Talk:Mau Mau rebellion

Updating the Page

I will be updating this page from recent books written by the Mau Mau generals and solders who participated in this war. Mwenemucii (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I support a revision of this article. To me, it comes across as a political science essay by a radical student rather than an encyclopedia article. Much of the writing seems to present an opinion. Surely a neutral point of view is possible if editors can put aside their preconceptions and back up every statement.

When you refer to books “written by the Mau Mau generals and solders”, do you mean books written by Mau Mau generals and Mau Mau soldiers? Or is it Mau Mau generals and all soldiers (both Mau Mau and their opponents)? Does the article already cite books by generals other than Mau Mau?

I don’t understand the purpose of the quotation boxes. If the information is important, it ought to be part of the text. If it isn’t important, it is placard-waving and I don’t think it should be there at all.

Here is an example of an essay statement which I think needs several citations: The official British explanation [REF] of the revolt did not include [POV] the insights of agrarian and agricultural experts, of economists and historians, or even of Europeans who had spent a long period living amongst the Kikuyu such as Louis Leakey. Not for the first time,[92] the British instead relied [REF] on the purported insights of the ethnopsychiatrist; with Mau Mau, it fell to Dr. John Colin Carothers [REF] to perform the desired analysis. [REF] - While I’m inclined to question reference 92, I have not read it so I cannot say whether “not for the first time” needs more explanation.

Good luck. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

On page 43 of his Book The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon reports Kenyan victims as 200,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracymacl (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

An interesting figure from a foreign observer (who perpetuates the puzzling habit of adding 0's to official figures ... why is that ... laziness?): A victim is usually regarded as a casualty ancillary to the conflict (not a combatant). Does he make that distinction and then make a determination as to how many were killed by Kenyan Authorities (Village Guards, Police, ...), British Forces and the Mau-Mau? 144.134.99.146 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to decolonize

It's time this article gets a thorough cleaning. Fortunately a good-faith IP editor removed this tripe a while ago, but there is more to be done. Right now I'm looking to see who put that extension in the infobox listing the "Civilian Victims of the Mau Mau"--as if that matters more than whatever the Brits did. How many did they stuff in concentration camps, and how many people were killed, and women raped? No, that section should go as essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That sentiment has already made this article worthless as a source for Mau-Mau studies.

If an incident occurred (or a pattern of incidents occurred as an established strategy) then that ought to be recorded. It's called 'History'. If 'decolonisation' means whitewashing (excuse the inverted pun) and embellishing a particular point of view then that's something other than History. I (and many others) have noted that Wikipedia has become the sounding board for Pan-African propaganda (almost always sourcing from non-Africans) and you're well entitled to play that game if you want. The trouble with doing that however is that you are going to discredit yourself (and whatever virtues you assume you have) in the visage of future generations.

The initial game-plan of the Mau-Mau called for the genocide of white Kenyans which they failed to do (the Mau-Mau never had more than a modicum of support and many Kenyan tribes distrusted the motives of the Kikuyu (with good reason)). It is notable that some members of the Mau-Mau given over to Pan-African zeal would later take this game-plan to Zanzibar where they initiated the planned genocide of the Asian and Arab populace (killing by some estimates 20,000 of them in a couple of days).

Jomo Kenyatta and Julius Nyerere were extremely wary of Pan-Africans, arresting (and in some cases murdering them) at various stages during their respective rules. This only changed when Kibaki started to pander to them for two reasons: 1) The children of the elites had been infected by this disease during 'education' in the USA and brought it back and 2) surprise, surprise ... there was money (and easy virtue) to be made in it.

If you are going to do History then you have to take what the participants did at face value and evaluate them in that light. Anything else is ... well, I guess whatever it is that African Studies Departments in the USA/UK do! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:9AC:3EE5:DA86:8D07 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Do the people writing this know anything about Kenya?

From the opening:

"Dominated by the Kikuyu people, Meru people and Embu people, the KLFA also comprised units of Kamba and Maasai peoples who fought against the white European colonist-settlers in Kenya, the British Army, and the local Kenya Regiment (British colonists, local auxiliary militia, and pro-British Kikuyu people)."

A few individuals from the Kamba may have participated in the KLFA/Mau-Mau but the overwhelming majority did not.

The paragraph mentions the Kenya Regiment but not stunningly (and perhaps tellingly), the main ground forces of Kenya; units of the KAR which were heavily populated by the Kamba who the British regarded as among Kenya's martial peoples (along with the Maasai, Samburu, Somalis, ...). The KAR consisted almost entirely of indigenous Africans with a British Officer cadre.

The paragraph also omits as combatants the Kenyan Police (also heavily dominated by Kamba) and the Kikuyu Home Guard (which would eventually field more personnel than the Mau Mau and was the most effective land force in terms of casualties inflicted on the Mau Mau).

Asides from the recalled Kenya Regiment; Kenyan colonials, apart from forming Home Guard units for local-area patrols (typically at night after work) did not broadly speaking engage in the conflict other than occasionally being victims of it. Incidentally, people of British origin only constituted around 3/4 of the European colonial population in Kenya at that time and if you include colonials of Asian-origin, they probably did not even constitute a majority of colonials.

