View Full Version : Mau mau
piratelassie
06-Oct-12, 21:58
Is it not good to see the people of Kenya getting justice at long last? Ive resd a few books about the British Eempire and there is a lot that was wrong. Maybe we will pay for it now.
Have you heard the Kenyan Christmas carol?
I Saw Mau Mau Kissing Santa Claus.
Is it not good to see the people of Kenya getting justice at long last? Ive resd a few books about the British Eempire and there is a lot that was wrong. Maybe we will pay for it now.
Lets hope that others who were tortured and killed by these Evil Mau Mau barbarians will be able to sue them for compensation. They were no Saints that is for sure!!!
"Mau Mau fighters, . . . contrary to African customs and values, assaulted old people, women and children. The horrors they practiced included the following: decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women. No war can justify such gruesome actions. In man's inhumanity to man, there is no race distinction. The Africans were practicing it on themselves.
—Bethwell Ogo.
I hope they dont get a penny!!
C3.
piratelassie
06-Oct-12, 23:59
there is on doubt the mau mau were no saints but they did not invade this country and commit these acts you describe
Lets get our own house (country) into order first.
Before we cast the first stone!
Lets hope that others who were tortured and killed by these Evil Mau Mau barbarians will be able to sue them for compensation. They were no Saints that is for sure!!!
"Mau Mau fighters, . . . contrary to African customs and values, assaulted old people, women and children. The horrors they practiced included the following: decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women. No war can justify such gruesome actions. In man's inhumanity to man, there is no race distinction. The Africans were practicing it on themselves.
—Bethwell Ogo.
I hope they dont get a penny!!
C3.
Did the people who are suing "us" commit such acts?
Even if some of them did, should they have been tortured in jail, as a revenge?
Did the people who are suing "us" commit such acts?
Even if some of them did, should they have been tortured in jail, as a revenge?
No wonder this country is broke, what next, The people of Dresden suing us because their city got carpet bombed? I don't see why our children should have to pay for something our Forefathers did over 50 years ago. We are far too soft and apologetic in the UK, it's time we toughened up a bit!!
C3.
John Little
07-Oct-12, 08:24
No wonder this country is broke, what next, The people of Dresden suing us because their city got carpet bombed? I don't see why our children should have to pay for something our Forefathers did over 50 years ago. We are far too soft and apologetic in the UK, it's time we toughened up a bit!!C3.No worries. We'll pay it from North Sea oil revenue...
No worries. We'll pay it from North Sea oil revenue...
Or better still, take a bit more off our disabled and jobseekers!!
C3.
No wonder this country is broke, what next, The people of Dresden suing us because their city got carpet bombed? I don't see why our children should have to pay for something our Forefathers did over 50 years ago. We are far too soft and apologetic in the UK, it's time we toughened up a bit!!
C3.
You could say Dresden has been paid for. There's a town standing there now. Someone must have paid for it.
Are you saying that people who have been wronged by a govt. institution should never have a right to sue, or is that only for old cases, or cases involving people you don't like?
You could say Dresden has been paid for. There's a town standing there now. Someone must have paid for it.
Are you saying that people who have been wronged by a govt. institution should never have a right to sue, or is that only for old cases, or cases involving people you don't like?
How far back do you go though sids? Can we sue the Romans for invading Britain? Or the Vikings that came over and raped and pillaged? Will there be no end to it all? It just seems to be the UK that end up shelling out £millions, is it because we are a soft touch? There were atrocities on both sides to this case and it should be left to rest in the annals of history!!
C3.
The people who suffered at the Romans' hands are dead now, so they are unlikely to sue.
What makes you think that only the UK government gets sued?
What makes you think that only the UK government gets sued?
Because I never hear or read about any other Govt in the world being sued for past misgivings, only our soft Country!!
C3.
Because I never hear or read about any other Govt in the world being sued for past misgivings, only our soft Country!!
C3.
Are you reading any literature that would tell you if foreign governments are being sued?
I've heard of native legal action against American, New Zealand, Brazilian and Australian governments. Surprised you haven't.
neilsermk1
07-Oct-12, 19:05
Dont have a problem with the sentiment so lets start with the Highland Clearances, and get the compensation sorted out for those families and descendants, then we can maybe think about those transported to the antipodes. Then maybe just.......
Are you reading any literature that would tell you if foreign governments are being sued?
I've heard of native legal action against American, New Zealand, Brazilian and Australian governments. Surprised you haven't.
Dont have a problem with the sentiment so lets start with the Highland Clearances, and get the compensation sorted out for those families and descendants, then we can maybe think about those transported to the antipodes. Then maybe just.......
The Clearances weren't a state sponsored thing though there may be some complicity, they were economically driven. Are there any living survivors of the Clearances to make the claim?
