The tone of this book is relentlessly [social] scientific and analytical, presented in an "objective" and "unemotional" style. This, honestly, means that it's important to step back every now and then, because the focus of the work - peasant experiences of trauma amidst a revolution, frequently at the hands of the revolutionaries they're working to support - is intensely subjective and emotional. I don't think it's wrong that the author takes this approach, it's just important to keep in mind what exactly is being described. The material is, arguably, necessarily presented analytically, because what kriger is trying to do is correct a gap in a field of social science (the study of peasant revolutions / guerrilla wars generally and the one that took place in Zimbabwe particularly) that makes its flawed claims on "scientific" grounds. And the project, actually placing the voices of peasant "masses" at the center rather than elites or archives, is a good one. I'm learning a lot from this book.

But the violence discussed is intense, complicated, and much of the time not even directly the violence of the apartheid state!! That's something that should be explicitly mentioned. kriger doesn't go as far as to erase or justify state violence (yet?) but it's not really the focus of this book.