Kenya's Mau Mau charge British with torture and repression

Acacia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, what i am saying is maybe people should stop being so self righteous about the whole thing.

How is it self-righteous? We could sit here all day listing out the various other imperial countries' atrocities as well as Britain's, but I don't really see what purpose that would serve. Other than of course, allow the British apologists a chance to say ''but Britain weren't that bad after all!"

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wasn't questioning the allegation, it was more to question why people on an Irish politics board get stiff with excitement when they get to debate this kind of thing, yet there is never the moral outrage of allegations against the French or Spanish. The latter of whom probably commited more attrocities than the rest put together. Still, most of that was done in the name of the pope so that probably diesn't get talked about in Irish schools.

Lets face it, those going on about abuse by the British don't actually give a **** about the locals that were exploited, it is just another excuse to have a go at Britain.

The French were bad, the Spanish were really awful and were just cruel towards the natives as the British, happy?

Although of course it should be noted, since we're discussing other Empires, that the Spanish and Portuguese in South America made extensive efforts to record the natives' language, culture and past-times, unlike the British, who as far I as recall, made no such attempts, in Ireland, at least.

I have to laugh at your last sentence, Fred. I would wager that it's those who are keen to moan about Britain being picked on are those who don't give a crap about the locals that were exploited, after all they never want to discuss the atrocities at hand, but merely bring up other Empires and the fact that Irish people were involved too.

Just because you really want this to be about some Irish inferiority complex that means we only criticize Britain to 'have a go' at them, it doesn't make it so.

Fratton Fred

Acacia wrote: »

How is it self-righteous? We could sit here all day listing out the various other imperial countries' atrocities as well as Britain's, but I don't really see what purpose that would serve. Other than of course, allow the British apologists a chance to say ''but Britain weren't that bad after all!"

The self righteous bit is claiming that those people out spreading britishness were "Forced to do it to put food on the table" or that they were "Mercenaries" or "traitors". That is just bollocks. They joined the British army for the exact same reasons as someone from London, Glasgow or Cardiff. They wanted to be a soldier, see the world and reap the rewards.

Acacia wrote: »

The French were bad, the Spanish were really awful and were just cruel towards the natives as the British, happy?

Although of course it should be noted, since we're discussing other Empires, that the Spanish and Portuguese in South America made extensive efforts to record the natives' language, culture and past-times, unlike the British, who as far I as recall, made no such attempts, in Ireland, at least.

that's good. At least the Spanish kept their heritage alive, before massacreing them of enslaving them.

Acacia wrote: »

I have to laugh at your last sentence, Fred. I would wager that it's those who are keen to moan about Britain being picked on are those who don't give a crap about the locals that were exploited, after all they never want to discuss the atrocities at hand, but merely bring up other Empires and the fact that Irish people were involved too.

Just because you really want this to be about some Irish inferiority complex that means we only criticize Britain to 'have a go' at them, it doesn't make it so.

If this thread was about the pending court cases surrounding abuses in Kenya then fine, but as soon as the thread goes up, along come references to Iraq etc etc. Same old same old tbh.

I would wager that half the posters on this thread had never even heard of the Mau Mau uprising until now, but couldn't resist the chance to chip in with comments.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The biggest complaint by the Mau Maus is that the british rounded them up and put them in huge prison camps. A drastic tactic, but what no one knows is what would have happened if they hadn't. How many wars have there been in Africa that didn't involve some form of ethnic cleansing or genocide?

Ethnic cleansing is something colonising powers taught to Africans, look at the Hutu/Tutsi division, there are not different ethnic groups but the Belgians created that division. This is well documented at this stage.

Camelot wrote: »

Irish mercenaries 'possibly' involved :rolleyes:

More like one third of the regular British Army actually being IRISH, with the whole machine being a very Anglo/Irish affair (this tends to be conviently overlooked by some) who like to point the finger and say British=Bad, Irish=good, whereas in reality, it was a lot more complicated than that with Ireland & the Irish playing a major role in Colonial adventures the World over, including Kenya .......

