Who was Jomo Kenyatta?

In a recent article, Dr. Edward Kisiang’ani (The East African Standard, Saturday, December 13th 2008) attempted to set record straight about the real Jomo Kenyatta.[1] He argued that Kenyatta does not deserve the honour of being refered to as father of the nation of Kenya. Dr. Kisiang’ani contested Kenyatta’s credentials bringing into question Kenyatta’s role towards independent Kenya. In his opinion Kenyatta was a master of pretence and deceit who masqueraded as a champion of the African cause. One may be forgiven to ask if Dr. Kisiang’ani’s claims are true reflection of Kenyatta’s historical role(s). It is my contention that while Dr. Kisiang’ani fairly captured Kenyatta’s mutation from a supposedly reformer to a diehard dictator and neo-colonial stooge, he may as well be accused of intellectual dishonesty whose anti-Gĩkũyũ and “tribal” sentiments are subtly implied. Intellectual dishonesty in Kenya is not new. Kenyan academic history is full of examples where the intelligentsia from the wider Kenyan community (whether out of irrational fear, malice or sheer dishonesty) with the help of European revisionists attempts to rewrite history in order to downplay or dismiss any positive contribution of some Africans especially that of Agĩkũyũ. In most cases nationalistic tendencies among the colonised though at rudimentary level of development are dismissed as “tribal”, uncivilised and unacceptable while imitations from the West are accepted as universal, civilised and modern (see elsewhere in this blog on my discussion on tribalism.) The Agĩkũyũ attempts to organise or resist colonialism has equally been dismissed as tribal, irrational and inconsequential. Such intellectual discourses inadvertently sanctions colonial designation of Africa’s epistemological emptiness as well as perceived African inferiority. The point of reference of such an assumption always starts with Africans’ backwardness and general inadequacy to be independent, equal and fit.

Attitudes of this kind are not different from colonial justification of missionaries’ religious fervour or the colonial intellectual energy to deny that Africans had any useful culture or a significant past. It is also a fraudulent conceptual legitimisation of European theory that nationalism is the result of profound mutation of mind from lower mental level to higher European levels. It legitimises European supremacy by negating the important fact that African conceptual level has never been deficient. Those like Dr. Kisiang’ani who serve revisionist role do so in order to lessen the impact of colonial linguistic and epistemological constructions as well as Agĩkũyũ’s central contribution to Kenya’s political and cultural independence. This is not to mean that Agĩkũyũ occupies any superior role in bringing Kenya to the threshold of independence but the community’s or individual Agĩkũyũ’s role is historical and cannot be wished away. It serves no one to under-represent or to misrepresent historical reality. Revising history in order to satisfy an “ethnic” bias is a great disservice to so many sons and daughters of Kenya who sacrificed so much in order for us to enjoy democratic freedom in an independent Kenya. To continue seeing early African initiatives, and particularly those of Agĩkũyũ, as “tribal” perpetuates colonial epistemological power to inculcate guilt in the so-called barbarous communities in order to destroy Africans’ political, religious as well as cultural imagination and creativity.

Secondly, Dr. Kisiang’ani’s appraisal implicitly endorses an intellectual lie that it is possible to see history from an objective, neutral, value-free perspective. It is a false belief that dichotomises historical realities one as either acceptable while the other is treated otherwise. Such a claim in itself is susceptible to limitation, blindness, and prejudices of many kinds. There is no truly neutral, objective, universal starting point to historical consciousness. Historical and cultural developments whether in form of “Kikuyu” or “Kalenjin” nationalism are important trajectories in the development of African nationalism or patriotism. Masai cultural resistance or Nandi armed resistance or Mau-Mau uprising were not isolated or tribal affairs but manifestation of something greater which later received intellectual expression from the likes of Tom Mboya, Bildad Kaggia, among others. Recognition of historical particularity and the contingent adds up to intellectual honesty. Historical consciousness recognises that present reality in a particular time and space is connected to what has gone before or what will come afterward. In this way we arrive to conclusions by examining different contingent historical situations without claiming historical absoluteness implied in Kisiang’ani commentary. It gives sufficient attention to history, individuality, diversity, and particularity.

The point of this blog post is to offer another side of Kenyatta which Dr. Kisiang’ani chose to ignore. What Kisiang’ani avoided is to discuss Kenyatta’s apparent epistemological commitment, though not as a revolutionary but as an evolving cultural and political reformist. My argument does not deny in any way the fact that after the demise of colonialism, Kenyatta did betray the cause which he had championed in years of his youth. For those who would want to have an objective understanding of post-colonial evolution of the likes of Kenyatta, Nkrumah, Mugabe and others, I would recommend Frantz Fanon’s book “The Wretched of the Earth”. However, in order, to appreciate Jomo Kenyatta’s role in Kenya political and cultural independence, we must be willing to accept the fact that although Kenyatta later betrayed the cause of history, it does not lessen his contribution to the very struggle that he betrayed. Intellectual honesty demands that we hold this contradicting stance in tension in order to come to a full understanding of our common history as a republic. Every individual contribution to this history must be recognised since History in itself is subversive. We must also be willing to accept the colonial situation in which Africans in those days had to operate. In the first place, it was not possible for Kenyatta and others to operate on a national or regional scale because of the colonial barriers that were effectively put in place. Africans could not operate beyond the confines of “the Reserve” and those like Kenyatta who broke such barriers found themselves always alienated from other members of the larger African community.

