British Imperialism and Colonialism in Kenya - Coursework Example

British Imperialism and Colonialism in Kenya Jonathan Huang AS/HIST 2750 African History Alia Paroo Monday, 04 December 2006 British Imperialism and Colonialism in Kenya Throughout the African continent, foreign occupation and intervention has always been a focal point when analyzing the historical academia of the enormous continent. Many historians and scholars have researched and studied events which have occurred throughout African history with respect to foreign relations, specifically, imperialism and colonialism. Traditionally, colonialism has been related with a series of severe consequences for the states that lose their independence due to military conflicts and war. Colonialism has not been termed to be a current phenomenon, but rather a repetitive occurrence in the many nations of the world. Oucho asserts, “the history of colonialism provides overwhelming evidence of how manipulation of ‘more friendly’ people to conquer ‘more stubborn’ people, through primitive expeditions of denial of basic social services to the latter, laid firm foundations for conflict-in-waiting, a time bomb which exploded when the colonial administration was succeeded by independent governments.”1 Although colonialism can be examined with two countries, the intentions of the ‘more stubborn’ country are not exclusive. However, there lies a strong relationship between the actions of the conqueror that cause the conquered severe disabilities in their social and financial structures. The intervention of European states and particularly of Britain in the East African region, specifically Kenya, from the late nineteenth century is an example of colonialism still under speculation. The role of Britain in the development of Kenya can be analyzed to evaluate the implications and impacts on the social, industrial and commercial aspects of Kenyan society. Africa has been a continent that has suffered significantly from the imperialistic activities of foreign countries, namely, the European ones. In this context, Cain states in his work that, “during the first half of the nineteenth century reform and development made disappointingly slow progress in Africa, the external slave trade, far from withering away, continued to flourish while it remained profitable, and the institution of slavery was strengthened as slave labour was redirected within the continent to produce new, legitimate exports.”2 The slave trade that devastated the African population preceded colonialism as Africans ruled over 80% of the continent and resistance to colonial efforts of the various European countries.3 Furthermore, Bawah supported that “with the exception of Ethiopia and Liberia, European powers colonized the whole of Africa by 1914”4 However, during the second half of the century, the expansion of economic trade in Africa created the necessary means for the instalment of foreign companies such as British companies offering significant economic prosperity. The occupation of Kenya by British can be explained through the examination of various facts that empowered Britain to acquire the control of the general area of South and East Africa. More specifically, the research made by Denny showed that “the founding of empire in Kenya, Uganda and the Sudan was an incidental result of the major shift in British interest from the European and Asiatic to the African shores of the Mediterranean.”5 Here, Britain’s economic strategies for expansion on the greater Mediterranean region would instigate a migration to lands surrounding the area. Moreover, it is noticed that “having subdued Kenya, the British preferred to rule indirectly; since the local people had no chiefs, the British appointed their own; many of these became very wealthy by appropriating land in the African reserves”6. The occupancy of Kenya in other words was based primarily on the control over the land. However, in the ‘development’ of this occupancy, a total control was gained over the country’s political and financial operations and soon Kenya became a ‘British protectorate’. At the same time, the interest for the control of the land was always intensive. Towards this direction, “the British took the best arable land - what became known as the White Highlands; the Kikuyu people were most affected by this as they had lived in the Highlands while Africans returning from the Second World War found that their situation had not improved, but was actually deteriorating”7. In other words, the restructuring of Kenya’s political and financial framework was totally in favor of the occupiers’ interests. At a first level, these initiatives were seen as efforts to successfully control the acquired land; however, gradually they led to severe damages in all country’s operations. Furthermore, Britain’s communication with the Asian community would deem an alternate motive to migrate through East Africa. Winks asserts, “the Imperial British East Africa Company, chartered in 1888, was urged to drive for Uganda; when control of this area with the building of a railway proved to be beyond its resources, the British government assumed control, proclaiming the Protectorates of Uganda in 1894 and, in 1895, of British East Africa, the later Kenya which appeared to be largely empty without appropriate basis to support the railway built up from Mombasa to Lake Victoria and completed in 1901”8 Wink’s suggestions of these historical events therefore led to the complete occupation of Kenya changing drastically its social and economical realm. Specifically, the commercial interests inside the Indian market imply a necessity to control the areas and secure positions surrounding these means. The early 1900s emerged as a central ground for expansion of colonialism due to the suitability of living conditions. Betts noticed that, “the economic development of the colonial territories may have been a European charge, but it was realized by native labor while with the exception of a few choice areas, such as the highlands in Kenya, the Europeans found no great opportunity for comfortable or permanent agricultural or