranchers and farmers purchasing maize fromAfricans were obliged to pay levies to the Board which thereby derived the incomefor subsidizing the export losses of the large European maize growers (ibid,,18-20).In effect, what the Co-op participated in was an elaborate exercise designed toensure the survival of the European farming sector at the expense of the African.It is to the Co-op's credit that its members 'vigorously opposed' the two-poolquota system operated by the Maize Control Board, albeit for the wrong reasons.For not only was the system 'the very antithesis of co-operation'. It was, in the finalanalysis, also a piece of blatant exploitation.Ministry of Education and CultureSalisburyC. F. KEYTERSable: The Story of Tie Salisbury Club By C, Black.1981, xiv, 254 pp., no price indicated.Salisbury, privately.This story of Zimbabwe's senior club is basically a collection of lively biographiesof chairmen and members over the years. As such it is interesting reading andalmost constitutes a non-political Who's Who of Southern Rhodesia. It is a pity,however, that someone with Black's knowledge and skill did not attempt a moreanalytical history of an institution that, one may guess, played not a small part indefining Establishment consensus in White Rhodesia. Civil servants of a certainrank were expected to join; Ministers were extended membership if not alreadymembers. Thus when Special Juries were created there was considerable Whiteopposition to being judged as well as ruled by the Salisbury Club.R.S.R.Education for Employment By R. Riddell. Gwelo, Mambo Press in associ-ation with the Catholic Institute for International Relations and the Justiceand Peace Commission, From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe 9, 1980, 72pp.,Z$0.95.The inertia of a complex system is great. Although in a revolutionary era men'sminds easily leap ahead, rapid change 'on the ground' in an educational system isvirtually impossible. Thus, although published in 1980, this book is still of interestand importance, and must have provided a useful contribution to the ferment ofideas that has surrounded education in Zimbabwe since Independence.In the first two thirds of the book the author provides an excellent survey ofhow matters stood in education in this country on the eve of Independence, and howwe had reached that situation along a road paved with racialism. But with greatperception he remarks;The removal of racial discrimination, in practice as well as theory, andpolicies of positive discrimination will not solve the country's educationand development problems on their own. Indeed, in future years, it may