Talk:Mau Mau rebellion

Improper Tone

I have no grounds to accuse the facts or references in this article of being biased, but the article itself is written more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry in parts. Referring to a quote as "moving" or to views as "atavistic and psychopathic" in the main text of the article is totally inappropriate. 138.37.245.232 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Very Biased

Unbelievably biased article towards the Mau Mau and anti British. Poor reflection of Wikipedia. No doubt that it was a brutal conflict but using quotes from editorials in the Guardian is not encyclopedia worthy stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.62.33 (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This entire article has an anti-British slant. Apparently the Mau Mau were delightful people innocently fighting for the freedom of their country while treating the indifferent inhabitants with the utmost respect and kindness. The British Authorities, on the other hand, with their draconian and satanic ways butchered, tortured and massacred anyone who stood in their way while summarily executing the peace loving Mau Mau militants at will.

Given the recent BBC article (oh the irony) I'm sure many people will be looking to brush up their knowledge on this period. A great shame Wikipedia is the hegemonic capital of misinformation particularly when it comes to military history and imperialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.66.205 (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Tone Seems Wrong

Forgive me for not having the right words for this. Although the article cites a great many sources, it still feels non-neutral.

There are a great many adjectives and adjectival phrases that seem a far distance away from being verified or even verifiable. Here's a few examples, but there are many more:

• the dogged British refusal
• the time-honoured colonial fashion
• This neat division
• to fret about how it would look if word about it got out
• to force yet more
• hardly stemmed

The language just isn't NPOV. I'll give this a rest for a few days, but if no one demurs I'll get to editing. GeePawHill (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Major mistake

Contrary to the popular myth the Mau Mau were not fighting for an independent Kenya. In reality they were fighting to slaughter the other tribes so that they alone would be the dominant tribe in Kenya. The British army thankfully prevented ethnic cleansing from being carried out. (JacksonTyrell (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC))

Your suggestion is quite insane. Sadly it cannot therefore be incorporated into the article.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hardly, as the Mau Mau were trying to kill the other tribes. Plans had already been drawn up for Kenyan independence in 1953, but the terrorist campaign meant it was delayed until December 1963. (JacksonTyrell (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC))

British actions in Kenya "even after decolonisation"

The subject of this article is not a field in which I have any expertise. I was struck, though, by a phrase in the following sentence:

"The files, known as migrated archives, provided details of controversial British actions in its colonies during the final stages of empire, including during Mau Mau, and even after decolonisation." (emphasis added)

Can someone explain how the British could still have been at work in this way after independence? What does this reference refer to? Nandt1 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Number of sorties and bombs

The section on air power says 900 sorties, 6M bombs. The 6M bombs is clearly an absurdly large number, as each aircraft would have to have dropped 6,000 bombs each on each sortie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.40.166 (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama link and Churchill bust

The section on the Obama link re: return of the Churchill bust is an outright falsehood as repeatedly debunked in the media and by the whitehouse : http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/27/fact-check-bust-winston-churchill ... I'm not much of an editor so someone please change this section (Anuoldman (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuoldman (talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

residual British Empire bias

I feel that there are still clearly non-neutral elements here. Much of the article shows both sides, but in places there is still a strong British imperialist/colonialist bias. This is natural, I suppose, as this article is based entirely or almost entirely on English-language sources, thereby giving more weight and prominence to the point of view (and especially the official, public point of view) of the British colonial government and their wealthy, land-holding allies.

A few examples: [all emphases mine]

1) African politics section:

"...presented him with a list of demands ranging from the removal of alleged discriminatory legislation..."

This after many paragraphs describing in some detail what could not reasonably be called anything but discriminatory legislation.

The very next line, describing the official's proposed remedy, pictures a possible future "solution" that is still extremely unequal:

"Griffith proposed a Legislative Council in which the 30,000 white settlers received 14 representatives, the 100,000 Asians (mostly from South Asia) got six, the 24,000 Arabs one, and the 5,000,000 Africans five representatives to be nominated by the government."

