Posts tagged ‘Kikuyu’

September 26, 2011

The Agikuyu We Rise-Poetry

You may re-write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

Does my biashara(s) upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
’Cause I walk like I’ve got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I’ll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops,
Weakened by my soulful cries?

Does my communal love offend you?
Don’t you take it awful hard
’Cause I laugh like I’ve got gold mines
Diggin’ in my own backyard.

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I’ll rise.

Out of the huts of history’s shame -I rise
Up from a past that’s rooted in Mau Mau pain-I rise
I’m a black ocean, leaping and wide,
Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.

Leaving behind the Kiambaa  nights of terror and fear-I rise
Into a daybreak that’s wondrously clear-I rise
Bringing the gifts that  God gave my ancestors-I rise
I am the dream and the hope of  Gikuyu & Mumbi -I rise
I rise-I rise-I rise.

Poem Wallpaper 

March 31, 2011

Peter Kenneth Now Slams Raila

Heavy traffic may delay player

April 10, 2010

Economist :Will justice be done at last?

Apr 8th 2010 | | From The Economist print edition

So far nobody has been charged with killing any of the 1,100-plus Kenyans who died in the violence after a disputed election at the end of 2007. The Kenyans were meant to set up their own tribunals to punish the worst offenders. But since they failed to do so, the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague has at last agreed to proceed with cases against unnamed powerful Kenyans who, for their own political ends, are suspected of inciting the violence and paying its perpetrators.

The court’s decision has been eagerly awaited for two years. It has been strongly endorsed by Kofi Annan, a former secretary-general of the UN, who helped bring peace after the election by persuading the president, Mwai Kibaki, and the opposition leader, Raila Odinga, to form a unity government. Mr Kibaki, a Kikuyu, stayed on as president, with his pals keeping a grip on finance and security. Mr Odinga, a Luo who claims kinship with Barack Obama, became prime minister, with people in his wider and looser alliance getting a raft of lesser ministries. The bloated coalition’s first task was to set up a special tribunal to charge those responsible for the election violence. But nothing happened. Cases against several thousand people accused of such crimes as arson, rioting, looting and shooting were opened. Thanks to police bungling few have ever come to court.

All the more important, then, to hold the higher-ups to account. The ICC is keen. Its chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine, says the Kenyan case is among the most clear-cut in his docket. Plentiful evidence was gathered at the time by human-rights workers, journalists, security men and diplomats. There is no shortage of witnesses, though the ICC wants a witness-protection programme put in place. Most Kenyans seem to trust the court. Messrs Kibaki and Odinga sound co-operative. Mr Odinga says he will send anybody the ICC asks for to The Hague. Mr Kibaki says he agrees. The justice minister insists his ministry is ready to help. Mr Moreno-Campo says his team will start work in Kenya in May. Verdicts, he reckons, could be handed down in 2012.

But there are snags galore. For a start, the ICC’s timetable means the trials would take place amid Kenya’s next elections, when the risk of violence is highest. A trial just then might well be portrayed as a show-trial. Then there is the tricky question of whom the ICC would pick to send to The Hague. Mr Moreno-Ocampo has hinted there will be only a handful of prosecutions, perhaps a couple from each side of the ruling coalition. A senior politician from the Kalenjin group might, say, be charged with responsibility for killing Kikuyu women and children in the Rift Valley, while a senior Kikuyu could be accused of paying off Kikuyu gangs to kill opposition backers in Nairobi. Most Kenyans seem to want bigwigs put in the dock, in the hope of ending impunity for top people that has so damaged the country.

It will be hard to nail them down. The rich have expensive lawyers. Mr Kibaki may find excuses for refusing to give up one of his allies. Mr Moreno-Ocampo, for his part, must display the balancing skills of a trapeze artist. If he is thought to favour one side or another, violence could erupt. If the ICC seems to wield too heavy a stick, the accused may stir up anti-colonial feeling—still a potent force—in their defence. Above all, the ICC must navigate the murky waters of Kenyan politics, where alliances can change with unexpected speed. For example, the minister of agriculture, William Ruto, a Kalenjin, has reached out to a once-implacable rival, Uhuru Kenyatta, the minister of finance, a Kikuyu who is a son of Kenya’s founding president and who, by some estimates, is Mr Kibaki’s chosen successor.

April 6, 2010

Video-British Crimes Kenya.-Transitional Justice

Dealing with widespread colonial human rights violations raises large practical difficulties. A country’s political balance may be delicate, and governments may be unwilling to pursue wide-ranging initiatives-or may be unable to do so without putting its own stability at risk.The many problems that flow from past abuses are often too complex to be solved by any one action. Judicial measures, including trials, are unlikely to suffice: If there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of victims and perpetrators, how can they all be dealt with fairly through the courts-especially in cases where those courts are weak ,corrupt and controlled by former colonial masters ?Even if courts were adequate to the task of prosecuting everyone who might deserve it, in order to reconstruct a damaged social fabric, other initiatives would be required.After two decades of practice, experience suggests that to be effective transitional justice should include several measures that complement one another. For no single measure is as effective on its own as when combined with the others

Professor Elkins’s first book, Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya, was awarded the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction. It was also selected as one of the Economist’s best history books for 2005, was a New York Times editor’s choice, and was a finalist for the Lionel Gelber Award. She and her research were also the subjects of a 2002 BBC documentary titled, Kenya: White Terror, which was awarded the International Committee of the Red Cross Award at the Monte Carlos Film Festival. Professor Elkins is a contributor to The New York Times Book Review, The Atlantic, and The New Republic. She has also appeared on numerous radio and television programs including NPR’s All Things Considered, BBC’s The World, and PBS’s Charlie Rose. Professor Elkins’s current research interests include colonial violence and post-conflict reconciliation in Africa, and violence and the decline of the British Empire. She is currently working on two projects: one examining the effects of violence and amnesia on local communities and nation-building in post-independent Kenya; the other analyzing British counter-insurgency operations after the Second World War, with case studies including Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and Nyasaland. Professor Elkins teaches courses on modern Africa, protest in East Africa, human rights in Africa, and British colonial violence in the 20th century.
Video:
March 18, 2010

Seasons & Generational Change.

The Agĩkũyũ had four seasons and two harvests in one year.1. Mbura ya njahĩ [The Season of Big Rain] from March to July,2. Magetha ma njahĩ [The season of the big harvest] between July and Early October ,3. Mbura ya Mwere [Short rain season] from October to January,4. Magetha ma Mwere [the season of harvesting millet]

Further, time was recorded through the initiation. Each initiation group was given special name. According to *Professor Godfrey Mũriũki, The individual initiation sets are then grouped into a regiment every nine calendar years. Before a regiment or army set, there was a period in which no initiation of boys took place. This period lasted a total of four and a half calendar years [nine seasons in Gĩkũyũ land, each season referred to as imera] and is referred to as mũhingo, initiation taking place at the start of the fifth year and going on annually for the next nine calendar years. This was the system adopted in Metumi [Mũrang’a]. The regiment or army sets also get special names, some of which seem to have ended up as popular male names.

In Gaki [Nyeri] the system was inversed with initiation taking place annually for four calendar years, which would be followed by a period of nine calendar years in which no initiation of boys took place [mũhingo]. Girls on the other hand were initiated every year. Several regiments then make up a ruling generation.

It was estimated that Ruling generation last an average of 35 years. The names of the initiation and regiment sets vary within Gĩkũyũ land. The ruling generations are however uniform and provide very important chronological data. On top of that, the initiation sets were a way of documenting events within the Gĩkũyũ nation, so, for example, were the occurrence of small pox and syphilis recorded. Girls’ initiation sets were also accorded special names, although there has been little research in this area. Mũriũki only unearths three sets, whose names are, Rũharo [1894], Kibiri/ Ndũrĩrĩ [1895], Kagica [1896], Ndutu/ Nuthi [1897].

All these names are taken from Metumi [Mũrang’a] and Kabete [Kĩambu]. It is strange that professor Mũriũki didn’t do more research in this area because he states that the girls’ initiation took place annually.

Kikuyu Woman with Traditional symbols of power -Muthigi (stick)signifying power to lead and Itimu (Spear)-power to call people to war*Before the overthrow of Wangu wa Makeri women could carry both,

The ruling generations [riika] according to Mũriũki, which he used to trace the history of the Agĩkũyũ to the year 1500 or there abouts.

1. Manjiri 1512 – 46 ± 55

2. Mamba 1547 – 81 ± 50

3. Tene 1582 – 1616 ± 45

4. Agu 1617 – 51 ± 40

5. Manduti 1652 – 86 ± 40

6. Cuma 1687 – 1721 ± 30

7. Ciira 1722 – 56 ± 25

8. Mathathi 1757 – 1791 ± 20

9. Ndemi 1792 – 1826 ± 15

10. Iregi 1827 – 1861 ± 10

11. Maina 1862 – 97 ± 5

12. Mwangi 1898?

Mathew Njoroge Kabetũs list reads,

Tene, Kĩyĩ, Aagu, Ciĩra, Mathathi, Ndemi, Iregi, Maina [Ngotho], Mwangi

Gakaara wa Wanjaũs list reads

Tene, Nemathĩ, Kariraũ, Aagu, Tiru, Cuma, Ciira, Ndemi, Mathathi, Iregi, Maina, Mwangi, Irũngũ, Mwangi wa Mandũti. The last two generations came after 1900.

One of the earliest recorded lists by Mc Gregor reads (list taken from a history of unchanged)

Manjiri, Mandoti, Chiera, Masai, Mathathi, Ndemi, Iregi, Maina, Mwangi, Muirungu. According to Hobley(a historian) each initiation generation, riika, extended over two years. The ruling generation at the arrival of the Europeans was called Maina. It is said that Maina handed over to Mwangi in 1898. Hobley asserts that the following sets were grouped under Maina – Kĩnũthia, Karanja, Njũgũna, Kĩnyanjui, Gathuru and Ng’ang’a. Professor Mũriũki however puts these sets much earlier, namely Karanja and Kĩnũthia belong to the Ciira ruling generation which ruled from the year 1722 to 1756, give or take 25 years according to Mũriũki. Njũgũna, Kĩnyanjui, Ng’ang’a belong to the Mathathi ruling generation that ruled from 1757 to 1791 give or take 20 years according to Mũriũki.

Professors Mũriũkis list must be given precedence in this area as he conducted extensive research in this area starting 1969, and had the benefit of all earlier literature on the subject as well as doing extensive field work in the areas of Gaki [Nyeri], Metumi [Mũrang’a] and Kabete [Kĩambu]. On top of the ruling generations, he also gives names of the regiments or army sets from 1659 [within a margin of error] and the names of annual initiation sets beginning 1864. The list from Metumi [Mũrang’a] is most complete and differentiated.

Mũriũkis is also the most systematically defined list, so far. Suffice to say that most of the most popular male names in Gĩkũyũ land were names of riikas [initiation sets].

Here is Mũriũkis list of the names of regiment sets in Metumi [Mũrang’a].

These include Kiariĩ [1665 - 1673], Cege [1678 - 1678], Kamau [1704 - 1712], Kĩmani [1717 - 1725], Karanja [1730 - 1738], Kĩnũthia [1743 - 1751], Njũgũna [1756 - 1764], Kĩnyanjui [1769 - 1777] , Ng’ang’a [1781 - 1789], Njoroge [1794 - 1802], Wainaina [1807 - 1815], Kang’ethe [1820 - 1828] Mbugua [1859 – 1867], Njenga or Mbira Itimu [872 – 80], Mutung’u or Mburu [1885 – 1893]

H.E. Lambert who dealt with the riikas extensively has the following list of regiment sets from Gichũgũ and Ndia. It should be remembered that this names were unlike ruling generations not uniform in Gĩkũyũ land. It should also be noted that Ndia and Gachũgũ followed a system where initiation took place every annually for four years and then a period of nine calendar years followed where no initiation of boys took place. This period was referred to as mũhingo.