Your figure of a third seems grossly over exaggerated, I'd like to see a reference to back that up please. Irish involvement in the British army has not been overlooked, certainly not by any of my lecturers. You however seem to have ignored the very real economic concerns that factored into Irish involvement in the British army, painting them all as adventurers and plunderers?

Can'tseeme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that if Ireland had been an independant country, unlike every other country in europe, it would not have had its own empire or been interested in expanding overseas.

If there were men on the moon, would they not want to come to earth and expand their empire.:rolleyes:

They say you should learn from your history, one reason to be proud of Ireland neutrality in the world.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that if Ireland had been an independant country, unlike every other country in europe, it would not have had its own empire or been interested in expanding overseas.

Now that's more than a bit silly. Alternative universes aren't really a part of history.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

You however seem to have ignored the very real economic concerns that factored into Irish involvement in the British army, painting them all as adventurers and plunderers?

Of huge importance I am sure to the "about to be shot" African.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Of huge importance I am sure to the "about to be shot" African.

Who's giving the orders would be the most important factor and under what policy by what government's self proclaimed mandate.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Now that's more than a bit silly. Alternative universes aren't really a part of history.

isn't this politics?

Why is it silly? the Irish weren't adverse to trotting off overseas to create colonies, but because they did it under the Union flag rather than the tricolour, this somehow makes them better than everyone else?

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

isn't this politics?

You're trying to rewrite history by saying that if Ireland got its way there'd be an empire.

Why is it silly? the Irish weren't adverse to trotting off overseas to create colonies, but because they did it under the Union flag rather than the tricolour, this somehow makes them better than everyone else?

Show me where a native Irishman (not an anglo irishman) set off to set up a colony on his own steam with a completely Irish army and no British imput and you might begin to have a point.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Who's giving the orders would be the most important factor and under what policy by what government's self proclaimed mandate.

Aah right, so if a Kenyan has a broken bottle shoved in his face by a fellow Kenyan or even an Irishman, the Kenyan or Irishman is absolved of any blame because they followed a red white and blue flag?

Therefore, the thousands of Irish men joining the British army to go and fight in Africa, India etc did so in the belief that they were going there to do what exactly, play football?

Kenya, Algeria, The Congo, the Caribbean islands etc are all the results of european colonialism, it is a guilt shared equally by every european country.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Kenya, Algeria, The Congo, the Caribbean islands etc are all the results of european colonialism, it is a guilt shared equally by every european country.

Lolz at that it most certainly isn't. Is it India's fault that south Africa was colonised? Greece, albania, poland, switzerland, etc, etc, they're also guilty of the colonisation of Kenya, Algeria, Congo, Caribbean are they? Nonsense.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

You're trying to rewrite history by saying that if Ireland got its way there'd be an empire.

is there anything to suggest otherwise?

brianthebard wrote: »

Show me where a native Irishman (not an anglo irishman) set off to set up a colony on his own steam with a completely Irish army and no British imput and you might begin to have a point.

Why would they? it was a lot easier to tag along with the Spanish or British. Why are there huge Irish populations in Argentina, North America, Newfoundland etc?

There is no evidence to suggest that the irish would have done anything differnt to the British, Spanish and french if the shoe had been on the other foot.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is there anything to suggest otherwise?

History.

Why would they? it was a lot easier to tag along with the Spanish or British. Why are there huge Irish populations in Argentina, North America, Newfoundland etc?

There is no evidence to suggest that the irish would have done anything differnt to the British, Spanish and french if the shoe had been on the other foot.

I understand you want to defend the British empire for personal or patriotic reasons, but you've no basis for anything you're saying here.

Acacia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The self righteous bit is claiming that those people out spreading britishness were "Forced to do it to put food on the table" or that they were "Mercenaries" or "traitors". That is just bollocks. They joined the British army for the exact same reasons as someone from London, Glasgow or Cardiff. They wanted to be a soldier, see the world and reap the rewards.

