Week 10: Rebellion, repression, and prosecuting empire

Choose a brief excerpt from the letters used as exhibits in the Kimathi trial. Discuss why the text you selected supports the cause of the prosecution and/or the defense in Dedan Kimathi’s trial.

18 Replies to “Week 10: Rebellion, repression, and prosecuting empire”

  1. “Regard us humanly and the whole will get settled within a week. Refuse us and the world will turn against you soon. I am a better citizen, seeking peace for Kenya but if it be that the Kenya Government is just a dry weather that nothing of so called peace will peacefully germane I will leave such a desert to be manured by one of the big four or three with its auxiliaries whenever desired.”

    I chose this paragraph because it is both incriminating and justifying. Kimathi explains here that he is only acting for the peace and betterment of Kenya. In his defense, he only requests to be treated humanly and he will stop the fight. However, he also threatens the British Empire, saying that the fight will only continue if they do not get the peace and humanity that he is seeking.
    This statement is incriminating and in a world of British control the threat of a continued revolt is treason and terrorism. From a modern perspective, one where we now understand that colonialism and the repression of other cultures is morally wrong, it is easy to view Kimathi has a revolutionary and a hero, but as Cooper explained in the reading from Wednesday that would be reading history backwards. I found the letters and documents from this trial fascinating and I really liked seeing how from one perspective (modern day or on the side of Kenya) he fought for what is right, or from the British perspective he was an anarchist and a criminal.

  2. “We humbly ask the government to allow us to meet and speak the words of peace with them and prepare the way to a future of peace, understanding and prosperity for all those races who wish to live their lives in Kenya” (203).

    This excerpt could be used to defend Kimathi as it displays his ultimate and altruistic goals– to foster dialogue and cooperation between his movement and the government of Kenya for the greater good. This would be useful for the defense as it could be argued that his charges of “unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition” (19, MacArthur) were virtually arbitrary to his presence and identity as a hero of ‘the people’ of Kenya, and, in the broad scheme of the turbulent and racially divided political and cultural environment in Kenya at the time, it seemed that these charges weren’t about the crimes Kimathi committed against the government but, rather, about his movement and controversial presence that rattled the colonial control of the state. The defense could argue that because of this, the punishment for the crime should not be as severe as death by hanging, and possibly even that the charges themselves are of no true significance to Kimathi’s character or practices.

  3. “Even those who are dumb cannot fail to see that war breeds hatred and a baby born and reared in a time of battle cannot fail to see the hatred that exists between the races involved. It is likely that the attitude of future generations will be different and dangerous and as those generations who come after us will inevitably be more powerful”
    I believe this paragraph could be used in the defense of Dedan Kimathi. Kimathi was a leader in many movements against the empirical rule of Britain in Kenya under which the had experienced much oppression and subordination. The revolutions against British control caused an even greater divide between the colonizers and the colonized and, consequently, led to more outward forms of hatred and discrimination towards the latter. As stated in the above quote, hatred is taught and passed down from generations, and, a society riddled with war will only fuel these racial, segregational tendencies. I think that this could be used in the defense of Kimathi because, although he contributed to the war itself by leading rebellions, he was fighting or the betterment of future generations and the Kenyan society as a whole. Kimathi noticed the bigotry and injustices committed by the British, realized their society could not continue this way, and united his fellow citizens against this unfairness.

  4. “The Kenya Parliament is of the opinion that after a few years a great war may occur which will effect Kenya and in this war there will be no choice between black and white therefore we of Kenya – Blacks and Whites – should be of one heart and have a common desire to end this war and return our clothes. If the father of the son is pressed, the son helps the father naturally. There have been emergencies before in British countries, even wars over religion such as the 80 Years War and those of Europe during the era of the yeomans. We have learned. We should finish this war so it goes to posterity.” (204)