2) British reaction to the uprising section:

"...Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttelton in London received a steady flow of reports from Acting Governor Henry Potter about the escalating seriousness of Mau Mau violence..."

I understand that this reflects the official record of the British view of the time, but I would like to point out that nowhere in the article are the phrases "British government violence", "colonial government violence", "settler violence", "army violence", or "army special forces violence" used, although there is ample evidence in the article, and in newly available government sources, to justify the use of most or all of these phrases. There are two (somewhat indirect) uses of the word "violence" in connection with the colonial government, but never "government violence" or any such formulation. In contrast, there are four uses of the word "violence" in connection with the Kenyan insurgents, including the one noted above, which is specifically formulated as "Mau Mau violence". I acknowledge that this is a small sample size, but nonetheless, this is a 2:1 ratio in the assignment of the term "violence", with only one direct attribution - "Mau Mau violence".

3) First European victim section:

The section title itself strikes me as openly biased toward the British colonial point of view. The implied assignment of this incident as the beginning of the revolt, and so the beginning of the violence, is ridiculous in its arbitrariness! The article makes clear that there had been much resistance, before this point, to what was clearly a brutal occupation, and that the British response to it was even greater harshness:

"During the period in which Kenya's interior was being forcibly opened up for British settlement, an officer in the Imperial British East Africa Company asserted, "There is only one way to improve the Wakikuyu [and] that is wipe them out; I should be only too delighted to do so, but we have to depend on them for food supplies", and colonial officers such as Richard Meinertzhagen wrote of how, on occasion, they massacred Kikuyu by the hundred."

But obviously from the British colonial/imperialist point of view, the violence began when the first European was killed.

4) The repeated implication that the Kikuyu population was evenly divided, when the only ones who seem to actively oppose the uprising are the British-allied larger Kikuyu landholders whose motivation could be seen to be solely the preservation of the status quo. The other cases of Kikuyu who seem, at least superficially, to conform to the British perspective seem to result primarily from threat, intimidation, torture, imprisonment, and an ongoing, aggressively-pursued propaganda campaign by British and British colonial officials. Assuredly, there were horrible deeds on both sides, but, not surprisingly, British documents and British histories dwell almost entirely with those committed by the Kenyan insurgents.

Let's remember a little history, too. From the article:

"In 1894, British MP Sir Charles Dilke observed in the House of Commons: "The only person who has up to the present time benefited from our enterprise in the heart of Africa has been Mr. Hiram Maxim" [maker of the famous British Maxim machine gun, "the weapon most associated with [British] imperial conquest"], though such a state of affairs was in accordance with Sir Arthur Hardinge's insistence that "[t]hese people must learn submission by bullets—it is the only school . . . In Africa to have peace you must first teach obedience and the only person who teaches the lesson properly is the sword." The onslaught in Kenya led Churchill, in 1908, to express concern about how it would look if word got out: "It looks like a butchery . . . Surely it cannot be necessary to go on killing these defenceless people on such an enormous scale.""

5) Military operations section:

Repeated use of bland military jargon for what were often heavy-handed and brutal tactics, many times directed against civilian populations at large. Some examples: "coercion through exemplary force", "restoration of order", "special treatment", "pacification operations", " successful dispersion and containment", "sector-by-sector purge", "temporary barbed-wire enclosures", "remained in detention for screening", "further screening", "repatriation", "screening camps", "improved detention and interrogation regimen". How would the official histories read had it been British or American populations subjected to these euphemistically-described actions? The article contains a number of accounts of brutal torture, mutilation, and extra-legal killings (=murder) committed by colonial "settlers" and their associates, and the newly declassified documents make clear that British Army, special forces, and British officials are directly implicated as well.