Dont have a problem with the sentiment so lets start with the Highland Clearances, and get the compensation sorted out for those families and descendants, then we can maybe think about those transported to the antipodes. Then maybe just.......
Haha! You think the descendants in America and Australia want to come back? You're a loon-attic!
Whilst I appreciate that the british government more than overstepped the mark, "Mau Mau," when researched in history was more a war between rival tribes and I would question who is without blame and who threw the 1st stone?
Whilst I appreciate that the british government more than overstepped the mark, "Mau Mau," when researched in history was more a war between rival tribes and I would question who is without blame and who threw the 1st stone?
Doesn't matter what the war was. An old guy says he was mistreated in British captivity and is suing. It's all pretty simple.
They have a bloody cheek. The mow mow terrified me when I was a kid. I can remember running home on dark nights expecting at any moment to fall into a mau mau pit filled with wooden stakes in the bottom. Any dark recess could hide them and I never hung about to see and now theyre suing me. Its a joke and hopefully the courts run them out of town.
John Little
08-Oct-12, 09:04
I tend to agree with Gleeber. If one makes a decision to take up arms for a cause then you accept the risk of death because your enemy will also take up arms.
It's a bit like us suing the IRA or them suing us for what was done during the Troubles. The Mau Mau was almost but not
entirely a Kikuyu movement and not even all of them.
There are 26 different ethnic groups making up Kenya and many of them did not wish to see Kikuyu dominance in an eventually independent Kenya. That is why many Africans were on the British side.And by this time it was becoming fairly apparent that the writing was on the wall for the empire. We had no money and the colonies were not making profit sufficient to offset the costs of garrisoning them.
There are better ways to get economic gain than pure Imperialism.
The Mau Mau did some pretty nasty stuff.They got nasty stuff back.No surprises.
They have a bloody cheek. The mow mow terrified me when I was a kid. I can remember running home on dark nights expecting at any moment to fall into a mau mau pit filled with wooden stakes in the bottom. Any dark recess could hide them and I never hung about to see and now theyre suing me. Its a joke and hopefully the courts run them out of town.
You were right to be scared. The Thurso Freemasons were a ruthless lot in those days, no doubt about that.
piratelassie
08-Oct-12, 15:00
Whats your gripe?
piratelassie
08-Oct-12, 15:01
Whats your gripe?
They have a bloody cheek. The mow mow terrified me when I was a kid. I can remember running home on dark nights expecting at any moment to fall into a mau mau pit filled with wooden stakes in the bottom. Any dark recess could hide them and I never hung about to see and now theyre suing me. Its a joke and hopefully the courts run them out of town.
Whats your gripe?
Whats yours piratelassie?
piratelassie
08-Oct-12, 22:27
Your missing the point Little John, we invaded Kenya, there should not have been a Brittish side to be on. QUOTE=John Little;980914]I tend to agree with Gleeber. If one makes a decision to take up arms for a cause then you accept the risk of death because your enemy will also take up arms.
It's a bit like us suing the IRA or them suing us for what was done during the Troubles. The Mau Mau was almost but not
entirely a Kikuyu movement and not even all of them.
There are 26 different ethnic groups making up Kenya and many of them did not wish to see Kikuyu dominance in an eventually independent Kenya. That is why many Africans were on the British side.And by this time it was becoming fairly apparent that the writing was on the wall for the empire. We had no money and the colonies were not making profit sufficient to offset the costs of garrisoning them.
There are better ways to get economic gain than pure Imperialism.
The Mau Mau did some pretty nasty stuff.They got nasty stuff back.No surprises.[/QUOTE]
John Little
08-Oct-12, 22:30
We did not invade Kenya.
It did not exist so how could we invade it?
The acquisition of what became Kenya was a rather complicated business involving the Kabaka of Buganda and other interesting people.
Should I call you Lassiepirate?
The East African Protectorate was formed by the British in 1895, and Kenya became Kenya in 1920........when did we invade Kenya? We formed it!!
The East African Protectorate was formed by the British in 1895, and Kenya became Kenya in 1920........when did we invade Kenya? We formed it!!
Hey... Let's legitimise colonization....
As long as the land you colonize is renamed, maybe even new borders drawn up, then the land belongs to you since it didn't exist before you named it... & as for those people who lived there before... well... who cares...
Hey... Let's legitimise colonization....
As long as the land you colonize is renamed, maybe even new borders drawn up, then the land belongs to you since it didn't exist before you named it... & as for those people who lived there before... well... who cares...
Lets sue the Vikings for colonizing Caithness, the land belonged to the Picts and Gaels before they arrived
Lets sue the Vikings for colonizing Caithness, the land belonged to the Picts and Gaels before they arrived
Just because it has happened in the past is no justification for it happening again....
piratelassie
09-Oct-12, 00:50
The name of a geographical area of Africia is irrelivent. And how else do you acquire an area of another continent if you dont invade?