Creation of Reserves which was first proposed by Sir Charles Eliot aimed at justifying European colonisation. Eliot, who served as one of the pioneering colonial commissioners of the East Africa Protectorate from January 1901 until June 1904 when he was forced to resign unceremoniously, had declared the colony a white man’s country. He appealed to British Imperial government to hasten European settlement since the colony’s ideal attractions and advantages offered both in climate and produces favoured such a settlement. However it was Governor Sir Edward Northey who implemented the policy on “Native Reserves”. This led to the creation of “purely Native areas” divided into provinces and districts; the creation of post of Chief Commissioner of the Native Affairs Department and the creation of the European Settlements under Resident Magistrates. Northey stipulated that the so-called “native policy” allowed for elasticity to suit various “conditions of tribes” combined with the progress and prosperity of Europeans. Northey further declared that “the Whiteman” was paramount and that in the ensuing colonial set up, “the paramount” had to make “the native a useful and contented citizen, playing a large part in the economic development of the country”. The “native” was to be given “reasonable” education especially technical, industrial, and agricultural where the workshops and the farms would become the schools for education. Anything above this tokenism was considered anathema. It is in this context that we must understand the role played by the likes of Kenyatta and others.

Who was Kenyatta? Jomo Kenyatta himself was an enigma. He was a product of the Church of Scotland Mission where he started as a ‘laddie’ in Gĩkũyũ Mission working for Mr. W. O. Tait as “house boy” before taking employment with his carpentry teacher John Cook who left the mission to start his own business in Nairobi. His master, we learn, used to call him ‘John Chinaman’ “because of his oblique eyes.” Kenyatta later took employment with the same man as water-meters reader. Kenyatta was among some of the educated Agĩkũyũ who had realised that the Reserve was too limiting and sought knowledge in the confines of Nairobi city – the colonial seat of power. He was among the founders of the first Gĩkũyũ newsletter which he became its editor and secretary to Kikuyu Central Association. He left Kenya in 1929 to represent the Kikuyu Central Association in London. After his return he stayed for a while only to leave for London again in 1930 where he stayed until 1946. By then he had studied under Professor Malinowski (professor of social anthropology at University of London) under whose direction he wrote his classic book Facing Mount Kenya published in 1938. Jomo Kenyatta also played a pivotal role in collaborating with Lilias E. Armstrong in producing the phonetic and tonal structure of the Gĩkũyũ language. He was under the employment of the Department of Phonetics, University College in London from 1935-1937 where he worked under the supervision of the phonetician and lecturer Lilias Armstrong. Kenyatta’s work on Gĩkũyũ language was always recognised, by missionary though grudgingly. He was also among the first African intellectuals to form the Pan-African Federation and was elected its President, with Kwame Nkrumah as its Secretary. Kenyatta chaired its congress in Manchester in 1945. Kenyatta was later to become the first president of the Republic of Kenya after the demise of colonialism.

There are several other points that Dr. Kisiang’ani failed to mention about Kenyatta’s contribution towards African empowerment and independence. First, through Kenyatta, we experience the power of Athomi’s appropriation of the written word to augment their orature (oral literature) in their awakening. Jomo Kenyatta told of how his desire to learn how to read was triggered by the power of the written word which could only be acquired in the mission schools. He said,
“I used to see tribal policemen coming to visit my father who was some kind of a chief…They would bring a letter pinned on a stick and after the letter had been read, I would see young people arrested from their homes…and sent to work for European settlers…I thought, ‘well, this is strange. How is it that these people bring the paper and then say that the European said so and so from Kiambu?’ After they had gone, I would look at the letter and listen to it and I would not hear it talking. Then I would ask the letter ‘What did they say there at Kiambu?’ And the letter would not answer me. And this created in me a desire for knowledge, and I said to myself ‘I must go to Thogoto[2] to discover this miracle, how it is that a paper can talk from one who wrote it to someone else.” [3]
Inquiry led into knowledge and this knowing was held as the key entry into the new order. Jomo Kenyatta intended to put into good use the power of both the written and spoken word because of its potency. What followed as a result of the spoken word through the speeches Jomo Kenyatta offered after his return from England was transformative. Kenyatta’s speeches on return made a great impact upon the minds of many Africans to whom he directed his words. As far as African politics was concerned, what happened to the Agĩkũyũ and the word they listened to from 1946 could be regarded as an irrevocable turning point. The other important point is that Kenyatta restored the African lost sense of pride and self-respect. Africans in Kenya believed that Kenyatta loved them and whatever he told them came from the bottom of his heart. Through Kenyatta’s speeches hard work was exalted as a virtue to which all members of the community were to aspire in order to eradicate “foolishness and poverty”. He reminded Africans to take advantage of the new “ũgĩ” (knowledge or wisdom) since it compared to “a kind of sharpness and a sharp knife is capable of cutting many hard things.” Through the power of spoken word he hammered through his trademark theme of unity and “eagerness to do our work.”[4] Kenyatta told his community that unity and hard work gave the Africans a greater weapon more than “weapons of war.”

Towards the end of 1927, Jomo Kenyatta together with other members of Kikuyu Central Association launched their own newsletter under the banner Mũiguithania.[5] Kenyatta who was the then Kikuyu Central Association General Secretary assumed the editorial role of Mũiguithania. Kikuyu Central Association just like Kavirondo Taxation Association was formed to offer a forum through which the Agĩkũyũ would champion their cause. K.C.A. demanded fundamental political, social as well as economic change although it remained more reformist than revolutionary. For example, on the question of Africans representation as proposed by the Hilton Young Commission, Agĩkũyũ intelligentsia was categorical that the leaders had no other choice but consider and meditate in their hearts the seriousness or implication of this proposal. In their words “gitigunaga muthiomerwo” (it benefits not him who is spoken to in a foreign language or it benefits not him is passive as the foreigner dictates the terms of their existence.) The matter required urgency. Representation by foreigners was unacceptable and something practical had to be done in order to reverse this situation. On the other hand, Mũiguithania was a paper written in vernacular and with a wide circulation, dealing with Agĩkũyũ customs and proverbs, and bringing in some world news, as well as local politics. Through it Agĩkũyũ learnt to express themselves. As Africans they believed that they had every right to “free development and expression”, to civilise but not to be “Europeanised or Indianised.” Through Mũiguithania other correspondences were initiated with West Africans living in London, Ugandans and Tanzanians, which served as the impetus behind self-support and sending of students like Kenyatta to overseas for studies. The first issue of Mũiguithania appeared in May of 1928 and the monthly newsletter remained in operation until the beginning of 1930 when it was proscribed by the Colonial Government.