    Throughout history, resistance has always been something to quash. Whether through armed means or legal resistance like trials, colonial and government powers have repressed insurrection across time. The British are no different, especially in the case of Kimathi. The trial proceedings were swift and effective, wiping all possibility of allowing his voice to continue drawing the support of the Kenyan people. Just like many other powerful voices, Kimathi was one who acknowledged the possibility of war in Kenya. For a large colonial power like the British, that is unacceptable. Kimathi sees how the British have waged war around other circumstances, but does not want to go to this and continue it through future generations. Based on this passage, the British had to neutralize Kimathi. This passage is an indirect call for war in Kenya, which is a direct threat to British control in the country. In addition, this can serve as fodder because if Kimathi and the Kenyans were successful, it is probable that other surrounding areas controlled by the British would see that the British are not almighty and that their rule can be threatened. As a rising star of the Mihimu committee and Mau Mau rebellion, the British were able to see how effectively and stringently he led the rebellion. In this passage, that same strategy and level of strict control would lead to the war that is described, which explains the veracity of the British trial. This passage and others from the trial of Kimathi give many reasons for his quick trial and the need of the British to neutralize him and for the case of the prosecution. The prosecution can use this to argue an incitement of violence, providing a basis for his trial and ultimate sentencing. The prosecution and the trial can easily use these documents to seal his fate and show his role as a threat to British security in Kenya.

  5. “But, my dear, how can a rat come out of the pit while the cat watches to catch it?”
    It is most beneficial to find the subjective terminology as a defense or incriminating evidence in relation to Kimathi. First, I will depict the aforementioned excerpt in Kimathi’s defense. While it may be a crime to act pre-emptively, it is but human nature to fight for one’s own life. The human body even in its last moments will prioritize the organs that are most vital to sustaining life. Thus, it is perfectly rational, and far from criminal, for a metaphorically caged human to fight for their life. Even with the promise of anonymity, one could not guarantee their future safety, purely on the basis of their enemies’ word. Therefore, Kimathi is not just depicting his own plea for his surrender, but is also trying to guarantee his safety, which should not be held against him; as it is a human function: survival. Further analysis of the excerpt can provide insight to Kimathi’s own acknowledgement of the superiority of the colonial forces, as a cat is widely known to kill a rat if given the chance. It would be erroneous for the metaphorical rat to attempt to escape, and most surely any notion of attack would be one born of pure idiocy. This in addition further assimilates Kimathi’s words to be one of surrender, just spoken by a man who is fearing capture, and attempts to ensure his future self’s safety.
    In contrast, the aforementioned excerpt could also be utilized as incriminating evidence against Kimathi. While the excerpt does depict himself in an inferior position, it does not definitively state his plans for surrender. The only uncontested meaning is that the cat will catch the rat if it attempts to flee. Which Kimathi is using to allude to a plea of his own surrender; however, it would be more beneficial to a person who is truly attempting to surrender, to not draw a comparison between their own situation and that of a rat which is attempting to flee. This further elaborates on Kimathi’s proven incidents of insubordination to colonial rule, and thus holds him accountable for his unsuccessful attempt at fleeing his arrest. The argument against Kimathi does coincide with his perceived imagery of the people of Kenya. It is not contesting his character or infamy, rather it extrapolates on it as analyzing his phrasing to depict his ulterior motives. Furthermore, this can provide the basis for a complete discount of Kimathi’s own defense as this provides reasonable suspicion towards anything, he himself has said, elaborated on, or even drew comparison to, all of this is evident before, during, and after his arrest. As such the aforementioned excerpt can be eloquently wielded to turn Kimathi’s own advantage into the final nail of his coffin.

  6. “The leaders of government are asked to announce that they are ready to enter into peaceful negotiations aimed at complete peace. This should not culinate in the same end as that which applied to the surrender negotiations involving General China. In the latter case we sent our representatives and were enthusiastic ni spirit but we found that everything was a pure trap” (201).

