Kenya as an example of how African colonies were treated.

jonniebgood1

Recently in British courts was a case going back to the Mau mau rising in Kenya. We often deal with cases of British rule running amuck in Ireland on this forum but when the the wider picture of how some British colonies were treated is considered Ireland was not alone. The referred incidents are from the 1950's, living memory for many.

The
British government admitted publicly for the first time today that Kenyans were
tortured and sexually abused by colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising.
....
Guy Mansfield QC, stated publicly that his clients believed those bringing the case are telling the truth about the horrendous violence they suffered.

“I wish to make it clear before I cross examine the three claimants that the defendant [the British Government] does not dispute that each of the claimants suffered torture and other ill treatment at the hands of the colonial administration.” His comments are the first time someone speaking on behalf of the British government has recognised in a court of law the violence meted out to Mau Mau rebels and suspected sympathisers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/government-admits-kenyans-were-tortured-and-sexually-abused-by-colonial-forces-during-mau-mau-uprising-7953300.html

Richard Hermer QC, representing the victims, said there were thousands of official records and evidence that would allow the case to proceed.

In her statement, Ms Mara told the court she was subjected to sexual torture and beaten with sticks.

She said: "I want the British citizens of today to know what their forefathers did to me and to so many others. These crimes cannot go unpunished and forgotten."

The court heard she felt "completely and utterly violated" by the abuse at Gatithi detention centre, where she was taken aged 15.

She was also forced to watch the same sexual violence inflicted on three older women, who had borne children. These women died shortly after their release.
...
Mr Nzili told the court he was a herdsman when he was abducted into the forest by the Mau Mau in 1957, but managed to leave them and get to Nairobi where he was arrested.

On the fourth day of his stay at nearby Embakasi camp, he was stripped, chained and castrated with large pliers used on cows.

"After I was castrated I thought I had been cut off from any sexual life and that I would never be able to marry and have children, which is a man's pride. I felt completely destroyed and without hope," he said in his statement.

"I could not see what the future held for me, I was useless and felt genuinely that it was better for me to die. It took years for me to find any hope but I have never really recovered from what was done to me at Embakasi on that day."

After his release in 1958, he was unable to work or interact with people until marrying his wife, who already had children, at the age of 46.

"What has affected me most from this is that I have been made to feel like I am like a woman. I have never had children of my own and never will have. I am unable to have sexual relations with my wife," he added.

The three are asking the court for compensation to allow them to end their days with dignity.

Mr Nyingi said the Mau Mau was banned in Kenya until 2003 and he had no idea about the possibility of compensation until he was interviewed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission in 2006.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/9407422/Kenyans-were-tortured-during-Mau-Mau-rebellion-High-Court-hears.html

The Mau mau were beaten in the end but Kenya achieved its independence soon after. I read a piece recently that criticised Niall Fergusons positive take on the British empire. He often references his upbringing in Kenya but does not comment on the treatment of the Kenyan independence fighters. So what are the 2 sides of the Mau mau's and how were they repressed? Insight rather than just slagging the Brits would be welcomed and could be broadened to include similar suppressions by other European colonialists.

jonniebgood1

A famous speech by Enoch Powell made comment (ironically as it would turn out with his later utterances) on the British treatment of African prisoners:

It has been said – and it is a fact – that these 11 men were the lowest of the low; subhuman was the word which one of my honorable Friends used. So be it. But that cannot be relevant to the acceptance of responsibility for their death. In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgement on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow.'

Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home.' We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100083096/in-all-the-coverage-of-the-atrocities-in-kenya-two-words-are-missing/

and a recent commentary on this speech

most striking aspect of Powell's speech, however, is his assertion that the values of human rights stand above politics.. These values are in fact enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and our own Human Rights Act. Perhaps it is because I am so strongly out of sympathy with much that Powell came to represent that his words strike me so powerfully. He reminds us that the defence of Human Rights is not the exclusive domain of any political faction, but common to all humanity. He challenges us with a question which still resonates after half a century: do we still aspire to be a society that respects and protects the integrity of every individual, regardless of race, colour, belief or position and is there a code by which we can express that aspiration? And the answer to that, I think most British people would agree, is an emphatic yes.http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/our-human-rights-work/articles-and-speeches/article-human-rights-and-britains-colonial-past/

The centre of these pieces was tha massacre at Hola camp. More information on this is here http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-111800842/kenya-the-hola-massacre-on-3-march-1959-11-kenyas
What is relevent in this look at colonialist rule is the lack of serious comment. The events were widely known but Powells speech was notable in that it was an isolated recognition by a spokesperson. It was widely known at the time and widely reported in publications including Time magazine.