I don't think it is 'self-righteous' to point out that some Irish soldiers did join to put food on the table, etc. However, I don't think anybody knows for certain why exactly anyone joined the British army. All we can do is speculate. Where self-righteousness comes into it , I don't know.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's good. At least the Spanish kept their heritage alive, before massacreing them of enslaving them.

Hey, you were the one who brought up the Spanish and the French and how bad they were. I don't disagree that their empires were terrible, just thought that this was an interesting titbit, since we're comparing and contrasting the different empires.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If this thread was about the pending court cases surrounding abuses in Kenya then fine, but as soon as the thread goes up, along come references to Iraq etc etc. Same old same old tbh.

I would wager that half the posters on this thread had never even heard of the Mau Mau uprising until now, but couldn't resist the chance to chip in with comments.

In fairness, along with references to Iraq there was the usual revisionism and what-aboutery, and Britain wasn't as bad as others, etc,etc.

It's actually quite difficult to debate the topic at hand, because a few posters seem to get defensive and claim the thread is only there as an excuse to have a go at Britain. I don't mean you, it's a general vibe that I get from this forum, whenever a debate about the British Empire pops up.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Lolz at that it most certainly isn't. Is it India's fault that south Africa was colonised? Greece, albania, poland, switzerland, etc, etc, they're also guilty of the colonisation of Kenya, Algeria, Congo, Caribbean are they? Nonsense.

Greece had its own empoire didn't it? should we therefore hold them accountable for Alexander the great?

you're nit picking, you know full well what my point is.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you're nit picking, you know full well what my point is.

I'm afraid I don't. I don't think you have a point, certainly not one based in any factual evidence.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah right, so if a Kenyan has a broken bottle shoved in his face by a fellow Kenyan or even an Irishman, the Kenyan or Irishman is absolved of any blame because they followed a red white and blue flag?

Therefore, the thousands of Irish men joining the British army to go and fight in Africa, India etc did so in the belief that they were going there to do what exactly, play football?

Kenya, Algeria, The Congo, the Caribbean islands etc are all the results of european colonialism, it is a guilt shared equally by every european country.

Right there you have revealed much about your own psychic - "a guilt shared". If guilt is what you are trying to spread around you are on a hiding to nowhere. As BrianTB has said - history is not framed in a parallel universe. It is what it is.

Some European countries expanded overseas - they had the characteristics, the makeup, the inherent natures to do so. Some others did not and never developed huge military capabilities. Why this is so is also an interesting anthropological study. But one thing is certain - it is neither accurate nor scholarly to describe all nations as having the same responses or the same aspirational drive.

So to hypothesize that "the Irish would have done the same" is an empty speculation and complete nonsense.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't. I don't think you have a point, certainly not one based in any factual evidence.

OK, so Britain, Holland, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Austria and Hungary all had empires. not all of Europe, but pretty much the lion's share.

it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to consider that Ireland too would have had an empire. especially considering that there are over 100million Irish people around the world, the bulk of which ended up where they did as a direct result of colonialisation. Besides which, the Irish fought for the british, french and Spanish as part of their empire building.

Colonialism is a european disease, Ireland were part of the disease.

ejmaztec

No doubt the court case will reveal who did what to whom, and under whose authority. My Kerry born uncle was in the RAF in Kenya, but I think it was all over by the time he got there, so I can't pin it on him. I think that he joined the RAF because he liked Brylcreem and wanted to look cool in his uniform.

jmayo

MarchDub wrote: »

Exactly. And that is the key right there to the whole issue - invading other territories and then claiming the innocuous "oops - there are atrociousness being committed on both sides" - give me a break, an invading force is going to be met with force. History of the world.

If anyone were to invade the Republic of Ireland today and snatch whole areas of the country with a brute force military [which is the way colonialism worked ] think we would all just say - well, now what is the fair and honorable way to respond to this invading army?

If anyone was to invade Ireland a good chunk of the Irish people would do as they always do, look after no.1 and see what they could make out of it.
IMHO saying otherwise is bull.
As a people we get walked on by our own leaders and we only bitch and moan when it hurts our own pockets.
And the image of Ireland gallantly resisting the foreign oppressor is just that, an image.
Most of our revolutionaries were either sold out or ignored by the masses. The 1798 revolution did not get the backing of most of the population, neither did Emmett, neither did 1916 and it was only the execution of the leaders that galvanised the population into the War of Independence.