ranching activity.”9 Here, Betts suggests that the development of colonial areas were due to the resources and not because of colonial powers. In the case of East Africa, the issue of colonialism by Britain appeared in the late nineteenth century when the latter tried to gain control over the greater area of South and East Africa by taking under its control two of the most important states of the area: Rhodesia and Kenya. Thus, the colonization of the whole area started from Rhodesia on the basis of its strategic position for the control of South Africa. On the other hand, “Kenya – at least in its initial configuration - had the appearance of an Indian frontier, adopting its currency, penal and civil codes, bureaucratic structures and personnel, and much else’10 The geographical position and the economic development of Kenya and Rhodesia have been the main focuses of Kennedy. He suggests that, “these two countries stood awkwardly between the two dominant forms of colonial societies being neither replicas of the temperate colonies of European immigration and settlement nor of the tropical colonies of European administration and exploitation but representing, like the more prominent cases of Algeria and South Africa, a distinct category of colonization that mixed certain features of the other modes into a unique and unstable blend’11. The research over the imperialism in Kenya shows that the activities of Britain, over its territory were extensive and much of the industrial sectors. Subsequently, Wesseling discusses the particular findings of British relations to Africans as he states, “between 1894 and 1914 there were 50 incidents in Kenya which, according to the English, were so serious that it was necessary to resort to (or at least consider the use of) force while in eleven cases the English refrained from action because they lacked the necessary military equipment; on two occasions the expedition ended in an English defeat or retreat; in thirteen cases the demonstration of British military power alone was sufficient; on twenty occasions a punitive military expedition was carried out.” 12 These figures are just an example of the British interventions to both Kenya’s administrative and commercial established operations. Thus, these cases mentioned must be considered part of the colonialism Kenya by the British to support their strategic acquisition of control over land. Britain’s intervention in the local political and social frameworks can not always be seen as justified and rather protrusive. On the other hand, the control of the occupied countries has always been in the best interest of Britain. Hence, the British efforts proved to be more intensive during times of crisis, where control over the Kenyan residents seemed to be more limited. There were also periods when the control was limited under the influence of drastic political changes internationally. Berman found that “the first (of such periods), during the 1921-2 depression, involved the promotion of colonial development through massive infrastructural projects, notably harbour and railway construction; in Kenya, the programme resulted in extensive construction of railway branch lines and stimulated export production, but here too local forces intruded to influence the routing of lines through the settled areas of the Highlands.”13 Britain’s decisions to implement the development of a transportation system resulted in an opposing reaction from the local community in Kenya. Thus, the examination of the countries local reaction and economical consequences must be considered when implementing such systems. On the other hand, it should be noticed that the history of Kenya has been related with a series of violations against the local population. It was because of the existence of the British Empire that a local ‘army’ was developed in order to ‘free’ the country from the occupiers. However, it has been found that “from the time Mau Mau, as the Kikuyu rebellion force was called, first came on the scene in the early 1950s, it was depicted as a sinister movement, guilty of unspeakable violence against African and Briton alike”14. The development of Mau Mau as a major military force within Kenya had severe consequences for the locals. More specifically, trying to force Britons to leave Kenya, the Mau Mau rebellions proceeded to a series of crimes and brutalities against all people that could be found before them. However, even given these facts, it is noticed that the death rate of population and Mau Mau rebellions was increased because of the military ‘attempts’ of Britain. It has been estimated that “whereas Mau Mau killed fewer than 100 British citizens and about 1,800 Kenyan loyalists, the British killed at least 20,000 Mau Mau rebels”. In other words, the effects of the British imperialism were severe especially for the local population and not so much for British. The occupation of Kenya caused a series of severe consequences to the country’s social and economical operations. For example, Schatzberg refers Kenya’s financial movement, “colonialism catalyzed Kenyas absorption into the world capitalist system while fostering economic measures that resulted in unbalanced development; in order to be sure, the British had designed Kenyan economic policy to be complementary to, not competitive with, the metropolitan economy” 15 Schatzberg’s statement suggests a prohibition of an industrial and ultimately, a financial development of Kenya due to British policy. Therefore, the local resources would only cater the use of the limited Kenyan economy, ensuring a superiority of the British. In addition to the limitations on development implemented by British occupancy, political agreements further enforced and engrossed Kenyan economic development. Berman indicates, “metropolitan management of the Kenyan economy was even further limited by the Colonys inclusion in the Congo Basin Treaties, maintaining free trade and prohibiting discriminatory tariffs in favour of metropolitan products; Britains position as the dominant supplier of manufactured exports to and purchaser of commodity exports from Kenya