Understanding the Mau - Essay Example

How Did British Settlers, Officials And Experts Understand The Mau Mau? How Did British Settlers, Officials And Experts Understand The Mau Mau? British officials, settlers and experts understood the Mau Mau according to their interactions with the freedom fighters and their movement. In numerous instances, the freedom fighters and their ideals were considered as a liberation movement. In other cases, they were seen as a revolutionary force or a tribal and primitive movement. In these cases, the movement was usually isolated from its political and historical context (Barnett & Njama 1966, p. 7). An evaluation of the Mau Mau movement reveals that it had established close relations with the working class and the local peasant farmers and laborers. The movement also managed to unite the rest of the country under the objective of liberating the country from colonial rule. British experts viewed the movement as a collection of people who wanted justice for the atrocities committed by British settlers. It suited British settlers and administrators to brand Mau Mau as a primitive and cruel organization (Barnett 1972, p. 5). They also hid the real objectives of the movement in order to deny the local population justice and equality. This was important for the settlers because it gave them a platform for justifying their brutal repression and approaches towards the Mau Mau. British experts who viewed the Mau Mau as a freedom movement willingly offered legal and political assistance to the leaders of the movement (Durrani 2006, p. 17). They even provided platforms for the education of the leaders of the movement. British settlers strategically condemned the movement and freedom fighters in order deny them justice. Mau Mau was isolated from its historical context by British experts and elitists. These individuals did not consider the freedom movement as an organization that stood up against the atrocities of the settlers. Mau Mau was historically placed as a group of people who took arms to protect their native land against British settlers (Elkins 2006, p. 28). From the moment, settlers began to enter the country, natives organized themselves to counter the invasion. Many studies by British scholars and administrators during the period of the Mau Mau described the freedom movement as a modern nationalist response to the oppression and unfairness of the settler’s domination (Bennett 2013, p. 22). Colonial administrators and settlers considered the movement as an uprising that needed to be stopped vigorously. In response to the Mau Mau insurgency, British settlers and administrators created policies that confined natives to reserves and camps. Natives who lived in areas that were considered as problematic to the settler’s rules were driven to the reserves. The objective of this move was to ensure that natives did not hide in the forests as they waited to attack settlers and administrators (Leakey 2013, p. 67). British rulers also used this method to disrupt the activities of the Mau Mau, particularly in areas where natives were used as spies or suppliers of foodstuff. British officials also saw Mau Mau as a political movement. The resistance of colonial rule by the Mau Mau attracted global interest after the Second World War. British official’s response to the movement through the imposed state of emergency showed that the officials had recognized the political transformation of the freedom fighters (African Studies Association 1974, p. 19). At this stage of the resistance, the freedom fighters and their leaders came together to form a trade union movement. This had the characteristics of a political movement. Progressive nationalist forces supported the transformation of Mau Mau from a combative force to a trade union movement. The new organization had structures and liberation ideologies for the movement (Branch 2009, p. 42). Under the disguise of the trade union movement, Mau Mau officials continued with their agitation for freedom and the release of native land to the natives. Intensified British repression after the resistance took a political face was an indication that British Officials recognized the political force of the movement. Continued repression forced the Mau Mau movement into an armed struggle with the British forces and officials. After the Second World War, Kenyan natives began to change their country through pleas and petitions to the British Government (Odhiambo 2010, p. 59). In order to achieve their objectives, the public used the leaders of the Mau Mau as their political representatives. The recognition of the Mau Mau as a political movement influenced British rulers in London to host native leaders in London to discuss the political future of the country. It is also evident that local officials determined the flow and availability of information to London (Furedi 1989 p. 215). The meeting held in London also created a framework for the drafting of the country’s constitution. Leaders who visited London for the meeting were drawn from various parts of the country, which were resistant to British settlers and rule. British rulers recognized that they had to collaborate with the Mau Mau leaders since independence was imminent. Britain actively participated in educating young Kenyans with the aim of giving them the skills and knowledge required for driving the political future of the country. An important point of the political struggle for liberation was in 1950, during the General Strike. This period was characterized by political appeals for the release of Mau and trade union leaders. Mau Mau’s ability to make political demands changed the perception of the British officials. They no longer considered the movement as a primitive and tribal outfit, but a regional political powerhouse (Furedi 1989, p. 30). Mau Mau leaders wanted the British Administrators to give workers in East Africa their freedom. They linked political and fiscal demands. Mau Mau’s political structure was based on the support of peasant farmers and laborers. Trade union movements and the working class, who could articulate their objectives and needs of native