The British used the peoples it conquered or colonised to help them colonise elsewhere.
Thus Irish worked for them in India, Africa and even Scotland.
And I am not just talking about the landed gentry who had leadership roles.
Scots helped them in Ireland, Africa, India.
Indians helped them in Africa.
A lot of Irish were out in the streets of Dublin cheering old Victoria when she visited, were they foirced to do this ?

Maybe us Irish never conquered anyone, but we did enough to help conquer others. And saying we were only the foot soldiers who were ordered to do it, stinks of the excuses used by Ukrainians etc who worked in the Nazi death camps.

What always gets me about these threads is they end up being a bashing argument about how my history is better then yours.

Even worse our history since independence is hardly glorious.
Anyone for 60 odd years of wholesale child abuse carried out with the tacit approval of the apparatus of the state ?

As regards these lawsuits it stinks of lawyers out to make a few quid.
It would be great if we could right the wrongs of the past, but we can't and often the real victims are long dead. Nothing will bring them back but justince shoudl be done where it needs to be done.
Incidents of torture, murder and abuse investiaged and cases taken against surviving perpetrators.
Sadly in Africa's case we could be in court for the rest of the century trying to unravel some of their darker incidents that have plagued that continent, and have sadly done us in great numbers even after the colonial froces have long departed.

getz

i can never understand why the irish do not know there own history,before the english ever arrived in ireland ,the irish had invaded all of britain they divided it into estates ,in 900ad it was said the ;irish lived as much in britain as they did in ireland,

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, so Britain, Holland, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Austria and Hungary all had empires. not all of Europe, but pretty much the lion's share.

Now you consider Ancient Greece part of the same story? You've gone from the whole of Europe, to just some of Europe, I'm sure a few more posts and your list of colonising nations will shrink again.

it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to consider that Ireland too would have had an empire. especially considering that there are over 100million Irish people around the world, the bulk of which ended up where they did as a direct result of colonialisation. Besides which, the Irish fought for the british, french and Spanish as part of their empire building.

It is indeed quite a stretch tbh. Did 100million people leave Ireland? No. You've no historical evidence for your argument. It's like saying because people in France speak french its likely that Irish people would also speak French, because hey they're both in Europe right?

Colonialism is a european disease, Ireland was part of the disease.

Not in the way you wish it was.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Aah right, so if a Kenyan has a broken bottle shoved in his face by a fellow Kenyan or even an Irishman, the Kenyan or Irishman is absolved of any blame because they followed a red white and blue flag?

The Irish nation can't and shouldn't be responsible for such people. If they fight under a British flag and they are paid and trained and are working with the British then they are Britains responsibility.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Therefore, the thousands of Irish men joining the British army to go and fight in Africa, India etc did so in the belief that they were going there to do what exactly, play football?

You are quite aware why many Irish people joined the British Army. Economic necessity, wanting to see the world amongst other reasons.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Kenya, Algeria, The Congo, the Caribbean islands etc are all the results of european colonialism, it is a guilt shared equally by every european country.

"it is a guilt shared equally by every european country" Fred seriously come on thats ludicrous. You don't really believe this nonsense do you?

Erin Go Brath

getz wrote: »

i can never understand why the irish do not know there own history,before the english ever arrived in ireland ,the irish had invaded all of britain they divided it into estates ,in 900ad it was said the ;irish lived as much in britain as they did in ireland,

How is this of any relevance to the torture and repression that the Mau Mau have endured?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

It is indeed quite a stretch tbh. Did 100million people leave Ireland? No. You've no historical evidence for your argument. It's like saying because people in France speak french its likely that Irish people would also speak French, because hey they're both in Europe right?

where did they come from then? their forefathers came from ireland, as a direct result of colonialism. If the Spanish had not colonised South America, there would not be a large number of Irish desendants in Argentina. Yes or No?