To dismiss Mũiguithania as a “tribal” newspaper as Dr. Kisangani does is to fail to appreciate the novelty of the venture. Such a view also embraces uncritically the colonial designation that dismissed anything African as childish, tribal and lacking in universality. According to Kenyatta Mũiguithania served as the source and path of knowledge and news (both local and international) for those unable to join in politics, those also handicapped or limited in understanding events and information as well as those who could not move out of the Reserve due to colonial restrictions. By using Mũiguithania in reference to the Christian use of Mũhunjia, Kenyatta subverted the meaning of Mũhunjia (the “sent” one). In actual fact he robbed the missionaries their exclusive claim to this office and applied it accordingly. The object of its publication was avowedly that of unifying the Agĩkũyũ people. The theme throughout Muigwithania is that “Urutagwo Mwiruti” – i.e. work is accomplished by self-help or learning is best acquired when one teaches himself.

In his call to self-help and self-realisation, Kenyatta aptly observed that in the traditional society wealth could only be acquired through use of “itimu na ngo” (spear and shield) but in their time (colonial era) that was no longer viable means. People could only acquire wealth through “uugi na uhoreri” (Knowledge/wisdom and gentleness/peaceful ways.) There was no need to procrastinate or depend on handouts. Well educated Africans were urgently needed. Kenyatta pointed out that this could only happen if the community came together to raise funds to send men to Europe for training in Law, Medicine, Education and Agriculture. Kenyatta observed that the education which they were receiving in Kenya was inadequate. He called on the African leaders to find an abiding place for the future generations for there was no room for procrastination. Like Moses of the Bible, Kenyatta argued that best leadership would rouse the country into “ũthingu” (righteousness or goodness.) Such leadership would come if they were able to mobilise people to raise money and send some of their own to Europe for education. Following Kenyatta’s exhortation the Africans knew that the kind of education given to them was not adequate and thus they desired that many more like Chief Karũri wa Gakure, take their children to Europe “igakunuruo wega na githomo gitekunonuo” (to be enlightened with and education which is not curtailed). It is most likely that in sending Kenyatta and Gĩthendũ to England the Agĩkũyũ desired that the two African Athomi acquire knowledge so that on their return they may take up leadership.

Hermeneutically, Kenyatta used the term Mũiguithania as well as the newsletter itself to inculcate moral and ethical appropriateness of unity. His discourse recognised that the journey to “ũiguano” (unity or togetherness) under the banner “Rũgendo rwa Muigwithania” (i.e. Mũiguithania’s journey) would only be possible if all the Agĩkũyũ from Kabete to Meru were to wake up from the slumber and avoid slackness. Unity went hand in hand with good work ethic. The exhortation for unity demanded that all Agĩkũyũ grapple with the task of putting their land rights, not only in the claim of rightful ownership but also through hard work, cultivation of their fields, building good homes, that the land may look well attended and beautiful. Using his mastery in Gĩkũyũ rhetoric Kenyatta prodded his contemporaries to unite (ngoro ĩmwe ya ũiguano wa bũrũri), work hard and be accountable. The beginning of moral foundation and work ethic exhorted by Kenyatta could be found in the mind. In his “Marebeta ma Muigwithania”, Kenyatta argued that mental foundation would be the source of good deeds, working with a strong will, moral uprightness which added “possessions to be relied on”, i.e. “muthithu” (“treasure”). In the end Kenyatta concluded, “gutire undu kiriga, he meciria na ugi” (There is nothing baffling where thoughtfulness and wisdom is).

Kenyatta added to the power of the mind the idea of “ngoro” (soul/heart/conscience) as the source of moral strength, hospitality and wisdom. “Ngoro” warms up when friends meet together. Those with such a friendly “ngoro” were called to be discreet or prudent and speak their mind truthfully and with definitiveness. A “ngoro” that lacked wisdom or thoughts was compared to a stony ground which produced nothing. Ngoro was also seen as stronger than “ruhio rwa njora” (fighting sword). As a consequence any person, who can trust the other in “ngoro” (heart), shows that he is a statesman. For a “theru” (pure) “ngoro” is the source of strength and nothing need weigh heavy upon one whose heart is pure. “Ngoro ya muma-andu” (heart of hospitality) brings many friends to him who has such a heart. Such moral formation also recognised the dialectics of moral wisdom. “Ũrimũ (Foolishness or Ignorance) and “Ũgĩ” (Knowledge or Wisdom) live side by side in the same “Ngoro” and each desiring praise and glory. In the same dialectical tension exists Ũgũta (Laziness) and Ũthayo (Sloth) each for its own glory. To have a “gitaranirio”, one must utilise the God-given gift of the mind in order to be able to consider the reasons (causes) of things beneficial coming from “Ngoro.” The good things or beneficial includes diligence in good works to eradicate poverty; patience and self-control in order to assist others in distress without self-conceit and lust. For this reason, the wealth of “ngoro” was seen as better than ones wealth in thousands and thousands of cattle. However, the thing that surpassed everything is the “teri” (land.) Its permanence was of paramount importance – and acquisition and protection of it surpassed the “ngoro” which also perishes.