Karanja [1759 - 1762], Kĩnũthia [1772 - 1775], Ndũrĩrĩ [1785 - 1788], Mũgacho [1798 - 1801] , Njoroge [1811 - 1814], Kang’ethe [1824 - 1827], Gitaũ [ 1837 - 1840], Manyaki [1850 - 1853], Kiambuthi [1863 - 1866], Watuke [1876 - 1879], Ngũgĩ [1889 - 1892], Wakanene [1902 - 1905]

The remarkable thing in this list in comparison to the Metumi one is how some of the same names are used, if a bit off set. Ndia and Gachũgũ are extremely far from Metumi. Gaki on he other hand, as far as my geographical understanding of Gĩkũyũ land is concerned should be much closer to Metumi, yet virtually no names of regiment sets are shared. It should however be noted that Gaki had a strong connection to the Maasai living nearby.

The ruling generation names of Maina and Mwangi are also very popular male Gĩkũyũ names. The theory is also that Waciira is also derived from ciira [case], which is also a very popular name among male Agĩkũyũ. This would call into question, when it was exactly that children started being named after the parents of one parents. Had that system, of naming ones kids after ones parents been there from the beginning, there would be very few male names in circulation. This is however not the case, as there are very many Gĩkũyũ male names. My theory is though that the female names are much less, with the names of the full-nine daughters of Mũmbi being most prevalent.

Gakaara wa Wanjaũ supports this view when he writes in his book, Mĩhĩrĩga ya Aagĩkũyũ page 29.

“Hingo ĩyo ciana cia arũme ciatuagwo marĩĩtwa ma mariika ta Watene, Cuma, Iregi kana Ciira. Nao airĩĩtu magatuuo marĩĩtwa ma mĩhĩrĩga tauria hagwetetwo nah au kabere, o nginya hingo iria maundu maatabariirwo thuuthaini ati ciana ituagwo aciari a mwanake na a muirĩĩtu.”

Freely translated it means“In those days the male children were given the names of the riika [initiation set] like Watene, Cuma, Iregi or Ciira. Girls were on the other hand named after the clans that were named earlier until such a time as it was decided to name the children after the parents of the man and the woman.”From this statement it is not clear whether the girls were named ad-hoc after any clan, no matter what clan the parents belonged to. Naming them after the specific clan that the parents belonged to would have severely restricted naming options.

This would strangely mean that the female names are the oldest in Gĩkũyũ land, further confirming its matrilineal descent. As far as male names are concerned, there is of course the chicken and the egg question, of when a name specifically appeared but some names are tied to events that happened during the initiation. For example Wainaina refers to those who shivered during circumcision. Kũinaina [to shake or to shiver].

There was a very important ceremony known as Ituĩka in which the old guard would hand over the reigns of government to the next generation. This was to avoid dictatorship. Kenyatta relates of how once in the land of the Agĩkũyũ, there ruled a despotic King called Gĩkũyũ, grandson of the elder daughter [Wanjirũ according to Leakey] of the original Gĩkũyũ of Gĩkũyũ and Mũmbi fame. After he was deposed of, it was decided that the government should be democratic, which is how the Ituĩka came to be. This legend of course calls into question when it was exactly that the matrilineal rule set in. The last Ituĩka ceremony where the riika of Maina handed over power to the Mwangi generation, took place in 1898-9 [Hobley]. The next one was supposed to be held in 1925 – 1928 [Kenyatta] but was thwarted by the colonial imperialist government. And one by one Gĩkũyũ institutions crumbled

*Muriuki, Godfrey 1974. History of the Kikuyu 1500 – 1900. (Oxford U Press)

Creative Commons License
Permissions beyond the scope of license may be available at
http://Muigwithania.com/muigwithania2-0-copyright/

March 14, 2010

Kikuyu Sub Clan Land Holding

Origins of the sub-clan land holding

Acquisition of land in the earliest Kikuyu settlements was based on the rights of first use, defined originally by the exercise of hunting and trapping rights. As described by a Kikuyu elder in the late 1920s:In those days we did not cultivate so much as we do now. A man trapped animals and his hunting area became his Ngundu [land claim]. His descendants became his clan. Each father had his own hunting area where he set his traps and he would show the boundaries of it to his sons… In the course of time by a natural process the Estate breaks up and each branch of the family gets control of its own Estate… [WE] still recognize the eldest son of the eldest branch as the head of the family.

Hunting rights were strengthened by forest clearance and cultivation. The basic land unit was known as the sub-clan holding (gìthaka) or estate. (Technically, as it refers to uncleared bushland, its basis is in hunting rather than in cultivating traditions.) It was reported in the late 1920)s that most sub-clan holdings ranged in size from about 20 ha to nearly 2,500 ha although they generally were between 80 and 120 ha in size.

Githaka


Tenancy and the sub-clan holding

Cultivation rights of the sub-clan holding belonged to families with lineage rights, and were held in perpetuity. People without lineage rights could obtain temporary rights of cultivation to sub-clan lands through redeemable sales, from land lending and tenancy .

Land lending to people outside the sub-clan took several forms. A muhoi or tenant, for instance, could be lent land for cultivation, usually on the basis of friendship. Subject to the approval of the sub-clan leader (muramati), these rights could be granted. In certain circumstances, the rights of a tenant could be passed from generation to generation. Although no rent per se featured in this type of tenancy agreement, occasional gifts were expected.

The cultivation of the sub-clan holding was the clearest means of retaining land tenure rights. In the event that lineage right holders were not able to fully cultivate the sub-clan holding, temporary tenants would be sought to clear and cultivate underutilized land. As land became scarcer and labor more abundant, these tenancy arrangements became less common and were often cancelled. Although in principle a temporary tenant still held lineage rights to his own sub-clan land, in practice it was very difficult to return and regain cultivation rights. Occasionally, a temporary tenant might become a resident tenant (muthami) who was allowed the right to cultivate and to build a homestead.

So within the system of traditional Kikuyu land tenure, there were precedents for tenancy and land lending arrangements. Resident tenancy allowed the building of a homestead, while land lending expressly prohibited it. Land lending thus encouraged the formation of a class of non-resident farm labourers, but it was dependent in part on there being holdings which could not be successfully cultivated by the right holder. Resident tenancy and land lending arrangements could be inherited. Rights of use were distributed to male descendants of the first owner(today female descendants also), while a non-distributed right of control was held by the sons (or daughters) of the senior branch of the sub-clan or family who was its trustee (or muramati).


January 20, 2010

Beyond Expectations

Beyond Expectations

Beyond Expectations: From Charcoal to Gold is as interesting as it is inspiring. It is the story of a freedom fighter and a cultural activist; the story of an astute businessman and a shrewd politician; the story of a generous family man and a philanthropist; the story of an eminent elder and a gifted storyteller. It is the story of Njenga Karume.

Njenga Karume’s phenomenal rise from a charcoal burner to a business magnate has been the subject of myths over the years. Yet, few can authoritatively relate Njenga’s journey from his humble beginnings during the colonial period to his current fascinating financial and political success.

In this autobiography, Njenga traces his early life right from birth in 1929, and takes the reader through the various spheres of his inspiring life characterised by an enviable work ethic, unpretentious patriotism, knowledge of human psychology and extraordinary intelligence. Here is an outgoing personality who was born in poverty, received minimal education and then, through his own initiative, ventured into business during one of the toughest times in Kenya’s colonial history. Yet, he succeeded in business beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and rose to such prominence and popularity that he became a respected politician and Cabinet Minister who interacted intimately with all the first three Presidents of independent Kenya.

October 23, 2009

Kikuyu Judendienstordnung-Neo Colonial Home Guards

* Written after reading David Makali’s article in a Kenyan Daily “The kikuyu problem We must Address” and Mutahi Ngunyi’s “Why the House of Mumbi Must Climb Down

Kikuyus by name only remind me of the Jewish Ghetto Police in Nazi Europe.(Jüdische Ghetto-Polizei-Judendienstordnung), also known as the Jewish Order Service that was also active in most of the Nazi concentration camps. Members of the Judendienstordnung did not have official uniforms often wearing just an identifying armband (Kikuyus by name only).They were used by the Germans primarily for securing the deportation of other Jews to the concentration camps.Germany is greater than being Jewish was their rallying call .

It may be hard to imagine that there were Jewish Police during the Shoah (Holocaust)after all it was often the German and Polish Police who victimized the Jews.

Early in the Reich, there were Jewish supporters of the Reich just as in any other groups. As the Reich grew stronger, and as the Civil Rights Restrictions of 1933-35 were enacted, most Jews were forbidden to hold all public offices,a solution aimed at  addressing historical injustices( sound familiar ). One exclusion however was in the camps and ghettos . While the Ghettos such as Warsaw, Lodz, and Krakow were guarded by the Nazis, they often had their own police forces comprised of Jewish officers for ‘peace-building’. This did not guarantee perfect treatment of the people under their care however, but one has to remember that the populations in the ghettos were starving, mostly poor, faced with disease and often brimming over: Warsaw ghetto at one time may have had over 500,000 in the space fit for a tenth of that. The Jewish police there faced the same problems other jews would face in the same circumstances.But they held strong to Germany over Jewish heritage.

Today in Kenya we have our own ‘peace builders’  who chant that  being Kenyan is greater than our ethnic identity.(Kikuyus by name only) .Our very own  Judendienstrdnung, the Maina Kiai’s,Macharia Gaitho’s John Githongo, Binyavanga Wainaina,  Mutahi Ngunyis.An interesting lot,Supported by Obama bought and paid for by British tax payers.

For starters  they only see the wrong  their community does and never what others have done.They see stolen elections and attacks in Naivasha but fail to see the pre election violence and demonizing campaigns against their own.They see the Naivasha violence in a context of ethnic tranquility and national harmony reigning ,blind to the Kiambaa violence and mass genocide against their people . Human rights to them only apply to other ethnic groups. They call for democracy by kilometer rather than one man one vote why? because  the concept of democracy they claim to fight for really doesnt matter .‘These neo-colonial home guards say “We have to have a Non-Kikuyu leader for Kenya”.Their vast left wing conspiracy says corruption is only corruption when Kamau does it .When others do it ,it is not corruption. Ethnic militias like Mungiki are heaven sent when they worship at the altar of ODM principalities,that their human right are more important than those they have killed in Kirinyaga.

I guess when  a new Kenya dawns and all the anti Kikuyus have their way ,the Kiai’s and Githongo’s hope they will be overseeing us behind the barbed wire.They  just don’t realize that their fate will only be like ours.

Joe Ndungu

September 14, 2009

Ndura Waruingi Interview With Jeff Koinange

Capital Talk Interview Parts 2,3&4 Youtube Video Page
August 20, 2009

Jewish Sisters Recall Kindness 1939

Survival was foremost in the minds of the Berg family when they arrived in the highlands of Kenya in 1939. They were among hundreds of Jewish families who fled the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, but just a small number of those arrived on the east coast of Africa. The land and culture were strange to the Bergs, but the kindness and help of the Kikuyu people helped them survive and thrive.

I have a stronger bond with the Kikuyu people than with Germany, and our family lineage there dates back to the early 1700s,” says Jill Berg Paully. “I consider Kenya my homeland.”The story of Inge Berg Katzenstein, 74, and her younger sister Jill Berg Paully, 70, is unusual in the Jewish diaspora. They were small girls, 10 and 6, in 1939, when their family fled to the East African nation.

“Our story is about five families, which later grew to seven, who were able to escape the persecution and raise enough money to buy land in Kenya and survive,” Mrs. Paully says.She says her family’s trek began in 1933, the year she was born, six years before the Bergs fled. Adolf Hitler rose to power as Germany’s chancellor that year, and the situation for Jews became worse day by day from that time on.The Bergs, who were wealthy cattle dealers in Germany, began moving their money out of German banks to Holland (now the Netherlands) in 1935. That bit of ingenuity, fostered by their grandmother, eventually would enable them to secure safe passage to Africa.

Mrs. Katzenstein was supposed to start public school in their hometown of Lechenich, but six months after school began, Jews were barred from attending public schools. She was forced to attend a Jewish school several miles away in Cologne, where her grandmother lived.”I remember walking to the [public school] building, and the Gestapo were there with their German shepherds – I am still afraid of those dogs to this day – and told me I was no longer welcome at the school,” she says.”But it was Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) where our story really begins, as with most Jews of the Holocaust,” Mrs. Paully says.

