Native labourer categories

Native Kenyan labourers were in one of three categories: squatter, contract, or casual.[C] By the end of World War I, squatters had become well established on European farms and

Native labourer categories

Native Kenyan labourers were in one of three categories: squatter, contract, or casual.[C] By the end of World War I, squatters had become well established on European farms and plantations in Kenya, with Kikuyu squatters comprising the majority of agricultural workers on settler plantations.[45] An unintended consequence of colonial rule,[45] the squatters were targeted from 1918 onwards by a series of Resident Native Labourers Ordinances—criticised by at least some MPs[60]—which progressively curtailed squatter rights and subordinated native Kenyan farming to that of the settlers.[61] The Ordinance of 1939 finally eliminated squatters' remaining tenancy rights, and permitted settlers to demand 270 days' labour from any squatters on their land.[62] and, after World War II, the situation for squatters deteriorated rapidly, a situation the squatters resisted fiercely.[63]

In the early 1920s, though, despite the presence of 100,000 squatters and tens of thousands more wage labourers,[64] there was still not enough native Kenyan labour available to satisfy the settlers' needs.[65] The colonial government duly tightened the measures to force more Kenyans to become low-paid wage-labourers on settler farms.[66]

The colonial government used the measures brought in as part of its land expropriation and labour 'encouragement' efforts to craft the third plank of its growth strategy for its settler economy: subordinating African farming to that of the Europeans.[51] Nairobi also assisted the settlers with rail and road networks, subsidies on freight charges, agricultural and veterinary services, and credit and loan facilities.[45] The near-total neglect of native farming during the first two decades of European settlement was noted by the East Africa Commission.[67]

The resentment of colonial rule would not have been decreased by the wanting provision of medical services for native Kenyans,[68] nor by the fact that in 1923, for example, "the maximum amount that could be considered to have been spent on services provided exclusively for the benefit of the native population was slightly over one-quarter of the taxes paid by them".[41] The tax burden on Europeans in the early 1920s, meanwhile, was very light relative to their income.[41] Interwar infrastructure-development was also largely paid for by the indigenous population.[69]

Kenyan employees were often poorly treated by their European employers, with some settlers arguing that native Kenyans "were as children and should be treated as such". Some settlers flogged their servants for petty offences. To make matters even worse, native Kenyan workers were poorly served by colonial labour-legislation and a prejudiced legal-system. The vast majority of Kenyan employees' violations of labour legislation were settled with "rough justice" meted out by their employers. Most colonial magistrates appear to have been unconcerned by the illegal practice of settler-administered flogging; indeed, during the 1920s, flogging was the magisterial punishment-of-choice for native Kenyan convicts. The principle of punitive sanctions against workers was not removed from the Kenyan labour statutes until the 1950s.[70]


Habimana Theoegene

51 Blog posts

Comments