The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[agapelove]

While the reality is extremely complex,

Just say you don’t know what you’re talking about and move on.

the Mau Mau story would be more accurately characterised as a civil war among black Kenyans, and among the Kikuyu people in particular. Essentially, it was a conflict over what kind of country Kenya would be when it (inevitably) gained independence.

Civil War *caused by the British.

By the way, the Mau Mau were outlawed in 1952. Kenya did not gain their independence until 1963.

 

[Radagast]

Just say you don’t know what you’re talking about and move on.

I was reading about the Mau Mau before you were born.

By the way, the Mau Mau were outlawed in 1952. Kenya did not gain their independence until 1963.

I was talking about the ban on the Mau Mau by the post-independence Kenyan government (which was not lifted until 2003).

If the Mau Mau had been "freedom fighters," the new government would have praised them to the skies, not continued the colonial ban.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What representational inaccuracies have I made? What am I ignoring? Were the Mau Mau actually formed for some reason other than fighting off colonialism? Did Churchill not hold racist/imperialist views? Not really sure why you keep claiming these facts are bias. It’s defensive and unnecessary. It is best to look for splinters wherever they exist.

You are obfuscating. Never denied Churchill was an imperialist or racist by modern standards, nor denied that the Mau Mau uprising was substantially against British ruled Kenya. It is about degree, and flat-out falsehoods (on Churchill and the Bengal Famine or Mau Mau internment and your view sounds lifted straight from the Soviets). Reducing everything to power relations or race is just facile. Humans are complex, and history is so too, accordingly.

I grew up in the dying years of Apartheid South Africa. I saw Hendrik Verwoerd transformed from martyred father of the nation to evil mastermind; terrorists morph into statesmen; Jan Smuts airport being made into neutral Johannesburg to refrain from eponymous naming, only to become OR Tambo; chiefs invented from scratch, and honoured with statues like Tshwane; the transition from a balanced portrayal of Shaka as kingdom builder and aggressive ruler into hero worship; Towns renamed; Rhodes scrubbed off the wall of Our History at Groote Schuur, a hospital founded on his largesse; the transformation of every two-bit figure into a hero or devil. Neither the original myths or those replacing them hold water when you actually try and understand what was going on.

I know propaganda when I see it.

 

[agapelove]

I was reading about the Mau Mau before you were born.

From what? British archives?

I was talking about the ban on the Mau Mau by the post-independence Kenyan government (which was not lifted until 2003).

If the Mau Mau had been "freedom fighters," the new government would have praised them to the skies, not continued the colonial ban.

Independent Kenya’s founding leader Jomo Kenyatta had been arrested back in 1952 on suspicion of being a Mau Mau leader. By the time he came into power he was on friendly terms with the UK, and he stressed the importance of forgiving and forgetting. It’s obvious why he would have wanted to disassociate himself with the Mau Mau. By the time the third president was inaugurated the nation began to recognize the Mau Mau’s role in expediting their independence. The Mau Mau War Veterans' Association was formed and together with the Kenyan govt. they pursued a lawsuit against Britain.

Here’s another source from ACTUAL Kenyans: 'We are the Mau Mau': Kenyans share stories of torture

Today Kenya recognizes them as radical freedom fighters so I really think this argument is unnecessary.

 

[agapelove]

You are obfuscating. Never denied Churchill was an imperialist or racist by modern standards.

The fact that you need to add “by modern standards” is what’s obfuscating. Imperialism and racism are wrong in any era.

 

[Radagast]

From what? British archives?

No, actually, quite a lot of literature has come out of Kenya itself over the past 57 years.

Independent Kenya’s founding leader Jomo Kenyatta had been arrested back in 1952 on suspicion of being a Mau Mau leader.

Yes, I know that. He was not a Mau Mau leader, however.

By the time the third president was inaugurated the nation began to recognize the Mau Mau’s role in expediting their independence.

In more recent times the Mau Mau have indeed been painted as heroes, yes. That doesn't mean that the modern hagiographies are true; it simply means that in recent years the government has been motivated to tell the story differently from the way it was told during the 1963-2003 period.

 

[agapelove]

the transformation of every two-bit figure into a hero or devil.

Well if history was a little less focused on trying to understand people and more about understanding events we wouldn’t be in this fiasco of idolizing human beings.

 

[Radagast]

Well if history was a little less focused on trying to understand people and more about understanding events we wouldn’t be in this fiasco of idolizing human beings.

Or, as in your case, demonising them.

 

[agapelove]

In more recent times the Mau Mau have indeed been painted as heroes, yes. That doesn't mean that the modern hagiographies are true; it simply means that in recent years the government has been motivated to tell the story differently from the way it was told during the 1963-2003 period.