On Nov. 9 and 10, 1938, hundreds of Jewish homes, synagogues and other properties were burned, shattered and destroyed. The term Crystal Night is a reference to all the broken glass from Jewish homes and stores that littered the streets.Members of the Nazi Party rallied Germans into a destructive frenzy after the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, the secretary of the German Embassy in Paris, by a 17-year-old Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan. He was seeking revenge for the expulsion of his parents from their Polish home to a wasteland between Poland and Austria.”It took our family seven months to find a place that would accept Jews. Many Jews during that time had been swindled into trips where they were turned away when they arrived,” Mrs. Paully says.

Along with their parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, the girls finally would arrive in the grassy highlands of Kenya in June 1939, without an understanding of Swahili or English, the only languages spoken there.Kenya was a colony of Great Britain until 1963, and although the level of persecution against Jews was far less there, “the British were also anti-Semitic and not fond of Jews ,” Mrs. Paully says.

“Anti-Semitism was rampant throughout Europe hundreds of years before Hitler, and the British were no exception,” she adds.The girls endured great hardships not only because of the language barrier, but also from British schoolchildren, who beat and ridiculed them with impunity.”We were compelled to play sports three days a week at school, and often I fought with the girls and they would beat me with their lacrosse sticks. Nothing was done,” Mrs. Paully says.Amazingly, Mrs. Paully says, she and her sister were speaking nearly fluent Swahili within three months and becoming proficient in English as well.

“Two Kikuyu boys taught us as they escorted us to and from school,” Mrs. Katzenstein says.The Kikuyu tribe of Kenya was the native population on the highland where the sisters lived for the next eight years. Mrs. Katzenstein says the Kikuyu were a strong, intelligent people and the only inhabitants of the highlands who treated the Berg family with kindness and respect.At the end of the first three months, though, World War II broke out, and all the Jewish men were taken into custody, considered enemy aliens by the British.

Although the men were returned to their homes soon afterward, it would be several years before most of the world would become aware of the Nazi death camps and the vehement anti-Semitic persecution that enthralled the German populace under Chancellor Hitler and the members of his National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”For the entire eight years we lived there, the British were unaware, or so they said, that the Jews were being persecuted,” Mrs. Paully says.

“Many of our family members, like most others, died, and even we were unaware of the totality of what happened until much later.”In 1947, when Inge was 18 and her sister 14, the family was prepared to move again, this time to America. Shortly after their arrival, they learned of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya and were shocked. In preparation for efforts to gain freedom from British rule, members of the Kikuyu, Embu, Meru and Kamba tribes in Kenya took oaths of unity and secrecy to overthrow the colonial rulers, beginning the Mau Mau movement.

Although the British greatly inflated the atrocities committed against English settlers, the rebellion was bloody, and many Kenyans who refused to join were killed for fear they would sell out their brethren who were fighting for freedom.”We got along so well with them and they were so kind to us, we had no idea what their relationship was with the British until that happened,” Mrs. Paully says.The family’s journey to America was long and treacherous, Mrs. Katzenstein says.”It took us seven weeks to get there on a cargo boat, and it was so stormy that the boat was tipping at 421/2 degrees. At 45 degrees a boat capsizes,” Mrs. Katzenstein says.A trip that was supposed to port in New York wound up in Boston harbor. Inge was expected to work, but Jill was forced to adjust to a new school with a new culture.

“It was difficult for her to adjust,” Mrs. Katzenstein says.”Our experience in Kenya made us aggressive and tough, and that did not translate well at first,” Mrs. Paully says.The family eventually found its way to Vineland, N.J., “a stronger Orthodox Jewish community than what my father found in New York,” Mrs. Paully says.Mrs. Katzenstein met and married her husband, Werner, and they had three children – two sons and a daughter now living in Boston, Pittsburgh and Highland Park, N.J. Mrs. Paully met and married her husband, Kurt, and they had two children, a son and daughter now living in New York and Florida.

The compelling story of the Berg family and how they were able to barter their escape from Germany is only one story of Jews who fled to Kenya. A film on the subject, “Nowhere in Africa,” was released in 2001. The sisters were intrigued by the parallels the movie had to their lives in Kenya. The two retired real estate brokers who immigrated to Vineland, N.J. in 1947 with their mother and father now live in Silver Spring. Both volunteer at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mrs. Paully has volunteered at the museum for nearly a decade, and her sister since 1998, when she moved to the region.The siblings will be telling their family’s unique story at the Holocaust Museum downtown, across from the Washington Monument.

“What we want is for people to learn what it is like to live in countries that are not free and what it means to be discriminated against,” Mrs. Paully says. “We want them to understand what they have and what they need to do to preserve it.”"Children are not born knowing hate; it is taught. And born Americans must understand what it is they have overcome and know that it can be quickly taken away, especially in these times,” Mrs. Katzenstein says.Jill Berg Paully (left) and Inge Berg Katzenstein, who as children fled Nazi Germany with their family and found safety in Kenya, pose with the family’s Sefer Torah at Kemp Mill Synagogue in Silver Spring. The Torah was carried from Germany to Kenya and then America and has been donated to the Kemp Mill synagogue.

By: Brian DeBose

August 2, 2009

An Evening with Ngugi wa Thiong’o

July 30, 2009

The Trail of the Serpent

Eastern Province

IDPs hounded out of resettlement Land in Ukambani “Mungiki wa rudi kwao” was the chant by one of the women  .

Rift Valley Province

Kamwaura, Kenya – “They’ve pulled up my crops again,” said Jane Wangui, a Kikuyu who still lives in a camp for fear of returning to the farm near ethnic Kalenjin she fled last year. “I can no longer trust them.”Her feet blackened by the soil, Jane, 60, rests after a morning on her “shamba” (farm), a 90-minute walk from the “transit” camp at Kamwaura in the fertile Molo region. Here 65 people sleep in tents and work their land during the day.A year-and-a-half after post-election violence brought bloodshed to Kenya, during which members of the Kalenjin ethnic group attacked the Kikuyu tribe of President Mwai Kibaki, several thousand displaced people have still not returned home.

“I just came back from my farm. Today, I found that they have again uprooted my potatoes,” she said. “Since February, I’ve been going to my farm on a daily basis. We can’t stock any harvest, it’s been stolen.”I’m very careful not to stay too late in my shamba. I don’t know what can happen when it’s dark.”

“I can’t trust these people (Kalenjin) any more. They told us they had no problem with us, and a few months later they were killing us.

“Life is miserable here. Before I had wealth accumulated and today I have nothing to eat,” said Jane, who survives on one meal a day.Spurred by economic reasons and encouraged by the government, a number of Kikuyu families began migrating in the 1960s from their traditional central provinces to the Rift Valley, the “ancestral home” of the Kalenjin.Land here is an explosive issue due to unbalanced distribution and population pressures in a poor, mainly agricultural country.Lucy Muthoni, 48, says she doesn’t understand why her neighbours continue to rip up her plants.

“They even told me there was no point in planting maize, since I might no longer have access to my land at harvest time,” she said.”Personally, I don’t think we can ever heal the rift between us and the Kalenjin. They betrayed us.”Like other displaced people who believe the government has not tightened security enough, Lucy does not want to claim compensation and buy a plot of land at Kamwaura. She wants to continue to run her farm.

At Rai farm, in the Eldoret region, one of the worst hit by the violence in the Rift Valley, huge areas of agricultural land have been turned to dust by a long-running drought.Njunguna Gachui has built a flimsy house with bits of wood for windows and a plastic tarpaulin for a roof.”I had 60 sheep, some cows. At the age of 70 I have to begin a new life,” he said. “My children’s future has been destroyed because I lost my property.” His daughter, Catherine Njoki, said the government had offered little in the way of assistance.”They promised they would build a house for us but they never delivered on their promises.”It will be very hard to reconcile fully with the neighbours. It will take a long time for the trust to come back. Everyday you can see what has been destroyed.”

Relations are strained with one neighbour in particular, a former Kenyan athlete whom, they allege, gave petrol to youths to burn down their house so he could get their land. Benjamin Ngaruiya, one of the displaced people at Rai farm, said the 10 000 shillings (about R1 000) he received is not enough to build a decent home and buy fertiliser to begin farming again.Only his father and mother have been resettled in a simple house on their plot of land that was devastated during the violence.

The government likes to point out that all the big camps created at the time of the violence have now been closed.One local official even told  the AFP the displaced people were trying to benefit by holding out for better land.

Ngaruiya denied the claim. “These officials from the government are only touring towns,” he said. “They never come inside the rural zones. They ignore us.”His father Michael Nyanga Njeru recalls the days when there were four homes on his property. All have been reduced to rubble. Still he remains defiant.”I’m not going to leave this land, because it’s my property. We bought it legally. I’m not going anywhere else. I will be buried here.”

June 9, 2009

Humility

God hates seven things. Tellingly, the first is pride. When someone overvalues himself by undervaluing others, he inevitably reveals it with his proud look. Puffed up in self-conceit, he may also devise evil and sow discord. No wonder God hates proud looks. Proud and powerful people may think they can disregard others’ displeasure, but they cannot disregard God’s opposition.

Peter reminds us not to trust in ourselves but in the One who will exalt us “in due time” (1 Peter 5:6). As we submit to Him, we avoid the risk that pride brings to our character and we become thankful, humble servants of God.

We should never look down on others ! devise evil and sow discord with the aim of building ourselves.We can grow and build without undervaluing others.Because we seek a better future for ourselves We  should also seek a better future for others  even though seperate from ourselves

Tags: ,
May 28, 2009

Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC)

While Kenyans praise  the setting up of a body by Parliament to investigate historical injustices with a view to reconciling communities torn apart by ethnic hatred and inequalities, doubts surround the success of such an initiative.Negotiators named by post-war leaders to the international mediation group were of the view that signing of the National Accord without putting in place mechanisms to heal the war wounds would be an exercise in futility.A raft of proposals towards possible reconciliation and peaceful co-existence were made, one being the setting up of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) to investigate historical injustices, including the eruption of post-election violence.Nobody in Kenya can claim the cloak of a saint before the TJRC.

In adult life, everybody in this country is an accomplice in meting out injustices. Since violence or political assassinations always have leaders’ blessings, how will this commission summon such personalities without provoking ethnic animosity?

Only the privileged class can get away with injustices as was evidenced by the 2007 general elections. Kenyans who bear the scars of senseless protests against bungled election results were not the contestants for the top seats.The big question is, what constitutes injustices in the eyes of the commission and the public? Caution, patience and sobriety should be the guides if the country is to forestall a recurrence of violence.Some of the heart-rending testimonies by victims and the stone faces of the perpetrators could be stressful. The commission could be presiding over the disintegration of the nation or perform a miracle to restore the short-lived unity at independence.

The latter is unlikely where negative ethnicity has deepened in all sectors including the Legislature.The leaders across the divide should convene a national healing conference as part of the preparation of the perpetrators and victims to look at the commission, not as a witch-hunter or a trial court, but as a peace-broker.

Going by recent inflammatory statements by leaders after the burial of Kiambaa church fire victims and the conspicuous absence of some coalition leaders, it is safe to conclude that we have forgotten that the country was engulfed in one of the worst violence in living memory.It is thus upon the two principals to rise to the occasion and save the coalition and the country from disintegration.Given the sensitivity of the terms of reference of the commission, the coalition government should move with speed to reinforce the confidence of Kenyans in the healing process.The unease in the coalition government that was crafted out of the ashes of a bloody war should not be a hindrance to the smooth functions of the commission. The TJRC process should not be turned into another public relations exercise to hoodwink the international community, which insisted on reconciliation rather than confrontation.An appearance by leaders across the divide would encourage the perpetrators and victims to fearlessly testify at the commission that seeks to reconcile communities and individuals who regard their neighbours as arch-enemies.

By Joseph Kamotho. EGH.

April 21, 2009

Mungiki marked for death

Gitau Njuguna, Paul Muite

Gitau Njuguna, Paul Muite

At least 24 people have been stoned or hacked to death in central Kenya during overnight fighting between vigilante groups and an outlawed criminal sect.The clashes in Karatina began when the vigilante groups armed with machetes, axes and clubs set upon members of the feared Mungiki gang, which extorts money from homeowners, taxi operators and businesspeople in many Kenyan towns. Gang members later regrouped and fought back but most of the dead were alleged Mungiki members.