Kenyatta argued in defence of land tenure that for the Agĩkũyũ land tenure secured the “peaceful tillage of the soil which supplies their material needs and enables them to perform their magic and traditional ceremonies in undisturbed serenity, facing Mount Kenya”. The loss of the land under “Crown Lands” was through Agĩkũyũ “magnanimity, for the Gikuyu country was never wholly conquered by force of arms, but the people were put under the ruthless domination of European imperialism through the insidious trickery of hypocritical treatises.” Internationally, it was evident that nations supported each other and were in unity.[6] Africans could not really comprehend how their sons who had been lost in World War I as given by Princess Marie Louise could be honoured by such great words as written in the Memorial “that if you fight for your country, although you should die, your children will remember your names” – how such words could not be used as a commitment to the African country. It is because of this that invocation of the curse of Ahab was spoken by the Agĩkũyũ leaders who believed that even the strongest colonists, however powerful (who wished to continue to take away “ithaka” of the black people for their own selfish benefit and interests, should be warned of what happened to Ahab when he took away Naboth’s vineyard.) These words became a rallying call for the Africans to prove that there was nothing greater than a man’s country. For this reason Africans had no reason to be apathetic or half-hearted in the call to serve the cause for fighting for land rights. The “bururi” (nation/country) was greater and more important than the individual.

Ironically, just like Dr. Kisiang’ani, missionaries and other Europeans did not take Kenyatta kindly. He became their target for ridicule. Insinuations of all kind were levied against him. Once his book Facing Mount Kenya was published, missionaries grew more frantic. Missionaries and colonialists paid meticulous attention to minuet details, arguing about the use, choice and exact meaning of various Gĩkũyũ words that Kenyatta used. These were thoroughly scrutinised and debated. His photograph of his theatrical posing in Gĩkũyũ traditional dressing holding a spear and nursing its tip posted in front of Facing Mount Kenya was forever the point of debate in missionary circles. When Kenyatta’s book was sent to the Kikuyu News editor for review, the editor refused to review it and hoped that no other missionary would “think it wise or worthwhile to do so”.[7] Rev. Philp dismissed Jomo Kenyatta as author who “glories in shame and parades that which is indecent” in the name of science and contrary to the Spirit of true Christianity. In Rev. Philp’s imagination Kenyatta’s book was an aspect of conflict with ‘unfruitful works of darkness’ that the young Kikuyu Church was engaged in. It worried these Churchmen that Kenyatta’s book was introduced by Dr. B. Malinowski of Department of Anthropology in the University of London. Kenyatta was also accused of being a communist who had “immersed in politics, to the annoyance even of many of his own countrymen”. Corfield report on Mau-Mau blamed Kenyatta as the sole architect of the Mau-Mau Movement. To the Administration, settlers and many a missionaries Kenyatta was “the African leader to darkness and death”. Nonetheless, to many Africans in Kenya, Kenyatta was a symbolic figure in unity and strength of the community.

Even under such tough circumstances, Kenyatta expressed that he had no intention of entering into controversial discussion with anyone apart from letting “the truth speak for itself”. It is quite clear that he had the missionaries in mind when he said that he was aware he could not do justice to the subject without offending “‘professional friends of the African’ who are prepared to maintain their friendship for eternity as a sacred duty, provided only that the African will continue to play the part of an ignorant savage so that they can monopolise the office of interpreting his mind and speaking for him.” To such people he warned that the African was not blind and could recognise “pretenders to philanthropy” who need to awake to the fact that “a running river cannot be dammed for ever without breaking its bound.” Kenyatta argued that it was beyond Africans’ comprehension “to see how a people can reach so-called ‘higher level’ while they are denied the most elementary human rights of self-expression, freedom of speech, the right to form social organisations to improve their condition, and above all, the right to move freely in their own country”. Kenyatta concluded that the African power of expression may momentarily be hampered but it was breaking through, and would “very soon sweep away the patronage and repression which surround him”.

In conclusion Kenyatta, though not accorded any historical prominence by Dr. Kisiang’ani, galvanised the Kenyan African colonial community rallying them to unite. He became the first to achieve university education outside Kenya, and more so wrote a book! He was immortalised and accepted as the supreme leader who lead the community from the fetters of colonisation. Kenyatta was literally a “mũhonokia” (saviour or redeemer) of Kenya. It is no surprise that missionaries feared him and loathed him with a passion. Nonetheless, it is in the interest of the country if Kenyatta’s positive contributions in pre-independent Kenya are considered hand in hand with his post-colonial leadership. Historians such Dr. Kisiang’ani should cast aside their ethnic hatred and be truthful when writing history of our beloved republic. When all is said and done, history will judge Kenyatta kindly.

[1] I have borrowed most of this information from missionaries’ journals and letters, copies of Mũiguithania (available in Kenya National Archives), Kenyatta’s own work Facing Mount Kenya and Suffering without Bitterness, Henry Muoria’s Book I, the Gikuyu and the White Fury among others.
[2] This is where the Church of Scotland Mission headquarter was located and also the historic Alliance Boys school stood.
[3] This was in March 23, 1968 in an address at 70th anniversary of the founding of the Presbyterian Mission at Kikuyu by Mzee Jomo Kenyatta the president of the republic of Kenya.
[4] This is one of the major themes that Kenyatta pursued from the days of Mũiguithania as the basis of Gĩkũyũ moral economy. This point will be further elaborated later.
[5] Jomo Kenyatta spelt Mũiguithania as Muigwithania.
[6] Perhaps Kenyatta was referring to the evidently unity shown by the European nations against the Germans during the First World War.
[7] Rev. Dr. Philp was at the time the editor of Kikuyu News and had served as a missionary doctor in Tumutumu Kenya for many years.

Till Death Do Us Part: Machismo Still Rule the World

Two months ago, Wambũi Mbũgua (formerly Wambũi Otieno) and her husband Mbũgua celebrated their fifth wedding anniversary. The article (“Till death do us part…” published by Daily Nation on Thursday October 9, 2008) published to commemorate their wedding must have caught many by surprise as its author intended to rekindle a controversial issue which refuses to leave national scene. I still wonder why it is that we as a community cannot let the couple quietly enjoy their life together without the plying eyes of hyper-curious public. Remember the media-hype that produced a torrent of condemnation for the young man opting to take a woman the age of his grandmother? The “out-of the norm” marriage did not only shock members of the family but it also left the whole nation reeling. Some in an attempt to explain or make sense of the “unusual” event, interpreted it from a materialistic point of view; the young man was acting blind because of material wealth he would inherit once Wambũi passes on (but with the uncertainties in Kenya, none can guarantee that between the two, Mbũgua would be the last one to “kick the bucket” because of his age.) Nonetheless, it is the misogynists who had their field day. With virulent and sexist condemnation this group dismissed Wambũi as an opinionated radical who has no respect for culture or morality. The group, which was overwhelming male-dominated, laughed-off the event and predicted that the young man would soon find out that the marriage was a set-up, and once he came to his epiphany, he would sprint out of the marriage as fast as he came in.

