7 ms·

Uncovering the truth about the British empire and the Mau Mau uprising

73 points by lucasnemeth 10y ago

anexprogrammer 10y ago
Whilst Kenya was an undoubted low point of the British overseas territories, it's chilling to think they were markedly better behaved than the French and especially Belgian colonies in Africa. Quite how any of these were able to rationalise such behaviour, and so comparatively recently, whilst claiming to be civilised beats me.
- douche 10y ago
  Blood and repression is the norm for empires, from Sumeria down through. The new thing is being ashamed of it.
  - Ma8ee 10y ago
    > The new thing is being ashamed of it. Which is a development I very much welcome.
    - linksnapzz 10y ago
      Being ashamed of something you had no possibility of being complicit in, is perhaps psychologically maladaptive. Unless by shame, you mean an opportunity for performative ethnomasochism as a means of virtue-signalling.
  - afandian 10y ago
    Hm. Lots of people believed that the British Empire was absolutely fantastic. In reality, though it brought lots of trade to Britain, I don't think there was much interaction with the Empire for the normal person on the street. If they had actually known what atrocities had been committed in order to get them that rubber or cotton would they have been so happy about it? I think modern shame is very much the product of modern access to information. (To counter that point, most people can reasonably be expected to know where their bananas and palm oil came from and they still buy them)
    - linuxkerneldev 10y ago
      > If they had actually known what atrocities Lets put the atrocities to one side for a moment. We should also consider the fact that in many cases colonial invasions put into place highly extractive political institutions and extractive economic institutions. That's relevant for the long term. In almost all cases, the colonial governments put into place winner-take-all environments. That meant, if you were willing to be the corrupt puppet native leader, and were willing to supress your other natives at all costs, then you got to be "King". The structures created in those colonial countries still maintain such winner-take-all society which results in authoritarian/dictatorial leaders.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    Well the first phase of the British Empire was much more about the trade than repression and saw abolition of suttee and slavery. Early treaties attempted to preserve native rights. Intermarriage was relatively common, as was some immigration into the UK. The later "benevolent empire" phase, broadly around the time of the Opium wars, saw the repression, misrule and attempt to civilise these places. That saw more separation. This was the phase that saw concerted efforts to add infrastructure, schools, hospitals and such.
    - _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
      The goal of the British Empire, as with every empire, is to exploit the empire to the benefit of the ruling country. Everything else is white washing.
    - benbreen 10y ago
      The first phase of the British empire was roughly from the time of Queen Elizabeth to the start of the Seven Years War in 1754 (or up to 1688 if you want to use the Glorious Revolution as a division point). This is precisely the period when the British were among the world's most active and enthusiastic slavetraders. The abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire was obviously a bright point in its history, but it's worth pointing out that this happened two hundred years into the British Empire's lifespan, not at the beginning.
- AnAfrican 10y ago
  > it's chilling to think they were markedly better behaved than the French and especially Belgian colonies in Africa I'm somehow suspicious of this claim. There's some circumstancial evidence that make me think that Belgium's crimes were more exposed. For instance, compare the death tolls of the railways in the two Congos.
afandian 10y ago
I'll never forget a discussion with a very intelligent professional American (in the software business) who refused to believe that America could possibly be engaged in torture. She just refused to believe that a country as 'great' as the US could commit torture. (this was a few years ago under GWB when Guantanamo was all over the UK papers but presumably still being suppressed in the US media). The more stories like this are told and remove any shadow of a doubt about the foundations that western imperial states are built on the better. Occasionally British politicians talk about "British Values" or "Making Great Britain Great Again" without any hit of acknowledgement of what 'British values' really entailed in reality.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  I watched Zootopia with my gf, and I was surprised to see torture so normalized that the two "good guy" protagonists do a deal with the mob to torture some creature to advance the plot, and it's played up for laughs.
- Cacti 10y ago
  Let's be clear here though: it's not western imperial states, it's all imperial states throughout all of history, and all countries behave very differently at home compared to abroad.
  - afandian 10y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. Yes lots of nations commit atrocities and have done through time. If anything that's less of a reason to disbelieve that your taxes, and those of your predecessors, are being spent on atrocities.
    - golergka 10y ago
      I think that the parent comment author meant the usual anti-colonialism which attacks western colonialism as something unique and blames virtually any hardships of former colonies on it. I recently saw an article which argued that honor killings in Pakistan are to be blamed on colonialism — because, apparently, palistani men felt oppressed by colonial past and had to take it out on their wives, daughters and sisters. Unfortunately, this absurd position gets a lot of support nowadays, and often when you try to argue against it you're insantly labeled all kinds of things.
MustardTiger 10y ago
It is interesting how everyone wants to portray themselves as a victim. "I was persecuted for pursuing this very popular agenda, please ignore all the overwhelming support I got and pretend I am a victim". The idea that the British empire was an empire of evil and hatred has been the only acceptable view for decades, and is the standard story taught starting at least 3 decades back. You were not persecuted for supporting the majority view.
Spooky23 10y ago
I think a better example of the evilness of the British Empire is the Irish experience in the 19th century. You lose the "excuse" of racism and are left with religious sectarianism and sheer greed for the policy. The British put inhumane and genocidal policies in place, starving millions in a land of plenty.
- afandian 10y ago
  I'm not so sure. There has historically been very strong racism against Irish people in England.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    True. Sometimes these colonial abuse stories are whitewashed with "Yeah, the old timers were racists, but we're better now."
- JetSetWilly 10y ago
  The initial British response was to buy £100,000 of corn meal from the US to import to Ireland to combat the famine. This doesn't seem like an action of a government intent on genocide. It seems more to me that British policy in Ireland during the famine is marked by an extreme ideological commitment to laissez faire economics (ie, letting land owners export food from Ireland in large quantities to make money, letting ports export food etc) and no little incompetence and prejudice against imagined "workshy" irish layabouts. But I wouldn't say there was a deliberate policy of genocide as such. As far as I know, the potato blight was not started by British settlers gifting infected towels to the natives.
