nigel richards
Charter Member
Just for the record...
Ralf, this could have been an interesting aviation journey through Africa.
As someone who was born in Kenya, the son of a British serving officer, I cannot help but take exception to your constant biased references to whatever crime you consider Britain is guilty of committing.
History and politics are never simplistic.
To dabble with such recent political history is surely folly.
Expressing your personal views on capitalism, liberalism, education or even conservation via an out-of-print childrens Ladybird book simply adds to the insult.
We are all free to have our own personal views and political opinions.
But this is neither the place nor context in which to express them.
Is the issue with Britain, capitalism...what?
Just thinking...could it possibly be because they admired/admire one of the finest educational institutions in the world?
What's wrong with a smart uniform?
Growing up in the 1950's...is that debateable?
Yes, many of the Kikuyu were well educated!
(Can't for the life of me imagine who provided that education)...
Fact: There was nothing "supposed" regarding the sinister swearing-in 'oath' rituals performed by the Mau Mau.
To the unfortunate victims it was horrifyingly real.
It wasn't the "rest of the black population", it was to people of their own race.
The many other tribes refused to participate.
"Some white farmers, including women and children, were killed"
Thirty eight!
But you omitted to mention over 2,000 innocent Kikuyu, Masai, Luo, Meru men, women and babies brutally murdered by the Mau Mau.
(Note the disproportion!)
Numerically more Kikuyu trbesmen fought alongside British forces than belonged to the Mau Mau.
Furthermore, the British had to forcibly placate the Masai people, who were all for taking the Mau Mau matter into their hands and declaring all out war on them.
If you are in search of the 'noble savage' in the Mau Mau, you barking up the wrong tree.
The British did not react "extremely savagely". and to claim so is a disgraceful injustice to the many British men serving in the British armed forces during that crisis.
It is a sad fact of war that some men will commit treacherous crimes against humanity.
The culprits deserve to be brought to justice and it is to Britain's credit that this will be served.
But true justice must be served on all sides and sadly we hear of no demands for the prosecution of former Mau Mau responsible for more than 2,000 deaths.
The Mau Mau were ruthless terrorists with little concern for human life and values, democracy or independence.
Should a children's book on Africa have made reference to terrorism?
This is absurdity in the extreme.
Unbelievable!
The artist "essentially painted typical English countryside" because Sir: essentially that's precisely how the Rift Valley highlands appear.
Your comparison of the 'native' humans (I do presume you refer to the Kikuyu) with American Indians is inappropriate - the (Bantu) Kikuyu themselves invaded the area 200 years previously from West Africa, wiping out all indigenous tribes as they progressed.
That you perceive the "colonials" as destroyers and enemies of nature displays total ignorance of the many hard working farmers/settlers from Britain, USA, Germany, Austria, Canada, France, Switzerland etc who were simply guilty of occupying one of the world's last wild frontiers.
Ralf, this could have been an interesting aviation journey through Africa.
As someone who was born in Kenya, the son of a British serving officer, I cannot help but take exception to your constant biased references to whatever crime you consider Britain is guilty of committing.
History and politics are never simplistic.
To dabble with such recent political history is surely folly.
Expressing your personal views on capitalism, liberalism, education or even conservation via an out-of-print childrens Ladybird book simply adds to the insult.
We are all free to have our own personal views and political opinions.
But this is neither the place nor context in which to express them.
What exactly are you implying?Almost everywhere they go (and that includes you, USA) was once a British colony. A strong message of both text (by David Scott Daniel) and pictures (by Jack Matthew) is that all these places have a rosy, successful capitalist future because of what the kindly colonialists have done for them.
Is the issue with Britain, capitalism...what?
Daddy or Big Brother?And of course the Sudanese are OK because 'They were raised and trained by the British.' Daddy will give us a bit more of the neoliberal history lesson on the next page
John observed that 'It's just the same as a school at home,' and this remains true of much of the educational system in 21st Century Africa. Not only do the pupils often look very like retro British schoolchildren in their smart uniforms, but African schools usually retain the discipline, respect for teachers and old-fashioned values that we think have been lost in the West! (Whether or not it's a good thing to grow up in the 1950s is a debatable point.
Just thinking...could it possibly be because they admired/admire one of the finest educational institutions in the world?
What's wrong with a smart uniform?
Growing up in the 1950's...is that debateable?
It is named after President Daniel Arap Moi who succeeded Jomo Kenyatta as Head of State in 1978. In the 1950s the Kikuyu people of Kenya, many of whom were well-educated and aware of the shortcomings of colonialism, began the so-called Mau Mau Uprising against the British. This was supposed to involve pagan witchcraft and sinister blood oaths which frightened the rest of the black population. Some white farmers, including women and children, were killed. The British reacted with extreme savagery, interring and torturing thousands of young Kikuyu men and flooding the country with 20,000 troops. Postwar Britain could not afford such a policy, either in monetary or moral terms, so they sensibly released the Kikuyu leader Kenyatta from jail and allowed him to lead Kenya to independence in 1963. Both sides eventually behaved with wise tolerance and understanding, but the brutality of the British reaction to Mau Mau is only just beginning to be revealed and right now, 60 years later, there is a court case in London where some very old Kenyans are seeking compensation - and an apology - for the terrible way they were treated.
For some reason the Ladybird book doesn't mention any of that..
Yes, many of the Kikuyu were well educated!
(Can't for the life of me imagine who provided that education)...
Fact: There was nothing "supposed" regarding the sinister swearing-in 'oath' rituals performed by the Mau Mau.
To the unfortunate victims it was horrifyingly real.
It wasn't the "rest of the black population", it was to people of their own race.
The many other tribes refused to participate.
"Some white farmers, including women and children, were killed"
Thirty eight!
But you omitted to mention over 2,000 innocent Kikuyu, Masai, Luo, Meru men, women and babies brutally murdered by the Mau Mau.
(Note the disproportion!)
Numerically more Kikuyu trbesmen fought alongside British forces than belonged to the Mau Mau.
Furthermore, the British had to forcibly placate the Masai people, who were all for taking the Mau Mau matter into their hands and declaring all out war on them.
If you are in search of the 'noble savage' in the Mau Mau, you barking up the wrong tree.
The British did not react "extremely savagely". and to claim so is a disgraceful injustice to the many British men serving in the British armed forces during that crisis.
It is a sad fact of war that some men will commit treacherous crimes against humanity.
The culprits deserve to be brought to justice and it is to Britain's credit that this will be served.
But true justice must be served on all sides and sadly we hear of no demands for the prosecution of former Mau Mau responsible for more than 2,000 deaths.
The Mau Mau were ruthless terrorists with little concern for human life and values, democracy or independence.
Should a children's book on Africa have made reference to terrorism?
Do you honestly believe that the author of a children's book on Africa deliberately avoided mention of Tanga?One reason the Ladybird book doesn't ever mention Tanga may be that it was the scene of a humiliating British defeat. Tanganyika had been a German colony since the 1880s, and with the outbreak of war in 1914 the British decided to grab it quickly using 8,000 troops sent over from India commanded by a Major-General Aitken. They made a very badly-organised landing here, opposed by just a few hundred German colonial troops under the brilliant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. one famous feature of the battle (described quite accurately in William Boyd's novel An Ice-Cream War) was the Indian soldiers disturbing a hive of killer bees who joined in and helped the German Askaris drive them, panic-stricken, back to the beach! Although the British did eventually gain a foothold, it wasn't until the Germans had inflicted massive casualties, captured a lot of useful supplies and generally taught a nasty lesson. Aitken was sacked, and Lettow-Vorbeck went on to lead enormously-superior British armies a merry dance all over East Africa for the rest of the First World War. He, by now promoted Major-General, was quite rightly granted a Victory parade when he got back to Berlin!
This is absurdity in the extreme.
Before we land on Zanzibar there is some catching up to do with the Ladybird book. As well as the boat race on Lake Victoria and the school in Uganda, there were at least two more pages, + their illustrations, for Kenya.
Here you have the classic vague justification for colonialism: the original inhabitants weren't exploiting their land properly, so they deserved to lose it to people who knew how to make money from it! This is illustrated by perhaps the most remarkable picture in the whole little book:
The artist has essentially painted typical English countryside, familiar to the early '60s British children for whom the book was produced. This has led to the imported sheep having to be unrealistically squeezed into a cornfield. It is pretty obvious who's Lord of All he Surveys. But, as the text most patronisingly mentioned, 'the farm workers were Africans, who were very clever with the machinery.' (OK as long as it's a Massey Fergusson tractor rather than a Kalashnikov rifle).
Of course the whites acquired all that rich, fertile land through the simple expedient of superior weapons technology. Before anyone could ask any awkward questions about the political and military history of East Africa you turn the page and writer and artist quickly turn to animals - which can be exploited by man without rationalising the destruction of their way of life!
As mentioned before, there is some progress with 'Reserves' where 'animals are protected and live their lives safe from the guns and traps of man.' There's also another picture where he's crammed everything in:
Someone cared about the animals before it was too late. Unfortunately, of course, colonialists had a similar attitude towards 'native' humans, putting the most dangerous of them into reserves too. This had already happened to 'Indians' on the American continent, both north and south. Soon the Ladybird folk will get to South Africa where a rearguard action of the denial of civil rights and basic liberties to the majority population was still in full swing half a century ago...
Unbelievable!
The artist "essentially painted typical English countryside" because Sir: essentially that's precisely how the Rift Valley highlands appear.
Your comparison of the 'native' humans (I do presume you refer to the Kikuyu) with American Indians is inappropriate - the (Bantu) Kikuyu themselves invaded the area 200 years previously from West Africa, wiping out all indigenous tribes as they progressed.
That you perceive the "colonials" as destroyers and enemies of nature displays total ignorance of the many hard working farmers/settlers from Britain, USA, Germany, Austria, Canada, France, Switzerland etc who were simply guilty of occupying one of the world's last wild frontiers.