Babak Fakhamzadeh

A history of The Congo, the DRC, as a colonial entity.
Identified by the Belgian King Leopold II as the only viable area on the globe to claim as his own, in the middle of the 19th century, Leopold controlled the area, his private fiefdom, as a very malevolent dictator, under the guise of humanitarianism. First providing the king with ample funds through the export of ivory, The Congo later became a huge source of rubber, extremely harsh working conditions, essentially sanctioned slavery, resulting in the deaths of perhaps 10 million Congolese.

The book has an excellent review of Henry Morton Stanley's early years. Stanley, born John Rowlands, was abandoned by his mother and, after a few years with relatives, put in a British ‘workhouse' at the age of six, before jumping on a ship at the age of 17, when he sailed to New Orleans, where he got off and slowly obtained the identity we know him for. What's less known is Stanley acting as a proxy for Leopold after bumping into Livingstone.
First, on the king's account, traveling from the east to west coast of Africa, effectively staking out a claim for the king's Congo and, afterwards, campaigning for the King's actions for most of Stanley's life.

Though the book somewhat drags on at times, it's a surprisingly easy, and often grueling, but eye opening, read. It's amazing to realise to what extent Leopold's inhuman control of his territory, over 100 years ago, still has repercussions today.
After The Congo was handed over to the Belgian state and, in the 1960s, gained its independence, it was Mobutu who ended up with control of the country, having come of age under harsh conditions, watered down versions of those deployed under the King. Mobutu himself copied Leopold's style of government, deploying not only inhuman tactics, but ruling the country as his own personal source of money.
Of course it was that behavior which sparked the Second Congo War, a game changer for several African leaders, not the least Museveni, Kagame and Kabila.

Superb until the end, which left me a bit unsatisfied, though I can't but think that was exactly Coetzee's intention.

Probably, Holland's most interesting point is that the battle between the Persians and the Greeks at the successive battles at Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea resulted in the decisive split between ‘East' and ‘West'. The Greek's newfound democratic freedom evolved, through the Roman Empire, into today's ‘The West', while the Persian empire slowly evolved into the West's archetype of ‘things different', the East. The title, subtitle and back cover of the book are suggestive as more than half the book deals with the emergence of Sparta and Athens as significant local powers and their politics in facing the threat from the east. Holland demonstrates how Sparta developed into a, well, Spartan society where all men (and women) lived minimalistic and tough lives in order to be able to defend their city, while Athens introduced democracy to instill loyalty in its subjects towards the common good to avoid depredation of society and avert the risk of being run over by more powerful neighbors. Some historians, and Holland appears to be among them, believe that Alexander sacked Persepolis out of spite. However, [a:Mary Renault 38185 Mary Renault https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1378247630p2/38185.jpg] easily shows that this did not fit with Alexander the Great's character. On top of that, Alexander was Macedonian, a people who supported the Persian king when he moved into Europe and, consequently, none of its cities were sacked by the King of Kings. However, as Alexander was leading a sizable army into Persia, it must have been filled with Athenians and Spartans. So during the victory dinner and drinks in Persepolis, some spiteful Greeks easily could have started the blazing fire. One thing that annoyed me about Holland's writing is his consistent labeling of the Persians as ‘barbarians'. For a long time, I assumed he was being sarcastic, using the Greek description for the forces of the east. However, his continuous insistence suggests he's got some personal grudge against the ancient Persians. As a whole, the book's a bit too long. Indeed, sometimes going into excessive detail more interesting to scholars than the casual reader. Holland mentions some very interesting facts I wasn't aware of. Here are a few... + The Medes were Aryans.+ Cyrus, the first Persian king, was the grandson of Astyages, the last Mede king, whom he overthrew before becoming the ruler of what arguably was ‘the first world empire'.+ Cyrus most likely died while on campaign, on the other side of the Jaxartes, today's Syr Darya, in present day Kazakhstan, before being buried in Pasargadae, which is also the name of his tribe.+ Darius, although a distant relative of Cyrus, was not his son or grandson.+ Holland paints a picture of the early Medes and Persians that clearly identifies them as Scythians, a culture which faded after the establishment of empire by Chinggis.+ Darius' communication system, employing relay stations on a network of protected roads with fresh food, drink and horses available to the messengers strongly resembles the one employed by Chinggis some 1700 years later. + The Greek messenger, Phlippides, never ran back from Marathon to Athens to communicate the victory of the Greeks over the Persians. Instead, Michael Brealis' inspiration for the marathon run at the 1896 Olympics came from the quick march back from Marathon to Athens by the Greek army, after the battle, when the Athenians realized that the escaping Persian ships now had free access to the city, by sea. However, Philippides did exist and actually should be known for a much more impressive feat. He took two days to cover the 140 miles from Athens to Sparta to try and enlist the Spartans in the war. Then, receiving his reply, he ran back to Athens and on to Marathon to communicate the answer.+ In Athens' democracy, women were practically forbidden to walk the streets. Any woman outside was assumed to be a prostitute. Related to this, brothels were state sponsored, access to hookers a democratic right.On a related note, why did some presumably Belgian businessman decide to name his chocolate emporium after the Spartan king who tried to repel the Persians at the battle of Thermopylae?

Some two years prior, I happened to be in a train in Bulgaria, rolling towards Sofia after having spent a day at the famous Rila monastery. That day, I was traveling together with a middle aged American guy and two young Dutchees on their Interrail through Eastern Europe. We had some challenges coming back, nearly missing the last bus and being almost too late for the last train to carry us to beautiful Sofia.

On our trip back to Sofia, we were accompanied by a small group of Bulgarians who also were trying to get back to Sofia from the monastery. One of them was a 15 year old girl who had been hiking for a couple of days, with family, in the Rila mountains but wanted to go back home because of a foot injury. She spoke perfect English.

We started chatting and, when asked why she spoke English so well, she said it was due to reading a lot of English books, her favourite author being M. Somerset Maugham.

A year later, I happened to stumble accross a used book by Maugham. ‘The moon and sixpence' is very, very good.

Although written almost 100 years ago, it doesn't have this dated feel about it that many books from that era have. The story is about a famous painter who travels to Tahiti to come to grips with his own life. Supposedly, the person was modelled on Gauguin.

Maugham is fabulous in relating the story which moves from London, through Paris to the Pacific. He is able to flesh out the characters very well and keep the story at a steady pace which makes you want to read on and on, the books 200 pages not nearly being enough.

A page turner in a typical Stephen King way, but with disappointingly boring characters.