The name is absent

analyzing the legitimate and illegitimate nature of Mau Mau oaths.⁵⁵ According to

Kershaw,

“All Mau Mau oaths must be seen within a framework which rejects the
legitimacy of colonial power and European occupation and in this context
allows behaviors which ordinarily would be unacceptable. The dividing line
between right and wrong is that what harms Kikuyu land and Kikuyu is
wrong...These oaths might be illegal as far as the Europeans were
concerned; they were legitimate within Kikuyu ideology.”⁵⁶

This statement shows the varied points of view associated with interpreting the
oath. Her work shows the importance of examining the details and specifics of
the movement.

Some of the writers of this period utilize the Mau Mau oath to help shape
their larger narratives. These authors also situate the oath in a larger social,
historical, and cultural context while also looking at specific details such as
criminalization, gender, and cursing. Overall, the writers show a desire to better
understand the oath while showing that it remains (although in different degrees)

a part of the overall Mau Mau story.

Oath Perspectives of the 2000s

Current writings show that Mau Mau in general and Mau Mau oathing in
particular are still topics of interest. However, the trend for analysis around
specialized Mau Mau histories has continued to shape the direction of the
writings. This period begins with two new additions to the Mau Mau
conversation, Carolyn Elkins, Imperial Reckoning, and David Anderson’s

⁵⁵ Kershaw, Маи Май from Below, 317.

⁵⁶ Kershaw, Маи Май from Below, 317.

50

<<   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>

More intriguing information