The story of South Africa and the end of apartheid is a complicated one. It is not clear, however, that Waldmeir is adequate to the task of explicating that complexity. Her credentials, as provided to us through the discussion in the prologue, seem sufficient. She has a background in journalism, acquaintance with the continent and country, and interest in the subject. However, there is also a lack of sophistication in her presentation of herself and the understanding of the actors in the South African drama. It is particularly surprising that she makes a character assessment of a revolutionary based on his demeanor, and the fact that he swam laps in a swimming pool. That seems more of a child's perception of reality than an adult's assessment. The adult would recognize that appearances are often deceptive. In other words, Waldmeir seems almost too disingenuous. She does, however, have credentials as a journalist and a long term observer. These are important.
Still, from the beginning, there is question about her ability to present a detailed exploration of the facts and the history of apartheid. The racial situation in South Africa before the end of World War II probably should have been discussed more fully. In reading other material, it is clear that there was strict separation of the races, including the Indian minority, well before the time of apartheid that was enforced by the British. As she said, what the Afrikaners seemed to do was legitimize, or institutionalize, the reality of separation.
At the same time, the situation in South Africa, with its apartheid, and the situation in southern American, with its Jim Crow laws, seems vitally different. Although Jim Crow purportedly enforced separate but equal paths for black and white, it was not as draconian, nor truly as separate as the apartheid of South Africa.
Where South Africa differed was in its removal of black Africans to separate homelands, pretendi...