So, horrific acts by Kenyan rebels (or patriotic resistance fighters, from their perspective) are repeatedly described in language seemingly lifted directly from British propaganda pamphlets, yet horrific acts by British, colonial, and their associated forces are most often described in cool, abstract military jargon or polite, indirect diplomatic language.

In terms of equivalency: Kenyan insurgent execution of suspected or known collaborators is repeatedly described in horrific, propagandistic terms, but hangings of suspected or known insurgents, or even supporters, are referred to in coolly-detached language, as a sort of administrative measure. Depending on the particular circumstances, hanging can mean instant neck-breaking or it can mean slow strangulation. Admittedly, the insurgents are reported to have then mutilated the already dead bodies in a symbolic act, but note the following, committed against a living person by the British colonial side:

"One settler with the Kenya Police Reserve's Special Branch described an interrogation of a Mau Mau suspect: "By the time I cut his balls off he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him.""

6) The bands of insurgents operating from the forests are repeatedly referred to as "gangs", an obviously non-neutral usage.

To summarise, the article does, in general, contain both major perspectives, but, because of the predominance of official, publicly-available British paperwork, and possibly because of the European and even British Empire roots of most writers on English-language Wikipedia, there is still a skewed perspective on this subject, in spite of what is obviously much work by dedicated Wikipedians attempting to fairly represent all perspectives.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough in your criticism, Heavenlyblue. I wish there were a "Talk" page about the "Talk" page so we could discuss the absurd amount of mythical nonsense written here by 'unsigned' who is obviously a few, or maybe just one, British neo-loyalist. The entire wiki article is so strange in that the prose is entirely framing the conflict as some kind of sectarian civil war, instigated by the Mau Mau, while at the same time using quotes of British officers that are horrific in the actions that they freely admit to performing. This is bizarre. Hmmm, anything to do with the ongoing legal battle between the Mau Mau survivors and the British government, (who still claim that the atrocities quoted here did not actually occur)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7btln8IB4rQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.84.8 (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Too much Reliance on Caroline Elkins

Shscoulsdon (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The first contribution "Tone Seems Wrong" seems to hit the nail on the head. Although the article has a fairly impressive bibliography of almost 50 sources and at least tries to aim for balance, it comes out as non-neutral. After puzzling about this, I would suggest this is because it uses a single work by a single writer, Caroline Elkins far more than any other source. I counted Elkins being cited 56 times out of a total of 228 citations. The next most common person cited, David Anderson, is mentioned 30 times, but this covers four studies over almost 20 years. I have two concerns about Caroline Elkins.

Firstly, at the time her book was published, she had at most 10 years of Kenyan Studies behind her, almost entirely limited to a study of the detention camps. David Anderson had about 20 years of experience of Kenya, and John Lonsdale (another source) over 40 year: both had covered a wide range of issue including (in the case Lonsdale) joint authorship of "Mau Mau From Below" and "Mau Mau & Nationhood: Arms, Authority & Narration", neither of which is cited. Although I can understand Elkins being quoted extensively in the section on Detention, I cannot see why the specialised work of a comparative novice is used as a source on African Labourer Categories, African Politics or British Reaction and Military Operations.

Secondly, Caroline Elkins' book is highly controversial. However valid some or even much of what she says is, no-one could accuse her of impartiality; her own Harvard page lists one of her specializations as "British colonial violence in the 20th century", suggesting a degree of presumption if not prejudice. Wikipedia's own article on Elkins show that her views have not gained uncritical acceptance amongst academic historians. Its Talk section shows she has critics and may claim adherents, but she has not created any sort of consensus.

The problem this raises is that most of the other sources are more or less impartial so by using Elkins extensively an appearance of bias may be created. In part, this is because most of the times her work is used it is quoted first and objections to it second, giving her a spurious primacy. In part, it is because if all sources bar one are broadly impartial but a much-used one is not, this last skews the whole.

"The problem this raises is that most of the other sources are more or less impartial..."

