Likewise, Procter provides some new andvaluable insights into the operations of theU.M.C.A. mission as well. This is particularlytrue concerning the frequent military activitiesundertaken by the missionaries against theYao, whom they saw as invading slavers, dis-rupting the local Manganja and Lomwe popu-lations. Throughout the journal his own quietopposition to these actions clearly emerges, in-cluding his critical analysis of the factors whichbrought about the mission's martial activities.Such criticism allows historians a better per-spective on this aspect of the work of theU.M.C.A. in the Shire Highlands, and lendssupport to the numerous attacks made inBritain at the time against their use of force-ful means.Unfortunately, this and other importantcontributions which Procter's fournal mightmake are buried in nearly five hundred pagesof text with little to guide the reader. Theeditors have provided only a brief intro-duction to Procter and the U.M.C.A. mission.Instead of attempting a more complete analy-sis, they inconveniently asked the reader toturn for further enlightment to Owen Chad-wick's Mackenzie's Grave (London, 1959).This is unfortunate because Chadwick doeslittle to illuminate Procter's role within thesmall missionary band, despite having hadaccess to the manuscript of his journal. Thismight have been redeemed had the journalbeen carefully annotated, as the senior editor,Professor Bennett, ably has done for severalother works {From, Zanzibar to Ujiji, theJournal of Arthur W. Dodgshun; with GeorgeBrooks, Neiv England Merchants in Africa;and Stanley's Dispatches to the New YorkHerald). This volume, however, possesses notUniversity of Malawia single annotation. Such glaring deficienciesmay be the result of hasty preparation, but theyprobably reflect the relative lack of familiaritywith the history of the Shire Highlands andwith Central Africa in general.This not only makes the journal less readilyunderstandable to the general reader; it alsopresents pitfalls for the scholar. For example,at no point do the editors tell us that portionsof Procter's original journals were lost, onesection in his flight from a near ambush atManasomba's village on the Ruo River, anotherwhen fire destroyed the hut in which he wasliving at Chibisa's. In each case, Proctermanaged to reconstruct the missing segments,though lie confessed that they might be 'onlypartially restored'. These passages are oftenquite detailed and contain much valuable ma-terial, including the bulk of the history ofChibisa. But to what extent are they Procter'sobservations and not those of his colleagueswhose diaries he appears, even at other times,to have consulted freely? If these are his ownreconstructions, how accurately can they reflectwhat actually happened, having been recalled,in each case, not only after the passage of timebut also falling closely on the heels of somewhatcataclysmic events? Not only do the editorsfail to consider such points, they appear to beignorant of them.Fortunately, we can thank the editors andthe African Studies Center at Boston Universityfor at least bringing Proctor's own words to awider audience. In this way his journal of thefirst U.M.C.A. mission, as well as his valuableand relatively dispassionate observations on theAfrica he knew, will be a useful aid to a widerange of scholars interested in Central Africa.M. E. PAGEMURRAY, D. J. 1970 The Governmental System in Southern Rhodesia. Oxford, Clarendon Press, xxi, 393 pp.£4.The thesis of this book is to dispute the'prevailing interpretation of politics, foundedon the study made by Leys and on the pre-conceptions he shared ..... [which] mis-understands the character of the establishedgovernmental system of the period, and sub-stitutes for the actual dynamics, provided bythe intense inter-group competition amongthose in European society, a belief that changein the period was to be attributed to the actionsof a united European race which felt its domi-nant position to be threatened' (p. 370). InEuropean Politics in Southern Rhodesia (Ox-ford, Clarendon Press, 1959) Leys had predic-ted a swing to the party which offered the bestsafeguard to European interests, such changesto be accommodated within the establishedgovernmental system. Murray, however, findsthat 'what occurred after 1962, was not a swingtowards illiberalism within a continuing gov-96ŁŁ -*ernmental system, but the overturning of anestablished system founded pre-eminently onoccupational economic roles, and the beginningof an attempt to create another in its placebased on the role of European as against Afri-can', (p, 370). He is thus questioning an in-terpretation of Rhodesian history on raciallines by showing the 'intense inter-group com-petition' in European society.Murray's intention is to delineate thegovernmental system in the context of the widerpolitical and administrative system of the so-ciety, and to analyse the stability of this system.The first ten chapters are devoted to variousaspects of the Rhodesian governmental systemin the pre-Federal period. The formal structureof government, the Civil Service, Agriculture,Mining, Commerce and Industry, EuropeanLabour, Electoral Politics, and African Affairsare discussed in considerable detail, to showthe system of power relationships through whichbasic decisions are taken for the society. Havinganalysed these relationships, and shown thegrowth of the intrinsic power and administra-tive captivity of the government through itsalliance with representative organisations,Murray devotes his last, relatively short chapterto showing that this system had become un-stable because the government had come to re-ly on the co-operation of mafor representativeorganisations which by 1953 had lost the sup-port of a considerable proportion of the sectorsthey were presumed to represent; this weakness,it is argued, contributed to a large extent tothe success of the Rhodesian Front party in the1962 elections. There is no comparative analy-sis of the system during the Federal period,however, or for the post 1963, period, althoughwe have Murray's assurance