who have had to deal with the human results of this can realize fully the
terrible effect it had on their minds.”5
Although Corfield begins with early accounts of oathing, he fails to fully
trace how the oath has evolved, despite the name of the chapter. More
specifically, he does not treat the cultural continuities of early forms of oathing
and those leading to Mau Mau ceremonies. Corfield acknowledges the power of
oathing because of its ritual meaning. However, throughout his report he focuses
on the nature and extremities of the oath, sometimes displaying atrocities of Mau
Mau oathing as something that had no real justification, rationalization, or basis
in previous forms of oathing. Corfield’s language and words on the topic suggest
Mau Mau oathing was horrendous and irrational. This treatment helped promote
British political agendas associated with Mau Mau violence. For example,
Corfield states,
“...the Mau Mau oath became increasingly more violent and bloodthirsty, it
was not surprising therefore that there was a corresponding increase in
bestiality in the ritual of the oath, thus forcing the initiate to reach the
necessary pitch of blood lust and degradation to make it possible for him to
pronounce the ghastly words of the oath itself. These ceremonies were
repeated at intervals to spur the recipients onto greater excesses. It is not
possible to give any detailed description of these terrible ceremonies.”®
This last statement in particular invited readers to imagine and invent their own
stories of the oathing ceremonies creating additional layers of mystery. The
Corfield report was one of many governmental accounts that shaped people’s
understanding of the Mau Mau movement.
5 Corfield, Historical Survey, 169.
6 Corfield, Historical Survey, 167.
31