Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RV Pundit on November 15, 2020, 05:08:11 PM
-
You're either Dorobo or recent Muranga immigrant.
https://books.google.ch/books?id=KFXnG8fTUYcC&pg=PA618&lpg=PA618&dq=Dorobo+of+Kiambu+tigoni+limuru&source=bl&ots=ZK_Bkthg5g&sig=ACfU3U3Y_IDtu8YoAi71f8b_Vqfl_U9dFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij2rH824TtAhVPzaQKHUJPCZcQ6AEwGXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=Dorobo%20of%20Kiambu%20tigoni%20limuru&f=false
-
ALL Kikuyus outside of Muranga are immigrants in new lands. All my great grandparents were immigrants from Muranga. Even today I have relations from my dad side that live in Muranga.
That side actually is where my activism comes from. Most uncles from muranga are very progressive people. One of them controlled the lower eastern Matatu business, the other was DCIO of Central
The one that I actually inherited his gene, owns about 5 plots hapo eastleigh. He was a county clerk in muranga during colonial times. He is alleged to have stolen 90K in 1960 since he was an accountant he cooked the books and then left the job. The colonial govt took him to court but couldn't prove their case. He used the loot to by a bus and the property in Eastleigh. He has since died but on my way here I went to his location and he gave me 2K. He loved life though. Always operated a big night club and I bet he had a lot of women.
-
As matter of fact I just did a big article in my village facebook page about the history of the location
-
So your grandparents emigrated to Kiambu. What is % of dorobo remain in Kiambu blood. I have seen typical dorobo - short and brown with small bodies - in many kiambu people - and very mean - and also love booze. That to me is Ndorobo blood...I bet they also own dogs, love honey and hunting.
Naturally dorobos are like those native americans - very retrogressive people - and even in kalenjin - they are derided - they are not very progressive people. They have no idea why you should do all that hard work when you can just go out there and hunt for breakfast :)
ALL Kikuyus outside of Muranga are immigrants in new lands. All my great grandparents were immigrants from Muranga. Even today I have relations from my dad side that live in Muranga.
That side actually is where my activism comes from. Most uncles from muranga are very progressive people. One of them controlled the lower eastern Matatu business, the other was DCIO of Central
The one that I actually inherited his gene, owns about 5 plots hapo eastleigh. He was a county clerk in muranga during colonial times. He is alleged to have stolen 90K in 1960 since he was an accountant he cooked the books and then left the job. The colonial govt took him to court but couldn't prove their case. He used the loot to by a bus and the property in Eastleigh. He has since died but on my way here I went to his location and he gave me 2K. He loved life though. Always operated a big night club and I bet he had a lot of women.
-
So your grandparents emigrated to Kiambu. What is % of dorobo remain in Kiambu blood. I have seen typical dorobo - short and brown with small bodies - in many kiambu people - and very mean - and also love booze. That to me is Ndorobo blood...I bet they also own dogs, love honey and hunting.
Naturally dorobos are like those native americans - very retrogressive people - and even in kalenjin - they are derided - they are not very progressive people. They have no idea why you should do all that hard work when you can just go out there and hunt for breakfast :)
ALL Kikuyus outside of Muranga are immigrants in new lands. All my great grandparents were immigrants from Muranga. Even today I have relations from my dad side that live in Muranga.
That side actually is where my activism comes from. Most uncles from muranga are very progressive people. One of them controlled the lower eastern Matatu business, the other was DCIO of Central
The one that I actually inherited his gene, owns about 5 plots hapo eastleigh. He was a county clerk in muranga during colonial times. He is alleged to have stolen 90K in 1960 since he was an accountant he cooked the books and then left the job. The colonial govt took him to court but couldn't prove their case. He used the loot to by a bus and the property in Eastleigh. He has since died but on my way here I went to his location and he gave me 2K. He loved life though. Always operated a big night club and I bet he had a lot of women.
Many.. in my village there Dorobos who live there. They are were there before my parents bought land. In Upper Lari it may be 10%. Most have tried to assimilate as Kikuyus regard them as retarded. There are remants of Dorobos in Kambaa ya wakahoi ..it was a doboro settlement near Kinale forest
-
right, their women are very beautiful but are you going to marry a selfish bimbo :) that pretty much explained to Njuri why I didn't marry one such. in kipsigis they are cheap because they value dogs more than cattle - but few marry them - they are trained to be very selfish - and are very retrogressive - lazy almost.
Many.. in my village there Dorobos who live there. They are were there before my parents bought land. In Upper Lari it may be 10%. Most have tried to assimilate as Kikuyus regard them as retarded. There are remants of Dorobos in Kambaa ya wakahoi ..it was a doboro settlement near Kinale forest
-
yes, My neighbor wife was dorobo. Very yellow but lazy like a sloth. She had burn her feet from being close to the fire she had cellulites visible. In Kikuyu land if you have "MBARA" Cellulite in front of your legs it is a sign you are lazy motherfucker and you will be scorned
-
LOL - it's not burnt. It classic genetic marker for Dorobo. We call them red legs. In kipsigis it's clear marker that one is Dorobo/Ogiek. It in both men and women - they have red legs. They are born that way - because my immediate neighbours wife is dorobo - and we grew up with their kids - most had red legs
yes, My neighbor wife was dorobo. Very yellow but lazy like a sloth. She had burn her feet from being close to the fire she had cellulites visible. In Kikuyu land if you have "MBARA" Cellulite in front of your legs it is a sign you are lazy motherfucker and you will be scorned
-
LOL - it's not burnt. It classic genetic marker for Dorobo. We call them red legs. In kipsigis it's clear marker that one is Dorobo/Ogiek. It in both men and women - they have red legs. They are born that way - because my immediate neighbours wife is dorobo - and we grew up with their kids - most had red legs
yes, My neighbor wife was dorobo. Very yellow but lazy like a sloth. She had burn her feet from being close to the fire she had cellulites visible. In Kikuyu land if you have "MBARA" Cellulite in front of your legs it is a sign you are lazy motherfucker and you will be scorned
It gets amplified and nasty looking during cold months in Lari when these loafers sit around the fire place all day
I got come to Kericho and see you there. I will be there in December for 3 weeks
-
Aslo, GUMBAs are different from Dorobos. Gumbas are forest highland pigmies
-
Aslo, GUMBAs are different from Dorobos. Gumbas are forest highland pigmies
Am surprised you are this conversant with History, yes Gumba are different from Dorobos and occupied the highlands, in Meru there was clear demarcation where Merus would live and gumba. Gumba occupied the higher zones just above the forest Ridgeline and Merus were not allowed to go any higher as they feared the Gumba curses very much. Its a long history.
