Mau_Mau

In the article, entitled ‘ Imperial Reckoning ; The Untold Story of Britain ‘s Gulag in Kenya’, the author, Caroline Elkins make an argument so as to know the Mau Mau and to know the conflicts between Mau Mau and the British Empire . Elkins argues that the British government treated the people in Kenya, especially the people who join Mau Mau badly when there was the detention camp . Elkins said that in the past, she thought England was kind to the people in Kenya as shown in the files and document. But,in fact it was not. Elkins gives many examples to show that England treated Kenya badly. She says that in fact England used detention camp so as to control the people in Kenya. Elkins interviewed the people who had been detained . One example is that the British and people who support the British rape the women . According to a man, Simon Rutho, “ whenever that headman desired a woman, and she refused him, he would take a beer bottle, then order an askari to hold one of the woman’s leg, and another to hold the other,wide apart. Then he would insert the bottle into the woman’s private parts and punch it up to the stomach.” . From this example, we can see that the women in Kenya were exploited by the British and they were raped . From this example, it supports the author’s argument. Another example is that when there was the food crisis ,Britain did not do much to solve the problem . This caused many people died . As one villager said, “Hungry was the worst problem” , “The little time we were allowed to go to the shamba was too short to allow for any meaningful food gathering.” From these examples, it shows that Britain treated the people in Kenya badly . They just want the people in Kenya to die . All these examples support the author’s argument. As for another reading, entitled ‘ Mau Mau and the Politics of Knowledge: The Struggle Continues’, the author, Bruce Berman make his arguments so as to understand Mau Mau. He argues that there is close relationship between Mau Mau and the politics of knowledge. . In other words, if we look into the Mau Mau, we can know many politics of knowledge. Firstly, Berman used the example of “terrorism” to show the relationship between Mau Mau and politics of knowledge . The author regarded Mau Mau as a kind of terrorism. .The reason for the Mau Mau to fight is that they discontent with British . Sadly, “the British fully controlled the external depiction of Mau Mau to the world and definitively won the politics of knowledge” .The author also said that as Mau Mau has been regarded as “criminal activity’ , therefore, Britain can refuse to handle the discontent of the people in Kikuyu , the author says it also help Britain to win the political of knowledge. Also, Berman said as Mau Mau has been defined “as atavistic savagery and psychotic derangement” , it is hard to have negotiation between the Mau Mau and Britain. As the Mau Mau did not trust the British , so there is no negotiations between these two countries5 , therefore, Mau Mau lost the political of knowledge. As for the reading entitled ‘ The Intellectual Lives of Mau Mau Detainees’, the author, Derek R. Peterson “illuminate the creative and intellectual and social projects in which Mau Mau detainees were engaged” . In other words, Peterson argues that the Mau Mau detainees did participate in the social projects. Peterson gave some examples to show the Mau Mau detainees took part in the ‘intellectual and social project’ . Firstly, he used the example of the detainees controlling their family to support his argument . One of the example is that a man called Gakaara controlled his wife by using the postal system . He asked his wife to improve her handwriting so as to communicate with him effectively by writing letters .All these show the detainees would like to control his family . This supports the author’s argument . Also, Peterson gave another example to show “the Mau Mau detainees participate in the intellectual and social project” . The detainees complained that they were exploited and were asked to confess by the British . One detainee said “We are always forced to say what one doesn’t know, so as to commit himself into some mistakes or crimes which to the fact he knows nothing” .They thought it is a “violation of right” . They tried to complain to Britain saying what they were doing did not fit the law provided by their queen. . It shows that the Mau Mau detainees were brave enough to disagree with the Britain. This examples supports the author’s argument. As for the reading entitled ‘The Mau Mau Rebellion, Kikuyu Women, and Social Change’, the author, Cora Ann Presley argues that the women contributed a lot to the Mau Mau rebellion, .We should not underestimate their contributions. Presley gave some examples to support the argument. Firstly, Presley said that the role for the women in the rebellion “were as multifaceted as the revolt itself” , the women had to ensure there were adequate supply of gun and food and so on. Presley said the women had to attend the oathing ceremony .From these examples, we can see that the women bear an important role in the Mau Mau rebellion , this supports the author’s argument . Also, Presley said the women was sent to prison just because they joined the rebellion . The women were exploited in the prison , for example, they were beaten and they were not allowed to eat meat and most of the time they did not have enough food. They had to “buried the bodies” too.They did not mind staying in the prison just because of the rebellion. This shows that what the author said is correct. For the reading, entitled ‘Mau Mau of the Mind: Making Mau Mau and Remaking Kenya’, the author, John Lonsdale argues what is the meaning of Mau Mau and so as to understand Mau Mau. Lonsdale shows the opinion of the conservatives , liberals and the Christian fundamentalists , to know how do these groups see Mau Mau. Firstly, for the conservatives, they think “Mau Mau revealed the latent terror-laden primitivism in all Africans, the Kikuyu especially.” . The conservatives said there were some hazards of the primitive. They said “Race was the most obvious boundary under threat and was simplest defended by hardening the polemical frontier between white civilization