Miners' ‘Claims’ and Native Lands in Kenya

Abstract

ELSEWHERE in this issue (p. 37), we have discussed the grave situation which may arise through the proposed legislation dealing with gold prospecting in native reserves in Kenya. The explanatory memorandum issued by the Chief Native Commissioner of Kenya Colony to the natives likely to be affected has now been published in the Times (Jan. 5). It would appear to be fundamentally opposed to the whole conception and purpose of the institution of a native reserve, and is likely to be thoroughly disturbing to the minds of natives nervous for their rights. It seems that no attempt will be made to segregate the native or to control the siting of mining claims. European interpenetration of native holdings on the reserve will be complete. The natives are informed that they may expect to see their holdings ‘pegged’, or such part of them as may be required, wherever it is thought worth while to look for gold, and their huts and shambas may be destroyed; while they are invited to squat on their neighbours' land and make money, pending the vacation of their own land at some indefinite date, by working in the mines. It is also suggested that natives may sell to the miner meat, chickens' eggs and vegetables, but this applies, presumably, to those who have not been dispossessed of their land. Sir Edward Grigg has rebuked the Archbishop of Canterbury for suggesting that “African interests … are likely to receive better and wiser consideration from ‘public opinion’ in this country than from the Government of the Colony”; but the anthropologist asks “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”? This unfortunate memorandum, issued, be it marked, by the department responsible for the well-being of the native, passes over all that has been achieved by scientific study of native races and of the problems that arise from their unchecked contact with Europeans.