“So far, investigators have confirmed that 24 people have been killed and three people have been injured,” police said.Thirty-seven people were arrestesd during the violence, which follows more than a week of vigilante action in the area, about 100 miles north of the capital, Nairobi. More than a dozen Mungiki members were reported to have been lynched by the public before last night’s fighting.The clashes are indicative of a growing sense of lawlessness in Kenya, with police seemingly unable to protect the public and deal effectively with criminal threats.

“Live by the sword, die by the sword” 

April 6, 2009

Martha Karua Resigns.

MORE ON MARTHA KARUA

March 22, 2009

Kikuyu Documentary about Snow

Tags: ,
January 29, 2009

IDPs

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.If we wash our hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless  it means we side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life.

We were taught under the old ethic that man’s business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked; ”Am I my brother’s keeper?” That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother’s keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself.

December 18, 2008

Traditional Political Organisation of the Kikuyu People

 

Kikuyu political structure

The political organisation of the Kikuyu people  was closely interwoven with the family and the riika. A young man after initiation through circumcision automatically entered into the National council of junior warriors(njama ya anake a mumo). After 82 moons or 12 rain seasons after the circumcision ceremony the junior warrior was promoted to theCouncil of senior warriors (Njama ya ita).Together this two councils would be called upon to protect the tribe in case of external aggression. The council of senior warriors was in addition an important decision making organ. The two councils were served by men of 20 – 40 years.Upon marriage a man was initiated into a council called kiama kĩa kamatimo.This was the first grade eldership and it denoted elders who were also warriors. At this stage the man plays the role of observers of senior elders. They are required to assist in proceedings by carrying out menial tasks like skinning animals, being messengers, carrying ceremonial articles or light fires among other tasks.

When a man had a son  old enough to be circumcised or a daughter old enough to be married ,he was elevated into another council called the council of peace(kiama kĩa mataathi). On entering this council the man was now a man of peace and no longer of the warrior class. He assumed the duty of peace maker in the community.When a man had had practically all his children circumcised, and his wife (or wives) had passed child-bearing age he reached the last and most honoured status. A council known askiama kĩa maturanguru (religious and sacrificial council).After paying an ewe which was slaughtered and offered in sacrifice to Ngai (God) the man was invested with powers to lead a sacrificial ceremony at the sacred tree (Mũgumũ mũtĩ wa Igongona). The elders of this grade assumed the role of ‘holy men’. They were high priests. All religious and ethical ceremonies were in their hands. In the Agĩkũyũ society the religious,governance and law functions were closely intertwined. With various councils being called upon to perform one of this functions. From the literature I’ve seen it is not quite clear whether women also had councils and what functions these councils served. The initiation ceremony seems to have been organized by a council comprised of both men and women.

Parallel to the said councils the family unit formed a council known as ndundu ya mũcie of which the father was the head. The father as the head of the household then represented the family in the next council called kiama kĩa itora (village council) comprising of all the family heads in the village. This was headed by the senior elder. A wider council called kiama kĩa rũgongo (district council) was formed comprising of all the elders from the district. This was presided over by a committee (kiama kĩa ndundu), composed of all the senior elders in the district. Among the senior elders, the most advanced in age was elected as the head and judge (mũthamaki or mũciiri) of the ndundu. The district councils then came together to form the national council. Among the judges, one was elected to head the meetings.

* by Gikuyu Architecture

October 29, 2008

Kenya & Israel: A Blood brotherhood.

By Asher Naim

An Israeli diplomat’s forging of ties with Kenyan leader Jomo Kenyatta during Kenya’s pre-independence period in the early 1960s helped pave the way to fruitful relations between the Kenya and Isreal. This period already saw initiatives in the fields of pilot training, intelligence cooperation, and assistance programs. Among the gains for Israel was Kenyatta’s lasting, loyal support.In December 1960 this author was asked by Ehud Avriel, then special adviser to the Israeli foreign minister, to go to Kenya, then a British colony. The British government had refused the appointment of Uzi Nedivi, a high-ranking official, as consul general in Nairobi. Avriel, however, deemed it important to have an Israeli presence during the crucial years of Kenya’s struggle for independence, in the hope of establishing diplomatic relations once Kenya became a state. He said that, given this author’s junior status at the time, “nobody would notice.The post would be as assistant to Israel (Izzy) Somen, the “honorary consul,” as Avriel put it. It was supposed to be for a two-month period, until another solution was found. Somen, a Jew who did much to promote Israel’s interests in Kenya, was highly regarded in Nairobi where he had served as mayor, and was much involved in the local politics.In the early period of statehood, Israel faced a struggle on many fronts. Israel’s involvement with Kenya was part of its effort to forge diplomatic relations with as many countries as possible.

An Initial Meeting

The strategy in Kenya was to seek to befriend and gain the trust of its emerging indigenous leader, Jomo Kenyatta, who was also the undisputed head of the largest and dominant Kikuyu tribe. Kenyatta, however, was under house arrest, accused of being the force behind the rebellious Mau Mau movement that had spread havoc among the sixty thousand European settlers in the Kenyan highlands.The author arrived in Nairobi on a morning in October 1961, and went immediately to Gatundu, the village thirty miles away where Kenyatta was confined to quarters. On a sandy road leading to the place were two heavyset guards armed with sticks. They asked the author’s destination, and questions followed about personal acquaintance or an appointment with Kenyatta, the answers being negative. However, after identifying himself as an Israeli with a message for Kenyatta, and after the message was apparently conveyed by one of the guards, the author was allowed to proceed.

Although his age was not known at the time, Kenyatta was over seventy but looked more like fifty. He was heavyset with a spotted gray beard, and was wearing sandals, casual pants, and a colorful open shirt while holding a long stick. The look was impressive, reminiscent of Moses. The author, after being introduced to his new wife Mama Ngina, a tall village woman in her twenties, explained that he had been sent to Kenya to offer Israel’s experience in nation building. Israel, too, had freed itself from British rule just thirteen years earlier, and used trial and error in integrating immigrants from seventy different countries. Kenya, for its part, had forty different tribes that spoke various dialects, which would have to be amalgamated into a nation with a common identity upon gaining independence. Israel’s advice could be helpful in avoiding mistakes.

Israel, the author pointed out, could also assist in the fields of agriculture, irrigation, animal husbandry, youth movements, social work, childcare, and others. The meeting lasted five hours and seemed successful in building trust. While strolling around Kenyatta’s farm, he said, “You know, we Kikuyu are the Jews of Africa, and we too will outsmart the British government.” At the end of the encounter, he asked if Israel could supply him with an incubator for his chicken coop; one was delivered two weeks later.

Back in the hotel in Nairobi there were four messages from a MacDonald, assistant to the British governor, asking to return the call urgently. The voice of the messages was sober and unfriendly: “Kenyatta is under house arrest and a visit to him requires advance permission.”

A call received that evening from Izzy Somen was not encouraging either. He expected the author would be asked to leave Kenya.This prompted a decision the next morning to visit Kenyatta again, while there was still time. On this occasion in Gatundu, at 10:30 in the morning, the guards did not create an obstacle. Kenyatta was warm and affable, and when told what had transpired since yesterday’s visit, he burst out angrily that the British did not understand that their rule was over and it was time to leave Kenyans to manage their own affairs. “As for you, my friend, don’t worry. If they send you out, I will receive you in Nairobi personally after our Uhuru [freedom].”

Something, then, seemed to have been achieved diplomatically in any case; and MacDonald was not heard from again.Soon after, Kenyatta was released from his confinement. The British, in keeping with their practice of divide and rule, created a counterforce of the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU). Consisting of minority tribes headed by A. Ngala, this organization prolonged the negotiations for independence at Lancaster House in London, but could not weaken Kenyatta’s undisputed leadership

Pilot Training: A Breakthrough

Although Kenyatta was not a religious man, he was appreciative of the Bible. He also admired what he considered “Jewish brain power.” Despite the fact that there was an influence here of anti-Semitic notions, his own feelings toward Jews were favorable.

Friendship with Kenyatta led to friendship with a number of “Kenyan leaders” who surrounded him, some of whom were James Gitchuru, later finance minister; J.G. Kiano, later industry and trade minister; and Mwai Kibaki, later, in 2004, president of Kenya. The most colorful personality in those days, however, was Tom Mboya. Although the most intelligent and educated person with leadership qualities, and having wide contacts with international organizations and particularly with the American trade-union leader Walter Reuther, Mboya never attained a top position because he was not from the Kikuyu but from the Luo, the second largest tribe. He was also in conflict with the Odinga, a tribe within the Luo category.

After Mboya’s marriage, the author was asked by Ehud Avriel to invite him for his honeymoon to Israel. There, he favorably impressed many. When the timetable for Uhuru was agreed upon with Britain, and Israel responded favorably to a Ugandan-Tanganyikan request for the training of pilots, the author was instructed to ask Mboya to add five Kenyan candidates even though Kenya was not yet independent.

After sending an objection that this might be interpreted as Israel giving preference or, worse still, interfering in Kenya’s internal affairs, the author was granted permission to refer the matter to Kenyatta, but only after consulting with Mboya. There was no trouble gaining Mboya’s assent that Kenyatta would choose the candidates. Mboya knew the limits of his role, and a decision of such national significance, involving Kenya’s future air force, could only be Kenyatta’s prerogative. Mboya, envied for his intelligence and international status, was in constant danger and ultimately was assassinated. Kenyatta, for his part, was appreciative of the pilot-training offer and this further enhanced the trust that had been built.

Independence and Diplomatic Ties

The author worked closely with Kenyatta, and never held a serious meeting with Ngala, the KADU president. It was evident that whatever maneuvers the British used, Kenyatta was irreplaceable. Hence, even before independence, all Israeli assistance programs went through the “Kenyatta channel.” It was clear he would always approve them, but it gratified him to be treated as the leader even before it was official. The numerous training programs – mostly in rural development, irrigation, social work, and health – both involved bringing Kenyans to Israel for courses and sending Israeli instructors to Kenya. The graduates became effective “ambassadors” for Israel. The most notable project was the establishment of a school for social work in Machakos, fifty miles north of Nairobi.

Early in 1962, the head of the Mossad in the region arrived in Kenya and asked the author how he could meet with Kenyatta. It was arranged for breakfast at the author’s home the next day. Kenyatta appeared with one assistant. The author also arranged the presence of Arye Oded, who later became Israel’s ambassador to Kenya. At that meeting, cooperation began in the field of intelligence and security and eventually expanded considerably. Also that year, the author – the only non-African able to go to Kenyatta’s office without appointment – arranged a meeting for him with then-Foreign Minister Golda Meir that even further enhanced the intimate relationship with Kenyatta.

One day early in 1963, the author was called to Kenyatta’s office – he was then rotating prime minister with opposition leader A. Ngala – and was secretly asked to send a fighter with the nom de guerre “General China” to Israel for “training.” Itote Waruhiu – his real name – was the commander of the Mau Mau’s Kikuyu underground, and the British viewed him as a terrorist. Kenyatta wanted to groom him as a commander in the Kenyan army when the time came. He also, most likely, wanted to secure the support of Mau Mau fighters who were still hiding in the forests. That he placed this delicate matter in Israel’s hands shows the depth of Kenyatta’s trust.

Asked by Foreign Minister Meir to remain, the author’s “two months” lasted three years until Kenya attained independence and opened diplomatic relations with Israel. As the Uhuru approached, the Foreign Ministry approved the author’s suggestion to purchase a plot of land near his hotel and build the future embassy and future ambassador’s residence. Israel’s delegation to Kenya’s independence celebration included Meir and Avriel.

The author planned the new Israeli embassy’s foundation-laying ceremony for two days before that event, on 10 December 1963. Although neither Avriel nor Meir believed that, with so many dignitaries coming to the country, Kenyatta would attend, he did so and it was he and Meir who laid the foundation. Kenyatta said he looked forward to Kenyan-Israeli friendship, that the two countries had much in common historically, and that he was happy Israel’s was the first embassy to be built in Kenya and hoped it would set an example. Among the dignitaries present were Gitchuru, Kiano, and Kibaki.