Fratton Fred

The treatment of the Mau Maus is not the same as the treatment of Kenyans in General.

It was a civil war more than an independence war and based loosely on ethnic lines.

Note that it references atrocities carried out by colonial forces, not the British Army. They aren't the same thing.
It was bloody, on both sides and I have heard first hand accounts from soldiers of entire villages wiped out by the mau mau.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The treatment of the Mau Maus is not the same as the treatment of Kenyans in General.

It was a civil war more than an independence war and based loosely on ethnic lines.

Note that it references atrocities carried out by colonial forces, not the British Army. They aren't the same thing.
It was bloody, on both sides and I have heard first hand accounts from soldiers of entire villages wiped out by the mau mau.

Any sources Fred.

I don't see the significance of whether it was the British army or colonial forces that carried out the atrocities.

There was a civil war element to the uprising which is of course usual as there would have been people who worked with the colonial government.
The official figures for casualties are very one sided:

The number killed in the uprising is a subject of much controversy. Officially the number of Mau Mau and other rebels killed was 11,000, including 1,090 convicts hanged by the British administration. Just 32 white settlers were killed in the eight years of emergency. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12997138

Thats a hell of a lot of hangings!

Fratton Fred

Just making general comments on your assumptions Johnnie.

So what if only 32 white settlers were killed, it wasn't a push by Kenyans to end white rule, the ethnic tensions weren't black v white, they were between different African ethnic groups.

Yes, there were a lot of hangings and the crushing of the rebellion was brutal and it is right that the British government are held accountable. However, I think to get a balanced view on the conflict you need to also look at other conflicts in Africa pre and post that period.

Simarillion

I think you'll find the Mau Mau rebellion was an uprising against white rule in Kenya! The motto of the Mau Mau was "let the European go back, let the African gain independence" in Swahili of course.

The 32 settlers killed, which was quite a large amount in comparison to the total number in the country, were killed based on the fact that they were representative of British rule in East Africa.
The easiest comparison so make with Irish history is the murder of landlords, gentry and so called "anglo-irish" people who were seen as the face of the Crown in their localities.
Most were not political officials or military targets, they were farmers.


As regards the issue between colonial forces and the regular Army carrying out atrocities it does make a difference who does it.
At the time of the Mau Mau there were somewhere between 70-80,000 white settlers in Kenya. Many of these were based in Nairobi and the larger towns but quite a lot were isolated in smaller towns and on large farms.
The native Kenyans numbered about 22 million. That's 275 black Kenyans to each white Kenyan and settler.

Now obviously, not all black Kenyans were Mau Mau, in fact it was only a small proportion of Kikuyus. Most Kikuyu remained loyal to the government of Kenya and most of the other tribes also refused to support Mau Mau.
BUT, if you have a scenario where you are the significantly outnumbered minority and a group who appear representative of the large majority start targetting your ethnic group then the natural reaction is to panic, and revert to a siege mentality and fight back.

Consider this:
You are a white officer in the colonial army whose wife and children are alone on your farm in the middle of rural Kenya. The Kikuyu, who are the main tribe are rebelling. The represent most of the workers on your farm, the villagers nearby, the staff in your house. Already they have stabbed to death a white family including the children in their beds while they slept. What do you do? Well you dismiss all your staff, you tell your workers to leave, and suddenly when you come across a group of rebels this is personal. If you don't get the information out of them, it could be your family next, or your neighbours. You do what it takes.

Then consider all the native soldiers. These are loyal Kikuyu/Luo/Kalenjin. They and there families are also legitamite targets for helping British rule. The village next to where they live was burned to the ground and the people were hacked to death with pangas. What do you do when you find the rebels? If you don't find out where they all are it could be your village next.