    This excerpt comes from the first document provided in the selection, which is a letter, seemingly both initiated and signed by Dedan Kimathi, that implores the British government to negotiate peacefully with the Mau Mau. This would most certainly support the cause of the defense in this trial, as they were surely searching for evidence that Kimathi was striving or a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the British government. Indeed, the letter states that “peaceful negotiations aimed at complete peace” are of the utmost necessity. This, it seems, makes Kimathi and the broader Mau Mau’s intentions entirely explicit: they aim to pursue peace with the British government, no matter how difficult or strenuous those negotiations might be. The defense would find this sort of evidence absolutely invaluable, for their aim was undoubtedly to frame Kimathi as a man who simply sought to provide peace and stability for his people, rather than a warmongering, violent figure. Moreover, the letter explicitly states that the Mau Mau wanted to avoid “the same end as that which was applied to . . . General China.” This further works to demonstrates Kimathi’s supposed “dedication to peace” (at least from the perspective of the defense): he did not want to see any of his people — whether leaders or civilians — captured, imprisoned, and charged with capital crimes. He simply sought peaceful negotiation with the enemy: something that, the defense would argue, he never really had the chance to achieve.

  7. “We humbly ask the government to allow us to meet and speak the words of peace with them and prepare the way to a future of peace, understanding and prosperity for all those races who wish to live their lives in Kenya. When Dr. Aggrey said that a black record can sing as well as a white one he did not mean that if you knocked one against the other both would not break.”

    I selected this passage as it appears a powerful elucidation of the necessity of continued resistance, yet the growing impracticality of violence as a means toward a just end. This passage, thus, stands as strong support for the defense of Kimathi’s unflagging striving for truth and justice through reconciliation. At its core, this passage affirms the equality of both races, yet reminds one that the equality of whites and blacks does not necessarily mean both will victoriously endure continued warfare. Thus, this passage, as it envisions a future of peace and prosperity for the diverse residents of Kenya, speaks to the central premise of Kimathi’s anticolonial struggle. While Kimathi was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition, this passage dissents from that indictment as a modest appeal to conciliation among opposing forces. Pragmatically, the passage eliminates the need for violence by cautioning against the direct confrontation of two equal races, who may both falter under assault. The cause supported by this passage is indicative of the overarching mission of Kimathi as he strove for radical rectification of a disproportionate colonial dynamic. Force was critical only as an expression of perseverance; ultimately, peaceful relations would be an expression of triumph.

  8. “We humbly ask the government to allow us to meet and speak the words of peace with them and prepare the way to a future of peace, understanding and prosperity for all those races who wish to live their lives in Kenya. When Dr. Aggrey said that a black record can sing as well as a white one he did not mean that if you knocked one against the other both would not break.”

    This passage from Kimathi is a powerful rebuke to English systems of subjugation and an eloquent expression of Kimathi’s intention of peace in Kenya. Within the context of his case and accusation of insurrection against the colonial power, his language of the equity among races not only in capability to thrive, but also to inflict harm places his armed struggle on the side of resistance to the wrongdoing of a similar capable oppressor. The language of “peace, understanding, and prosperity for all those races who wish to live their lives in Kenya” is a strong statement for Kimathi’s defense—it frames his “crimes” as actions in accordance with his vision for a more just nation for all races rather than a brutal anti-British militant.

  9. “The leaders of government are asked to announce that they are ready to enter into peaceful negotiations directed at complete peace. This should not culminate in the same end as that which applied to the surrender negotiations of General China. In the latter case we sent out representatives and were enthusiastic in the spirit that but we found that everything was a trap.”

    This excerpt would most likely be used for the defense. As MacArthur states on page 14, General China (born as Waruhiu Itote) was a rival of Kimathi in the Mau Mau. After being captured and interrogated by Ian Henderson he was found guilty and sentenced to death. Shortly afterward the sentencing, General China’s sentence was commuted and in return offered his cooperations with the colonial government in negotiations involving the surrender of other Mau Mau generals that were still at large. An unintentional attack on British forces stopped negotiations with General China and he was sent to prison in 1962.
    The author of the excerpt above is against the situation involving General China and believed that the same result should not fall upon Kimathi. The author also discusses a similar situation that General China went through; it can be suspected that General China was tricked or “trapped” by British forces.