Despite previous brouhaha, the couple is now five years in marriage, happy and going on with their lives. Yet still, even with the wedding now behind us and the sensational media having nothing else to report about the couple, it is no denying that the decision to marry must have been tough on both Wambũi and Mbũgua. Understandably, we can as well see why Wambũi’s children were so upset with her that they could not show up for the wedding. Notwithstanding, several questions still remain unresolved. What is the true definition of marriage? Is marriage a public affair or private one? What happens when societal or cultural expectations are disregarded? What brings ultimate happiness? What is the place of women in our modern society? Are women entitled to same privileges that men have when it comes to death of a spouse and choice of who to marry? It is with the first and last questions that I am interested in, at least for this post.

The traditional definition of marriage is a union of two human beings, female and male joined in holy matrimony. Some Christians would add that the union’s primary importance is procreation and that true love is the single most important ingredient for marriage to happen. Marriage is a gift and a mandate, at least from a Christian perspective. Consequently, family becomes the foundation on which to build a strong society. Some also argue that morality cannot be seen in any other way apart from family. Wambũi and Mbũgua say they have found true love. As a matter of facts, Wambũi confesses that she cannot imagine how life would have been like if Mbũgua did not come into her life. When the question of children is posed to Mbũgua, he stoically says that one does not need children to enjoy marriage. In Mbũgua’s perspective marriage is not just about procreation, it is relational. In essence, their marriage perfectly fits the definition of marriage. But one may be forgiven to ask, in cultures where the dominant force is male-oriented and patriarchy shapes morality, what is the place of women when it comes to making marital decision? Does a wife have the same right as the husband on whether to marry or not marry, should one of the two die? Is a woman entitled, in the event of such a scenario, to decide whom to marry irrespective of age? Further, what is the place of single mothers who have been left to raise their children without the father-figure due to social as well as economic conditionings of the world today?

When it comes to the issues of marriage and place of women in society, most African societies leave a lot to be desired. We continue to stubbornly impose decisions on women regarding such important matters as marriage and family. Perhaps this may explain why some in our societies act so violently whether verbally or physically any time a woman (or women) decides to go against culturally scripted expectations of whatever kind. In many of our societies we have men who use untold violence against women because they are intricately trapped in the false sense of machismo. They dread the thought of having women taking their rightful place in society. Let us call it what it is - fear of losing power and control. Acclaimed writer Toni Morrison says that violence has two sides; one of its sides is physical and the other is mental. She asserts that violence indicates a laziness of the mind. This is where people who do not want to use their brain resort to force and violence in order to cow their victims to submission. I want to relate an episode as an example of what in my opinion is indicative of the fact that most of our societies are still controlled and dominated by misogynists.

I was about thirteen years old when this happened. In those days my mother used to send my brother and I for errands. The errands that I liked most were those that required me to go to Ndũnyũ ya Karatina. One morning, mum sent me to buy paraffin. Paraffin was a precious commodity: we used it for almost everything; cooking, for our lantern, sending the Safari Ants packing and other pests controls, helping kindle our jiko among others. Poverty did not afford us the luxury of “misusing” such a precious commodity. There were nights we would use gĩchinga to light the house in order to conserve the little that we had - a real way to conserve energy but not without the risk of reducing the house to ashes if the gĩchinga was carelessly handled.
Anyway, this particular morning, as I approached the market, I saw a crowd of people, mainly men congregated and sheering someone on. The few women that were there were either crying or pleading for mercy. Out of a boy’s curiosity, and of course with desire to be ahead of my siblings on latest “news”, I squeezed myself through the crowd. What I saw shocked me. Lying on the ground was a woman crying and begging for mercy from her male assailant. She was evidently drunk. From the shouts and condemnation of the assailant, I gathered that she was supposedly a malaya who had robbed her ferocious accomplice his hard-won quid. The man was asking for his money back, albeit through a beastly attack on an unarmed drunken woman. The scene of a half naked woman bleeding and begging for mercy, made me very sick. I did not like the scene, particularly the crowd of men who were sheering the man on, telling him to teach the woman a lesson that she will never forget. I felt sick and sneaked my way out. After a short while, I was so sick that I started vomiting. At the time, I cannot say I was mature enough to comprehend or concretise all that was going on, but it was an appalling sight. I never shared the episode with my siblings for I could not bring myself to. After a week, the impacted of the event subsided but not without leaving an indelible mark in my mind.

I do not pretend to understand fully the experiences women undergo in our societies, but neither do I need to be a feminist do identify with the pain and sufferings our sisters have to bear, mostly in muted silence. The episode narrated above is an example of what many women go through whether as individual women or on a national scale as in Zaire Congo, or internationally. Obviously, I am not ignorant of the progress that we have made as societies in empowering women, but as I write women and girls continue to be raped indiscriminately in Congo Zaire, in Internally Displaced Peoples’ camps in rural Kenya and in other places of the world. Even as we demand for more stringent laws to curb violence against women, we equally need to relentlessly challenge some of the culturally scripted views on women. As men we need to realise that machismo, is another way of saying that we are daft. We ought to learn to be quick in using our brain more than our hands or mouths when it comes to dealing with women who have every right to live without fear or violence. Is anybody listening or reading?

