In 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-94daily during the later twenties. The singleofficially-recognized association, the R.N.A., hasreceived rather cursory treatment, and thegroups of 'progressive' African farmers in theChinamora, Chiota and Soswe Reserves fosteredby the Native Department, are not mentionedat allNeither has Ranger noted the progressive trendof official policy under Coghlan's successor, H. U.Moffat, grandson of the missionary, one-timemember of the Anti-slavery and Aborigines' Pro-tec'tion Society, and one of the most neglectedof Rhodesia's political leaders. Essentiallyreasonable and fair-minded, Moffat was everready to investigate grievances; Ranger cites(p. 154) the I.C.U. complaint that NativeCommissioners made Africans take off their bootsbefore entering Government offices, but he doesnot mention that Moffat stopped this 'out ofdate' practice.5 Despite the 'hard line' maintainedby the Native Department under H. Jackson andC. L. Carbutt, and Moffat's frequent reluctanceto disregard the advice of his permanent officials,the Premier's statements sometimes had a definite'progressive* tone. In his reply to Kadalie's some-what provocative letter of December 1927, Moffatappears willing to have countenanced Africantrade-unionism along orthodox lines; despiteother limitations evident in the context, this wasa notable concession for the, times.6Ranger (p. 186), has served the Premier mostunjustly in his summation of Moffat's opinion ofwhat one gathers to be all African associations:' "I do not think they can do any real good. Ido not think they really know what it is theywant or how they are going to get it." ' A glanceat this minute,7 however, will indicate that Rangerhas misrepresented Moffat's judgement, whichapplied exclusively to the Matabele Home Society,a body that was already earning official disap-probation in 1930 because of its suspected linkswith the activities of Albert and Rhodes Loben-gula.Turning to the sources available on Africanmovements, it has already been remarked thatRanger has had to contend with a shortage ofdocumentary materials. The position in thisrespect is not likely to improve much in thefuture, as most district records do not appearto have been preserved, Native Commissioners'annual reports are not particularly informative,and the Chief Native Commissioner's files con-tain only material which his subordinates con-sidered important enough to be referred to head-quarters. Only a handful of Police files areextant, though newspaper sources, largely ignoredby Ranger, may provide further data.The author has written at undue length aboutsome of the more colourful outlets for Africanself-expression, such as the Independent Churchesand Watch Tower. It has been argued that theassumption that few Africans entered thesechurches for spiritual reasons 'is not easy toaccept.'8 Rather, their syncretist attributes, sowell illustrated in the account of the LomagundiWatch Tower communities quoted by Ranger(pp. 206-9) indicate a desire to find a satisfyingsynthesis of the old and the new, and an expec-tation that divine intervention would rectifyAfrican grievances without the need for humanagency. John Chflembwe's rising is an obviousexception to this generalisation, so far as CentralAfrica as a whole is concerned: an event thatcast a shadow over official policy towards chili-as'tic movements in that area for the next twodecades, and may tempt one to place a greaterdegree of emphasis on their political aspects thanis necessarily warranted.In contrast, the activities of African associationsand other secular bodies were much more directlypolitical and in such a survey deserve the fullestconsideration. It is to be regretted that Rangerhas not devoted more space to the political,economic and social problems of the burgeoningurban centres, problems which gave rise to thenationalist movement of the 1950s. The break-down of tribal authority, prostitution, the stan-dard of accommodation and wages, police raidingof locations, pass and tax laws, and the lack ofamenities all contributed to the growing fermentin the towns, of which the I.C.U. was but onesymptom. The Shamva strike of 1927, an eventof central importance in the inter-war historyof African urbanisation, and analogous