Or have you considered they are just trying to tell their side of the story? If you were really a Mau Mau connoisseur you would know that Mau Mau was a derogative name given to them by the Brits, who slandered them from the very beginning and then decades even after they won independence. I don’t think they are being painted as heroes so much as just given credit where some credit is due.

 

[Tom 1]

The fact that you need to add “by modern standards” is what’s obfuscating. Imperialism and racism are wrong in any era.

Imperialism is the history of the human race. Without imperialism, whether on a local or a global scale, this conversation would never have happened, there would be no internet, no writing, none of the accoutrements of modern life. The agricultural revolution was one marked step towards the inevitability of imperialism as the norm of human society, but there are enough indications that prehistoric society was already deeply demarcated along competitive lines. The only thing that makes it work, i.e. leads to the development of a settled civilisation which then leads to the development of technology, philosophy, literature etc is when a relatively (it’s all relative) moderate civilisation is in the majority rule. If you want to argue that isn’t the case, you can start with Sumeria and demonstrate how it all might have been done differently. The arguments of the type that the currently dominant powers, who did what all the other powers or their respective times did, only more successfully or on a bigger scale, are ‘so bad’ is meaningless piffle. So bad in relation to what? In relation to all the other people who have repeatedly done all the same things, and worse?

 

[agapelove]

Or, as in your case, demonising them.

So we can’t even talk about the truth now? Calling Churchill out on his racist remarks and not so friendly international domination is DEMONIZING? What else is it? Defamation? Slandering? Not allowed? Sounds pretty fascist to me!

 

[agapelove]

Imperialism is the history of the human race. Without imperialism, whether on a local or a global scale, this conversation would never have happened, there would be no internet, no writing, none of the accoutrements of modern life. The agricultural revolution was one marked step towards the inevitability of imperialism as the norm of human society, but there are enough indications that prehistoric society was already deeply demarcated along competitive lines. The only thing that makes it work, i.e. leads to the development of a settled civilisation which then leads to the development of technology, philosophy, literature etc is when a relatively (it’s all relative) moderate civilisation is in the majority rule. If you want to argue that isn’t the case, you can start with Sumeria and demonstrate how it all might have been done differently. The arguments of the type that the currently dominant powers, who did what all the other powers or their respective times did, only more successfully or on a bigger scale, are ‘so bad’ is meaningless piffle. So bad in relation to what? In relation to all the other people who have repeatedly done all the same things, and worse?

So I’m not allowed to complain about Indigenous people being forcibly removed from their land because I’m American and should be grateful I live here now? If you say imperialism gave us so many benefits, free speech being one of them, then we should be allowed to analyze the heinousness of history without being accused of some leftist agenda.

 

[Tom 1]

So I’m not allowed to complain about Indigenous people being forcibly removed from their land because I’m American and should be grateful I live here now? If you say imperialism gave us so many benefits, free speech being one of them, then we should be allowed to analyze the heinousness of history without being accused of some leftist agenda.

Who is accusing you of a leftist agenda? What I am saying is that if you are going to make arguments of this sort, it is important to begin from a perspective that can be related to the relevant context - human history. Perhaps there were people in Assyrian societies who bemoaned the treatment of other cultures unwillingly subsumed into that empire? Perhaps some Zulus were sickened by the slaughter of other tribes? Probably. To pick out this or that period in history, cast the winners as the bad guys and the losers as plucky underdogs is disingenuous. We’re all in it together, the particular racism of the white saviour movement is to inject into the narrative ideas that cast different ethnicities in morally oppositional roles, which is pure fantasy beyond any immediate context. An argument that might be worth making would be for a simpler lifestyle, I don’t know anything much about North Native American culture but the nomadic, hunger gatherer type lifestyle I vaguely associate with people who were there before the Europeans probably led to smaller numbers of people being killed, if scale is something to argue for - I don’t know. The point is that if you want to argue for a better world it’s not only absurd but also hypocritical to argue for that by attempting to retroactively denigrate the means by which you are in a position to begin making those arguments. It is also self-deceiving to pretend that there are ways of building a civilisation that don’t involve imperial or at least regional expansion, unless you know of some example of that happening and leading to the development of writing (etc).

 

[Radagast]

If you were really a Mau Mau connoisseur you would know that Mau Mau was a derogative name given to them by the Brits

I assume you mean "derogatory." And I don't think it is. The name is derived from Kikuyu, although the exact etymology isn't clear.

And, as has already been pointed out, they committed some horrific atrocities. They were not nice people.

You seem to have a very simplistic good/bad classification of people based only on their skin colour.

slandered them from the very beginning and then decades even after they won independence

They were viewed very negatively by the independent Kenyan government for half a century.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, actually, quite a lot of literature has come out of Kenya itself over the past 57 years.



