Mau Mau Essay Research Paper The Discontent

Mau Mau Essay, Research Paper

The Discontent of the Kikuyu

In 1942, Macmillan had recognised that a serious peasant revolt was inevitable within ten years unless the settlers were ditched or bought out of the White Highlands and replaced by Kikuyu peasants organised in collective farms Time was running out.

As foreshadowed above the post WWII era, if not changed, was leading toward a massive Kikuyu revolt. During the 1930s and 40s, extensive land reforms and changes throughout the colony plagued the Kikuyu farmers. It was estimated in 1944 that all of the Africans in Kenya were crowded into 30 million acres, while 1,890 Europeans had 11 million acres, and only cultivated half a million. The Kikuyu reserves were over populated, over cultivated and over grazed land, and there was extensive over-crowding and unemployment in Nairobi. There was no suitable place for an African native to settle and earn a living. Time was running out, as we will see the squatters and peasants that occupied the reserves and the alienated people of the city would no longer stand for the exploitations of their labor and land by the colonial powers. It is these actions taken by the reservist, squatters and city people and they helped lay the foundational beliefs of the Mau Mau.

The Reservist and Squatters

As early as the 1930s, the colonial government became concerned with the state of the land on the Kikuyu reserves. Erosion and over production left the soil in incredibly poor condition. Yet, throughout the duration of WWII the Kikuyu farmers were encouraged to maximize production for the good of economy of the colony and for the troops. As David Thourp says, “To abandon settler farming and to rely upon the peasant option . . . had appeared to be too big a risk. Thus the conflict was set.” Either the peasants or the settlers had to be given the favor of the government, and in this instance, it was the settlers that won.

The government’s reconciliation with the peasants that occupied the reserves was to allot them with around eight to twelve acres per family. With the acreage, restrictions on cultivation and land usage were also placed; only one to two acres could actually be cultivated at anytime, there was a limit to the amount of cattle and sheep they could own, and there was compulsory labor to help terrace the communal reserve land. These government restrictions did not allow the people living on reserves to produce enough of a surplus to supplement their income nor could the gain from the raising of livestock. The mandatory work on terracing the reserves caused problems because most of the workers never saw any return from their labor.

These factors combined with corruption of power on the local level caused great dissatisfaction with the system. On the local level, government appointed chiefs exploited their power and favored their supporters. Many chiefs were only concerned with producing the most terraces for the agriculture campaign, and therefore looking good in the eyes of the government. They did not try to further the plight of their reserve; they only looked for ways to gain power.

The squatters encountered similar problems with the governmental restrictions. In 1940, the Colonial Office gave the settlers’ District Councils jurisdiction over their communities of squatters. At the end of the war – after many settlers had returned to their farms – the Councils immediately enforced measures that limited the squatters to only one of two acres of cultivation per family and restricted the number of animals in their herds to ten sheep or goats, no cattle. Quickly, as with the reserves, incomes dropped. The Labour Department estimated that in the Naivasha District Area that the income per squatter family for both livestock and farming fell from 1,400 shillings in 1942 to less than 400 shillings in 1946.

The squatters did not have much of a choice in what to do. They could return to the over crowed reserves or move into Nairobi and be landless. Neither of these two seemed to be a viable option for most squatters. Yet, the government forced many to return to the reserves. In 1946, after an act of protest when the squatters refused to reattest, over 3,000 were forced to leave the White Highlands. These displaced squatters flocked to the reserves; this compounded the problems already faced there.

With masses of natives frustrated and angry with the colonial government, feelings of militancy began to spread. The African settlement of Olenguruone exemplifies this spread in relation to government actions. “Olenguruone provide a rallying point for all disgruntle Kikuyu. . . for all were seeking ways and means of dealing with colonial oppression and, ultimately, colonial rule.”

Olenguruone was caught in the thick of the official post WWII obsession with agriculture improvement and soil conservation on African reserves. They were subject to a set of similar exacerbating restrictions on both cultivation and grazing. However, an important difference was that Olenguruone land was incredibly steep and densely wooded with bamboo and underbrush, and the weather was erratic and could be violent. While eight acres still was not much in the Central Province it seemed to be even less in Olenguruone.

It was at Olenguruone that the idea of taking oaths against the government, to unity the people together, began to gai