Heads of Arab states’ delegations to the independence festivities, we learned from reliable sources, planned to raise the issue of Israeli diplomatic representation. However, they changed their minds after seeing the next morning’s press with the picture of Kenyatta and Meir laying the foundation stone and quotations of Kenyatta’s words. Thus, Israel won a round in the diplomatic struggle. Kenyatta remained friendly and trustful toward Israel all his life, and often helped it in times of need – such as when, despite Kenya’s close relations with neighboring Uganda, he allowed an Israeli air force plane to refill in Nairobi on its way back from the Entebbe raid.

*Asher Naim is a veteran Israeli diplomat who has held positions in Japan and the United States, and was ambassador to Kenya, Uganda, Finland, Ethiopia, the Third Committee of the United Nations, and South Korea. He was instrumental in negotiating the transit of Ethiopian Jews to Israel, and in the repeal of the “Zionism is racism” UN resolution.

October 18, 2008

HotSun Films ‘The Oath’-Behind the Scenes

October 12, 2008

Kibaki:A Failure in Leadership

Guest blogger Koigi Wa Wamwere (Former MP)

When leaders hoist themselves to the highest perch of power – the Presidency – they expose themselves to public scrutiny and judgement. When Kenyans fail to acknowledge their leaders’ failures, they do so at their own peril and pay dearly for the services those leaders fail to deliver.

What then will history say about President Kibaki? It will not say he was a great leader. It will say he had five cardinal failures.Kibaki’s supporters have always denied his cardinal sin of cowardice but posterity will judge him most harshly for his recent criminal failure to protect thousands of Kenyans who were killed and displaced in the worst ethnic fighting in our history.Kibaki is guilty because Government intelligence services informed him of who was planning war, where and against who but did nothing to protect innocent Kenyans who ended up dead or displaced. For his omission, he is as guilty of war as its perpetrators.

Kibaki

Kibaki

Kibaki’s second cardinal sin is that throughout his life, he has never fought for the freedom he has never hesitated to enjoy. Indeed, posterity will remember him most for equating fighting dictatorship with the madness of felling a fig tree with a razor blade.But fighting for freedom means sacrificing and Kibaki has never sacrificed for any cause, person or even self. Despite his lack of gratitude, others have always sacrificed for him.Kibaki’s third cardinal sin is his failure to acknowledge, thank and compensate freedom fighters or even those who have fought and sacrificed for him. Like one who has never heard that when a cow suffers injury in the pastures, it drags itself home for assistance, when freedom fighters and their families turn to him for acknowledgement and support, he looks the other way.

Without being taken to court, Kibaki’s government has refused to acknowledge, thank, compensate and apologise to freedom fighters for all the pain and ruin they suffered with their families. By failing to compensate freedom fighters, Kibaki’s fourth cardinal sin has been perpetuation of past injustices like corruption and ruin of freedom fighters. Mau Mau freedom fighters who lost land remain landless.Fighters for second liberation who lost their jobs and incomes remain destitute, hungry and sick. The State will pay them neither compensation nor pensions. Even their children lack employment because their parents could not educate them from graves or prisons.

The fifth cardinal sin of Kibaki comes to mind when you read about Italy’s recent paying Libya $5 billion for colonialism or Germany’s earlier compensation to Jews for holocaust.Unlike Gaddafi, Kibaki has failed to stand up to Britain for Kenya and demand both apology and compensation for colonialism, Mau Mau brutalities and wars of colonial conquest. Instead, like Kenyatta and Moi before him, Kibaki bows to Britain as if by colonising and robbing us, she did us a favour.But many Kenyans share Kibaki’s guilt. We supported and voted for his presidency, despite our clear knowledge of his weaknesses. Kenya must never fail with another leader the way it failed with Kibaki and Moi.

October 5, 2008

The Lost Tribes of Isreal-House Of Mumbi?

Genetic tests on the Lemba people of southern Africa show convincing evidence the Bantu-speaking tribes may be of Jewish ancestry.A team of geneticists have discovered that Lemba men carry a DNA sequence that is distinctive to the cohanim, a hereditary set of Jewish priests. The priests are different from rabbis, and perform certain ritual roles. The Lemba, who practice circumcision, keep one day a week holy and avoid eating pork or pig-like animals, have long asserted they are of Jewish heritage.The discovery of the common DNA sequences stemmed from research being done into the Jewish tradition that priests are the descendants of Aaron, the elder brother of Moses.

Lost Tribes

Lost Tribes

An analysis of the male Y chromosome found in 1997 that a particular pattern of DNA changes was much more common among cohanim priests than among lay Jews. A population geneticist at Oxford University in England, took that discovery one step further.“In studying the priesthood, we happened into this tool for distinguishing Jewish from non-Jewish populations.”  Unlike in other chromosomes, the genetic material of the Y chromosome remains more or less unchanged from generation to generation, making it a useful tool in discovering heritage, the newspaper reported.

The geneticist found a particular set of genetic mutations that was strongly associated with the priestly caste, not so common among lay Jews and very rare in non-Jewish populations. He then tested DNA samples collected from the Lemba.Research showed that the proportion of Lemba men carrying the genetic signature of the priests were similar to those found among the major Jewish populations, strongly supporting the Lemba tradition of Jewish ancestry.And the DNA sequences were particularly common among Lemba men who belong to the Buba clan, the senior of their 12 groups. The Lemba, from South Africa and Zimbabwe, believe they were led out of Judea by a man named Buba.

Approximately 2,500 years ago, a group of Jews left Judea and settled in Yemen. The tribe was led by the house of Buba and we are told that this move was to facilitate trade. In Yemen they settled in a place and built a city called Senna . They were then known as the BaSenna (the people from Senna).When conditions became unfavorable and they could no longer call Yemen home.

The House of Hamisi took over the leadership and led the people across into Africa.Once in Africa, the tribe split into 2 sections: One group settled in Ethiopia and the other group went further south along the East Coast. They settled in what today is known as Kenya and built Senna 2. Here they prospered and increased in numbers.The travel bug bit once again and they were on the move. one group went  down south  while the other and settled in Kenya. Their descendants are still residing in these countries up to today and are generally known as Ba Mwenye

Ethiopian jews

Ethiopian jews

The remaining group, under the leadership of the house of Bakali, moved on and settled in Mozambique. Here they built Senna 3. Even today, the BaSenna are found in Mozambique.After many years, part of the tribe, now under the leadership of Seremane moved further south to settle in Chiramba in what is known today as Zimbabwe. They were known as the Ba-Lemba. Our people still live there up to today. Some of the tribe moved south again and eventually settled in South Africa .Lemba males posses the Priestly Cohanim gene on their Y chromosome do Kikuyu men have the same chromosome?

More discussion here -Who are the Kikuyu

September 15, 2008

Gema Politics-Meru & Rift Valley Talking Trash .

Leaders from central Rift Valley and the larger Meru have sent a chilling message to the rest Central Kenya. In what can only be best describe as Uhuru Kenyatta put it.”Ujinga usioeleweka” .Leaders who attended Molo MP Joseph Kiuna’s thanksgiving ceremony at the weekend said despite strongly backing their kin in Central during elections, they were always given a raw deal.

“Our voters have learnt not to follow their Central Province counterparts blindly and come 2012, we shall make a wise decision by unanimously deciding who to back so that no more displacement occurs in politically-instigated violence,” Mr. Kiuna said. Politicians from the larger Meru have joined the fray accusing Central Kenya leaders of short-changing them when “sharing the gazelle”.

Meru to go it alone:

Contributing in a local TV show this week, Mr. Mithika Linturi and assistant ministers Kilemi Mwiria and Japhet Kareke asked the Meru to unite and bargain with other communities outside the Gema bloc.A spokesman for the influential Njuri Ncheke council of elders claimed they had been “used as mud gumboots”.Mr Linturi said Gema “was as dead as a dodo.”

This is an indication that the centre is no longer at ease and things could fall apart.From what has been said, you get the impression that the discontent is informed by a perception that they were not rewarded for their contribution in the last election as well as a desire for greater integration.“We fight together but when it’s time to share the cake, we’re regarded as Rift Valley Kikuyu. We are treated as black-headed sheep. We don’t have a minister, ambassador, permanent secretary or parastatal head,” Mr Kiuna said.

Water and Irrigation assistant minister Mwangi Kiunjuri, and former MPs Koigi wa Wamwere (Subukia) and Paul Muite (Kabete) share Mr Kiuna’s concern.Mr Kiunjuri said the “Central Rift has completely been ignored by Mt Kenya,” adding that though they contributed about 30 per cent of PNU votes, the region received no government posts of note.“Kikuyus in the Central Rift have always been punching bags during elections as we witnessed in January but we were ignored,”“Our challenges and interests are determined by where we live and are shared by our neighbours,” he said, adding that a Kikuyu-Kalenjin alliance would boost reconciliation

My 2 Cents on the issue

1. If Rift Valley kikuyu ‘leaders’ think that it is safer for their constituents  to vote the way Kalenjin warriors tell them to vote or want them to vote .Then that is fine they can go right ahead .If you think you were attacked because  you voted with Central and not because of land and jeleousy  then  vote for  your Mr. Ruto and Arap Mibei .(some kind of twisted logic-we will vote with kalenjins so that they do not fight with us) I doubt with the dwindling resources in the rift that it will buy you peace.

2. The Meru people  can do whatever they want to do it’s their democratic right to do so. If they think they can get a better deal with Imanyara and Co then well and good. I have never seen a kyuk man or woman cry because the Meru community wants to exercise its democratic rights. Do what is best for you. Nobody has been holding a gun to your head to vote for a kikuyu all this years .Dont act like you are hostages you are free to do as you please.

August 13, 2008

Love for Enemies

Not because you defeated our people ,burnt our churches,women and children …Not because we cant fight back or we don’t want to fight back…Not because we want harmony or believe in the Kenyan state …Not because we agree or even disagree with you .I will never look at  ODM supporters in the same way and  our “Kikuyu Leaders” who only care  about their own interests  !I will never again say I am a proud  kenyan, when innocent kids and families live in tents  but I will now love my enemies .God didnt promise we will not have enemies but He did tell us to love them even if they are our enemies .1657 Dead many more still homeless .

I think i have worked out my bitterness and I now lay it to rest……..

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Matthew 5:43-45 (New International Version)

August 5, 2008

Martha Karua

Martha Karua

When Martha Karua announced in late 2007 that she would be one of the debutantes for the 2012 presidential polls, most of us ignored her.Enter 2008, she has repeatedly reiterated this and proceeded to underpin it with concrete political action. She is now interim chair of NARC-K, the PNU partner boasting the highest number of members in the tenth Parliament. When she therefore asserts that she is no longer interested in PNU unity and wishes to strengthen her party in preparation for 2012, only non-serious political strategists can afford to take her lightly.

Ms Karua is the embodiment of political suave. No one quite understands how she appeared on the political scene. She stands on no historical political legacy akin to Mr Uhuru Kenyatta, Mr Musalia Mudavadi or Mr Raila Odinga, nor was she chaperoned into politics by any national or regional kingpins as was Mr Kalonzo Musyoka. Neither was she born into financial plenty to help her “buy” her way into parliament as many others have had to. And, in the many years she has served from the backbench of parliament and later the front bench as cabinet minister, she has not been embroiled in financial improprieties.

Her tenure as cabinet minister has also been colourful. Those in the Water ministry will tell you that she left a legacy that endures. She is credited with a reform model that has now become a benchmark for reforms in other sectors. And, she was strong and no-nonsense when she served there. Those in the Justice ministry will have stories to tell about her tireless style. She works indefatigably. That’s good for policy formulation and driving.