  - _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
    You are right of course. One might think though if the famine happened to Britain and not to the "inferior" Irish "race" [see other comments], wether the government would be "letting land owners export food from [Britain] in large quantities to make money".
formula1 10y ago
I appreciate that she took a stand for what she believes in. I hope that someone of her calibur will also express how the carribean has so few natives or tribes being pocketed in little corners of many american countries. But I appreciate any effort to understand and reach for justice
lil1729 10y ago
Appreciate the great work! British did a lot of nasty killings in India as well, for instance the Jalianwala Bagh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
- dominotw 10y ago
  Here you can see imperial life in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKYg641K3c&feature=youtu.be&t=565 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKYg641K3c&feature=youtu.be... Surreal imagery.
tgarma1234 10y ago
Yes one of the great quirks of European history is that the British Empire is not held in the same esteem as the Nazi empire. The British Empire was bizarrely racist and killed tens of millions of people worldwide. Maybe even more than that if you include the promotion of slavery as a business on global scale. England is so lovable now though.
- JetSetWilly 10y ago
  Except it was the British Empire that persecuted slavery and brought to an end the slave trade far in advance of other nations. What people forget is that the norms of the past are not the same as the norms of today. At one time, slavery was normal across vast swathes of the planet. That it isn't today, is in part due to a moral revolution that took place in Britain and resulted in a policy change by the British empire - despite its own commercial interests - to abolish slavery and the trade in slaves, even while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it.
  - pjriot 10y ago
    Once the economic advantages were outweighed by the political disadvantages. "while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it". I guess this depends on how you define "country", but lets take it to mean the majority of a population. I'll give you that countries benefiting from the slave trade were clearly fine with it. I sincerely doubt the populations being enslaved were though. (their opinions count right?)
    - JetSetWilly 10y ago
      That's the very thing I am talking about. Britain was the first country in which it was a massive political liability to support slavery, and the first country in which the opinions of ordinary people mobilising and campaigning against slavery actually mattered and made a difference. You can cast this in cynical terms as self interest, but you can do that with any action by any state in history - Britain is hardly unique there.
anupshinde 10y ago
Shouldn't we as humans bury the longer past and move on and look at the present-day scenario? I know many will say - "What about justice to our ancestors?". Justice is done to them when their children(descendants) do not suffer similar injustice and/or live a better life. How many parents want their kids to live in a war-waging world? I understand what she did was very hard work. But what's the point? People who raise these issues now probably and unintentionally end up generating hatred amongst individuals who might otherwise be perfectly fine with each other. Then there are people who get emotionally touched, take an absolute stand and create an uprising. The people (experts) who raised the issue first get sidelined. The govt tries to control the situation and gets labelled as oppressive. Politicians and media take control now. It goes on and then starts a racial and a religious divide and all the wars in the world. The true purpose is lost and what exists past those wars is just pieces of hazy truth mixed with spiced up vigilantism. The British did very bad and evil things in the past. But why not talk about evil things performed now by another powerful and smart country that uses methods incomprehendible to most people.
- j45 10y ago
  If we don't understand, acknowledge and what happened in the past, how can we be moving on with confidence that it's still not happening? I encourage everyone to look into the Truth & Reconciliation movement in Canada. It's truly inspiring to see how important Truth is, and how important reconciliation is, only because of truth. Really, the question can be of one's own guilt and blissful ignorance when we're reminded how clueless we really are of the plight of others. Looking in the mirror in that simple way isn't always easy.
- zyxley 10y ago
  > People who raise these issues now probably and unintentionally end up generating hatred amongst individuals who might otherwise be perfectly fine with each other. For events only 50 years ago, it's more likely that the hatred is already there and the effect of it on families gets ignored because "the past is past". "Creating an uprising" only happens when there's already tension and unhappiness floating around and people don't feel like they have any other way for their problems to be heard.
- 10y ago
RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
The sad truth is that empires require massive amounts of violence to maintain. There is no other way. Just look at Sumer, Assyria, Persia, Rome, China, Ottoman, France, Britain, and Germany. Also, make no mistake, the United States is also a defacto empire. Unfortunately, the alternatives to empires is isolation and infighting between smaller powers. For an example of this, take a look at the middle east. The middle east is most peaceful when it is part of an empire - be it the Ottoman, the British, Mongol, or Arab empires. Another example, is Europe. Europe was pretty peaceful when it was partitioned between the Soviet empire and the US Empire (also known as NATO). Also, empires can provide major benefits through economies of scale. Take a look at Europe before and after the fall of the Roman Empire. Looking back historically, the Roman Empire was probably a net positive for human development throughout the Mediterranean World. The various Chinese empires were also probably net positives for their citizens. Thus, it is not proper to judge the British empire over violence (given that an empire requires violence). The judgement should be over whether the British empire was a net positive or a net negative overall for the people involved.
- throwaway-hn123 10y ago
  > The judgement should be over whether the British empire was a net positive or a net negative overall for the people involved. That's easy, it was a net negative for the Indians.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    That's not an easy statement to make at all. The Indian kingdoms were perpetually at war, and there's no reason to think things would have changed without the British. Beyond that, the Brits left India with a common language and pretty good set of governance institutions.
    - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
      Actually, it's a really easy statement to make. The British were directly responsible for millions of deaths in India.
clarkenheim 10y ago
There is a great Radiolab episode on this very subject, also touches on the vault of top secret historical documents from the British Empire. http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/