that there was nochange during the Federal period which couldupset his analysis. He gives only a brief des-cription of the policy of the Rhodesian Front,to show that it relied on 'political organisation'as opposed to the old system of operatingthrough economic organisations, that It in factmoved against the 'vested interests' and broughtthe advisor}' and administrative committeessurrounding the government 'to heel'. Theplacing of politically sound men in charge ofthe Public Services Board, the participation ofthe Rhodesian Front in municipal politics, anattempt to take over the Rhodesia NationalFarmers Union, which failed but left the Unionto break up into commodity associations, areillustrative of this overthrow of the previousgovernmental system. It is a pity that thisanalysis was not taken further than 1964, sinceit could be argued that the R.N.F.U. has re-gained its former strength and has consider-able influence with the government, whilst theRhodesian Front has withdrawn from municipalpolitics. It would thus appear to be a reversalof the situation in 1962-3 and an indicationof a return, to some extent, to the original sys-tem. Although there is still a greater emphasison politics, and political organisation, it is justpossible that this 'overthrow' of the earlier sys-tem was a temporary measure in order to placethe new government (replacing one that hadbeen established for nearly thirty years) in aposition to assert its authority initially beforereverting to a system of co-operation with majoreconomic groups.As a refutation of the racial interpretation ofRhodesian history, Murray has not been com-pletely successful. Certainly he has shownin meticulous detail, that there was hostilityand confrontation at times between the differ-ent European sectors, but it does not followthat these were permanent cleavages or thatthe different sectors might not co-operate inthe face of an increasing African challenge totheir position in the country. In Interest,Groups in South African Politics (Salisbury,University College of Rhodesia, Monographsin Political Science No. 1, 1968, p. 71' P. B.Harris has warned against the view that thestudy of pressure-groups necessarily produces'a picture of Hobbesian conflict, group againstgroup, all involved in a vicious competition forpower'. Yet it is just such a picture thatMurray has produced, giving the impressionthat the European sectors were too involvedwith their own interests to have any moregeneral concern with the racial situation in thecountry. However, even in the limited aspectsof Rhodesia's history that Murray has chosento describe, he cannot help but indicate thatthere was an earlv awareness, and successfulsuppression of African competition.In the 1920s hostile feelings towards Africanswere expressed in the formation of vigilancesocieties, with Huggins himself chairing thefirst meeting of the Segregation Society in1929 fp. 290). Since this is not an historicalstudy as such, however, there is no mention ofthe constant opposition to the African franchisefrom as early as 1898. The fear of African ad-97vancement is shown in the opposition to Africaneducation, particularly when academic but alsoto industrial training as indicated by the out-cry in 1920 over the government IndustrialTraining Schools. Almost all legislation passedin the country expresses the attitude of settlersand the policy of governments in aiding whitesectors of the economy and restricting the com-petitive activities of the African population,which however was not in a position before1948 to assert and express its opposition tosuch policies.The basic flaw in Murray's argument, then,is the assumption that racial competition isexcluded by virtue of the fact that each of theEuropean sectors is often preoccupied withother interests, conflicts or policies. In his in-troduction, Murray points out that organisa-tions operate on several levels, not only thegovernmental: for example, workers are notonly occupied in relations with managementsover conditions of service, but also with TradeUnion matters and party politics. He neglects,in this analysis, their wider role as part of thewhite Rhodesian society. Similarly, no miner,farmer or shopkeeper is merely that; he hasbroader interests in the fact that he is a mem-ber of a minority white group in a predom-inantly African country?. Although such con-siderations might not have been to the foreat all times, they certainly underlie many ofthe policies and actions of the European com-munity, becoming particularly crucial after thelate 1950s.In seeking to explain the dynamics and de-velopment of the governmental system ofSouthern Rhodesia, Murray has concentratedto a large extent on'Structure, organisation andpolicy, with only occasional reference to themore general situation that might explain cer-tain developments. Although, for example, thedepression of the 1930s is cited as a partial or'indirect' explanation for trends towards greatergovernmental control during that period, thereis a tendency in the individual chapters to as-cribe such developments to more 'direct' in-fluences such as political pressure, or the in-ternal policy of government departments, withlittle reference to the local or internationaleconomic situation in agriculture or commerce.There is also a tendency in Murray's argu-ment to interpret certain policies and actions ofthe sectors in an unnecessarily cynical manner.The Farmers Union is described as having takenup causes, not on behalf of its fellow farmersor in its own interests as farmers, but 'as ameans of maintaining their support for them-selves'. Similarly, it is said, the RhodesiaChamber of Mines (a 'front organisation forthe British South Africa Company') 'tookconcerted action to break the [Mine Workers]Union: they encouraged the Amalgamated En-gineering Union as a rival union, they victim-ized the industrial union's members . . . By1923, the Mine Workers Union was almostbroken. With this achieved, the employersturned their attention to the AmalgamatedEngineering Union and managed to repeattheir success' (p. 124) ; this