The Mau Mau insurgency from 1952 to 1960 was an uprising from the Kenyan colonial government by a portion of the Kikuyu tribe. There may be considerable debate as to the way the Mau Mau revolt inspired the nationalist movement, which resulted in Kenyan independence in 1960. Maloba feedback that 'in colonial and post-colonial Africa, no motion has been so misinterpreted, so much discussed, and remained so stubbornly incomprehensible as Mau Mau. ' To be able to discuss and understand the Mau Mau movements this essay will assess several factors that identify the tribal and nationalist dynamics of the Mau Mau and which dimension was most dominant. These parameters are; the roots of the Mau Mau, Kenya's interior domestic affairs, the nature of Kenyan nationalism and the influence of Kenyan demography. The research of the tribal and countrywide persona of Mau Mau will also include the assessment of colonial insurance plan into the Mau Mau, while contextualising international factors that influenced the British decolonisation plan. By analysing these variables, a conclusion in regards to what dimension the Mau Mau insurgency had, tribal or nationwide, will be made.
In order to go over and analyze the nationalist and tribalist dimensions of the Mau Mau rebellion it is important to consider the social and political origins of the Mau Mau motion. Through the 1920's political market leaders sought to improve Kenya's political consciousness and in 1924 the Kikuyu Central Relationship KCA) was created to tone of voice the concerns of the Kikuyu visitors to the government. This later became the Kenyan African Union (KAU) in 1944. Political recognition and involvement was not limited by the Kikuyu, a Luo Union was founded in 1922 in Nairobi and in 1927 the 'multi-ethnic, ' Kisumu Local Chamber of Business (KNCC) established. A nationalist sentiment was growing swiftly and following the 1947 strike in Mombasa, and through the annual KAU meeting there was a sense of urgency to accomplish social and financial reform. The Mau Mau movement was born out of this urgency and the 'underdeveloped character of the nationalist movements. ' The Mau Mau was an 'manifestation of militant Kikuyu nationalism, ' who broke away from the KAU conservative moderates one of the Kikuyu tribe. It was made up usually landless men who were displaced by the colonial restructure of agricultural development and the most infected. They were troubled about reform and desired action, responding by boycotting beers in Nairobi to murdering three policemen in Kiambu. As a part of this action, radicals from the KAU began producing unity oaths 'with new aims of militancy and violence, ' so the Mau Mau motion were created.
Political irritation was 'a warning sign of social turmoil. ' During the 1950's, the imperial government in Kenya commenced another colonial profession that included significant reform in agricultural practice and land development. This was intended to improve and improve the commercial farming development of Kenya, in the agriculturally wealthy area in the Rift Valley knows as the White Highlands, typically the land of the Kikuyu who 'could least find the money for to lose land. ' Within agricultural enlargement the imperial federal government introduced required labour, the kipande, yet, in the framework of local unrest. An increase in the price of living through heightened taxation and low paid pay combined with the launch of required labour significantly increased discontent. Furthermore Kenya was experiencing a speedily growing population especially in urban areas like Nairobi. The Mau Mau and their supporters were therefore focused to crowded urban areas and the Rift valley, the land of the Kikuyu, where colonial interference was very best. Socio-economic discontent from a colonial perspective was not justified and 'African were expected to be grateful for all the huge benefits that happened them. ' The outcome was that the British settler's, feared 'African fanaticism, ' discovering Mau Mau as an organised nationalist risk that wanted to expel and get rid of the white settler populace in Kenya. This points out why a state of Emergency was called in Oct 1952. The Mau Mau were thus 'a self-serving misconception rooted in European myths of Kikuyu modern culture, ' that lead the British imperial government to activate in armed service action. The cultural and political origins of the Mau Mau uprising underpin the evaluation of if the Mau Mau movements was basically tribalist or in reality experienced genuine nationalist sentiment.