With regards to the Kenya Regiment: It started as a unit that drew primarily from White Kenyans (some Ugandan). During the time of the Mau Mau however, at least 1,500 native Kenyans served in the unit drawing, (in order of contribution) from Kalenjin, Kamba, Turkana, Samburu and also from Kikuyu, Embu and Meru (the main tribal constituents of the Mau Mau) as well as other tribes. Among these, the Maasai, Kipsigis, Turkana and Samburu were traditional enemies of the Kikuyu and more than eager for the opportunity to combat them.

The Maasai and Kikuyu in particular, have a long history of conflict and to infer they were working together is disingenuous (actually, laughable). Their most recent animosity stemmed from the Rinderpest infestations of the 19th century which had severely weakened the Maasai. The Kikuyu took advantage of this, raiding the Maasai and on occasions selling their women into slavery (and yet officially the Kikuyu 'never' sold slaves). The one tribe in Kenya that was notorious for raiding and selling slaves; the Kamba, also had long-standing animus with most surrounding tribes in Kenya for obvious reasons.

To misrepresent the constituents of the opposing forces and to suggest that because a few individuals from tribes may have been with the KLFA infers support from these tribal groups is a complete distortion of the landscape from the outset!

... and what on earth is a "colonist-settler"? Is this new African Studies speak in the US?

2001:8003:70F5:2400:9AC:3EE5:DA86:8D07 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You should edit the article and make sure your claims are objectively phrased and sourced. Disagreements that this provokes can be brought here. But others are unlikely to edit the article in the way you want on your behalf. Also, sign up to wiki, it doesn't take long. LastDodo (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Cautionary reliance on Caroline Elkins as a source for casualties and conflict

The American academic Caroline Elkins has written a sensationalised account of the Mau Mau which figures regularly in the content cited in this article. Her upper estimate of 300,000 deaths is frankly absurd. As has been pointed out by others that figure is not reflected in census data. Furthermore, I estimate the entire adult male population of Kikuyu in 1950 to be about 255,000 (6,000,000(tot. pop.) / 2(~male) / 2(~18-65 age bracket) * 0.17 (17% pop Kikuyu)).

To concoct a death figure higher than the adult male population of the main protagonist (being even within the Kikuyu a minority) is quite frankly unbelievable! While Elkins has been credited for unearthing Government archives (archives also accessed by scholars before her: Berman, Edgerton, Maloba, ...), she then purposely changes the demeanour of a viscous, localised insurgency into a conflict that she asserts has organised genocidal overtones. This completely inverts the nature of the conflict and I would caution people from parroting this absurd data and drawing conclusions from it. The methodology by which she derived her data has been debunked (e.g. see http://www.opendemocracy.net/david-elstein/daniel-goldhagen-and-kenya-recycling-fantasy ) the same source pointing out that between 1948 and 1962 the Kikuyu population actually grew from 1.03 million to 1.64 million.

2001:8003:70F5:2400:A817:E16E:6C34:7BF5 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

More rubbish data!

The claim that 6 million bombs were dropped

From the article: As the campaign developed, Avro Lincoln heavy bombers were deployed, flying missions in Kenya from 18 November 1953 to 28 July 1955, dropping nearly 6 million bombs.

(below is data taken from the original source that the source for the above statement (Chappel.S) cites for this claim (which incidentally, says no such thing))

The Avro Lincoln had a payload(stick) of 14 bombs (5x1000lb and 9x500lb ; one stick = 9,500lb ). In total 8 Avro Lincolns dropped a total of 4,500 tons of bombs (1 ton = 2204.62 lb) in 900 sorties.

Assuming a full stick of bombs was dropped each time (and the payload was the same as the mix of 500lb and 1000lb bombs described above - it may have sometimes changed depending on the target/intent):

bombs dropped = (bomb tonnage(total) / stick weight) x bombs_per_stick

= ( (4,500 x 2204.62) / 9,500 ) x 14
= 14,620 bombs

I call rubbish on the claim that 6 million bombs were dropped and suggest tonnage is used instead (which is the norm).2001:8003:70F5:2400:7943:9457:231F:621F (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Chuka Massacre

From the article:

"The Chuka Massacre, which happened in Chuka, Kenya, was perpetrated by members of the King's African Rifles B Company in June 1953 with 20 unarmed people killed during the Mau Mau uprising ... Nobody ever stood trial for the massacre."

Not true: The company commander, Major G. S. L. Griffiths was tried twice to obtain a guilty verdict (the first time his men lied trying to protect him/themselves). He was sentenced on 11th March 1954 to seven years imprisonment and dismissed from the British Army.

"Over the next few days, the regiment had captured and executed 20 people suspected of being Mau Mau fighters for unknown reasons. The people executed belonged to the Kikuyu Home Guard—a loyalist militia recruited by the British to fight the guerrillas."