Kenyans, led the movement. As a rejoinder to the political and economic demands, British Administrators declared a state of emergency, which closed down Kenya and its East African Protectorate (University Of Rochester 1997, p. 18). The British officials were given the support they needed to arrest and detain over 200 trade union and national leaders. They were also given the military support by the British Government to counter the Mau Mau uprising. These actions were motivated by the realization that the Mau Mau movement had become too strong for British Officials in Kenya (Grinker, Lubkemann & Steiner 2010, p. 47). British Officials also recognized that the Mau Mau movement was endangering the existence of the British political rule in Kenya. The three political ideas that guided the Mau Mau uprising were anti-neo-colonialism, anti-colonialism and the fight against British capitalism. After the state of emergency was declared in 1952, British Officials saw Mau Mau as a military unit that wanted to upstage the British rule. Mau Mau acquired guerrilla military tactics and established a military base in the forests (Leakey 2013, p. 67). They planned and executed military actions in the forests. Mau Mau recognized the importance of coordinating its activities and forming a military organization. The purpose of this entity was to control the overall military strategy and warfare against a well-equipped and armed enemy. In 1953, the military existence of the Mau Mau was reinforced through the formation of the Kenya Defense Council (Hargreaves 2014, p. 31). This was the highest political and military organ. British Administrators in Kenya saw the defense council as an organ that could formulate defense strategies, enact regulations and rules and form policies. The Kenya Defense Council also had the responsibility of coordinating the eight armies of the Mau Mau. The movement’s armed forces were organized by the council to fight the colonial rule (Youe 2002, p. 559). The council with the aim of performing administrative duties and policymaking created a new united organization. The creation of the Kenya Defense Council enabled the Mau Mau to establish a new military authority and democratic-level political authority. This council to fight against the British rule guided Mau Mau freedom fighters, their sympathizers and supporters. British Officials felt the growing political and military influence (David 1985, p. 403). In response, British officials called on the British government to provide military suppliers. British administrators enlisted natives into the army in preparation for an imminent war with the Mau Mau. Military supplies came in the form of military reinforcements and artillery suppliers. British administrators expanded the role of its police force, which comprised of natives. They were given the duty to conduct raids on people who offered resistance to the British rule. Situational changes forced British Officials and settlers to respond to the rising military activities of the Mau Mau. After a period of intense fighting, British Officials and settlers realized that colonialism was not sustainable in Kenya. Activities of British Officials were focused on ensuring that a second Mau Mau uprising did not occur. According to the then Internal Security and Defense official Mr. Swann, British military activities curbed the military and political activities of the Mau Mau (Lonsdale, 1990, p. 400). The focus of the colonial government was to detain many influential leaders of the Mau Mau in order to avoid a second uprising. Conclusion British settlers, officials and expert’s understanding of the Mau Mau were based on their interactions with the movement. In numerous cases, Mau Mau was seen as a primitive and tribal outfit against the British rule. Some of the British experts in Kenya and Britain considered Mau Mau as a revolutionary movement against the atrocities of the settlers. They even gave some of the Mau Mau leaders a platform to study in Britain and represent native Kenyans. The declaration of the state of emergency in 1952 was an indication that British officials saw the Mau Mau as a military and political unit. Bibliography African Studies Association 1974, History In Africa. Waltham, Mass, African Studies Association. Barnett, D & Njama, K 1966, Mau Mau from Within. New York Monthly Review. Barnett, L 1972, Kenya: Two Paths Ahead. Introduction To Muchai, K. “Hardcore: The Story Of Karigo Muchai” (1973). Richmond, B.C., Canada: Lsm Information Centre. Bennett, H 2013, Fighting The Mau Mau: The British Army And Counter-Insurgency In The Kenya Emergency, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Branch, D 2009, Defeating Mau Mau, Creating Kenya: Counterinsurgency, Civil War, And Decolonization. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. David, T 1985, The Origins Of Mau Mau. African Affairs, 84, (336) 399-433. Durrani, S 2006, Never Be Silent: Publishing and Imperialism in Kenya. London: Vita Books. Elkins, C 2006, Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britains Gulag in Kenya. Http://Www.Contentreserve.Com/Titleinfo.Asp?Id={Bc6fce54-F8e9-405f-9a22- D63ba39d7e7c}&Format=410. Furedi, F1989, The Mau Mau War In Perspective, London, J. Currey. Grinker, R, Lubkemann, S & Steiner, C 2010, Perspectives on Africa: A Reader In Culture, History, And Representation, Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell. Hargreaves, J 2014, Decolonization in Africa, The Post World, London, Routledge. Leakey, L 2013, Mau Mau and The Kikuyu. London. Routledge Library Editions. Anthropology and Ethnography. Lonsdale, J 1990, Mau Mau’s Of The Mind: Making Mau Mau And Remaking Kenya. The Journal Of African History, Vol. 31 (3), pp. 393-421. Odhiambo, E 2010, Mau Mau & Nationhood: Arms, Authority & Narration. Oxford, James Currey. University Of Rochester 1997, Rochester Studies In African History And The Diaspora, Rochester, NY, University Of Rochester Press. Youe, C 2002, Black Squatters on White Farms: Segregation and Agrarian Change in Kenya, South Africa and Rhodesia 1902-1963. The International History Review. Vol. 24, (3). Pp. 558- 602. Read More