-
Aslo, GUMBAs are different from Dorobos. Gumbas are forest highland pigmies
Am surprised you are this conversant with History, yes Gumba are different from Dorobos and occupied the highlands in Meru there was clear demarcation where merus would live and gumba. Gumba occupied the higher zones just above the forest Ridgeline and Merus were not allowed to go any higher as they feared the Gumba curses very much. Its a long history.
it is my passion. I read and research history all the time
-
Aslo, GUMBAs are different from Dorobos. Gumbas are forest highland pigmies
Am surprised you are this conversant with History, yes Gumba are different from Dorobos and occupied the highlands in Meru there was clear demarcation where merus would live and gumba. Gumba occupied the higher zones just above the forest Ridgeline and Merus were not allowed to go any higher as they feared the Gumba curses very much. Its a long history.
it is my passion. I read and research history all the time
Its sad you spend most of your time spewing nonsense here. I love history for me that's the greatest study of all. I can seat quietly and patiently for hours just listening or researching history.
-
We don't have those gumbas..the pygmies. I don't think they exists in kalenjin land.
-
We don't have those gumbas..the pygmies. I don't think they exists in kalenjin land.
What about OGIEKS?
-
Ogiek are dorobos; more khoisan than pygmies;
What about OGIEKS?
-
We don't have those gumbas..the pygmies. I don't think they exists in kalenjin land.
Gumba like plato says were pygmies avid hunters and also good in collecting honey,GEMA found them already occupying mt.kenya, they spoke a kalenjin dialect am surprised you didn't know about them
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agumba_people
-
But why would they be distinct of Dorobo/Ogiek - that is why don't understand. We don't have pygmies kind that you see in Rwanda or Congo.
Pygmies' are not khoisan - Dorobos or Okiek are Khoisan.
Gumba like plato says were pygmies avid hunters and also good in collecting honey,GEMA found them already occupying mt.kenya, they spoke a kalenjin dialecr am surprised you didn't know about them
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agumba_people
-
In actual sense gumbas are not pgymies they are short bantus
Here is Agumba history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agumba_people
-
Yes that my understanding of pygmies; I think from reading; we had some those people; or clans; who were dedicated to iron making; making iron weapons and the work; and that probably the least I can think of gumbas or athi in Kalenjin land.They lived almost seperate - and were almost like 'cursed' - coz they mainly shaped weapons for murder - which in kalenjin requires elaborate cleansing etc - and they also liked it that way - because they didn't want to share their iron making technologies. I think these are iron slaves from Nigeria who moved with Bantus and brought iron technologies to rest of Africa.
But Dorobo/Ogiek are not pygmies. They are Khoisan. Their original language is Click language. They still retaining some element of that Click Language to date.
In actual sense gumbas are not pgymies they are short bantus
-
In addition to ogieks/bushmen & pygmies/gumbas, there is a Cushitic element in most Nilotic and Bantu tribes in Kenya. We are very diverse genetically, much more so than other Africans. Kenya is a crossroads space. Maasais, surprisingly have some Neanderthal DNA, attesting to a non African element in them.
-
You're either Dorobo or recent Muranga immigrant.
https://books.google.ch/books?id=KFXnG8fTUYcC&pg=PA618&lpg=PA618&dq=Dorobo+of+Kiambu+tigoni+limuru&source=bl&ots=ZK_Bkthg5g&sig=ACfU3U3Y_IDtu8YoAi71f8b_Vqfl_U9dFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij2rH824TtAhVPzaQKHUJPCZcQ6AEwGXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=Dorobo%20of%20Kiambu%20tigoni%20limuru&f=false
RV , If the same concept is used Uasin Ngishu is actually Sirikwas rest are immigrants.
-
So your grandparents emigrated to Kiambu. What is % of dorobo remain in Kiambu blood. I have seen typical dorobo - short and brown with small bodies - in many kiambu people - and very mean - and also love booze. That to me is Ndorobo blood...I bet they also own dogs, love honey and hunting.
Naturally dorobos are like those native americans - very retrogressive people - and even in kalenjin - they are derided - they are not very progressive people. They have no idea why you should do all that hard work when you can just go out there and hunt for breakfast :)
ALL Kikuyus outside of Muranga are immigrants in new lands. All my great grandparents were immigrants from Muranga. Even today I have relations from my dad side that live in Muranga.
That side actually is where my activism comes from. Most uncles from muranga are very progressive people. One of them controlled the lower eastern Matatu business, the other was DCIO of Central
The one that I actually inherited his gene, owns about 5 plots hapo eastleigh. He was a county clerk in muranga during colonial times. He is alleged to have stolen 90K in 1960 since he was an accountant he cooked the books and then left the job. The colonial govt took him to court but couldn't prove their case. He used the loot to by a bus and the property in Eastleigh. He has since died but on my way here I went to his location and he gave me 2K. He loved life though. Always operated a big night club and I bet he had a lot of women.
Truth of the matter Kenyans are of mixed genes .It wont be surprising to find RV your dominant gene is of either Dorobo or Luo and you are here calling them retrogressive people .
-
Will that make them progressive. Ogiek like Maasai are retrogressive..refusing to adapt to changes of modern life. Maasai are now like famous Sirikwas..going extinct. A small community like Kikuyu whose land was just around muranga has expanded into many maasai land - right from nairobi, many parts of kiambu, entire nyandarua, parts of laikipia and nakuru...and also now narok and kajiado. Kamba have taken over many parts of Maasai land including kilimambogo. Kalenjin the same. Ogiek definitely won't exist for long.
How did Kikuyu multiply to become kenya largest tribe - while Maasai regressed from being kenya largest - to now one smallest tribes - simple - kikuyu quickly adopted British modern life - multiplied - while Maasai stuck to old era - and withered.
Truth of the matter Kenyans are of mixed genes .It wont be surprising to find RV your dominant gene is of either Dorobo or Luo and you are here calling them retrogressive people .