In order to judge the nationalist aspect of the Mau Mau uprising, the definition and the nature of nationalism in Kenya and broadly in Africa, must be discussed. Nationalism as a concept is subjective and complex, and the viewpoint whether colonial or Kenyan, determines your definition of nationalism; where usually the two definitions comparison one another. Nationalism is probably 'a European principle, ' and from a colonial perspective it was a united mass national motion for the self-determination of a colony. It could be argued that the Mau Mau uprising was not nationalist, but instead tribalist because it had not been a united Kenyan activity. The recruitment of the Mau Mau was limited to the Kikuyu, and the 'narrowness of its recruitment, ' supposed that many Kenyan's did not feel they could sign up for or support Mau Mau triggers for nationwide reform. There was a widespread view on the list of Kenyan people that Mau Mau aimed to help expand Kikuyu affluence and success, rather than implement national political and financial change. It becomes clear why, for the colonial authorities 'it was impossible to allow them to recognise and value the legitimacy of nationalism for the Africans. '
However nationalism from an African point of view is in contrast to the imperial classification and is debatably 'the aspiration of a future self-governing land. ' Therefore if the movement was along tribal lines had not been important; nationalism was a pressure resistant to the imperial activity with the purpose of self-government. Thus is can be argued that the Mau Mau uprising was nationalist because although nearly all Mau Mau and KAU were from the Kikuyu, their seeks were, to boost Kenya's socio-economic condition. Obhaimbo & Lonsdale shows the actual fact that 'militant minorities have typically made says. ' Furthermore the fact that unionist organisations developed along various tribal lines, such as Luo Union who had nationalist dreams, emphasises how cultural division did not detract from nationalism. The argument that nationalism needed to be a mass movements is bound and does not take into account the undeniable fact that other diverse ethnic political groups including the KNCC, aimed to address the socio-economic grievances of most ethnicities. Hence the Mau Mau can be said to have been a nationalist movements and 'to see this liberation have difficulty as the manifestation of simply Kikuyu frustrations is that can be played into the hands of the colonial rulers. '
The view that the Mau Mau uprising was without nationalist sentiment will not consider the demographic character of Kenya and exactly how this impacted the development of the Mau Mau activity. Inside the 1950's Kenya ethnic diversity consisted of more than eleven different ethnic communities with the major ethnic group being the Kikuyu, developing 20% of the population. This complex ethnic population designed that the idea of a nation had not been straightforward, particularly when political devotion was tribal. Consequently the Mau Mau uprising can be described as 'ethnic nationalism, ' or 'territorial nationalism, ' which is understandable considering the fact that the Kikuyu people were most afflicted by severe imperial policy. This was specifically after World Warfare II, in the Rift Valley and in the overcrowded towns. Additionally the hypothesis that Mau Mau had not been a nationalist motion is an insufficient justification of the uprising because the Kikuyu were the largest tribe in Kenya and had a genuine case for democratic legitimacy by representing the majority ethnic group. Even though Mau Mau did not have the entire support of the Kikuyu community, the Kikuyu as a tribe acquired the potential to unite Kenyan's towards self-determination. This is the case following the Mau Mau rebellion when between 1958 and 1960 leaders such as Kenyatta from the KAU were able to incite a nationalist movement despite having Kikuyu origins.
From a British isles colonial perspective the Mau Mau was disputably not a nationalist movements but a sociable and economical affair. The socio-economic unrest was instead predicated on tribal lines dividing the Kikuyu. The grievances of the Mau Mau were not seen as political, i. e. achieving self-rule and were therefore not nationalist. The imperial administration to some extent attempted to address the social-economic grievances of the Kikuyu acknowledging that there was discontent, but did not recognise the original nationalist dimension. By introducing the Swynnerton plan in 1954 the settlers endeavoured to incorporate Kenyans into the market overall economy by allowing them to grow cash plants and preventing the disruption of agricultural creation. However because 'there was a tragic misreading of the depth of African hatred of the colonial condition, ' this increased division and public unrest. The imperial government did not relate this unrest with nationalism and so noticed the Mau Mau rebellion as a tribal rather than nationalist affair. Throup points out that 'the government's failure to solve these problems lay at the heart of Mau Mau, ' which emphasises the way the socio-economic problems that Kenya faced weren't accepted as nationalist by the colonial government.
Furthermore the theory that the Mau Mau rebellion was only tribalist does not explain why there is heightened politics activism from 1952 onwards. The Mau Mau actively petitioned for politics change which is debatably nationalist activity. It could be argued that the Mau Mau motion had a genuine nationalist dimensions as it was a a reaction to the next colonial profession and social stress. The socio-economic grievance such as, a minimal quality lifestyle and low pay, could only be truly dealt with through politics change. Historically, Western revolutions were a rsulting consequence social aggravation, and Maloba compares this to the Mau Mau insurgency. The view that Mau Mau was therefore not nationalist but a cultural and economic response does not maintain true in the when you consider the actual fact that socio-economic problems result in a political effect.
It can be said that the Mau Mau motion from an imperial standpoint was debatably a civil battle rather than a nationalist affair. The British isles settlers observed the Mau Mau as a terrorist organisation, that was unwilling to work with Kikuyu moderates, who aimed to achieve constitutional change. The unrest was arguably between innovative and modest Kikuyu which disunity undermined any nationalist action. Darwin feedback that the settlers 'dismissed African nationalism as an agitator's ramp, a retrograde racialism. ' The judgment that the Mau Mau revolt was a civil battle is reinforced by the fact that it's estimated that over 12 000 Kenyan's mainly Kikuyu passed away in the Mau Mau uprising, where as on the other hand over 100 white settlers died. The lot of Kikuyu casualties emphasises the tribalist character of the Mau Mau uprising and helps the idea that the Mau Mau revolt had not been a nationalist activity. Moreover the actual fact that some affluent, modest Kikuyu were allowed to grow cash crops, when land was mainly the Mau Mau's main grievance aggravated cultural divides. The civil conflict dimension is managed by the thoughts and opinions that the Mau Mau thought betrayed by the modest Kikuyu and Kenyans who caused the white settlers. This explains why the Mau Mau tried out to instil political devotion through oaths 'designed to concrete the Kikuyu community behind as yet undefined radical action. ' The cultural polarisation and disunity between the Kikuyu supposed that countrywide reform for many Kenyans was arguably not Mau Mau's target.