Raw courage

Her raw courage amazes. Recall when she stoically walked out in broad daylight, cameras zooming,  on former president Moi in Kerugoya stadium, that she had been denied a chance to address her people?
Why then would anyone be surprised that she, today, can easily stand her ground against President Kibaki on this small matter of PNU unity? That’s Martha for us.That’s why I think it would be political folly to disregard her current drive for presidential office. Here’s a Kenyan with an unblemished record of public service, occupies a key cabinet office, is leader of a growing political party, has courage and a doubtless clarity of mind.
Clearly, she has come from afar to occupy ground earlier reserved for only the likes of Mr Uhuru and Mr Saitoti in taking the mantle from President Kibaki.

July 8, 2008

As the world turns:Kenya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enfd3WUdlXo%5D

July 2, 2008

The ‘New’ Kenya: A return to the normal state of denial

Six months after post election clashes brought this country to its knees, life in Kenya appears back to normal — for better and for worse.

Ethnic fighting that killed more than 1,000 people has subsided. Political enemies are working together in a coalition government. Kenyans have returned to work and school “We’re slipping back into trivia while the central issues are not being addressed,” said Richard Leakey, chairman of the Kenya branch of Transparency International, a government watchdog group. “We have not gone very far in addressing the fundamental problems. The government isn’t showing any realism.”A fragile coalition government, cobbled together by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has inspired little confidence. The bloated 93-member Cabinet is the most expensive in Kenyan history, and critics accuse parliament members of being more concerned with preserving their tax-free $10,000-a-month pay packages than the plight of their constituents.

Frosty ties

Relations between President Mwai Kibaki and his rival, Prime Minister Raila Odinga, are sometimes so frosty that their security guards nearly came to blows at a government rally in June. Meanwhile, Odinga and the vice president are fighting over which man comes second to Kibaki in the pecking order, resulting in tiffs over who should speak first in public and whose motorcade gets right of way.Hopes that the painful clashes might usher in overdue reforms and encourage Kenyans to tackle long-standing historical grievances and tribal tensions are fading.

“It would seem, then, that these politicians had finally got what they wanted: power, or, to be precise, a share of it,” read a recent front-page editorial in the Standard newspaper. “Other matters were quickly relegated to the bottom of their priorities agenda.”Even the controversial electoral commission, which was widely criticized by local and international observers for failing to prevent vote fraud, remains intact and recently oversaw another round of polling for parliament members.The government’s first test was coping with an estimated 350,000 displaced people living in squalid camps after postelection violence drove them from their homes. Riots engulfed much of the country after the electoral commission, handpicked by Kibaki, ignored evidence of tallying fraud after the election and hastily declared him the victor. Violence quickly turned into ethnic warfare as Kenya’s tribes vented long-standing frustrations over competition for land, jobs and political power. Entire villages were burned to the ground.

In May, the government announced a campaign to resettle Kenyans, sometimes by force, in their villages. Government officials say nearly 200,000 people returned home.But in reality, very few have returned to the homes they fled, aid workers say. Most have simply shifted to new, smaller camps, moved in with relatives, returned to ancestral homelands or are squatting on empty land or church grounds.”It wasn’t really a resettlement — it was just a transfer,” said Charles Kariuki, who leads a group of displaced people in central Kenya.Critics say the government not only failed to provide the promised monetary compensation to help victims rebuild homes, but it also ignored the most crucial component: reconciliation. Legislation to create a national reconciliation commission is tied up in parliament.

As a result, many displaced people say they remain too afraid or too angry to go home.Virginia Wangari, 62, a divorced mother of eight, said she was persuaded by government officials to leave a displacement camp in May and return to her Rift Valley village. She said she was promised tents, food and other supplies, and told that local officials would be waiting to welcome her.Instead, she and other returnees found no one to greet them and spent their first night on a bus by the side of the road. In the morning, local officials told her she was on her own, suggesting that she pitch a tent on the charred remains of her house.She quickly learned that going home was not an option. The same rival tribe members who had chased her away six months earlier were attacking and raping women who attempted to return. Not far away, returnees were greeted with threatening leaflets, making it clear they were not welcome.

“I’m not going to take my neck to the butcher,” Wangari said. “If I went home now, I’d be killed.” She returned to the displacement camp.Humanitarian aid experts say the government needs to lay the groundwork for resettlement by bringing tribes together to vent their frustrations and forgive one another.”You have to have reconciliation before resettlement,” said Daniel Were, a peace activist in the city of Eldoret. “The government wants to be seen as doing something, but they are only doing part of the job.”U.S. Ambassador Michael E. Ranneberger expressed optimism that the new government would produce results in coming months, saying Kibaki and Odinga are committed to the process.”People need to keep their eye on the president and prime minister, and listen to what they are saying,” Ranneberger said. “They realize they need each other to fulfill their agendas.”But others say Kenya’s leaders may be reluctant to tackle the most controversial issues, such as land reform and constitutional review, because they worry that a debate could rekindle tensions, possibly leading to a collapse of the coalition or renewed fighting.

Perils for politicians

Many politicians now serving in top posts also may find themselves implicated in investigations of corruption, election fraud and post-election violence, creating another disincentive, experts said.Most of the people in this government are the product of 40 years of corruption, violence and impunity,” said Ben Rawlence, a Kenya researcher for Human Rights Watch.“They are all involved. The coalition government itself is what needs to be brought to book.”

He expressed pessimism that government officials would push for reforms or prosecutions that might curtail their powers, hit their pocketbooks or implicate their supporters.Odinga, for example, recently called for amnesty for jailed supporters accused of participating in riots. Kibaki is insisting that they be tried in court.”If this is the face of the ‘new’ Kenya,” Rawlence said, “it’s worrying.”

May 16, 2008

Kenya: frustrations are now boiling up into ethnic territorial claims

Kenya’s recent history has been dotted with several intense episodes of land-ownership conflict, starting in the early 1950s with the bloody repression of the Mau Mau movement by the British colonial power. This conflict caused 11 000 deaths among the rebels and also prompted the first regrouping of agricultural lands in Kenya. Access to land in this former European colony is still to this day a particularly hotly disputed issue.

The colonial heritage also found expression in an administrative tradition where territorial control was paramount of all priorities. Stemming from this, interior boundaries defined exclusive territories, both in the form of nature reserves (forest, national parks) and “ethnic reserves”, which often took on the aspect of administrative bodies. The result was a sectorization which certain repercussions on the distribution of the different communities which populate the country. This situation has become a source of inter-ethnic tension. And it is particularly portentous in the Chebyuk area of the Mount Elgon district where an IRD researcher has been conducting a long-term study on the origins of the conflict over access to arable land which opposes the Kalenjin language communities (Sabaots, Ndorobos and Soy), and whose emergence is closely linked to identity affirmation.

The fertile, well watered Chebyuk region on the southern slopes of Mount Elgon, about 2000 m high, was until 2006 home of a population of 35 000 over a 10 km2 surface area. Following primary forest clearance which had begun in the 1970s, crops of maize, cabbage, onion and potatoes, for export to Kenya’s large towns and cities, developed steadily. Since that time, the geographic area has represented an agricultural front for families coming mainly from the Sabaot community, settled on either side of the frontier between Kenya and Uganda. To meet people’s demand for farming plots, in the 1970s a committee of elders, co-opted by government authorities, organized a first land distribution operation. However, from the mid 1980s, rivalries rose up over ownership of this expanse of land.

Pressure from the Sabaot community led to the settlement and clearance of a more extensive zone than the legally delimited area. In 1989, complaints about the misappropriation of these land allocations prompted a government decision to reorganize the attribution of the farming plots. It was a time when tensions came to a head and houses were burned down. Tensions broke out with rival land claims which were arbitrated by a politico-administrative class which persisted in maintaining a a system of partiality.

The 1989 land reform therefore provided for the redistribution of all land in the localities of Emia and Chebyuk. It was organized in three phases, each corresponding to a particular area of Chebyuk: the lists of beneficiaries of phases 1 and 2 were finalized in 2004; the one for phase 3 was made official in 2006, marking the end of what was a 30-year-long land redistribution programme (see Map). It was subsequent to this final reorganization that the conflict rose to the surface, ending in a form of spatial segregation that rent asunder the apparent unity of the Sabaot community. Towards the end of 2006, clashes between the Sabaot and Ndorobos, a new ethnic identity that had gradually emerged from among those of the Sabaot group who had been cast aside, resulted in the displacement of 60 000 people and the death of 200 others. The region’s inhabitants assimilated with the Ndorobos then took refuge on the high moorland expanses of Chepkitale and in the forest reserve area at the boundary of the Trans Nzoia district. Others, assimilated with the Soy, went over to the plains not far from the Ugandan border (Cheptais), the main town of the district (Kapsokwony) or the neighbouring district of Trans Nzoia.

More recently, the violent stresses associated with the December 2007 elections, expressed locally by rival factions’ taking up of arms, played a role in the magnifying the conflict. Those long battles for land nevertheless find their origin more in the history of State schemes for regulating access to land ownership, rooted in practices of political favouritism and authoritarian methods employed to implement land redistribution operations. Land appropriation battles in the Mount Elgon region stem in the end from repeated episodes of land allocations and evictions which gave rise to frustrations that are now boiling up into ethnic territorial claims

March 27, 2008

Not willing to give up on tribe

I am not yet willing to give up on the concept of tribe. I am unwilling to grant that colonizers were right in their claims that tribe was a limited concept that had no place in the modern world. I am unwilling to accept their definitions that my history and heritage are small and uninteresting, lacking in depth and complexity, beauty and joy.

I am not yet willing to give up on the concept of tribe.

Tribe lets my friend say, “my name means one born at night,” and my other friend to say, “I belong to the people who shape metal,” and yet another friend to say, “I bring rain in the dry seasons.” Tribe marks the changing of generations, Maina to Irungu, Kamau to Peter.

Tribe celebrates how we have lived, how we have loved, how we have suffered, how we have mourned. We are the descendants of Gatego, the generation riddled with syphilis and Ngige, the generation decimated by locusts. To say these names is to claim that our stories are not yet done. We are not yet done. We are here.

I am unwilling to relinquish tribe.

To say tribe is to recognize the diversity of who we are. To say that women from that ridge discipline their men. Men from that hill are bowlegged. Children from that place run like the wind. To say that people from that place make the best ũcũrũ (porridge), from that other place the best mũratina (an alcoholic drink), from that other place the best mũtura (a dish made from stuffed animal intestines).

To say tribe is to say people from that place talk fast, they sing their language. And people from that other place are tall. And people from that other place are dark. And people from that place like the dark taste of burnt beans. And people from that place like the iron-rich veins of green weeds.

I am unwilling to relinquish tribe.

There’s too much left to discover, too much left to explore, too much potential to be realized. The past remains an untapped ore, myth, a rich vein, the present a fertile, fallow field. Songs remain to be sung, stories written, dramas acted.

We have much creating to do.

Tribe is not simply an inheritance, but untapped potential. It is the material we can work on, work with, transform and translate.

For me, tribe is Wamũyũ, Gikuyu’s tenth daughter, mother of an illegitimate child, founder of a hospitable clan. Wamũyũ, who embodies the mystery, wonder and potential of intimate hospitality. Wamũyũ, whose unnamed and unnameable lover fractures any sense of insularity, Wamũyũ, whose intimate welcome illustrates the best of tribal hospitality, tribal love, tribal openness.

For me, tribe is Wangũ wa Makeri, the leader who dared to dance nude in the moonlight. Wangũ, who let the moon’s rays caress her, her people’s eyes embrace her. Wangũ, who understood that leadership meant being vulnerable and taking risks that might compromise her leadership.

Against all logic, against all sense, I am in love with the concept of tribe.

It is, like all love, fraught with complications and ambivalence. At times I want to scream at what seem to be the limitations of tribal identification, the ways I am called upon to perform tribe: to sing, dance, or act in a certain way. I chafe at the constrictions that ask me to speak my language to gain certain favours. I worry that my positions are taken for granted, that my identity may be said to dictate my politics.

I am often seduced by the invitation to identify myself as national, international, or cosmopolitan. I am tempted by the idea that I can and should transcend tribe. I am compelled by the idea that I would be a better person if my allegiances were less local, less idiosyncratic, less wedded to nine clans that face Mount Kenya. But I believe in this love.

I believe in its potential. I want to see where it leads.