-
Will that make them progressive. Ogiek like Maasai are retrogressive..refusing to adapt to changes of modern life. Maasai are now like famous Sirikwas..going extinct. A small community like Kikuyu whose land was just around muranga has expanded into many maasai land - right from nairobi, many parts of kiambu, entire nyandarua, parts of laikipia and nakuru...and also now narok and kajiado. Kamba have taken over many parts of Maasai land including kilimambogo. Kalenjin the same. Ogiek definitely won't exist for long.
How did Kikuyu multiply to become kenya largest tribe - while Maasai regressed from being kenya largest - to now one smallest tribes - simple - kikuyu quickly adopted British modern life - multiplied - while Maasai stuck to old era - and withered.
Truth of the matter Kenyans are of mixed genes .It wont be surprising to find RV your dominant gene is of either Dorobo or Luo and you are here calling them retrogressive people .
Kikuyu are expansionist tribe by Nature. Our founding place was Mbeere "mukuru wa Nyagathanga" this is according to Dr Muriuki's research. We moved to Murang'a, Kiambu and another group moved to Nyeri. Now young professionals in my village are buying land in Malindi. Kikuyus never stop and they never look back once they find a place they can settle with least resistance. I bet you bythe end of this century most of the coast areas will have lots of kikuyus. The only good thing is that the rich kikuyus are having less kids or no kids at all.
The problem is the mungiki type poor kikuyu that is still breeding like a rat. This is the one that has to move all the country in search of land
-
What expansion - kikuyu entire territory was walkable by foot on a single day. Maasai and Somali have an almost Mzungu like wandering spirit. Maasa you'll find walking barefoot past Kampala; selling drugs and hitchhiking. The same with Somalis. They are free spirited nomads..who can roam the world..without care. Kikuyus are attached to the ground..they will try to ground themselves as soon as they can and stick there.
Maasai at their apex owned land from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Turkana. From Mombasa to Mt Elgon. That IS HUGEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Kikuyu are expansionist tribe by Nature. Our founding place was Mbeere "mukuru wa Nyagathanga" this is according to Dr Muriuki's research. We moved to Murang'a, Kiambu and another group moved to Nyeri. Now young professionals in my village are buying land in Malindi. Kikuyus never stop and they never look back once they find a place they can settle with least resistance. I bet you bythe end of this century most of the coast areas will have lots of kikuyus. The only good thing is that the rich kikuyus are having less kids or no kids at all.
The problem is the mungiki type poor kikuyu that is still breeding like a rat. This is the one that has to move all the country in search of land
-
What expansion - kikuyu entire territory was walkable by foot on a single day. Maasai and Somali have an almost Mzungu like wandering spirit. Maasa you'll find walking barefoot past Kampala; selling drugs and hitchhiking. The same with Somalis. They are free spirited nomads..who can roam the world..without care. Kikuyus are attached to the ground..they will try to ground themselves as soon as they can and stick there.
Maasai at their apex owned land from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Turkana. From Mombasa to Mt Elgon. That IS HUGEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Kikuyu are expansionist tribe by Nature. Our founding place was Mbeere "mukuru wa Nyagathanga" this is according to Dr Muriuki's research. We moved to Murang'a, Kiambu and another group moved to Nyeri. Now young professionals in my village are buying land in Malindi. Kikuyus never stop and they never look back once they find a place they can settle with least resistance. I bet you bythe end of this century most of the coast areas will have lots of kikuyus. The only good thing is that the rich kikuyus are having less kids or no kids at all.
The problem is the mungiki type poor kikuyu that is still breeding like a rat. This is the one that has to move all the country in search of land
In the last 100 years Kikuyus have expanded territory without firing a shot
-
More like Kenyatta Jomo using political power to take over British white highlands.
In the last 100 years Kikuyus have expanded territory without firing a shot
-
More like Kenyatta Jomo using political power to take over British white highlands.
In the last 100 years Kikuyus have expanded territory without firing a shot
How do you explain the recent take over of Maa land all the way to Isinya by Kikuyus?
-
But are you really taking over - or flipping land. You sell 1/2 in kiambu, buy 10 acres in Maa land, sub-divide into plots, and sell it, and move deeper; But if you go to those areas, its gusiis, luhyas, name them who actually buy the 1/8 and build.
How do you explain the recent take over of Maa land all the way to Isinya by Kikuyus?
-
But are you really taking over - or flipping land. You sell 1/2 in kiambu, buy 10 acres in Maa land, sub-divide into plots, and sell it, and move deeper; But if you go to those areas, its gusiis, luhyas, name them who actually buy the 1/8 and build.
How do you explain the recent take over of Maa land all the way to Isinya by Kikuyus?
Nope some are buying land for farming.
-
Very few; majority are into buying large land and selling it as plots; and kikuyus are becoming minority in Nairobi metro - at least Kajiado and machakos; Gusii are the main ones buying 1/8s. In a decade - there might be more Gusii Mps - in 'diaspora' than in Gusii - I think now they have 2 out of 10. I see them winning some in Machakos and Kajiado soon.
Nope some are buying land for farming.
-
RV, Weve been here before , I have several questions for you
Q1. Dont you think partitioning of Africa by Europeans affected the social unity of Maasai ?
Q2. Between Bantus and Nomadic pastoralists who do you think are at a higher risk of contacting diseases ?
Q3 .Bantus form of expansion was assimilation where as Nilotic was more of displacement between the two who would have have a big population ?
Q4. Which requires more labour , tilling the land or herding cattle ?
Q5. what for you is the final solution to end tribalism in Kenya , Intermarrying between tribes or marrying within tribes ?
-
Africa formal partion - happened in late 19th century - and unofficially - began around 1850 - I think British took over Mombasa that early - but could not venture inside.
Infact after checking - British took over Mombasa - and whole of Zanzibar - from 1820s.
They couldn't venture inwards because Maasai were too strong. Maasai basically occupied Kenya. Remember until early 20th century - British gun was of minimal use - it was not automaticaly re-loading - so the warriors would catch you dead why trying to re-load. Arabs had brought guns but they knew their effectiveness was limited. At coast - you could shell it with canons and all - but hinterland - that would take huge army.
Secondly understand by Big - we are talking maybe 200,000. Africa population including that of Bantus were small. African life was short, brutish and horrible.
The biggest problem was child and all sort of mortality. It was impossible according to my grandmother to find a family of 4 kids - most kids would die - from all the diseases we now take from granted. The life expectancy maybe was 35-40yrs.
