why 5? each colony had it's interests in what they wanted from colonialism. The French way of colonising was very different from the british and the Portuguese. The worst were the prortugese then the french. some people just wanted names on the map like the italians and germans - most of colonialism stemmed from competition in europe. so back to my point - what we need to understand is that the british that colonialised us were very willing to let go of the territories but the settlers were not! the settlers declared independence in SA and Zim right? even Canada and Australia did that too - they became independent states. What would have been the fate of Kenya if we didn't have the Mau Mau war? would it have been an independent country following the patterns of SA, Canada and Zim? or would it have been like it's neighbours UG and TZ? I guess that is something that we can only guess but we cannot guess the effect of the Mau Mau on the native population. They killed scores more locals than europeans... it's like the pre independence people suffered more from the Mau Mau than from the british. p.s. While we don't rubbish your cucu's stories - we are more aware now of the greater geopolitical power plays that were taking place during that time than she ever was. She may have understood the native's situation better in her locality say Nyeri but her tales do not explain how and why a nation with one of the largest navies, one which was on the allied side that beat germany in the world war 20 years before that was beaten by a bunch of dreadlocked individuals who never even had a village in their control.

5 because I thought you wanted to put across the point that from the 1950s it was freedom time...make it 10

By and large I think we agree. The only point we may disagree on is whether the guerrilla war was of any help to the independence cause.

I think it was. It caused lots of suffering among the GEMA tribes but it did help.

agreed. Iko longer

The maumau narrative, is mainly a false narrative. It's mostly propaganda against an African reaction to colonialism that I suspect few have come to understand.

Take the revealed details of Dedan Kimathi's arrest and sentencing. According to them, what was he? A pauper and criminal. Were the rules of war and insurgency so primitive by then to warrant such a description?

When one considers the meaning of maumau commonly peddled; mzungu aende ulaya mwafrika apate Uhuru, does it sound like a realistic objective whose outcome was independence?

The other name, Kenya Land and Freedom Army, takes 'Kenya' as a fact; didn't this then undermine the effort of waging war?

What about the military strategy used by the maumau? I take it that they turned mostly against other Africans in a bid to build resentment and fear against the whites hoping to build a critical mass against the colonialists. Was that strategy sufficient or even prudent?

The maumau story is a fiasco mainly because it's given to create a sense of finished business on the African front especially given independence. But unfortunately not only do the stories not add up, but neither does independence quench the thirst of the citizens of the now independent states. One wonders whether it was the same thirst driving Dedan Kimathi.

Granted, maumau agitation led to hastening the independence process, given the rising costs to the British government with respect to gains. But had the settlers had more economic power then even with maumau fighting Kenya would have gone the 'South Africa way'.

Speaking of 'multipartysim'; the US had the leading role in promoting it. The US also played a leading role in calling for independence of many colonies. Why did they play the role? Changing political conditions would make them richer and more powerful.

After all, isn't it odd for us to speak of a 'second liberation'?