America Re-invents Herself:

History has shown America as a nation that re-invents herself with the changing times. It is in American where possibilities can and do become reality. In each of her passing generations there has been a defining moment for the nation and the world, for better or worse. This characteristic was witnessed after the September 11th when the wounded nation rallied together for a common cause. Their strength could not be found in the American military might and wealth, but in the willingness to believe in the true greatness of a nation, its own people. The world rallied behind the Americans until the out-going president started acting unilaterally and trashing the goodwill offered by the rest of the world. Yet even at such a time, the resolve and will of the American people never abated.

It is from this group of people joined together by a common destiny that four years ago a young man emerged. Coming from the shadows, he described himself as a “skinny” man with a “funny” name. He audaciously declared a daring hope and a belief in the Americans’ power to recreate and reinvent. Under the towering statue of Abraham Lincoln, this man with a middle name “Hussein” declared his candidacy for the president of the United States. It was a long shot, to say the least, but he dared to believe America could and would reinvent herself. He refused to be defined by the black community from which he was coming and rejected isolationism as well. Nativism and provincialism have no place in the modern world. Therefore, he was not bringing to the table a black agenda. Neither was he willing to be cowed by the overwhelming power of the white majority. From the start he pointed towards the direction he was to follow for the next twenty one months and beyond; building bridges along the way.

With a clarion call to change and a slogan “Yes, We Can!” Barack Obama began his journey that would lead him to the ultimate prize. He had observed, experienced and studied the American politics. He had as well looked at his people and saw the same thing that the founding fathers of this great nation saw, resolve and will to reinvent. He believed in the American dream because he had lived it. He as well believed in the American people. He knew that America was not a nation of “whiners” neither was it a place where people stuck to “guns and religion”. There was something deeper and greater about the American people. Though the beginnings were rough, the American people listened to him, they started connecting with his beliefs and values, and they started re-membering.

So, last night as I eagerly waited for the release of the US presidential election results, my emotions ran high, with anxiety and expectation building up. In bated breath I waited to watch the one who has inspired millions across the world make history. I shuddered at the thought that I was to be part of those witnessing such a momentous hour in history. To imagine that the “skinny” guy with his charming smile and a “funny” name would be sitting on the most powerful seat on earth, was in itself overwhelming - almost unbelievable. I prayed and tossed in bed unable to catch sleep. For a moment, a gloomy cloud of doubt hanged precariously in my mind. What if I was just about to witness the greatest disappointment in modern history? What if Barack the son of Obama loses? I tried to push the thought away as much as I could. I rejected the possibility with all of my might. Cold sweat of anxiety broke at the very moment. If something like that happened, I told myself, it would be the cruelest reality of modern history. I even fancied with the idea of rebuking God (why not? St. Peter did it) if God was to let it happen. But I still knew within myself that the possibility lay hidden somewhere in my sub-conscience like a leopard patiently lying waiting to pounce on its victim. I could only pray and hope for the best.

As I restlessly tossed and ranted within my inner being, something else reminded me that Barack Hussein Obama is the son of modern Kenyan elite Obama Senior. I hated the idea of associating Barack with the elites for he has proven to be a true son of the ghetto. Years, ago he let a career slip away so that he could organize folks from one of the many poor neighborhoods of affluent American society, Southside Chicago. But even as I thanked the almighty for such a noble young fellow who dared to hope, the thought of his origins still nagged me. In Kenya, the elite class is wrecking havoc to many millions like Barack Obama who dare hope. Poor folks in rural Kenya have found their dreams crashed and casted into the bottomless pit of fate. That class believes that nothing rules but itself. That class tramps the barefooted sons of the soil and march on over the empty stomachs of daughters of the soil. That class declares that Kenya has no hope or future unless it stays in power. So as I waited and watched results trickle in, I was anxious that Kenya (my country), while it may share the joy of an Obama’s presidency, it still had to grapple with the problems of destitution and poverty that the current class of the elite oversees. I felt really sad, and this almost stole my joy until the first news house predicted an Obama’s victory. I forgot my worries, as I witnessed, in elation and hope history unfolding.

After voting the Americans quietly gathered at their social places, homes, churches, mosques, and Public Square to await the outcome of their votes. They had exercised their democratic and God-given right. Their choice changed history. They reminded the world that there is something American worthy emulating; something noble and honorable, something loftier than a thousand bulls that Kibaki or Raila can offer for an Obama’s victory. In the world finest moment in history the Americans declared that the world had not heard nor had it seen the last of America. They elected Barack Obama; one raised by a single mother and his white grandparents; one who had lived a part of his life in Asia; a son of a Kenyan father; and one whose middle name is Hussein. Nothing can be more representative and inspiring than Barack Obama. He dared to hope and the Americans dared to believe in this man. I believe Barack Obama will make a great president and the Americans will never regret their resilience and power to reinvent. God bless America.

In loving memory: A tribute to Maitũ Milkah Wanjirũ Kĩnyua

Mwendwo nĩ-irĩ Maitũ Wanjirũ mwarĩ wa Kĩriakũ na Wairimũ Aanjirũ a mbarĩ ya Karũe. Mũtumia wa mũtiga-irĩ Kĩnyua mũrũ wa Mũhoro na Wanjikũ Aagathigia a mbarĩ ya Gakuũ.

Twenty four odd years have passed since you crossed over to the land where they say people never grow old, eternity. Dear mother your sudden departure caught us so unprepared, so young yet not so innocent. Flashes of uncertainty and destitution blurred the horizon. Everything lost meaning, but only for a moment.

Maitũ, in life you lived like a candle in the wind but your strength and resilience surpassed the Mũgumo tree. Nothing could take away your beauty, your wisdom and integrity. You remained steadfast till death. Even as your health deteriorated, you never let your children go hungry. One day in the market and another spent in our small acre. It was small, infertile yet invaluable. The Acre’s worth could not be measured. It fed us. In it you grew pumpkins, bananas, maize, sweet potatoes, sukuma wiki, yams, and sugarcanes. The macadamia and avocadoes trees graced the small acre, God’s acre - a true inheritance. With your never ending energy, you prodded us to take care of the coffee trees, though not a lovable chore.