to the1935 Copperbelt disturbances, is given only onepage in Ranger's book, whereas the less his-torically important Church of the White Bird,restricted to the Zwimba Reserve, is allocatedover five. The author attributes the Shamvastrike to the agency of the Watch Tower move-ment, although the file on the subject9 discloseslittle evidence of this; indeed, a nascent trade-unionism at the Shamva Mine stretching back toa store boycott in 1920, and stimulated by ideasseveral Nyasas had brought back from the Rand,seems to have been directly responsible for theincident. Only one of the 28 strike-leaders (not9522, as Ranger states, p. 147) was a self-declaredWatch Tower adherent.10In an entire chapter on the African evidencegiven to the Morris Carter Commission, Rangerdisputes 'the established interpretation . . . thatthe important thing was African acceptance ofthe principle of segregation' (p. 115) Š a viewironically cultivated later by the R.B.V.A. itself.While proving his point, he has detracted fromthe overall weight of the statements of themajority, who undoubtedly favoured theprinciple. Their existence is admitted, but theauthor does not investigate the reasons put for-ward. Thus in citing the evidence of Rusiki,Ranger omits the witness' opposition to thecontinuance of the status quo: '. . . it will onlylead to friction, because sometimes the cattlev/faich belong to the natives stray, and that willcause trouble with the white farmers.'11 Thisconstant harassment, resulting from Europeanfarmers impounding African cattle, was reiteratedby witness after witness, and was mentioned inthe Morris Carter report.12 A further argumentin favour of segregation was adduced by anotherwitness Ranger cites, John Ngono, who pointedout that it would facilitate the creation of NativeCouncils.13Notwithstanding these comparatively minorcriticisms, this book presents the authentic voiceof the articulate African at a time when, withthe exception of the I.C.U., 'the mass of thepopulation in Southern Rhodesia were politicallyinert, passive, and virtually powerless.'14 Anilliterate peasantry can leave no personal writtenrecords of their aspirations and discontent. Welearn of these only indirectly in the grievances,many of them economic, put forward at districtmeetings of chiefs and headmen with their NativeCommissioner, or even more indirectly in theprotests of the politically-conscious 'intelligentsia'.The limitations of Ranger's work as a history ofRhodesian Africans are apparent in the titlechosen; the next stage is thus clearly indicated Ša detailed series of regional historical studies,founded upon the compilation of oral docu-mentation.REFERENCESAll the documentary materials cited are located in the National Archives, Salisbury.1. HANNA, A. J, 1960 The Story of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. London, Faber, p. 34.2. RANGER, T. O. 1967 Revolt in Southern Rhodesia, 1896-7. London, Heinemann.3. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF NATIVE COMMISSIONER, Control of Native Associations, 1924-1931 [hereaftercited as S 138/18], Supt. C.I.D. to C.N.C., 28. viii. 1924.4. OFFICE OF THE C.N.C., Native Movements, 1923-1933 [hereafter cited as S 138/22], C.N.C. to Sec, Premier,21.1.1931; and reply, 28.-i.1931.5. S 138/22, Sec, Premier, to C.N.C, 31.x.1929.6. The Rhodesia Herald, 31.1.1928; cf. RANGER, p. 152.7. S 138/18, Moffat to C.N.C, 24.ii.1930, headed 'Matabele Home Society*.8. SHEPPERSON, G. 1964 Religion in British Central Africa, in Religion in Africa. Proceedings of a Seminar heldat the Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh . . . 1964, pp. 47-51.9. BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA POLICE, Sundry Papers, Shamva Mine Strike. 1927 December [sic] 12 [hereaftercited as S 715/2].10. S 715/2, sub-file giving particulars of 28 Africans deported from Southern Rhodesia.11. LAND COMMISSION, 1925, Evidence: Oral, vol. 3 [hereafter cited as ZAH/1/1/3], p. 962.12. SOUTHERN RHODESIA 1926 Report of the Land Commission, 1925, Salisbury, Government Printer, CSR 3,para. 51.13. ZAH 1/1/3, p. 862.14. GRAY, J. R. 1960 The Two Nations. Aspects of the Development of Race Relations in the Rhodesias andNyasaland. London, Oxford University Press, p. 167.University of RhodesiaM. C. STEELE96