The reasons that this statement is false, and therefore invalidates the entire argument that comes before it, is that:

• 1. David Anderson is British
• 2. Bruce Berman is Canadian (i.e. pseudo-British)
• 3. Robert Eatman is American
• 4. David French is British
• 5. Ewart Scott Grogan is British
• 6. William Ormsby-Gore is British
• ... British
• ... British
• ... British
• etc.

So we have a pageant of white, Anglo/Western men filling out the details of a story that took place in Africa, in a community under colonial occupation by violent white men. To label that scholarly cadre "more or less impartial" you would either have to be a middle-aged (40+) white guy or a young, strapping neo-nazi ( I mean white "nationalist" ). 50.37.84.8 (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC):REV

Excellent response, talk. Ouch. 89.101.41.216 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ouch? I don't think so. It was a long response, but it can be dismissed almost in its entirety: let us remind ourselves of that thing called ad hominem. Should German historians not write about the Holocaust? I do my best to keep the British-sympathising IPs at bay. The article needs expansion in some areas, consolidation in others, but the broad outline is on the right track.

"..." is a British scholar? Perhaps by "..." you meant Bethwell Ogot and the rest of them who are not British?

"Canadian (i.e. pseudo-British)"—now you've descended into the absolutely absurd. I'm sure French-speaking Canadians would appreciate being called "pseudo-British".

Anyway, as I said, virtually the entire response can be dismissed as ad hominem. You wasted a lot of time typing that lot out. LudicrousTripe (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Very brave of 50.37.84.8|50.37.84.8 to identify yourself. Very clever of you to spot that scholars are not impartial (like, I suppose you are). Very kind of you to condescend to give us mere mortals a share of your clever insights. How very, very apposite of you to reply to a post about Caroline Elkins without so much as mentioning her. Shscoulsdon (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Illustrated History of the Army

This is an unacceptable source, and I do not know why it is being used. The military aspects to the conflict have been covered in far more detail in recent publications already cited in the article; there is no need for such a vague source of information to be used.

This bit about Mau Mau delaying decolonisation... Well, you can add it of you can cite a source. That's the way Wikipedia works. No RS to back it up, it doesn't make the cut. It sounds utterly bizarre, particularly as the lede cites an RS that says the rebellion set the stage for decolonisation!

Anyway, the fact remains that a source is needed. LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I expect the updated version of the Oxford Illustrated History of the British army has the same information as the 1994 edition. In any case plans for Kenya's independence had already been drawn up by Westminster prior to the uprising in 1951. The fact is that after World War II the UK was no longer a superpower and it could not afford to hold onto overseas possessions. Even Churchill in 1953 drew up plans for the independence of colonies in the Far East, while also agreeing to the Suez Canal Base Agreement in October 1954. (92.7.13.155 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC))

Bombing

I am going to try and find an e-mail address for this Chappell fellow and discover where his mistake is: the number of sorties or the number of bombs. Until then, and assuming a typo is the error, I believe the mistake more likely with the number of sorties than the number of bombs. Hence I left number of bombs rather than sorties in the article. See Chappell's article to understand my reasoning, which I will be happy to explain if you don't. LudicrousTripe (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

92.7.14.173 and Black-majority rule

Hello, 92.7.14.173! I feel you are misunderstanding Lonsdale's point. He is addressing the issue of WHY the British left Kenya to Black-majority rule (BMR)—in part, thanks to Mau Mau. That is all he is saying, and so coming back with "BMR was guaranteed once the British left" elides the issue: WHY did the British choose BMR? That is what Lonsdale is gunning for when he credits Mau Mau. Am I making my thinking clearer? I'd be happy to expound on the development of British thinking regarding post-colonial Kenya, if you wish? LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The British government had already agreed in 1953 that Kenya would be made independent, along with the Crown Colonies in the Far East. Black majority rule was assured because after World War II the UK was no longer a superpower and could not afford to hold onto overseas territories (which in any case no longer needed protection in the new post-war era). (92.7.14.173 (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC))