73 points by lucasnemeth 10y ago

Whilst Kenya was an undoubted low point of the British overseas territories, it's chilling to think they were markedly better behaved than the French and especially Belgian colonies in Africa. Quite how any of these were able to rationalise such behaviour, and so comparatively recently, whilst claiming to be civilised beats me.

douche 10y ago
Blood and repression is the norm for empires, from Sumeria down through. The new thing is being ashamed of it.
- Ma8ee 10y ago
  > The new thing is being ashamed of it. Which is a development I very much welcome.
  - linksnapzz 10y ago
    Being ashamed of something you had no possibility of being complicit in, is perhaps psychologically maladaptive. Unless by shame, you mean an opportunity for performative ethnomasochism as a means of virtue-signalling.
- afandian 10y ago
  Hm. Lots of people believed that the British Empire was absolutely fantastic. In reality, though it brought lots of trade to Britain, I don't think there was much interaction with the Empire for the normal person on the street. If they had actually known what atrocities had been committed in order to get them that rubber or cotton would they have been so happy about it? I think modern shame is very much the product of modern access to information. (To counter that point, most people can reasonably be expected to know where their bananas and palm oil came from and they still buy them)
  - linuxkerneldev 10y ago
    > If they had actually known what atrocities Lets put the atrocities to one side for a moment. We should also consider the fact that in many cases colonial invasions put into place highly extractive political institutions and extractive economic institutions. That's relevant for the long term. In almost all cases, the colonial governments put into place winner-take-all environments. That meant, if you were willing to be the corrupt puppet native leader, and were willing to supress your other natives at all costs, then you got to be "King". The structures created in those colonial countries still maintain such winner-take-all society which results in authoritarian/dictatorial leaders.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Well the first phase of the British Empire was much more about the trade than repression and saw abolition of suttee and slavery. Early treaties attempted to preserve native rights. Intermarriage was relatively common, as was some immigration into the UK. The later "benevolent empire" phase, broadly around the time of the Opium wars, saw the repression, misrule and attempt to civilise these places. That saw more separation. This was the phase that saw concerted efforts to add infrastructure, schools, hospitals and such.
  - _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
    The goal of the British Empire, as with every empire, is to exploit the empire to the benefit of the ruling country. Everything else is white washing.
  - benbreen 10y ago
    The first phase of the British empire was roughly from the time of Queen Elizabeth to the start of the Seven Years War in 1754 (or up to 1688 if you want to use the Glorious Revolution as a division point). This is precisely the period when the British were among the world's most active and enthusiastic slavetraders. The abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire was obviously a bright point in its history, but it's worth pointing out that this happened two hundred years into the British Empire's lifespan, not at the beginning.
AnAfrican 10y ago
> it's chilling to think they were markedly better behaved than the French and especially Belgian colonies in Africa I'm somehow suspicious of this claim. There's some circumstancial evidence that make me think that Belgium's crimes were more exposed. For instance, compare the death tolls of the railways in the two Congos.

