The name is absent

from this analysis is that the Mau Mau oath has been studied randomly and
inconsistently with some writers interpreting their own version of the Mau Mau
oath story that was minimized to support their overall Mau Mau argument. Some
parts of the story were carried through the generations whereas other narratives
introduced new terminology, points, and arguments.

The literature on the Mau Mau oath up to this dissertation has consistently
treated the oath in the backdrop of dominant narratives tied to British
administrators, colonial policies, colonialism, Kenyan independence, Kikuyu,
forest fighters, squatters, imperialism, detention camps, loyalists, and so on.
Over time we see also that scholars continue to wrestle with defining and
understanding the oath. Was the oath a contributor to nationalism, tribalism, or
something else? The response to this question varied based on the scholar’s
perspective. As a result, similar to the definition and categorization challenges
raised in chapter one, the Mau Mau oath definition is also complicated because it
is a central aspect of Mau Mau. For example, those that identify Mau Mau as a
nationalist movement will tend to view the Mau Mau oath practices as acts that
lead to nationalism via unity across ethnicity, gender, age, languages, locations,
and so on.

Conclusion

The scholars writing on the Mau Mau oath reveal that there are still
challenges on how to define, describe, interpret, analyze, and communicate
oathing. The works outlined in this chapter provide examples of some of the

57

<<   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   >>

More intriguing information