ship. This is a work that should be read closelyby students of history and political science andby all interested in modern African affairs. TheHutchinson University Library must be con-University of Rhodesiagratulated on its superb presentation. The onlyirritant this reader found was the custom ofcollecting all footnotes at the end of eachchapter.A. J. DACHSŁ ».Iiv:WIDSTRAND, C. G. ed. 1970 Co-operatives and RuralCorporation for the Scandinavian Institute of AfricanThe publication comprises papers read at aseminar on 'Co-operatives and Rural Develop-ment' together with an introduction by the editorand some observations on the seminar, byNyanjom. The seminar, organised by the Scan-dinavian Institute of African Studies, was heldat the University of Uppsala in 1970 and thepapers were contributed by officials and researchworkers either currently or previously engagedin research on co-operative problems in EastAfrica. This was important in ensuring intimateknowledge of the subject and in dictating theparticularistic approach of the study which yieldsinsights of wider validity than more ambitiousattempts to achieve universality.The paper by Migot-Adholla effectively dis-poses of the popular myth that the communalstructure in traditional society (or that modifiedby colonialism) is conducive to the developmentof modern co-operative organisation. The 'ideologyof traditionalism' is aSso shown to have littlevalue other than as a rallying point for co-opera-tive interest with subsequent success or failure ofco-operative ventures being dependent on specificeconomic and environmental factors. The sameviewpoint is advanced by Cliffe in his evaluationof the prospects for village producer co-operativesin relation to the 'traditional ujamaa system'.It is contended that even in areas where a signi-ficant degree of economic and social differentia-tion has not been created by exposure to capitalistinfluence the success of the Ujamaa Vijijini policywill be closely related to economic advantagegoverned in turn by the appropriateness of thenew form of production organisation in any givensituation. The argument concerning the value oftraditional organisation is taken a further stageby Hyden who delineates the positive barrierscreated by the socio-political environment in EastAfrica to the introduction of a European-typeorganisation.Development in East Africa. New York, Africana PublishingAffairs, 271 pp. no price stated. ,Both here and in other papers attention isdrawn to the unfortunate consequences of theimposition of co-operative marketing organisationin all three territories, though in Kenya it wouldappear that the ideological committment is beingabandoned. This raises the question of the extentto which governments can overcome environ-mental obstacles through the popular remedy ofa combination of legislative control and co-opera-tive education, the former being necessary as animposition from above to combat inefficiencyand corruption while the latter should in timeprovide the essential element of membership par-ticipation; or is the collective will and philosophyof co-operation dependent on the evolution ofthe 'right' economic and social conditions? Thedrastic control measures introduced in Tanzaniaand, to a lesser extent, Kenya, are shown to haveresulted in a marked increase in overhead costsand, more significantly for the future, in a drasticloss of co-operative spirit and leadership. Thetwo papers by Okereke and Kasfir on Ugandaalso indicate that the solution adopted by thatcountry of granting monopoly processing powersto co-operatives is proving costly to the supposedbeneficiaries, the ordinary peasants.The closely related problems of economicefficiency and democratic control are furtherdiscussed in papers by McAuslan, Westergaard,Apthorpe and Widstrand. The deficiencies in thelegal framework pinpointed by McAuslan couldbe remedied by government but other weaknessesof co-operative organisation call for more far-reaching changes in governmental attitudes andpolicies. It is appropriate that the two concludingpapers should be devoted to problems of evalua-tion for as Apthorpe points out, 'Any inter-nationally and historically complex social organi-sation with spiritual as well as practical ramifica-tions that have become ends in themselves tends,frankly, to defy "evaluation" as in "projectevaluation" . . .'.93In Rhodesia the African co-operative move-ment is of much later origin and has not de-veloped to anything like the same extent as inEast Africa. It would appear that a policy ofimposition applied in the past and the movementsuffered also from a badly-administered creditpolicy, but the danger now is that the officialattitude may become too negative. The ex-perience of co-operative development in EastAfrica applies more readily to the current ideo-University of Rhodesialogical, committment of government to the esta-blishment of African local councils in the ruralareas. There is little doubt that in this spherealso a policy of imposition will be self-defeating:the creation of weak, incompetent and corruptlocal councils will entail greater supervision andcontrol by central government and thus createa barrier to the emergence of real communitydevelopment.H. DUNLOPRANGER, T. O. 1970 The African Voice in Southern Rhodesia, 1898-1930. London, Heinemann, 252 pp. 40s.Professor Ranger's long-awaited survey ofAfrican politics in Southern Rhodesia, spanningwhat he has rightly termed 'these vital middleyears' (p. vii), comprises the first volume of whatpromises to be an indispensible series. This worksucceeds in presenting a coherent picture, de-picting the essential continuity of the Africanresponse to white rule from the 1896-7 risings upto the peak of political activity preceding the1931 depression, an outline that in the generalis hard to fault. Ranger's achievement is esti-mable in view of the difficulties with which hehas had to contend; for example, a dearth ofavailable oral and written documentation, and anenforced separation from his Rhodesian sourcesover the past seven years.The book suffers from a number of minorfaults, some of which arise perhaps from thelatter circumstance. Several of the extended quo-tations have minor inaccuracies, and one or twoare unintentionally misleading. Sometimes, theauthor edits his documents without ellipsis, andin one case has re-organised the order of sen-tences (in the transcript of Gula Kumalo's inter-view with the Superintendent of Natives, Bula-wayo. p. 189). Ranger has 'tidied up' much ofthe punctuation, grammar and spelling in lettersand other communications emanating fromAfricans, to clarify the sense of their statements.But certain other practices are more deservingof criticism, in particular the author's habit ofgiving multiple references in footnotes, and theoccasional inaccuracy arising from an incorrectdate. For instance, the 'July 1927' meeting ofthe Southern Rhodesia Native Welfare Associa-tion (p. 179) could not have discussed the LandApportionment and Native Council Bills as thesewere not gazetted for another two years; in fact,this proposed legislation was criticised at themeeting sponsored by the Rhodesia Bantu Voters'Association in July 1929, referred to further onin the text (p. 182).Ranger's account suffers from a certain lackof perspective, induced by his subject-matter. Itunwittingly gives the impression that, to misquoteA. J. Hanna. Rhodesian whites comprised anundifferentiated mass of reaction.1 The intricatenetwork of African response and European coun-ter-response so ably traced in his work on theRebellions,2 finds no counterpart here. The authorendeavours to prove by implication (p. 163),that the Government as a whole was hostile toany African association (with the exception ofthe Rhodesian Native Association), and quotesthe views of S>r Charles Coghlan on certainR.B.V.A. representations; but he has overlookedthe more favourable attitude of the ChiefSuperintendent. C.I.D.. who commented on thisbody: 'Its representatives appear earnestly desi-rous of advancing the interests of their race andaiding in the good government of SouthernRhodesia.'3Official policy is thus presented as a purelynegative function, a stonewall of indifferencewhen it was not actually taking steps to repressAfrican movements. But was the Governmentas inflexible and unresponsive as this? Apartfrom one brief reference (p. 182), the authorhas ignored one important reaction to Africanpressure; the Native Boards informally establishedin the Reserves as a channel for the voicing ofgrievances.4 Also, one would like to know moreabout the relations between the proponents ofparticipation politics and the Government, espe-94