Through sheer hard work and entrepreneurship you made sure that we remained in school. When dismissed from school due to lack of fees, you walked us back to plead for our case with a promise that money owed would be paid, somehow. Though you never had the opportunity to pursue a career, you made our success your single most desire. You reminded us of our responsibilities in life and in the world. In words and action you taught us the value of hard work, honesty and kindness. You wanted us to excel. When we seemed to forget our purpose in life, your mũtathi whip was ready to remind everyone that none of us was going to become a brat or a vagabond under your watch. Many are the days we disappointed you but you never casted us aside.

Your wealth did not go beyond the small acre, a few pigs and our adorable Kanini (the cow that gave us milk and manure for gardening), yet your hospitality knew no bounds. You made our home a refugee for the poor and hungry. Unemployed men, single mothers, orphans, old women, even the outcasts of the village found a good neighbour in you. You always had a comforting word for them and a meal to sheer them up.

Your radiance and peace came from the joy of knowing a saviour, Jesus Christ. You talked about him to anyone willing to lend an ear to you. You sung about his love and his providence. With the vigour of a true revivalist you shed his love abroad. Even when the Church rejected you because of the abounding joy of meeting this saviour, you loved them anyhow. As I watched you laid in the casket that took you away, the disarming smile was still there. I could not help smiling back, even though in tears and sorrow.

Standing together in our small Acre and joined together by your love we sung “In the Sweet By and By” as we bade you kwaheri. In that solemn moment, I saw you smile - again. I have carried this smile with me dear maitũ to this day. The smile is always there to comfort and to remind me of your love for us and for humanity. Your unforgettable smile reminds me also to count my days for they are numbered just as yours were. I must make haste to love, to serve, to honour, and to respect humanity. I miss you so much maitũ witũ.

Rest in Peace Mwendwo nĩ-irĩ na irĩri Maitũ Wanjirũ.

Forgive, in whose name?

After the Waki report laid the buck right at the desks of Mr. Kibaki and Mr. Raila, the next thing we hear is that Kenyans, need to pray and forgive murderers in the name of God, national unity and security. I mean, who is fooling who? This is nothing else but an elitist class struggle for survival against hapless and helpless mwanchi. It has nothing to do with national cohesion or peace. It is trickery of the worst kind that makes mockery of justice, peace, love and unity. It is a cover-up!

People burned their midnight candles scheming and planning evil. Before we invoke the name of God, we must ask ourselves whether, we invited him in the first place at our cabinet meetings, churches, mosques or at political rallies to bear witness as we ignited fire of fear, anger and hatred. It is mere short-sightedness and lack of human feelings to call for blanket amnesty. Who is qualified to ask for forgiveness? Where are the victims of such orgy and murder in this equation? Who should speak on behalf of those blessed ones who perished in infernos of hell while others helplessly watched and mourned as their loved ones begged for mercy from hideous marauders ran amok? Who shall defend the cause of the young women and men who were shot at, maimed and killed in the streets of our cities? I mean the government and politicians cannot run away from their responsibility. It is a moral obligation to bring to justice all those responsible of the atrocities suffered in the land of Kenya.

If history is the mother of all lessons, then we need to pick up some ABC lessons from the dusty shelves of our existence as a nation. Ugly lessons of history mock the very word “forgiveness”. What a déjà vu! Remember the old adage that meaningless “sorry” led to the loss of entire Whiteman’s chinaware? We have seen it before; heard it repeated over the years of our existence. It started with the “founding father” of the nation. After colluding with imperialists, he declared that we must “forgive” and “not forget”. This was right after millions of Kenyans had been utterly dehumanised through villaginisation, mass detention and mass murder. Yes, we heard it said “forgive” when Kungu Karumba disappeared, When Tom Mboya, J. M Kariũki, Robert Ouko, and Bishop Alexander Muge were all brutally murdered. Then came the 1992 massacre and now, forgive? To use an uncouth analogy, one does not sit and watch his feet get pulped by jiggers that keep multiply and sucking the very blood he survives on. It takes courage to sit with all known tools of trade to deal with the menace once and for all. Painful? Sure! But singular attention and resolve bring the nasty blood-suckers to an end. We must not be blind to the facts of history. Once people learn, sharpen and perfect the art of murder, the beast grows. It even mutates to an uncontrollable monster. I am talking about real, pure Evil – ugly and nasty, that is what it is. The only solution is to stand up and face it. It will be a painful and even scary process. When we resolve to face the beast, the animal will summon all of its bestial powers of evil. As it seeks to survive, the beast will retaliate with vengeance. But we must be relentless in our resolve and be not intimidated.

Sentimentalism, which is only an emotional bash in the name of love cannot and must not replace redemptive and creative goodwill. Real people got killed and others lost their livelihood. Mothers, fathers, youth and children were equally affected. Our own flesh and blood, not abstract amorphous beings out there, bore the blunt power of evil. Victims of violence need no pity, no forgiveness but justice. Lives lost, property destroyed, livelihood dashed against hard walls of anarchy, and grand scale land grabbing, economic inequalities will not be resolved by mere sentimentalism. We must squarely look in the face of our wounded personhood and reclaim it through the rule of law. Yes, there are some ignorant unemployed young men who blindly followed schemers, perhaps those we can forgive but not the perpetrators of violence.

If the Kenyan legal system is too compromised to handle this, then international jurisprudence must take over. Justice must not be assumed to happen, it must be done. I write in the strongest terms to protest and denounce all those who are calling for blanket amnesty.