I'm not excusing the atrocities that were committed, but there is a reason behind it,and I don't think as some authors have said that it is blind racism.

jonniebgood1

Simarillion wrote: »

I'm not excusing the atrocities that were committed, but there is a reason behind it,and I don't think as some authors have said that it is blind racism.

I don't mean to be trite but there are reasons behind almost all atrocities- it is these reasons that are part of the overall question and in this case the reason would seem to be retention of control. Thanks for the post.

jonniebgood1

The trial has progressed in the case mentioned in my OP.

Link here:

The ruling means the case will now go to a full trial. Lawyers for the three hailed it as a "historic" judgement.

The government accepts the colonial administration tortured detainees but denies liability and will appeal.

Martyn Day said lawyers would be pressing for a trial "as quickly as possible" but they would also be pushing for the government to reach an out-of-court settlement.

"This is a historic judgement which will reverberate around the world and will have repercussions for years to come," he said in a separate statement.

"The British government has admitted that these three Kenyans were brutally tortured by the British colony and yet they have been hiding behind technical legal defences for three years in order to avoid any legal responsibility. This was always morally repugnant and today the judge has also rejected these arguments."

He added: "Following this judgement we can but hope that our government will at last do the honourable thing and sit down and resolve these claims. There will undoubtedly be victims of colonial torture from Malaya to the Yemen, from Cyprus to Palestine, who will be reading this judgement with great care."

Written evidence from the three Kenyans sheds light on their treatment at the hands of colonial forces:

Mr Nyingi, 84, a father of 16, said he was arrested in 1952 and detained for about nine years. In one incident in 1959 he said he was beaten unconscious and still bears marks from leg manacles, whipping and caning. "I have brought this case because I want the world to know about the years I have lost and what was taken from a generation of Kenyans, he said
Mr Nzili, 85, said he was stripped, chained and castrated shortly after being arrested in 1957. "I felt completely destroyed and without hope," he said
Ms Mara, 73, said she was 15 when she was raped at a detention camp. "I want the British citizens of today to know what their forefathers did to me and to so many others. These crimes cannot go unpunished and forgotten," she said

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19843719

Fenian Army

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Gulag-Brutal-Empire-Kenya/dp/1844135489

A worthy read.

pedroeibar1

Fenian Army wrote: »

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Gulag-Brutal-Empire-Kenya/dp/1844135489

A worthy read.

Unlikely. There is no doubt that there was savagery during Mau Mau, and the book is probably an interesting read if you are looking to bash colonialism and find a sensational read. However, your recommendation of it should carry a ‘health warning’ as a considerable number of academics have raised questions on Elkins’ research methodology, particularly her basis for arriving at the casualty figures.

The most common complaint is that her approach was biased, (as commented in Twentieth Century British History 16, 2005, Page 492.) ’Elkins’ settlers and colonial administrators are cartoonish grotesques: ‘These privileged men and women lived an absolutely hedonistic lifestyle, filled with sex, drugs, drink and dance, followed by more of the same’. Knowing as I do several people who lived in Kenya, having done business there, that assertion considerably undermines anything she might write.

Possibly the most unbiased comment on her work is from the Kenyan historian Bethwell Ogot from Moi University who, in his review of another of her books on the same topic (“Imperial Reckoning”), wrote that Mau Mau fighters:
Contrary to African customs and values, assaulted old people, women and children. The horrors they practiced included the following: decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women. No war can justify such gruesome actions. In man’s inhumanity to man there is no race distinction. The Africans were practising it on themselves. There was no reason and no restraint on both sides, although Elkins sees no atrocities on the part of Mau Mau. (Journal of African History 46, 2005, page 502.)

Corruption is endemic in Kenya, with black hands deep in the pockets of any they can fit into, which today mainly are Chinese; those do not have the legal constraints of developed country businesses on bribery & corruption. Without going back to the early days and Kenyatta, look only at the last 20 years of Daniel Arap Moi, who won the vote in 1992 and 1997 through rigged elections enforced by considerable violence and bloodshed. Moi inevitably had the usual African leaders’ promise to return to multi-party democracy and end corruption. The result was not democratic and even the IMF stopped lending (1997) because of corruption. Under Kibaki (elected 2002 on a ticket to eliminate corruption) it remains as widespread as ever, jobs are scarce and 20 million of the country's 30 million population continue to live below the poverty line of $1 a day. As a result personal security is a huge problem, and tourism revenue continues to decline.