Not accurate: 20 were reported as being killed to the District Officer, but reports derived from the military inquiry seem only to account for 12 people as being killed (one other shot (Farmer) - fate undetermined). 2 were Mau Mau captives and 10 belonged to the Kikuyu Home Guard who were beaten and later executed in a clearing - the reason (still not definitive) appears to be the failure of the Village Head to provide 3 goats to the troop (which was apparently taken as offence). The main protagonist was a Warrant Officer and ten of his troop who also pillaged farmland in the area (it is perhaps relevant that the unit was only newly formed and 'green'. The ethnic composition of the troop may also have been of import, but was not disclosed).

The incident was a major embarrassment to the British. The newly arrived Commander-in-Chief of British troops in Kenya General Erskine pursued the case actively through the military courts and was reportedly 'furious' when the first trial of Major Griffths led to an acquittal (who was not in the first trial tried for the Chuka Massacre, but an earlier incident for which it was thought the evidence was more concrete). Erskine had sought to make an example of Griffiths to a) improve discipline in his troops and b) remedy the effect the incident had on his relations with the Kikuyu Home Guard.

The second trial focused on the Chuka Massacre and why the 10/11? native soldiers who committed the massacre of the 10 Kikuyu Home Guard were not also subjected to trial is a matter of debate, but possibly not desiring a repeat in outcome of the first trial a deal was struck in exchange for their cooperation in providing evidence against Major Griffiths (who was found complicit in the murder of one of the Mau Mau captives).

2001:8003:70F5:2400:C1A1:88C:BF59:4142 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Obama's Grandfather

A mute moot point, but for the sake of accuracy Obama's Grandfather was not actually imprisoned during the Mau Mau. He worked as a cook to a British Army Officer and "...started providing information gleaned from his job to the Kikuyu Central Association, one of the political bodies-to-be swearing oaths to kill white settlers – from which the Mau Mau revolt would evolve." [Grandfather's torture by the British must have influenced Obama's politics ,The Guardian, 3 Dec 2008.]

He was either caught doing this or turned in by an informer. He was imprisoned in 1949 and released 2 years later (before the Mau Mau conflict started). Which was probably in hindsight fortunate for him, for had he been caught spying during the conflict he probably would have met a very different fate. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:D974:9D03:6894:1B58 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

moot? 71.84.185.182 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

My error! Thank you. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:B82D:4DA4:1E28:7DC7 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

KAR Native Kenyan Troops

From the article:

"Three battalions of the King's African Rifles were recalled from Uganda, Tanganyika and Mauritius, giving the regiment five battalions in all in Kenya, a total of 3,000 native Kenyan troops."

At that time I believe only the 3rd, 5th and 7th (later renamed 11th) Battalions would have been regarded as 'Kenyan'. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:D974:9D03:6894:1B58 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

OK ... well this is awkward!

From the article: "... the formal British colonial presence in Kenya began with a proclamation on 1 July 1895, in which Kenya was claimed as a British protectorate"

This is also incidentally the position of the Kenyan Embassy in Washington DC (see the History section which is 'interesting' to say the least).

So this revelation may be well, ... awkward as it appears Kenya's Diplomats do not even know the History of their own Nation: Kenya did not exist until 1920, it's land borders having being defined by the British in consultation with Germany, Ethiopia and Somaliland (and earlier, Zanzibar)! The name Kenya (for some trivia) was derived from the Kikuyu word for Mt Kenya: Kirinyaga which is why the Old-Timers pronounced it Ki'nya . 144.134.131.186 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The style of the educated Ideologue:

The article is just littered with this 3 step process of writing. It consists of:

a) An observation. b) Some historical tie in (related or unrelated). c) Cap with an unsupported self-affirming source that fortifies an ideologically based opinion.

e.g. From the article (lots of other paragraphs like this):

"In the early 1920s, though, despite the presence of 100,000 squatters and tens of thousands more wage labourers[a], there was still not enough native Kenyan labour available to satisfy the settlers' needs[b]. The colonial government duly tightened the measures to force more Kenyans to become low-paid wage-labourers on settler farms[c]."

This compounds a concocted diatribe which leaves the reader asking what measures (because they are not specified in [c] - which in this instance is a link (broken) to the Kenya Embassy page, the content of which is comical)? Please provide the details of these measures because they are not apparent, which leads to some confusion because there was no forced labour in Kenya (other than a singular archaic ceremonial measure in the Legislature)! It might be good to include a bit of balance. Like ask why, if there was a labor shortage were wages so low? How many early Settler ventures in Kenya (and Uganda) failed? Mention how the 'hated' Hut Tax was only warranted if the occupant was a wage earner and even then not to be applied if it created financial hardship. Then perhaps make mention of The Devonshire White Paper (1923) which guided colonial development in Kenya and made the position of the Crown crystal clear: Kenya was an African nation. It was being held in trust for the Africans and the needs and priorities of the African took precedence over all others, including Europeans, Asians and Arabs.

Signing off for now (may come back one day and do what the guy at the top of this page threatened to do: Rewrite this article so that it bears a bit more resemblance to the reality of what occurred).

All the best,

Bruce (Brisbane, Australia).2001:8003:70F5:2400:B4FE:E9CE:D0B2:9630 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Erroneous translation

"Uhuru" in Swahili means "freedom", not home. 93.33.90.254 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)