achieved, theypromptly 'manoeuvred' their way into the suc-cessful Responsible Government party after thefailure of the Union cause which they hadsupported in 1922, in order to break the Labouralliance with the Responsible Governmentparty. H. U. Moffat is given as an example ofthis manoeuvre, despite the fact that he hadbeen associated with the Responsible Govern-ment movement from 1912. This alliance withthe settler government perhaps explains thatgovernment's 'gerrymandering' of constituenciesin 1923, to prevent the election of any Labourcandidates Š an accusation which is difficultto accept since the High Commissioner hadbeen responsible for the relevant proclamation,and there had been no settler government atthe time the Demarcation Committee sat.Commercial employers are described ashaving exploited the sectional interests oftheir shop assistants to bring about thefailure of the Commercial Employees Asso-ciation. Even missionaries are described inthese terms. The actions of Cripps and Whitein championing African interests are interpre-ted as follows: 'By acting in this way . . . theyaimed to build tip their political power on anew basis. Instead of founding their positionon what was acceptable within European so-cietv thev relied on an African power base. Asyet the power of the Africans remained latent,but by organizing and articulating Africanpolitical demands, their aim was to found theirown position on African power', (p. 294).There are also less emotive assertions towhich objection can be taken, and which havebeen found to be incorrect, such as the state-ment that the Public Services Association 'actedas an ally of the Responsible Government Asso-ciation' (p. 29). The reference quoted for this98X Xis not only inaccurate, but since the Civil Ser-vice was not permitted to participate activelyin politics, it was impossible for the Associationto have been an 'ally' of the R.G.A., althoughtheir sympathies lay in that direction. It isalso stated that the Rhodesian AgriculturalUnion was 'created by the Company Govern-ment' (p. 62), but the reference cited for thisproves this not to have been the case; it was infact formed on the initiative and invitation ofthe Mashonaland Farmers Association.University of RhodesiaGenerally, however, this is an interestingstudy of the role of economic and other organi-sations within the governmental system, andthe conclusion that it was the instability of thissystem that to a considerable extent caused thesuccess of the Rhodesian Front is certainlythought-provoking. It is a pity that furtherspace was not given to the periods immediatelybefore and after the 1962 defeat of the 'oldestablishment' in support of this theory.E. LEEKAY, G. 1970 Rhodesia a Human Geography, London, University of London Press, 192 pp. £2,50.This is only the second major contributionby a geographer towards an understanding ofRhodesia as a distinctive part of the world.Much has happened to the country sinceDerwent Whittlesey's comprehensive and semi-methodological article was published in 1956('Southern Rhodesia: an African Compage',Annals of the Association of American Geogra-phers, 46, 1-97). Professor Kay has been ableto draw on more recent statistics and surveys,Rhodesia is better mapped and the Universityhas been actively engaged in research on thecountry. Ironically, the author was not able todraw upon the results of geographical researchthat he is now encouraging since he becamehead of the new department of geography. Ina sense this book was written too soon, but inanother way is has high-lighted the areas wheregeographical research might most profitably beundertaken. The author has summarised anddistilled the geographical information of thelate 1960s in an extremely systematic and clearaccount.The major theme of the book is the waysin which the country's resources have been de-veloped and used. In adopting a traditional,ecological approach to the whole of Rhodesia,'the preoccupation with political issues and theracial struggle for power' are seen as inter-ferences with the normal processes of develop-ment. Coming so soon after the author's ASocial Geography of Zambia (1967), it is notsurprising to see Rhodesia treated as anotherAfrican, inter-tropical, landlocked state with,in this case, a distinctive resource pattern andpopulation structure. As in so many regionalaccounts, little attention is paid to the broaderregional context of the study area except forthe treatment of migrant labour and settlementby pioneers and more recent immigrants.Throughout the emphasis is on the country asa whole rather than its parts, so that there isno place for an all-purpose regional sub-division.This is not to say that regional differentiationis not made but that it is achieved in differentways depending on the topic under discussion.Thus, apart from the regional classes, Euro-pean and African rural areas which are eachallocated a chapter, distinctive provinces do notemerge as an aspect of Rhodesian geography.Some (including the author perhaps) wouldargue that they do not exist or that other con-trasts overshadow them. Even if they seemnot to exist in the minds of Europeans, do theyhave reality in the Africans' perception ofRhodesia? Different African peoples whose dis-tribution is shown in Fig, 6 have developedcultural landscapes which are, if only subtly,distinct. No final answer to problems of thisorder will be found without more research ofthe kind now being done by the University'sgeography department.The first chapter sets the scene and intro-duces the main theme of man and resources andfrom the outset we are treated to the ingeniousdiagrams and clear black and white maps -whichcharacterize the book. A feature of the secondchapter is the carefully documented discussionof changing views of Africans in Rhodesia,followed by an account of race relations andcontemporary, political situation as it affectsRhodesia's international relations. The prin-cipal topics in the third chapter are the settle-ment and development of the country by Euro-pean settlers, land apportionment and labour99