  10. “Bloody bastard mau Mau. And the cheek. British justice has gone beyond its limits to tolerate this, this kind of rudeness from a mad bushwog….
    I had acres of maize and wheat.. Where are they now?…I had a wife and daughter. Where are they now? Killed. Burnt. Maimed. By this lunatic and his pack of bandits.”

    Although this seems like a mere string of insults, it illuminates the what the true reason behind the prosecution was, as they suspected Kimathi to have been a member of the mau-mau. The prosecution was taking place because of the fixation of white settlers in Kenya to portray the Mau-Mau as reckless and irrational. However, the Mau-Mau forms of revolt, as suggested in Kimathi’s speech, were as a way to explore the means by which protests their became a form of disruption by mirroring the conditions, injustice or forms of oppression that they were trying to defy. Because of this, it is important to recognise the crafted calculations that drove their resistance. They were not just raiding cattle and land or aggressively taking on their colonial masters. In fact, land was more than just property but rather became equated with freedom because it was the dispossession of land that led to their peasantization and similarly the reclamation would mean justice to them. 

  11. “2) We would remind the leaders of government that war does not imply that there should always be enmity and hatred. War as such did not have its origin in Kenya. Kenya is but a small place. There was the 1914-18 war and then the 1939-45 war. Then we have other wars such as the Korean struggle with the classes such as Vietminh, even at this moment there is war in Indochina. Is it not fact that in all these recent wars those engaged have paused to negotiate for peace?

    3) We would ask the government to recognize the fact that all those wars amongst the peoples of different places were not Mau Mau and it is wrong to say that we fight to revert ourselves to barbarism. If this is what we fight for it is evident that other nations have fought for the same purpose.”

    This segment, taken from Document 8 (Exhibit No. 22A), makes a strong case for the defense in Dedan Kimathi’s trial not only because of its salient points about the credibility of rebellion but also because of its context after WWII. Having seen two World Wars fought by major imperialist powers and witnessing the devastation (both human and economic) they caused, Kimathi, like many colonial rebels/nationalists, would have recognized the hypocrisy of the British in claiming that by fighting, the Mau Mau “revert… to barbarism.” After all, with both World Wars under their belt and the international recognition of another war in Vietnam, the British could hardly call the Mau Mau rebellion barbaric in comparison. Moreover, Kimathi argues that in each of the recent war, the parties engaged “have paused to negotiate for peace”—implying, of course, that the rebellion he places such a prominent role in is not permanent and not unsolvable. By doing so, Kimathi makes an argument for peace negotiations.

    This argument for temporariness and potential peace serves a dual purpose. First, it allows for the credibility of the Mau Mau rebels, implicitly establishing the group as an actor with rights and the ability to wage their own war against what they believe is unjust/encroaching on said rights. Second, it implicates the British by addressing the colonialists’ true motives for the capture of Kimathi. These motives were not, as suggested, an effort to punish Kimathi for starting a “war” (or even committing a crime of war)—if so, the flaws of such a motive are blaring in the hypocrisies pointed out above. Rather, Kimathi’s capture was wholly a British effort to quell a rising revolution by taking out a leader that had risen to nearly mythic status among the people of central Kenya (and beyond) due to his eloquence and ability to evade the British forces. His true crime was not, indeed, that he possessed firearms but that he wielded “a different weapon: the pen,” as MacArthur argues. This, of course, was not an argument the British could make that would have legal standing; it would have been one that not only Kimathi found lacking, but one that the courts may have, as well.

  12. From page 204:

    “In Kenya and most of East Africa war is inevitable unless justice is done and use is made of the truth. If some races do not relax the pressure they have put on other races, there is every great chance of future troubles. If there is no way of peacefully ending the present struggle in Kenya, is it not most likely that this struggle will continue up to the time of a world war. All races in Kenya are affected by the situation. Truth and fairness is not a product of the gun. Justice breaks a tied bow as a snake’s line is severed by anything which intersects it.”