In 2004, John Githongo, Kibaki’s head of anti-corruption announced his resignation during a trip to the United Kingdom, claiming that he had been prevented from investigating the activities of high-ranking officials in Kibaki's government. This also led several EU countries to stop aid programs.
At about the same time the British High Commissioner caused a diplomatic rumpus accusing Kenyan government officials of "eating like gluttons" and "vomiting on the shoes of foreign donors." Anyone who has been in the diplomatic spots around the UN will recognize that the poorer the country the bigger the car, expense account and appetite.

Kenya has fantastic potential as an economy, with much going for it. Sadly it continues to be a corrupt, badly led dump of a country. It has not become better under black rule, and arguably is considerably worse. This trial (worthy as it is) will shift the focus away from today's corruption; and past actions of 50+ years ago will be interpreted using today's criteria.

steddyeddy

I have to take a point people saying such and such is just "taking a bash at colonialism. Apart from the individual historical instances of colonialism the psychology, mentality and the nature of colonialism are negatives in itself. Personally I don’t see what’s gained from exaggerating the amounts of people killed during colonial periods or the level of savagery committed. If colonialism exists in a country then that in itself is testament to the fact that the colonisers think little of the people who they have subjugated. Thinking so little of a person you can invade his lands. Subject him to foreign laws and in some cases consider him/her less than you is a savagery in itself and any other savagery is incidental.

In the words of Jürgen Osterhammel:

Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

donaghs

Belgian Congo still beats it for savagry. Including the Arab slave trade which pre-dated the Belgian atrocities.

pedroeibar1

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have to take a point people saying such and such is just "taking a bash at colonialism. Apart from the individual historical instances of colonialism the psychology, mentality and the nature of colonialism are negatives in itself.........

Read other posts by Fenian Army and you will see where I am coming from ond 'bash'. Your views are simplistically Utopian. Colonialism exists because of a perceived vacuum and unequal power balances. The grey squirrel has colonized Ireland at the cost of the smaller Red; the sika deer have displaced the less adaptable native red. Plant species do the same. Early man dispossessed weaker tribes in the march out of Africa. Where does colonialism stop and ordinary expansion begin?

In Ireland, the ‘Anglo-Irish’ (pejoratively named as such by Nationalists) considered themselves simply as ‘Irish’. Many of the country estates burned in ’22 had been bought under the Encumbered Estates Court by people who considered themselves to be 100% Irish. Many of the farms in Kenya, Rhodesia, etc were bought from local chiefs by their (white) owners who considered themselves to be Kenyan, Rhodesian, etc. They regarded their African workers as part of an extended family and provided employment and security. Was the postcolonial ‘African’ alternative any better? Look at what happened when control passed to locals. See what Mugabe did to his own people, and land they had bought or inherited. Look at what Amin did to his people. Look at Nigeria, Biafra, the Congo, or wherever you chose in Africa. Atrocities by colonial powers during Mau-Mau are minute when compared to what was (and is) carried out by too many African leaders.

Is it colonialism to invade a country to prevent one bunch of locals from killing another bunch? Look at what was/is said about the lack of French intervention in Rwanda. Look at what those great believers in equality, the Soviets, did to Eastern Europe. Israel considers its occupation of Palestine as being justified to prevent attacks on its own people from that base. Similarly it could be argued that the continual support and antics of the Roman Catholic Church - from Pope Adrian IV to Rinnucini to the pro-establishment 19c priests - were important causes of English presence in Ireland (as a preventative measure, to close (against Spain/France) a back door to England. Maybe if the Church stayed away Ireland’s history would have been a lot different.

Look at what we have achieved in the postcolonial era in Ireland, with locally elected politicians and the ethics of Irish businesspeople. Are we now an EBRD/IMF colony? Where do you draw the line?

