Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Mau Mau
Compensation and an apology?
I'd be very interested to hear the views of any ABers who were there. Whichever side you were on.
http://
I'd be very interested to hear the views of any ABers who were there. Whichever side you were on.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Svejk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Guilt money. Not necessarily wrong as a moral obligation, but, from a legal standpoint, how do the complainants answer the argument that their claim is out of time ? It wouldn't be an answer that the Mau Mau themselves committed atrocities of killing and destruction of property, but it must have been tempting to say so
/// Foreign Secretary William Hague is expected to announce compensation in the region of £14m ($20m). ///
Once again money is no object when it comes to dishing it out abroad. Especially from a country that is slow to compensate their own forces who have been killed or maimed in pursuit of fighting for another's country, and who's own citizens are forced to live off food parcels.
If any of these ex mau-maus were tortured or maimed by the British, then surely this is a case of war crimes to be argued out at a war crimes tribunal in the Hague.
There is no way that these figures can be proven.
/// More than 5,000 Kenyans say they were mistreated - some through torture - by the then-British administration. ///
/// The Kenya Human Rights Commission says 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed, and 160,000 people were detained in appalling conditions. ///
Once again money is no object when it comes to dishing it out abroad. Especially from a country that is slow to compensate their own forces who have been killed or maimed in pursuit of fighting for another's country, and who's own citizens are forced to live off food parcels.
If any of these ex mau-maus were tortured or maimed by the British, then surely this is a case of war crimes to be argued out at a war crimes tribunal in the Hague.
There is no way that these figures can be proven.
/// More than 5,000 Kenyans say they were mistreated - some through torture - by the then-British administration. ///
/// The Kenya Human Rights Commission says 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed, and 160,000 people were detained in appalling conditions. ///
This is making my blood boil. Why on earth should we apologise to them. I remember the Mau Mau uprising, it was terrifying, they burned slashed and hacked at everything that was white. Houses wrecked and people were butchered in their beds. Animals. Someone is lining up these old people and asking them to play the downtrodden, they were not slaves. Once colonial rule was finished they reverted to their usual selves. This was over 60 years ago why rake it up now.
/Why rake it up now?/
Those claiming to be victims have been trying to pursue this for a long time -- it's only now that the British Government is accepting their case.
As to your other points -- it was before my time, so I cannot possibly understand what was going on. Thing is, though, that British records from the time basically confirm the fact that the British in Kenya did commit what they are accused of, including "...beatings, solitary confinement, starvation, castration, whipping, burning, rape, sodomy, and forceful insertion of objects into orifices...". Officials at the time apparently knew about this but did nothing to stop it.
Even though some or perhaps most of the Mau Mau rebels were violent in kind, you can't possibly justify some of the above actions at all -- in any way. "They started it", "meet fire with fire", etc. -- all of these arguments are morally repugnant. Indeed, it makes my blood boil to think that we should forget what happened and to accuse the survivors of such crimes as play-acting or similar.
Furthermore, most of the claimants have never been accused or convicted of being Mau Mau rebels themselves -- and could just as easily be innocent bystanders.
Sources:
http://
http://
http://
http://
Those claiming to be victims have been trying to pursue this for a long time -- it's only now that the British Government is accepting their case.
As to your other points -- it was before my time, so I cannot possibly understand what was going on. Thing is, though, that British records from the time basically confirm the fact that the British in Kenya did commit what they are accused of, including "...beatings, solitary confinement, starvation, castration, whipping, burning, rape, sodomy, and forceful insertion of objects into orifices...". Officials at the time apparently knew about this but did nothing to stop it.
Even though some or perhaps most of the Mau Mau rebels were violent in kind, you can't possibly justify some of the above actions at all -- in any way. "They started it", "meet fire with fire", etc. -- all of these arguments are morally repugnant. Indeed, it makes my blood boil to think that we should forget what happened and to accuse the survivors of such crimes as play-acting or similar.
Furthermore, most of the claimants have never been accused or convicted of being Mau Mau rebels themselves -- and could just as easily be innocent bystanders.
Sources:
http://
http://
http://
http://
Those events happened 60 years ago, by the look of those people I don't think they were alive then. Eventually it was a two way street with the Mau Mau, they were fighting back to save the lives of the settlers. Old newsreels may show some of the extent of their actions. If you weren't born then I can only say, don't forget there was no Human Rights committee to report to in those days. Who is to say now what sort of 'torture' they suffered.
Are the Africans going to say 'well thanks for trying to help us, we are sorry for beheading your kids in bed and for castrating your menfolk, raping and sodomising your wives'....etc. Will they pay us for the indignities the colonists suffered? I don't think so. They started the uprising and the settlers were powerless against them until the army were called in.
Are the Africans going to say 'well thanks for trying to help us, we are sorry for beheading your kids in bed and for castrating your menfolk, raping and sodomising your wives'....etc. Will they pay us for the indignities the colonists suffered? I don't think so. They started the uprising and the settlers were powerless against them until the army were called in.