afandian 10y ago

I'll never forget a discussion with a very intelligent professional American (in the software business) who refused to believe that America could possibly be engaged in torture. She just refused to believe that a country as 'great' as the US could commit torture. (this was a few years ago under GWB when Guantanamo was all over the UK papers but presumably still being suppressed in the US media). The more stories like this are told and remove any shadow of a doubt about the foundations that western imperial states are built on the better. Occasionally British politicians talk about "British Values" or "Making Great Britain Great Again" without any hit of acknowledgement of what 'British values' really entailed in reality.

RodericDay 10y ago
I watched Zootopia with my gf, and I was surprised to see torture so normalized that the two "good guy" protagonists do a deal with the mob to torture some creature to advance the plot, and it's played up for laughs.
Cacti 10y ago
Let's be clear here though: it's not western imperial states, it's all imperial states throughout all of history, and all countries behave very differently at home compared to abroad.
- afandian 10y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. Yes lots of nations commit atrocities and have done through time. If anything that's less of a reason to disbelieve that your taxes, and those of your predecessors, are being spent on atrocities.
  - golergka 10y ago
    I think that the parent comment author meant the usual anti-colonialism which attacks western colonialism as something unique and blames virtually any hardships of former colonies on it. I recently saw an article which argued that honor killings in Pakistan are to be blamed on colonialism — because, apparently, palistani men felt oppressed by colonial past and had to take it out on their wives, daughters and sisters. Unfortunately, this absurd position gets a lot of support nowadays, and often when you try to argue against it you're insantly labeled all kinds of things.

MustardTiger 10y ago

It is interesting how everyone wants to portray themselves as a victim. "I was persecuted for pursuing this very popular agenda, please ignore all the overwhelming support I got and pretend I am a victim". The idea that the British empire was an empire of evil and hatred has been the only acceptable view for decades, and is the standard story taught starting at least 3 decades back. You were not persecuted for supporting the majority view.

Spooky23 10y ago

I think a better example of the evilness of the British Empire is the Irish experience in the 19th century. You lose the "excuse" of racism and are left with religious sectarianism and sheer greed for the policy. The British put inhumane and genocidal policies in place, starving millions in a land of plenty.

afandian 10y ago
I'm not so sure. There has historically been very strong racism against Irish people in England.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  True. Sometimes these colonial abuse stories are whitewashed with "Yeah, the old timers were racists, but we're better now."
JetSetWilly 10y ago
The initial British response was to buy £100,000 of corn meal from the US to import to Ireland to combat the famine. This doesn't seem like an action of a government intent on genocide. It seems more to me that British policy in Ireland during the famine is marked by an extreme ideological commitment to laissez faire economics (ie, letting land owners export food from Ireland in large quantities to make money, letting ports export food etc) and no little incompetence and prejudice against imagined "workshy" irish layabouts. But I wouldn't say there was a deliberate policy of genocide as such. As far as I know, the potato blight was not started by British settlers gifting infected towels to the natives.
- _Codemonkeyism 10y ago
  You are right of course. One might think though if the famine happened to Britain and not to the "inferior" Irish "race" [see other comments], wether the government would be "letting land owners export food from [Britain] in large quantities to make money".

formula1 10y ago

I appreciate that she took a stand for what she believes in. I hope that someone of her calibur will also express how the carribean has so few natives or tribes being pocketed in little corners of many american countries. But I appreciate any effort to understand and reach for justice

lil1729 10y ago

Appreciate the great work! British did a lot of nasty killings in India as well, for instance the Jalianwala Bagh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

dominotw 10y ago
Here you can see imperial life in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKYg641K3c&feature=youtu.be&t=565 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKYg641K3c&feature=youtu.be... Surreal imagery.

tgarma1234 10y ago

Yes one of the great quirks of European history is that the British Empire is not held in the same esteem as the Nazi empire. The British Empire was bizarrely racist and killed tens of millions of people worldwide. Maybe even more than that if you include the promotion of slavery as a business on global scale. England is so lovable now though.