So Maasai were the most popolous occupying a large territory - in a mostly "empty" country - with more wildlife than humans.
Kenya population by 1900 is estimated at around 1M. Rose sharply to 6M by 1950s. 8M by 1962 and now is 50M!!!!!
The families or communities that embraced British - started going to hospitals - and getting modern medicine - started seeing 5 -10 kids - unheard of in Africa. Then some started even getting 15 kids - and that is how current population rose.
So population of say Kikuyus shot from maybe 200K to 1M by time of indepedences. Nandis were estimated at 40k and so were kipsigis at 19th century. Nearly 'everyone" knew each other :)
RV, Weve been here before , I have several questions for you
Q1. Dont you think partitioning of Africa by Europeans affected the social unity of Maasai ?
Q2. Between Bantus and Nomadic pastoralists who do you think are at a higher risk of contacting diseases ?
Q3 .Bantus form of expansion was assimilation where as Nilotic was more of displacement between the two who would have have a big population ?
Q4. Which requires more labour , tilling the land or herding cattle ?
Q5. what for you is the final solution to end tribalism in Kenya , Intermarrying between tribes or marrying within tribes ?
-
RV , why I asked the questions in point form is because I know how you mix things with half truths until focus on the subject is lost . Could you please answer the questions , a one liner will do .Otherwise we will digress and find ourselves talking about Pharaoh in Egypt.
Africa formal partion - happened in late 19th century - and unofficially - began around 1850 - I think British took over Mombasa that early - but could not venture inside.
Infact after checking - British took over Mombasa - and whole of Zanzibar - from 1820s.
They couldn't venture inwards because Maasai were too strong. Maasai basically occupied Kenya. Remember until early 20th century - British gun was of minimal use - it was not automaticaly re-loading - so the warriors would catch you dead why trying to re-load. Arabs had brought guns but they knew their effectiveness was limited. At coast - you could shell it with canons and all - but hinterland - that would take huge army.
Secondly understand by Big - we are talking maybe 200,000. Africa population including that of Bantus were small. African life was short, brutish and horrible.
The biggest problem was child and all sort of mortality. It was impossible according to my grandmother to find a family of 4 kids - most kids would die - from all the diseases we now take from granted. The life expectancy maybe was 35-40yrs.
So Maasai were the most popolous occupying a large territory - in a mostly "empty" country - with more wildlife than humans.
Kenya population by 1900 is estimated at around 1M. Rose sharply to 6M by 1950s. 8M by 1962 and now is 50M!!!!!
The families or communities that embraced British - started going to hospitals - and getting modern medicine - started seeing 5 -10 kids - unheard of in Africa. Then some started even getting 15 kids - and that is how current population rose.
So population of say Kikuyus shot from maybe 200K to 1M by time of indepedences. Nandis were estimated at 40k and so were kipsigis at 19th century. Nearly 'everyone" knew each other :)
RV, Weve been here before , I have several questions for you
Q1. Dont you think partitioning of Africa by Europeans affected the social unity of Maasai ?
Q2. Between Bantus and Nomadic pastoralists who do you think are at a higher risk of contacting diseases ?
Q3 .Bantus form of expansion was assimilation where as Nilotic was more of displacement between the two who would have have a big population ?
Q4. Which requires more labour , tilling the land or herding cattle ?
Q5. what for you is the final solution to end tribalism in Kenya , Intermarrying between tribes or marrying within tribes ?
-
I choose how I answer and reply to questions. AND I NEVER DO THOSE ONE LINER reply spawning many threads. It just isn't my style. It's pretty horrible actually - the kind that Omollo love to engage in. Summarize and move on. This is Nipate.
I think I have done my job. Obviously you come here with half-ar.sed stories and we send you back to school. Pick some history book for starters.
RV , why I asked the questions in point form is because I know how you mix things with half truths until focus on the subject is lost . Could you please answer the questions , a one liner will do .Otherwise we will digress and find ourselves talking about Pharaoh in Egypt.
-
I choose how I answer and reply to questions. AND I NEVER DO THOSE ONE LINER reply spawning many threads. It just isn't my style. It's pretty horrible actually - the kind that Omollo love to engage in. Summarize and move on. This is Nipate.
I think I have done my job. Obviously you come here with half-ar.sed stories and we send you back to school. Pick some history book for starters.
RV , why I asked the questions in point form is because I know how you mix things with half truths until focus on the subject is lost . Could you please answer the questions , a one liner will do .Otherwise we will digress and find ourselves talking about Pharaoh in Egypt.
When it comes to history tou always tend to twist it in such a manner that it drives a certain point this being that Kikuyu didnt dominate Kenya wince time memorial.
Its very obvious you did your history back in 90s and in an environment of anti Kikuyusm . The theory you try to advance that only Maasai inhabited Kenya is flawed. This is the same history colonialsts were trying to use to discredit the Mau Mau.
Yes in the same arguments you give some half truths but thats just it..
It very funny tou say how Maasai were dorminant in one statement due to their foem of living but fail to acknowledge that its that same form of living which braugh diseases and affected them together with their livestock.
You tend to put a blind eye that Bantus are also dorminant in the other East Arican countries Uganda and Tanzania because of their form of living.. Its a fact its not coincident..
Now tell me at indipendence what was population of Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania ?
-
You're funny. Nobody knew about Kikuyus until 1950s.
Maasai were know far and wide before arrival of British.
What dominance? Uganda? - check the map again - see who own the largest land mass.
Even in Rwanda and Western Uganda - Nilotic or Cushitic Tutsi dominated Bantus like nothing.
Check Kenya - Bantus occupy very little land.
The reality is Bantu stood no chance against Nilotes and Cushites.
They only dominated Khoisans.
Thankfully there is tsetse belt run right across kenya/TZ border - that starts all the way from Senagal to Mombasa.
That tsetse belt shielded Bantus from invasion of war like tribes of the north.
Cows never could do well in that belt - lake victoria - Luo Nyanza - labwe valley - all the way.
Bantus and their cousins in west Africa - thrive below the tse tse fly belt - where agricluture was practised.
Up north - it become a little hot - with war like tribes.
There is small corridor in Tanzania - arusha - that had cows go down to South Africa.
When it comes to history tou always tend to twist it in such a manner that it drives a certain point this being that Kikuyu didnt dominate Kenya wince time memorial.