Well, so far, no the Kenyans aren't really adopting the position you call for. This is a pity. Instead Mau Mau Rebels are officially recognised as heroes/ freedom fighters. This is wrong, and in time we can hope that the Kenyan government will acknowledge the actrocities their own "heroes" committed.
In the meantime, though, that shouldn't stop Britain acknowledging its role. As to "who is to say know what torture they suffered" -- we are. Our own records from the time do. That is why we have to provide compensation, because ultimately people of the time knew what was going on and did nothing.
If someone attacks me violently I have a right to defend myself by any means necessary. If someone attacks my I do not have a right to attack the person standing next to them. That is what was going on, apparently on an industrial scale.
Again, no-one should care who started it. Shortly after they started it, British forces joined in equally. The sort of acts committed, and recorded, and then hidden for 50 years in official archives, are never justifiable.
In the meantime, though, that shouldn't stop Britain acknowledging its role. As to "who is to say know what torture they suffered" -- we are. Our own records from the time do. That is why we have to provide compensation, because ultimately people of the time knew what was going on and did nothing.
If someone attacks me violently I have a right to defend myself by any means necessary. If someone attacks my I do not have a right to attack the person standing next to them. That is what was going on, apparently on an industrial scale.
Again, no-one should care who started it. Shortly after they started it, British forces joined in equally. The sort of acts committed, and recorded, and then hidden for 50 years in official archives, are never justifiable.
The point was Jack that this happened a long time ago, now it wouldn't happen, the method of retaliation was only what they could expect considering what they had done to the settlers, they were barbaric. Tit for tat. The Japanese were cruel but refined in their torture compare to the Kenyans who were animals. And we had to apologise to the Japs too if I remember correctly.
I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we, as in you and me and all of Britain, have to apologise for the actions of others who are in many cases no longer alive. But we, as in the British Government, should recognise past sins and atrocities committed by those who represented that Government. Yes, this includes any WWII war crimes, or those in Kenya and elsewhere.
"Tit for tat" is the worst kind of morality. In many cases the "tit" ended up being committed against those who cannot possibly have been involved in the uprising. Young girls and babies, for example, were occasionally (recorded as) victims. I don't think a baby can have been a machete-wielding rebel.
It may have happened a long time ago but for some it is still in living memory. That fact alone demands that we address this and apologise to, or compensate, those survivors. Many of whom, I again stress, were never even accused of being Mau Mau rebels and may well have been just bystanders.
"Tit for tat" is the worst kind of morality. In many cases the "tit" ended up being committed against those who cannot possibly have been involved in the uprising. Young girls and babies, for example, were occasionally (recorded as) victims. I don't think a baby can have been a machete-wielding rebel.
It may have happened a long time ago but for some it is still in living memory. That fact alone demands that we address this and apologise to, or compensate, those survivors. Many of whom, I again stress, were never even accused of being Mau Mau rebels and may well have been just bystanders.
///........ the method of retaliation was only what they could expect considering what they had done to the settlers, they were barbaric. Tit for tat.///
But it *shouldn't* have been. Once they had been arrested, the guilty (and the innocent) should have been imprisoned/removed from society and treated humanely.
That they weren't is a cause for national shame. We tut, shake our heads, etc. when we read about how other cultures treat their 'criminals' because we are proud of this nation's reputation for Fair Play.
Making recompense now in some way restores that balance.
P.S. We have never apologised to the Japanese....nor them to us!
But it *shouldn't* have been. Once they had been arrested, the guilty (and the innocent) should have been imprisoned/removed from society and treated humanely.
That they weren't is a cause for national shame. We tut, shake our heads, etc. when we read about how other cultures treat their 'criminals' because we are proud of this nation's reputation for Fair Play.
Making recompense now in some way restores that balance.
P.S. We have never apologised to the Japanese....nor them to us!
-- answer removed --
Should todays standards be applied retro actively?
After all, we didn't have the same methods available for intelligence gathering etc. Its very easy for people to sit at their computor screens and pontificate about 'human rights' and suchlike. I rather doubt you'd be so concerned if facing the situation that British troops and, indeed, Kenyan troops and civilians faced.
After all, we didn't have the same methods available for intelligence gathering etc. Its very easy for people to sit at their computor screens and pontificate about 'human rights' and suchlike. I rather doubt you'd be so concerned if facing the situation that British troops and, indeed, Kenyan troops and civilians faced.
Even 60 years ago svejk the UK considered itself in the vanguard of democracy and decency. Torture and sadism is antithetical to such ideals, then as now.
Rather like there is never an excuse or justification for rape, there is never an excuse or justification for state- sanctioned torture. Excusing it on the grounds or a tit for tat response says that our society is no better than the "barbarians" and "savages" we were torturing.
Rather like there is never an excuse or justification for rape, there is never an excuse or justification for state- sanctioned torture. Excusing it on the grounds or a tit for tat response says that our society is no better than the "barbarians" and "savages" we were torturing.
Latest Posts
Road rules1 min ago
Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank71 mins ago
