“Mr Morel writes in a clear, hard style, without prejudice or sentiment, and it will be impossible for any normal human being of white origin to read these two hundred and forty pages without a feeling of profound shame.” Llewelyn Powys
+ Freeman 2:522 F 9 ’21 1100w
“His attitude toward the black men is that of the liberal Englishman: that is to say, he is opposed to the past atrocities and wants Africa helped in every benevolent and philanthropic way. He has, however, no conception of a self-governing, independent black Africa.” W. E. B. Du Bois
+ − Nation 111:351 S 25 ’20 640w The Times [London] Lit Sup p174 Mr 11 ’20 280w
“The book can be judged on its merits. The merits consist in recalling and setting forth undoubted and glaring injuries inflicted upon Africa and the Africans by European individuals, companies, and governments, and in warning against the danger of repeating the injustice and wrong. The warning is needed at the present time. On the other hand, like other books of the kind, it lends itself to criticism both in detail and on general grounds. Though the author can discriminate and does, when he likes, discriminate, there are wholesale and one-sided statements and generalizations which are far too wide.”
+ − The Times [London] Lit Sup p194 Mr 25 ’20 1200w
MORELAND, WILLIAM HARRISON.[[2]] India at the death of Akbar. *$4.50 Macmillan 954
“The opening of the seventeenth century—the period selected by Mr Moreland—was a critical epoch in the history of India. It was immediately antecedent to the appearance of new forces destined to influence India profoundly, and may be described as the close of the medieval history of India and the beginning of its modern history (it was in the year 1608 that the English ship Hector reached Surat.) For the economic story of the next three centuries substantial sources of information are available, and Mr Moreland’s aim is to supply an introduction to the study of that period. List of authorities, 5pp.’—The Times [London] Lit Sup
“Certainly no one could accuse Mr Moreland of forcing from the facts a too confident conclusion. His judgment is so cautious, so balanced, so hesitating, that if the one object of his book had been a definite comparison in material wealth and prosperity between 1605 and 1914, a captious critic might complain that the results arrived at hardly compensate for the sedulous care lavished on the inquiry. There are many shrewd reflexions on matters political and financial, the outcome of independent study and an original survey.” P. E. Roberts