February 23, 2008

Shocking BBC interview of Kalenjin Church Burners and Jackson Kibor

February 9, 2008

Who Are the Kikuyu? The Jews of Kenya

House of Mumbi

House of Mumbi

CENTRAL PROVINCE, Kenya—On the hillsides, tea is still being picked; in the valleys, women still weed rows of beans, feet stained ocher by the soil; and in downtown Nyeri, the matatu taxi vans still honk by custom. The only immediate hint that something is amiss is to be found on the veranda of the Outspan Hotel. Despite boasting one of Africa’s most stunning views—Mount Kenya stretches serenely on the far side of the plains—the Outspan is strangely quiet these days; most of its tourists have fled.

If Kenya is ablaze, it’s almost possible to miss that fact in Central Province. A few hours’ drive west, machete-wielding youths blockade roads, shops have been looted, and refugee camps spring up like mushrooms. At first glance, the country’s most serious crisis since independence has barely dented the banal routines of daily life.There’s a reason for this. Central Province is the home of President Mwai Kibaki—his Othaya constituency lies just south of Nyeri. While his Kikuyu kinsmen have been burned alive and lynched across the rest of Kenya, punished for his suspected rigging of the December elections, only a madman would dare lift a hand to a Kikuyu on his home turf.

But that doesn’t allay a crawling sense of unease. The relationship between the Kikuyu and the rest of Kenya has been warped, residents sense, possibly beyond repair. Nyeri’s inhabitants are haunted by a more immediate fear. Most of the 300,000 people displaced in the violence are Kikuyus. Even as nervous Luos cluster for protection in local police stations, hundreds of Kikuyus are returning, demanding housing, work, and school places. “At the moment people are telling those displaced to stick where they are, because there is great land scarcity here,” says Muthui Mwai, a Nyeri journalist. “No one wants them back.”

Land scarcity is the leitmotif of the Kikuyu, the historic source of their anguish and the motivating force behind their success story. Accounting for around 22 percent of Kenya’s population of 38 million, the Kikuyu’s mark on the East African nation has been far greater than the figures imply, thanks to that driving hunger.

Under Kenya’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta, another kinsman, they streamed out of Central Province, settling in the Rift Valley and on the coast. Today, they dominate the economy. Kikuyus drive most of Kenya’s matatus and its taxis, run its newspapers, and constitute much of its civil service, their entrepreneurial reach extending from the glitziest of hotels to the remotest roadside duka (kiosk). They also, joke Kikuyus, account for the biggest share of the country’s criminals and prison inmates.

kenyatta

Mzee Jomo Kenyatta & Golda Meir

The Kikuyu story, legend has it, begins on a ridge north of the town of Muranga, south of Nyeri, amid the misty valleys carved by Mount Kenya’s melting snows. To the precolonial Kikuyu, Mount Kenya, known as Kirinyaga, was the seat of God, or Ngai. Ngai created Gikuyu—the first man—then pointed earthward. “Build your homestead where the fig trees grow,” he said. Later, he sent Mumbi to join him, and the couple established the 10 clans that constitute “the house of Mumbi,” as the Kikuyu are also known.

You can actually visit this Kikuyu version of the Garden of Eden. Behind a sky-blue gate, painted with the words Mukurwe Wa Nyagathanga—the Tree of Gathanga—lie two mud huts, one for Gikuyu and one for Mumbi. The site looks toward Kirinyaga, but the mountain, famously elusive, is usually shrouded in cloud.

The compound may be an officially designated historical monument, but it looks semineglected. The skeleton of a half-built hotel, abandoned when a shady contractor disappeared with the funds—”This, too, is part of our culture,” jokes a villager—drips water nearby. In my many trips there, I’ve never stumbled on another visitor. “It’s not our way to look backward, only forward,” explains my Kikuyu driver.

The farming community that fanned out from this site had a special affinity with the soil. “There is a great desire in the heart of every Gikuyu man to own a piece of land on which he can build his home,” Kenyatta wrote in Facing Mount Kenya. “A man or a woman who cannot say to his friends, come and eat, drink and enjoy the fruit of my labour, is not considered as a worthy member of the tribe.”

It was this affinity that brought the Kikuyu into conflict with the British Empire. Initially, Britain’s 19th-century explorers showed little interest in the area that would be designated “Kenya,” training their eyes instead on the Buganda kingdom across Lake Victoria. Central Province’s fertile valleys were simply the place to stock their caravans with fresh food before the long trip west.

But with time, Kenya itself became the draw. Most of the land that British settlers appropriated belonged to the nomadic Masai, not the Kikuyu, but it was the Kikuyu who led an armed insurrection, Mau Mau, in the 1950s. With their fast-growing population, the Kikuyu needed room to expand. The British had removed that possibility by farming the White Highlands. British Capt. Richard Meinertzhagen claimed to have seen what was coming. “They are the most intelligent of the African tribes that I have met; therefore they will be the most progressive under European guidance and will be the most susceptible to subversive activities,” he wrote.

Mau Mau has left its scars, psychological if not physical. At least 150,000 Kikuyus passed through British detention camps, and more than 20,000 Mau Mau fighters died in combat. Central Province’s residents can still point out the caves where the freedom fighters hid and sketch the location of the British prisons and scaffolds where they were executed—in Nyeri’s case, on what is now the golf club’s parking lot.

Seeking scapegoats in that turbulent past, many older inhabitants insist today’s troubles are the work of a British government that has never forgiven the Kikuyu their revolt. Now the Brits are supposedly the hidden hand behind Luo leader Raila Odinga’s opposition campaign. “This is not a war between Kenyans, it’s a war imported from abroad,” fumes Joseph Karimi, co-author of The Kenyatta Succession. “The British were not satisfied with the rule of the Kikuyu, so they brought in this war. They never actually left Kenya and they never intend to.”

If the British won the fight against Mau Mau, the Kikuyu won the peace. When Britain pulled out in 1963, it was Kenyatta, once jailed as a Mau Mau leader, who became president, his community that took pole position. Forced proximity with the colonial administration and the proliferation of missionary schools in Central Province meant the Kikuyu were better educated than other Kenyans and best placed to benefit from independence. What’s more, they enjoyed the president’s patronage. “My people have the milk in the morning, your tribes the milk in the afternoon,” Kenyatta told non-Kikuyu ministers who complained.

The Kikuyu, outsiders feel, have been rubbing other communities’ noses in their pre-eminence ever since. “We’re obnoxious, we’re thrusting, we’re loud, and we’re everywhere,” acknowledges a Kikuyu banker friend. “Our problem is there aren’t enough of us to dominate, yet we’re too large to ignore. We are at once both obnoxious and indispensable.”

Although Kenyatta’s successor, Daniel arap Moi, systematically crushed Kikuyu aspirations while promoting his own Kalenjin, the community still thrived economically. Hence the conviction, voiced by snarl-toothed elders and fresh-faced undergraduates alike in Central Province, that only the Kikuyu—the community that stood up and defied the white invader—deserve to run the country.

I hear the familiar refrain in a hotel bar in Muranga, whose wall, significantly, is decorated with framed photographs of Kenyatta and Kibaki, but not of Moi. “If you did an experiment and took five Luos, five Luhyas, five Kambas, and five Kikuyus and gave them money to invest, you would see the result,” boasts John Kiriamiti, who publishes a Muranga newspaper. “The Kikuyu would be far, far ahead.” His business partner, Njoroge Gicheha, chimes in. “You cannot compare a fisherman in Nyanza who simply pulls a fish from the lake to a farmer who plants beans in Central Province and waits six months to harvest. The fact is, we work harder than other Kenyans.”

It’s this bumptious sense of entitlement that infuriates Kenya’s 47 other tribes. But, with the exception of two bouts of ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, irritation was largely held in check under Moi, a topic of good-natured banter rather than abuse.

That changed with the 2002 elections that first put Kibaki in power. A consensus candidate backed by a broad tribal coalition, he swiftly reneged on promises of a new constitution devolving power to the regions. The pledge of a prime minister’s post for Odinga, the man who probably lost December’s elections, was withdrawn. As the tribal coalition disintegrated, Kenyans noticed that key ministries were all held by members of what they dubbed “the Mount Kenya Mafia.” Far from challenging Kenyatta’s system of ethnic favoritism, Kibaki reinforced it.

While Western donors relished Kibaki’s 6 percent to 7 percent growth rates, the mood on the ground was grim. The fact that Central Province’s milk, tea, and coffee industries surged ahead while other regions remained marginalized did not go unnoticed.

kibakiBoth sides helped whip low-level ethnic resentment into today’s frenzied hatred.

Odinga raised the stakes by preaching majimboism. Majimboism means federalism, a system many might think well-suited to over-centralized Kenya. But to Odinga’s supporters, it was a code word for something very specific: Kikuyus with plots or businesses in non-Kikuyu areas would be forced out and sent “home.”

In Central Province, Kikuyu MPs seized on the majimboist threat to foster a siege mentality. Rumors of a project to slaughter 1 million Kikuyus circulated like wildfire. “The amount of fear-mongering [texts] and e-mails was stupendous,” says Kwamchetsi Makokha, a columnist for the Nation newspaper. “It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you set the stage where a single community has isolated itself, what follows is a feeling of resentment by others, of ‘what’s so special about you?’ “

There was nothing random about the violence that exploded with the announcement of a Kibaki win. Deciding that the Kikuyu intended to rule Kenya indefinitely, Luos in the Western town of Kisumu looted Kikuyu shops, while Kalenjin militias drove Kikuyus from Rift Valley farms, settling scores dating back to Kenyatta’s 1970s settlement scheme.

A feared Kikuyu militia, the Mungiki, is now extracting revenge. But as mungiki demand ID cards at roadblocks and members of the “wrong” tribe watch homes go up in smoke, majimboism is being put into crude practice on the ground, decades of Kikuyu expansionism challenged and reversed

Many analysts see the entrepreneurship that defines the Kikuyu experience as the only hope for peace. Holding such a huge stake in the Kenyan economy, the Kikuyu have more to lose from the spiraling anarchy than any other group.

Here in Central Province, a region locked in belligerent memories of its insurgent past, there is little talk of compromise and no criticism of Kibaki. Growing ever further into a kikuyu nationalism, James Wanyaga, Nyeri’s former mayor, told me. “We can forget about the Luos and put our security machinery into Rift Valley, just as your people did under colonialism. And we would get on very well.” The price of Kikuyu hegemony has already proved greater than anyone wants to pay.

January 20, 2008

Elections 07

It is not with surprise that I read the view that Mwai Kibaki is not the legitimate president of Kenya. This view is so pervasive that even many who supported the president have been deceived into taking it up.That it is so widespread is a tribute to the ODM’s knack for lies and its efficiency at pushing them as truth. It is also in no small part a result of the political ineptitude of the PNU and State House.The view is predicated on two strands of thought. The first, published by the ODM and a perpetuation of its hateful and divisive anti-GEMA strategy, declares that President Kibaki won only one of Kenya’s provinces and is therefore not the true president of all Kenya. The second, declares the election stolen by the incumbent, and rather cheekily insists that the extension of his tenancy at State House is a ‘coup’.
National Support

This first argument is only one of the few in the litany of lies the ODM has rammed through a servile, biased media. The facts speak for themselves, Mwai Kibaki won 4 out of Kenya’s provinces and MPs running on pro-Kibaki platforms won more than 100 seats with victories in every single province. None of his rivals even came close to the same level of support. Kibaki also won a sizeable number of votes even in the provinces where he was overall second best, reaching the 25% mark in every province but Nyanza, where he still managed to poll 17% of the vote. The ODM candidate on the other hand posted a measly 2% and 5% in Central and Eastern provinces, and managed 25% in only six of the provinces.

‘But the bulk of the president’s votes were GEMA votes,’ comes the reply. Well, that may be true but the formulation GEMA itself makes into one what are properly a multitude of ethnicities. More importantly however, our democracy as currently fashioned makes no demands on the ethnicity of voters desiring merely that the victorious candidate have the approval of at least 25% from five provinces to underline his nationalist credentials. To reiterate, it is not communities, faiths or regions that vote. It is individuals.