As for the UK judgement on the Kenya case, this is only Round 1. I have not read the judgement but it seems an unusual decision. I realise that there is no stature-bar limit on CAH but the plaintiffs have waited for 60 years (+/-) to bring their action. By now most of those involved on the defendant’s side are dead and any few survivors are in their late 80’s/90’s. For a successful trial outcome witnesses are usually necessary - how many are still around?
Even if the Foreign office loses again on appeal (and they are appealing), I would not put money on the Kenyan’s success in the main action. I suspect the Foreign Office will win on appeal and eventually there will be an apology from them couched in general terms on the awfulness of the ‘troubles’.

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Colonialism exists because of a perceived vacuum and unequal power balances.

The origins of colonialism in modern times were about greed more than unequal power balances. Countries buit up colonies so that they could exploit them in nearly all cases, usually evolving around specific raw materials and a range of ways of making money from native populations. An unequal power balance may lead to a colonial situation but it is not the reason it exists.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

In Ireland, the ‘Anglo-Irish’ (pejoratively named as such by Nationalists) considered themselves simply as ‘Irish’. Many of the country estates burned in ’22 had been bought under the Encumbered Estates Court by people who considered themselves to be 100% Irish. Many of the farms in Kenya, Rhodesia, etc were bought from local chiefs by their (white) owners who considered themselves to be Kenyan, Rhodesian, etc. They regarded their African workers as part of an extended family and provided employment and security. Was the postcolonial ‘African’ alternative any better? Look at what happened when control passed to locals. See what Mugabe did to his own people, and land they had bought or inherited. Look at what Amin did to his people. Look at Nigeria, Biafra, the Congo, or wherever you chose in Africa. Atrocities by colonial powers during Mau-Mau are minute when compared to what was (and is) carried out by too many African leaders.
.

I wonder what percentage of Kenyan farms were bought and what were seized. I wouldnt particularly say that the atrocities against the Mau mau are minute either- they are not well known and are simply a repitition of what went on in many colonies as they moved towards independence in this era. The comparison with todays native leaders does not recognise how many of these countries leaders were simply puppets for western powers who used them as pawns in the Cold war ignoring corruption in return for policy support.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

As for the UK judgement on the Kenya case, this is only Round 1. I have not read the judgement but it seems an unusual decision. I realise that there is no stature-bar limit on CAH but the plaintiffs have waited for 60 years (+/-) to bring their action. By now most of those involved on the defendant’s side are dead and any few survivors are in their late 80’s/90’s. For a successful trial outcome witnesses are usually necessary - how many are still around?
Even if the Foreign office loses again on appeal (and they are appealing), I would not put money on the Kenyan’s success in the main action. I suspect the Foreign Office will win on appeal and eventually there will be an apology from them couched in general terms on the awfulness of the ‘troubles’.

I would expect the judgement to allow this to proceed was based on a consideration of whether it was credible or not. That the claims were accepted is in itself shocking although there are of course always 2 sides to the story.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The origins of colonialism in modern times were about greed more than unequal power balances. Countries buit up colonies so that they could exploit them in nearly all cases, usually evolving around specific raw materials and a range of ways of making money from native populations. An unequal power balance may lead to a colonial situation but it is not the reason it exists.

I cannot see a big difference in our arguments – one country identifies an opportunity (trade, raw material, land, labour) in another weaker country and exploits it. Call it greed if you like. Typical examples – the Norman invasion of Ireland and the Chinese Opium Wars. In the former, a land-hungry set of futureless younger sons and some powerful Knights saw an opportunity in Ireland with little local force to resist them. They exploited it (even got a Papal blessing) : then a couple of years later a stronger leader, in the person of Henry II arrived because he wanted to protect his own interests. In the Opium Wars, Britain had a huge trade deficit with India due to its imports of cotton to feed its mills; that needed fixing so it forcefully sold Indian opium to China and thereby both made considerable profit and balanced the books. China was, despite its size, considerably weaker. Down through history opportunity brought exploitation, it's the way things work.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of Kenyan farms were bought and what were seized. I wouldnt particularly say that the atrocities against the Mau mau are minute either- they are not well known and are simply a repitition of what went on in many colonies as they moved towards independence in this era. The comparison with todays native leaders does not recognise how many of these countries leaders were simply puppets for western powers who used them as pawns in the Cold war ignoring corruption in return for policy support.