actually began to decline in the face of increasing competition, notably from Japan.”16 The intervention of other countries in Kenya’s commercial market is therefore significant for the development of the local economy. Kenya has been dependant on the British economy in order to retain its level of financial and commercial performance. However, when the indigenous peoples began to lose their control over local commercial and industrial operations, the local economy became indexed with the significance of foreign intervention. The control of Britain over the commercial and industrial activities in Kenya consequently led the country to severe financial and social problems. The integration of the local economy of Kenya by British capital therefore, must be examined. Berman suggests in his work, “the seriousness of the weakness of metropolitan control over internal state policy in Kenya and of the decline of economic links with the colony was mitigated by a number of other economic and political factors; First, most of the products of settler estate agriculture were actually important to only limited sectors of British merchant; Second, the metropolitan authorities retained ultimate control of the constitutional form of the colonial state in Kenya.”17 Therefore, many historians have agreed to similar opinions such as Harberson as he suggests the participation go British capital as “crucial for the development of Kenya’s economy.”18 Furthermore, individuals such as Oucho reinforce the dependency of Kenya’s economy, political and social realms as he asserts, “Kenya had one of the heaviest doses of colonial culture: in its politics, economy and social dynamics; At independence in 1963, Kenya became a multiracial state where the predominant African population has lived in harmony with Asians (Indians, Pakistanis and other Asiatics who have immigrated only since independence) Arabs, Europeans of various stocks, Americans and other Africans and non-Africans of different nationalities.”19 Due to the diversity in migration and occupancy, this suggestion implies an impediment on the development of Kenya in regards to all aspects of their social structure. Thus, Britain’s affect on Kenya’s maturation have deemed to be “intensive with a long term character,”20 as Kenya is still developing to the present. British colonialism on Africa can be sought to be an extensive and arduous task. The implications of colonialism can be summarized by Bawah: “the effects of European colonialism on Africa and its population have been devastating while the new borders of colonial Africa became the independent borders of postindependent African nations without social homogeneity”21 The consequences of colonial rule throughout the African continent would yield long term affects which would inversely, impact negatively on the oppressed areas. Hence, the decline of commercial, social and political performance and development resulted of foreign intervention. Subsequently, the division amongst the African people to their colonial counterparts hindered their goal of creating nationalization within Kenya.22 The intervention of Britain in Kenya’s political, economical and financial life has caused severe damages to the local population. More specifically, it has been found that “the native peoples of Kenya -- especially the Kikuyu -- were left to suffer; the British evicted them from their land to allow white settlers to build grand plantations; those who sought work from the settlers were treated as slaves; and when the Mau Mau rebellion prompted the British to declare a state of emergency, the Kikuyu were rounded up, prosecuted in flimsy trials and sent to prison or barbed-wired detention camps”23. In other words, Britain’s occupancy was an extremely adverse experience for people in Kenya. It was perhaps the fact that the whole attempt for bringing ‘civilization’ in the country (as claimed by the occupiers) had been transformed gradually to an extensive search for sources of wealth, that Kenya has become a place of extensive and long lasting brutality against its citizens. Regarding the suffer of population during the occupancy of Kenya by British it has been found by Bangarah (2007) that “50 per cent of enslaved African people kidnapped and deported by Britain were sold to French enslavers and the French ran their sugar colonies more profitably than the British; the importation of more kidnapped Africans meant that the French could undercut the British in the imperialist sugar markets”24. However, the above mentioned are just indicative facts of the actions of occupiers against local population in Kenya. On the other hand, the role of rebellions should be characterized as ‘contradicted’. More specifically, apart from the necessary military actions, the Mau Mau (as the local rebellions have been ‘named’ by British) proceeded to the killing and torturing of locals causing one of the most brutal ‘genocides of all ages. The occupancy of Kenya by Britain was rather a ‘random’ consequence of an attempt to protect the interests of British within the specific country. In this context, it has been found by Millies (2005) that “Queen Victorias British Empire declared a "protectorate" over Kenya and Uganda in 1895; what was being protected was the theft of the best farmland by a few British settlers. Among them was Lord Delamere, who stole 160,000 acres”25. In other words, the expansion of British imperialism in Kenya cannot be considered as a strategic movement of Britain, at least at the beginning of this occupancy. On the other hand, Kenya had been a country with a series of available sources of wealth as all other countries in the African continent. In this context, slavery had been proved to be the most profitable activity both for occupiers. Under these terms, the rights of locals were restricted while a series of measures designed towards the protection of occupiers’ interests, were applied. More specifically, “machine guns and bayonets forced African people into "native reserves" modeled on Indian reservations in the United States; they werent allowed to grow coffee or other commercial crops; as