We did not invade Kenya.
It did not exist so how could we invade it?
The acquisition of what became Kenya was a rather complicated business involving the Kabaka of Buganda and other interesting people.
Should I call you Lassiepirate?
John Little
09-Oct-12, 08:41
The name of a geographical area of Africia is irrelivent. And how else do you acquire an area of another continent if you dont invade?. Well there was this Scottish guy called William McKinnon.... Oh read it for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa_Protectorate
And if the name of a geographical area is irrelevant, then why are you so stuck on 'England' and 'Scotland? If you are not then let's just call it the UK.
. Well there was this Scottish guy called William McKinnon.... Oh read it for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa_Protectorate
And who was that other great Scotsman who opened up the continent of Africa? Oh aye David Livingstone.
John Little
09-Oct-12, 08:51
Hey... Let's legitimise colonization.... As long as the land you colonize is renamed, maybe even new borders drawn up, then the land belongs to you since it didn't exist before you named it... & as for those people who lived there before... well... who cares...Exactly the attitude at the time. Golach legitimised nothing. He merely reported what happened.
And who was that other great Scotsman who opened up the continent of Africa? Oh aye David Livingstone.
He opened it up to Europeans. The Africans already knew where it was. :lol:
Great Britain signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which specifically outlaws Torture. This uprising was in the 1950s and so Britain was wrong to torture these people. The argument that it was ok for us to do this because they did it too doesnt sit well with me. War is one thing - bombing and fighting and the like but systematic torture of individual prisoners is another entirely different issue.
Great Britain signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which specifically outlaws Torture. This uprising was in the 1950s and so Britain was wrong to torture these people. The argument that it was ok for us to do this because they did it too doesnt sit well with me. War is one thing - bombing and fighting and the like but systematic torture of individual prisoners is another entirely different issue.
Did the Mau Mau sign up to the Declaration of Human rights, when they were massacring their own and the British farmers?
Did the Mau Mau sign up to the Declaration of Human rights, when they were massacring their own and the British farmers?
Do you subscribe the the "Yeah, but what about them?" school of legal debate?
was the year we left Kenya. My father worked for the Kenya Coffee Board. I do not remember too much about it, I was 4. I do remember my mother, to this day, telling tales of the atrocities the Mau-Mau perpetrated upon their own people, not just the whites. N'jomo Kenyatta was a terrorist, pure and simple, and should have been shot like the animal he and his brother resembled.....Fisi.....Kikuyu for Hyena...
Did the Mau Mau sign up to the Declaration of Human rights, when they were massacring their own and the British farmers?
how is it that to disagree with you automatically makes you think that I am cheering for the other side. No one in their right mind could support the action that this group did. No they didnt sign it and what they did was wicked and wrong and horrendous but that does not excuse Britain's behaviour less than ten years after we signed a ground breaking and celebrated commitment to outlaw torture of individuals. We had stood shoulder to shoulder with other countries and said we believed torture was inhumane and MUST not be used in any circumstances and then we changed our minds cos it suited us..... or because the other side were cheating too so why should they get away with it when we cant nah na na na nahhhhh.
nah na na na nahhhhh.
:);)......Made me smile, thanks Squidge!!!.....:)
John Little
09-Oct-12, 13:28
Without getting too much into whether it was right or not that Britain should have had an empire, which is probably a different thread, I should like to come back to the question of compensation.
There is a question of who should pay it, if any is payable.
The Mau Mau were, as I have said, predominantly a Kikuyu movement and they were making a bid for Kikuyu dominance. Not all their supporters supported them for that reason though; most were not politically conscious at all.
No doubt some people were, but the vast majority of their 'activists' were recruited in the way that some African child soldiers are recruited today. They were kidnapped at dead of night and marched into the bush where they were put through dreadful ceremonies and rituals and forced to join Mau Mau. The alternative was horrible death.
The counter-insurgency moves in Kenya were successful because the vast majority of the non-white population did not want Mau Mau to win.
That is one of the prime rules of guerilla war - to succeed, you must swim like a fish among the people and win their support- they did not.
When the British tumbled to the fact that oaths and curses imposed by witch doctors can be removed by others, they did so and many of the Mau Mau just went quietly home.
It was helped by the arrest of Kenyatta and other leaders who were exiled to other parts of Africa.
Yes there were atrocities and there really is no excuse for Hola camp - but it takes two to tango.
Those who chose to take on the British knew what the response would be; you do not acquire the greatest empire ever to exist by being terribly nice and taking tea with those who disagree with you. Those Mau Mau took a choice; but they were not most Mau Mau - most were 'conscripted' Mau Mau style.