Its very obvious you did your history back in 90s and in an environment of anti Kikuyusm . The theory you try to advance that only Maasai inhabited Kenya is flawed. This is the same history colonialsts were trying to use to discredit the Mau Mau.
Yes in the same arguments you give some half truths but thats just it..
It very funny tou say how Maasai were dorminant in one statement due to their foem of living but fail to acknowledge that its that same form of living which braugh diseases and affected them together with their livestock.
You tend to put a blind eye that Bantus are also dorminant in the other East Arican countries Uganda and Tanzania because of their form of living.. Its a fact its not coincident..
Now tell me at indipendence what was population of Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania ?
-
You're funny. Nobody knew about Kikuyus until 1950s.
Maasai were know far and wide before arrival of British.
What dominance? Uganda? - check the map again - see who own the largest land mass.
Even in Rwanda and Western Uganda - Nilotic or Cushitic Tutsi dominated Bantus like nothing.
Check Kenya - Bantus occupy very little land.
The reality is Bantu stood no chance against Nilotes and Cushites.
They only dominated Khoisans.
Thankfully there is tsetse belt run right across kenya/TZ border - that starts all the way from Senagal to Mombasa.
That tsetse belt shielded Bantus from invasion of war like tribes of the north.
Cows never could do well in that belt - lake victoria - Luo Nyanza - labwe valley - all the way.
Bantus and their cousins in west Africa - thrive below the tse tse fly belt - where agricluture was practised.
Up north - it become a little hot - with war like tribes.
There is small corridor in Tanzania - arusha - that had cows go down to South Africa.
When it comes to history tou always tend to twist it in such a manner that it drives a certain point this being that Kikuyu didnt dominate Kenya wince time memorial.
Its very obvious you did your history back in 90s and in an environment of anti Kikuyusm . The theory you try to advance that only Maasai inhabited Kenya is flawed. This is the same history colonialsts were trying to use to discredit the Mau Mau.
Yes in the same arguments you give some half truths but thats just it..
It very funny tou say how Maasai were dorminant in one statement due to their foem of living but fail to acknowledge that its that same form of living which braugh diseases and affected them together with their livestock.
You tend to put a blind eye that Bantus are also dorminant in the other East Arican countries Uganda and Tanzania because of their form of living.. Its a fact its not coincident..
Now tell me at indipendence what was population of Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania ?
But the Mzungu knew about Kenyatta and KCA Kikuyu Central association as early as 1927. You betray yourself so good in knowledge but skew it for self interest.. you will start to make us question your current analysis.
But then again I have to remember you fought with your school teacher for thinking he is dumb., then your the first to criticise Magoha for low EQ. You are in the same category.
Now go back to what you have written, Bantus occuppy agricultural land, and as you say the form of living nomadic pastoralists practice lead to their demise. Isnt it the same issues we raised earlier and as usual with history you meander left and tight with half truths then conclude with matusi
-
If you study history pre-1927 - kikuyus were a small footnote in kenya - leave alone regional history.
Maasai reputation as warriors travelled far and wide.
The Arabs slave and ivory traders had told the world about Maasai long before 17th century.
Nearly every tribe within the region knew about Maasai - for their reputation for warfare was truly unmatched.
And with that they acquired a lot of land and cattle (wealth);
So much they basically declared all cattle theirs for taking.
But the Mzungu knew about Kenyatta and KCA Kikuyu Central association as early as 1927. You betray yourself so good in knowledge but skew it for self interest.. you will start to make us question your current analysis.
But then again I have to remember you fought with your school teacher for thinking he is dumb., then your the first to criticise Magoha for low EQ. You are in the same category.
Now go back to what you have written, Bantus occuppy agricultural land, and as you say the form of living nomadic pastoralists practice lead to their demise. Isnt it the same issues we raised earlier and as usual with history you meander left and tight with half truths then conclude with matusi
-
Through Maasialand - became a best-seller and also an eye opener that allowed European to bridge Maasai land - otherwise they wouldn't dare. Arabs had told everyone with an ear - it was almost suicidal.
The reputation of the Maasai as a bloodthirsty, martial race had prevented European commercial exploitation of upcountry East Africa; this
was a deliberate ploy by coastal slave and ivory traders.8 Thomson slew the
dragon by proving it was possible to move unscathed through Maasai territory. He set out on this journey in some trepidation, but when he finally
met the Maasai, he was agreeably surprised. He noted their “astonishing
gravity” and “aristocratic dignity.” They exhibited a “natural fluency and
grace . . . and a dignity of attitude beyond all praise.” He was particularly
struck by their powers of oration (a spokesman addressed him “with all the
ease of the professional speaker”) and the absence of “obtrusive, vulgar inquisitiveness or aggressive impertinence,” which had so vexed him among
other Africans (Thomson 1885, 161–62). Far from being astonished and
curious on seeing a white man, the warriors coolly surveyed him. But two
pages later, they were fighting over gifts Thomson had brought to buy his
way through Maasailand. He likened them to animals: “They rave and tear
like a couple of dogs over a bone. . . . A pack of half-starved wolves suddenly let loose on small animals could not have made a more ferocious and
repulsive exhibition” (170). The “beautiful beasts” tag would remain with
the Maasai forever
-
If you study history pre-1927 - kikuyus were a small footnote in kenya - leave alone regional history.
Maasai reputation as warriors travelled far and wide.
The Arabs slave and ivory traders had told the world about Maasai long before 17th century.
Nearly every tribe within the region knew about Maasai - for their reputation for warfare was truly unmatched.
And with that they acquired a lot of land and cattle (wealth);
So much they basically declared all cattle theirs for taking.
But the Mzungu knew about Kenyatta and KCA Kikuyu Central association as early as 1927. You betray yourself so good in knowledge but skew it for self interest.. you will start to make us question your current analysis.
But then again I have to remember you fought with your school teacher for thinking he is dumb., then your the first to criticise Magoha for low EQ. You are in the same category.
Now go back to what you have written, Bantus occuppy agricultural land, and as you say the form of living nomadic pastoralists practice lead to their demise. Isnt it the same issues we raised earlier and as usual with history you meander left and tight with half truths then conclude with matusi
And this is precisely what Im talking about. Maasai regarded cattle as a form of wealth Kikuyu and most Bantu speaking tribes regarded children as form of wealth. When Mzungu political system set in , it played advantage to the most populous group including rhen Luo Nyanza.
