Reddit reviews The State of Africa : A History of Fifty Years of Independence

If someone is interested in last 50 years of Africa there is a nice book about it.

Fate and State

>We are advised to buy 'Fate of Africa' together with 'State of Africa', but they are the same book - 'Fate' is the US edition, 'State' is the UK edition. It's a very good account of the history of Africa, but I for one don't need two copies and would not have bought 'Fate' if I'd known it was the same as 'State', which I bought from Amazon 2 years ago. This is not the first time I have been misled in this way; Amazon really needs to provide better bibliographic details to help customers avoid wasting their money. From Amazon review

In any case, I read the "Fate" version and I thought it was a fantastic read. Like rickhunter333 said, it did seem to be a little repetitive as he goes through each region where similar events unfolded, but that is as it must for the history of the region.

He also does a very good job in (briefly) summarizing the entire colonial history of Africa and the state of the African continent prior to colonialism before getting into the specifics of the last 50 years.

Disclaimer: I've not read much about the continent and don't have much to compare it to aside from university history textbooks, but I was happy with the book and would recommend it.

Edit: grammar

The State of Africa by Martin Meredith is a great place to start. Gives you a fairly comprehensive overview of how countries in Africa transitioned to independence, and the problems that arose therein. Will really help you understand the complexities in different regions and gives perspective regarding current-day conflicts.

Ah.. good, that is more in line with what we are discussing. You're actually learning!! Even though you can reduce the hostility, but either way I'm proud of you.

The problem is that it is actually a fallacy. "Well it's already broken, so if I break it some more then it's not my fault".

First rebuttal: I already gave you an example of a stable democratic state that isn't unstable before western involvement. So that proves to you yes, there is a historical account of western destabilization.

Second rebuttal: I already conceded that there are many factors that caused instability in the region, not only the West. From tribal rivalries, racial and ethnicity clashes, to religion issues that already been there for thousand years. But does that means the West is completely at no fault here? I am (and most academics who share my view) does not blame the west for that.

We are blaming the west for drawing the borders that does not account for the culture that already has been established after their conquest since the first world war (This is also what happened to African colonies, and why they're so fucked up) It is the reason why the cultural clash that already has been there before became even more amplified which in turn when they became independent, clashes between states and inside the states are exceedingly high. Look at Kurdistan and Iraq for example.

We are blaming them for orchestrating wars around the region to destabilize it further, selling weapons and using the countries for proxy wars, funding drugs and opium trade, weaponizing militias and toppling stable governments, and so much more.

The region could be stable, look at the progress made by Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so much more.. but instead the west decided that it is not in their best interest.

http://www.amazon.com/The-State-Africa-History-Independence/dp/0743232216

That is for example one of the best book that explains how the west directly impacted to the instability of Africa and in turn their imperial holdings (while it focuses on Africa, it does also talk about the Mid-East as what happened in both region more or less are the same).