Perhaps, if these people were forced into the Mau Mau they should be seeking compensation from their own government? From those who forced them into the insurgency. After all Kenyatta did become leader on independence.
how is it that to disagree with you automatically makes you think that I am cheering for the other side. No one in their right mind could support the action that this group did. No they didnt sign it and what they did was wicked and wrong and horrendous but that does not excuse Britain's behaviour less than ten years after we signed a ground breaking and celebrated commitment to outlaw torture of individuals. We had stood shoulder to shoulder with other countries and said we believed torture was inhumane and MUST not be used in any circumstances and then we changed our minds cos it suited us..... or because the other side were cheating too so why should they get away with it when we cant nah na na na nahhhhh.
Because I post a point that you disagree with Squidge, does not make me right or you wrong, I am just stating my views on this subject. I was going to go Nah na na na nahhhh back at you, but thats childish so I wont. .
Anyone here who trying to put forward an argument why the individual (we know what that means, don't we?), does not have a case to be heard and judged in a court, is just not getting through to me at all.
The appellant is not Bonnie Prince Charlie, Boadicea, or King Eggbeard of the Saxons and he's not suing Patrick Sellar, the Roman Empire, or Nogbad the Bad.
He claims to have been mistreated by institutions and individuals still extant and living. He may have a case. He may not. It could all be lies, or his claims may be true, but unprovable.
Chucking grandmas down a well after their eyes is all wrong. No-one condones it. Did he do that?
Whats your gripe?
Maybe I do have a gripe but if it is I like it. The thread evoked memories of childhood and the Mow Mow were the bogeymen when i was a boy. They were nearly as bad as the japs. They were bad s and theres nothing would make me change my mind about that. Its good that we live in a country that allows them the right to sue us through the courts. The states accountable and thats what good about Britain.
He claims to have been mistreated by institutions and individuals still extant and living. He may have a case. He may not. It could all be lies, or his claims may be true, but unprovable.
Chucking grandmas down a well after their eyes is all wrong. No-one condones it. Did he do that?
If he did he's unlikely to admit it. :lol:
You also used to listen to the daily radio news reports about the Mau mau then Gleeber?.......I agree with you, they used to put the frights up any small boy even though they were miles away!!
Nearly as frightening as the Emporer Ming in Flash Gordon!!
C3.
piratelassie
10-Oct-12, 00:18
Little John I presume you agree with empire buildingOh read it for yoursel.
.
. Well there was this Scottish guy called William McKinnon....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa_Protectorate
And if the name of a geographical area is irrelevant, then why are you so stuck on 'England' and 'Scotland? If you are not then let's just call it the UK.
John Little
10-Oct-12, 08:05
Little John I presume you agree with empire buildingOh read it for yoursel..Lassiepirate seems to presume quite a lot.
Little John I presume you agree with empire building Oh read it for yoursel.
.
Nothing wrong with Empire Building. Scotland tried it in 1698 and failed, the Darien Scheme
John Little
10-Oct-12, 08:32
Nothing wrong with Empire Building. Scotland tried it in 1698 and failed, the Darien Scheme
Very true on Darien. And as my link showed, Scots had a lot to do with it in Africa
A glance at a map of Canada is also very instructive.
i wonder if I posted a link on the Holocaust, if she would presume that I agreed with that too?
Empire by Niall Ferguson is an excellent read, recommend it to everyone.
Also linking events from years ago in Africa to sectarian divides and mdern Middle Easter politics....with a Scottish slant, some may find the following link interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Henderson_(police_officer)
secrets in symmetry
10-Oct-12, 23:40
"Mau Mau" and "Empire Bad" are cries of desperation uttered by secessionist know-nothings who have no other means of trying to persuade sensible people that UK is bad.
As a historian explained to me recently, Wallace and Bruce would have been in favour of the Union if they'd been alive today. :cool:
piratelassie
11-Oct-12, 00:10
Empire Building throughout history, Roman, Turkish, Brittish whoever has caused untold death and misery to millions. It is perpeteated by greedy ambitious people
piratelassie
11-Oct-12, 00:18
I am well aware of Scotlands part in the empire but I am far from proud of it. Incidently, who first mentioned the seperate nations of the UK in this post? Not me.
As a historian explained to me recently, Wallace and Bruce would have been in favour of the Union if they'd been alive today. :cool:
Were they alive today, they'd turn in their grave!
secrets in symmetry
11-Oct-12, 23:50
What were the final destinations of Wallace's bits and bobs? Is there an actual grave? Some of our secessionist fan boys must know.
If he had a grave, Wallace would indeed turn in it, because, as I said previously, he would have been a unionist today - and he would for sure have run half of Africa if he'd been alive at the height of the Empire. :cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.