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The Irish nation can't and shouldn't be responsible for such people. If they fight under a British flag and they are paid and trained and are working with the British then they are Britains responsibility.

I'm not saying they should be held responsible. Yes, the responsibility lies with the regime of the time, but please don't sit there and claim that the Irish were somehow above all of this and would never have engaged in this sort of activity because they were.

Dionysus

Just came across this thread over on the History section.

For those of you interested in Britain's campaign against the Mau Mau, see Caroline Elkins, Britain's Gulag: The Brutal end of Empire in Kenya (London, 2005). Elkins is professor of history in Harvard University and this book won no less than the Pulitzer Prize for Non-Fiction in 2006.

David Anderson's Histories of the Hanged: Britain's dirty war in Kenya and the end of Empire (London, 2005) complements it very well.

From the concentration camps and euphemistically named "enclosed villages" where 1 million Kenyans were interned to the self-described British "Gestapo" which tortured and interrogated thousands of Kenyans in the 1950s, both books give the lie to claims that the Kenyans were as bad as the British. Nothing could be further from the truth, and no professional historian is trying to defend British actions there, even by that misguided logic.

Dionysus

I bought both books based on this (excellent) review, and the reviewer was definitely understating the reality:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/port01_.html

The poster above who stated (#11), 'Atrocities were committed on both sides, it would be like the IRA suing the British Government now. You started it all, no you did, you killed more, no it was your fault.' was very wrong indeed. He should read, at least, the above review.

What the British did in Kenya in the 1950s makes even Franz Fanon's version of French policy in Algeria in the 1960s seem mild. There are no excuses for people trying to defend it today, including ignorance. Plenty of liberal-minded English people objected to the policy at the time, although tens of thousands of Kenyans had died by the time British policy was brought to public attention there.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not saying they should be held responsible. Yes, the responsibility lies with the regime of the time, but please don't sit there and claim that the Irish were somehow above all of this and would never have engaged in this sort of activity because they were.

The Irish Army never to my knowledge engaged in this sort of activity. The British Army (including whatever paddies joined up) had the full backing of the British Government in all their colonial endeavours. That is the indictment when a nations government can stand over such atrocities and indeed try to delay or postpone justice being handed out. You are again resorting to whataboutery to deflect away from the substantive issue.

Do you condemn British involvement in Kenya?

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The Irish Army never to my knowledge engaged in this sort of activity. The British Army (including whatever paddies joined up) had the full backing of the British Government in all their colonial endeavours. That is the indictment when a nations government can stand over such atrocities and indeed try to delay or postpone justice being handed out. You are again resorting to whataboutery to deflect away from the substantive issue.

Do you condemn British involvement in Kenya?

i would condemn the actions that led to these attrocities, no problem there. As for britain being in Kenya, to quote a well known politician, i would neither condemn or condone them being there in the first place.

MarchDub

Dionysus wrote: »

I bought both books based on this (excellent) review, and the reviewer was definitely understating the reality:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/port01_.html

The poster above who stated (#11), 'Atrocities were committed on both sides, it would be like the IRA suing the British Government now. You started it all, no you did, you killed more, no it was your fault.' was very wrong indeed. He should read, at least, the above review.

What the British did in Kenya in the 1950s makes even Franz Fanon's version of French policy in Algeria in the 1960s seem mild. There are no excuses for people trying to defend it today, including ignorance. Plenty of liberal-minded English people objected to the policy at the time, although tens of thousands of Kenyans had died by the time British policy was brought to public attention there.

Agree - I too have a copy of "Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya" [your link] and have read other reports by the author, Caroline Elkins. Her work was pilloried among the lackeys of empire in the British Press but she is a highly respected historian and she has succeeded in ferreting out many of the atrocities committed by the British at the end of empire in Kenya. This included the destruction of state papers relating to prison welfare and scorched earth policies of putting down rebellion in villages - the Brits tried to burn the truth before they left Kenya. Thankfully much of the truth is now getting out.

It was not for nothing that Obama - a son of Kenya- asked that the bust of Churchill be removed from the Oval Office as soon as he entered it as President.