Additionally is can be said that because of colonial propaganda the portrayal of the Mau Mau by the imperial administration was as a basically tribal uprising. Maloba emphasises the importance of the depiction of the Mau Mau as a terrorist movements observing that the colonial authorities had 'victory in the propaganda war, ' which offered to further socially segregate the Kikuyu. The actual fact that the colonial authorities were able to efficiently use propaganda to raise the division between the Mau Mau and the conservative Kikuyu shows how imperial guideline arguably caused what was seen as a civil battle.
The argument that division among the list of Kikuyu designed the Mau Mau revolt was not nationalist is the best critique of your nationalist Mau Mau. Nonetheless it can be argued that the disunity among the Kikuyu was triggered by the imperial office in Kenya who designed to weaken any nationalist sentiment by socially polarising the landless Kikuyu contrary to the conventional, more affluent Kikuyu. Berman remarks that 'the provincial Supervision deliberately attempted to avoid the KAU from becoming a national organisation by a policy of divide and rule playing in inter-ethnic hostilities. ' Furthermore, in the 1920's and in 1944 the KAU was a united Kikuyu politics party that wanted constitutional change. Due to social-economic section the young landless Kikuyu experienced betrayed by conservative Kikuyu who have been dealing with the settler federal government. In this manner the imperial authorities undermined what had began as a nationalist movements by dividing it. It can be argued that the colonial administrations divide and rule policy was a means of trying to avoid a nationalist movement in Kenya. The Mau Mau rebellion was therefore a more radical appearance of the original goals of the KAU and trade union intensions and it can be said that the division between the Mau Mau and KAU didn't detract from nationalism in Kenya.
From a colonial perspective the Mau Mau Uprising had not been a nationalist activity, as it was unsuccessful and didn't cause Kenya's self-determination. White settlers were debatably responding to an cultural divide as they had in India, when they gained self-reliance in 1947. Britain reacted to the Malayan uprising by using armed forces force and so this method was seen as a successful way of placing down a threat to imperial rule. The same rules were then put on Kenya, although paradoxically both Malaya and Kenya gained freedom following the Mau Mau Insurgency and Malayan Revolt. The idea that, the key reason why the Mau Mau uprising had not been nationalist was because it was unsuccessful will not stand when you consider the actual fact that 'mass nationalisms of the 1950s and 1960s in tropical Africa rarely mobilised a complete colonial territory. ' It therefore can be said that like the Malayan uprising, the Mau Mau rebellion was in fact nationalist.
During the 1950's British colonial rule was efficiently challenged by nationalist moves, for example in Ghana. They achieved freedom in 1957, through the Mau Mau rebellion and encouraged nationalism in Kikuyu radicals who were eager for change. This helps to make clear why Mau Mau activity came about in 1952 and lends itself to the theory that decolonisation acquired become an achievable political actuality. Lonsdale and Obhaimbo explain that 'it [does not] subject that Mau Mau was not victorious on the battlefield, ' since it paved the way to self-reliance. The Mau Mau rebellion undermined the white settler's authority and led to the increased loss of the consent of the governed and consequently democratic legitimacy. On top of that during the Mau Mau rebellion, the French Algerian Conflict was taking place from 1954 to 1962, which led to nov the Fourth French Republic. This challenged colonial rule all together internationally, developing a knock on influence on British colonial policy. Darwin observes that 'the have difficulties against Mau Mau set in motion political and sociable changes that have been to undermine gradually the energy of the white settler community. ' It could therefore be said that within an international context the Mau Mau rebellion was a nationalist movement.
In conclusion it could be stated that however the Mau Mau movements was predicated on Kikuyu tribal grievances and for that reason was plainly a tribalist rebellion, it had not been with out a true nationalist dimension. The Mau Mau rebellion was 'not a conventional nationalist movement, ' because both nationalism and tribalism are complex concepts and the combo of the two produced a multifaceted nationalist movement. Both nationalism and tribalism have to be considered alongside each other in order to gain a knowledge of the impact that Mau Mau possessed on Kenyan independence. When reflecting on the Mau Mau rebellion, the Kenyans got more in common as a tribe than as a land as a result of diverse ethnic composition of Kenya. Therefore to state that there was not a genuine nationalist sizing to the Mau Mau uprising is reductionist and doesn't acknowledge the origins of Mau Mau and exactly how their nationalist seeks were the foundation of self-reliance in 1960. Furedi preserves this argument and highlights that 'the defeat of Mau Mau was conditional on the emergence of African nationalist politicians who possessed power and reliability. ' To summarize it can therefore be argued that the Mau Mau Uprising was area of the base of Kenyan nationalism.