Debunking Cultural Myths:

Something very interesting happened two weeks ago. It all started with Raila Odinga – a true man of the people and a true son of the soil (one who has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that he is ready to take the mantle of leadership come 2012 and unless something very dramatic happens – he is the man to watch). Anyway, this gentleman, decided to take the bull by its horns. He traveled to the Lakeside country and dropped a cultural bomb declaring that "research has now proved circumcised men are safer from the scourge compared to those who are not." Raila continued, "I am taking the challenge of calling upon elders in the Teso, Luo and Turkana communities to ensure people embrace circumcision of boys, although it has not been part of their culture."[1]

For obvious reasons, Raila’s challenge was heavily condemned while others openly commended him for his courage. Some questioned the validity of the claim that male circumcision reduces the risk of infection with AIDS. I am not proposing to debate with any of these sides. We all know, and I am sure Raila is not ignorant of the fact that, circumcision is not the panacea for HIV/AIDS. However, underlying Raila’s bold stand is the fact that culture is not static and there is no such thing as “no-go” area in matters cultural. Ironically, as we argue about whether men of the lake should get the cut or not, men in Kenya are still sending their daughters to bush doctors to make them real “women” and “fit ins”.

What then do we mean by culture? When men declare that Raila is wrong on this since it is “my culture” and nobody should mess with it, what do they exactly mean? Culture ought to be understood in three levels. First, it refers to the systems or frameworks of meaning within which interpretation of the world is carried out as well as guidance on how to live in such a world. Culture embodies beliefs, values, attitudes and rules of behaviour. Secondly, culture can be understood in terms of rituals in which the community embodies and re-enacts their history and values. Finally, culture is understood to include the artefacts and symbolisation that become sources of identity.

Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o one of our best interpreters of culture summarises culture as an embodiment of a people’s “values, those aesthetic and moral qualities that people consider basic and important in their contact and interaction with one another and the universe.”[2] This means that culture includes completely the social realities (present and past) of a community such as economic relations, political structures, and language among others. Through culture, a community develops education, law, religion, literature and art, moral and ideological forces in which the social relations operate. In essence, culture conditions people’s understanding of reality at a particular time and place in history.

What this entails is that culture is not static. In Kenya, for example, culture has changed tremendously within the last forty years. Through globalisation and the development of new emphases and sensibilities, cultural changes have evolved so that old ways of looking at and explaining the significance of the world have become extinct and are no longer credible. Bishop Okullu having seen the potential of misrepresentation of culture cautioned that interpretation of culture does not mean engaging in cultural excavation to resuscitate the Africa of years past. African culture is what we are today and tomorrow.[3] Ngũgĩ amplifies this further when he writes that the past is only useful to us “only as a living lesson to the present… not preserved as a museum: rather we must study it critically without illusions, and see what lesson we can draw from it in today’s battlefield of the future and present.” We must not worship it. It is not possible, as Ngũgĩ asserts, to return to the previous state of innocence but we can do something about our present circumstances.

As such we use culture as a tool with which to understand and interpret one’s reality. In doing so we have to take seriously our experiences and connect them with other realities – that is exactly what Raila did in his recent take on male circumcision in Luo land in light of the HIV/AIDS scourge. We can as well appropriate culture as a tool of liberation, in which we identify positive aspects of culture and promote them while discarding those that are not helpful to human progress and experience. By putting these two aspects of culture in practise, we safeguard ourselves against any form of cultural relativism or/and provincialism. The aforementioned cultural parameters remind us of our commitment to wholeness and enhancement of life.

As such we should commend Raila for empowering us to think and talk about cultural things that for long have been considered “no-go” area. Talk about Cultural Revolution! Kudos Amolo!

[1] The East African Standard, August 18 2008.
[2] Ngugi wa Thiongo, Writers in Politics, 6.
[3] Henry Okullu, Quest for Justice (Kisumu: Shalom, 1997), 54.

Questions of Meaning and Existence

For centuries, humanity has wrestled with the questions of meaning and existence. The need to answer these questions is acute today than it was a century ago. With technological evolution of our time, news of death of a young child brutally murdered travel fast and wide. We receive instantaneous news through television and the internet of calamities such as the Tsunami in Asia, Katrina or Ike in America or Famine in parts of Africa leaving families and nations totally devastated. Our confidence in capitalism is put into question when we watch as years of hard work and savings disappear before our very eyes because of individual or corporate greed such as recently witnessed on Wall Street. Faith in protection of basic human rights is as well shaken when we witness such atrocities happening as in Rwanda and Darfur without any meaningful intervention. Such events do not only reveal our vulnerability but have also left many to live in anguish and hopelessness. "What for? what is it worth?", so we ask. Are some people destined to flourish while others perennially suffer? Or is the “graph” already drawn, as one of the gifted Gĩkũyũ writers of Gĩchandĩ and Marebeta once sung? Are there such things as blessings and curses, so that some will forever journey on the highway of blessings and happiness, while others trod on the hard and stony foot path of curses and drudgery?

These questions are not idle or empty. The disciples of Jesus struggled with the same kind of questions. In John 9 we have an example of the disciples raising a similar question when they came across a man who had been born blind. They asked Jesus “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus’ answer satisfies, at least for a spiritual moment. But why would God delight in someone’s suffering in order to make a pedagogical point? Preachers of the so-called prosperity gospel are quick (of course quoting from scriptures, and I cannot argue with that – I mean, who can argue with God’s Book) to show that there is a way of life that can either lead to blessings and happiness or to curses and suffering. According to this group of preachers, we can make God bless us through some magical manipulations. My pragmatic Presbyterian on the other side will scrap his intellect to gather some philosophical sayings that God calls us to faithfulness and not to success or blessings. Whether my Pentecostal or Presbyterian friend is right, I cannot tell. Perhaps I should not even be raising any of these questions? May be I should resign to Fate as the Greeks or Africans did. Pretend that all is well and that experience of suffering and death is nothing else but the conditioning of the mind. As a matter of fact, who is even qualified to talk about these issues, the victim, the pastor, the “objective” philosopher, or the religious? Or is it the triumphalist, the positivists, the defeatists, the cynic or the centrists? Some days to come, I might have a revelation and adequately give an answer. But as of now, I will keep seeking.