in South Africa under apartheid, Africans were forced to carry passes”26. The violations of the locals’ rights were extensive and continue during the country’s occupancy by Britain. The appearance and the activation of local rebellions (the Mau Mau) did not offer much to the protection of the people’s rights. On the contrary, this was the beginning for one of most brutal ‘genocide’ wars of history. The beginning of the internal military conflicts in Kenya was based on the appearance and activation of local rebels as already mentioned above. More specifically, it is noticed that “on 20 October 1952 a state of emergency was declared in Britains East African colony of Kenya; it lasted until 1960, and was the most brutal campaign in Britains attempt to hold on to its empire after the Second World War; the rebellion was crushed and it is significant that, while the rebels called themselves the Land and Freedom Army, they are remembered as the Mau Mau, the bastardised name given to them by the settlers”27. The impact of the above conflicts to the life of local population was severe. Several hundreds of people have been tortured and killed without any specific justification. On the other hand the intervention of the international community, although expected by the locals, never took place. Apart from general statements and reports on the situation as was developed in Kenya, the international community was just watching the brutalities without proceeding into particular measures. The signing of the Rome Convention in 1957 proves that the international community had an increased sense of justice and willingness to protect the human rights. In this context, it will be never possible to explain the behaviour of countries around the world to the extremely brutal violations of human rights that were taking place for years in the greater area of East coast. The case of Kenya is one of the many exemplars of the impacts and implications of foreign intervention. British colonialism hinders the social, industrial and commercial development of an indigenous population, inversely demoting their integrity and ability to progress. The dependence on British policies has been proven to be responsible for the significant delay in Kenya’s development. “The control over every local financial and industrial initiative was intensive in order to ensure that the performance of the occupied country would not reach higher levels than the one of the colonial state.”28 Prior to the independence of Kenya in 1963, the intentions of the British were not allow greater development, indicative of their present day situation. Works Cited Bangarah, B. Kenya: Slaves Were the Real Force Behind Their Freedom. The Nation (Nairobi), 2007, March 4 Bawah, A. and A. Nounbissi. “Population and African Society.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 29, 2003, p. 465-478 Berman, B. Control & Crisis in Colonial Kenya: The Dialectic of Domination. James Currey, London, 1990 Betts, R. Europe Overseas: Phases of Imperialism. Basic Books, New Yorkk, 1968 Cain, P., Hopkins, A. British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion, 1688-1914. Longman, London, 1993 Clough, R.H. “Some Notes on a Recent Economic Survey of Land Settlement in Kenya.” East African Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1965, p. 78–83 Denny, A., Gallagher, J., Robinson, R. Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism in the Dark Continent. St. Martins Press, New York, 1961 Dixon, D. “Press Law Debate in Kenya: Ethics as Political Power.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1997, p. 172-184 Glickman, H. and Furia, P., “Issues in the Analysis of Ethic conflict and Democratization Process in Africa today.” Ethnic Conflict and Democratization in Africa. Atlanta, 1995, p. 1–31 Gould, W.T.S. “Migration and development in Western Kenya, 1971–1982: A retrospective study of primary school leavers.” Africa, Vol. 55, No. 3 (1985), p. 262–285 Harberson, J.W. “Land Reform and Politics in Kenya, 1954–70.” The Journal of Modern Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1971, p. 231–251 Joseph, R.A. “Africa: The Rebirth of Political Freedom.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991, p. 11–24 Kennedy, D. Islands of White: Settler Society and Culture in Kenya and Southern Rhodesia, 1890-1939. Duke University Press. Durham, NC, 1987 Leo, C. “Who Benefited from the Million Acre Scheme? Towards a Class Analysis of Kenyas Transition to Independence.” Canadian Journal of African Studies, Vol. 15 1981, p. 201–222 Lonsdale, J. M. “The politics of conquest: The British in Western Kenya, 1894-1908.” The Historical Journal, Vol. 20, 1977, p. 858-859 Merrill, A. “The horror: imperialisms African legacy”, 2005, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/08/RVG3FCHG2T1.DTL&type=books Millies, S. Mau Mau against the British Empire, 2005 available at http://www.workers.org/2005/world/mau-mau-0317/ Nnoli, O. “Ethnicity as Counter Revolutionary Force.” Africa Review, 1977, p. 112 Ochieng, W., Ogot, B. Decolonization & Independence in Kenya, 1940-93. James Currey. London, 1995 Olende, K. History of Imperialism: Brutality, the British Way, 2005, available at http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9347 Oucho, J.O. “Refugees and Displacement in Sub-Saharan Africa: Instability due to Ethnic and Political Conflicts and Ecological Causes.” International Migration in and from Africa. Stockholm, 1996, p. 161– 187 Oucho, J. Undercurrents of Ethnic Conflicts in Kenya. Brill, Boston, 2002 Schatzberg, M. The Political Economy of Kenya. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1987 Talbot, L.M. “Demographic factors in resource depletion and environmental degradation in East African rangeland.” Population and Development Review Vol. 12, No. 3 1986, p. 441–451 Wesseling, H. Imperialism and Colonialism: Essays on the History of European Expansion. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT, 1997 Winks, R. The Historiography of the British Empire-Commonwealth: Trends, Interpretations and Resources. Duke University Press. Durham, NC, 1966 Read More