    Since I have already read The Wretched of the Earth, I am going to jump ahead and use some if its ideas to explain why I believe that this statement would defend Dedan Kimathi in his trial. In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon asserts (in more complex language) that violence as a reaction to colonization is appropriate since colonization, itself, is a violent and destructive act (“let the punishment fit the crime” so to speak). Since many if not most people consider violence to be an extreme reaction, it follows that if violence, as an extreme response, is acceptable, then so is anything preceding it in extremism. This idea would essentially enable an oppressed or colonized society to undertake any action in order to rid itself of its colonizer. In Kimathi’s case, this argument legitimizes any choices he or the other Kenyan rebels might make, and considering the passage above, it is clear that violence was not an ideal method for reducing or restructuring the British colonial presence in Kenya. This passage defends him because the assertion exists that if any action, even a violent action, taken against colonialism is just, then so is a non-violent one, which seems to be the preferred method here.

  13. I am looking at Exhibit No. 22A. First of all, translators have to change the native language into the language of the court. I believe there is a conflict of interests with the translators being on the pay roll of the court. Being paid by the court may influence the translators by them using harsher words when translating into the court language. This shows with them mistakenly translating “boys” as “terrorists.” Due to rushing, the letter translated is extremely bias towards the prosecution, because the translators ignore the nuance of the native language written in the letter. The documents states there are numerous mistranslations and misreadings, which in a court of law, is extremely significant since one statement can sway the judge/jury.
    A specific example is point 10. Dedan Kimathi alludes to war as inevitable if justice and truth are withheld. Truth and justice are subjective; therefore by claiming war is inevitable, this may be portrayed as Kimathi inciting and encouraging war. This helps the defense, because they can appeal to this case as “clear and present” danger. In the court’s eyes, Kimathi is dangerous and a threat to social stability. Dedan’s extensive allusions to warfare in point 10 hurts his defense, because the prosecution will read his statement as encouraging violence. Although it is obvious he is implying that is the last resort if freedom is still restrained, the court will justify their harsh ruling by saying he was a threat to society

  14. “This is the time for agreement. If we let this time pass, in the place of peace and understanding there shall develop greater trouble which shall have endless roots.”
    I find this passage particularly interesting as it discusses the want to work harmoniously. In order to prevent the occurrence of the great war, which will effect Kenya, there can be “no choice between black and white.” I think this is an important message to portray to the nation as there cannot be internal conflicts happening simultaneously with a larger scale issue. It also provides a means of defense for Kimathi’s trial as it is attempting to bring about peace in this trial. It also touches on the fact that the world was divided by the characteristics of people during and after WWII and states that Kenya has learned from the war that they must work as one Kenya and not become separated.

  15. Exhibit No. 23 – Kimathi Letter, 30 March 1954: “The war ministers you suggest to set up for Kenya will shortly be regarded as tower of Babel and will cause another new Emergency to break out. Let us dress the paining part of the body and the patient will soon recover. Who is not Mau Mau and who is Mau Mau among black and white in Kenya today? How far wide has Mau Mau spread daily while the Government watches behind instead of ahead? You better trust in me a hundred times more than your present home-guards who have no trust in your struggling Government. Once I shout peace, there is never a war in Kenya.”

    Kimathi was a revolutionary leader for the Mau Mau Uprising against the British colonial rule. I choose this excerpt because it shows the futility of violence as a means to an end for Kimathi’s case. Firstly, the marshal suggests that Mau Mau is wide spread, with members of all Black and White races. Killing the uprising leader Kimathi will not stop the Mau Mau movement in Africa. The marshal explicitly states that another new ‘Emergency’ will break out. Furthermore, the marshal states states that the Mau Mau are open to peaceful negotiation. “Once I shout peace, there is never a war in Kenya.” The prosecution of Dedan Kimathi might be symbolic on the British end, but it will not stop the strive for independence of the native population. The two sides should negotiate peacefully for the betterment of Kenya and Africa as a whole.

  16. “We humbly ask the government to allow us to meet and speak the words of peace with them and prepare a way to a future of peace, understanding and prosperity for all those who live their lives in Kenya. When Dr. Aggrey said that a black record can sing as well as a white one he did not mean that if you knocked one against the other both would not break.”