any claims or implications of "BMR was guaranteed" cannot be entered into the article without the inclusion of a reliably published source that explicitly makes such claims. We cannot make them nor imply them in the article based on our interpretations of what we think was "guaranteed" to happen.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to have one reliable source that states the opposite to what you are claiming, Wasserman's study published by Cambridge University Press, summarised in the Legacy section: "Though Mau Mau was effectively crushed by 1956, it was not until the First Lancaster House Conference, in January 1960, that African majority rule was established and the period of colonial transition to independence initiated. Before the conference, it was anticipated by both African and European leaders that Kenya was set for a European-dominated multi-racial government." LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Britain strongly supported black majority rule in Kenya under Jomo Kenyatta, just as the UK supported black majority rule for South Africa. (92.7.14.173 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC))

There is nothing "wrong" with what you are saying, but you do need some sources to back it up. That is all I am after. Perhaps you are unaware how Wikpedia works—given that you are an IP address, perhaps you are new to Wikpedia—but here the goal is to avoid The Truth. If you have some reliable sources to back up what you are saying, we can, of course, add them into the article. Also chopping out stuff you disagree with, however strongly, is not the way to go. LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We can and should include all major mainstream views and interpretations, but the inclusion of content must be based on reliably published materials and not just what we "personally know".

news.google.com * and books.google.com * and particularly scholar.google.com can be good starting points for finding reliable sources (but not a plain google search). (*however be wary of the blogs at google news, and we cannot use Icon Press, Books LLC and Hephaestus Press (wikipedia mirrors) iUniverse, Lulu, Xlibris (self publishers) at google books)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

92.7.xxx is banned HarveyCarter

Incorrigibly fractious User:HarveyCarter got banned, but he socks using 92.7.x.x IPs. Please delete his additions on sight, per WP:DENY. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Kenyatta as anti-Mau Mau leader

This is such transparent rubbish I am beginning to doubt the sincerity of your motives. Are you here just to play silly games, IP 92.? The British had him doing hard labour on the bribed conviction of being a Mau Mau leader, how can you seriously propose that he was a leader of the anti-Mau Mau effort? How can anyone suggest this with a straight face? LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Etymology and Muindi Mbingu

Blogger Martin Masai writes in "Just who was Muindi Mbingu?":

Accounts indicate that during the meeting [in 1938], when asked what he wanted done to his people, [Samuel Muindi Mbingu] responded in the local Kamba language — "Twenda kwikala ta maau mau maitu, tuithye ngombe to Maau mau maitu, nundu nthi ino ni ya maau mau maitu." (We want to live like our grandfathers, keep cattle like our grandfathers, for the land we live on is our grandfathers'.) The reference to Maa umau (our grandfathers) struck a familiar tune to the colonialists and they swiftly accused him of being the founder of “Mau Mau uprising" — the Mau Mau is accredited to this brave nationalist.

Is this etymology plausible enough to be included in the article? More likely, has it conclusively been debunked anywhere? The major plausibility problem with it, in my un-expert eyes, is that this story takes place in 1938, long before the beginning of Mau Mau. Also, Mau Mau was Kikuyu-dominated, yes? so it would be odd if they adopted a Kamba phrase as their slogan. (Google tells me that the Kikuyu word for "grandfather" is guka.) —Quuxplusone (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Propaganda (formerly Marxist propaganda)

'A feature of all settler societies during the colonial period was the ability of European settlers to obtain for themselves a disproportionate share in land ownership.'

It is reasonable to assess the behavior of both sides after a 60-year interval. But we don't need a lecture on the evils of imperialism. Valetude (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is simply a statement of fact, not a lecture. Why did you opt to smear it with Marxist propaganda instead of liberal propaganda? How would liberal propaganda have looked? LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)