Much of the land in Africa was vacant, grazed by nomadic herdsmen. African kings fought like their medieval Irish counterparts over cattle and grazing. Some did establish brief-lived 'kingdoms' with rough boundaries (e.g. Lobengula in Matabeleland). However, a considerable amount of Kenyan land was leased from or farmed in agreement with local chiefs. Many of those deals were done privately, one condition regularly made was on the basis of giving employment to the chief’s extended family/clan. Invariably chief and tribe benefited enormously because in most African countries natives were using farming techniques that were medieval by European standards with a concomitant result on the rapidly growing local population. Hansard is full of reports of starvation, floods, famines, etc. I’m not suggesting the colonial power’s motives were always altruistic – e.g. it often based its views on the fitness of locals for military service - that was a fair standard in those days e.g. from Hansard 29 Feb 1944

.…it is a conservative estimate to say that over 50 per cent. of the men examined are rejected for military service of any nature. The proportion quoted for the Wafipa is in respect of a fairly healthy tribe. That for the Uha is very much worse, only one in ten men called up being found to be fit for service. When it is remembered that on the application of conscription to Great Britain only five per cent. of the men were rejected as unfit for service, it is clear that there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done in improving the standard of living and the physique of the native population.

What has happened to very viable, profitable businesses such as fish, fruit, vegetable and flower farms in LDC countries once the 'honkies' were kicked out is very sad.

Today’s native African leaders are not interested in much beyond what they can stuff into their offshore bank accounts or protecting the means of keeping their noses in the trough. Some may be puppets, but they had to get into power first, and when there had / have a field day. I stand over my claim that the atrocities (however awful) committed by the British against the MauMau were minute in the overall scheme of things – they pall in comparison to deaths in
Burundi 150k
Rwanda 800k
Ethiopian Red Terror 500k
Second Sudanese War 2 million
Second Congolese War 5 million
Uganda (just under Amin) 500k

Just those few account for 9 million, compared to MauMau's estimated deaths of 20k.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would expect the judgement to allow this to proceed was based on a consideration of whether it was credible or not. That the claims were accepted is in itself shocking although there are of course always 2 sides to the story.

Everyone knew it was credible; the nub is that the action started 60 years after the event. Insurgency and counterinsurgency actions always have – and still do bring out the worst in people. Just dip into a 1970’s book ‘British Brutality in Northern Ireland’ by Denis Faul.

One cannot use Kenya or any other single country as an example of how others were treated in Africa, it is like writing a treatise on France using - because they speak French - the Belgians as a model. We are going over old ground again – see the thread 'Decolonisation of Africa: Wind of Change' and my post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77155436&postcount=51

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

One cannot use Kenya or any other single country as an example of how others were treated in Africa, it is like writing a treatise on France using - because they speak French - the Belgians as a model. We are going over old ground again – see the thread 'Decolonisation of Africa: Wind of Change' and my post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77155436&postcount=51

This may be true but some situations can be representative of what happened more often than not. The situation in Kenya with the internment of thousands of people was repeated in different forms by other colonial governments- the French in Algeria for example or the Italian 'solution' to Libyan independence movement in the 1930's.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Much of the land in Africa was vacant, grazed by nomadic herdsmen. African kings fought like their medieval Irish counterparts over cattle and grazing. Some did establish brief-lived 'kingdoms' with rough boundaries (e.g. Lobengula in Matabeleland). However, a considerable amount of Kenyan land was leased from or farmed in agreement with local chiefs. Many of those deals were done privately, one condition regularly made was on the basis of giving employment to the chief’s extended family/clan. Invariably chief and tribe benefited enormously because in most African countries natives were using farming techniques that were medieval by European standards with a concomitant result on the rapidly growing local population.

I would have thought fhat the white settlers taking over farming land was not as straightforward as that. By controlling the countries the colonial governments could tailor the takeover of land towards whatever motive they wished. Paying off a few local chiefs does not excuse this type of behaviour.