    This selection supports the cause of the defense. It comes from Kimathi’s letter and states his motivations for resistance against the British colonial government. The two main themes in the selection are peace and quality. He wants there to be no more violence against the African Kenyan population on the part of the British. His reference to Dr. Aggrey’s metaphor further exemplifies this idea. He is saying that both the native Kenyans and the British can have thriving societies without being in conflict, or one imposing their dominance over the other. Regarding equality, Kimathi recognizes the economic disparity between Africans and British, especially in Kenya. He is attempting to counteract this structural norm by imploring the government to make a way for Kenyans to achieve the same economic prosperity that the British have enjoyed since they got there. All of his statements show him to be an idealistic, non-violent leader who merely wants there to be safety and prosperity for native Kenyans.

  17. When examining the trial of Dedan Kimathi’s trial, it becomes clear to the close observer that there existed an unequal legal playing field upon which the Kenyan fighters sat compared to their British colonial administrators. The true genius in Kimathi was his attempts to use the existing legal systems combined with military force to erect a sovereign state, yet his potential faults as a leader and disregard for the current legal channels lead to his inevitable downfall.
    Kimathi was an excellent, educated, and charismatic leader who was able to galvanize a significant Kenyan population in contention with the British colonists, but when examining actions taken by Kimathi, the legal sympathy in prosecution is awarded to the British yet the ethics stand with Kimathi. Julie MacArthur highlights the actions that placed Kimathi on the wrong side of the law saying, “that morning, Kimathi had his men arrest twenty-seven senior leaders … He asked us why we had met with the government without him. Kimathi was a very jealous man.” ( MacArthur, 15). By this account the legality of these arrests is questionable as well as the ethics. Although liberating Kenya from unequal systems under British rule is a morally sound cause, Kimathi’s tactics of marshal style law and allowing his own insecurities to potentially taint his decisions as a leader point to a serious issue in what was then a mandated colonial region. Through the lens of questionable leadership paired with the misuse of force internally points to a legal basis that is potentially justified when prosecuting Kimathi for the good of the colony. With that said the alternate question of Kimathi’s contested legacy points to a culture of villainization of African leaders. With history’s power of perception, the dichotomy between Kimathi’s noble goals of sovereignty and his faults as a leader combined in such a way as to make him vulnerable to the very system he was trying to change. In conclusion, what must be learned from Kimathi is that when changing legal systems it is effective to work within them, but when they are inherently unjust, it is at times necessary to end the train of abuses.

  18. “(8) It is now generally realized that whenever the government calls upon those in the forest to surrender the motive behind such call is to enable the terrorists [young men of the forest] to be picked up easily and then hanged, the aim being to diminish the tribe so that the European may have a nice place to live in Kenya. This may be the reason why the leaders of government do not want surrender negotiations which could lead to a satisfactory solution for all. [More accurately: That is the reason leaders of government never want a meeting to discuss truth and justice.]” (page 203)

    This excerpt would be a useful piece of defense evidence because it is Kimathi explaining why he and his men repeatedly refused the previous British attempts to convince them to surrender. Kimathi is saying that in the previous negotiations, the forest men concluded that the British could not be trusted to abide by surrender terms and guarantee the safety of the surrendered. As a result, they would have no choice but to keep fighting (or at least hiding). Their continued resistance becomes a form of self-defense which shouldn’t be held against them (and certainly not their continued possession of firearms, the actual crime on trial).

    Trust is a serious problem when trying to end a war, especially if one side has not decisively defeated the other. Both sides need to be able to put down their weapons at the same time, resisting the temptation to attack while their enemy is deliberately weakening themselves. This is why cease-fires often take several attempts to take effect. The most useful thing in such a situation is a third-party peacekeeping force to make sure that both sides follow the agreement, but in the absence of such a thing, any attempt by Kimathi to surrender would require him to trust the British government to not kill him. And if he trusted them, he probably wouldn’t have been fighting them in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *