3 129310558 0587 . 1' T‘ THESIS “aunt ‘ficfizaan State Unm- as: s; M M __ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled LAND POLITICS AND CLASS DEVELOPMENT AMONG THE KIKUYU IN KENYA'S PORVINCE, 1900-1963 presented by JOHN ADE OTlENO has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PHD , SOCIOLOGY degree In Ruth Hamilton Major professor Date 8'27‘8’4 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRAnlgs remove this checkout from Jul-(allul. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 1C)EEF‘-wg S%<§ on LAND POLITICS AND CLASS DEVELOPMENT AMONG THE KIKUYU IN KENYA'S CENTRAL PROVINCE, 1900-1969 BY John Ade Otieno A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1984 ABSTRACT LAND POLITICS AND CLASS DEVELOPMENT AMONG THE KIKUYU IN KENYA'S CENTRAL PROVINCE, 1900—1966 BY John Ade Otieno The primary concerns of this research study are two: (1) to demonstrate the fact that the changes in the Kikuyu traditional land rights, land use and land ownership led to the changes in the general arrangements of the old Kikuyu social order, (2) to show that the land reform schemes in this region, not only led to the disruptions of the Kikuyu tribal life, but brought the development of material in- equality among these tribal people. In the study, the examination of such issues as Changes in land rights, land use and land ownership were found to be important for two reasons: (a) to provide in- sights as to what took place in Kikuyu land, and (b) to provide an understanding of the violent Kikuyu response to unjuSt policies that made it possible for them to establish an effective dialogue with the colonial settlers which led to the establishment of political freedom and economic change in the country. The researcher therefore: (1) explains the manner by which the traditional land tenure systems were John Ade Otieno changed, and (2) up dates the effects of these changes. The uprising in the late fifties demonstrates that conditions .were intolerable. The research largely rests on the premise that the demand for land exclusively for whites, and the establish— ment of policies that aided the whites by providing them with huge areas of land on one hand, and restricting the Kikuyu from participating in commercial production on the other, naturally triggered the general social revolution in the area. The issues became clear in analyzing the Kikuyu political involvement in the Mau Mau movement in the 19505 and 19605. They are also clear in elaborating such issues as the policies of land alienation, of labour and of econ— omic development. The research findings show that the de- velopment of social inequality among the Kikuyu people was due to: (a) the economic system established in the region that depended entirely on market system, and (b) the manner by which the settlement schemes were designed and carried out. Cash crop production destroyed the traditional agri- culture that had seemed to be self sufficient and independ- ent. Once these peasants realized the benefits of a cash crop economy, they quickly turned their attentions toward adOPting and promoting the new economic system, without be— coming fully aware of the consequences of market agriculture. ‘\u\ uh~¢ .«u A.» as n»l \I.‘ . . .. t a: :- .-. .. he. DEDICATION I dedicate this study to both my deceased mother, Bati, and my beloved wife, Lucy A. Otieno. Their hard work helped finance me throughout my schooling. Their effort, patience, and love made this academic achievement possible. ii «an s-u v . a» QB. n...“ O .I. rt. .6‘. F‘. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Professor Ruth Hamilton for the time and devotion she dedicated to supervising my Ph.D. program. Certainly, without her serious effort and thorough- ness the production of this work would not have been possible. I am also indebted to Dr. Philip M. Mbithi, Proe fessor and former Chairman of the Sociology Department at the University of Nairobi, for having helped me in getting my research clearance. I also owe my respectful gratitude to Dr. N.E.O. Ambitho for providing me with statistical interpretations. iii ' — - . , r." a: V- nub-5".o . 5‘ : “RH-v.3: V- to“... 5,“. . -- -0 N K‘ 5 ~ u.\ Q ....... . “~3‘C..\, \ _- 1- R‘ ‘s ..... ...“C . _\_\ a 9 :An- tb~u‘ O —".‘ . ...c _ n ‘\-—q 5... a N,‘ ‘- " A0. \‘t‘\-c“ Tn‘f‘ .. d y. La. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE List of Tables .................. ... ...... .. ..... . ...... List of Figures............ ................. . ....... ... CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM.... ................. . ........ 1 Introduction................ .................... 1 Statement of the Problem......... ........... .... 5 The Kikuyu People and Kikuyuland.. .............. 6 Population.................. ...... . ......... 7 The Land and Ecology.... ...... . ..... . ....... 9 Summary ........... ........... ......... . ..... 11 Overview of the Study ........................... 12 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY ........ .....13 Historical Lineage and Land Rights... ......... ..13 Concept of Land Tenure............ ..... .........16 Comparison of Kikuyu and Western Land Tenure....ZO Changes in Kikuyu Land Tenure.. ........... ..22 Beliefs and Ideologies Toward Land........ ..... .25 The Concept of Land Ownership as Viewed by the Kikuyu ........... ...... ......... ...... ..... 30 Land Acquisition in Kikuyu Country ........... ...33 The Kikuyu Mode of Production ..... . ........ .....36 The Kikuyu Division of Labor...... ........... ...40 Kikuyu Political Structure...... ............. ...43 The Problem of the Research Study...... ...... ...51 Methodology and Sources of Data ..... .. ...... ....52 Methodological Framework ...... ........ ..... .....54 Secondary Research.. .................. ......54 Primary Research .......................... ..55 Selection of Study Area ..................... 59 Summary and Conclusion ........ .......... ........ 61 CHAPTER THREE: LAND ALIENATION AND PROCESSES OF DEVELOPMENT............ ....... ... .......... .....65 Mercantile System as an Economic Policy.........67 The Nature and the Goals of the Colonial System.7l The Settlement Process.............. ..... .......77 Beginning Permanent Settlement....... ....... 78 '(J CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER THREE: CONT. The Background of the Settlers ............ .81 Government Assistance to Settlers ...... ....83 The Plantation System or Enclave Agriculture...84 The South African Settlement Model.............87 Economic Policy and Planning: The Process That Facilitated Dual Paths to Unequal De— velOpment ............................... . ..... 92 Economics of Land Alienation .............. .99 The Justification of the Settler Economic Alienation .......... . ........... .........104 Racism and the Process of Underdevelop— ment.. ................. . ...... . .......... 105 Summary .................................. .....111 CHAPTER FOUR: LAND ALIENATION: THE GROUNDS FOR POLITICAL STRUGGLE AND CLASS DEVELOPMENT AMONG THE KIKUYU 1903-1960. .................. .112 The Settler' 5 Success in Alienating Land in Kenya ..................... . ....... .......114 Land Alienation in Kikuyu Territory ........... 120 Labor as a Tool for Economic and Political Gain.............................. ........... 123 The Master and Servants Ordinances of 1906, l9lO............. ........ . ......... 127 The Resident Native Ordinance of 1918, l920.............. .................. .....128 The Labour Circular of 1919 ............... 129 African Squatting on White Farms .......... 131 The Kikuyu Struggle to Regain Their Lands ..... 134 The Carter Commission Investigation ..... ..l37 Nationalism and Political Struggle ....... .139 Summary.................. ...... . .............. 146 CHAPTER FIVE: LAND REFORM, VILLAGIZATION AND LAND CONSOLIDATION: A CASE STUDY IN NYERI ......... 148 The Process of Villagization... .............. .152 Nyeri: A Case Study of Land Reform ............ 161 The Economic System ....................... 162 Political Structure.......... ......... ....164 Nyeri District.............. ........ . ....... ..165 Change: As It Occurred in the Area. .......... 166 Local Leadership in Nyeri... .............. 167 ...... ~0'I |-__E..-_. ~~......._o" .u. n5. a» Q. «L . . n‘ 1‘” N.»- n\ C» 6 y a» a.» .9 Q n‘ . no. '1 A a De Contr ‘ Summary ‘ AND SOCI RTRAL BIBLIOG A U CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER FIVE: CONT Villagization in Nyeri ........................ 169 Land Consolidation and Registration in Nyeri..172 Acreage Consolidated and Registered ..... ..173 Procedures of Consolidation and Registration ............................. 174 Evaluation of Land Consolidation and Registration .................... . ........ 177 Summary ....................................... 179 CHAPTER SIX: THE KIKUYU AND THE ONE MILLION ACRE SCHEME ........ .... ........ . ................... 181 The Plan for Settlement ...................... 182 Philosophy Underlying the Settlement Scheme...188 Effects of the One Million Acre Settlement Scheme... .............. .... ...... ...... ...... 189 Operational Procedures in Settling the Kikuyu. ........... ...... ...... . ............. .190 Low Density Areas ................ . ........ 193 High Density Areas ...... . .......... . ...... 199 Yeoman Areas .............................. 200 Effects of Land Reform: The Case of Nyeri....202 Summary....................... ..... .. ......... 207 CHAPTER SEVEN: TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN KIKUYULAND AND IN KENYA..208 Summary and Conclusion..... ................... 228 The Contribution of the Study.... ............. 229 Suggestions for Further Research....... ....... 229 APPENDIX A ..... . ..................................... 231 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................. ....235 q . ‘. v'l- ‘ u. I . c u _ . . , ~ -0. I ~ u. r ‘CL . ‘ "I- ‘ ~I ‘ I *I4 "l'l r luv-U.- LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 3.1 The Distribution of Farm Size in the European Farming Areas, 1954 and 1960 .................... ,94 3.2 The Distribution of Farm Size in the African Farming Areas, in 1960 .......................... 95 4.1 Categories of Land by Number of Occupiers and Acreage Cultivated in theyears,l920—1923 ....... 119 4.2 Kenyan Acreage Under European Cultivation and Principal Crops for theyears.l920-1924 ......... 121 5.1 Enclosure and Registration of African Farms in Kenya (Up to June 30th, 1961) ................ 175 5.2 Expenditures for Central Province Registration 1960 ............................................ 175 6.1 Estimated Final Costs of Kenyan Settlement Program (L000) ......... . ........................ 196 6.2 Targetted Net Income After Subsistence and Financial Obligations Had Been Met 1964—1968....201 6.3 Fragmentation of the Labura Farm in Mweiga 1967 and 1968 ................................... 205 7.1 Comparison of Selected Settlements in Zones I and II, June 30, 1968 ........................... 216 7.2 The Proportion of Settlement Farms Reaching the Target Income 1964/65—1967/68 ............... 219 7.3 The Relationship Between Farm Size and Profits, 1967/68.. ....................................... 221 7.4 The Relationship Between Farm Size and Inputs of Capital and Labor on the Settlement Schemes, 1967/68 oooooooooooooo 00.000000... ....... 00 ...... 2‘22 -‘ ‘ 5.: c‘ ‘7 au.» ~~““' ngvch‘ ." 3 " »| v-.. .-s. ...II - 8- . - . . .. ‘v-V‘\-\“ ‘us .. -C :.uu:u s. d - c... ' ‘ A nus - ..c r~ r" snub: C.¢C..u-..u - v .- i.v- ‘ ‘ \ \vs" A ..-ubxh‘c‘ G SH b Kenya's D .a-nd have been the colonial set I'IDusly felt thl DeCause the popu tlon over land It llth the arrival consistently inc 0’ ~ I189" by Arthu found that Kenya CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM Introduction The study at hand concerns changing land rights and ownership in a predominantly agricultural Kenyan economy. It is argued that a series of historical events related to these changing land rights were instrumental in altering structural and conflict relations which have, in turn, produced what is visible today as class inequality among the Kikuyu in Kenya's Central Province. Kenya's population growth and its scarce cultivable land have been its crucial problems since the arrival of the colonial settlers. The indigenous people had not pre— Jiously felt this land pressure, before the colonial era, >ecause the population was balanced naturally and competi— :ion over land was minimal until white settlement began. 1th the arrival of colonial settlers, Kenya's population onsistently increased geometrically. In its first census, f 1897, by Arthur Hardinge, a British official, it was Dund that Kenya's population was about 2,500,000. By 1925 3 1939, its population was variously quoted at three to >ur million. «nu. Kenya's population census was taken in 1948 and re- vealed the country's population to be over five million. The growth rate from 1948 to 1962 was estimated at 2.8 per— cent per annum. Kenya's population increased over the years, until today, its growth is about 4.8 percent more than the gross national product which currently amounts to only three percent per annum. Now Kenya has 15.8 million people. The census of 1969 estimated Kenya's crude birth rate at 50.0/ 1000 and death rate at 17.0/1000. Kenya has an area of 582,646 sz, which includes 14.789 sz of inland water, but arable land is only 99,050 sz and its density is about 133 people per sz. About 66 percent of Kenya has an average rainfall under 50 cm. a year and only 13 percent of the country receives more than 60 cm. of rainfall a year. Of all the provinces, the Central re— gion's scarcity of land and overpopulation is the most ser— ious. The region has a total area of 13, 173 sz with ara— ble land amounting to 9,240 sz. Density in the whole re- ;ion is about 127 per sz while the arable land is popula— :ed at over 181 people per sz. I The major focus is on land questions and changes hat have occurred presumably, as a result of conflicts ver land. Indeed, land policy in general in Kenya, and n the Central Province in particular, has long been the Duntryls most sensitive issue. Land questions are not - .. . . u . "qch ' aha-A“. . -b ..... VJ. . . . fi~o7nkni'n~‘ ‘ I! n H v:"\'uv-vu-bu--9 . 4 o ._ k . 4 - ‘nq o A an... ... 311-4 szlt v-3“. - . Q“... . «I 1,“?3V’creun 1- uau sues.--». ..y C "‘ e :a- a- v-1..- ‘5‘ ‘ 3 -- . h" char- " ~o.\--g 1‘- L‘H '\ lus— ‘- ut-A: ...1: CI ‘ ‘1“ A . . “ -- "‘-u- “Ly ‘ A», u ‘\ RAIN“ :Vg\a I. “~55 LC only sensitive, but vitally important because, for millions of inhabitants of Kenya, land has always been a basic source of livelihood. The land provides food and shelter and, psychologically, represents the link between the living and the dead. In particular, the Kikuyu in Kenya believe that interference with the land constitutes the most repre— hensible act that a man could do before God. The shortage of arable land in this central region of Kenya has created many problems. In the 19205, for ex- ample, many Kikuyu families were forced out of their home reas to temporary residences on white farms. The short- Ige of land in the region meant that the landless Kikuyu ot only became refugees on white plantations, but also stablished themselves as squatters. Squatting became a ay of life to the Kikuyu people, often preferable to life 1 their reserve areas. Through squatting on white farms, Ie Kikuyu learned and adopted white farming methods. They sveloped skills in cash crop production and learned the rketing system. On farms owned by whites, a substantial mber of Kikuyu farmers mastered sufficient skills to antually become independent producers. Land alienation or appropriation gave white settlers :ess to a capitalist means of production in the area and .bled them to acquire firm political power. The year 5 marked the peak of colonial economic and political ____—__________———‘ n ‘ ‘.~~ sr-Ofi «a Gomodda Lgh-Ino ' “nod u on 7“: o a 0'0» A p’COvac. “v-nfl ' » gar sn.~nfip‘0‘p i:.E I: ...... ..a.-. c .. a. . Hr1?‘~“ «co-pan. -i‘ O‘ ...»n 0‘ uggygvv .... U "5"“ su- .I..\ \. .. N v- ., h.“ a“? - ex. A ...; a fib‘tu HI-CA-‘\ ‘ . I u.‘ ... .u LOEIC“. SI'UJ' . ‘ d domination, and was a period of frustration for the Kikuyu people. World War II had just ended and many white soldiers were anticipating rewards from their government. Great Britain offered settlement areas in Kenya to many of her officers. That brought about further alienation of Kikuyu lands, which created additional landless populations. These Stringent policies of land alienation brought from the Kikuyu people an aggressive response; in 1950 the Kikuyu anger exploded. Their frustration was expressed by coordinated defiance of British land policies. The Kikuyu moved quickly, taking oaths as a promisory note of unity in common struggle. The central land issues became an axis for political conflict and the vehicle that was to reshape @nyan political, social and economic structure. The immediate consequence of these conflicts was "land resettlement program,“ a paternalistic process which aite settlers and their colonial office in England agreed Don as the best means to placate the Kikuyu. The plan was Ir land settlement programs to transfer land from European Iners to African ownership to defuse the conflicts without tering the economic structure. Through these programs, rogressive" Kikuyu farmers were supposed to advance and nehow utilize their farming skills to lead the others to— :d what the settlers saw as progress, development, growth lifestyles equivalent to Western lifestyles. p—I t 9 (n (7 t) 1 t7 \ ‘ Q are. in -FA ans: :lllusq t..E.I:::- b .. q ’ I H'V‘HV 0:779": h” 'uuvu -.n-.---""l H‘ . . :P -.VHFH "“ .“ ma:5-5ve~4 Ht-..» . .. n “F .. »u- ' !.l\'\-~:~-e -‘h , ~ A o- ‘ ..h. gen»: K-‘ H . .. s Ola new char: \ m. rah“ ‘ E‘s-i «LP-I came a! :57 I .enore system the r ‘a‘ nomination Of t? the foundation fc 5 It soon became clear that this process of resettle— ment, not only restricted opportunity to a favored few, but reated an atmosphere in which Kikuyu producers competed mong themselves. The Kikuyu learned not only to become ood farmers, but crafty land speculators as well. In con- equence, the Kikuyu became exploiters in the Marxist sense nd strong believers in land-grabbing which produced, in urn, inevitable social inequalities. Statement of the Problem The central problem of this study is two—fold. First, show how changes in Kikuyu traditional land rights and nership came about as a result of the impact of colonial- m. That is, that the political and economic systems es- blished in the area made this transformation of the land iure system inevitable. Second, to show how colonial ap- >priation of the Kikuyu land, which led to conflict, was a foundation for the development of social inequality ng these traditional people. The analysis includes a ailed case study of land settlement projects in Nyeri trict, the administrative headquarters for the region the district where social change began. In order to delineate the effects of the colonial :ence, and colonial political and economic establish— 5 in the area, and corresponding and consequent Kikuyu ons and reactions, it is appropriate to look first at before ante s u—r .. AA ‘ ..aC ..-9. . n ::“N;:- ...:no-u- -u.U\.—v- ...: s“ C - ‘. A- ORR- “VG “ V. 4‘.» 3-: ‘ao 3"“ 3‘ N'Hnn s 55"444-‘ “cvng, . " o Bush“ I \v :aUe. e" ' I o . ‘ :“'S‘\' an a... , u-s..\,_u ~. e» O ‘ the people themselves and the land in which they lived, long before white settlers and planters arrived. The Kikuyu People and Kikuyuland The Kikuyu, as demographic studies reveal, are the Hargest Bantu-speaking group in East Africa. The majority 3f them are in Kenya and claim that they were the first ethnic group to be reached by political, economic, and social :hange. They were known for their agricultural activities, lthough they combined cultivation with animal husbandry. 5 far as when this highland people arrived in this Eastern art of Africa, migratory movement into this part of the antinent varied. It should be noted that Kenya's popula— Lon can be divided into more than thirty ethnic groups, enerally classified by linguistic distinctions and varied Idy postures. The major groupings identified are: the ntu, Nilotic, Paranilotic and Chusitic. Kaplan and his co—workers (1976:85) have pointed out at, Cutting across these linguistic differences is a far more important distinction deriving from economic adaptation to ecological con- ditions. Thus, on the basis of their economic activity, these linguistically heterogeneous people may be broadly grouped as agricultural— ists or pastoralists. Kaplan points out that the dates of their arrival in : Africa are speculative since there was no information . 9‘," recorded during I“ It} '1 C) ’1 ’1 1" I--' r. u (O O-‘ I. 2. .I I 21-! I, "| ..I :54 mm 7 o 2 I H L: .0 I) 1.! 4".) '(J '1 (l (D (T) 5: K) '1 '(3 (I) 'f) (D (D (I) :‘J :3 m ( ) 'U I: m n; r? () r9 n) D) (9 NM) 5 A.) J" f" (D a p. W... was :orded during the time of the movements. Referring to .on-documented source, Kaplan notes, It is reported that the Bantu and the Nilotic groups might have arrived in the Eastern part of this continent by about the 14th or 15th centuries. The Paranilotic language speaking groups, on one hand, are said too, to have arrived at about the same time, but took set- tlement throughout the Rift Valley and around it. The Cushitic speaking people, on the other hand, in fact, came by conquiring the Horn of Africa, migrating southward. This group, as it has been reported, seemed to have arrived in this Horn region of Africa as early as the 11th and 12th centuries (Ibid). The Kikuyu are the largest Bantu speaking group in East Africa. They constitute roughly 20 percent of all Kenyans and 90 percent of the population of Central Province, which is an area of densely settled high country radi- ating southwest from Mt. Kenya and limited on the west by the Aberdare Range (Ibid). >ulation I l l The Kikuyu, like some other African groups, con— ned themselves little with their strength, or lack of ength, in numbers. Population was not counted nor was roduction limited. Neither, did the Kikuyu allow the a of his family to be known in public. Children were ats and reproduction was a God-given blessing. Their Ig on earth was a blessing and thus they were to re- uce and fill the earth. Their population growth was secret and measured only in its absence by the amount he land left unoccupied. If there was a space of land :upied, this was an indication to them that their F'- H: "- _ a... -. 'V " Lat/c “F‘C:U--l 2N. needed. 9 r g D U) P0pu1at10r3 an tivelx this F In Kenya, des the Mau-Mau L the Kikuyu pc 1962 gens“. The p( lent? land 5} they argued , not dUe to t] 8 population was inadequate and more people were needed. It is likely that in the Kikuyu country, as in the rest of the African countries prior to the arrival of the whites and the advancement of technology, mortality was extremely high. In the Central Province, small pox, malaria and other tropical diseases commonly took many lives. When the whites arrived in the area, they claimed that the highland areas were empty. Small pox and malaria were reported to have killed thousands of the Kikuyu pop— ulation, a condition which had forced them to retreat tOi other areas. Despite this claim of lost lives, nobody knew how many Kikuyu had been in the region or how many were left. Their population remained secret both to the Kikuyu themselves and to the whites, until the census of 1962 was taken. According to this census, "The Kikuyu opulation amounted to 1,925,365.“ (1966:18). Compara— ively this population still exceeded that of other groups ‘n Kenya, despite claims of lost lives then and during he Mau—Mau uprising in the 1950's. The 1969 census put he Kikuyu population at 2,201,632 or almost twice the 962 census. (Kenya Fertility Survey, 1977-1978). The point is that since the Kikuyu did not exper- ence land shortage prior to white settlement in the area, hey argued that the shortage of land in their region was ot due to their population, but to the colonial policy . 2" ...-o :vn '7‘!- ‘-‘\'u9u ...-tub“ . - Rfli .- a» ‘v- .- F” u. an .. ~~U . e . - A A~~~A FA ‘I a 0- bgugivu uvu-u \‘A ..-... a; u“ -o- \0-0 p" -.s 35s--»- ., A Riflh H_a:~o.. t-U.4 u»-._A... ' O . op: nepc..= A.’ $15 5, .v“‘ y- "'3Ppr m1195 9 Mt, Ker h3999 e eester: On the Nasal L Athl an 9 Iith regards to land. It was this policy that had al— .owed the expropriation of large tracts of land. The (ikuyu argued that the expropriation of their land put :hem in a peculiar situation——a condition which they :1aimed could be understood only by them, and not by the vhite settlers. They claimed that land alienation created )igh density in their reserve. Supporting this claim, :he census of 1962 revealed over 174.3 persons per square nile in Central Province. Giving the details of popula— :ion density per square mile in each district of Central Province, Barber (1970—1971) has thus estimated as fol— Lows, “Kiambu, 860' I Fort Hall, 498; Nyeri, 596° Embu, 351- I I and Meru, 236 population per square mile.” 7he Land and Ecology l The Kikuyuland is geographically and ecologically iverse and complex. Early scholars, travellers and mis— ionary adventurers, including Sorrenson, have described 1e region as a parallelogram. ...approximately 100 miles long and 30 miles wide, bounded on the north by Mt. Kenya, on the west by the Abardare Range and the Kikuyu escarpment (the eastern escarpment of the Rift Valley), on the south by Ngong Mountain and the Masai Land Unit, and on the east by the Athi and Mbere Plains. (1967, p.1) I r "A“ q.- -zr- _ Inc-'59:“ 4", ‘ o ’n-n oh? - " l V k 4.6: c v ‘. - “FR ‘ fir . ... :nU At»---—n - _ e YA~TA— can: .tv-v.4 .we— 4 Is . Q? H- \I‘fia-y u L.-\..s an--- ‘9 ‘t-E 50%;? ‘‘‘‘ e .x- fi .R‘\~ a-.. - ~»53-, vii. ‘.\‘ ~ V'NH P‘— a. v- ‘\---~»- “3: - . . . - :' a ‘V -“V‘ ‘I y- \ -§- . t‘:~"‘u. nu...“ Ha V“ .uc -- 9A3 L1.» as Well. EColOg it 10 During the colonial era, as it appeared on the nyan map, Central Province was geographically divided to three main districts—-Kiambu, Fort Hall (Muranga) Nyeri—~Embu and Meri were regarded as part of the ion. Today, Central Province has had two more dis- 'cts added to it——Nyandarua and Kirinyaga--Embu and Meru, the other hand, are now part of Northeastern Province. total, Central Province has five geopolitical districts. robi has remained completely separate and is the capi— city for the country, just eight kilometers from mbu. The rich soil of the province and its proximity to capital, gave the area economic advantages over other :es and drew settlers to it. Thus, this region became eat of conflict over its land and the geographical :hplace for African social and political movement, be— e it was where most of the settlers sought to expro— te valuable land. Central Province also linked the > from the Coast with Uganda, giving it inherent egic importance. Control of this area implied con— of Rift Valley Province and the route to LakeVdctoria ll. Ecologically, the Kikuyuland is well watered for s numerous rivers and ponds scattered at about half intervals. Rainfall ranges from 30 inches to 60 a year, depending on altitude. The Kikuyuland 11 region is relatively high, as Sorrenson has thus put it this way, "The country's at an altitude that varies from approximately 5,000 ft. to 8,000 ft. above sea level” (Ibid). This altitude permits it to provide most of the atural beauties—~such as green grass, tall trees and an nviable scenic landscape. In a summary, then, of the Kikuyu people and Kikuyu- and, before the influx of white settlers and subsequent and conflict, the sparse and largely undocumented his— )rical picture presents a traditional, Bantu-speaking, -ghland people. Centered in Kenya where they represented I percent of the population, this group comprised 90 per— nt of the pOpulation of Central Province. Unconcerned out population numbers, the Kikuyu concentrated on pop— ating every unoccupied space of their land, in celebra— >n of the blessing of being on earth. Believing that :erference with the land was a reprehensible act against I, the Kikuyu were ill-prepared to share their lands h the white settlers when they arrived. Kikuyuland, itself, was a factor in the land con— :t inevitable under colonial rule. Its rich soil and Kimity to Kenya's capital, as well as its beneficial :ement along trade routes to the Coast, Lake Victoria Uganda, gave it economic, strategic, and ecological 12 importance that did not go unnoticed by white settlers and plantation owners. Thus the situation was ripe for the conflict and confrontations that resulted when white set- tlers arrived. Overview of the Study This study focuses on the general aspects of rural transformation in Kenya; the events to be discussed are in eight chapters. In Chapters One and Two the case for :he study of the Kikuyu of Kenya, the land, the people and their social, economic and political structures prior :0 the coming of the colonial settlement is put forth. hapter Three presents an historical and a conceptual over- iew of the processes of settler development and the under- eve10pment of African agriculture. Chapter Four deals ith land alienation: the background of political strug— Le and economic development among the Kikuyu. Chapter .ve analyzes the villagization and land consolidation and 'gistration as the conditioning processes toward land re— rm. Chapter Six explains the nature of the One Million re Scheme and the problems of small farmers. Chapter ven focuses on understanding the nature of change in tuyuland and in Kenya. Chapter Eight will present the searcher's views of the relevance of Kikuyu history to 2 study of sociology and, finally, the conclusion. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY Historical Lineage and Land Rights Much of the history of the Kikuyu people, prior to white settlement, was linked to their lineage system. As a Bantu group of Kikuyu ethnicity, they believed they were originally descended from the Gikuyu, their great elder who, according to Kikuyu legend, founded their peo— ple. The legend claimed that the Kikuyu people was a unit formed by nine Kikuyu clans. As such, their social struc- ture through lineage was depicted in their pattern of settlement within their territory. Villages comprised 'amily units, each of which was built around some natural andmark. This could be a tree, a beehive, a river, or my feature that could provide a permanent physical land— ark. Each family retained its own lineage as a given ientity. Sorrenson (1967) described this arrangement. ”Each Imily occupied a segment of the ridge, with its land— Ildings extending down one or both sides of the ridge." . 4 ) Sorrenson categorized the Kikuyu family unit as small unit of lineage. The larger and most important, 13 14 it of lineage, however, was the Mbari or sub—clan. ari was the most vital grouping system within the Kikuyu iial structure because it was the one that traced descent [ough the male line. It is argued that the Gikuyu him- f, as the founder of the tribe, could not be worried ut his private property or the material wealth given his Great Elder because, on his death, the lineage was ed after him. In other words, the wealth would be erited by lineage, not only to maintain the Mbari but etain Mbari as the central unit by tying it to the In this way, change of Mbari could be accomplished 7 by change in the land ownership. Listing some of the rationale for the importance he Mbari system to this tribal people, the Kikuyu rs claimed that: (1) it provided security by uniting , (2) it protected them by suppressing private pro— ] ownership, (3) it remedied evil behaviors such as >ractice of appropriating land by the few and creating essness, and (4) most importantly, it gave the Kikuyu tem by which land (as a source of livelihood) could intained for the generations to come. This, also .ns the source and shaping of many of the Kikuyu's and traditions within the Mbari circle. During esearch, discussions with some elderly Kikuyu, such Tgi, Kamau and Kariuki, all of whom came from Nyeri, :ed that Mbari was not only a system of land-owning 15 er se (as it was later viewed by some of the Western cholars) but the nucleus of the social structure of the 'kuyu population. They indicated that, to a large extent, ‘thin the Kikuyu community, everything depended on Mbari. Western writers, however, viewed Mbari only as a adition that applied to land. Most of them claimed that age—set system formed the Kikuyu's social and political ructures. Sorrenson, an outstanding scholar in the uyu's traditional land tenure practices, has indicated, e Kikuyu rotation system of generation which was basically age—set system, vested in the Kikuyu lineage, was mainly Jnificant in dividing authority within the traditional Ia (elders' councils) which Operated on the basis of age— s and within a much more circumscribed locality, just the Mbari was the important unit as far as land owner— p was concerned." (1967, p. 5 ) To many Westerners, Ti and the age-set system were two completely separate Igs. Yet, in a physical sense, Mbari was a form of ly structure only to a limited extent. For example, mily descended from Wambai would be known as Mbari ambai, a subclan of Wambai. This subclan would be :ified not only by name designation but also by the of land the Wambai occupied; the land and the sub— were inseparable. In the explanation presented here about Kikuyu line- Id land tenure, it should be noted that with such 16 societies as the Kikuyu, land tenure becomes controversial in contacts with outsiders. It is controversial in that the tenure system is understood by the in—group but not :learly defined or apparent to others. This lack of ap— >arent definition created confusion and misunderstanding vetween the Kikuyu and colonial settlers who were used to learly defined land ownership. Concepts of Land Tenure .ications is a complicated issue. To understand its com— Generally, the concept of land tenure and its im- exities, particularly among the traditional societies Africa, like the Kikuyu, it is useful to consult the rk of experts in land holding systems, such as Ratcliff, zng and others. Because they intend to provide not only the re— ionships between man and his piece of land, but also rights that each holder has on that piece of land. :liff explained: System of land tenure embodied those legal, contractual or customary arrangements whereby individuals or organizations gain access to economic or social opportunities through land. The precise form of tenure is constituted by the rules and procedures which govern the rights and responsibilities of both individ- uals and groups in the use and control over the basic resources of land. (1976:21) — 'I——_" 17 Ratcliff holds that "land, without the dimension of tenure, is a meaningless concept. In using the very expressions ”land'I and "land tenure" one is more usually concerned with the complicated collection of rights to use space” (Ibid). In Cheng's views, "man cannot live without land, from which he derives his subsistance. Land is, as a mat— ter of fact, the mainstay of human life." (1961:1) Economists like Karl Marx, for example, viewed land and land tenure strictly in an economic context. To Marx, land is defined in terms of (1) exchange value, (2) tenural attern, (3) jurisdictional context, and (4) commodity or roperty. (Karl Marx, 1906). Common to all these aspects is that they are sub— jected to the claims of rights. Therefore, to speak of land Ind land tenure means, in its real sense, the rights that n individual has to the land as well as the rights of ther members to it (Ratcliff). Hallet (1960, p.13) stated, 3 well, "the term land and land tenure refer to the econ— Iic, legal, and political arrangements regarding the owner— ip and management of agricultural land." The Farm Found— ion (1950, p.3), similarly contended tenure, is all the relations established among men regarding their varying rights in the control and use of land when sup— plying man his wants... Tenure is but one aspect of the study of how man organ— izes his productive activities and distri— butes the consequences of that activity. 18 Yet, according to Betrand and Corty (1962, p.6), Land is undefinable until we derive it to a 'property', or more precisely, 'property in land'. Property is a Latin adverb, meaning 'according to custom'. In the feudal period, the term was used to imply feudal privileges or relationships. Today, property is the system of rights of a person or other social unit in scarce values. Betrand and Corty held, however, that The concept of property must include more than the idea of control over scarce values and productive wealth. It must be under— stood to mean the power relations, real or potential, between persons holding property rights and those persons who do not. (Ibid) Marx saw land as a commodity or property and thus d, "As a commodity land was an object outside us... ng that, by its properties, satisfies human wants of sort or another." (1906:41) He favored private pro— rights. For land as an essential commodity to enter the market as exchange good, the owners are naturally bound to place themselves in those objects. The owners must thereby mutually recognize in each other the rights of private properties. This jurisdictional relation, which expresses itself in a contract, whether such a contract be part of developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economic re— lation between the two. (1960, p.35) The most important point of all these arguments .and is that they all seek answers to questions of l9 legality and ownership. The conclusions can only be that everything has to be viewed in its own context in order to make sense. This was what the colonial rulers intended to do in Africa, but what they actually did was to interpret land tenure and all the rights it involved only in terms of their Western experience and disregarded African exper— ience and tradition. Going deeper into the subject, Cagnolo asserted: 'Personal ownership is interpreted very broadly, so that 'arious articles, while the property of a person may easily e turned to communal use_"(l933:30) The lack of the con— ept of individual holding among the Kikuyu, made it dif— icult for any family to have more land than was required. - > has been pointed out by various observers, like Lord Iiley, the Kikuyu customary law was strict and unchange— Ile. He contended that their traditional law limited the ount of land that each family could own for subsistence 943). This, in turn, made individual members safe from ploitation by their own members. Kenyatta has emphasized is claim ...the Gikuyu system of land tenure no man could claim absolute ownership of any land unless he or his ancestors have gone through the ceremony of marking the boundary, which was the Gikuyu form of title—deed. The boun— dary trees and lilies so ceremonially planted were highly respected by the people. They were well looked after and preserved. (1953: 40) 20 The colonial settlers failed to realize the signi— icance of the general theory that relates to land, that olds that land is man's source of fulfilling both physio— ogical and psychological needs. It thus becomes the axis oout which human social, political and economic activities evolve. To reduce this broad theoretical explanation of 1nd tenure, to a more specific explanation, Yudelman (1964, 16) explained, "In the African context, when speaking land and land tenure, we come to understand that the rm is of special importance because the fabric of African ciety is so closely linked to the land by custom." Comparison of Kikuyu and Western Land Tenure In comparing tribal land tenure in Kikuyuland to . system that was developed in Europe, we find that kuyu land tenure before 1886 was, to a large extent, ilar to that of other African tribes before colonization." nau, 1978:3). In Africa at large, communalism was the I system of land tenure known, except in North Africa. lg the Kikuyu, communal tenure was a matter of belief they treated the land according to the ways they re— !d themselves to it. Kikuyu land was a gift from God a man had no rights at all to abuse the land or to ess it as a property. Conversely, the peOple Of North 21 rica and Western Europe regarded land as property that 11d be owned, rented or mortgaged. In Bohannan's (1967) views of land tenure, he argued :cisely that in African societies, the meanings of the cepts ”land” and ”tenure" differ radically from Western ges. The most important aspects of land occupancy in ck Africa are relationships among men, not of man to land, as the English terms imply. (p.101—115). In Bohannan's and Kaman's views, African land tenure >asically viewed interms of relationships. Kaman con- 5 that ”the word 'tenure' is used to describe that re— onship which exists between man in society and land.“ efore, he held that land tenure customarily refers to :an ideas concerning the holding of land. They indi— the African's perception of the proper relationship ten man and land on earth. (1978:3). In the Kikuyu country, the rights of use were vested e individual holders, but the family controlled the Ship. Ownership here was not the Western concept of ssion of the land, but OWnership of the products from (iagayu has explained: The access relationships enjoyed by dif— ferent people over land show that what was owned was not land, but a claim to have power to do certain things. Thls included possessing immunities against the encroachment of others on one's rights, claims, power and privileges. (1978:2) 22 Kikuyu rights of use of land were expressed variously, .t the most notable was to demarcate the area of tillage grazing land with big stones buried along its borders indicate not only the area of rights and privileges, t also to signify that the holder had those rights under a traditional guidelines. Although, the land was owned .lectively, traditional law recognized individual rights I that one's right to use the land allocated to him, was atter of human objectives. Thus, individuals had ab- ute rights over plants and crops; whatever was produced n the land allocated to them. iges in Kikuyu Land Tenure Land tenure first became a problem when the Kikuyu , expanding their territory south and north. In the h, since they had to acquire land from the Wandorobo, {u land tenure began to take different forms. One was the Githaka system—~the purchase of an estate, :h land or other uncultivated land. Most of the land t from the Wandorobo tended to be big in size. Leakey :109) explained that ”Some of the large estates bought tly from the Wandorobo and never subdivided by sub— 1t sales covered an area of up to 20 square miles." .yer of this land was symbolically known as Mwathi—— g ruler of the land. 23 The notable variation about land purchase in the 1th, known today as Kiambu district, was that land could bought by individual members or by a group of brothers. ikey has reported, If the land was bought by several brothers jointly... the senior brother, who was in charge of the negotiation on behalf of his brothers and himself, was the Mwathi, but the others had equal rights in the estates, subject to any special agreements made be— tween them at the time of the purchase. (Ibid) An individual purchaser had the right of disposal 1e saw it fit. In joint purchases, the right of dis- d Was vested in the senior brother, who had carried out the negotiations. The other brothers had, however, some say in the matter, and they could claim the right to dispose of a part of the estate proportionate to the amount they had con— tributed to the purchase price. They could not, however, sell their portion without first offering it to the remaining members of the family syndicates, who would usually exercise their option so as to prevent subdivision of the estate. (Ibid) Most revealing is that as the population increased, cularly in Kiambu District, land tenure began to The southern Kikuyu began to see changes in land the arrival of the white settlers. For example, f the land units which had remained large began to o subdivision into smaller units. Some units were 24 ubdivided further into one acre plots. Despite some of nese early changes in the Kikuyu Githaka system, Kikuyu, 1 the Twentieth Century insistently contended that the Lndamental changes in their traditional system occurred ly after the colonialists had arrived and introduced vere economic policies which drove large populations f their lands. The Kikuyu believed, all evidence to a contrary, that the establishment of the Githaka system i not affect the Mbari system.in any way, that it was nri which had absolute rights over the land. The Kikuyu i not recognize the fact that their natural population rease had any impact upon their land neither did they ieve that Githaka had any impact on their Mbari system. tead, they believed that the problem of shortage of land due to the colonial settlement. They claimed that ii system was only to protect the individual members exploitation and from any encroachment by any member another tribe. This claim was totally accepted by of the Kikuyu political analysts. For example, there upport in The Report of Committee on Native Land Ten— 'n Kikuyu Province (1929:67) which explained that i is simply the method of clan and patriarchal control ssing themselves in relation to the land." The truth e matter was that the Kikuyu perceived the world in they existed in the form of beliefs rather than in al form. Lacking scientific knowledge, a Kikuyu saw orld and explained it only through beliefs. He was —--——7" 25 ot only a believer, but an idealist. Thus it was impossible or the white settlers to understand the Kikuyu's land owner- 1ip system. Beliefs and Ideologies Toward Land The Kikuyu believed that they were the descendents of e Gikuyu and Moombi(cu§pum¢flj as their great ancestors. cording to early Kikuyu legends, referred to in Kenyatta's 3k, "The tribe first established its homes around Kere— iga, now known as Mt. Kenya." (1942:24) Kenyatta pointed ., ”It was upon this mountain which the High God of the .uyu people dwelt, while performing His mysteries...The dition says that it was on this mountain the Mwere—Myaga eared to be the man Gekoyo or Gikuyu, the founder of the be." (Ibid) The legend claimed further that the Kikuyu God (the Elder) had created Gikuyu and gave him a wife called bi. Moombi had ten children, all of whom were girls. frican societies, having only girls is considered a e to the family, because once the parents were de— d, there would be no one to inherit the property. In African societies, it was taken for granted that in- ance of the property was ordained only to the men not e women. This made it quite hard for a family that lave all girls. The question then was, how could the u andbkxmflxihave a family unit that could extend to —"’— 26 tribe, since they did not have a male child? In the uyu story, they descended from Gikuyu and Mumbi. Their cendence thus had to be matriarchal because Gikuyu had nale child. Gikuyu's ten daughters, except one, were tied. The Kikuyu explained this phenomenon as a matter inged by God. They believed that it was through God's :ruction, that the daughters brought their husbands to ‘ up residence in their wives' parents' homesteads. This, urn, created nine clans which later emerged as the Kikuyu e we see today. This common belief among the Kikuyu linked them as it. This common belief also made the Gikuyu declare the land was given to him by God (the High Elder), and it was the best possible. Based on this philosophical .ism, the Kikuyu were conditioned to believe that they always to remain together as a unit. This is not only ter of historical fact, but a reality that still echoes e memories of many people today. Evidence supporting is found in the speeches of the late president of Kenya, Kenyatta. As he rose to power in 1964, Kenyatta suc- Ly stated, ...Never forget to give thanks to Mwenye, Nyaga, or Ngai, (the High God) for they say that when He was putting into shape the country that He gave us, He was not in hurry but took great care to make the country beau— tiful and fertile. He set mountains and hills in their proper places. He made the forests , grow in abundance to beautify their slopes and provide grasslands for domestic and wild animals 3to graze in contentment. (Kenyatta, 1942) V 27 Because of the region's beauty and plentiful rain- , the Kikuyu people believed that their God favored them lse Gikuyu, the founder of the tribe, was a man of high act and God honored him and his people. For this rea— :he Gikuyu would say, Look what God has given us! The land with plenty of water, plenty of food, numerous hills and space for grazing out domesticated animals. Yet, compar— ing this to other places, God did not take his time to give everything they needed. (Ibid) in saying this, the Kikuyu would address their God "ayers: 0 our heavenly Great Elder, we are thankful for the natural gifts which you have bestowed upon us, like the lands of our neighbours, some of which you passed over in a hurry, and threw one river here and another there, leaving the rest of the country dry and in many places unforested. (Ibid) Thus the Kikuyu used their beliefs as an instrument eir unity. They believed in equity among their own rs and that their secrets should not be revealed to lers. To the Kikuyu, the land, as explained, was beyond possession. Putting this perception in an objective L, Mbiti (1967:35) explained, 28 The land provides them with the roots of existence, as well as binding them mystically to their departed. People walk on the graves of their forefathers, and it is feared that anything separating them from these ties will bring disaster to family and community. This psychological link of the Africans with the d, suggests that to understand the African social, econ— c and political life, it is necessary first, to under— nd their beliefs. To the Africans, their beliefs sub— tute for science. It is through beliefs that an African explain the unexplainable. The African mind operates cessfully in the world of belief. “To ignore these tra- ional beliefs, attitudes and practices can only lead a lack of understanding of African behavior and prob— s." (Mbiti, l970:l). Because of their beliefs, to the ican people the individual land claim not only becomes >ssible, but also a practice that would create in- ality among the society's members. This explains why lunalism was considered a master stroke for retain— equality or equity. Addressing the moral concern of the Kikuyu for social ty, Kamau (l978:7) pointed out, "Land was communally among the Africans because they believed in equality. as believed (and reasonably too) that treating land commodity subject to ownership could lead to enslave— Of some people by others." In other words, the Kikuyu 29 recognized, even before the whites came, that there another system of ownership and it was this that they not want to practice because they believed it would I to inequality. To the Kikuyu, inequality among their >ers was evil. They wanted their community to remain way it was and, as the literature reveals, this was ,table and inseparable from the land. The Kikuyu re— ed to see himself separately from the land that pro— :d him with water (because land is the container); the i that provided him with food, (because it is from the l that the Kikuyu grows his vegetables and provides ‘5 for livestock), and the land which provided him with ter (because it is on the land that the Kikuyu builds thatched or mud house). The Kikuyu thus believed their land was irreplaceable, for no one piece of is like any other. The fundamental thing that pervades the literature erning man's perception of his own universe is his :ionship to land. Man's relation to land raises a .a1 question as to what right he has to claim land lake it his possession. The answer to this question recome clearer as the subject of ownership is dis— d and analyzed. 30 The Concept of Land Ownership As Viewed by the Kikuyu As we are dealing with the subject of ownership, should indeed be understood is that the question of is critical for several reasons. One major reason :5 importance to the survival of man on this planet. leakey (l927:8) has thus indicated ”land is an essential in the economy of population and, as such, it becomes sirable asset, and the system of land tenure becomes rimary importance.” Land ownership among the Kikuyu, as among the rest 1e African people, was clearly understood,as a system of 1nal ownership. The land was collectively owned; it :he Mbari but not its individual members who owned the Hailey (1957:96) has given details. In such socities which are characterized by the traditional law, there is no op— portunity for land speculation, nor for the acquisition of large holdings...the landlords are not renters, and tenants are not tenants, in the English sense...the native customary law strictly limits the amount of land that the individual member may hold to the amount that he requires for the subsistence of himself or for the family as a unit. From a historical point of view, however, claims on nd actions taken toward owning it as a property were not ident. Men who claimed it and transformed it into in Ratcliffe (l976:9), ty did so deliberately. Rousseau, 31 _nted out, "original sin arose with the first man who 7 fit to appropriate land from the rest of the community delineating his own boundaries with stakes effectively )nouncing this is mine!" The main point here, is that [ership of land was always communal until such claims ~e made. It was therefore, as Rousseau indicates, that rnership of land began to take a different meaning from 2 previously existing system. It was such proprietory .itudes that have placed land in a special category; : category being the rights of ownership or use." (Ibid) Despite the facts presented by Rousseau, among tra— ,ional people, collective ownership was a defensive mech- sm against the spread of the absolute ownership system t emerged thereafter. The point is that African owner- p must be interpreted within its context. Otherwise, interpretations given it, would undoubtedly fail to vide a true meaning as it was seen by the African people. gayu (1978: l)has pointed out, ”there has been much de— 3 among the western—oriented jurists and anthropologists :he legal status of property among the Africans.” In process, Kiagayu claimed, ”These early researchers :d to fit Anglo—American jurisprudential terminology that of the Africans. They wondered as to whether cans knew of 'ownership' in the land, of the land ure' and related terms." (Ibid). The problem of the , , _ - ' ’ ll Jial administrators, or of the "western—oriented jurists, understanding the African ownership system was, I ation. ined a mystery to some western experts. in sum— a matter of cultural judgement or cultural misinter— It was cultural, because in the African owner— system, the idea itself existed in the belief. The ownership system of the African people always But some, like 010 had little difficulty in understanding the system. ing what he saw among the African people with what ew about the world at large, Cagnolo (1933:29) said, The question of ownership is a distressing problem of modern society. Ownership is so strictly connected with the nature and free will of man that it might be said to be a necessary attribute of his. In fact we find it in all the tribes even the most primitive and savage. however, that the African It must be pointed out, hip system cannot be understood simply on a system iefs, but must be understood as practiced. The ownership practices shocked many foreign travellers 1010 has demonstrated in his writing, saying, "It urprise to the early Catholic missionaries who toured Kikuyu country and found that the Kikuyu customary ownership recognized both collective and private ;p." (Ibid) Among the Kikuyu, ownership was granted The members were granted the right to own member. Land remained a property of k, sheep and goats. is how the What needs explanation, however, inity. acquired land. Land Acquisition in Kikuyu Country Among the Kikuyu people, the means to acquisition of iece of land varied. Traditionally, collective owner— p was the only system recognized but this society was static. Therefore, as the Kikuyu society changed, the le structure was also found to havechanged. The Kikuyu them- ves recognized this as a natural phenomenon that was be— their control. Objectively, it was true that among Kikuyu the known or approved method of acquisition of erty was by what was known in Europe as primogeniture—— ritance by the oldest son in the family. However, in some areas within Kikuyuland, particularly he south, in Kiambu, land was acquired by purchase. bu was purchased by the Kikuyu from the Wandorobo hunters occupied this highland region before it came under in domination. Unfortunately these transactions were ‘ recorded and knowledge of the date remains only spec— ve. Most of the areas were purchased as Githaka—— e. Githaka land belonged to the purchaser. The situation with regard to acquisition of land ambu was very different than in the rest of the re— Here, families who were poor, who could not afford a piece of land from the Wandorobo, could become 5 on the estates of wealthier men in the hope that _. w, m. day they would acquire sufficient wealth to buy land becOme the founder of the Mbari--the subclan. Another way, particularly in areas where the Githaka em was fully established, was what the Kikuyu called i-—meaning tenant at will. This has been described eakey (1903:117) as follows: A man who was a member of a landowning family might have a well established 'homestead'of his own and not wish to move away, but at the same time, he might be suffering from shortage of arable land on the family estate. In such circum— stances, he would approach some friend or acquaintance who was the owner, or joint owner, of a large, newly acquired estate as yet underdeveloped, and ask for permission to have an area of the new land to clear and cultivate. asking for permission to have an area to cultivate [other customary way of acquiring a piece of land. r method, as it was understood in the Kikuyu tra— al law, was by negotiation. The traditional law ad that the Kikuyu who was landless, or the Kikuyu .t that he did not have enough land or that his land sroductive, was to approach the person he regarded lawful owner of land for which he wished to negoti— ue requirements for this procedure were as follows: seeker had to make sure that everything was con- iroperly, mannerfully and with all respect, (2) he ake sure that everything was clearly understood by ties, (3) the land seeker had to be sure that he comply with what the landowner required in order to ven the land, and (4) the seeker had to agree to pay id, for instance, he could either agree to fell the as a means of payment or he could take the land on 1 and pay gradually. A notable characteristic of the Kikuyu people was fairness in dealing with their own people. The Kikuyu rought up to be considerate of others, particularly ir own members. For example, the Kikuyu traditional quired that in negotiations, both parties must be satisfied with what they achieved. Any attempt to r to manipulate the other was forbidden and tradi— ly condemned. This held true for the Kikuyu acquisi— = the Wandorobo lands for simple reasons. The Kikuyu rd in the power of departed spirits. As Dr. Leakey lained, ...if they took the land by force, the spirits of the Wandorobo who were killed iefending their land...would bring super— iatural punishment upon the invaders, cause :heir flocks and herds to die, their crops :0 fail, and drought to destroy the land. p.90) eakey goes on, ”once mutual agreement was reached required price was paid, the whole procedure was >sed and endorsed by ceremonies as a preliminary.” He then explained, “if a land transaction took bout a preliminary ceremony of adoption, neither 36 ‘ would feel in any way bound to honor the agreement... hole proceedings would be outside the jurisdiction of r the Kikuyu or the Wandorobo courts.” (p.91) The ion ceremony placed the land transaction on a legal ng for both parties and made it absolutely binding oth. Their land tenure system and the ways Kikuyus red land were later reflected in their mode of pro— 01"). The Kikuyu Mode of Production The land tenure system determined Kikuyu productive ities. Their traditional economic activities, have described by Leontiev (undated). Under conditions of primitive communism there could be no place for social groups living on unearned income. There was no exploitation of one part of the community by another...at that stage of human de— velopment, the instruments of labour were very simple, so that there could be no question of private property in tools; everyone was able to prepare for himself a spear, a stone, a bow and arrow. In the traditional communities, Leontiev claimed, The population was very small in numbers. It was collected only on the territory of the tribe....The division of labour was quite primitive, the work was simply divided between the two sexes.... Each sex was master of its own field of activity and owned the tools made and used by it.... The household was communistic, compriSing several, and often many, families. What— ever was produced and used collectively, was regarded as common property.... 37 Supporting this assertion, Leakey (1903:168) has ”the men (the Kikuyu) used their cultivating knives... it down all the bushwood and undergrowth, and made piles liS ready for burning. This done, the bigger trees had a felled with axes." (p.37) To cultivate the land after clearing it, the Kikuyu ioed it. Mostly, they used a big digging stick called 3133. The women would follow with the knives and short Lng sticks to break the soil into a soft gravel. They : the grasses and made sure that the roots were dug and :hem into piles. The simplicity of their instruments )roduction and a lack of sufficient organization meant (ikuyu were unable to produce a surplus. Whatever [cements they made went to feed themselves and produce h to take them into the next season. The Kikuyu, however, had the stamina to compete with e and over the course of time it was evident that they making progress in agricultural production. Their ction relations eventually stimulated a semi—development 3 material productive forces in the region. Despite there was no development of technology and this led failure to develop large—scale farming. This lack of -scale agricultural development led Kamau (1978: 6) lent that, ”Africans were neither cultivators, pastor— Or hunters whose life was largely communal.” Kikuyu 38 :ulture, however, was considered more advanced than T neighbors. The single factor controlling their econ— relations was land. To lack a piece of land, to a Iu, could be compared to a person with a body that does Jossess a soul. When the soul was absent, it was clear life was gone and the body would have to follow. To :uyu, a person without land was dead. It was not physi— eath,in a literal sense, but rather a death of his a to his family, his clan, and the people around him. In addition to their skills as cultivators and the rtance of their vegetable farming activities, the Kikuyu .e were known for their intensive activity in raising .e, sheep and goats. This simply meant that the Kikuyu in a real sense, mixed farmers. To some extent, raising cattle, sheep and goats was d as just as important a function as being a culti— . Raising livestock was essential because it helped d a balanced diet and because the Kikuyu used the tock for exchange. It was as money is to western peo— id was used to purchase food and for the payment of price. When the Kikuyu had to buy a piece of land, ; goats or sheep that were used to pay for the land. (er words, the Kikuyu economy was a mixed economy based iculture. Miracle (1974) has explained that, "By 1895, (the ) were already long past being 'subsistence' farmers 39 any of the various senses that term is used." The pro— ess in their agriculture was gained by intensification d variations in crop produced. Miracle, further states, ot only was there a considerable surplus being generated most households, but there was a complex system of in— rnal marketing." (Ibid) "Because of the varied geo— aphic, climatic, and soil conditions, Kikuyu farmers ew many different crops, certain regions specializing in rticular commodities and exchanging their goods with her areas at large, periodical markets.” (Tighor, 1976: 8) Nonetheless, by Western standards, the Kikuyu econ- ic system, was considered primitive in many ways: (I) lacked a system of economic organization that could ful— 11 the need for technology, (2) it was not an effective ans of production that would be able to meet industrial nand; (3) it lacked commercialization tendencies, (4) lacked a system of hired labour, and (5) most of all,it iained primitive in that it had the characteristics of ,mitive development. Men and women worked in common \ consumed the fruits of their joint labor. In pursuing 5 subject further, it is appropriate to analyze how or division was carried out. 40 The Kikuyu Division of Labor The tribal social structure, according to Lloyd 34) was, "The basic social divisions are not between intal strata, defined in terms of wealth and power, :rtical divisions into descent groups, therefore, the t of man's labor was largely his own, although he have to support elderly kin and pay a relatively amount to the chief. Among the Kikuyu, Edmond Cariechi (1977221) pointed The particularly heavy duties which custom laid upon the women were: raising the children, providing enough food from their gardens to suffice the whole family and frequent guests; performing the greatest part of the agricultural work; providing water and firewood for domestic use; thatch— ing and plastering the huts, carrying loads (usually food crops and firewood) not only to the homestead, but also to the market places or other distant locations and back. .ture and the rearing of the livestock, such as goats, cattle and chicken were the men's main occupations. family, a husband, wife and children constituted omic unit, strengthened and controlled by the sexual n of labor. The traditional law in many cases re- that it was the men who attended to the livestock, am to the field and brought them back home. In cases asance or theft, the traditional law determined that een's duty to handle the situation. 41 In addition to what has been mentioned as the men's it was also their duty to cut timber for building and irewood. The men were supposed to clear the farming s and cut the grass for thatching. The most important espected one, was that they had to protect the village ts surroundings. It was customary for the women to meet the needs of husbands, families and homes. In other words, to rm those duties usually described as domestic work. on the other hand, were mainly concerned with outdoor ommunity activities. The division of labor was rooted cial organization of the society. In this traditional community, these social roles strictly defined. The late president of Kenya, in 30k, Facing Mount Kenya, wrote: From the homestead to the tending of the domestic animals, every sphere of acti— vity is clearly and systematically defined. According to tribal customs which govern the division of labour, no man would dare to indule in any [women's] activities ex— cept in an emergency, or otherwise, he would scandalize the women and it would be difficult for such a man to get any girl to marry. (Kenyatta, 1953:53) 42 In the words of a female informant in Nyeri: "In early days, particularly in Kikuyu, a man could not :h any duty that was supposed to be a woman's duty, if he did, it would be considered a taboo in the whole nunity.” She said that by the traditional customs, “a was supposed to be the protector, and the owner of the Lly property such as cattle, goats, sheep and war imple— :s. Women, in turn, were to rear children and see that Lr husbands were properly taken care of.” (Wamboi) In a small village in Muranga, an elderly woman about (ears of age said, "It was a great surprise to see that Lkuyu man today would do some work that ten to twenty TS ago he could not think of doing.” Her eyes wide 1 surprise, she exclaimed that, "Things have really ged." The elderly woman argued, however, that things changing from bad to good. According to her, this ge that she observed was good because the Kikuyu men beginning to realize and to appreciate the usefulness amen. She concluded by saying that, ”this change shall Lnue and one day, a Kikuyu man and a Kikuyu woman shall 3 their roles equally without gender feelings.” Among the Kikuyu, the division of labor existed not between men and women, but also among age groups. The ion of labor here was arranged hierarchically depending There was a warrior class. age rather than on skill. eir duties were to defend and carry out raids and they re the police. These people were supposed to be young physically healthy. The elders, on the other hand, e the supreme commanders of justice. They were the cutives and they intepreted and applied the laws. They e also the peacemakers. There was also a group who imed talents and powers ordained by supernatural beings. 5 group was known as the magicians. They were the re- lers of unknown forces. They claimed that they could l the secrets of the raiders, and when they were to raid. y also had those who were known as planners. This group nned raids and were also the hunters. All of these ies were performed by men. Women were not allowed to ticipate in activiites that demanded strength or skill. :ead, Kikuyu social inequality, based on age and sex, not only demonstrated in the division of labor, but Din their political system. Kikuyu Political Structure The Kikuyu people believed that they descended from :ikuyu (the Great Elder). The Gikuyu, on the other believed himself the most perfect man and it was hat reason that God gave him a beautiful land. The 1 also believed that he was the government, the super- and the only leader of his people. The Kikuyu political ructure was therefore rooted in the oligarchal type of vernment. The Gikuyu governing body was a tyranincal, despotic and above all, a rigid one. Its rigidity was clear in its policies. Such policies re: (1) denial of Kikuyu permanent settlement, the Kikuyu re not allowed to settle in one place for a long time, (2) couragement of temporary settlement, for traditional law quired them to be ready to move anywhere for defense of eir beloved country, (3) a requirement that a man must ready to leave his family for as long as the government ted him. The Gikuyu, the Great Elder, believed not only a strong government but also a well disciplined army to ard and defend the country from attack or raid. He de- xded that the country be protected from the barbaric peo— r—-the people he referred to as "the last choice of God.” 5 phrase meant "the people whom God did not want on earth, unfortunately were brought here and were settled in a ten land, and now they are wandering all over the place {ing for a better land to settle, but they cannot find except the Kikuyuland.” (Wanjoi) In discussing the Kikuyu political system, it should nderstood that their political framework emerged after Kikuyu men revolted against the women. As has already mentioned, the Kikuyu women ruled with great terror. 'omen inherited the political system of the Gikuyu——who despotic, tyrranical and fascist ruler in his time. 45 After his death, his lands and political power passed 0 his nine married daughters, who passed it to their daugh- rs. This matriarchal system prevailed for many years be— re the Kikuyu males revolted against it and destroyed it d forced it out of the Kikuyu social system. Prior to is destruction of the matriarchal system, the Kikuyu women d not only enjoyed the privileges, but they also accumulated great deal of political authority and social power that reatened their male counterparts. (Oral history handed waniKikuyu tribes). At the peak of the Kikuyu women’s political supremacy, ording to oral history, the Kikuyu males felt oppressed. ey felt that they had lost their pride in being men like ier men in patriarchal systems. As the Kikuyu men travel— [ to neighboring communities, they learned from them that was the men who were supposed to play the role of being administrators, the controllers and the breadwinners the family. The women, on the other hand, were claimed 3e subordinate to the men. Their duties were to take :rs and to maintain the family home. This interaction the neighbors, consciously or unconsciously, led the yu males to act in their own behalf. They slowly be— politically conscious and began to ask critical ques— ; about themselves, their future, and what kind of ‘ty the Kikuyu should have. The males began to become istic and chauvenistic. They started to believe that 46 was wrong for a woman to lead the family because, they I, a woman was not naturally created equal to man, that ruling of women over men was unnatural. In justifying their move toward change, the Kikuyu es argued that so long as the women were in control, the lyu as a unit would not be capable to defend itself .tarily against outside invaders. They claimed con— :ingly that the Kikuyu land was precious, so fertile, physically beautiful that many people admired it, and "efore, it required a strong defense, and this defense .d be provided only if the males rose in power and took the responsibility. Thus, the revolt succeeded with— physical resistance. After the men's revolution was tessful, the Kikuyu nationalists formed what they called ma ya Itwika" (the Council of Revolutionists) to draft constitution. The first council was held at Mokorwe athaka, a central location in Muranga District. In council, it was declared that: (1) people shall ac— a a piece of land and develop it through ownership by family, (2) a universal tribal membership was to be alished as a means of unification, (3) membership was a by birth, not by wealth, (4) the government would be .e hands of the elders, and (5) this position would be mined by an age—set or age—grade system. As a result of their new policies, the new govern— ouncil also made some changes in other areas. 47 What the government did was to: (l) transform the aditional matriarchal and matrilineal system to a patri— :hal and patrilineal society; and (2) transform the try— nical government to a more democratic one. To do this :cessfully, the Council of Revolutionists created a system lled ”Rotation of Generation." The Kikuyu community was is divided into two communities——"A“ and "B” communities. ” stood for the first generation and ”B” for the second ieration under the names of MEEBQL and Maina respectively. a Rotation of Generations simply implied that the first ieration——Mwangi——came to power and ruled for a period of to 40 years. Thereafter, a traditional ceremoney was be performed, symbolizing that their rule was over, and at the new generation, Maina, was ready to take over the linistration. The new generation would rule for a similar 'iod of time, and then surrender their power and hand over to Mwangi again. The process was circular in na— e, but it is believed that this was the most democratic tem that had ever been practiced ( Leakeyzl938). The formation of the ”Njama ya Itwika" is believed nave taken placed approximately in 1800. Referring to 5 new governing body, Professor Muriuki (l974:110)ex- Lned, "The social organization was patriarchal, decen— .ized and highly egalitarian. The Kikuyu operations were 186d in the life of the people, and therefore, it was 48 simple to pinpoint one person as having absolute poli— al power.” Stressing the same point, Kenyatta (1938:45) been quoted as saying: ”The emergence of the new poli— al organization in the Kikuyu country led to power sharing the most equitable manner. This new government was the t democratic, fair and sincere to the welfare of the Kikuyu ple." Kenyatta emphasized this by Claiming that ”a ocratic government is one that is judged by its rules erning it.” (Ibid) Mutiso, however, viewed this change political structure more carefully. To him ”This age set tem led to specialization in an authoritative body where eldest age—set inherently monopolized the judicial and icy levels of authority, while the younger age—sets cate— ically monopolized executive positions.” (l975:5 ) Njama ya Itwika was not democratic, as Mutiso put it, ver was automatically granted and morally entrusted to old folks of the community.” (Ibid) The importance of this Rotation of Generations ac— .ing to some elderly Kikuyu men who still have the mem— of the Njama ya Itwika was that: 1. it prevented the political feud between those communities. 2. it satisfied Kikuyu needs by giving them equal political rights of representation in the Council of Elders. 3. it reduced their anxieties by laying out some specific rules that governed them and gave them protection. 49 4. it aided them by encouraging them to maintain the lineage system as a way of preserving what they called ”Kikuyuness." 5. it essentially gave the Kikuyu people the taste of what a democratic govern— ment is like. 6. it also gave them a sense of being one community and taught them how to mani— pulate the minds of other people when necessary. This traditional governing system, prior to the ing of the white settlers to Kenya in 1888, is not just iject of history, but a political system which many .tically minded Kikuyu of today are still hoping to :g back into operation. Kaplan, in evaluating Kenyatta's rnment from 1963 to 1978, indicated, Within the cabinet, five or six of the seven Kikuyu members were generally most closely relied upon by the president. In the mid 1970's they held five of the most important ministries and included several men who were rivals or potential rivals for the future leadership of the country. Nearly all were from the presi- dent's home district, Kiambu, closest to Nairobi, and accusations were frequently made by other Kikuyu that the Kiambu people profited unfairly in competition for patron— age as a result. (1976:230) The only major difference between the Njama ya a and the Kenyatta government of 1963 to 1978 was the Kiambu leadership that was represented by Mwangi 3t want to rotate with other Kikuyu from other districts 50 at were to be represented by Maina. Kenyatta's govern— 1t rejected the earlier sharing plan, which in turn, sated resentment between the Kiambu and the remaining stricts in Central Province and between Central Province a region and the other regions in Kenya. Kiambu, being a dominant political force in the region, deliberately :ked to widen the gap. The Kiambu people saw the govern— it as a property of the people of Kiambu. They called amselves "the Royal Family." The significant question, in dealing with the Kikuyu :ial systems prior to the invasion of the Western colonial .e, is whether the Kikuyu traditional social, economic 1 political system survived as it came into contact with a most advanced culture from the West. To adequately llyze this situation, the next chapters are intended to (mine the following points: 1. the colonial land policy that was established in the area; 2. what happened to the Kikuyu land rights, land use and land ownership; 3. the conflicts that came about as a re- sult of the land situation; and 4. the changes that are presumed to have taken place during this conflict of cultures. 51 The Problem of the Research Study The central problem of this research study is to examine the changing conception of land rights, land use and land ownership as a result of the colonial impact and the economic system established in the region, which in turn, gave rise to the nationalist political uprising, that further stimulated a new system of social order in rural Kenya. The purpose, however, is two—fold: (l) to advance a systematic explanation of the factors that have led to 3r contributed to social transformation in this rural com— munity, and (2) to advance the claim that the changing land rights, land use and land ownership in this predominantly agricultural rural community, not only led to social up— ‘ising, but also facilitated the conditions which brought Lbout the development of social inequality among these rural ultivators. In discussing these objectives, the central ocus is an attempt to empirically test the following pro— ositions. Proposition One: Changes in traditional land rights, land use and land ownership were directly related to the colonial land and economic policies imposed upon the area. Proposition Two: The expropriation of the Kikuyu lands and the colonialist's demand for cheap labor led to conflict over land. 52 Proposition Three: The conflict over land and __________________ the establishment of land reform created class inequality among the Kikuyu tribe Methodology and Sources of Data ________________________________ After describing the problem studied and the liter— ature on changes in land rights, land ownership and land ise, it is the researcher's intention in this chapter to >resent the propositions and to describe the methodology >f the research carried out for this study. In trying to avoid vagueness, each proposition was ubdivided into specific statements. ‘ (1) Proposition One. Changes in traditional land ights, land use and land ownership were directly related 3 the colonial land and economic policies imposed upon ie area. Subpropositions of Proposition One are: (a) the conditions that led to changes in land rights were associated with colonial land and economic policies, (b) the conditions that led to the changes in land use were associated with colonial land and economic policies, (c) the conditions that led to the changes in land ownership were associated with the colonial land and economic policies. The expropriation of the Kikuyu (2) Proposition Two. nd and the restrictions on their development led to the dis— ption of the colonial system. Subpropositions of Proposition Two are: (a) expropriation of the land from the Kikuyu created insecurity and loss of tribal co— hesiveness and peace, expropriation of land from the Kikuyu led (b) to conflicts over land, (c) restrictions on Kikuyu land development led to the disruption of colonial stability. (3) Proposition Three. Conflicts over land and the tablishment of land reform created class inequalities ing the Kikuyu tribe. Subpropositions of Proposition Three are: (a) the conflicts led to political compromise in establishing land reform, (b) the design of the land reform schemes led to inequality, (c) the need for cash crops production exacerbated social inequality among the rural Kikuyu. In order to analyze the propositions adequately scientifically, each proposition was discussed chrono= :ally, based on related gathered information. Testing lese propositions and determining their validity was primarily on the amount of material gathered. Each Field work also e was compared with other materials. Dur— i to determine whether the testing was adequate. .eldwork, the researcher's notes were analyzed and 54 mpared with archival information. Each proposition was sted in the light of related information gathered. The eater the amount of information gathered, the more con— dence possible in validity of the test. The methodologi- 1 process undertaken was of the documentary research type, pplemented with fieldwork.. The procedures were conducted described below. Methodological Framework Since the study dealt with social change per se, : documentary research approach was viewed as the most iable and scientific methodological process. Documen- y research described digging out all the pertinent in— nation from national archives and from documents issued Local and national governments. It is scientific in it rests on the most unbiased and reliably documented rmation. The information can be tested against other ting information. In the study of the Kikuyu people antral Kenya, both primary and secondary research were .ed out in investigating the subject. dary Research This research covered documentary materials,written >y early travelers, explorers, missionaries and slave s and included national, district and provincial 55 ives. Additional information came from British Land ce files, publications of the Kenyan Agricultural De- journal articles, professional ment, library books, rs, and bulletins. Statistical information came from Kenyan Central Bureau of Statistics, the National Geo~ ical Society and the Department of Geography at the rsity of Nairobi. ry Research This research involved primarily fieldwork, al interviews, oral materials and discussions with ent and knowledgeable people in the area such as the elders and primary and secondary teachers. The (a) the I‘ 3! “y sources were of two different groups: group that consisted of those who had no formal edu— but had knowledge about the subject. These people I lder and knowledgeable in local affairs simply because id experienced the crises in the forties and fifties. .ge categories ranged from the fifties to the seven— Talking with these people was extremely educative seemed to remember almost every incident that had i to them or to their relatives or friends. They :plain at length about the land case, and, and the crises between families or between yu and the government. This group included such including the alienation wledgeable men as the chiefs, the headmen, the subheadmen other tribal dignitaries. The second group consisted the so—called "educated elite”, such as high school stu- 5, school teachers, college students and professors at university. In order to carry out such interviews without con- Lon and without redundancy, questions were formulated Tuide the discussions that were consistent with the >ositions. Discussions were informal and the number of icipants in each interview was small. In many cases, number could not exceed two people. This way, the dis— ions were kept short without wasting the participants' . Also, in this way every subject could participate Ly. In most cases, primary sources were interviewed 1e market place or at any place convenient to them where could speak freely and comfortably. The routine was et with women and men separately. Traditionally, is appropriate because each sex can discuss any sub— without offending the other. The questions were con— :ed as indicated below. (1) Introduction questions: (a) What is your name? (b) How old are you? (C) Are you married? (d) How long have you lived here in the neigh— borhood? (e) (f) (2 V (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 57 What do you do for living? Do you have children? General questions related to land: Did the Kikuyu own land? What was ownership to the Kikuyu? Was land owned by individual members or held in common by one or more groups? How did the Kikuyu regard land? Could the people do without land? Was land ownership in the days before colonization different from ownership today? (3) Specifics related to land: __________________________ (a) (b) (c) (d) Do you own land? If yes, how much? If not, why? What is land to you? Could you survive without a piece of land? (4) Questions regarding Land Rights: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) What designates a person as the owner of a piece of land? If the land is owned by the clan, or the family, what rights do they have over the land? Do you understand what I mean by the word ”rights"? Is the Kikuyu land registered? If yes, under whose name? If not, what designates that it belongs to a person or a group? Were the Kikuyu satisfied with their own system? (f) 58 Do you find a difference in rights today? In other words, are land rights today similar to land rights in the days prior to the colonial era? (5) Questions related to Land Use: _______________________________ (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) How did the Kikuyu use the land, prior to the colonial era? What farming tools were they using? What crops were they producing? Were they producing them for their own use or for other purposes? Are you familiar with the crops you are producing today? Would you prefer to go back to the old system of land use or retain the new method? Can you explain? (6) Questions related to Colonialism: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Do you know what land alienation is about? What is it to you? Are you familiar with the land situation in this area? Do you know anyone in your family or a friend or a neighbor who lost his land or her land during the colonial era? Did this happen to you personally? If so, how much of your land did you lose? Did loss of your land affect you in any way? What did you do? And, what did the Kikuyu do collectively? Do you think that the Kikuyu's reaction to the situation was justifiable? If so, why? 59 (7) Questions related to Land Settlement Schemes: (a) What were the land settlement schemes? (b) Were they useful? (c) Were the Kikuyu pleased with these programs? (d) Did these programs solve any problems? (e) Did the majority of the Kikuyu benefit from them in terms of distribution of land? (f) Were you personally satisifed? The questions were used only as guidelines and only * collecting information. Since the information gathered >m the interviewees were basically personal views, the rormation was compared with similar material gathered from : documented information to make sure that the reliability the study was not subject to faulty memory or personal 5 but depended on material that had been fully documented. action of Study Area ___________________ The choice of Central Province for study was made :he basis of the known and unknown conditions which have this region historically different. In the View of on (1955:116) The Kikuyu were not the only people in Kenya who were affected by the British land policy and economic system. On the contrary, the Masai, Kavirondos, Kamba, and Nandi people were also affected by the nature of colonial— ism. However, the case of the Kikuyu people was of special significance in that they possessed, at the time of the advent of the Europeans, what was probably the finest farming land in all of Kenya. 60 It was in Kikuyuland where the majority tlers settled in large numbers for many Central Province is located between the on the Coast and the connecting road to of the white set— reasons. First, road to Mombasa Kenya and Uganda in the West. The region is also located between two moun— tains-—Mt. Kenya and the Abardare Range--which have given the region a natural endowment of agricultural potential. 1150, its location about 130 miles from the capital has Iade the settlement there tranquil. More important factors were due to what Furedi (1974: 88) has indicated, The impact of European settlement in Kenya was mostly directed at the Kikuyu people because the Kikuyuland borders Nairobi, and the region is situated in a highland area. This made it impossible for the region to escape the white encroachment. : must be understood also that the lack of experience (at the Kikuyu in Central Province had had with the out— de world made them particularly vulnerable to the changes ought by the white settlers. Thus, it is in Central ovince that the social, economic and political effects white settlement can best be seen. As a part of the methodological process history has in viewed in this study as a tool, not only to enable us understand change processes but also to update them. It is argued here that rural transformation in the uyu land was a subject of history. As the subject is 61 and his own environment, it is not only a historical ar, but sociological phenomenon as well. Durkheim in )ff's Sociology and History is credited with the fol— ______________________ 1g quote: To study the present from the point of View of the present is to be enslaved by all the momentary needs and passions of the day. It is necessary to go into the past to uncover the deeper lying forces which, though often unconscious, are so largely determinative of the social process. (1974:88) Indeed, the researcher contends that to understand (plain those forces that induce change, we need to leavily on historical and sociological data. This :ause history and sociology are intimately inter— :d and interdependent. As a social historian, it is ible to believe that one can possibly explain ade— y and convincingly those forces that tend to reshape our society without relying on socio~historical data. levance, the need and the concern for historical :iological sources is discussed in Appendix A. Summary and Conclusion The purpose of this study has been to analyze the in the Kikuyu traditional land rights, land use d ownership. Loss of the tribal land was, in a sense, 5 of tribal identity and most of all, the loss of 62 ,ective pride. For Kikuyu people, land was their security. Western man is not secure without some savings in his account. To a Kikuyu, his piece of land represented savings account. In times of crisis, the Kikuyu man ed for help to his land. When he retired, he retreated is piece of land where he rested for the rest of his In the study, it became clear that, as a result of alienation of the Kikuyu land and being restricted from Lcipating in modern commercial agriculture, unequal de— >ment resulted in economic, social and political spheres white settlers remained a superordinate, advanced group, enjoyed all the privileges. This research study argued that the rural Kikuyu, to the advent of the colonial era, lived comfortably eacefully, free from all restrictions. Their move- as unrestricted and they managed to preserve their identity and kept their family ties intact until the arrival of the colonial settlers in the early enth century. It was then, the Kikuyu claimed, that egan to have problems related to land and to the and community as a whole. Most essentially, they to have difficulty in keeping tribal life intact. As lt, their community disappeared following dispersion al peOple into squatting conditions on white plant- 63 The evidence shows that the Kikuyu not only lost tribal links and social activities that they had 'ed for many centuries, but also lost their tribal .ity and became homelss and landless as well. These tions forced the Kikuyu into defiance of the colonial ies. Throughout the period, the land issue was the al axis around which Kikuyu political expression ed. The immediate response to such expression was lative, impressive and designed to placate rather satisfy. The whites and the Kikuyu both recognized reform as the solution. The whites saw that providing to the Kikuyu was itself a protective measure for own economic establishment in Kenya. There is no that this move benefitted the white settlers more he Kikuyu who actually needed help. The Kikuyu had different views about the consequen— the land reform. They believed that land reform provide them with land and that every Kikuyu family benefit economically. They also thought that after ent, they would go back to their old lifestyles. eam was far from reality. Instead, the findings at the Kikuyu became more divided than before. onditions, however, helped them to become futuris- ganized and better planners. They eventually be— e best competitors in the new system. They adjusted 64 z to modernity and became producers and the consumers >ducts from overseas. Colonial life unexpectedly oriented the Kikuyu to :chniques of colonial farming. It must be said that, the Kenyan ethnic groups, it was the Kikuyu people arned the proper way of participating in those econ— dvantages that once upon a time, were restricted only white settlers. This reality became inevitable be- of the Kikuyu experience. As we conclude, the ques- osed is whether the drastic changes in the Kikuyu order would have been possible if the white-settle- ad not taken place in this part of Kenya. Also, in tudy there were two things that were evidenced: (1) observed that transformation of the old Kikuyu order the economic achievement of a new powerful progres— rmers who had understood the situation better and ed it, and (2) this benefit made by only a handful le led to the development of inequality based on 1 possessions among this rural community. Chapter eals with land alienation as the source of land prob— the region. CHAPTER THREE LAND ALIENATION AND PROCESSES OF DEVELOPMENT To understand why the Kenyan highlands became a get for British colonial settlement from 1900-1960, and these settlements were developed, it is necessary to I what were the internal forces in England that pro— .ed this migratory movement into Kenya for permanent :lement. Prior to becoming a world colonizer, England uged from a feudal state to a nation state and from a :antile system to one of permanent settlement. These ges, in turn, led to the establishment of a capitalis- mode of production. Such changes were linked to extra- ary forces at work within English social and political tures. One source of tension was the feud between who sought to increase their power and wealth and s that sought to increase their independence from 1 barons. From 1763 to 1914, Europe was the seat of in the world because it controlled Asia and Africa. ianos et al., (1974:145) have explained as follows: By the 15th century,...the feudal system had broken down as trade developed and man learned more of the world, (so) he became less ready to accept serfdom and lack of social and economic mobility, and more ready 65 66 to question many age—old explanations and beliefS. New attitudes developed. Humanists became curious about man, his search for happiness, and his place in the universe. Rationalists, rejecting superstition and theology as explanations and for occurrences, urged man to use reason to solve problems posed by his surroundings. (Ibid) In Starvianos, Andrews, Sheridan, McLane and Safford's :147) views: When Europe began her expansion about 1500, shexvasnot a particularly wealthy or econ— omically advanced region. The Europeans were lucky because the problem was solved with the discovery of the treasures of the newly discovered lands, and the founding of the African Slaves. ithors said this caused a great boom in Europe‘s in— ies. As a result, capitalism was born. Preston (1967: aid that the increase in industrial development be— a major internal force which moved the British in— .alist to look for more raw material to maintain this Iic structure. He claimed that “capitalism was not :ed, but evolved in the process by which mankind emerged ts historic dependence upon an agriculturally based y.” (37). The development of a capitalistic mode of tion in England became one of the major forces which Great Britain not only to become the first industrial— ation in Europe, but also a global colonial power. Internally, British government was experiencing un— ed development. Industry was growing faster than 67 .culture. To assure the proportional healthy develop— of industry, agricultural development was very necessary two reasons: (a) to stimulate the economy and, (b) (ustain growth. But since British territory could not )ort the fulfillment of these two demands simultaneously, ain looked for resources beyond its own borders. So, r the death of feudalism, the emerging policies of antilism encouraged trade and export as a means for ering raw materials needed by Britain. Mercantile System as an Economic Policy Wilson wrote ”mercantilism, in its innermost kernel, othing but state—making——not state—making in a narrow e but state—making and national economy—making at the time." As Wilson saw it, ”so far as the literature oncerned, mercantilism is a mirror large enough to re- t an infinite number of economic viewpoints." (1958:10) nercantile system became so important to the history :eat Britain because: (a) it shattered the feudal >my; (b) it changed the country from a state of short .y of raw materials to one of substantial supply and; ,t created the foundation upon which colonialism was Before the emergence of the mercantile system, men rope were forbidden to export materials needed by other 68 anufacturers. ”The export of coin and bullion was pro— ibited and numerous Acts for the encouragement of English nipping were already in the statute book.” (Ibid) Accord— ig to Wilson, mercantilism was a system based on the bal— ice of trade doctrine. As he put it, “We must alwaies take ire that we bie no more Ofstrangers than we sell them... >r so wee sholde umpoverish our solves and enriche them.“ >ld English) (p.11) The whole idea of the mercantilists was to export re than they imported. Their philosophy of the new econ— ic trend was as follows: If we send out more commodities in value than we bringe home, the overpluis cometh in Coynej but if we bringe in more, then the overphuis must nedes be paid for in money, and this is the measure of in— creasinge or diminishinge the Coyne, ex- cept of that little which is found within the realme. (Wilson) rcantilism, Buck (l942:3) said, "is more often used to ;cribe the policies of states during the 16th, 17th and 1h centuries than to identify the theories held by the 'ocates of those policies.” Anexaminationof internal European conditions, ticularly when feudalism was at its peak, reveals that re were at least three powerful forces at work which e of paramount importance to the development of the cantile system: (a) the rise of the nation-state, and 69 3e intimate relationship between mercantilism and the rowing strength of national institutions, (b) the com— arcial revolution which contributed to the development national economic policy, and (c) the decline of the adieval economy. It appears from British history that lese factors forced the British government to look for 1w materials lying at a distance. Besides internal economic developments, Britain's rlationship with the European community became an inescap— yle factor pushing Britain to take risks in its effort become a world power. In describing this relationship re Clearly, Horrock (1925:30) said: The definite establishment of mercantilism followed upon the result of the Hundred Years War, which had the effect of making England almost absolutely insular in regard to the continent, and the undoubted prevalence of mercantilism was ensured when that in— sularity had been made absolute by the loss of Calais. (Calais—-seaport in N. France) Internally, the Crown had begun to run out of re- nue. Horrock said that, The influence of merchandise acquired from foreign lands had eased a domestic rise in prices. The expenses of government had increased and were continually increasing. The royal revenue had not been placed on such a basis as would be adequate to meet the unchanged conditions. (p.47) 70 he mercantilist system matured economically and tically England drew closer to a free trade system and slowly but surely withdrew from her previous restrictive measure. Also, the middle class had grown stronger and the merchants had become politically powerful enough to force the Crown to lessen trade restrictions. For example, merchants advocated the removal of all restrictions in the interests of trade enlargement, a wider distribution of trade benefits, an increase in shipping, mariners, and in the wealth of all the land. (Horrock, 1925:47) Mercantile doctrine, as Horrock put it, “dominated ish economic policy until the latter part of the 18th iry, but even before the end of the 17th century some Ares of it were the subject of forcible attack.“ (p.85) ad, the emergence of liberal economic thought in the decades of the 18th century, as Rothermund (1981: 5) .ndicated, ”marked the end of the age of mercantilism. )oston Tea Party of 1774 was perhaps the most conspicuous e event which indicated that mercantilist policy had ved its usefulness.” A point worth mentioning about economic and political processes is that the end of ercantilist system was also the beginning of a per— t occupation of these foreign lands by developing trial giants. The new economic system that came to as a result of the death of the mercantile system, ientified by social and political historians as the iial system." 71 The Nature and the Goals of the Colonial System The term colonialism, as it appears in Webster's World Dictionary, is, ”the system or policy by which untry maintains foreign colonies, especially, in order xploit them economically.” Under the colonial settle— policy, not only was a system of domination created protected by military imperialism, but also exploita— through mining and plantation farming was begun. Africa was a large continent strategically located ie Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Its conquest .ittle resistance except in West African countries from South African natives. In East Africa there was >litical organization like Ashanti in Ghana, so re— ane was easily subdued. The moves to conquer the entire continent, however, d sharp conflicts within the competitive European nity. This conflict over Africa led to its parti— ng and further imposition of limitations upon the enous people who, prior to the partition, roamed y on their own accord. The date that marked the ialfoundation's partitioning of East African countries 180. England, the leading colonizer, was forced by 3f its rivals, Germany in particular, to make some nents. The German chancellor, Otto Von Bismark, Ly displayed his interest and concern. In 1884, Germany 72 3 a protection agreement with the Sultan of Zanzibar and, which lies off the coast of Tanzania. In 1885, Zanzibar came within the German buffer zone. 1 this short—lived conflict between Britain and Germany clearly understood, a final compromise was reached. This romise involved mapping out the areas which were pro— ed by Britain and those by Germany. Through this com— ise, Kenya became a British protectorate, while Tanza— :ame under German control. In brief, the procedures rtaken by Britain and Germany led towards a systematic lization. ; What has to be understood, however, is that although >artition of the continent opened up the avenues to .ization, the British did not jusk walk in and take The British government had to use military power to own resistance from the local people. Pruden and berg (1961:82) claimed that colonization of the weaker societies varied in the strength of the brutality applied to them. Some of these societies were colonized by force. In other words, the colonizers did so by using military power to put down any resistance or to expand other domains further to embrace everybody else. For example, the Chinese were demoralized by being forced to indulge in opium trade, where Africans quickly became pitiful victims of the lucrative trade in human slavery. In Kenya, the defeat of the native people was ed in two different ways: through Christianity and d military force. In military means, a good strategic ocess was employed; one group was pitted against another. this case, the British government allied with the Masai ainst the Kikuyu. Describing this strategic method used the British, Kaplan (1976:21) pointed out that, "the position of British control was handled very pragmatically ring this early period. Some native leaders were ex— ided special treatment to secure their friendship and Jport, and warring groups were played off against one )ther . " Despite this fact, the entry of the British colonial .repreneurs came later. Before inviting their farmers, ‘ British government made sure the land policy was clear. y prepared the areas that were to be made available for opean settlement. This was the first major task to be mplished before inviting settlers. It is interesting to note that Christian conversion to take the place of military force as a means to con- the natives. This was a transformation from a phy— 1 approach to a psychological approach. The British ned that a psychological approach was an everlasting ory because they had used it in England during the al period. It worked for them in England, and there- , they applied the same technique in Kenya by trying nvert the local people to Christianity and to teach to be loyal. Stavrianos (1974) and his colleagues d, ”the social and political system of feudalism and economic system of manorialism had reinforced and been Enforced by the structuralism of the church.” In England, during the feudal period, peasants and £5 worked on the manor owned by a vassal or lord. The ES were taught to accept their positions and they were i to obey the lord. Stavrianos said that the church, 1 its emphasis on faith and obedience to authority, >orted manorialism for many years. In Africa, Christianity was a political tool used :he tribes to breed a sense of loyalty to the Crown. in being loyal, the Africans only found themselves ‘ing a subordinate role in the new system. They were ht to believe that once one accepted the teaching of 1 st, and obeyed the rules of the master, one would auto— cally go to heaven. As a functional element, Christianity ike military power because it, too, worked as an opiate ppressing African resistance. Fruden and Steinberg (1961:83) argued, In the social field, the Europeans, consider— ing themselves superior in every way to the natives, often ran roughshod over native sen— sibilities, stamping out harmless customs that had long been sacred to the natives. The Europeans often indulged in cruelties and injustices toward the natives that were the very opposite of the Christian ideals that were being taught by missionaries. Before the British government took over the admin— tration, a private company known as the Imperial British st African Company was in charge of managing the country. is company, however, had failed to explore the interior id to provide the motherland with satisfactory informa— _on about the richness of the land. This failure of the >mpany led the British government to take over. On the other hand, the missionaries were also trying find out something about the country. While the missionar- s‘main concern was to convert people, they also made an fort to familiarize themselves with the lay of the land. e missionaries' growing knowledge of the natural resources Kenya eventually came into the hand of the imperial forces. Mombasa serves well as an example of how Christianity 1 exploitation go hand in hand. It was here where the sionaries first settled before they penetrated to the thest areas in Kenya. It was in Mombasa where the Arabs st landed seeking slaves and where the slaves were stored ore being shipped overseas. Finally, it was in Mombasa re Fort Jesus was built. Between 1846 and 1862, such well-known missionaries rart and Johann Rebman established their theological hing in Mombasa. In his discussion of the role and ribution of Christian missions in this part of Africa, is (1972:180) said, With an unquestioned belief in their own self-righteousness, and the depravity of Africans, missionaries were determined to change indigenous institutions and behavior and thus saw themselves as Christian agents of civilization. This meant that Africans had to be taught different values, goals, and modes of behavior. also said, Missionaries naturally tended to identify with colonial officials, with whom they shared nationality, culture and a general way of life, and it was they on whom the missionaries frequently relied for protection and contact with the outside world. (Ibid) is point, Pruden and Steinberg (1961282) have said, If colonialism seemed to make the world smaller by bringing its various parts into closer contact with each other, it also gave rise to increased rivalries and con— flicts, both between the Europeans them— selves as they competed for colonies and between the natives and their conquerors. eed of the Europeans for quick and easy wealth often em to exploit the colonies ruthlessly. The successful missionary activities in Kenya's or made it easier for the colonial settlers to ex— further those regions that had agricultural potential. also true that colonial settlers used missionary to subdue the natives. In addition, because the aries informed the Crown about the agricultural s of the interior, the imperial ruler moved in quickly 77 subdue the local people either by false promises or rough military means. Describing the methods and strategies used to sub— 3 the people, particularly the Kikuyu peasants who had :upied the most fertile land, Turnbull (1962:25) said, Here the Kikuyu once farmed the rich and pleasant land of the Kenya Highlands, and where they accepted pieces of paper from the first white men in exchange, they thought, for giving the white man permission to fill the unused soil and take its fruits. But the white man thought in different terms. From his point of view the land had been paid for and bought and it was his to do with what he liked...and what he liked was to turn off all the Kikuyu 'squatters' and keep his land for himself. :er the British had taken over and subdued the local in— )itants slowly but surely the British colonial administra— ‘s began the process of colonial settlement. The Settlement Process Actual settlement did not occur until 1802. This after Lord Delamere, the most prominent British Lord, visited Kenya in 1898. His trip to Kenya was recrea— nal at first, consisting of hunting across Somaliland ard Kenya. In the process, Lord Delamere learned much from the arnment officials such as Sir Charles Eliot (1901—1904) 78 Kenya, about this beautiful farmland. Delamere en— sioned the future of Kenya. He saw that Kenya contained yhland regions and temperate zones good for wheat and 51 items which did well on the world market. He also I rned from the earliest settlers, who had already oca ied the area, about the agricultural potential in some the regions of Kenya which they claimed needed only the icultural experts to adequately utilize the land. inning Permanent Settlement The central province was one of the regions that densely settled by the newcomers. This was primarily ause of the richness of the soil and favorable climatic iitions. Describing this regions natural gifts, Horst L6z38) said, The south central portion of Kenya is a beautiful land of high plateaus stretch- ing between mountains. Mount Kenya, in this area, reaches a height of 19,040 feet, and is 80 miles north of Nairobi. The Gregory Rift, extending in an almost straight line to the south from Lake Rudolph, is an immense trench almost 3,000 feet lower than the mountains which enclose it. (1964:403) explained these highland zones as "having all of over 50 inches a year, bracing atmosphere and siderable temperature range.” Most of these areas are Lble for agricultural development. 79 Settlement was begun with the introduction of a :y of what one would call agricultural apartheid. This :y first gave control of the land to the whites and Pd separated the land into two reserves: the white .he African reserves. The policy itself was known as alienation. Like other policies, it served at least functions: (1) It provided rich agricultural land sively to the whites; (2) It provided encouragement e idea of bringing more white settlers into Kenya for ient settlement, and; (3) It isolated the Africans and ied them into areas which had less potential than the given to the whites. It wasn't until this policy of [lienation was introduced that it became possible for numbers of whites to migrate into Kenya. In 1902, there were already about 500 whites in Out of these, there were only about 20 who were Ly engaged in farming. But, after the introduction 1 alienation policy, the numbers of European settlers Led continually. For example, in 1906, there were mately 700 new settlers. This number continued to e until the European population grew to over 1,800. aeginning of World War I Europeans numbered over Iith about 3,000 regarded as settlers. Once the of segregated settlement became clear, areas were mes in order to distinguish them from each other. 8O ne became known as the»White Highlands, exclusively for hite peOple and the other was known as the African Re— rves, exclusively for African people. Geographically, the White areas and the African areas re in the same regions except that most of the white areas (3 moreragricultural potential than African areas. After these areas were partitioned, the policy that ided them was made clear. Detailing this policy, Sorrenson 963:7) said, "It was made clear and properly stated to th parties that the Africans should not be allowed to ob— 'n land in the so-called European areas.” The White High- nds remained exclusively for white farmers until the time land reform in 1962 when the area was decolonized. The permanent settlement of Whites in the region : determined by two factors: (a) it was the type of nomic system established in the area. Explaining this e of economic system, Feuser (l974:8) said, "In the as which had been forced to become suppliers of raw arials for the metropolitan countries, colonialism re— ed the natives to the status of proletarians who had to in mines and in plantations." (b) it was the of political system that came to exist in the area, purpose of which was not only to promote certain econ- structures but also to protect them. The function of type of political establishment was not only to assure 81 otection, but also to link the colony to the mother— nd. White settlement, therefore, took different forms. e was when wealthy individuals bought land and settled re. Apparently, most of these areas were large in size, h as Boedecker's Farm, Mr. Brink's Farm, Miss Coleyer's m, Mr. Smith Mackenzie's Farm, Mr. Day's Farm, and Mr. d Delamere's Farm. Besides farms owned by individual holders, there e also farmers owned by South African syndicates, stock panies like Brooke Bond Tea Company, Church mission 0015 and East African syndicates which were primarily European origins. The Crown took some land for its vants, when, in 1921, after World War I, the British arnment set aside some land that was to go to British erans. These settlements were known as the soldier set- Lent schemes. Initially, there were about 257 farms, 60 acres per veteran. The government later expanded e farms to 1,053 farms covering 2.5 million acres. The success of these farms depended on two main >rs. (a) It depended on the background of the settlers; b) It depended on how ready the government was to pro— financial and technical assistance to growers. agkground of the Settlers Immigrants from Europe came from different socio- nic backgrounds. Some came from military barracks and FIIIIIIIIIll---"""'———————F— 82 aad no farming experience whatsoever. Others came from small towns, while others came from small farming commun— Some, like Lord Delamere, came from well—established Most -ties. 'amilies who owned plantations or estates in England. nteresting about these European immigrants, however, is hat, despite their differences, they all came from a feudal nvironment. They were the sons and grandsons of those who ad owned very large estates in England. They were the escendents of the vassals and not the serfs. These immigrants had their own visions and beliefs part from the generally accepted views on theology. Their eliefs said that the world must be made good materially. 1ey believed in material wealth and power as an answer > human misery. They saw the economy as the path toward .man improvement and in that they contended that the beauty economy is that of an exchange economy. The immigrants believed that the Kikuyu economy, practiced for many centuries, was an economic system at had no future. They were materialists, and wanted be rich like their forefathers. They wanted to pro- e enough for themselves as well as a surplus to feed industrial workers. Their intention was to establish economic system that produced a surplus. It was for reason that when they began to settle the first thing a 3 was recommended as a necessary procedure to make the lement productive was the need for more land and more 83 tlers. ”This demand for agricultural development," as nett (1975:7) said, “created a strong feeling among the tlers that the native should be made more amenable to opean supervision.” As stated, the European immigrants had come from .dal states. So, when they arrived in Kenya, their dream , to establish an agricultural system similar to that .ch their grandfathers had operated under in England. other words, their intention was to create a new England Kenya. The new economic system came in the form of Lntations established in an enclave form. 'ernment Assistance to Settlers The recurring crop failures caused the government become involved in assisting the settlers, the govern— t had learned in the bad years that the settler economy led to perform adequately because the government was providing the necessary means for development. It :luded that, for these farmers to be able to produce actively, it would require the government's commitment >roviding those elements that could stimulate the econ— To do this, the government adopted the South African omic model. The South African model was, (a) to get the govern— involved in providing land and financial and technical 84 ans; (b) to protect the farmers' interests, and (c) develop an infrastructure, such as roads, telephone immunication, goods, and means of transportation. In :nya, the government took the lead in standardizing the tality of produce for export, emphasized farm planning, 1troduced breeding crop plants that could fit the farmers atter with the farming economy, helped protect crOps from asts and diseases, and developed research stations. rown (1968:40) has said that, as a result of these ef- arts, "there was an increase in the overall value in gricultural produce exported, from $4.7 million in 1945 >afi5.6 million in 1946 (19 percent.)" Brown also said lat I There were very large increases in the pro— duction of all food grains (approximately 87 percent), and of exportable cash crops such as sisal, tea, and coffee. On the livestock side there was an increase of about 300 percent in meat production and 130 percent in dairy products. (1968:60) The ability of the government to commit itself to aviding aid to the farmers helped fulfill their dreams establishing plantations in Kenya. The Plantation System or Enclave Agriculture According to Webster's New World Dictionary, "plan— Lon" simply means "a colony or new settlement, an area 85 wing cultivated crops, an estate.” The planters brought h them the plantation system which demanded the produc— n of only cash crops needed in the motherland. Cash ps, in this case, are those crops oriented to the mar- rather than local use. Cash crops include cotton, a1, tea, coffee and sugar. Describing the origins of - plantation system, the Pan American Union (1977) said, The plantation system had its New World origins in the context of European colon— ization. The plantation was one of the products of European control; one of the economic, social, and political instruments employed in tropical areas for the pro— fitable production of export crops. An economic orientation towards profit, in a setting of import-export relations based on market demands and regulations,.... Europeans were the ones to implement methods of production suitable to meet the needs of the market. The New World colonists created the plantation as a re— sult of certain associated factors, namely, crop potential and the availability of land, credit, labor, and production tech— nology. (Ibid) The creation of the plantation system in Kenya uld not be regarded as the exception. The growers were stocrats in Europe. They wanted to expand their aristo- :ic power beyond their homeland. The plantation system, *efore, occurred in every part of the globe, such as s of Africa, Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Hawaii, ya, and IndoChina. So, the plantation is to be con- red as a cross—cultural phenomenon. It is a social 86 enomenon that involves production of export crOps for ofit. It was the establishment of the plantations that aught the region of Kenya as a colony into greater prox- Lty with the world economy. The establishment of the Intation system led, on one hand, to the development of ;sses of landed gentry with political and social power , on the other, to the rise of a large class of un— lled settled workers whose main contribution was to ply cheap labor. What must be understood is that a ntation is not an abstract phenomenon, it is an in- tution and it is part of a social system. Edgar T. npson (1959:26) said that, "a system is a set of re- Lons forming a whole, an aggregate about which something :hought to be true which is not true of the member parts." settlement institution, "it accommodates and settles 1e of diverse backgrounds together on the land." (Ibid) social institution, "It belongs in a class with the , the ranch, the manor and other social forces that itutionalize relations between human groups and the ." (Ibid) In the following, Thompson describes the farm and :ation; The farm, is a human unit of land; that is, it is a piece of land which the farmer and his family have domesticated and made a member of the family as a working partner. On the ranch, the relations of men to- ward the land are mediated, not through crops, but through cattle and sheep which have to be followed and watched. Plan— tations (on the other hand) are relatively large landed estates based upon agricultural economies and governing a number of people on the principle of authority. (Ibid) In Kenya, the plantations took the form of enclaves. was enclaved in that the cash crops were produced only the areas the white settlers occupied, leaving the ican reserves in the form of islands. It was in these ntations that the natives worked. The workers were meant to be consumers in the economy in which they ked and produced. The production was meant for the (et which was beyond the workers' reach. The South African Settlement Model In South Africa, once the native people were sub— L by the South African whites in the 1800, the new rnment established a new type of economic system quite erent from that used by the natives. Colins (1971:59) Throughout the 18th century a slow but steady stream of colonists moved away from Cape Town and developed a pastoral economy in the hinterland, which was not unlike that of their black neighbors. suceed in establishing this type of economic system, South ican law quickly endorsed the idea of guaranteeing any te in South Africa a sizable amount of land to till. the help of the government, South Africa managed to ince the European settlers to come to South Africa and permanent settlements. Following this campaign to g whites to South Africa, the government worked with settlers to establish the capitalist system. It was Istem which required steady, cheap labor. The features : gave this system its essential capitalist character s as follows: (1) Wealth was concentrated only in the s of the few—~the plantation owners; (2) It was these rs who had the means of production, that is, raw ma- als, land, etc.; (3) The large population of African 1e had no means of making a living except by selling r cheap labor to the planters, and; (4) All production ot just for the personal use of the producers, but I for exchange and for sale on the market. In other , the production was basically a commodity style of ction. When the settlement of the whites began in Kenya, nglish officials recommended the use of the South an settlement model and claimed it was the most ap— iate and the most relevant. The white government then mended and encouraged settlers from Europe, exactly ame approach as used in South Africa. ,___,— 89 It is interesting that the Kenyan government not only encouraged the settlers from Europe, but also greatly encouraged the white immigrants from South Africa. The campaign favored South African whites because they had more eXperience in agricultural farming. Bennett (1975:153) had eXplained this situation as follows; "the south African response was enthusiastic enough to require an unprepared Kenyan government to rush through surveys to make land avail— able to the newcomers." This overwhelming recommendation for the white South African migration to Kenya led to 1,500 Europeans in the colony by 1908. The yearly increase in the number of the incoming settlers from Europe and South Africa led to a racist policy which promoted differential treatment between the foreigners and the native Africans. Since the South African model emphasized the sys— tem of separate settlement between the whites and the Africans, and since the model required that rich land be set aside for whites while transforming the Africans into Labor reserves, the white population in Kenya steadily in— :reased. The census of 1948 revealed that the population 3f Kenya was 5,379,966. By 1961, this number had risen :0 7,290,000. The census also revealed that there were 29,666 Europeans, a total which rose to 66,000 by 1961. The increase in white settlers was possible for the following reasons. (1) The colonial administration, along Jith Great Britain, did believe that development in these 90 'egions would not be possible unless a number of skilled vealthy white settlers were allowed to come to Kenya and ake the lead in agricultural development. (2) The con— ention was that without the white leadership, colonial evelopment would be unthinkable. The colonial officials ere convinced that it needed only white farmers to de— elop Kenya. It was this conviction that led Sir Mitchell 1952:27) to argue, What the economy of Kenya requries is not a restriction of European enterprise, nor of white settlement in the highlands, but the very opposite. The colonial officials' common views were that the continual oc— cupation by Europeans of the highlands, for the reasons outlined vital to the future of Kenya and the well—being of the African people. (Ibid) Mitchell believed that certainly the problem was not 3 be solved by throwing good agricultural land after bad. a suggested that, given what had happened in his hemisphere, What we have here to do in this colony is not acquiesce in the destruction of still more land by defective economic and agri— cultural practices, but first to under— stand the problem which faces us...and then...to take the steps necessary to en— able the great majority of the African population to rise above peasant subsis— tence agriculture, to a higher form cap— able of supporting civilization. Nor is Kenya's problem to be solved by giving the highlands to development by an ignorant man and his wife with a hoe. (Ibid) 91 Mitchell held that, ”the continual occupation by iropeans of the highlands is for such reasons vital to the 1ture of Kenya, and to the well—being of the African." Lbid) The point underlying the establishment of this rpe of economic system cannot be fully understood without lderstanding the egotism of the colonial settlers towards evelopment. Their argument was based on the notion that zvelopment in Kenya could not be possible without their eadership. This attitude found expression in the words Sir Mitchell. Nor can European settlement be much modified without prejudice to the econ— omic requirements of Kenya in financing its current requirements, and expanding for Africans the social services and standards they require. (Ibid) The mechanism was to establish an agricultural base the area so that Kenya could serve not only as an arch r strategy and for the British to have political and anomic control over Kenya, but also to make the fertile jhland regions produce and supply England with necessities. a problem, however, was that the white settlers failed recognize the Kikuyu's attachment to their land. Stress— this point, Turnbull (1962:27) wrote, ”what the whites led to realize was the tremendously deep ritual attach— t of the people to their land, the land of their an— tors.” Viewing this situation as critical, Turnbull 62:27) said, 92 The turning point was probably the reali— zation that the meeting of the two worlds was not going to lead to a union of much benefit, through cooperation and mutual respect, but was going to involve the total destruction of everything of importance to the African, including his beliefs and result in a world primarily designed to benefit the Whites and only perhaps in— cidently the Africans. (Ibid) Elaborating on this point, Fanon (1974:12) said, Since economic exchange relations as an element of integration are lacking, the racial ideology assumes a special function and becomes in fact an indispensable in— strument in ensuring the cohension of the colonial system, which is based on violence. The superiority of the colonizers, mani— festing itself through brute force and legitimized in their own view by the alleged racial inferiority of the natives...(Ibid) 1 the enclave economy established in Kenya had many I .s. The most profound effect, still observable today, 5 dual paths to unequal development. Economic Policy and Planning: The Process Phat Facilitated Dual Paths To Unequal Development The economic policy that came to exist in Kenya, tation farming was underway, was the policy which two communities known as the White Highlands and Lcan Reserves. The two communities developed un- and came to be identified by their development or elopment. The developed European farmland was known 93 the scheduled area designating development. The under— Ieloped African area was known as the unscheduled area, -ch meant primitive, undeveloped and backward. Knowing the utility of economic planning, the colonial rernment concentrated exclusively on providing the settlers .h the information and farming methods. Discussing the fulness of agricultural planning to development, Paul ert (1963:70) said, Planning is essential for develOpment; economic progress can be accelerated by the application of research and analysis, as well as by action baSed on the results of this research; and that such action is more effective if the process of develop- ment is considered as a whole and its different components are coordinated. elaborated, saying, The nature and direction of planning in each country are thus determined by its political orientation. Planning in it- self, however, is a neutral technique, which can serve whatever purpose is de- sired. It is up to the planners to trans— late into concrete policies the general objectives formulated by the political decision-making authorities, to make the latter fully aware of the implications of their decisions and to indicate a possible alternative course of action. (Ibid) The difference between the Scheduled and Non— ixuxiareasbecomes clear when the farm size of both is compared. The farm size is extremely important 94 economic development because if farms are too small ize, they cannot support modern technical use. Any of the application of modern technology in farm vities leads to underdevelopment. So, to understand of the factors that is presumed to have led to under- lopment on the part of the Africans, Tables3.l and 3.2 included to provide the details. ; 3L13THE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM SIZE IN THE EUROPEAN FARMING AREAS, 1954 AND 1960 1954 1960 ;Per Holding Number Percent Number Percent than 200 462 14.6 685 19.0 99 477 15.1 499 13.8 ,999 1,462 46.2 1,650 45.7 -4,999 500 15.8 500 13.9 and over 262 8.3 275 7.6 TAL 3,163 100.0 3,609 100.0 l—k : L.H. Brown. Agricultural Change in Kenyazl945—l960. Besides unequal distribution of land as one way of g back the African cultivators, the colonial dis— ation of the Africans contributed to unequal develop- Even though the Department of Agriculture and Exten— esearch Stations were created, they were all directed 95 3LE 3.2: THE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM SIZE IN THE AFRICAN FARMING AREAS, IN 1960* 1960 1960 Percent 5 (Acres) Number of Total 8 than 2.5 125,200 24.6 - 4.99 133,300 26.1 O—.7.49 78,500 15.4 0— 9.99 43,300 8.5 DO—l4.99 54,000 10.6 and over 75,500 14.8 s was a 1960 sample survey, in which a total of 509,8000 dings (about 55 percent of the total number in Kenya) used. CE: L.H. Brown. Agriculture Change in Kenya: 1945- 1960. I noted that in Central Province 64.8 percent of hold- were less than 5 acres and one-fourth of the holdings~ less than 2.5 acres. 96 to serve only the settlers' needs. To hasten agricultural development in white farming areas, various fields of study were established dealing with plant breeding, soil chemistry, plant pathology, and entomology. On the other hand, the procedure used to develop African agricultural activities took a completely different path. First, the motive to expropriate the land from the Africans, and that confine— ment within their reserves were aimed to discourage them from being competitive. Second, the exclusion of the Africans from this de— velopment procedure not only created a situation in which the Africans remained backward, but also made them believe that their survival was only possible by moving out of their reserves and becoming squatters on the white farms. So, the supply of cheap labor to the white plan- tation farms was an essential factor for development of white agriculture. It was, at the same time, a critical factor for underdeveloping the native agriculture. This was because most able men were forced by law or by the new conditions to migrate onto the white farms. This sit— iation was justified by the attitude of the colonial set- :lers that, The African in Kenya has not yet arrived at the level of education which enables him, of his own accord, to plan his agricultural economy successfully. He has little know- ledge of farming practices....no means of 97 gauging the effects Of external factors on this economy. In his case, therefore, it is essential that his general farming policy shall, to a large extent, be dictated to him in the light of the exper— ience and knowledge of officers of govern- ment responsible for his welfare. (Sorrenson, 1963:8) Because of such a racist attitude toward African :ople, policy concerning the agricultural planning pro— 255 was created on the basis of racism. The hope for :velopment, particularly in the African agricultural quotas :mained unseen. Discussing the colonial economic ambiguity L Kenya, Mair (1974:428) has this to say: From the beginning of the commitment to establish European—directed agriculture in Kenya, there was ambiguity over which of two forms this would take. On the one hand, there was the traditional tropical plantation, utilizing European capital and managers, employing large numbers of unskilled native labor, and producing high- value tropical crops. On the other was the farming system of the temperate colonies, with European settlers practicing the cattle— raising and cereal-growing patterns of the metropole. The plantations would involve the settlers as an aristocracy with super- visory functions over the indigenous pop- ulation while the temperate agriculture system implied that the settlers were a separate community with separate institu— tions and territory, leaving the native population undisturbed. What this demonstrates is that the idea behind the nomic policies and planning in this fertile region of ya was to exclude the Kikuyu from these developmental 98 :hemes. The aim was to make conditions tougher for the .kuyu people so that they would be dissatisfied with their 'n reserves and seek alternatives on the white farms. other insight into this subject matter was, as Padmore 936:100) wrote, ”...with them came speculators and agents joint stock companies. In 1911 the whites numbered 3,975. n years later, 9,651; in 1926, 12,529; and today about ,000.” Harris (1972:170), on the other hand, said, The highlands Of Kenya, like those in Central and Southern Africa, led to de— liberate colonization schemes in which the British supported the apportionment of land to white settlers, the recruit- ment of cheap labor, and blatant racial discrimination. As farmers and herders, the Africans suffered greatly from land ! alienation which reduced their subsistence agriculture and forced them to work for Europeans. In discussing the economic policies and planning the Kikuyu province, one needs to understand that the >nomic policies and planning applied not only to the of dividing the agricultural settlement into black white, and confining the Africans into their reserve a while allowing the whites to expand into suitable as, but it also included the whole range of policies icating the right to plant marketable crops, the op— tunity to grow and sell, and most of all the right to enate the land. 99 Economics of Land Alienation Zwanenberg (1975:275) has said, The pre-industrial phase of capitalism in Kenya was introduced by the external forces of the imperial power. It was the colonial state which determined the form and the mode that capitalist pro- duction should take. The decision to develop and support capitalist plantations was a decision taken by the state. This mode was capitalist in that it produced commodities for the market, employed wage labor and was dependent on finance capital. As a part of the effect of economic planning, the policy of land expropriation or alienation was one of many devasting situations to the Kikuyu. It took the land from the Kikuyu and made them landless. The policy created a peculiar situation in which not only the Old Kikuyu tra— ditions such as kinship and brotherhood could no longer exist, but it also forced them to seek employment in the white farms. It radically transformed the Kikuyu social, economic and political structures. On the other hand, it can be argued that the policy did indeed profit the white settlers by providing them with plenty of land to accommodate the plantation system. It gave them not only political control, but also economic control. The whites became the main producers in the area. Because of this policy, they controlled agricultural pro— duction until 1960. Discussing their superiority in farming, Brown (1968:36) said. 100 Despite the relatively small proportion of the different classes of land in EurOpean hands (about 20 percent of the high potential and 3 percent of the semiarid and arid lands), these areas produced at least 83 percent of the agricultural exports in 1945; even in 1960, despite strenuous efforts to develop the high potential African land with cash crops, the European areas still produced about 85 per- cent Of the eXports, or about 75 percent of the gross agricultural production. The economics of land alienation can also beunder— >od by its effect upon the traditional social structure 1 the economic power it provided to the foreigners. (l) changed the Kikuyu land tenure, land use and the rights 'olved; (2) It created unequal development between the ,tlers and the domestic community; (3) It kept African icultural development within subsistence levels; (4) gave the whites economic power; and, (5) It provided m with the opportunity for development. The policy also thered this inequality in that the whites were the em— yers, and the Africans were the employed. The whites e the landed gentry and the Africans were the landless. 5r this came about as a result of the economics of land snation. Needless to say, the economics of land alienation nulated not only inequality between the white settlers the African cultivators, but it also had a side effect 1 traditional African order. This process weakened 101 can kinship ties. As Ranon (l974:9) quoted n: By breaking up the age—old patterns Of their agricultural economy, and by forcing shifts to the production of exportable crops, Western capitalism destroyed the self-sufficiency of their rural society that formed the basis of the pre—capitalist order in all countries of its penetration, and rapidly widened and deepened the scope of commodity cultivation... The selfish interest of the colonial power has never in doubt. To this, Platt (l973:4) said, Both plantation economies and colonies Of settlements were developed as complementary economies to the mother country, supplying in return for manufactured goods, food stuffs, and raw materials of the kind unavailable at home. therefore, claimed, Having access to this area of Kenya, the British exported even larger quantities of manufactured goods, and imported more food stuffs and raw materials. The Empire increased by many thousands of square miles. (Ibid) (1979:109) had this to say, Economically, a colonial possession means to the home country simply a privileged market whence it will draw the raw materials it needs, dumping its own manufacturers in return. The economic policy is reduced to the rudimentary procedures of gathering crops and battering them. This is literally a policy of exploitation in the preferable sense of the word, a policy of condemning them to anaemic depletion and stagnation which gradually reigns over the colonies, condemning them to anaemic weakness and breaking any spirit of creative initiative. 102 Compared to what the Kikuyu received as a result of .and alienation, one can easily conclude that they were sim- )ly the victims of economic regulation. The Kikuyu suffered l social loss. They bore the burden of structural violence, .ental stress and constant degradation. Instead of the iikuyu being able to stay in their own areas and make a iving, they could not because the living there was intoler- ble and unacceptable. The only choice, therefore, was to eave. As Kilson (1955:122) quoted Kenyatta, At present, there are about 60,000 Kikuyu who have been dispossessed of their lands without compensation. This has forced these Kikuyu to become wanderers—-home1ess and landless. Today they can be seen alternately wandering or squatting on European farms all over Kenya. This Oppression has disorganized the Kikuyu, and many have fled to neighboring tribes, thus causing great loss to the Kikuyu community. anyatta further explained, We find that we have not only lost land, but we have also lost tribesmen, because some of the Kikuyu ran away when their land was taken, and they have become squatters. Their sons hear about Kikuyu, but some of them do not know where Kikuyu is. They think where they are now is Kikuyu, where as it is a European farm. We consider that this is a matter which (has) been a great disadvantage to the Kikuyu people because it has disorganized the tribe. (Ibid, p.121) Under the economics of land alienation, the majority the African farmers did not develop beyond the subsistence 103 level. The farmers could not become plantation owners. In fact, a plantation farmer represented a class of honor. This position was preserved for white farmers only. The difference between plantation and subsistence can be seen in various ways. For example, the two systems are differ— entiated in terms of, farm size, labor requirements, the level of capitalization, the intensification of farming, and the crops produced and the reasons for their production. In a broader sense, Keith (1979:67) said that, A plantation requires large land areas to come into being, land which can be put to use for maximum profits. It needs the land for purposes of agricultural commodity production. It deprives its laborers of economic alternatives to participate in their farming activities. It pre—empts the agricultural resources to any independent agricultural activities and most importantly, it bars its own cultivating land. A subsistence economy is associated with tribal (griculture. In tribal agriculture, as Lloyd (1972:34) as claimed, Positions of authority and wealth are open to all, or at least to most, of the members of the society. The basic social divisions are not between horizontal strata, defined in terms of wealth and power but vertical divisions into descent groups defined in geneological terms. With land, the basic resource, corporately owned, every man can obtain sufficient return for his needs. As a result of the economics of land alienation, lral Kenya was not only developed to feed the urban dwellers 104 but, most importantly, the plantations, or what some econ- omists would call the enclave economy, was becoming domin- ant. SO, rural areas began to operate as centers that linked the colony with the motherland. And, as the de— velopment of these enclaves was increasing, African sub- sistence agriculture was steadily declining and was al- most obsolete in terms of sufficient production. On top Of this all, the settlers defended and justified their lack of concern for incorporating or integrating traditional practices into their economic system. i The Justification of the Settler Economic Alienation First, the prevailing attitude of the settlers to— ward the Kikuyu farmers was that they were primitive cul- tivators andxuitpeasant farmers. In quoting Marshall D. Sahlin's description of the differences between primitive economies and peasant economies, Wolf (1966:3) wrote: In primitive economies, most production is geared to use of the producers to dis— charge of kinship obligation, rather than to exchange and gain. A corollary is that defacto control Of the means of production is decentralized, local, and familiar in primitive society. Wolf saw peasants as rural cultivators: ...that is, they raise crops and livestock in the countryside, not in greenhouses in the midst of cities or in aspidistra boxes on the windowsill. At the same time they are not farmers, or agricultural entrepreneurs as we know them in the United States. 105 In primitive society, producers control the means of production, including their own labor, and its products for the cul- turally defined equivalent goods and ser— vices of others. In primitive society, surpluses are exchanged directly among groups or members of groups; peasants, however, are rural cultivators whose sur— plus are transferred to dominant group of rulers that uses the surpluses both to underwrite its own standard Of living... (p.2-3) Viewing a primitive cultivator and a peasant farmer in the way he did, the colonial settler manipulatively exploited the opportunity by trying to justify himself as an economic man and contrarily viewing an African cultivator as in— competent. These justifications gave the colonist an op— portunity to racially segregate the natives from their raditional economic development and denied him the rights 0 advance. As the settler consciously and unconsciously de— ended himself and his policy of segregated economy, what ctually had come into being was what social anthropologists all "racism". acism and the Process of Underdevelopment The Kikuyu were the victims of economic racism. he process that undermined Kikuyu economic development an be summarized thusly: 106 1. Land alienation policy 2. Demand for labor 3. The exclusion of the Kikuyu from participating in cash crop production 4. The racist attitude which regarded the Kikuyu people as primitive cultivators instead of peasant cultivators. All these difficulties for the Kikuyu, in one way or another, resulted from settlers' beliefs. They believed that it was their duty to lead the natives out of their primitive living conditions. The white settlers, along with the administra- tors, believed, in Willoughby's (1923:222) words, that, ”The whole world belongs to them by virtue of their superior civilization, and that in Europeanizing the earth they are fulfilling their own destiny and bestowing favours upon other races.” The processes of development and underdevelopment in the Central Province, cannot become clear unless one under— stands the white attitude towards the area's inhabitants. Besides the economic racism employed by the settlers, the white population thought of themselves as superior. When they established their economic system, racism was immediately put in place to complement enclave economic development. Racism became part of the process to facilitate dual de- velopment and justify it. Racism supported the belief of the settlers that, (1) they were superior and thus had to take the lead in development; (2) the native duty was only 107 to supply labor to the whites; (3) the dual economy was the solution to economic planning; and (4) once the natives were given their little share rather than integrating them into this economic complex, they would be satisfied and secure in preserving their traditional way of life. Since the Africans and whites were different in their thoughts, lifestyles and in their perceptions of the "good life,” the white settlers continued to maintain this difference. It was this perception that the white settlers could not hide. This world view not only affected the Africans economically, but it also became clear that as a result Of economic deficiency, the Africans' survival was jeopardized. It was this that led Dr. Gordon (in George Padmore's book, 1936) to admit in his report, Child mortality among natives ranges from 125 to 400 per thousand in Kenya, as com- pared with 68 per thousand in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, 95 to 100 percent of African children under ten years carry traces of chronic malarial infection. In some districts, over 70 percent suffer from hookworm. The settlers had argued that their main purpose was to exe :lude the Africans from economic Opportunity. As Sorrenson {1963:1) reported "Africans were practically at the genesis >f things.“ This statement was, in fact, justified by some >f the prominent colonial officials such as Sir Charles :liot (The former Commissioner of the East African States), 'hO in 1905, declared, "The Africans were in the state of I dam and Eve before the fall." (Ibid) For that reason, 108 :he alienation of the African people from their own land, and the failure to be integrated into the economic de— relopment was justified. Describing the racist colonial behavior in a global sense, Router (1966:25) said, When an invading horde has conquered a foreign group and imposed itself as a ruling class, a difference in racial appearance is a factor of importance in the resulting political and social or- ganization. The external marks of the conquered group become a convenient badge of servitude, or determine the individual social status. They serve also to justify the exploitation of the subject group, the conquered group being always looked at as of inferior race. Nonetheless, in Kenya, racism was by nature an .nstitutional matter aimed at the indigenous African peo— 1e. The settlers, throughout the period had used their rgument very effectively. TO them, racism was an appro- riate tool which they systematically used to justify their ction on issues, particularly land. In the following dis- ussion, we shall see how the colonial rulers acquired the and and how they convinced the British government to go long with their demands. The settlers and the administrators, along with the ritish government, worked together and demanded that all 11tivatable land had to be reserved for whites. This Op- ‘ation was carried out by various methods. Some Kikuyu 109 land owners were forced to take different settlement areas that were not admired by the white settlers. This removal of the owner of the land was later reinforced by what was known as an ”occupation rights" policy. This policy was based on the premise that if the land was not in use, it would be automatically regarded as no man's land and if a white settler wanted to claim that empty land to be in his possession, he had the right to do so. This policy actually gave the settlers absolute rights to encroach on any pro— perty without any legal restrictions. The "occupation rights" policy did not respect the Kikuyu traditional cultivation system which was a nomadic—style shifting cultivation. Traditionally, the Kikuyu had two or three differ— ent plots or pieces of land at different locations. This way, the Kikuyu cultivator could cultivate one or two pieces f land for a year or two, leaving others fallow. Then he vould shift to the ones that had not been used. It was :hrough this process that the Kikuyu lands remained fertile and productive. However, under the "occupation rights" >olicy, if Kikuyu land was not in active use, the white :ettlers could claim that the land was no man's land and Lossess it legally. Solly (1960:74) explained: To sir Charles Eliot (the former Governor of Kenya), there was only one answer to the problem; fill the empty spaces with European farms. Then land would be used for the bene- fit of all, and trains would run at a profit instead of a loss. 110 This means of land alienation, was however, not well ved in the House of Commons, particularly by the Labor . The debate on land alienation without considering (an affairs, turned out to be a serious matter. To nce the Conservative and Labor parties, Eliot accumulated arguments to present to his boss in England to persuade o sponsor the migration to Kenya. The Governor had to nce the House of Commons (a) that there was enough land he settlers, and (b) that the land was fertile enough he settlers to utilize economically and be able to pay the 5,000,000 needed for railroad construction. For this reason, Eliot took a hard line in reporting 055 in trade, The exports of the protectorate yielded L165,000 while the imports were valued at L443,000 which meant a yearly loss of over L200,000 that would have to be met somehow, and unless white settlers came into the country, it would have to be met by taxing the African peoples out of all proportions... (Ibid) (ing this line, Eliot convinced the members of the Of Commons and succeeded by acquiring all he wanted. One problem of the issue over land expropriation xya is that it became almost impossible to isolate >m racism. Racism was part of the strategy employed [ermine native rights to land and it is difficult to tand the alienation process without first understand- e attitude of the settlers toward the native inhabit— _ ._._ ....__.._..__._ ._ .. 111 The white settlers viewed the African people on the >ntinent as monolithic. This white racist attitude to- 1rd.non—whites was not a myth, but a reality that existed their conscious minds and in their perception of their stiny. That perception held that ”...the planet con— ined a large number of 'backward' nations or 'minor races' lesser breeds without the law,' in Kipling's phrase) ich could never complete with the dynamic white Western rld." Summary _______ In brief. racism had numerous effects and a few of se can be listed as follows. (1) It was itself an in- tious disease to African's life and stability; (2) It t African economic development by saying that Africans a incompetent and unprepared to abandon their tradi— 1a1 living which had kept them from accepting change; It created a dUal economy since the African cultiva— could not be integrated into a different economic sys— (4) It provided the opportunity for the white settlers dvance their economy by using cheap African labor; and It justified the settlers' values which denied three— ths of the population the chance to share the skills technology for extracting material resources. CHAPTER FOUR LAND ALIENATION: THE GROUNDS FOR POLITICAL STRUGGLE AND CLASS DEVELOPMENT AMONG THE KIKUYU 1903—1960 The first African—British contacts in the Central Highlands set the stage for the Creation of Colonized Societies. They revolved around the suppression of overt resistance to British domination and were followed by the alienation of African land to incoming settlers.... After pacification, large amounts of African land were appro- priated by incoming settler farmers, mainly between 1903 and 1911. (Robert L. Tignor, 1976:15) Conflict over land is the central theme Of this pter as Kikuyu did not experience land shortage until ar the arrival of the European colonial settlers. The :es, on the other hand, claimed that when they arrived :he area, the land was unoccupied. The Kikuyu, they -med, had retreated to safer areas because of malaria tropical diseases that had killed many Of them. Be- :e of the Kikuyu retreat, the settlers contended, the they appropriated was virtually no man's land. The point that needs emphasis is that, since the lers' objective was to alienate the good arable land their own agricultural advantage, this policy not became the foundation for the settlers' adventure, 112 113 at it also became the axis at which the Kikuyu founded heir political expression. Land alienation; as it is sed here, may be viewed as a violent act since the pro- ass involved the taking of property by physical and psycho- >gical force. The land question in Kenya was of serious importance. >r someone to hurt an African man, let him take the land ray and leave him landless. Land is where an African's ro resides. Expropriation of the land was tantamount to estruction of his manhood, because worldwide, land is sential to human survival. Ratcliffe (1976:11) had this say: Since land, through the media of loca- tion, communication and the provision of complementary services, as well as being the basis of agriculture, can be identified as a function of virtually all forms of production, its availability, management, and allocation between com- peting uses is a prime determinant in the economic performance of a community. The essential nature of land is not only recognized the traditional societies but by the industrial societies well. As Leontier (undatedzl6) has put it, "in order produce, land, factory buildings, machinery and raw :erial are needed." All these depend on and come from land. The land is the mother--it is the source of all ural production and where the factory is built. That why land plays a key part in human life. 114 Describing the settlers’ reaction to the land, as they arrived in Kenya, Buell (1928:298) has explained: When the white man first passed through this part of East Africa, he saw vast areas of land, parts of which were appar— ently uninhabited by any native tribe. A FOreign Office Report in 1902 spoke of the protectorate as having a climate that is excelled by probably no other in the world...a rich virgin soil...(and) a good supply of a cheap labor... Essentially, the economic motive was the main de- terminant of the future of land in Kenya. Before the formal process to alienate the Kikuyu land began, there were already internal and external forces at work that the vhite man needed the land for development. They also re- ;uired it for accommodation. Internal forces were that :he British loan for railroad construction had to be paid >ack on schedule. Since Kenya's economy depended on land, :he settlers argued that they had to possess the land in rder to utilize it effectively. The Settler‘s Success in Alienating Land in Kenya The imperial power had already engaged herself in :onomic enterprise in these East African communities. ritain had provided a loan amounting to about 5 million >unds to help construct the Uganda-Mombasa railroad. A 115 Llroad branch which connected Nairobi with the Kisumu adquarters of Lake Victoria was also underway and the Ltish government was a major investor in East Africa. ficial approval of settlement came about when Sir Charles Lot, Commissioner of Kenya from 1900 to 1904, expressed 5 opinion that white settlement was inevitable. There— :er, he encouraged Britons to come to Kenya and take rmanent settlement. The idea to settle in Kenya was :ided by the British officials. The White immigrants awed their settlement in Kenya as a gift from God. Kenya, 3y claimed was to become a white man's land. Official action allowing white immigrants to take rmanent settlement in Kenya and the construction of the anda—Kenya railroad provided greater access to the colon- ,ists to advance their political and economic encroach— It into the regions. Once, these means were available, . question of who should have power over these good land ‘as became a focal point for political, economic, and ial struggle. The whole issue became a social class uggle between the landed gentry, who possessed land and sessed the imperialistic power to protect their interest, those who were landless and powerless. Leontiev (un— ed: 15) has defined the issue of social class. 116 It is what permits one part of society to appropriate the labour of another. If one part of society appropriates all the land, we have the classes of land— lords and peasants. If one part of society owns the plants and factories, shares and capital, while the other part works in these factories, we have the classes of capitalists and proletarians. The process of land alienation has already been sented in Chapter Two. Before describing the class uggle, it is germane to examine how much land was taken y from the African people. The figures presented here Lect the success of colonial alienation. Land grabbing :he colonial settlers in Kenya was not an accidental lomenon, but customary behavior of an imperial power, Tied out during these days on a global scale. Wood's 76:603-4) findings show, In Kenya, 9,000 settlers occupied 16,700 square miles of land. This literally meant that 7,036,814 acres were owned by only 9,000 settlers... In Rhodesia, some 250,000 wealthy whites controlled half of the best land, while about five million blacks shared the rest, while in South Africa, the white 20 percent of the pop— ulation had control over the best 87 percent of the land. The size of the land alienated to the European lers did not necessarily imply that the land was Lzed. Comparing the number of the white population the land alienated to them, the amounts were more than 117 y could effectively use. However, the reason the white tlers had so much land alienated to them was, as Lubembe 68:28) indicated, ”... a deliberate policy to try and strate the Africans so that they could not have the op— tunity to rise from the low level of living." Radical land alienation in Kenya did not take place L1 about 1918 to the late 19305. In the early period, 1 1902 to 1918, the process to alienate land was con— rative in nature and those who were to receive the land a carefully selected. Only those people from Europe I considerable capital and skills, like Lord Delamere, I allowed to acquire as much land as they could buy. example, Lord Delamere is said to have possessed more 100,000 acres for himself. It was not until after d War I, that large numbers of European settlers began eek land in the colonies. It was also during these 5 that it was determined that they were needed in the nies in order to exploit the agricultural land for com- ial purposes. To demonstrate the amount of land alienated in Kikuyu— , we need to have a clear picture as to how much of was alienated in Kenya as a whole. For this to have .ng, it is pertinent to know how the land was classi— According to L.H. Brown (1968:34), 118 Kenya is a country of approximately 225,000 square miles, of which 5,191 square miles is open water, and 219,800 square miles is land of various cate- gories.... Ecologically, about 172,160 square miles (79%) of the land area is semiarid or arid, having less than 30 inches of rainfall per annun. Of this, 134,172 square miles has less than 20 inches of rainfall and can be called semi—desert or desert. The land receiving more than 30 inches of rainfall per annun totals about 47,640 square miles and of this 5,171 square miles is in forest re- serves. About 840 square miles is other— wise allocated. efore, the actual land suitable for agricultural pur- ‘ and with higher rainfall areas amounted to 41,630 3 re miles. Brown showed that of the total land surface of Kenya 12,200 square miles or 5.5 percent had been alienated [ropean or Asian farmers by 1960. Of this, about 4,640 ’e miles was semiarid or arid ranching land, leaving square miles with 30 inches of rain or more (p.36). 4.1 shows the number of occupiers and the areas under ation and acreage cultivated in the years 1920 to 1923. Through Table 4.1 we learn that European settlers not large in number but occupied large areas of culti— le land beyond their ability to utilize them. Through able we also see that some acreage was totally unused. upon the clues from Table 4.1, it may be speculated :he failure of the settlers to utilize much of the ated land effectively was one of the factors that led ‘-L-- — _-____ 119 s .opa oumocmpm cmuauua pmmm .Hnouflmzc .Ammma ommaummma .xoom 6mm cmuauua pmwm one ”momaom wnm.a oHN.H sma.a OHH.H umuasuuo pom Umaoao>mo mmuum Hapoe Nmo.H hwo.a mwm awm Hoamdooo Hog monouom HmOOpmmm owe moa «ma ova umaosooo mom pmpm>flpaso mmuum monum>< mm.o mH.o Hm.o mm.m mmmum omaosooo Op coapm>apaso mo OOmpcwoumm mam.>am mmo.smm mmm.oom omm.oea ompm>uuasu mmuoa Hem.mmm.m mma.eom.m ooa.mmm.m ova.emu.m Ammuom :Hv coaomasooo smog: mmua 604.4 omm.a wqm.a Nma.u mumamsuuo no umnesz mmma NNmH Hmma omma 120 their failure to acquire as much political power to con— L the country, as did their counterparts in Southern iesia and South Africa. Confirming this fact, Sander 1gh (1977:118) has stated, ”the European population [in raJ was small, geographically scattered, and politically .ded.” Table 4.2 is included here to provide the details creage under European control and the principal crops n in the colony from 1920 through 1924. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide the extent of land alien— n in Kenya in general. More specifically, land aliena- in Kikuyu country was more acute and, thus, destructive 1e social well-being of the Kikuyu people. Geographi— 2, Central Province is smaller in size than Nyanza or Valley provinces. Yet, it had the largest population 1e country. POpulation density per square mile in >u was 860; Fort Hall, 499; Nyer, 596; Embu, 351; and 236 (Barker, l97l:7). Most importantly, in Central nce agriculture was the source of living and the alien— of land was literally a genocidal threat to the Kikuyu 8. Land Alienated in Kikuyu Territory Statistically, it has not been clear as toohow much was alienated by the whites from the Kikuyu people. 2r, some pieces of information are available that 121 0~m4 .xoom omm cmo4um< 400m 0:9 ”momsom msv.0 emv.0 N40.0 om4.s mwo.m macho cuumo mama omm.m4 moo.4~ 00s.om 0m0.m4 000.04 macho umspo 44¢ m0m.0 004.4 sme.m 040.~ 400 000:0 vmm.0 000.0 0am.m om4.04 N0m.m muscoooo mM4.~ 000.0 mom.o4 www.44 ve4.a~ x040 mmm.0s 0~o.0m 044.nm 000.40 000.00 40040 000.00 mv~.mm 000.00 0404mm m40.em mmwuoo 0mm 040 «mm 400.4 000 >m4umm 040.0N mmv.04 000.04 000.s 040.0 40003 n44.444 s0s.mm www.mn 000.00 004.Nm 0040: 000.0sm m4m.vsm 000.40N 000.0om omm.0n4 0000 mass so COHum>HuHDU Hove: wmuom Hmuoa 400.04 n00.0m 004.0m vsm.em ova.0~ npom mean so 004cm4a 40: pan coapm>fluaso 400:: mmuu< smm.sm~ N0a.0mm e00.0om 000.004 000.sv4 0400 mass co mmono CH mmuum amuOB 04n.4 004.4 000.4 000.4 m04.4 mum4quoo mo umnesz 004.mvv.v 4sm.000.m 004.000.m 004.mmm.m oaq.>04.m 400» 3000 mass £400 0:4 so coapmasooo Hows: mmuom 40408 Iwmm4 mmm4 -m4 4Nm4 omm4 122 >rovide a sketchy understanding. During the field research .n 1980—1981, it was implied by the district officer in the *egion that the most sensitive documents concerning land ‘ere destroyed by colonial administrative officials as enya was on its way to becoming an independent state in 963. Although this piece of information is somewhat spec- 1ative, it was supported by the feeling extant in the 19605 hat, because of the large amounts of land alienated by the attlers, the British government would not be pleased to at such records be made public. The area of the entire province is equal to 11,034 {uare miles, but the data of 1923 is limited to the amount land alienated in the Kiambu-Limuru areas. In Sorrenson's .963z4) findings, ”In Kiambu and Limuru districts, approx— ,ately 11,000 Kikuyu lost 60,000 acres of land.” Tignor 976:27) provided further details, The total amount of unequivocal Kikuyu land encroached Upon by Europeans was 125 square miles, 16 of which had been abandoned after 1895.... Of this total over 93 square miles were in Kiambu dis- trict...alienation occurred at Kikuyu sta— tion (7.5 square miles), Ngaw to Chania River (17 square miles), Limuru farm block (77 square miles), Crown land reserves near Sabasaba (1 square mile), Nyeri block (6.75 square miles), and various enclaves of land turned over to the missions inside the re- serves (2 square miles).... In Kiambu the Kenya land commission estimated that the total number of families who lost land was 1,594 or 7,950 individuals at an average figure of 5 per family. (Ibid) 123 There were several methods and strategies by which Mas taken from the Kikuyu. One way be "occupancy rights" :h has been discussed. Another was by what the white tlers called the legitimate Land Alienation Act. This Luded the right to confiscate and false agreements. ior explained, False agreements were made with the Kikuyu elders. The individual or the government would ask a Kikuyu family to sign a piece of paper which stated that the new occupier was only holding the land temporarily. Yet, the family did not realize or understand that the peace agreement was permanent. To the whites, this agreement meant a transference of the land permanently. (Ibid) This displacement of large numbers of the Kikuyu 11ation tended to create laborers. The white farmers, >ugh their long experience in South Africa, in Southern lesia and elsewhere in the colonies, realized that by ~ving the Africans from their land they were left with one alternative-—to labor on the white farms. Labor as a Tool for Economic and Political Gain The labor problem in Kenya during the colonial era a source of frustration to the settlers. This pre— talist mode of production in the colony was established r two assumptions. First, it was believed that to de- 3 the colony and retrieve it from what the colonialists 124 .ermed a primitive state, fertile land had to be reserved or the whites as only they had the technology necessary 0 develop the colony. Second, it was also assumed that o be able to establish a firm and stable agricultural sys— em in such a primitive environment, the planters had to ave a constant supply of cheap labor. The literature supports the realization of the first ssumption. The second assumption had three consequences. 1) It created a proletariate class of landless persons, 2) It provided an opportunity for the establishment of apitalist mode of production; and (3) It created the cir- Jmstances of the wage labor system. Working for wages as previously unknown to the Kikuyu people. Their unit labor was the extended family and payment was the sus- znance derived from the fertile land. The wage labor system was first introduced when the lilroad was built from Uganda to Mombasa between 1896 to )01. According to Tignor (1976:97) "by 1905 the railway 1d engaged 3,000 Africans, most of whom provisioned them- rlves and worked on ballast and timber cutting, and by 15 the railway had 5,745 Africans....” As the settlers adually came into the age of commercialization, more ricans were employed on farms and the methods of acquir— g labor became increasingly harsh and ruthless. Pro- ssor Buell claimed ”if the white man is to build himself 125 a home as well as a fortune in the semi-temperate parts of Africa, he must have land and labor.” (Ibid) The point confirmed here is that the settlers who had succeeded in convincing the imperial power to set aside the land for them, believed they could pressure the govern— nent further to collaborate in means for recruitment of a :heap labor supply. To convince the Liberal labor party Ln England and to avoid antagonizing the administrators and :olonial secretary in London who were already in their po— .itica1 pockets, the settlers deliberately advanced their >hilosophy more systematically. They claimed, There is no doubt that the future success or failure of the country depends entirely on the methods that will be employed in dealing with native labour. The country must look for its development to the labour of the natives, and if proper steps are not taken, with due care and forethought, to render the natives content and their labour easily, available, and if the laws dealing with natives are not framed in a wise and liberal spirit and enforced with a firm hand, the future prospects of the country may be irretrievably damaged. (c. White, 1971:111) 1e objective of the settlers was clear, they wanted a >rced labor policy. In fact, a drive toward the intro— lction of forced labor, was viewed by many officials as legitimate move toward meeting the settlers' demands. ey saw it as expedient for the economic development. 126 As a result, ways were created to make a labor sup— ply available. A few of these were: (1) recruitment by the chiefs; (2) through a labor office; (3) through the district Commissioner's office with cooperation from the federal government and (4) through coercion. The most ex- tensively used means was through the chiefs. Given absolute authority, many chiefs exploited their power by forcing Africans to leave their home villages to go work on white farms. Lousdale (1968:119) explained, "The chiefs and headmen were urged to use their power and influence to coerce their people in these labour matters... thereby causing general mistrust and demoralization...." Other exploitive means were applied persistently in assuring the settlers a reliable labor supply. Huxley (1946:88) pointed out: "the Africans were recruited in various ways. Sometimes, it was through compromise or through persuasion but most of the time, it was brutal and dehumanizing." One justification popular in these times was the belief that it was through compulsory labor that the African male could be made responsible. In 1960, the Settler Committee and the Colonists' Association persuaded the British Parliament to pass the Haster and Servants Ordinance. This was a South African model which contained an obligation to work once a contract existed. If a worker failed to report, he would receive 127 heavy fines or imprisonment. Beyond this institutionaliza- tion of labor coercion other statutes were passed that firmly entrenched the concept of wage labor in East Africa. The Master and Servants Ordinances of 1906, 1910 The Master and Servants ordinance was intended to protect an employer against workers who failed their duty to work. In the settlers' views, a contract between an em— ployer and a worker was virtually an agreement but to the Africans, it was an enforced condition. The worker was ordered to work for three or six months a year. In turn, the employer would give him a blanket and food, and at the and of his work he would be paid. Most of the contracts Eavored white settlers rather than the Africans. L.W. White (1971:112) said the Masters and Servants Ordinace gave em- >loyers two things: "(1) they were allowed to pay their 1en partly in kind: the blankets and food they gave them Iere reckoned as part of their wages; (2) if a man broke [is agreement by leaving the farm before his time was up, .e would be imprisoned by the government.” Following the Master and Servants Ordinances of 1906 nd 1910, there were other ordinances dealing with labor. hese included the Resident Native Ordinance of 1918, the rdinance of 1920 and the Labor Circular of 1919. 128 The Resident Native Ordinances of 1918, 1920 Before the war broke out and during it, much of the Kikuyu population migrated onto white farms as squatters. The squatters paid for the farming and grazing rights guar- anteed to them by their masters and relationships between them were clearly stated and understood. The squatters were renters and could pay either in crops or livestock or in labor. Eventually, however, many European owners iid not want these relationships in rent to continue and preferred that all rent be paid in labor. Later, the re— Lationships based on payment in money were halted by the )rdinance of 1918. Thereafter, the law demanded, as L.W. lhite has put it, "No African was to live on a European 'arm unless he worked for the farmer 180 days in the year; f he was unwilling to do this, he must go back to the Re— erve.” (Ibid) This choice amounted to no choice at all or most squatters to whom conditions in the reserve were ntolerable. The Ordinance of 1920 required that all African orkers be registered. It also required that African workers arry registration certificates with them when they went 3 work. 129 The Labour Circular of 1919 It is reported that when Sir Edward Northey, Sir Belfield's successor Usthe Governorship of Kenya, arrived as governor of Kenya in 1919 he was convinced that European interests must be paramount at all costs. There were two main problems that Mr. Northey recog- nized. First, that the rapid increase of the Indians' migration into Kenya was becoming a major threat to the security of the white settlers in the country. Secondly, he acknowledged that for white agriculture to develop, a steady supply of the African cheap labor was required. Therefore, in a circular issued soon after his arrival, Northey made his concerns plain to the Indians of Kenya. ”His Excellency believes," said the document, "that although Indian interests should not be lost sight of, European in- terests must be paramount throughout the protectorate.” (Ward and White, 1971:117) With regard to labor questions, Northey gave instructions as follows: (1) All government officials in charge of native areas must exercise every possible lawful influence to induce able-bodied male natives to go into the labour field. (2) Native chiefs and elders must at all times render all possible lawful assistance on the foregoing lines... (3) District Commissioners will keep a record of the names of those chiefs and headmen who are helpful and of those who are not helpful, and will make reports to me from time to time for the information of His Excellency... 130 (4) District Commissioners will, as often as occasion requires, hold public meetings at convenient centers, to be attended by the native authorities. At these meetings, labor requirements, replaces, nature of work and rates of pay must be explained... (5) Employers or their agents requiring labor will be invited and encouraged to enter freely any native reserve and get in touch with chiefs, headmen and natives. Beyond these instructions, Northey's personal attitude toward nonwhites, particularly Africans, worried the African community and the liberal politicians in the British House of Commons. The governor made it plain by stating that the African people were inherently lazy, and thought it would be bad for them to be allowed to stay idle in their own reserves. Northey's circular aimed to re—introduce Major E.S. Grogan's tough policy. Grogan, a Colonial of— ficial in 1900, had advocated: "A good sound system of compulsory labour would do more than raise the nigger in five years than all the millions that have been sunk in missionary efforts for the last fifty...then let the native be compelled to work so many months in the year... (Kilson Martin, 1955:128) Having read Grogan's policy of 1900 carefully, Northey followed it up with his Circular of 1919. He stated: 131 Is it our duty to allow these natives to remain in uneducated and unproductive idle- ness in their so-called Reserves? In think not. I believe that our duty is to encour- age the energies of all communities to pro- duce from these rich lands the raw products and foodstuffs that the world at large, and the British Empire in particular, re— quire. This can only be done by encourage— ment of the thousands of able-bodied natives to work with the European settler for the cultivation of the land...I believe there is a great future for this Reserves...can be properly organized.” (Kilson, 130) These early policy proposals by Grogan in 1900 and Northey in 1919, made it possible for the administration to go about creating labor for the plantation owners with— out cost. Many Africans, not only were forced to leave their reserves, but the policies created unbearable con— ditions on the reserves which made the Africans volunteer to squat on white plantations as an alternative. African Squatting on White Farms To many Kikuyu, squatting became a way of life; the white settlers encouraged it. Leo (1976:52) described this phenomenon in the passage below. Settlers required labor and they fre- quently held areas of uncleared land which could be prepared for farming operations by allowing African families to practice their shifting methods of cultivation. The absence of many European 132 farmers during the First World War, the early years of uncertainty re- garding methods of farming, and doubts as to profitability, accentuated the need for labour which was cheap in cash outlay and since there was little prospect that farms would be brought immediately into full production, the uncontrolled use of part of the farmer's land was held out as an inducement to the African to offer his service. Initially, most of the squatters recognized squat- ting as a way to improve their worsening economic condi— tions. The land was plentiful and they were given fair contracts by their employers. For example, they were given five to six acres of land and a limit of twenty-five to thirty sheep and goats for which they were expected to work for ninety days a year. The squatters competed vig- oriously in production. By 1921, there was plenty of labor. In fact, during that year labor supply exceeded demand. From 1923 to 1929, a large proportion of the Kikuyu people regarded squatting as a progressive move. Every individual Kikuyu family attempted to move onto white farms and become squatters. But, the development of European commercial farming eventually changed this economic re- lationship. Among the plantation owners a drive began to: (l) establish a system of resident labor; (2) replace the system of squatting with a system of wage labor; (3) re- duce the numbers of livestock from thirty to fifteen; (4) #— 133 reduce plot size from six acres to one and a half acres; and (5) increase the number of days worked from ninety to 270 days a year. This left the squatters with a choice of accepting these changes or returning to their reserves. As the situation was, most squatters could not see any point in going back to the reserves. Conditions on the reserves were intolerable and they were still better off on the white farms. Only a handful of Kikuyu went back and the rest decided to stay on the farms, where many squat— ters had become independent producers. ”In the early days of European settlement the Kikuyu squatters fared well and many of them became successful independent producers.... But, as they entered into the commercial age, settlers' attitudes changed." (Furedi, 1974:490) Commercial agriculture assured the settlers that development was becoming real. Furedi explained "With the help of state intervention, development took place in all sectors of European agriculture. In the plantation sector coffee and sisal emerged as important cash crops, in the arable areas maize and wheat...” (Ibid) Brown (1968:52) has given examples of this commer— cial development, In European areas, for instance, the number of work oxen fell from 82,000 in 1948 to hardly any in 1960...there was a steady intensification of farm mechanization. Relatively new tractors were available in 1945, but by 1954 the 134 number had risen to 4,799. The number increased to 6,403 by 1960 and there was a commensurate steady reduction in the acreage of cropland per tractor from 219 in 1954 to 169 in 1960, indicative of the steady intensification of farm practices. (Ibid) With economic growth, European farmers sought to shift the existing relationships of European landlord and Kikuyu tenant to those of employer and paid laborer (Furedi, 1974). Efforts to eliminate the Kikuyu squatter as an in- dependent producer led to a bitter struggle which was not fully resolved until the settlers-agreed, not only to come to terms with the Kikuyu by adOpting land reform programs, but also to guarantee independence to the Kenyan people in 1963. The Kikuyu Struggle to Regain Their Lands Scholars of social change wonder whether the Kikuyu could have raised their political consciousness and under— gone social change if land alienation policies had not been introduced. The answer is simple; the Kikuyu, as tradi- tional people, would not have become brave enough to vio- late their traditional ways of living for the sake of change if they had not been forced to do so. 135 As the large Kikuyu population had been driven out of their lands and transformed from proud landowners to paupers, relationships between these landless, unemployed people and the settlers grew unavoidably tense. The Kikuyu needed to regain their land but, to the whites the land they had alienated had belonged to nobody. It had been empty land. Each group claimed the right of occupancy. Thus the Kikuyu had lost their shambas (plots) and in this process, had lost much more. They had become a landless Class on land of which they had once been proud. The Kikuyu had also lost their family identities since they were no longer living on their traditional plots. Not only that, they had lost their Mbari (subclan) ownership. When the government had subdivided such farms as Mbari ya Itinga, Mbari ya.Wahathi, Mbari ya Bera andLMbari ya Njuma, it was an act displacing the Mbari members. The Mbari families were forced to seek help from their relatives and friends or take permanent settlement on the reserve. The question then, was what must Kikuyu do to re- gain their ancestors' fertile land, that they felt was stolen from them by the settlers. It is this critical question that will be pursued further in this chapter. Furedi (1973/74) has explained, ”The squatters' resistance of 1929 was but a first step in the activities of this agrarian movement to defend its position." 136 From the social contact between the Kikuyu and the settlers, the Kikuyu learned how to organize politically. They learned that for them to resist oppression and to make the oppressors understand that the land must be returned, they had to organize and use politics as a tool. For example, in 1920, the Kikuyu Association was formed under the leadership of Harry Thuku, a Kikuyu govern— ment-employed telephone operator. In the following year, it was renamed the Young Kikuyu Association and its members included the former president of Kenya, Johnstone Kenyatta. According to Fred G. Burke (1966:206), "This embryonic political organization protested the increase in poll taxes and the Kipande registration system." Three years later, it was renamed the Kikuyu Central Association(KCA) and led by the prominent Kikuyu leaders, Joseph Kangethe and Jesse Kariuki. The Association's demands for return of the land and an end to racism were unwavering. In 1929, when Johnstone Kenyatta was secretary, the KCA pressured the government to set up a commission to investigate their grievances about land. The government assented but it was several years be— fore the Commission was set up in 1933, under Sir William Morris Carter. Carter had served as Chief Justice of Uganda for many years and was considered an experienced and honest man. Since he had studied African land law as 137 early as 1906, he was regarded with great respect and, later events notwithstanding the Kikuyu expected a fair decision. The Carter Commission Investigation There were at least three problems to be investigated. First the Commission was to investigate the Kikuyu claim that their ancestors' land was alienated from them and that they had acquired these lands from Wandorobo by purchase, not by driving them out. The government had alleged the Kikuyu had no rights to the land as they had driven a weaker tribe out and simply taken it over. Second, the Commission was to investigate whether the Kikuyu had a system of land ownership prior to the coming of the white settlers. Finally, it was to determine how much land was then in the possession of the Kikuyu and then make its recommendations. According to L.W. White and E.F. Ward (1971:122), “the Commission made a thorough study of the subject of land in Kenya. It heard oral evidence from 487 African witnesses and over 200 other witnesses; it received letters from 400 Africans, and considered about 200 statements which Africans made to their district officers...” The Commission's findings were clear. It concluded that in 1895 the Kikuyu had held 1,519 square miles of land, and between then and 1902 had added another 275 square miles; 138 so that their total holdings before European settlement be- gan, totaled 1,794 square miles (White and Ward, 1971). The Commission suggested that of this area, only about 109 square miles had been alienated to the Europeans and that the government had already compensated the Kikuyu 265 square miles of land. 50, according to the Commission, the Kikuyu should not have been dissatisfied. The Commission, however, did not see that the 265 square miles given to the Kikuyu in compensation was less valuable, less productive than the land which the Kikuyu had lost. Even more distressing to the Kikuyu was that, as a result of the Commission's recommendation, the boundaries of the African reserves were fixed, just as were the boun— daries of the White Highlands. At the time of the report, the Europeans possessed a little more than 10,000 square miles, but after the report, boundaries were fixed at 16,000 square miles. The Commission also contended that government compensation of the Kikuyu must be based on individual merit of each person's case. To many observers, such as Sorrenson (1967) and White and Ward (1971), the Commission's report was biased and unfair, eSpecially in the case of Kiambu where sufficient evidence was available to support the claim of the Ithaka (estate) ownership that had been widely practiced. The Commission also failed to recognize the Kikuyu land tenure system and accept that the Kikuyu had acquired their land ———i 139 by purchase. Neither did the Commission adequately re- solve the problem of compensation. This failure to treat the Kikuyu grievances fairly accelerated a decision to resort to violence. Thus, in the period from 1946 to 1952, not only did tension rise, but also many rural proletarian and urban unemployed began clandestine activities. Former Kikuyu politicians, such as Johnstone Kenyatta, resumed their leadership and a mix— ture of political and armed struggle against injustice be— gan. Here Johnstone Kenyatta and Jomo Kenyatta refer to the same person. Johnstone was a Christian name given to Kenyatta prior to his rise to political prominence. After he became a national political figure, he changed his name to Jomo designating his political consciousness and his dislike of Colonial rule. Nationalism and Political Struggle When Kenyatta came back from England in 1946 after he had lobbied in Europe, he was no longer regarded as the Kenyatta of 1925. In his early political involvement, Kenyatta's activity was limited to the vicinity of Central Province. While he was lobbying in Europe, he met many well known black politicians such as George Padmore, Marcus Garvy and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. When he took leadership 140 as General Secretary of the Kenya African Union (KAU) in 1946, Kenyatta had become a nationalist. After he had been away for a long time, Kenyatta discussed Kenya's situation from a transethnic standpoint, but much of his writings dealt only with the Kikuyu and Kikuyu nationalism. During the transitional period in Kenya, 1950—1960, urban proletariat and rural nationalists joined efforts against the imperial rule. In rural Kenya, the land issue was the focal point for political opposition, in the urban areas, low wages, unemployment and lack of housing were the key issues. In Kenya, rural politics differed from urban poli— tics only on the issues that affected them. The objectives were the same. The rural peasants felt that they were de- humanized by the policies regarding land and labor and victims of those policies which made them landless and squatters on the white plantations. They felt that their rights were jeopardized and their traditions were destroyed. They argued that their rights to their traditional system were violated. The urban dwellers, on the other hand, argued similarly that their sufferage was not resolved. They complained that many workers had no shelters, that they were underemployed and that they were underpaid. The urban workers complained about inhumane treatment by their employers. They demanded to be given work benefits. It 141 was these elements that made the urban workers and the rural peasants think they shared a common problem and made it possible for them to join in a collective effort against colonial rule in the 19505. It was the urban dwellers who supplied the strategies. They led the rural Kikuyu in various ways, for example, in providing ideologies of rural unity and rural involvement. The urban dwellers were more organized and to some extent, more educated, than the rural population. Of the situation on the white farms, Furedi (1973/ 74:501) wrote, "The movement on the farms was led by the most skilled and articulate of the squatter community. These local leaders commanded widespread respect from Africans in the farms.... Thi5‘respect and influence was used to mobilise support for the Mau Mau." The term Mau Mau, first came to public attention in 1948. As yet, no- body has defined it or provided an exact meaning, but in the minds of many Europeans in Kenya, the term came to be associated with the secret activities of the Kikuyu, like oath—taking. It was not until 1950 that security forces began to discover secret organizations bearing the name Mau Mau. 142 In Central Province during this period, the members of the Mau Mau organization were bound not only by their ideology and commitment for change, but more so by oath— taking. The Kikuyu believed that solidarity, oneness, power and devotion for reaching their objectives could not be at— tained without psychological initiation. In the rural areas, since the squatters initially lacked ideology to unify them like their urban counterparts, so oathetaking became a unify— ing element and their commitment. By 1952, oath-taking had Spread to every Kikuyu family whether they were rural or urban, whether they were squatters or urban working class. Oaths provided the link between rural Kikuyu and the Kikuyu living in Nairobi. Stressing this point Furedi contended, “The relative 50phi5tication of the Nairobi militants enabled them to give a lead to the Kikuyu in the rural areas. Between 1947 and 1951 the Nairobi militants formed close contacts with activists in Kikuyuland and in the Highlands (Ibid). As the Mau Mau increased in membership and in effect— iveness of the pressure they put on the settlers, the lead— ers spread their activities in the farms, recruiting forest fighters and urban terrorists. For example, on the farms, the Mau Mau began their campaign by sabotaging white farms and livestock dairies and extended it by occupying the white farms illegally. For example, a native court officer (KNA, 143 1948) wrote in reference to acomplainttw'Mr. Hodson, the Provincial Commissioner, ”Hodson has recently filed actions in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Nairobi, under Section 18(9) of the Resident Laborer's Ordinance for the removal of four Africans from his farm, who were residing there without contract." This became a daily routine. As a result of such social action, a Kikuyu Loyalist movement emerged. There were those Kikuyu who called them— selves Watu wa Mungu (God's people), who fought against the Nationalists and sided with the Colonial government. Ac- cording to a report by Josiah Njango, Division Chief of Dagoretti, there were four divisions of people who armed themselves against the Kikuyu nationalists in support of the existing government. Njango listed these as the Christian people who followed the African Inland Mission; Karinga, who were also former members of the above Church; the God's people, and the pagans. The groups formed what today might be termed a rainbow coalition against the nation- alist insurgents. They claimed that they were defending Jesus Christ's mission against the devils and that nation- alists were engaged in secret activities such as attacking the supporters of the Colonial government and destroying white estates such as Ondiri and Gumoes Farms. Proof of such activities came in a letter of October 10, 1932 from the District Commissioner to the Provincial Commissioner, reporting, "About 200 newly planted coffee trees were up— rooted in one night." (KNA File No PC/CP, 8/7/2, 1932—1934). 144 Destruction of the settlers' farms, machinery, live- stock and crops worried the officials and the government‘s national expenditures rose substantially. Between 1952 and 1960, both parties lost lives and properties. Despite heavy losses among the nationalists, they were convinced that the Colonial government would not give in unless the destruction continued, in spite of a repressive declaration of a State of Emergency in 1952. The declaration of a State of Emergency made it possi— ble for the white government to deal effectively with the rebellions and make the chiefs function effectively. As Fanon (1963:62) said, The Colonial system encouraged cheiftaincies and kept alive the old Marabout Confrater- nities. Violence...was closely involved in the liquidation of regionalism and of tribal- ism. Thus the national parties showed no pity at all toward the caids and the customary chiefs. Their destruction was preliminary to the unification of the people. Fanon argued that at the level of individuals, vio- lence was a cleansing force that freed the native from his inferiority, despairenui inaction and made him fearless and restored his self-respect. In Kenya, it was only after the violence broke out, that white government began to make compromises. Fanon noted, "This idea of compromise is very important in the phenomenon of decolonization, for it is very far from being 145 a simple one.9(Ibid) Cpmpromiseinvolved both the Colonial sys- tem and the Young Nationalist bourgeoisie. During the crisis, the settlers were listening to the bourgeoisie Africans' claims and eventually acted to make compromise. In 1961, the Lancaster House Conference was held in London to discuss the land problem in Kenya and to guarantee poli— tical independence for the people of Kenya. The irony of this political compromise was that the radical nationalists were excluded from the Conference and they were unrepresented. It was the bourgeois nationalists who made compromises with the Colonial masters. The results of the Conference failed to satisfy the radical nationalists, it was beyond their comprehension that the petty African bourgeoisie could en— dorse a compromise that so favored the colonizers. The compromises made were in five parts. 1. The Lancaster House Conference agreed to grant political independence but with little change in economic structure. 2. It agreed to grant majority political rule but not to disarm minority economic power. 3. It agreed to decolonize the so-called White Highlands and to set aside at least one million acres for settlement, but refused to distribute the land freely. 4. Since the colonizer realized the expense of settlement, the British agreed to pro- vide loans, grants and technology at the expense of the Kenyan government. 5. It was agreed that the loans provided to the Kenyan government would be extended to individual settlers as loans to buy farms, as-a settlement procedure. 146 Politically, this procedure benefitted the colonizers and did harm to the colonized. It bene- fitted the colonizers by creating divisions among African political leaders and by isolating the Loyalists from non-Loyalists. It functioned as a pacifier to the larger population of Kikuyu people, in order to create a stable society in which multiracialism could exist and a stable African middle class dominate the poli— tical arena. To provide security to the nation and the white farmers, the Colonial government proposed an idealistic program of land reform. Summary The bloody confrontation that aimed at destroy— ing existing colonial economic establishment in the region created a rationale for compromise between the government and the native nationalists. This compro- mise allowed the government to promulgate partial land reform by providing village homes and consolidat— ing plots of lands to form more viable economic units—- as a means to bring about stability in the region. 147 Chapter V brings this process of land reform up to date. CHAPTER FIVE LAND REFORM, VILLAGIZATION AND LAND CONSOLIDATION: A CASE STUDY IN NYERI Before discussing land reform in Kenya, two important questions need to be answered. First, what is land reform? Second, why was land reform considered by the colonial govern— ment to be an important element in the political crisis be— tween the Kikuyu and the white settlers? To respond to the first question, Thomas Paulini has analyzed definitions provided by such specialists in the field of land reform as Warriner (1969), Bergmann (1974), Gutchman (1974), Jacoby (1971) and the United Nations (1972). Hethen evolved a concept of land reform and its purposes as a ”program of measures which change the ownership and/or possession and utilization of land radically in favor of the real cultivators and which consequently brings about a redistribution of land.“ Agrarian reform is defined as, "a program of all those measures which bring about an ir- reversible redistribution of all production means needed for agricultural production." (1972:27) Dorren Warriner (1955) said ”Land reform, in the traditional and accepted sense of the term, means the redistribution of property in land for the benefit of small farmers and agricultural workers.“ 148 149 By its nature, land reform is regarded as a product of violence. "In its most essential appearance (manifesta— tion), an agrarian reform consiSts at least of a seizure of the land which was appropriated by one or more social classes and its transfer to one or more other social classes." (Gluckman). Huntington has related "the emancipation of the serfs, for instance, stimulated some local uprisings and acts of insubordination in rural Russia." To explain, he argues, Where the conditions of land ownership are equitable and provide a viable living for the peasant, revolution is unlikely. Where they are inequitable and where the peasant lives in poverty and suffering, revolution is likely, if not inevitable, unless the government takes prompt measures to remedy these conditions. (1970:375) Therefore land reform was (1) a rehabilitative meas- ure, (2) had a stabilizing effect on the political system, and (3) was a promoting factor. In other words, land re— form is used, as Huntington says, "-..to promote individ— ual land ownership and to bring into existence a class of support for the leadership." (Ibid) By tracing the history of mankind, it becomes clear that land reform is the most prevalent social change that occurs in the world as men continue to demand such changes. According to Huntington's analysis, almost every country that has experienced some sort of political and social violence, has, 150 in one way or another, also undergone land reform. For ex- ample, "In Korea the American—sponsored distribution of formerly Japanese lands in 1947 and 1948 did much to reduce rural instability.... In Mexico the land reforms following the Revolution were a major source of the political stability which prevailed in that country after the 19205." (Huntington). In Kenya, land reform was undertaken on three differ— ent levels, each with its own objective. It started with the concept of villagizing the Kikuyu. What this meant was that the Kikuyu settlements prior to the whites in Kenya were always of a homestead type, villagizing them was con- sidered a legitimate process to bring them into a village setting. The second level was land consolidation and regis- tration. Since the Kikuyu had already been removed from homesteadwdwellings to village homes, consolidating their previously scattered plots was considered not only necessary but an economically viable procedure because by consolidating their plots they could accommodate modern technology. Most importantly, it was at this stage that the actual radicali— zation of their land tenure began. The Kikuyu communal ten— ure was radically transformed into a free hold system, mean- ing that land had to be registered under the individual holder. The third level was known as the One Million Acre Settlement Scheme and was intended to bring effective changes in rural Kikuyuland. 151 To begin with, the British introduced land reform which initially appeared under the title of villagization in 1953. This was soon followed by Land Consolidation and Registration in 1954, introduced by Swynnerton and later known as the Swynnerton Plan. This was further complicated by a One Million Acre Settlement Scheme that appeared under the title "The Decolonization of the White Highlands.” By 1961, the program was under way and supposed to be in its final stage. To understand the nature and effects of land reform we need to first understand the Villagization and Land Consolidation and Registration programs as pre- requisites to the One Million Acre Settlement scheme. Russell King (1977:339) explains, ”The year 1960 was a turning point. The Mau Mau Emergency, which ended then, had produced considerable disruption, including the forced 'villagization' of over a million Kikuyu.” The consequence of land reform, as history witnesses it, were not as effective as had been hoped. Enlightening us in this crucial situation, Huntington said, Despite its initial revolutionary excesses, [land reform] has not tended to promote the communication of the country. It ap- pears rather that the peasantry, whose pos- session of land now gives them a stake in the prosperity and stability of the state, serves as a check on the more radically- minded workers. In Venezuala as in Mexico and Bolivia, landed reform made the political climate 'more conservative' and increased 'the political influence of a basically conservative sector of the population'. (1970:376) 152 In Kenya, land reform ended the uncertainty of traditional tenure and provided improved incomes based on cash cropping. Its least publicized objectives-~creat— ing a stable middle class built around Kikuyu loyalists to forestall further subversion was largely achieved. What consolidation did most effectively, was consolidate the position of existing landowners. About 2.7 million hectares of land remained in large farms, including 800,000 hectares (more than half) of the former White Highlands, while fifty percent was in small holdings, covering four percent of agricultural land, less than two hectares in size (King, 1977). The Process of Villagization According to Raymond Apthorpe, village settlement in Kenya referred to the emergency grouping of huts for those made landless and destitute by subdivisional settle— ment, as well as to the habitations constructed for former forest dwellers (Figure 5.1). Apthorpe also used villag— ization "to refer to the punitive measures brought against one million Kikuyu by the colonial government after Mau— Mau.” (1968:5) Nganga described that peOple in a sublocation were put into one area surrounded by a five foot furrow as shown in Figure 5.2 —__—7 153 -."4,' ”31' )‘s . [‘s- The Kikuyu Village Settlement in Nyeri FIGURE 5.1: March 1957. Optima, Volume 7, SOURCE: 154 FIGURE 5.2: The Change of Homesteads to Village Homes SOURCE: African World, September 1955 155 A Kiku}m headmnn chats with the women folk in (I new village FIGURE 5.3: The New Village and Social Setting SOURCE: African World, September 1955 156 .1-,:._ H ‘ ’7'. . , _ ‘ f _ - 1* ,lgé‘- m;. r '« ' -,, ' "‘ n4. __ k :4 13. "iv 7 , ‘ f 2 £7 1'6": \ ; «.1 . _, ‘ I m A meeting of Kikuyu leader: in one of the new village: ' near Nyeri FIGURE 5.4: A Village Meeting Concerning Land Consolidation And Registration SOURCE: African World, September 1955 157 29 A landscmx 11‘ ansfo1 med: IC‘I 1nccd and consolidated {211 ms in the F011 Hall d1suicl and 21 11c“ \ illage on a11doe FIGURE 5.5: The Villagization and the Process Toward Land Consolidation in Fort Hall SOURCE: Optima, Volume 7, March 1957 158 The furrow was filled with sharpened sticks planted at the bottom with the sharp ends pointing upwards. A mass of barbed wires was also put all along the furrow. The village had one entrance which was located at the Home-Guard posts. (1970:369) The villages were usually located on a hillside to give the Home—Guard at his post access to detect anyone trying to defect to trying to feed freedom fighters with infor— mation, a typical colonial strategy. Initially, these village settlements were not ef— fectively challenged by Kikuyu Opposition leaders because the majority of the radical leaders were either serving jail sentences, had been detained or killed or had es— caped to the forest to help the forest fighters. Some who had completed their jail terms and had managed to re- join the other Kikuyu, recognized the establishment of these village dwellings as essential for security. Many of the Kikuyu had already given up the struggle and even those who were ex—detainees preferred village homes to finding themselves caught between homelessness and living hidden in the forest. Given their vulnerable conditions, the Kikuyu pop— ulation needed the villages and the settlers exploited the situation. The villagization program was carried out successfully and accepted without resistance. 159 In the villages, former Kikuyu detainees, along with. those who were hired as Home-Guards, formed what might be called a rainbow coalition to exploit the settlements and enrich themselves. To them, village settlement was a mat- ter of economic opportunity. These rogues, known as Loyalists recognized these village schemes as a way to acquire wealth. Since most of the land was empty, its owners having been killed in the war, jailed or escaped into the forest, the empty land was available for exploitation. Nganga (1977:368) explained, “Some Home-Guards took this opportunity to enrich them— selves. They could make false accusations against others, who would be imprisoned or detained and their property such as sheep, cows, cattle, chickens, ironsheets from the houses would be carried away." The Loyalists used all kinds of methods of acquire property that belonged to their fellow Kikuyu. To make matters worse, those Loyalists were trusted by their masters (the white settlers) to the extent that whatever they reported was taken as true. Thus they used their masters' trust to enrich themselves. Once a Loyalist made a report on a fellow Kikuyu, the master or the govern— ment would take punitive measures, often killing the accused without any legal procedures. To the government, these sen- tences were considered precautionary measures toward stab- lizing the situation. The Loyalists looked at the matter 160 as a means of trying to accumulate wealth from those whom they considered devils, satans and heathens. Frequently, the accused were those who had large pieces of land, large numbers of goats, sheep and cattle. In his statistical estimates of the properties confiscated by the Home—Guards or the Loyalists, Nganga noted, ”In the three month period of September to November, 1954, 250 per— sons in Kikuyu had 1,072 cattle and 2,061 sheep confiscated and sold, and also under the Forfeiture Ordinace the land of 4,000 peOple was confiscated.” (Ibid) Despite these facts a large Kikuyu population stood behind the villagization project, even though the settle— ments were only benefitting a few Kikuyu. The hostile sit- uation in which the Kikuyu had found themselves, was re— sponsible for their acceptance of this village settlement program. During this transitional period, many Kikuyu families had suffered much from human brutality. Blundell (1954: 107) said, "The number in the forests and in the gangs var- ied according to estimates between 5,000 and 7,000. Casual— ities due to military action or the action of the security forces were 7,700 to 7,900. Those inflicted through the courts were about 700. Deaths of the Kikuyu by their own actions numbered 1,200 to 1,300.” Colonial law also de- manded that before a Kikuyu adult was set free, he or she had to go through detention camps. The detention camps 161 served as pipelines for screening the "clean" and the ”un- clean" Kikuyu. Elspeth Huxley (1957:10) estimated, "Up until the end of April, 1957, some 27,000 Kikuyu, Embu and Meru men and women had passed through the camps set up for detainees, and a further 26,000 were still under detention.” In this situation, it is not surprising that Kikuyu population stood firmly in support of land reform programs. Even though the pressure for land was much greater in Kiambu district, Nyeri became the learning district in initiating change. It was here that land reform was first executed. Nyeri: A Case Study of Land Reform Research was conducted, using Nyeri,to systematically analyze the development of social inequalities among rural Kikuyu. Such analysis involved assessment of the political and social strategies undertaken by the British Colonial government. Nyeri is a northwestern district of Central Province which covers approximately 336 square miles. Situated 30 miles south of the equator, the eastern side is dominated by Mt. Kenya rising to 17,040 feet, and on the west by the Aberdare Range rising to a little over 12,000 feet. Nyeri Hill lies within walking distance of what was traditionally called Gethuri Hill. Southern Nyeri is Kikuyuland, the location of the traditional Kikuyu native reserve areas. 162 To the north of Nyeri town is fertile farm land character— ized by large coffee plantations. Nyeri is geographically located in a strategic posi— tion in the heart of the Kenyan highland areas that pro— vides it with good agricultural potential and attractive scenery. Its fertile hilly plateau lies between Mt. Kenya and Aberdare Range. It is one of the most densely populated districts second only to Kiambu district. The Economic System The economic system in Nyeri, as in other districts in the province, before colonial settlement, was tradition— ally oriented. Land was the center of socioeconoimc acti— vities and it was owned communally by family or kinship groups. Held by the Mbari (clan), the tribal land was re- ferred to as Bururi wa Gikuyu——Kikuyuland. Nyeri rainfall ranges from 35 to 70 inches per year. Characteristically, the district has seasons that geograph— ers call long and short rainy seasons, which provide super— ior conditions for profitable agricultural production. Until the 19505, farming in Nyeri was mainly at subsistence levels with primitive agricultural practices and a rudi— mentary tenure system. In primitive societies, producers control the means of production, including their own labor, and exchange labor 163 and products for equivalent goods and services of others. Surpluses are exchanged directly among groups or members of groups. A primitive system is thus different from others in its features and organization. “A corollary is that de— facto control of the means of production is decentralized, local and familial...” (Holff, 1966z3) Wolf (1966:2)has explained that: (a) economic relations of coercion and exploitation and mastery are not created in the system of production; (b) in the absence of the incentive given by exchange of the product against a great quantity of goods on a market, there is a tendency to limit production to goods that can be directly utilized by the producers. In Nyeri, livestock (sheep, goats and cattle) were part of agricultural wealth. Mixed farming predomin— ated and livestock was used for supplying meat, milk and hides for clothing. Livestock also served as currency in exchange or land purchases, dowry and other payments. As with land, ownership of livestock was both individual and communal. It was individual in that each member of the family could own a sheep, a goat or a cow. It was communal in that when an individual married, his property especially land and livestock, automatically became com— munal property. 164 Political Structure Kenyatta has characterized Nyeris' political struc- ture as "An extreme democracy, for everyone properly quali— fied had the right to take part in the government of the community...[the AfriCan] could take part in national af— fairs, ranging from the village Council of Elders, through the District Councils to the National Council." (1953:75) Most important, however, is that the family unit remained as the core of social and political structure. The poli- tical system was structually an age-set system and basically decentralized. This age-set system was known as the Matiika System. In general, the Kikuyu age—set system or Matiika was similar to the age system in Masai society. The Nyeri Kikuyu arrived in this district to find the Masai already settled there with a fully established social system. In their division of labor and political structure, the Nyeri Kikuyu were divided into: (1) the warrior class, (2) the Anaka (unmarried) class, (3) the Kiama (elder group) and (4) the medicine men. In a political sense, the warriors were the soldiers and the executives. The Kiama-~the Elder group——were married males who had paid their fees to join the rank of Kiama. Their role was to legislate and make judicial decisions. Not only the Elder had the privilege to be appointed to the 165 Council, but also those men belonging to the priesthood and the medicine men. The interaction between those Nyeri Kikuyu and the colonial settlers is taken as a point of departure. After the arrival of the settlers, the Kikuyu learned that their subsistence economy was being transformed to quasi-commercial agriculture aukithat their simple society was becoming a more complicated structure. The dramatic change in the region became apparent during the Mau-Mau uprising. Mboya (1963) said that had it not been for the Mau-Mau, perhaps these changes [land reform] would never have taken place. In support of Mboya, Kilson asserted,”Since the outbreak of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya in October 1952, the economic, social and political complex in this colony has shown signs of gradual but definite change; with Mau-Mau acting, per- haps, as a stimulus to change, the British Colonial govern- ment has introduced several significant and far-reaching social, economic and political policies.” (1957:559) Nyeri District Nyeri, the Central Province headquarters led the process toward change. At the beginning of the colonial era, Central Province comprised Meru, Nanyuki, Embu and Thika. At the time of settlement, Embu, and Meru were in— cluded in the Northeast Province. Today, there are five 166 districts——Nyeri, Nyandaru, Fort Hall, Kiambu and Kirinyaga. As the subject of Nyeri district's leadership in social change is discussed, analysis of other districts in the Province is necessary. The analysis of other districts is important because what happened in districts like Kiambu and Fort Hall, defines whether or not Nyeri's leadership was successful. The Gaki, as the Nyeri Kikuyu were called, migrated northward from Muranga and settled in three different areas—- Mathira, Mukurwe—iniothaya and Aguthi--all of which were placed under the South Nyeri Reserves by the colonial ad- ministrators. The Mathira Kikuyu who migrated into those areas were a combination of the Naia and the Masai who have lived in that area ever since. Those who migrated into Othaya were headed by a clan known as Aithiegni. The Aithiegni clan was one of the nine major Kikuyu clans. This group settled in and around Gikondi in Mukurwe-ini and from there spread throughout the district. Change: As It Occurred In The Area There were both internal and external forces at work in Nyeri which propelled the people to take the lead toward land reform and social change. The Nyeri people, like the rest of the Kikuyu in the region, had in one way or another experienced colonial brutality, colonial disorder, and colonial demand for change. 167 Prior to the settlement schemes, the most fertile lands in Nyeri were under white possession. "Over 200 in- habitants occupied an area of one square mile while a single white settler owned the same area of land all by himself." (Ngundir, 1973:74) Internally, then, the Nyeri Kikuyu were experiencing intense land shortage. Providing ad- ditional information about the acreage owned by single white families, Ngunjiri notes that a Mr. Swanson (a colon- ial settler) occupied about 640 acres of land near Nyeri district; a Mr. Maxwell, a a prominent colonial planter, owned about 120 acres; a Mr. MacDonald had 640 acres, and Mr. Scott and Mr. Hales had the same amount. In total, these five white settlers occupied about 2,680 acres in Nyeri. As it is estimated that there were over 400 white farmers in the district, one can imagine how much land the Nyeri people had lost. Therefore, land shortage and pop— ulation pressure played an essential part in forcing the Nyeri population to look for alternatives. In addition, it is hypothesized that the native chiefs in Nyeri were mostly land owners. With their leadership, land reform was made acceptable. Local Leadership in Nyeri Generally, those who have been given credit as dif— fussionists were the progressive farmers. These people 168 facilitated, promoted and became change agents. They were the vanguards against strong Kikuyu traditionalism and social pressure to resist change. The diffusionists were the Home Guards or Loyalists who collaborated with the Colonial government. Most of these people were government workers. They were those who squatted on white farms and learned how to till the farm by using tractors. Some of them were chiefs' son and chiefs' relatives. Many had tilled the white plantations and saw the advantage of holding land individually. These people were ready for change. Collectively, these leaders were referred to as pro— gressive farmers and they were the ones who led the masses in the change process. The change process, as it is viewed by C.M. Arensberg and A.H. Neihoff (1971:82), is regarded as the transfer of a new idea or technique from one cultural group or subgroup to another, as one of the types of diffusion.... It is pictured as a situation in which some representative individual or group is deliber- ately planning to introduce the new idea and will interact with the prospective recipients until such time as the innovation is involun- tarily accepted and integrated into their cul— tural pattern. Some of these individuals were Chief Muhoya of Nyeri, Elind of Nyeri, Senior Chief Njiiri and Ignatio of Fort Hall District. They included Chief Makimei of Chura Division of Kiambu District. When village settlement was introduced, Chief Muhoya of Nyeri took the initiative and accepted the 169 program willingly and immediately. He endorsed the program to villagize the people in his district and when Land Con— solidation and Registration were undertaken, Chief Muhoya, once again took the lead, With his ambition and, the support of the Colonial government, Chief Muhoya became the chief organizer toward change, thus Nyeri became the center for social change. Muhoya was quickly followed by other progressive farmers from other Kikuyu districts. Villagization in Nyeri Chief Muhoya's leadership toward change was fully assisted by the Colonial government. In fact, they made it certain that the project was to succeed. The Nyeri District Village Settlement Project was launched cautiously at the beginning of 1954 with a small plot scheme in each of 12 locations. This enabled the government to try several lay-out patterns and gauge local opinion. At the same time, an intensive propaganda cam- paign was launched, explaining the general social and econ- omic advantages of village life. Since these villages in Nyeri were to be used as a model, and to assure the con— fidence of a majority of the Kikuyu, the government built them hurriedly. For example, ”Between January and December of 1954 nearly 200 village units were completed, and oc— cupied by some 165,000 souls, i.e., approximately 825 men, women and children per village unit." (Hughs, 1955:171) 170 The cooperation of the so-called progressive farmers, was a great deal of help to the Colonial government. In financing such an expensive project, the government actually convinced many Kikuyu leaders that village settlement was essential and economically viable. Soon the Fort Hall dis- trict became a part of the project since the Nyeri settle- ment had already provided an understanding of how to go about resolving any complications. According to Elspeth Huxley (1953:104) By the end of 1955 scarcely a single family homestead survived. Nearly a million men, women and children had been moved into some 845 so-called villages, each one sited on a hilltop where it could be defended; each one accessible to water and built according to standards which, though not be European notions very advanced, and certainly lacking all aesthe- tic charm, at least provided latrines and win- dows for each family. Despite this, land was still an issue. Many Kikuyu people still had no land to build a house, no plot to cul- tivate and had no idea as to when this land problem would be solved. As the Kikuyu population became increasingly restrictive about the land situation and resentment grew toward some of those Kikuyu who had accumulated too much land, the government also grew worried. The theory under— lying these settlements was that their success would not only promote white government's image, but also make it easier for the authorities and the people to live in har- mony as villagization lessened fear and doubt toward the government. 171 The government had determined that the establishment of village life, would automatically provide for (l) collapse of the old Kikuyu social order which was held by homestead dwelling, (2) the Kikuyu family would become a nuclear rather than an extended one, (3) village living would even— tually break the legendary ties of the old system, (4) vil— lage dwelling, itself, would support the system of individ— ualization. The Colonial government was therefore fully aware that if the village program failed, it would auto— matically mean the failure of any project that the govern— ment intended to provide in the future. Therefore, when the government had learned that the village program was not meeting the expectations of those who had initially supported it, it swiftly proposed land consolidation and registration, not as a substitute, but as a supplement. This was to be a way to maintain the expectations of the progressive farmers and consolidate their lands into units for commercial purposes. In Nganga’s (1977:370) words, "Land Consolidation meant that an individual's fragmented plots were gathered into a single holding and then registered under a title deed." The decision to consolidate the fragmented land was taken after the government had done an extensive investi— gation of villagization problems. As a result of this investigation, the Governor of Kenya, Sir Phillip Mitchell, 172 in 1951, determined that the main problems in Kenya in general, and in Kikuyu in particular were social and agrar- ian and not nationalistic. Both white settlers and the African progressive group jointly agreed that land consolida- tion was essential. As the idea was debated, more and more Kikuyu peasants began to accept it. Land Consolidation and Registration in Nyeri Land consolidation and registration in Nyeri was aimed at five objectives: 1. improving the Kikuyu economic conditions by intensifying the development of agriculture, 2. giving the progressive Kikuyu legal rights of ownership of the land they had illegally acquired, 3. destroying African communal ownership and individualizing the Africans by giving them land under title deed, 4. giving the African farmers~what the govern— ment called secure tenure, and 5. readdressing the importance of the villagization program. Despite a previous acceptance of individual land ownership in Kiambu, land consolidation and registration was introduced first in Nyeri where villagization had been first introduced. Sorrenson (1967), in his article ”Land Consolidation in Nyeri," said, ”In 1942 the Nyeri Local Native Council passed the Land Registration Rules, designed 173 as a step towards a comprehensive system of registration." The main purpose of the rules was to encourage the progres— sive farmers to consolidate their fragmented plots. The reasons for selecting Nyeri were twofold. First, there had already been some attempts to consolidate holdings, so the government needed only to follow up with grants of titles. Second, the Nyeri people had already approved the program, so the government did not have to spend extra time and money trying to persuade the peOple to accept the program. According to reliable sources, Chief Muhoya of Nyeri had begun land consolidation experimentation as early as 1945. It was during that time that Muhoya had consolidated the land of his own Mbari. Muhoya was a man who was totally pragmatic. He believed in the saying "clean your house be- fore cleaning somebody else's," and wanted to see that change was successful first in his own towns and villages. Acreage Consolidated and Registered If success of Nyeri is measured by the number of acres consolidated, Nyeri succeeded in its leadership to— ward change. Sorrenson (1967:147) has provided this evid— ence: By the end of the year fragments had been measured over about one third of the dis- trict-~over 32,020 acres in North Tetu division, 24,865 in Othoya, 20,639 in Mathira and 2,862 acres in South Tetu...less than 174 6,000 acres had been demarcated by the end of 1965 [but] demarcation of the whole district totaling some 220,000 acres was completed in June 1959. Al— together this had involved the measure— ment of land, subsequently consolidated into 43,107 individual holdings, about half of them of three acres or less. The process to consolidate the district did not take long. Virtually the whole operation was carried out within three years, two years short of the target date set in November 1955. Nyeri's achievement was only bettered by that of Kiambu where consolidation of a slightly larger area was accomplished in just over two years. Harbeson has given a wider picture of land consolida- tion in the whole of Kenya. "At the end of 1959, 1,314,658 acres of land had been consolidated. Of this area, 820,049 acres were in Central province, while an additional 350,594 had been consolidated in Nyanza. In Central Province about 117,746 freehold titles had been issued." (1973:39) For the details of the operation in Central Province, Tables 5.1 and 5.2 are provided to show how much land was enclosed and registered in each district and the amounts spent in the program. Procedures of Consolidation and Registration Initially, consolidation officials had to make sure that the objectives of the settlement scheme were specified and made known to the people. The stipulations between government officials and the native settlers were: .175 TABLE 5.1: ENCLOSURE AND REGISTRATION OF AFRICAN FARMS IN KENYA (UP TO JUNE 30th, 1961) Enclosure Registration District Acres Farms Acres Farms Kiambu 238,412 37,408 238,412 37,408 Fort Hall 226,725 64,778 159,745 45,712 Nyeri 201,386 43,593 201,386 43,593 Embu 311,000 44,417 262,298 36,541 Meru 21,424 4,762 —-— ——- Total Central Province 998,947 194,958 861,841 163,254 Source: Journal of Local Administration Overseas, Vol. 1, 1962. TABLE 5.2: EXPENDITURES FOR CENTRAL PROVINCE REGISTRATION 1960 Expenses Expenditures (ingpounds) Kiambu 171,926 Nyeri 158,841 Staff paid headquarters votes 45,000 (approximately) Total 375,767 Source: Journal of Local Administration Overseas, Vol. 1, 1962. 176 l. separated fragments were to be consolidated into one holding 2. major customs, such as communal holdings, were to be abandoned 3. the boundaries between different clan areas, where the requirements of consolidation demanded were to be abolished, and 4. land holding based on individual title was to be the only system allowed. Apart from individual contractual agreements, land consolidation and registration was a matter of principles based on agreement of the people concerned and was not car— ried out in any area where there was opposition of any kind. The authorities made sure that land consolidation teams were informed about each division of the three Kikuyu dis- tricts. Fragmented holdings were measured and recorded to compute the total acreage held by each family or individual. To avoid confrontation with the people, the author— ities made it mandatory that the choice of consolidation area must depend on some cooperation by the peOple involved and be accomplished only when people showed their willing— ness to have their land consolidated. As Pedraza (1962:84) has eXplained, Consolidation is carried out area by area, and these areas may vary in size between 1,000 and 3,000 acres. Before measurement can begin, the team must effect exchanges of land, so that the fragments of each man who is to be settled in the area to be con— solidated are concentrated in the area. 177 Evaluations of Land Consolidation and Registration Flexibility by the authorities and the support of the progressive farmers made a success of land consolida- tion and registration that would have not been possible without the leadership of people like Chief Muhoya. In the views of some students of African land settlement pro— grams, including Nganga, however, the program and its ef- fects were negative for Africans. According to them, the process led to: 1. enriching the more progressive Kikuyu and thus impoverishing large numbers of the Kikuyu whose deprivation should have been alleviated 2. freehold tenure which provided legal rights to those peOple who had previously amassed the land that belonged to those who died or were sentenced to jail 3. giving land to only those so-called in— telligent and capable individual farmers in order to maintain the system of in- dividual holding 4. destruction of nationalist political unity and its influence on village dwellers 5. quarrels among families over the land. Nganga (1977:372) explained, “In the absencedof a man's relatives he could consolidate all their land in his name if he had the support of the committee members." Once the land had been registered, family attempts to reclaim owner— ship rights always resulted either in physical or court 178 battles. Once a case went to court, the person who re— claimed, had very little chance to win it because he had no legal documentation in terms of western system of land holding. He would not be able to prove his case, unless it was an unusual case. For example, in his article, ”Land Reform and Economic Change Among African Farmers in Kenya” (1970:9) William J. Barber, said, "In Kiambu District of the Central Province, it was estimated that some 200,000 shillings were spent on court fees in land disputes in l951...some 600,000 shillings changed hands in the bribery of witnesses appearing in such cases.“ Corruption was another of the problems that arose in the land consolidation and registration program. De— marcating officers created most of these corruption prob— lems. Nganga explained, A person's land, for instance, could be 200 yards by 400 yards on the ground, but the official could record 150 yards by 300 yards. The person’s land would then be demarcated at the smaller size while the official would have in ”office” a plot of 50 yards to 100 yards which he could sell to X (1977:360. As the registration went on, many Kikuyu families became disillusioned with the program. There were com— plaints from the landless and from their political sympathi— zers that the majority of the Kikuyu had been betrayed by the government. They argued that, prior to consolidation it was the white settlers who occupied most of the fertile 179 areas, but now just a few Africans controlled all the wealth in land. They argued that the program had promised an equal distribution, but what resulted was inequality not equality. By 1960, Kikuyu complaints were beginning to put the pressure on the bourgeoise Africans and the government. More important, the government understood that for Kenya to be stable and have a stable government, the land ques- tion had to be answered before independence. The Colonial government was quite aware that if Kenya became independent before the land problems were solved, the life and security of every white settler would be in jeopardy. Summary Land reform in the Central Province of Kenya took place after a bloody protest by the Kikuyu who were vic- timized during the land alienation era. The program ini- tially provided village homes and consolidated segmented lands that had become economically worthless. The intent was that such consolidation into larger units would pro- vide the basis of a sound economy. Under these conditions, the government was forced to examine the possibility of decolonizing the areas pre- viously owned exclusively by whites and declaring the area available for resettlement. In 1961, a decision was taken and one million acres of land were set aside for settling 180 landless families. The events, process and effects of this One Million Acre Settlement program are examined in Chapter Six. CHAPTER SIX THE KIKUYU AND THE ONE MILLION ACRE SCHEME Kenyan history reveals that the years from 1953 to the mid-19605 were a time of social unrest, a time when many rural peasants, particularly the Kikuyu of Central Province were going through social, economic and political change. The majority of the Kikuyu population had been driven off their lands and were living without hope. About 60,000 families from Kiambu alone had lost about 11,000 acres and were roaming the white farms seeking a place to live securely. Other thousands were aimlessly moving into the urban areas with nothing to do. It was these circumstances that has led social historians, social anthropologists, econom— ists, psychologists and others to argue that the Kikuyu political explosion was a reflection of the conditions they were experiencing. Trying to normalize these inhuman conditions and avoid further Kikuyu explosion, the colonists found they had to loosen up rigid rules and confront realities. Their efforts marked the beginning of actual social change in Kenya. It was a move to alter the old order, especially the existing land tenure system. The problem that confronted 181 182 the colonists was that this required changing the land owner— ship system, making land available to indigenous local people. Without other alternatives, decolonizing the former "white Highlands” was inevitable. In 1962, a one million acre settlement scheme was initiated that had its roots in the villagization of the Kikuyu in 1953, and efforts to con— solidate segmented Kikuyu lands in 1954—55. The Plan for Settlement The strategy was introduced by the Department of Agriculture under Swynnerton who was then its Assistant Director, and became known as the Swynnerton Plan. This plan became the most celebrated program in the history of Kenya, even though, as Harbeson (1973:34) put it, ”...it was devised in great haste, at least in part because the prospect of thousands of unemployed Kikuyu returning to their home land from Tanganyika and other areas of Kenya worried the colonial administration." The Swynnerton Plan proposed four requirements to resolve Kikuyu land problems and improve their economic conditions; (1) it required changes in land ownership from the customary communal tenure to a freehold system involving the enclosure and registration of existing rightS; (2) it required that 1.2 million acres be set aside to settle land— less and unemployed families; (3) it required that preference 183 be given to progressive Kikuyu farmers in providing them the necessary means to develop; and (4) it initiated change in government policy. All four requirements of the Swynnerton plan were approved by the Colonial government, but the program was too expensive and the Colonial government knew that the African government would not be able to carry it out with— out British aid, financial and technical. During the Lan- caster House Conference in 1961, guidelines were drawn for the settlement. The format was as follows: (1) farms previously owned by colonial settlers were to be acquired by purchase (2) a loan was to be given to the Kenya govern— ment at 6%% interest; since Kenya had not yet acquired its independence,the Colonial govern— ment acted on its behalf (3) it was agreed that the loan would be used only to purchase 1.2 million acres that had been set aside for settlement (4) the British government would not only act as mediator, but would also be responsible for the settlement (5) it was required that after land or a farm was bought, it was to be subdivided into plots for settlement (6) these plots were to be acquired also by pur— chase (7) the new settler would receive loan at 7%% interest to enable him to acquire the plot. This loan was to be paid at the due date. The land question in Kenya was not only economic but political as well. In examining the procedure that was designed to settle the African landless, after the One Mil— lion Acre Settlement land was purchased, it became clear that the British government had a hidden agenda in promoting the scheme. Presumably, their main intentions were politi— cal and were as follows: (1) to quiet the Kikuyu political leaders by agree— ing to partially decolonize the former ”white highlands.” (2) to convince the Kikuyu that a One Million Acre Scheme, unlike Villagization and the Land Con— solidation and Registration Scheme would pro— vide what the Kikuyu people really wanted. (3) to convince the Kikuyu that this scheme would allow the new settlers to obtain a net annual income of between twenty—five and seventy'pounds,and (4) to divide this settlement land into two categories—-High Density and Low Density, which perpetuated inequality in ownership of land. The problem was that the Kikuyu masses and their political leaders were not fully informed about the nature of the land owned by the white settlers in the highlands. The white highlands were divided into two separate agri— (a) a zone which was extensively developed cultural zones: with plantation activities and (b) a zone that was under— developed and known as mixed farm land. The highly de— veloped zone covered approximately 4,260,000 acres and the mixed farm land comprised 3,440,000 acres of land. 185 To keep the white settlers' economy undisturbed, the British government decided, under the guidelines drawn at the Lancaster House Conference, to decolonize the under— developed, mixed farming zone for settlement. It was out of this 3,440,000 mixed.acres that 1.2 million acres were set aside to settle thousands of Kikuyu families. Originally, it was agreed that the One Million Acre Scheme would not be subdivided into plots to become economically useless. The aim was not to create a subsistence level economy but to eliminate it. In practice, the policy to eliminate a subsistence farming economy was never carried out, particularly in the high-density area where land was divided and subdivided in— to smaller plots to accommodate as many families as possible. To divert attention from this and calm the fears of attention was focused on multiracism the white settlers, with Kenyatta at the forefront of this campaign. Kenyatta had to travel to the white community to assure them of the safety of their lives and prOperty. For example, the Prime Minister accompanied by several dignitaries, was invited to deliver his first Speech in Nakuru (the main center for the white planters). Kenyatta, speaking as the head of said; State and as an African nationalists, Kenya is large enough and its potential is great. We can all work together to make this country great and show other countries that different racial groups can live and work together...some European farmers are worried about their future....I say to you today that we want you to stay and to farm and to farm well in this country. Let us join hands and work together for the better- ment of the land. I beg you to believe that this is the policy of the government-—we must work together and try to trust one another. (Kenya Weekly News, February 28, 1964) Kenyatta's speech in Nakuru assured the white settlers that their staying in Kenya was welcomed and was expected to promote the economy. The Kikuyu pOpulation, particularly the landless and those who had come in from the forests, waited for their reward since they were the ones who had fought the war against the colonial settlers. The Colonial government then needed to do something for Kenyatta, to dis- pell the Kikuyu's suspicion of him as a betrayer. The answer, of course, was to return some land. Aware that Kenyatta, as a spokesman for the Kikuyu and the head of State, had already committed himself to the course of the Kikuyu problem, the Colonial government, with all its financial might, decided to go ahead with the ex— pensive one million acre program and to see to it that most of it was completed before independence in 1963. The pro— cedure was to set aside 1.2 million acres for settlement with the intent to settle over 300,000 families, most of whom were landless, poor and unskilled peasants. 187 According to a report by Maina and MacArthur (1970: 427) the smallholder settlement program had four main ob— jectives. The first was essentially political—~"to diminish the preponderant influence of the settler farmers in the former scheduled areas by allocating some of the land to Africans.“ The second was social——”to settle on the land people who had previously been landless and had been un— employed, or living and working as they could...“ The third objective was both technical and economci—-"to intro— duce, under supervision, a significant number of farmers to advanced systems of production, so that they would increase total production from an average of}f4.5 per acre to around d58.5 per acres and repay their land purchases.” The fourth objective concerned broad national issues——”to improve the political and social climate in the country as a whole and to help to ameliorate the unemployment situation, and also to help to create a realistic market for land, so that European farmers who might wish to sell out could expect to be paid a reasonable price.” In a more concise explanation, Harbeson (1973:198) explained the smallholder settlement program in this way, "...to facilitate the transfer of power and to increase the chances of political stability after independence.” 188 Philosophy Underlying the Settlement Scheme The philosophy supporting the One Million Acre Settle- ment Scheme came from the development school of thought that held, as Harbeson (1970:202) stated, ”It is essential,...not only to farm it on the right system but with the right peo~ ple. Land should belong to the people who can farm it best, whatever their race, color and creed." This idea was echoed by Swynnerton who spoke of the need to intensify the develop- ment of African agriculture. However, in the view of other observers, like Teresa Hayter, the One Million Acre Scheme was an attempt to pro- gram the African rural peasants and to transform their social structure, attitudes and perhaps their ways of life to fit the realities of the Western capitalist system rather than aiming at elevating the rural peOple from their ignorance, poverty and disease. They felt the basic objective of the Colonial government with its land settlement scheme was only to create security for the whites. To let a few progressive Kikuyu become wealthy and powerful while at the same time driving a large proportion of the people into poverty (Meek, 1952:9). Establishment of the One Million Acre Scheme opened up avenues of socioeconomic inequality among the rural peas- ants of central Kenya. 189 Effects of the One Million Acre Settlement Scheme The effects of the One Million Acre scheme were: (1) to create a more permanent dependent relationship of Kenya on Great Britain, (2) to create false hopes that the Kikuyu population would benefit economically and would be made secure in their land tenure and (3) to to create an atmosphere in which only a few Kikuyu pro— gressive farmers could move ahead in their economic acti— vities while leaving behind a large number of landless and unemployed. The effects for the British government including its allies and the World Bank, that had agreed to sponsor this expensive project, were more political. They were credited with establishing a more stable society that would not be identified as Marxist, in which racial harmony would be possible and where white property would not be in jeopardy. By providing a large amount of money to the new government headed by Jomo Kenyatta, a dependency relation- ship was extended beyond independence that made Kenya loyal to the British Crown. An image was also created that the British government had kept faith with the Kenyan people. As a result of this, Kenya not only remained de— pendent but also became a consumer of British manufactured goods as well as a producer of the raw materials required by the European common market. 190 The term "dependence” has become a euphemism for an exploitive relationship between the rich and the poor coun- tries (Wallerstein, l974:l). Kaufman, Chemotsky and Geller (1971:25 ) explained, ”Although many writers speak of ‘cultural‘ or 'political' dependency, the concept is de— rived and updated from Leninist theories of imperialism, and remains essentially economic in character." The basic concept sounds as though they were describing the relation— ship between Great Britain and Kenya. "The basic thesis is that the industrialization of a few Capitalist, 'metro- politan' countries has, as its corollary, the creation of 'satellite' nations which are locked, through an inter- national division of labour, into a subordinate status “ within the 'world capitaliSt‘ economic system.“ (Ibid) Like other satellite nations, Kenya lacked the resources to create or choose alternative ways of respond- ing to the constraints brought by Great Britain and the international environment. By examining the methodological process through which the One Million Acre Settlement scheme was carried out, it is possible to begin to understand how this project enhanced the development of class inequality and why it made the country what it is today. Operational Procedures in Settling The Kikuyu First, the One Million Acre Settlement scheme, like Villagization and Land Consolidation and Registration, was 191 conceived in the hope that it would provide a better econ— omic life for most of the African population, particularly the 87 percent who were rural cultivators. Many problems plagued its operation, most traceable to the failure of planners to organize it along the lines of a self—help pro- ject. The advantage of self—help, according to James A. Christenson (1980:183) is that "...people themselves deter- mine what is to be done and in the process learn both how to achieve this specific task and the process through which they may accomplish future goals." Instead, it was foreign experts, foreign technicians, and foreign idealists who became the organizers and sponsors of the project, and they were the decision—makers for all the operational pro— cedures. The natives, on the other hand, were not included to provide their ideas and make decisions affecting them- selves. Thus, the operation of the scheme reflected Western rather than African thought, plans, capabilities and ideals. As Raymond Apthorpe (l968:7) stated, The Colonial administrator saw himself as organization man whose task it was to apply the cutting edge along the line of least resistence, to etch the nick point into the peneplain of subsistence society, as it was seen. Organizational man was rational not tribal, modern not tradi— tional. The success of the model used in Nyeri helped to make the program acceptable to other Kikuyu districts. The 192 social action approach, which was employed in Nyeri and later in the other Kikuyu districts, sought to redistribute power and basic functions such as decision-making and leader- ship were changed slowly. Progressive leaders, such as the chiefs, were allowed to lead their people and to make some necessary decisions regarding change. According to the British, the One Million Acre scheme was designed to meet political ends by providing land for the landless. This political intention created a split between the British government and the World Bank on the first settlement plan. The World Bank wanted the settle— ment plan to have economic objectives as its first priority. Harbeson (1973:78) showed "the negotiation of the first scheme to resettle Africans in the White Highlands, replacing European farmers, was jeopardized by anxiety on the part of the World Bank (IBRD) and the Common Wealth Development Corporation (CDC) that political changes might threaten economic productivity and their investment in the settle- ment problem." The second resettlement scheme, in which a million acres of European farmland in the Highlands would be sub- divided and resettled by 30,000 landless, unemployed Africans and their families, was not expected to contribute much to the economic development of Kenya. Rather, itsobjective was to alleviate the political problem posed by the Kikuyu landless and unemployed. 193 Hayter (1971:57) has indicated, "The intention of those who were responsible for setting up the scheme in this way was to ensure the creation of a stable prosperous enterprising andmconservative small and medium peasantry.“ The settlement scheme, however, divided land into three zones, i.e., the High-Density, the Low—Density and the yeoman or assisted-owner zones. Figure 6.1 shows the physical regions of Kenya with the Central Highlands cir- cumscribed as Area B. Figure 6.2 shows the boundaries of the "White Highlands" and the location of the various types of settlements. The British and West Germans sponsored the High—Density and the yeoman areas, paying;{2,297,000 and 331,218,000, respectively. The World Banks (the Inter- national Bank for Reconstruction and DevelOpment (IBRD) and the Common Wealth Development Corporation (CDD) spon- sored the Low-Density scheme. The IBRD paid two-thirds of the costs and the CDC paid one—third. The extent of their involvement and the estimated final costs of the program are shown in Table 6.1. In 1962, on-site work on the set— tlements was begun. Low Density Areas For settlers to qualify for settlement in a Low Den- sity area, they had to have: (a) experience in advanced agri— culture and (b) the ability to contribute fifty Kenya pounds (1ater.£100) of their own capital. They were required to 19 4 -— ———— -K ©D11ndnri [N @,>/ B Central nghlfllfllfs C Coastal lens Arid areas D Land-over. 5,000 feet _ 4+1. Major Escarpmenls 0 IOOMls Mom FIGURE 6.1: The Physical Map of Kenya 195 g I l High Density Schemes (ll.M.G. h W.G.) % Low Density Schemes(l.B.R.D./C.D.) a Co—opcnllves E 01 Kalou Salient Area 0 r0 .2 lQullll FIGURE 6.2: The Kenya Highlands and the Areas of Settlement Schemes Richard S. Ogendo. East Africa Publishing House, 1971 SOURCE: TABLE 6.l: ESTIMATED FINAL COSTS OF KENYAN SETTLEMENT PROGRAM c£h00) 196 Type of Cost Grants Loans Total (1) Low Density (IBRD/CDC) schemes: Land Purchase 664 1,327 1,991 Development Loans —-— 2,263 2,263 Total 664 3,590 4,254 (2) High-Density, Yeoman and Other Schemes: Land Purchase 2,944 5,880 8,824 'Compassionate' farms 255 620 875 Yeoman schemes —-- 291 291 Nandi Salient 150 --- 150 Total 3,349 6,791 10,140 Development Loans --- 1,218 1,218 West Germany --- 1,223 1,223 Land Bank, etc. —-- 2,297 2,297 U.K. Government -—— 4,738 4,738 Total 3,349 11,529 14,878 (3) Other Costs: All Other Costs 6,654 -—-— 6,654 (Less) Farming Profits - 32 —-—— - 32 Total 6,622 15,119 6,6224 Net Cost of Entire Programme 10,635 15,119 25,754 SOURCE: A.H. Bunting, Change in Agriculture, lishers, New York), 1970. (Praeger Pub— 197 have a down payment of 1,380 shillings, 700 shillings was a deposit on the land, 500 shillings was for the purchase of one grade cow, and the remainder covered legal fees connected with the transfer of the land (King, 1977:341; Pagett, 1968213). The low-density areas were comparatively well plan- ned; the farms were of good size, able to support agricul- tural mechanization. Since the farm size was sufficient for potentially profitable agricultural activity, target income was 100 per annum. Each farm contained 100 families in an area covering about 5,000 acres (approximately fifty acres per family). By June 1966, about 4,600 settlers had been settled in Low Density settlement areas covering ap— proximately 230,000 acres. These areas, as well as the Yeoman and High Density areas were classified as Low Altitude, High Altitude and Plantation lands (Figure 6.3). In total, there were about thirty-two low density areas (including those devoted to the Yeoman Scheme). They comprised a total of 61,838 hectares converted from about 134 formerly white farms at a price of 361,532,522. The Low Density scheme received a disproportionate share of the government attention and funding. It is also claimed that the Low Density farms had a great amount of investment per acre and therefore, the farmers had more opportunity to earn larger returns overall. This concern reflected the objectives of the developers, as is noted in the Farm Econ— omic Survey Report No. 27 (1971, p.10), ”the Low-Density 198 mmou< yum 1mmwm no muflwcoa .amflx F Ohmalmwma zmommm 02¢; znsm unaccoum sums "momoom m.o~ o.ea a.ma n.0a Nam amo.a mmm.~ Ham.a magma Haa o.mm m.w 11 11 mm mm 11 11 omm a cmeow» m 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2 m.ma m.NH m.mH m.» mam mmm was man cos a wuflmcmo Boa m.va N.mH N.m >.m Hmm cam ame on on H.HN H.nm >.va o.ma mew mew vmm mom ov ~.mo H.ea w.om m.o mm on now mmm mm Apcmoummv AquECZV J mo\nmma >m\moma om\mwma mo\vmma mm\>mma hw\ooma o©\moma mo\vomH >uHmCmC seam meooCH pomume mace anono oeooCH on» CH Umflwfl acacommm menmm mo CoapCOQOMC meumm mo Cmcssz HmDOB Iowan wmoum CH @500 . CH pmmuma momalvmmfi .Bmz zmmm Q<$ mZOHEw>u5m UHEocoom Eumm umUmDOm ucwE>mQ wwwuquH :moH mvaHU:H* Hm mh me 0.00mN O.m>NN o.wbhv m.om mmm WEHmm HH< Hm 0m HHH m.NHwh 0.0vmo O.NmmMH w.VNH mm wHOE HO on Nv mm mm O.mOhN O.NH©M O.Hwa m.vo HH m.m©low l mv mv mm h.N©mN h.Nme v.mNHm m.Nm HF ®.mmlom 2 2 am No MHH «.vwmm m.thN N.hHom v.vv mo m.mVIov ow mm HOH N.OmNN m.®mNm b.0wmm h.vm ONH m.mmlom om Ob mmH O.HNON o.mvwa O.®©wm m.MN HMH m.mNION mma HHH omN N.mHmH m.HmmH 0.0mvm m.MH vwm m.mHIOH vmv HHN wa N.mmom m.ovma m.mmm¢ m.h vm OH cmfip mmmq muo< mom mosaaaflnm CH sums umm mmcaaaacm CH wwuo< meumm mwuu< CH muu< wuo< wuu< eumm swam sums :H muam mo wocmm umm 3m mom you son paw umm umm m Emu uwnesz WWW-m Ioum Dwz mumoo paduso loum pmz *uwoo paduso m mum < mo\boma .mBHmOmm QZ< ENHW 2m¢m ZMMEBmm mHEWZOHB¢Jmm WEB um.h m4m<8 222 TABLE 7.4: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FARM SIZE AND INPUTS OF CAPITAL AND LABOR ON THE SETTLEMENT SCHEMES, 1967/68 Farm Average Capital Investment Labor Availability* Size Farm Per Per Per Per 1000 Range Size Farm Acre Farm Acres (Acres) (Acres) (Sh.) (Sh.) (No.) (No.) Less than 10 7.3 12374 1695 8.0 1109 10-19.9 13.8 8329 597 7.1 526 20—29.9 23.5 9471 403 7.5 315 30—39.9 34.7 13568 391 7.5 218 40—49.9 44.4 13897 313 7.3 163 50-59.9 52.3 14435 276 7.7 148 60-69.9 64.5 16834 261 8.7 133 70 or more 124.8 27581 221 11.6 93 All Farms 30.5 11670 382 7.7 252 *Defined as the total number of people available for Work on the farm i.e., includes family and hired labor. SOURCE: IBID 223 The findings of the survey reveal that the larger the farm the less intensive the farming system, so that output per acre fell as farm size increased. However, there were several factors that hindered productivity on most of these small farms: (1) the decline in prices of commodities, (2) costs increased more than the output, (3) climatic factors, (4) failure of the government to provide education and applied technology and (5) a lack of capital and risk—taking in the enterprise by the farmers themselves. The planners also over—estimated the capacity of the new settlers. They did not consider the farmers' lack of farming and management skills. Most of these farmers began their farming heavily in debt and were re— quired to begin repayment within the first six months. The study also found that most of the small farmers were concerned primarily with meeting subsistence level require— ments. Despite these problems, the study reveals that pro— ductivity in the High-Density areas tended to be higher, particularly on farms at high altitudes. According to the Farm Economic Survey Report, No. 27, 7500 feet was chosen as the dividing line between high and low altitudes. This was because 7500 feet was the minimum altitude for profit— able pyrethrum production and the maximum for maize. Only dairy cattle, pyrethrum, potatoes and sheep could be prov duced on the farms above 7500 feet. Pyrethrum became the chief product. 224 Maize and dairy cattle, on the other hand, were grown on the farms below 7500 feet. Other products were sugar cane, coffee, tea and sisal. As rural production in those cash crops began to mature, the Central region began to acquire the features of capitalism. The features that give capitalism its dis- tinct character are: (1) wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people who become the owners of means of produc— tion; (2) a large population of landless or working class people, who have no means of acquiring a living except by selling their labor on the farms or in the industrial sec— tor; (3) almost all production has ceased to be of personal use to the producers; (4) the purpose of production is mainly for exchange (e.g., commodity production). What was also developing rapidly in the Central region was class inequality among the people who had once been considered classless in the Marxian sense. This was due to the rising value of land and dependence on produc- tion for sale. The barter system had disappeared and com- modity exchange developed to the universal exchange system. The system of labor had also changed. After land consolidation and registration, and after the settlement of more land from the White Highlands, there was more wage labor. Only under capitalism does commodity production by wage labor become the dominant form of production. Dalton 225 (1967:156) reported, "Most of the Kikuyu have come to de- pend on production for sale as their primary source for likelihood: market exchange had become the dominant mode of transaction; commercial production has become more im- portant than subsistence production.” Marapa (1972:55) viewed the situation in a broader context and explained the emergence of African classes, ...the Colonial presence violated the tra— ditional African customs, mores and beliefs enough to cause the emergence of a class system among the Africans....It was at the height of this struggle that Colonialists found it to be in their interest to crack the once—upon—a—time tight doors and admit some members of the African intelligentsia into the hall—ways of the inner chambers of Colonial interests. ...the Colonialists found it to be in their best interest to set up dikes, as it were, which would contain the floodwaters of African liberation. The policy of blackemization provided these necessary dikes. The purpose was to un— leash a decolonization process that would surrender political controls and yet in— sure the retention of economic influence. (p.58) What the One Million Acre Settlement had done was provide land to the landless and provide the Opportunity for the rural Kikuyu farmer to get a sense of cash crop production and private land ownership. These foundations gave the Kikuyu a start in capitalist production which further faciliated the emergence of a class structure. “Class”, in a Marxian approach, is found in the realm of property relations. Marx saw the concept to have 226 meaning only in the relations of production. Marx believed that a person's relationship to the means of production and property was the most decisive impact of inequality. He saw that in capitalist society, there were two Opposing classes: those who own land, and those who do not. In- equality, according to Warwick Armstrong (1981:99) in Moscovitch and Arover's book ”is sociologically a polite way of saying 'class'. Class is an ideologically charged word and justly so, for it points to the central organizing force of the kind of society in which we live." Inequality is dependent upon one's theoretical per- spective. In Marx's view, "the relation of production is ’fundamental: that is, a person's relationship to the means of production and property, be it that of owner, worker, or something other, carries the most decisive impact on in- equality.” (Anderson, 1974:78) Although Marxist views recognize other types of inequality—-creating factors that must be considered important, a person's relationship to the means of production creates the kinds of inequalities that are most crucial and which circumscribe the nature and limits of other aspects of inequality. And, this nor- mally occurs due to change. When change occurs, everything involved is also changed. In other wordsrsince the Kikuyu social, economic and political framework was linked with land, since land 227 was the social unit and the source of livelihood, once the concept of land, i.e., ownership system, its uses, and the rights involved were in the process of change, the Kikuyu social system had to change as well. Throughout the period of land consolidation and registration, the Kikuyu farming implements, i.e., hoes, axes, machete and metal-tipped dig- ging sticks were abandoned and replaced by commercial mach— inery such as tractors. These changes created inequality, not only between people but also between regions of Kenya. Kitching (1980: 318) stated, By 1968 there were over 133,000 liscensed smallholder coffee growers in Kenya cover- ing some 270,000 acres of land. The bulk of those, were in Central Province, Kiambu, Nyeri, Fort-Hall (now Muranga), Kirinyaga, Embu and Meru, with the main concentrations elsewhere being Kisii district, and lesser degree Bungoma and Machakos. Of the 133,052 acres under smallholder coffee in Kenya in 1968 no less than 99,500 acres (over 75 percent) were in the Central Province which included at this date (in 1952), Meru and Embu districts and over a third (48,400) acreswere in the three Kikuyu heartland districts of Kiambu, Nyeri and Muranga. Inequality is not something to be measured by tech- nical devices, but is visible to the naked eye (Beteille, 1977). Hoivik (1971:120) explained that it may be measured in several ways. "SEE-W .r' 3,4..1’” 228 The study of social inequality is not a study of a limited part of society, as for example, the economics of transport or the sociology of religion. It is the study of a pillar that runs through most social institutions. Inequality refers to the distribution of some good or evil in a societyeincome or infant deaths being typical examples, implying that complete income equality between individuals or families is theoretically possible. Summary and Conclusion In this study, there are three things that have been observed. First, the Kikuyu social structure was violated and was disrupted as they were forced from their land and made laborers on the White plantations. Second, the Kikuyu staged a bloody social protest as they lost their land and kinship system. Finally, their social pro— test compelled the government to make an effort to appease them by setting up land reform programs. This situation, in turn, created material inequality among these rural cultivators. This phenomenon was summed up by Kitching as follows: After 1952 there was speeding—up of the process of differentiation, parti- cularly after independence when some African households gained privileged access to the resources of the state. With this speeding-up, there was also a widening of the relative gap between the richest and the poorest African households, as some gained access the very highest in- comes and to forms of wealth which had pre- viously been monopolized by European and Asians (1980:315) 229 It is concluded therefore that this observed material in- equality among these highland people was a result of the types of economic systems that were established in the area. The Contribution of the Study The most significant thing that should be under— stood is that in most Third World countries, Kenya in par— ticular, there is a great lack cdfmaterials and literature. This lack of written materials makes it difficult to carry out any solid research study. Such problems can be mini- mized only by more research studies such as this. It is hoped that this study will serve as a modest contribution to knowledge in the area. Suggestions for Further Research Kenya's restrictive law on land data is that any document dealing with land may not be made available to the public until twenty years have passed. Thus, as a researcher, I had no access to documents beyond 1960 and up to the present. Due to these restrictions, this study has not been able to demonstrate the following: 1. The situation of the Kikuyu now. In other words, the case study in Nyeri was not able to bring the reader up to date (1980-81). 230 2. The number of Kikuyu who are working on White farms, the number of whites who are still in the region and the proportion of the land they possess. 3. The annual incomes of the rural farmers and the numbers of them who are prosperous land owners. Because of these inadequacies on the part of this study, it is suggested that more research studies are necessary to update the information presented here. Other questions have been outside the scope of this study and it is suggested that they be examined in future research. One of these is the experimental yeoman areas created at the time of the One Million Acre Settlement Scheme that were to be an exercise in interracial living and production. It is suggested that this experiment be examined to determine its outcome. Another area that needs examination is the effect of the migration of many of the young Kikuyu to the urban areas for work. Are present KIkuyu farms worked only by older family members and how will land remain in family hands when they are gone? As we conclude the argument presented here, the ques— tion that one would ask is, how does such a study as this which derives its findings purely from historical data get classified as a sociological study. In trying to answer such a critical question we need notto look at history or sociology as separate entities but rather as inter-related disciplines. APPENDIX APPENDIX A As a student of history and sociology, I realize that history and sociology and their contents and objectives are related and similar. One reason is that history and sociology are both products of nature and of human beings. It is man that makes history and creates sociology and vice versa. Man is a social being. It is man who makes history. Both history and sociology occur to us by exper- ience, and we are part of them. Russell Major (1966:6) claimed, ”The knowledge we get from history is used in the same way as the knowledge we get from our own experiences." History tells us about the past that we need to know before the present can be analyzed. Sociology, on the other hand, John and Erna Perry (1974:2) said, helps us untangle the social web, helps show us how and why we are part of it. Sociologists try to dig below the surface of the social structures we have made-- parts of the social web-~and build up a body of knowledge that will help us recog— nize and improve our relationships to others in the same web. The commonality is that history helps us to under— stand people—-so does sociology. In this sense, one may argue logically that for a sociologist to analyze societal or to argue sociologically, one 231 phenomena comprehensively, 232 must have a knowledge of history. Strasser (1976:l) has this to say, "The inquiry into the sociological discipline is legitimated only by its own historical development.” Popenoe (1971:5) states A sociologist, like an historian, is interested in all kinds of study, over- laps in many other disciplines. Like the historian, he wants to learn about the wars that destroyed cities in ancient Greece. Like the politicians, he tries to predict the way citizens will vote in an election, etc. But the sociologist focuses on an aspect of each of these areas which is the other's specialty. To.many scholars the relevance of history to socio- logy and our need of them in our study of human society and behavior is undoubted. The writings of such social thinkers as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emil Durkheim, Charles Darwin and many others bear this out. From their writings, we learn that history lays the foundation and provides the sources upon which our approach to understanding our society is based. As an example, Darwin's Origin of the Species, which appeared in 1859, was actually a product of many combina— tions of history, biology and sociology. The history of it was, as Gluckman (1963:209) has explained, In order to know why an event is as it is, and not something else, we must know its history. Even in a physicist's laboratory experiment, the bringing together of selected events and the control of external conditions 233 contribute a particular history which enables the experiment to test only those interdependencies he wishes to determine. Darwin's sociological explanation only helped ex— plain the structural similarities or patterns—-his socio— logical model made his biological findings closer to human nature. This sociological theory was important in that it provided an understanding of these relationships. The actual data of his study, although biological, was historical in nature. Similar studies bear out this unity of history and sociology. Durkheim's works are an obvious example. Most of his works draw heavily on historical and ethnological sources. They are organized in a historical framework, such as his work in the sociology of the family, his treat- ment of the division of labor, his sociology of education and his study of socialism. According to Durkheim's views, "The true sociology is history.” In a conclusive statement, he says: Perhaps, it is true, the busy sociologist will find this procedure uselessly compli- cated. In order to understand the social phenomena of today--isn't it enough to ob- serve them as they are given, vain eradica- tion to undertake research into their most distant origins? But this quick method is full of illusions. One doesn't know social reality if one only sees it from outside and if one ignores the substructure. In order to know how it is, it is necessary to know how it has come to be, that is, to have followed in history the manner in which it has been progressively formed. In order to be able to say with any chance of success what the society of tomorrow will be--it is 234 indispensable to have studied the social forms of the most distant past. In order to understand the present, it is necessary to go outside of it. (Bellah, in Boskoff, 1964:86-88) GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Abernethy, G.L. (1959). The Idea of Equality, John Knox Press, Richmond, Virginia. Abrahams, P.D. (1979). Kenya's Land Resettlement Story. Challenge Publishers and Distributors, Nairobi, Kenya. Ackerman, J. and Marshall Harris (1947). Family Farm Policy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Albert, Michael and Robin Hahnel (1978). Unorthodox Marxism: An Essay on Capitalism, Socialism, and Revolution. South End Press, Boston. Anderson, Charles H. (1974). Toward A New Sociology. The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. Anthony, Smith. (1973). The Concept of Social Change, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston. Apthorpe, R.J. (1965). Sociology of Settlement Schemes. University of Nairobi College, Kenya. Aron, R. (1965). Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Translated by Richard Howard and Helen Weaver, New York. Audrey, I. Richards (1952). Economic Development and Tribal Change, Cambridge. Avineri, Schlomo (1973). Marx's Socialism. Lieberatherton, New York. Ayisi, Eric 0. (1972) An Introduction to the Study of African Culture. Heinemann, Nairobi, Kenya. Balawin, K.D.S. (1957). The Niger Agri—Cultural Project: An Experiment in African Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 235 236 Banton, M., Harwood, Jonathan (1975). The Race Concept. Praeger Publishers, New York. Barber, W.J. (1970). Land Reform and Economic Change Among African Farmers in Kenya in Economic Develop— ment and Cultural Change, vol. 19, Wesleyan Univer— sity. Barnes, J.A. (1961a). Politics in a Changing Society. Capetown, South Africa. Barnett, Donald L. (1973). Peasant Types and Revolutionary Potential in Colonial Africa. Becker, J.P. (1977). Marxian Political Economy: An Outline Cambridge University Press, London. Beecher, L.J. (1958). Christian Counter Revolution to Mau Mau in Rhodesia and East Africa TedT by R.S. Joelson. Behrman, C.P. (1965). The Mythology of British Imperialism 1880-1940. Boston University Press. Bennett” George (1963). ”Settlers and Politics in Kenya up to 1945.” In History of East Africa, vol. 2, (Ed.) by Vincent Harlow and E.M. Chilver, Oxford, London. Bennett, Norman R. (1975). Africa and Empire from Roman Times to the Present. Africana Publishing Company, New York. Berghe, Den and Pierre L. (1965). Africa Social Problems of Change and Conflict. Chandler Publishing Co;. California. Betteille, Andre (1972). Inequality and Society Change. Oxford University Press. Biebuyck, D. (1963). African Agrarian Systems (O.U.P. for International African Institute) Oxford University Press. Bienen, H. (1974). Kenya: The Politics of Participation and Control. Princeton University Press. Blackstone, William T. (1969). The Concept of Equality. Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Company. Blake, William J. (1939). An American Looks at Karl Marx. Gordon Company, New York. 237 Blowers, Andrew. (1976). Inequalities, Conflict and Change. Open University Press. Bottomore, T.B. (1975). Marxist Sociology. Holmes and Meir Publishers, New York. (1971). Sociology: A Guide to Problems and Literature. 2nd ed. New York. Bramson, L. (1961). The Political Context of Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brett, E.A. (1973). Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa. Heinemann, London. Brookfield, H.C. and Brown, P. (1963). Struggle for Land: Agriculture and Group Territories Among the Chiambu of the New Guinea Highlands. Melbourne, New York. Buell, Leslie R. (1928). Native Problem in Africa, vol.l, Macmillan Company, New York. Bukarin, Nikolai (1969). Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology. The University of Michigan Press. Burke, Fred G. (1966). "Political Evolution in Kenya' In The Transformation of East Africa.(ed.) Diamond and R. Burke, New York. Cagnolo, I.M.C. (1933). The Kikuyu: Their Customs, Tra— ditions and Folklore, Nyeri, Kenya. Cahnman, Warner Jacob and Broskoff, Alvin (1964). Sociology and History: Theory and‘Research. New York Free Press of Glencoe. Calson, Elizabeth (1959). Native Cultural and Social Patterns in Contemporary Africa in C.G. Haines, (ed.) Africa Today, Baltimore. Cheng, Chen (1961). Land Reform in Taiwan. China Publish— ing Company, China. Chodak, Szymon (1973). Societal Development. Oxford Uni— versity Press, New York. Cohen, Jack and E.J. Habsbawn (1964). Karl Marx: Pre- capitalist Economic Formations. Lawrence and Wishart, London. 238 Cohen, Percy S. (1968). Modern Social Theory. Heineman Educational Books, LTD., London. Cohen, Sir Andrew (1959). British Policy in Changing Africa, London. Cole, Stephen (1975). The Sociological Orientation: An Introduction to Sociology. Rand McNally, College Publishing Company, Chicago. Cooley, C.H. (1930). Sociological Theory and Social Re- search, New York. Corty, Floyd L. and Beryrand Alvin L. (1962). Rural Land Tenure in the U.S., Louisiana State University Press. DeSilva (1982). The Political Economy of Underdevelopment. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, Mass. Dilley, M.R. (1937). British Policy in Kenya Colony. New York. Dixity, B.R. (1978). Individual in Marxist Society. Shree Gamesh Prakashan, India. Dunn, Christopher Chase (1975).' The Effects—of Interna- tional.Economic Dependence on Development and In— equality: Across National Study. Durward, Prudan and Steinberg, Samuel (1963). Colonialism Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Oxford Book Company New York. Duster, Pierre Estine and Elizabeth Todd Post (1966). Africa StrykerePost Publications, Washington, D.C. Eaton, H.E. (1922). British Colonial Policy in the 20th Century, London. Eaton, John (1963). Political Economy-—Marxist Textbook. International Publisher, New York. Edwards, Richard C. (1972). The Capitalist System. Engle— wood Cliffs: Princeton Hall, Princeton,New Jersey. Englewood, Cliffs (1963). The Sociology of Economic Life. Princeton Hall, Smelser, New Jersey. Evans, Michael (1975). Karl Marx. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana. 239 Fanon, Frantz (1968). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, New York. (1974). Colonialism and Alienation. Monthly Review Press, New York. Fetter, Bruce (1979). Colonial Rule in Africa. The Univer- sity of Wisconsin Press. Finkle, Jason L. and Richard W. Gabble (1971). Political Development and Social Change. 2nd Ed. New York, Wiley. Fordham, Paul (1973). Rural Development in Kenya Highlands. Published in England. Ralph (1933). Colonial Policy of British Imperialism. London, International Publisher. Fox I Freedman, Robert (1968). Marxist Social Thought. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York. Fromm, Erich (1956). Karl Marx, Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. McGraw—Hill Book, 1956. Frost, Richard (1978). Race Against Time: Human Relations and Politics in Kenya Before Independence. Rex Collings, London. Gann, L.H. and Duignan P. (1962). White Settlers in Tropical Africa, London. Gertzel, C. and Goldschmidt M. and Rothchild (Eds.) (1969) Government and Politics in Kenya. Nairobi, East Africa Publishing House. Giddens, Anthony (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge University Press, London. Ginsberg, Morris (1957). Essays in Sociology and Social Philosophy, vol. 1, London. Gluckman, Max (1963). Order and Rebellion in Tribal Africa. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. Gluckman” Max (1956). In Social Change in Modern Africa, (Ed) by A. Southall. Oxford University Press, London. 240 Goldschmidt, Walter (1976). Culture and Behavior of the Sobei: A Study in Community and Adaptation. University of California Press, Berkeley. Goldsworthy, David (1971). Colonial Issues in British Politics. Oxford, London. Goldthorpes, J.E. (1961). Educated Africans. Some Concep— tual and Terminological Problems: Social Change In Africa. Oxford, London. Green, P. (1981). The Pursuit of Inequality. Pantheon Books, New York. Greene, Jack P. (1976). All Men Are Created Equal. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Gunner, Murdal (1957). Economic Theory and Underdevelopment Regions. London. Hagen, Everrett E. (1962). On the Theory of Social Change. Homewood, Dorsey Press, Mass. Hailey, Lord (1943). Britain and Her Dependencies. Long— man's pamphlets on the British. Hailey, Malcolm Lord (1957). An African Survey. Revised London. Hallette, Graham (1960). The Economics of Agricultural Land Tenure. London. Land Books. Harberson, John W. (1973). Nation Building in Kenya——The Role of Land Reform. Northwestern University Press, U.S.A. Harris, Joseph E. (1972). Africans and Their History. Amentory Book, New York. Hayter, Judith (1971). Hayter the Bourgeoisie. Sidwick and Jackson, London. Hazlewood, Arthur (1959). The Economics of "Underdeveloped“ Areas, An Annoted Reading List of Books. 2nd enl. ed. London. Publisher for the Institute of Common— wealth Studies. Oxford University Press. (1979). The Economy of Kenya: The Ken— yatta Era. Oxford Press, London. 241 Helleiner, Gerald (1966). Peasant Agriculture, Government and Economic Growth in Nigeria. Homewood, Illinois. Heller, Celia S. (1969). Structured Social Inequality: A Reader in Comparative Social Stratification, New — York, Macmillan. Herskovits, Melville J. and Harwitz, Mitchell (1964). Economic Transition in Africa (ed.) Melville J.H., Northwestern University Press. Heyer, J., Ireri D. and Morris J. (1971). Rural Development in Kenya. Nairobi, East Africa Publishing House. Higgins, Benjamin H. (1959) Economic Development. W.W. Norton, New York. Hinkle, R. and Hinkle G. (1954). The Development of Modern Sociology. Randon House, New York. *— Hirschfled, Margnus (1938). Racism. Kennikat Press, Port Washington, New York. Hobsbawn, E.J. (1965). Karl Marx's Contribution to Histor- iography in Ideology and Social Science. Robin Blackburn. Holdskin, Thomas (1957). Nationalism in Colonial Africa. University Press, New York, New York. Horowitz, David (1968). Marx and Modern Economics. Modern Reader Publications, New York. Hoselitz, B.R. (1952). The Progress of Underdeveloped Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hunter, Guy (1969). Modernization Peasant Societies: A Comparative Study in Asia and Africa. Oxford University Press, London. Huntington, Samuel P. (1970). Political Dimension of Land Reform. Harvard University, Cambridge. Huxley, Elspeth (1954). The Causes and Cure of Mau Mau—- What is the Present Situathn? New Commonwealth, vol. 27. Johnston, Sir. Harry H. (1913). A History of the Coloniza— tion of Africa. Alien Races, London. 242 Jordan, Z.A. (1967). The Evolution of Dialectical Material— ism: A Philosophical and Sociological Analysis. London. Kagombe, Maina (1969). Kikuyu Studies: A Case of Conflict and Violence. Jersey City State College, New Jersey. Kalab, M. (1969). The Specificity of the Marxist Conception of Sociology. In Berger, P. Marxian and Sociology. Kanshal, M.P. (1973). Dynamics of Planned Social Change. Bee Kay Publications, Ludhiana. Kaplan, Irving (1976). Area Handbook For Kenya. The American University, Washington, D.C. Kaplinsky, Raphael. (1978). Readings on the Multinational Corporation in Kenya. Oxford University Press. Karuga, J.G. (19 ). Thresholds in Transformation of an Economy: Some Preliminary Thought on the Structure of the Nairobi/Kiambu Periurban Zone. Kay, G. (1975). Development and Underdevelopment: A Marxist Analysis, London. Kebschull, Varvey G. (1968). Politics in Transitional Societies. The Challenge of Chance in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Appleton Century Croft, New York. Kelley, Allen C., Jefferey G. Williamson and Russell J. Cheetham (1972). Dualistic Economic Development Theory and History. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kinloch, Graham (1977). Sociological Theory. McGraw—Hill New York. Kirkwood, Kenneth (1965). Britain and Africa, London. Kitching,Gavin N. (1980). Class and Economic Change in Kenya, The Making of an African Petite BourgeoIEie 1905-1970. Yale University Press, New Haven. Klein, Martin A. (1980). Peasant in Africa: Historical and Con— temporary Perspectives. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, London. Knowles, C.C. (1928). Economic Development of British Overseas Empire, London. 243 Kolbe, L.H. and Fonche, S.J. (1959). Land Consolidation and Farming in Central Province, Nairobi. Government Printer. Korsch, Karl (1938). Karl Marx. Chapman and Hall, London. Lamb, G. (1974). Peasant Politics: Conflict and Develop— ment in Muranga. Lewis, Sussex, Julian Friedman. London. Lambert, H.E. (1956). Kikuyu Social and Political Institu— tions. Oxford University Press, London. (1956). Rural Protest: Peasant Movements and Social Change. Macmillan Publisher. (1958); The Systems of Land Tenure in the Kikuyu Land Unit Communications, School of Africa Studies, No. 22, Capetown. Landsberger, H.A. Rural Protest: Peasant Movements and Social Change. MacMillan. Landveth, Larry (1976). History of Economic Theory, Scope, Method, and Content. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Lawrence, J.C.D. (1967). Report of the Mission on Land Consolidation and Registration in Kenya 1965~l966. Nairobi; Kenya. Government Printing. Leacock, Eleanor B. (1972). On F. Engels: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. New York. Leakey, L.S.B. (1977). The Southern Kikuyu Before 1903. Vol. 1 Academic Press, London. l Lefebvres, Henri (1968). Dialectical Materialism. Jonathan Cape, London. Leonard, David D. (1973). Rural Administration in Kenya. Nairobi, East African Literature Bureau. Leonard, Joseph T. (1963). Theology and Race Relations. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee. Leontiev, A. Political Economy. Proletarian Publishers, P.D. Box 40273, San Francisco, CA. 94140. Leys, C011“ (1969). Politics and Change in Developing Coun= tries. Cambridge, London. 244 T Leys, Colin (1975). Underdevelopment in Kenya. The Politi— cal Economy of Neo—Colonialism 1964—1971. Dara—Salam. Leys, R.(1973). Dualism and Rural Development in East Africa. Capetown Institute Development Research. Liebenew, J. (1969). Agriculture, Education and Rural Transformation. Department of Political Science. Indiana University: Indiana. Liversage, E.S.C. (1945). Land Tenure in the Colonies. Cambridge University Press. Lubembe, Climent K. (1968). Labour Movement in Kenya. Equatorial Publishers, Nairobi, Kenya. Machyo, B. (1971). Change, African Land Tenure Concept and Development. Maclver, R.M. (1933). Society, Its Structure and Changes, New York. Macrae, Donald G. (1956). Essay in Sociology and Social Philosophy, vol. 1, William Heineman, LTD. London. Main, J.W. and MacArthur, J.D. (1970). ”Land Settlement in Kenya" In A.H. Bunting (Ed.) Change in Agriculture Duckworth, London. Mair, L.P. (1974). African Societies. Cambridge, Univer— sity Press. Mair, Lucy (1963). New Nations. Weidenfeld and Nicalson New York. Mandel, Ernest (1971). Marxist Economic Theory. New York. Mandic, O. (1969). The Marxist School of Sociology: What is Sociology in Marxist Sense? in Berger, P. (edIT Marshall, T.H. (1938). Class Conflict and Social Stratifi~ 4 cation. Leplay House Press, London. Martindale, Don (1962). Social Life and Cultural Change, Princeton University, New Jersey. ) 245 Marx, Karl. (1967). Economic Class and Social Revolution, Z.A. Jordon, New York. McMurtry, John (1978). The Structure of Marx's World View Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Meister, Albert (1968). East Africa: The Past in Chains, The Future in Pawn. Walker and Co. New York. Middleton, John (1970). Black Africa. Its People and Their Cultures Today. Macmillan Co. London. Mills, Wright (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Ox— ford University Press, London. Morris, P. (1961). Family and Social Change in African Society. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Mungean, G.H. (1966). British Rule in Kenya 1895—1912. Oxford University Press, London. Muriuki, Godfrey A. (1974). A History of the Kikuyu, 1500—1900. Oxford University Press, London. Mutiso, G.C.M. (1975). Politics, Policy and Society. E.A. Literature Bureau, Nairobi, Kenya. Myint, H.L.A. (1964). The Economics of the Developing Countries. Frederick A. Praeger Publisher, New Jersey. Neome, L.C. (1952). White Man's Africa. Stewart Pub- lisher, London. Nussbaum, Frederick L. (1968). A History of the Economic Institutions of Modern Europe. Augustus M. Kelly Publisher. Ogburn, W. (1964). On Culture and Social Change. (O.D. Duncan, ed.) Chicago University Press. Oloya, J.J. (1969). Coffee, Cotton, Sisal and Tea in East Africa Economics. East African Literature Bureau. Orr, White Robert (1976). Land and Land Appraisal. Hague Publisher. The Oser, Jacob (1967). Promoting Economic Development. With illustrations from Kenya. 246 Ozinga, James R. (1975). Communism: A Tarnished Promise-— The Story of an Idea. Charlise, Columbus, Ohio. Pagett, Richard (1968). The Land Settlement Program in Kenya. Howard University, U.S.A. Palmer, M. and Stern, L. (1971). Political Development in Pim, Changing Societies. D.C.: Heath and Company. Alan Sir (1946). Colonialism Agricultural Production. Oxford University Press, London. Pohoryles, S. and Szeskin, A. (1973). Land Tenure in Africa and Its Effect on Economic Growth. Telaviv Univer- sity Paper #3. Popenoe, David (1971). Sociology. Douglass College, Routgers University, The University of New York. Potter, Diaz and Foster, (1967). Peasant Society: A Reader. Publisher—-Little Brown and Co., Boston, Mass. Ratcliffe, John (1976). Land Policy. Hutchinson, London. Robert, Gregory and Sidney Webb. (1962). East Africa: Labour's Experiment with the Doctrine of Native Paramountcy, Berkeley University of California Press. Robert, John (1967). A Land Full of People-—Kenya Today. Eyrex Spottiswoode, London. Rocker, Jack R.C. (l9 ). The Genesis of African Protest: Hary Thulon and the British Administration in Kenya, 1920—1922. Syracuse University, No. 41. Rosberg, Carl G. (1958). "Political Conflict and Change in Ross, Kenya" In Transition in Africa by Gwendolyn Carter and W.C. Brown (eds.). Boston University Press. McGregor, W. (1927). Kenya From Within: A Short Political History. George Allen and Unwin Ltd. London. Ruthenberg, Hans (1966). African Agricultural Production Development Policy in Kenya 1952—1965. Springer— Verlog, Berlin. (1971). Farming Systems in the Tropics, Springer-Verlog, Berlin. 247 Sandbrook, Richard (1974). Proletarians and African Capital- ism: The Kenyan Case, 1960-1972. Cambridge, London. Segal, Aaron. (1968). The Politics of Land in East Africa—— Institute