Post-conflict peace initiatives, British Mau Mau compensation, and the mastering of colonial pasts

ABSTRACT

This essay provides readers with a critical rhetorical analysis of the recent settlement of Mutua and others v. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2012. EWHC 2678 (QB). Case Number HQ9X02666]. This was a case that was brought by Wambugu Wa Nyingi, Paulo Muoka Nzili, Ndiku Mutwiwa Mutua, and Jane Muthoni, four Kenyans in the early 21st century who alleged that they needed tort relief for the injuries that they had suffered during the Kenyan ‘emergency’ years (1952–1961). They have been arguing since 2009 that surviving Mau Mau veterans suffered brutal treatment in detention camps or guarded villages that were under the control of British colonial agents. The authors contends that while the British government was willing to express ‘regrets’ about what happened during the Emergency years, it was unwilling to accept total liability for events that happened more than 50 years ago. As a result, scholars and lay persons continue to debate about the mastering of British colonial pasts.

KEYWORDS:

• Cultural identity
• cultural pluralism
• ethnic identity

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editors, including special editor Robert L. Ivie, for their support and encouragement as we developed this essay. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for many of their helpful suggestions. Their listing of suggested materials to read on apologia helped us immensely as we revised this essay on colonial redress. Carlos S. Dacanay Jr. the production editor at Taylor & Francis, made sure that we stayed on task as we proofed and checked references for this essay.

Notes on contributors

Marouf Hasian, Jr. is a Professor of Communication at the University of Utah. His areas of interest include postcolonial studies and critical intercultural communication.

Marek Muller is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. Her areas of interest include critical animal studies and eco-feminism.

Notes

1. Other scholars call ‘faux’ or ‘pseudo’ apologies by different names, such as ‘infelicitous apologies’ (Kampf and Löwenheim 2012).