Yes, I know that. He was not a Mau Mau leader, however.



In more recent times the Mau Mau have indeed been painted as heroes, yes. That doesn't mean that the modern hagiographies are true; it simply means that in recent years the government has been motivated to tell the story differently from the way it was told during the 1963-2003 period.

So what should be remembered is that the Kikuyu were dominant in Kenya since independance, hence suppression of the Mau Mau stories was in their favour, in order to present a civil transfer of power. After all, the traditional tribal elites remained dominant, which the Mau Mau had opposed. Thereafter the Lua started to accrue influence, and in recent years there has been some strife between them. Recasting the Mau Mau as heroes now suits, as it casts the Kikuyu as throwing off the yoke of Britain, and thus Kenyans should be grateful - as opposed to the collaborationist quisling Lua.

Further, Britain has come to acknowledge wrongdoing, and even offering compensation for, the internment and such. Nothing so incentives rehabilitation than wads of cash under the nose, which is why so many Mau Mau are suddenly crawling out of the woodwork.

All of this is about internal Kenyan politics. There are more and more sides here.

 

[Radagast]

All of this is about internal Kenyan politics. There are more and more sides here.

Exactly.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Who is accusing you of a leftist agenda? What I am saying is that if you are going to make arguments of this sort, it is important to begin from a perspective that can be related to the relevant context - human history. Perhaps there were people in Assyrian societies who bemoaned the treatment of other cultures unwillingly subsumed into that empire? Perhaps some Zulus were sickened by the slaughter of other tribes? Probably. To pick out this or that period in history, cast the winners as the bad guys and the losers as plucky underdogs is disingenuous. We’re all in it together, the particular racism of the white saviour movement is to inject into the narrative ideas that cast different ethnicities in morally oppositional roles, which is pure fantasy beyond any immediate context. An argument that might be worth making would be for a simpler lifestyle, I don’t know anything much about Native American culture but the nomadic, hunger gatherer type lifestyle I vaguely associate with people who were there before the Europeans probably led to smaller numbers of people being killed, if scale is something to argue for - I don’t know. The point is that if you want to argue for a better world it’s not only absurd but also hypocritical to argue for that by attempting to retroactively denigrate the means by which you are in a position to begin making those arguments. It is also self-deceiving to pretend that there are ways of building a civilisation that don’t involve imperial or at least regional expansion, unless you know of some example of that happening and leading to the development of writing (etc).

I am always mildly irritated by this idea that the Conquistadors were wrong to destroy Aztec civilisation. Those that mourn for it. They literally ripped hearts out of chests on a massive scale. Imperialism has been on the side of humanity too; such as the British ending Sati and suppressing the Thuggee in India, or ending the Transatlantic Slave trade (although also a child of Empire); the Romans ending Celtic headhunting and Punic child sacrifice or erecting the Pax Romana; the Persians restoring peoples after overthrowing the Babylonians, etc. To do great good, more often than not you need muscle to enforce it. The more power you gain, the more capacity to do good or ill, and it depends how it is wielded. The age of Imperialism is not past, as the recent border scuffles between India and China show, or the neocolonialism if China in Africa or the nine dashed line, or the alliances and spheres of interest America maintains worldwide. Empire just goes under a new name, 'as all animals are equal even if some are more equal than others'.

 

[Radagast]

I am always mildly irritated by this idea that the Conquistadors were wrong to destroy Aztec civilisation. Those that mourn for it. They literally ripped hearts out of chests on a massive scale.

As the movie Apocalypto points out, the Aztecs exploited non-Aztecs in horrific ways. The Aztecs were not nice people.

 

[Chesterton]

She became somewhat of a pariah after she was forced from government for fraud and corruption, and the full extent of her involvement in the torture and murder of a teenager named Stompie Seipei became public knowledge. Her only supporters were hardcore ANC. She gradually crawled back as people forget things. Then she of course died, and now she is a hero again, Mama Winnie, and the EFF and ANC youth league laud her and threaten people that speak ill of her.

Oi vey.

Anyway, a humorous bit of trivia: In my city there's a Winston Churchill High School. At the time it was built, the naming was controversial, because some argued that the tradition is to name schools after American citizens only. The pro-Churchill crowd won the debate by pointing out that because of his mother, Churchill was "half American".

 

[Chesterton]

I am always mildly irritated by this idea that the Conquistadors were wrong to destroy Aztec civilisation. Those that mourn for it. They literally ripped hearts out of chests on a massive scale.

I'm just very happy that it went that way and not the other way. I'm very glad the Aztecs didn't first build large ships and better swords, sail the sea and conquer Spain and Europe. Western civilization might have human sacrifice and demon worship to this very day.