Apart from the couple of left wing historians who are supporting the plaintiffs, and wilfully blind to any facts which conflict with their anti-British prejudice, anyone who has studied the uprising will be nauseated by the obscenity of any member of the Mau- Mau accusing anyone else of an atrocity.
The media sneer that only 32 whites were killed by the Mau-Mau, but fail to mention the tens of thousand of blacks they killed (estimates range from 11,000 to over 100,000) and how they were killed. It is hard to read of incidents such as the Lari massacre, where 120 Christian Kikuyu were either burnt alive or hacked to bits in a single act, which horrifyingly foreshadowed events in Rwanda almost 40 years later, without questioning the humanity of those capable of doing such things.
Of course, we will not hear of that, nor will be hear of the oath taking ceremonies, where the use of victims body parts, usually cut from victims whist they still lived, combined sorcery with a particularly African form of terror.
The Oath taking made the killers all the more deadly. A man who has swallowed the eye plucked from a living child whilst promising to kill for his God, Ngai, will not easily surrender or abandon his deadly cause, and regular exposure to such horrors will inure him to the savagery he must in turn commit.
It is also unlikely, we will hear that the Colonial government were faced with one of the first recorded instances of biological warfare being used by insurgents, when herds of cattle owned by loyal African tribes were poisoned by the insurgents in order intimidate their black owners and punish them from supporting the Colonial government.
In truth, the vast majority of the native Kenyans were loyal to the Colonial government, but every man woman and child was under threat from violent terrorists capable of the most unspeakable savagery.
There may have only been thirty two white victims, but their deaths were marked by inhuman levels of brutal cruelty
Dr Esme Ruck, well known for providing free medicine to Africans, had her unborn child ripped from her belly, her husband Roger was hacked to death with machetes and her six year old son Michael was dispatched amongst his toy trains and Teddy bears, his tiny body partially skinned.
One of Michael’s killers was a man who had worked for the Ruck’s for years, but who had joined in the slaughter knowing what would face him if he didn’t. An incentive reinforced by the fact that a Kikuyu house servant who did not participate was also killed. It is thus that terror begets terror.
Even younger than Michael Ruck was four year old Andrew Stevens who met a similar fate, chopped to death while playing in the family garden a few months later. Unless his parents still live, who still remembers that young life?
Other deaths were just as savage but their victims took longer to die. After being forced to watch the rape and murder of his wife Arundell Gray Leakey was force marched to the lower slopes of Mount Kenya, where the Kikuyu believe Ngai resides. He was then disembowelled and buried upside down, alive.
In another act of unspeakable barbarism, two teen aged boys Geoffrey Danby and Christopher Robin Twohey, 15 and 13 respectively were captured while out riding their bicycles and sexually tortured for some hours before they were killed. To the mau mau a young white boy was a prize to be enjoyed.
A now long neglected gravestone in Nairobi's City Park cemetery (pictured above) is all that now stands testimony to the short lives and cruel deaths of those children. It reads
“In proud and loving memory of two innocent victims, murdered by the mau mau on April 20th 1955, Geoffrey Danby aged 15 years and his friend Christopher Robin Twohey aged 13 years, suffer little children to come unto me”.You can be sure there will no mention of those two boys or any of the Mau-Mau's other victims in the news reports you will hear about this case.
Thousands of Africans were killed in even crueller ways, the horrors inflicted upon them intended to punish them and terrify others.
What chance is there that the craven, lying, media will publish a word of that? This is not the truth they want to tell, these are not the facts they want the public to know.
When interviewing hate raddled Harvard educated “historian” Caroline Elkins, the author of Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya (a title referenced in some of the pre-prepared signs carried by the plaintiffs) who is supporting the claims of atrocities, and who's "research" effectively led to this case being launched, Channel 4's Jon Snow behaved as if he was in the presence of some great authority on African history and not the politically driven hack many of her contemporaries (and betters) consider her to be.
Tellingly there was mention the serious criticism of Elkin's work has received, such as fellow historian James Mitchell's comment that Elkins “doesn't let facts stand in the way of a good rant.” or David Elstein assessment of her research that that her casualty figures are derived from an idiosyncratic reading of census figures and a tendentious interpretation of the fortified village scheme.
Elkins' Harvard colleague Niall Ferguson, who's acclaimed if chilling series “Civilisation – is the West History?” is currently running on Channel 4 politely described Elkin's book as a highly "sensationalist account of the rebellion". Meanwhile Rutger's university Professor Susan Carruthers accused Elkins of being excessively condescending towards the Kikuyu whilst casting the white settlers as “cartoonish grotesques”
There was of course no mention of that or that demographer John Blacker writing in African Affairs demonstrated in detail that Elkins' estimates of casualties were grossly over estimated.
No doubt both Snow and Elkins would view the attacks by white academics as inspired by racism, however, they are not alone Kenyan historian Bethwell Ogot, currently the chancellor of Moi University, accused Elkins of being ideologically “incapable of seeing atrocities on the part of the mau mau”. Ogot goes on to say of the mau mau:
“..assaulted old people, women and children. The horrors they practiced included the following: decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women. No war can justify such gruesome actions. In man’s inhumanity to man there is no race distinction. The Africans were practising it on themselves."However, such facts will not appear in the media reporting of this case, and probably not in the increasingly truth free environment of a British Court
Yet it is on the politically motivated words of “historians” such as Caroline Elkins that this prosecution and the reporting of it is based.
The truth is that the colonial government were faced with one of the most brutal uprisings in British history, when thousands of innocent citizens under British protection were being slaughtered. However, far from the racist caricatures penned by Ms. Elkins, justice continued to be applied fairly the courts regularly threw out prosecution evidence in one instance 48 men facing the death penalty had their convictions overturned at just one appeal hearing.
Of course the approach taken was tough, it had to be, and there certainly was some mistreatment, however, here we come to another lie which the media and the pretend historians will tell, or more likely, allow to be perceived.
The media will find ways of suggesting that any brutality which captured Mau Mau terrorists did suffer was inflicted on them by white men. In fact the vast majority of all violence on both sides during the uprising was black on black. The mau mau had especially targeted the families of loyal black policemen and soldiers, and some retaliation may have been enacted when they were captured. However, the images of white men torturing blacks which the media is seeking to evoke are complete fantasy.
Of course this is not the first such trial, remember the lurid stories of British soldiers who had supposedly been raping hundreds of Kenyan woman? You perhaps will not remember how quietly those stories were dropped when it all turned out to be a pack of lies.
Our history is being rewritten by charlatanism and people who hate us, this includes the history of our empire, it is done to undermine, to damage and to destroy us. This in itself is a crime, but it is a crime which becomes an obscenity when truly evil men and women, such as those behind the Mau Mau atrocities can come forward claiming compensation and be treated as victims by corrupt historians and a by a debased and lying media.