This is no trivial point. The ODM has taken even before the election to making the case that their candidate was the People’s Candidate, Kenya’s candidate. That was all very well for that period when presentation and marketing were more important than truth; but in this the post-election period, the party and its supporters would do well to realise that by any estimation fully 4 million Kenyans declared their support for each of the two leading candidates. So it is that even now,as the party and its supporters persist in saying that the Kenyan people have been robbed, the Kenyan people are angry, they must remember that there are some Kenyans a substantial number, a majority even who actually voted for Kibaki – and who rejected the ODM.

For starters, it is most irresponsible, if typical of the ODM to neglect to take into account the votes of these 4 million, they are after all just GEMA, Gikuyu, Embu, Meru, Mbeere, Tharaka; you know those people, not Kenyans. This diligently crafted Us vs Them dichotomy explains why the ODM’s leaders have not yet seen fit to visit, or even declare peace with the communities that are being victimised by the outbreaks of violence- communities which in the pre-election campaigns they worked very hard to demonise. When it is not demonising them directly, the ODM and its agents continually seek to invite the GEMA to join Kenyans in voting ODM, proposing all the time that to vote differently is unKenyan.

This is part of the reason for the renewal in Kikuyu nationalism, a whole community has been forced to the wall by the invective of three years and two political campaigns. We stand in our millions -along with Kenyans of every ethnic persuasion in rejection of ethnic chauvinism- and declare to the ODM that we are adamant in our support for President Kibaki and that we too retain the inalienable right to the appellation, Kenyan. We respect that there are those, our brothers and sisters from across the country, with different political persuasions, but never in a million years would we think to pretend that those opinions made them less Kenyan than we are. If it is the sheer numbers in Central Kenya that intimidate the opposition into taking this position, also published as the 41 versus 1 strategy, then the ODM have to now get to their grassroots and urge a population boom. Anything else hurts all of us, and the victims of this hatred will not just be the Gikuyu. The economic and social effects of this policy of excluding one group from the whole will be profound, and as many in Western Kenya are finding, life without the other is not exactly a bed of roses.

The end of this hatred is especially urgent for ODM for, in light of the premeditated and barbaric ODM action in the Rift Valley and across the country, it is unlikely that too many Kenyans, even those who had previously aligned themselves with the party will be particularly drawn to it and its divisive politics any more. The consequences of all the strident screeching about Majimbo and the theory that the Gikuyu hogged all the country’s resources have finally manifested themselves.

Election irregularities

I find it most unfair to look merely at one set of election irregularities while turning a blind eye to the other. Such a predisposition is not only unhelpful, but declares a bias that precludes a just assessment of the elections. It is not unlinked to the over-arching theory of Gikuyu hegemony as it dictates that only one side in the election had the wherewithal to interfere with the vote.
The media and observers seem to have focused merely on crimes committed during the final vote tallying while ignoring the fact that there were several irregularities in ODM zones.
For starters, there was no free will in the vote in Nyanza. Long before the election begun, candidates who would have stood against the ODM nominees were compelled to stand down and those who resisted were demonised and accused of perfidy to the tribe. There were prior to the elections, outbreaks of violence against the disloyal, outbreaks which led to the displacement and non-participation of such persons. There are also credible reports that women and those from communities likely predisposed to vote different than the ODM were obstructed from exercising their voting rights by hooligans either inspired by or hired by the ODM. As the ODM candidate demanded at a campaign rally in Eldoret, ‘hatutaki madoadoa’.

Even worse, and as confirmed by KEDOF in their final vote report, agents representing parties allied to Mwai Kibaki and Kalonzo Musyoka were denied entry into vote counting and vote tallying centres, including most famously Nyayo Stadium where what had been widely billed a close race between Raila Odinga and Stanley Livondo was turned into a rout of suspiciously monumental proportions. This as Uhuru Kenyatta complained, came after Livondo and his group were locked out of the stadium.

Some have asked why the government did not then use the police to back up the blocked voters and insist that the opposition agents be allowed entry at these events. The truth is that the tense pre-election atmosphere did not allow for any use of force by the government, indeed any such moves would have been seen as persecution and would have cost the government votes at the election. Those asking this forget that there were already killings in Nyanza of police personnel prior to the election and that it is this state of violence that ensured that Kibaki and Kalonzo affiliated agents were wary of performing their duties there. Importantly also, any such interference would have undermined the independence of the ECK which was the organisation charged with the proper conduct of the elections. The instruments of legal and legitimate use of force are restricted to use in the protection of the polling station and its environs from the vagaries of the contestants and their agents.

Finally, it is most categorically not true that it is impossible to conduct a re-tally of the forms sent to Nairobi by the poll centres around the country. The agents of all the parties contesting the election carry with them copies of the results announced in these centres and should retain copies of the electoral forms. These can be availed for a national re-tallying, which as the Justice Minister Martha Karua told the BBC’s Hard Talk, the government is very willing to facilitate when ordered by a court of law. Karua herself was part of a group of politicians including George Nyamweya, James Orengo and Anyang’ Nyong’o who sat through the night of the 29th of December with ECK officials and went over the vote tallies from across the land. They subtracted the entire element of suspicious added on votes that the ODM had complained about and Kibaki’s total was adjusted accordingly.

When it was found that the vote still indicated a Kibaki victory, the ODM side sought the very next day to reverse their previous urge for the expeditious publication of the result (remember the ODM had on the 28th and 29th been putting pressure on Kivuitu to announce the victor) and instead began a campaign (Raila even stormed Kivuitu’s home at 0700) to have Kivuitu delay the announcement. Commentators seem to have forgotten that Musalia Mudavadi had already announced the election for the ODM or that there were riots in Kisumu that demanded the election result be announced. Now it seems we only focus on the pressure from the PNU and ODM-K, forgetting all the time the even greater pressure from the ODM the previous day.
As the leaked memo from World Bank country director Colin Bruce avers, the facts are clear. The ODM is only too aware that such a re-assessment would make clear that they lost the election, and are as a result wary of appealing to the courts for such a re-tallying. Mwai Kibaki is the legal, but also the legitimate president of Kenya, which fact will soon be proved in a court of law

Joe ndungu

January 13, 2008

Resurrecting the Kiama(council of elders)

During the first two months of this year, there was a deliberate isolation of the Kikuyu as a community. Whatever the reasons were, the result was that the community retreated to its tribal relations, creating a unity some say has not been seen since the Mau Mau war of the mid 1950s.The Kikuyu have been coming together primarily to raise material support to help their displaced brothers and sisters, especially in the Rift Valley. But these meetings have also tackled debate on how things got this bad, where ‘the river left the banks’. One result of these discussions has been the gradual realization that Kikuyu seem to be the only tribe with no non-political community leadership. During several community events, there has been debate on whether the community should re-establish a council of elders, last heard of in the 1950s.Those against its formation say political leaders are articulating the needs of the community adequately. They also think a council would lead to confusion over whose opinion has more weight in decisions, especially those with political ramifications. This group also insists that the Kikuyu should lead other communities away from tribal cocoons and into nationalistic platforms whenever dealing with issues. But those who want a council of elders established feel that ethnicity is a reality, with political positions being negotiated according to community numbers.

This group believes there is need to separate political representation from community leadership, to avoid confused signals, especially when the interests of the political class go against those of the community. They argue that a council of elders will enable the Kikuyu wield their 22 per cent stake in the country in a way political leaders cannot. They also say the community’s politicians are currently not being heard when they speak. They say the views of politicians tend to be taken out of context because the President is a Kikuyu, which would not be the case were it a council of elders speaking. It is a fact that community leadership has a profound effect on politics, both at the local and national levels.

This was strongly apparent during the campaigns where the media were awash with clips of members of the Luo, Kalenjin, Miji Kenda, Luhya politicians seeking blessings from their community elders. This was the same even with politicians from Meru, who are ethnically close to the Kikuyu, who consulted the Njuri Ncheke. Those trying to find solutions to problems that have afflicted the community feel several Kikuyu politicians would resist the formation of a council because it would dilute their influence in the community. They say such a council might stand in the way of political ambitions because it might vet how well an individual can articulate the needs of the community. This would determine whether they would support one’s political bid. A significant question is whether a Kikuyu council of elders would have appreciated the danger of an opposition political strategy seeking to isolate them as a community, by branding them as the root cause of all the country’s problems.

This was also evident during and after the referendum. The proponents ask whether such a council would have advised on an appropriate counter-strategy to the Kikuyu-phobia the opposition whipped up in last year’s campaigns. It would also have been interesting to see how such a council would have responded to the government’s operation against the Mungiki last year, which seemed to target any young Kikuyu male adult. Would a Kikuyu Council of Elders have talked to their counterparts from other communities after the presidential vote tally? Would the various sides have reached an agreement that their communities would avoid violence, and leave the dispute to politicians?

March 2, 2007

The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism

mt-kenya-flagOn a visit early this year to Africa , President Bush deplored the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, defended his refusal to send U.S. troops to Darfur and decried the ethnic slaughter in Kenya.Following a contested election, the Kikuyu, the dominant tribe in Kenya, have been subjected to merciless assault. People are separating from one another and butchering one another along lines of blood and soil.According to a compelling lead article in the new Foreign Affairs, “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” we may be witnessing in the Third World a re-enactment of the ethnic wars that tore Europe to pieces in the 20th century.”Ethnonationalism,” writes history professor Jerry Z. Muller of Catholic University, “has played a more profound role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to recur elsewhere.”

Western Man has mis-taught himself his own history.

“A familiar and influential narrative of 20th-century European history argues that nationalism twice led to war, in 1914 and then again in 1939. Thereafter, the story goes, Europeans concluded that nationalism was a danger and gradually abandoned it. In the postwar decades, Western Europeans enmeshed themselves in a web of transnational institutions, culminating in the European Union.”Muller contends that this is a myth, that peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were three multi-ethnic empires in Europe: the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian. The ethnonationalist Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 tore at the first.World War I was ignited by Serbs seeking to rip Bosnia away from Austria-Hungary. After four years of slaughter, the Serbs succeeded, and ethnonationalism triumphed in Europe.Out of the dead Ottoman Empire came the ethnonationalist state of Turkey and an ethnic transfer of populations between Ankara and Athens. Armenians were massacred and expelled from Turkey.

Out of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires came Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. In the latter three nations, however, a majority ethnic group ruled minorities that wished either their own national home, or to join lost kinsmen.

In Poland, there were Ukrainians, Germans, Lithuanians and Jews. In Czechoslovkia, half the population was German, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Ruthenian or Jewish. In Yugoslavia were Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Albanians.The Second World War came out of Hitler’s attempt to unite all Germans in one ethnonational home—thus the Anschluss with Austria, the demand for return of the Sudeten Deutsch, and the pressure on Poland to return the Germans’ lost city of Danzig, and for Lithuania to give back German Memel and the Memelland it seized in 1923.World War II advanced the process in the most horrible of ways.The Jews of Europe, with no national home, perished, or fled to create one, in Israel.The Germans of the Baltic states, Prussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans and their own eastern provinces, almost to Berlin, were expelled in the most brutal act of ethnic cleansing in history—13 million to 15 million Germans, of whom 2 million perished in the exodus.At the end of World War II, Europe’s nations were more ethnically homogenous than they had ever been, at a horrendous cost in blood.
After 45 years of Cold War, the remaining multi-ethnic states—the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia—broke up into more than two dozen nation-states, all rooted in ethnonationlism.As Muller argues, ethnonationalism may be a precondition of liberal democracy. Only after all the tribes of Europe had their own ethnically homogenous nation-states did peace and comity come. And what happened in Europe in the 20th century may be a precursor of what is to come in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

In China, Uighurs, Mongolians and Tibetans all resist assimilation. Tatarstan may be the next problem for Russia. In the Balkans, it is Kosovo. Serbs there and in Bosnia may emulate the Albanians and secede.Many, writes Muller, “find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that this is a product not of nature but of culture. …”But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.”Indeed, we see it bubbling up from the Basque country of Spain, to Belgium, Bolivia, Baghdad and Beirut. Perhaps the wisest counsel for Kenya may be to get out of the way of this elemental force. Rather than seek to halt the inexorable, we should seek to accommodate it and ameliorate its sometimes awful consequences.