Law and courts are central to any colonial regime. Which legal codes the state will recognize, which laws apply to whom, who has standing in the courts: all these questions help to define boundaries between ruled and rulers, between categories of belonging. At the same time, the law attends to more mundane concerns of shaping labor regimes, inculcating new notions of personhood and morality, and so on.1 White settlers in early colonial Kenya (c. 1900–1920s) certainly would have agreed with this assessment of the law. The law, they believed, was essential to their project, a tool to advance and protect their racial, political, and economic dominance. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17531055.2010.517418

The policies were controlled by the colonial rulers with the usual aim of being able to exploit the country involved. http://husky1.smu.ca/~wmills/course317/7White_Settlers.html

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This may be true but some situations can be representative of what happened more often than not. The situation in Kenya with the internment of thousands of people was repeated in different forms by other colonial governments- the French in Algeria for example or the Italian 'solution' to Libyan independence movement in the 1930's.


I would have thought fhat the white settlers taking over farming land was not as straightforward as that. By controlling the countries the colonial governments could tailor the takeover of land towards whatever motive they wished. Paying off a few local chiefs does not excuse this type of behaviour.
The policies were controlled by the colonial rulers with the usual aim of being able to exploit the country involved. http://husky1.smu.ca/~wmills/course317/7White_Settlers.html

The strong always overcome the weak, in humanity, in nature and in economics. A vacuum will be filled - call it exploitation if you wish. I’m not attempting to be an apologist for colonialism in Africa, but I believe it usually was not as wicked as it always is made out to be. Even if land was obtained by a pay-off to a local chief, that usually brought relative wealth and peace to the community. It brought an infrastructure, an economy and stability. Those elements invariably departed with the colonists and the human rights previously enjoyed by the locals deteriorated (or disappeared) under local rule. If they were lucky enough to remain alive.

Outside of Africa, look at the history colonialism elsewhere - the Spaniards in the Latin Americas & Caribbean, the pioneers’ action on the Native Americans; or what the settlers in Australia and Tasmania did to aboriginal peoples. All those cases are considerably worse than what happened in Africa, practically amounting to genocide. The death figures I’ve quoted in my post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81198747&postcount=15 illustrate what has happened in just a few post-colonial African countries. That says it all.

Thomas_I

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Recently in British courts was a case going back to the Mau mau rising in Kenya. We often deal with cases of British rule running amuck in Ireland on this forum but when the the wider picture of how some British colonies were treated is considered Ireland was not alone. The referred incidents are from the 1950's, living memory for many.

It´s a common picture that British colonialism is judged as bad. The colonial policy of the British for their hightime in the 19th and 20th Century might have been either the same or more similar, depending on the colony / country concerned. One small Island is in this reagard more of an exception. From the time the British took over until they granted independence. It´s Malta in the Mediterranean. The difference in this case is, they "invited the British" to take over to get rid of the French occupation and to prevent a return of their former colonial Masters, the Order of St. John.

It´s not my intention to go on with this example any further on this thread. Just to point out that there were differences in the way the British treated their colonies. Ireland has always been an exception in a bad way because the British (or better to say the English) always saw it as part of their own Kingdom. So to say Irish problems were taken and treated as domestic problems (from the English point of view of course).

jonniebgood1

Thomas_I wrote: »

It´s not my intention to go on with this example any further on this thread. Just to point out that there were differences in the way the British treated their colonies. Ireland has always been an exception in a bad way because the British (or better to say the English) always saw it as part of their own Kingdom. So to say Irish problems were taken and treated as domestic problems (from the English point of view of course).

I would say that Malta was the exception rather than Ireland. Without labouring the point there are many more comparisons between badly treated colonies.

Thomas_I

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would say that Malta was the exception rather than Ireland. Without labouring the point there are many more comparisons between badly treated colonies.

It depends on the point of view regarding Ireland. As I said, the English saw Ireland more as an domestic part of their realm. This might have been different up to the year 1800, but after the act of Union with Ireland it was "constitutionally" quite so. But it doesn´t change the Irish point of view in which England has always been the force of occupation. That´s what I meant.

It´s quite interesting how different the people are thinking and talking about the British. There are some who still admire them and there are others who don´t give a damn about them. Maybe there is something of nostalgia with it.