and black savagery” .They believed in order to solve the problem, it should stop the liberal imperial promises. . Lonsdale also point out the opinion of the liberals. The liberals “blamed Mau Mau on the bewildering psychological effects of rapid social change and the collapse of orderly tribal values” . Liberals also said Mau Mau was happened just because there was conflict between “tradition and modernity, community and society, past tribe and future nation.” . They believed just because of these reasons, there was Mau Mau rebellion. Lonsdale also point out the opinion of the Christian fundamentalists. The Christian fundamentalists thought Mau Mau is “collective sin, to be overcome by individual confession and conversion.” The missionaries were willing to “resolve political conflict by confession of racial brotherhood, at the Athi River Camp” . They hated the rebellion as they were the victims of the rebellion , that is why they thought Mau Mau “is a collective sin” For the reading, entitled ‘Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Modernity: The Paradox of Mau Mau’, the author, Bruce J.Berman argues that there is a close “relationship between Mau Mau and nationalism” . As Berman said, the “anti-colonial nationalism” was happened in the 20th century . Berman shows an example of Kenya and Mau Mau to show there was “anti-colonial nationalism” . In the 1940s, the poor people and expelled people were against the chiefs . The workers in Nairobi fight with the British just because of inflation and so on. From this example, it shows that there is “anti-colonial nationalism” in Kenya and among the people in Mau Mau. Berman shows another example of nationalism. He quoted some words from a man named Wanjau. Wanjau said that “to struggle for freedom is to be imbued with a patriotic love for your country and its people ,so that you become part and parcel of its suffering and its triumphs” . This quotation is a very good example to show what people should do in order to promote nationalism. The Mau Mau did follow this step. And so, this example supports the argument. In the following paragraphs, I am going to talk about “in what way do different authors agree or disagree with each other” . In other words, which means I will talk about the relationship between these authors’ arguments. First of all, there is close relationship between Caroline Elkins’s article ‘Imperial Reckoning : The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya’ and Derek R. Peterson’s article ‘The Intellectual Lives of Mau Mau Detainees’. Both of the authors said that Britain exploited the people in Kenya , especially the Mau Mau . From Elkin’s article, she said people were exploited by the British . For example, people did not have freedom to go outside the camp. There was gate and bridge to separate the detainees from the other people . In Peterson’s article, people were exploited too . For example, the detainees were asked to give their money to Britain and the detainees were banned from reading newspaper. . From these examples, it shows that people in Kenya were exploited , and so we can say that Elkin and Peterson agree with each other. Apart from the above, Cora Ann Presley’s article , entitled ‘The Mau Mau Rebellion, Kikuyu Women, and Social Change” disagree with Caroline Elkins’s article, entitled ‘Imperial Reckoning : The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya’. The two authors had different views on the role of women in the Mau Mau rebellion. For Elkin’s article, she describes the women as passive and less contribution to the rebellion. However, Presley thinks women were active and had a great contributions to the rebellion. Elkin gave some examples to show women were passive and had less contributions to the rebellion . One example is that the women were asked to build the road and irrigate the plants and cut wood . This shows the women did not have to fight with others in the rebellion. However, in Presley’s article, the women were active , some of the women were leaders for their team , it shows that they are active when there were rebellion. From the above examples, it shows that Presley and Elkins disagree with each other. Apart from the above, Bruce Berman’s article ‘ Mau Mau and the Politics of Knowledge: The Struggle Continues’ disagree with Caroline Elkins’s article ‘Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya’. In Berman’s article, he criticizes Elkins a lot. For example, he criticizes Elkins for not give correct number of people died when there was the Emergency. . Elkins said there were around 13000 to 300000 people died when there was the emergency. However, Berman said in fact , there were only 50000 people died , the number of people died is different from the one shown by Elkins ,therefore, Berman disagree with what Elkins said. Apart from the above, John Lonsdale’s article ‘Mau Maus of the Mind: Making Mau Mau and Remaking Kenya’ may disagree with Bruce Berman ‘s article ‘Mau Mau and the Politics of Knowledge : The Struggle Continues’. Lonsdale posted different point of view ,like the opinion of conservatives and liberals and so on. Conservatives thought the “Mau Mau revealed the latent terror-laden primitivism” .This idea is different from the one posted by Berman. Berman thought Mau Mau rebellion was regarded as the terrorism and this means the Mau Mau would like to fight against the Britain . The idea is different from the one posted by Lonsdale. So, Lonsdale may disagree with Berman. Lastly,Derek. R. Peterson’s article ‘The Intellectual Lives of Mau Mau Detainees’ may agree with Bruce J.Berman’s article ‘Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Modernity: The Paradox of Mau Mau’. Bruce J.Berman thinks the Mau Mau was related to nationalism. And from Peterson’s article, it shows that the detainees may also have a sense of nationalism. The detainees that described by Peterson did not confess although Britain asked them to do so. This is a kind of nationalism. Therefore, Peterson may agree with Bruce J. Berman. To conclude, each of the authors made his or her arguments and gave many examples to support themselves. And there is a close relationship between different authors , they agree or disagree with other authors.