Give credit to Kalenjins they learnt that what matters are numbers and are on the way to become the second most populous group. Thats the nature of the real world and 40 years feom now we shouldnt blame Kalenjins for dominating Kenya. Its a cycle next group could be the somalis. They have taken over South C Eastleigh and South B, In Mombasa Old Town , Mvita and parts of Kisauni.
Why dwell on history and it is wver changing.we need to learn from it.
-
Pundito vs Nowayhaha :D
Same person debating himself.
-
Unlike you with several moniker; I have only kept one; for 20yrs; mrs Lyudymilla Nyar Kisumu wa Xavier primary. Kiburi ungeacha ungetiwa mimba kitambo :)
Pundito vs Nowayhaha :D
Same person debating himself.
-
But why would they be distinct of Dorobo/Ogiek - that is why don't understand. We don't have pygmies kind that you see in Rwanda or Congo.
Pygmies' are not khoisan - Dorobos or Okiek are Khoisan.
Gumba like plato says were pygmies avid hunters and also good in collecting honey,GEMA found them already occupying mt.kenya, they spoke a kalenjin dialecr am surprised you didn't know about them
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agumba_people (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agumba_people)
I think Khoisan are Bushman type. I suspect genetically at least, Okiek are East Africa's aboriginals distinct from the Bushmen.
-
It's continuum- the South African bushmen - are the purest - but as you move northwards - the admixture increases. Genetically and Linguistically I bet Kenya Ogiek/Dorobo are bushmen.
Linguistically - Click Constants - is the marker - just like all Bantus have common words. Kenya Ogiek/Dorobo have that Click consonant sound - tchick! - before any constant word
Yes they have been inter-mixed with nilotes and cushites - but Ogiek, Dorobo, Hadza and Sandawe are Khoisan.
Now TWA and the pygmies - I think are Bantu outcasts.
I think Khoisan are Bushman type. I suspect genetically at least, Okiek are East Africa's aboriginals distinct from the Bushmen.
-
Pundit you only compare in East africa where nilotes and cushites thrive and have a slim chance but Bantu dominate half if not more of Africa. Where else are cushites and nilotes found just Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea and ethiopia. From Nigeria to South africa Bantus dominate Its is well documented after Han Chinese only Bantu were able to migrate in such a great numbers.
-
Primary school level history and geography
Pundit you only compare in East africa where nilotes and cushites thrive and have a slim chance but Bantu dominate half if not more of Africa. Where else are cushites and nilotes found just Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea and ethiopia. From Nigeria to South africa Bantus dominate Its is well documented after Han Chinese only Bantu were able to migrate in such a great numbers.
-
If you study history pre-1927 - kikuyus were a small footnote in kenya - leave alone regional history.
Maasai reputation as warriors travelled far and wide.
The Arabs slave and ivory traders had told the world about Maasai long before 17th century.
Nearly every tribe within the region knew about Maasai - for their reputation for warfare was truly unmatched.
And with that they acquired a lot of land and cattle (wealth);
So much they basically declared all cattle theirs for taking.
But the Mzungu knew about Kenyatta and KCA Kikuyu Central association as early as 1927. You betray yourself so good in knowledge but skew it for self interest.. you will start to make us question your current analysis.
But then again I have to remember you fought with your school teacher for thinking he is dumb., then your the first to criticise Magoha for low EQ. You are in the same category.
Now go back to what you have written, Bantus occuppy agricultural land, and as you say the form of living nomadic pastoralists practice lead to their demise. Isnt it the same issues we raised earlier and as usual with history you meander left and tight with half truths then conclude with matusi
And this is precisely what Im talking about. Maasai regarded cattle as a form of wealth Kikuyu and most Bantu speaking tribes regarded children as form of wealth. When Mzungu political system set in , it played advantage to the most populous group including rhen Luo Nyanza.
Give credit to Kalenjins they learnt that what matters are numbers and are on the way to become the second most populous group. Thats the nature of the real world and 40 years feom now we shouldnt blame Kalenjins for dominating Kenya. Its a cycle next group could be the somalis. They have taken over South C Eastleigh and South B, In Mombasa Old Town , Mvita and parts of Kisauni.
Why dwell on history and it is wver changing.we need to learn from it.
Wishful thinking dominating kenya in what? Athletics maybe? You forget lots of dynamics at play, you are basically tunnel visioned.
-
If you study history pre-1927 - kikuyus were a small footnote in kenya - leave alone regional history.
Maasai reputation as warriors travelled far and wide.
The Arabs slave and ivory traders had told the world about Maasai long before 17th century.
Nearly every tribe within the region knew about Maasai - for their reputation for warfare was truly unmatched.
And with that they acquired a lot of land and cattle (wealth);
So much they basically declared all cattle theirs for taking.
But the Mzungu knew about Kenyatta and KCA Kikuyu Central association as early as 1927. You betray yourself so good in knowledge but skew it for self interest.. you will start to make us question your current analysis.
But then again I have to remember you fought with your school teacher for thinking he is dumb., then your the first to criticise Magoha for low EQ. You are in the same category.
Now go back to what you have written, Bantus occuppy agricultural land, and as you say the form of living nomadic pastoralists practice lead to their demise. Isnt it the same issues we raised earlier and as usual with history you meander left and tight with half truths then conclude with matusi
And this is precisely what Im talking about. Maasai regarded cattle as a form of wealth Kikuyu and most Bantu speaking tribes regarded children as form of wealth. When Mzungu political system set in , it played advantage to the most populous group including rhen Luo Nyanza.
Give credit to Kalenjins they learnt that what matters are numbers and are on the way to become the second most populous group. Thats the nature of the real world and 40 years feom now we shouldnt blame Kalenjins for dominating Kenya. Its a cycle next group could be the somalis. They have taken over South C Eastleigh and South B, In Mombasa Old Town , Mvita and parts of Kisauni.
Why dwell on history and it is wver changing.we need to learn from it.
Wishful thinking dominating kenya in what? Athletics maybe? You forget lots of dynamics at play, you are basically tunnel visioned.
For RV or for Me ?