JetSetWilly 10y ago
Except it was the British Empire that persecuted slavery and brought to an end the slave trade far in advance of other nations. What people forget is that the norms of the past are not the same as the norms of today. At one time, slavery was normal across vast swathes of the planet. That it isn't today, is in part due to a moral revolution that took place in Britain and resulted in a policy change by the British empire - despite its own commercial interests - to abolish slavery and the trade in slaves, even while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it.
- pjriot 10y ago
  Once the economic advantages were outweighed by the political disadvantages. "while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it". I guess this depends on how you define "country", but lets take it to mean the majority of a population. I'll give you that countries benefiting from the slave trade were clearly fine with it. I sincerely doubt the populations being enslaved were though. (their opinions count right?)
  - JetSetWilly 10y ago
    That's the very thing I am talking about. Britain was the first country in which it was a massive political liability to support slavery, and the first country in which the opinions of ordinary people mobilising and campaigning against slavery actually mattered and made a difference. You can cast this in cynical terms as self interest, but you can do that with any action by any state in history - Britain is hardly unique there.

anupshinde 10y ago

Shouldn't we as humans bury the longer past and move on and look at the present-day scenario? I know many will say - "What about justice to our ancestors?". Justice is done to them when their children(descendants) do not suffer similar injustice and/or live a better life. How many parents want their kids to live in a war-waging world? I understand what she did was very hard work. But what's the point? People who raise these issues now probably and unintentionally end up generating hatred amongst individuals who might otherwise be perfectly fine with each other. Then there are people who get emotionally touched, take an absolute stand and create an uprising. The people (experts) who raised the issue first get sidelined. The govt tries to control the situation and gets labelled as oppressive. Politicians and media take control now. It goes on and then starts a racial and a religious divide and all the wars in the world. The true purpose is lost and what exists past those wars is just pieces of hazy truth mixed with spiced up vigilantism. The British did very bad and evil things in the past. But why not talk about evil things performed now by another powerful and smart country that uses methods incomprehendible to most people.

j45 10y ago
If we don't understand, acknowledge and what happened in the past, how can we be moving on with confidence that it's still not happening? I encourage everyone to look into the Truth & Reconciliation movement in Canada. It's truly inspiring to see how important Truth is, and how important reconciliation is, only because of truth. Really, the question can be of one's own guilt and blissful ignorance when we're reminded how clueless we really are of the plight of others. Looking in the mirror in that simple way isn't always easy.
zyxley 10y ago
> People who raise these issues now probably and unintentionally end up generating hatred amongst individuals who might otherwise be perfectly fine with each other. For events only 50 years ago, it's more likely that the hatred is already there and the effect of it on families gets ignored because "the past is past". "Creating an uprising" only happens when there's already tension and unhappiness floating around and people don't feel like they have any other way for their problems to be heard.
10y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago

The sad truth is that empires require massive amounts of violence to maintain. There is no other way. Just look at Sumer, Assyria, Persia, Rome, China, Ottoman, France, Britain, and Germany. Also, make no mistake, the United States is also a defacto empire. Unfortunately, the alternatives to empires is isolation and infighting between smaller powers. For an example of this, take a look at the middle east. The middle east is most peaceful when it is part of an empire - be it the Ottoman, the British, Mongol, or Arab empires. Another example, is Europe. Europe was pretty peaceful when it was partitioned between the Soviet empire and the US Empire (also known as NATO). Also, empires can provide major benefits through economies of scale. Take a look at Europe before and after the fall of the Roman Empire. Looking back historically, the Roman Empire was probably a net positive for human development throughout the Mediterranean World. The various Chinese empires were also probably net positives for their citizens. Thus, it is not proper to judge the British empire over violence (given that an empire requires violence). The judgement should be over whether the British empire was a net positive or a net negative overall for the people involved.

throwaway-hn123 10y ago
> The judgement should be over whether the British empire was a net positive or a net negative overall for the people involved. That's easy, it was a net negative for the Indians.
- gozur88 10y ago
  That's not an easy statement to make at all. The Indian kingdoms were perpetually at war, and there's no reason to think things would have changed without the British. Beyond that, the Brits left India with a common language and pretty good set of governance institutions.
  - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
    Actually, it's a really easy statement to make. The British were directly responsible for millions of deaths in India.

clarkenheim 10y ago

There is a great Radiolab episode on this very subject, also touches on the vault of top secret historical documents from the British Empire. http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/mau-mau/