The Mau Mau rebellion in its causes and effects can hardly be made intelligible with a straightforward line of reasoning; in fact it seems to be more reasonable to apply a multicausal approach in order to consider all relevant aspects. It is extensively assumed that Mau Mau was first of all a movement to fight the economic deprivation of the Kikuyu people; however it cannot be examined irrespectively of the development of African nationalism and the particular inner conflicts of this peasant rebellion. I will therefore try to take into consideration the different attempts to explain this singular phenomenon, stretching from the economic background to social determining factors and the actual outcome of the revolt. Furthermore, I will examine the relevant factors that prevented the movement to gain wider support and recognition.
Was Mau Mau a war for land and freedom?
The Mau Mau rebellion in its causes and effects can hardly be made intelligible with a straightforward line of reasoning; in fact it seems to be more reasonable to apply a multicausal approach in order to consider all relevant aspects. It is extensively assumed that Mau Mau was first of all a movement to fight the economic deprivation of the Kikuyu people; however it cannot be examined irrespectively of the development of African nationalism and the particular inner conflicts of this peasant rebellion. I will therefore try to take into consideration the different attempts to explain this singular phenomenon, stretching from the economic background to social determining factors and the actual outcome of the revolt. Furthermore, I will examine the relevant factors that prevented the movement to gain wider support and recognition.
However, the agricultural changes remain a principal reason for widespread discontent. The central highlands of Kenya, which had a cool climate compared to the rest of the country and therefore provided the most fertile land, were inhabited primarily by the Kikuyu tribe. This part of the population was particularly affected by a considerable agrarian turnaround. The Land Acquisition Act from 1896 authorized the British administration to purchase land in order to construct the railway. It was followed by two more statutes; the Land Ordinance from 1902, which made it possible for the white settlers to acquire an estate on a ninety-nine year lease, and yet more important the Land Ordinance from 1915 which extended this lease to a period of nine hundred and ninety-nine years. As a result, the British colonizers could increase their administrative power over Kenya simply by their sheer physical presence. Subsequently, the number of farms ran by white settlers augmented steadily and began to thrust aside the traditional Kikuyu farming.
HST 257 Christina Dersch
Many Kikuyu were now subjugated or chased out of their farmland. Having been expulsed from the land they previously tilled, at least a small number of the Kikuyu people were lucky enough to become squatters. They were now forced to work on the farms of the European settlers by being turned into tenant farmers who had no actual rights and had to work a fixed number of days per year for their lairds. The huge majority of the Kikuyu people were repatriated to the fringe of the White Highlands into reserves. Consequently, the most arable land was almost completely in the hands of the white settlers. The situation became even more severe when the colonizers started to demand more days of labour from the squatters and simultaneously further restricted Kikuyu access to land. This resulted in steady income losses on the part of the Kikuyu, as they suddenly had to shoulder a double burden: less time per year to farm a shrinking area of cultivable land. A further point at issue was the fact that the white settlers were actually not very successful with their farming; on the contrary it soon became clear that they would not be able to compete with the native farmers or grow at least approximately the same amount of crops as the Africans did. This proved to be an advantage for the Kikuyu: On the one hand, they soon started to occupy land illegally, and on the other hand a relevant proportion of mainly the younger male Kikuyu became traders on the black markets which flourished in the underground.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Christina Dersch (Author), 2007, Was Mau Mau a war for land and freedom?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/122862
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.