-
Btw most kenyan bantus are new tribes that came into exisyence after migration from west africa
Kikuyus may have formed about 700 years ago. They merged with other splinter groups from coast, eastern and nep
-
The problem with bantus you don't keep your history that far - I think most Kalenjin can trace at least 2 centuries of their families. People know the original clans that came from Sudan. Every clan has their own history. If they were from another tribe; it's known. Although it difficult because it's unwritten - a lot of history was preserved - esp with naming system after ancestors - and lot of clan history. This is done randomly. My daughter randomly picked a women who died maybe 40yrs ago - she was gusii woman - married to the cousin of my grand father. My sisters and brothers are also named randomly after some relatives..who are dead and are re-born afresh. I am named after my great grandfather who died in 1930s. My uncle who is 70yrs now is also named after him. It random. We both picked same name almost 40yrs apart. You can land any name...as long as you "pick"...they randomly mention dead relatives until a baby yawn.and they will know so and so is now re-born into so. I can trace our family tree I think to early 18th century...from a man named Kapsondu...where current sondu town is. No actually I can go beyond. My father could go real deep - most clan - go as far as the clan originators - and that is very far in history.
I see also Luo have deep history - and do keep their genacological records. I am not sure of Maasa. But I know Luos and Somalis do. Luos can trace their history to the man who lived in South Sudan...Joka amollos/ joka joka/
Btw most kenyan bantus are new tribes that came into exisyence after migration from west africa
Kikuyus may have formed about 700 years ago. They merged with other splinter groups from coast, eastern and nep
-
See how Luo history is really detailed.
Around 1500, a small group of Luo known as the Biito-Luo, led by Chief Labongo (his full title became Isingoma Labongo Rukidi, also known as Mpuga Rukidi), encountered Bantu-speaking peoples living in the area of Bunyoro. These Luo settled with the Bantu and established the Babiito dynasty, replacing the Bachwezi dynasty of the Empire of Kitara. According to Bunyoro legend, Labongo, the first in the line of the Babiito kings of Bunyoro-Kitara, was the twin brother of Kato Kimera, the first king of Buganda. These Luo were assimilated into the Bantu's society and lost their language and culture.
Later in the 16th century, other Luo-speaking people moved to the area that encompasses present day South Sudan, Northern Uganda and North-Eastern Congo (DRC) – forming the Alur, Jonam and Acholi. Conflicts developed when they encountered the Lango, who had been living in the area north of Lake Kyoga. The Lango also speak a Luo language. According to Driberg (1923), the Lango reached the eastern province of Uganda (Otuke Hills), having traveled southeasterly from the Shilluk area. The Lango language is similar to the Shilluk language. There is not consensus as to whether the Lango share ancestry with the Luo (with whom they share a common language), or if they have closer ethnic kinship with their easterly Ateker neighbours, with whom they share many cultural traits.
Between the middle of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century, some Luo groups proceeded eastwards. One group called Padhola (or Jopadhola - people of Adhola), led by a chief called Adhola, settled in Budama in Eastern Uganda. They settled in a thickly forested area as a defence against attacks from Bantu neighbours who had already settled there. This self-imposed isolation helped them maintain their language and culture amidst Bantu and Ateker communities.
Those who went further a field were the Jo k'Ajok and Jo k'Owiny. The Ajok Luo moved deeper into the Kavirondo Gulf; their descendants are the present-day Jo Kisumo and Jo Karachuonyo amongst others. Jo k'Owiny occupied an area near Got Ramogi or Ramogi hill in Alego of Siaya district. The Owiny's ruins are still identifiable to this day at Bungu Owiny near Lake Kanyaboli.
The other notable Luo group is the Omolo Luo who inhabited Ugenya and Gem areas of Siaya district. The last immigrants were the Jo Kager, who are related to the Omollo Luo. Their leader Ochieng Waljak Ger used his advanced military skill to drive away the Omiya or Bantu groups, who were then living in present-day Ugenya around 1750AD.
-
RV what will you say of rhe below article which says Maasai are Kikuyus
https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/magazine/strange-misunderstood-relationship-1293278?view=htmlamp
Louis Leakey, writing in The Southern Kikuyu before 1903, Kenyatta and the very sound Kikuyu historian Godfrey Muriuki all accept that the Kikuyu originally had a matrilineal society in which descent, identity and inheritance was derived not from the father’s line, but from the mother’s. In addition, women played a prominent role in governance.
Matrilineal societies were most commonly found among farmers, whereas patrilineal societies dominated by male lines were the rule among pastoralists.
The strongest evidence of matrilineality among the early Kikuyu is the traditional belief that they are the descendants of Mumbi (Muumbi) who took a husband, Gikuyu, and produced nine daughters (Wanjiru, Wambui, Njeri, Wanjiku, Nyambura, Wairimu, Waithira, Wangari and Wangui).
Ngai (the Maa term for God) provided nine men as mates for the girls, but their father Gikuyu stipulated that they could only marry if they agreed to live under a matriarchal system.
Though apocryphal, Leakey felt, “It is no doubt significant that in this tradition it was the women who took husbands, and not the men who took wives.
This supports the view — which can be based on many minor customs even in Kikuyu life today — that the tribe was, originally, matrilineal.” The strongest evidence of sustained matrilineal custom was in certain marriage arrangements.
Again in Leakey’s words, “By Kikuyu custom no girl was forced to marry against her will, and every opportunity was given to girls to contract love marriages. Those who failed to do so had two alternatives. They could become the second or third or later wives of men who had already a first or senior wife, or they could contract a matrilineal marriage, live at home, and bear children who would become members of their mother’s clan and family.” No stigma was attached to such a woman bearing children out of wedlock.
However, if the father of a woman who had opted for a matrilineal marriage was wealthy and had serfs (ndungata) attached to his household, and his daughter was agreeable, he could arrange for a serf to “marry” her without making the normal marriage payments.
This man would then be available to beget children and take on all ceremonial marriage responsibilities.
However, any children would take their names from the mother’s family, belong to their mother’s clan and live in the homestead of their mother’s father.
At some point in Kikuyu history, the tribe switched from being matrilineal to patrilineal.
Identity became determined by the father’s line, as was inheritance and governance. It is not clear when this happened.
The neighbouring Akamba, who are linguistically close to the Kikuyu, went through a similar transformation.
If, as their languages suggest, the two peoples had a common origin, did the change from matrilineal to patrilineal societies happen in distant times before they assumed separate identities?
That the matrilineal traces in Akamba society are not as apparent as they are among the Kikuyu, hints they changed at different dates.
Why would they have made the switch? One can only speculate. Perhaps it had something to do with their partial adoption of pastoralism, for while the two communities are primarily cultivating farmers, they both keep considerable numbers of cattle, sheep and goats and are thus at least partly pastoral.
As already pointed out, pastoralism and patriarchy go together and perhaps bringing livestock into their cultures initiated the change.
Where the Kikuyu are concerned, several lines of evidence suggest that the Maasai were in some way involved.
Traditional Kikuyu society was governed by rituals that, if not followed exactly, ensured trouble, not only for those who broke the rules, but for their relatives as well. This strong belief gave everyone reason to make sure one’s relatives conformed to the rules.
However, rather as within Christian Western Europe there were two major schools of religious procedure — Catholic and Protestant — so every Kikuyu followed one of two ceremonial systems for which Leakey used the term “guilds.” One was either of the Gikuyu guild or the Ukabi guild.
This is of particular interest because the term for a Maasai is Mukabi (plural Akabi) and Ukabi implies of the Masai.
This is initially strange given the commonly held view that the Kikuyu and the Maasai were enemies.
Indeed, the term Mukabi in both Kikuyu and Kikamba was commonly used as a synonym for enemy. Yet as is so often the case, common views are often at least partly wrong.
First, were the two people truly enemies? In his book Facing Mount Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta wrote, “To take a concrete case, my grandmother, on my father’s side, was a Maasai woman called Mosana, and in reciprocity for this friendly feeling, my aunt (i.e. elder sister of my father) was married to a Maasai chief called Sendeu, and was treated as the head wife. Exchange visits were made on both sides, and I had the opportunity of visiting her and staying there for some months as a member of the family.”
Leakey records that there were permanent and longstanding agreements between the two tribes in the following words, “In order to conduct trade with the Maasai the Kikuyu made agreements… whereby the women of both groups were never molested when engaged in trade activities, even when the tribes were at war… These agreements were always faithfully observed by both sides.”
Elsewhere he wrote, “Sometimes, especially in times of food shortage and of great drought in Maasai country, Maasai women would hand over their children to the Kikuyu women who had gone trading, in exchange for food. This was not in any sense a question of selling their children as slaves, for these children, if they survived, did not become slaves but fully adopted members of the Kikuyu family, with identical rights to those of the Kikuyu-born children… Blessing by the Maasai mother was essential, as was the approval of the Maasai father. Later, back in Kikuyuland, ceremonies converting the Maasai child into a Kikuyu were performed. Notably, the main ceremony was more complex if the child was being adopted into a Kikuyu [guild] family and more simple if the new parents were of the Ukabi guild.”
Later on the same subject Leakey continued, “If the child’s adopted mother and father belonged to that section of the Kikuyu who were initiated by Ukabi guild rites, then the ceremonies were less complex … Such a child did not have to be changed from a Maasai into a Kikuyu, for those who belonged to the Ukabi guild regarded themselves as sufficiently akin to the Maasai for this to be unnecessary.”
Notably, the children of these cross-tribe adoptions were always girls — boys were not acceptable.
Nevertheless, both Kikuyu and Maasai men did move across the divide.
Writes Leakey, “If a man or a woman dwelt for a time in Maasai country, either voluntarily, as was sometimes the case, or through being taken prisoner, then, either by a ceremony held in Maasai country, or simply by the fact of living there for sometime, he or she had become a Maasai (Muukabi) while at the same time a Kikuyu by birth. If, and when, such a person returned to Kikuyu country again, he or she was thereafter regarded as a member of the Ukabi guild of the Kikuyu people, and would in the future have to observe and adhere to the special rules and customs of that guild…”
While most trade between Kikuyu and Masai was conducted by women under the free passage agreement, some men also traded with considerable freedom — “… three men are famous in the Kikuyu traditional history of the 19th century as successful leaders of trading expeditions.
These men were Karua wa Muthigani, Waithaka wa Mathia, and Gitau wa Gathimba. These men had lived for quite a long time in Maasai country and had made friends with individual Maasai elders in many places.”
When the Kikuyu and Maasai did fight — which was frequently — the battle was conducted according to laid down rules.
Leakey observed, “It was a common and recognised custom that the armies of the Kikuyu and the Maasai made use of trading parties as means of exchanging challenges. The Kikuyu or the Maasai warriors would send a message, for instance, to the effect that they intended to raid in a particular area, or that they planned to come and rescue a prisoner. Or again, they would send offers of or demands for ransom.”
Not all conflicts were bloody and were occasionally resolved when two champions, one from each opposing side, stepped out before the assembled warriors and fought to the death.
The outcome was accepted as determining which side had won.
Perhaps more usually, a Kikuyu raiding party attacking a Maasai settlement, killed all the men, older women and boys, but carried off girls and younger women as prisoners. Yet even in such situations, there were rigid rules to be observed.
On page 1068 of his work, Leakey writes, “It was absolutely taboo for any warrior to rape, seduce or in any way have sexual contact with such girls and women during the raid or on the journey back to Kikuyu country, and any warrior who did so would be severely reprimanded by the others for jeopardising the raid. Moreover, once a man had brought a Maasai girl or woman back to his parents’ home as his prisoner, he had to behave towards her as towards his own sisters, and having sexual contact with her would be counted as incest… The normal procedure after capturing a Maasai girl or young woman was to send messages to the Maasai with the women who went trading asking for a ransom. If the Maasai wished to ransom the girl they would do so, and they could safely come to Kikuyu country to negotiate if they brought murica (tokens of peace) … If no ransom was forthcoming [always a possibility if the men in the girl’s family had died in the raid] the girl prisoner became a member of the Kikuyu family, and when eventually some other Kikuyu wished to marry her and she was willing, her captor received the marriage payments …”
Raiding was integral to both Kikuyu and Maasai cultures (and others in Kenya as well).
Indeed, the term war is in many instances inappropriate and the fighting, with notice in advance of where to expect a raiding party, and the attendant rules and rituals, made it more a brutal form of sport than real war. Seldom, if ever, were all Kikuyu “at war” with all Maasai.
The raiding usually involved a local group from several mbari pitting themselves against a specific section of Maasai.
Kikuyu were as likely to raid other Kikuyu as they were to raid Masai and, vice versa, Maasai to raid other Maasai as they were to raid Kikuyu. Again quoting Kenyatta, “In territories where this friendly relationship was established, especially between the Kaptei [sic — meaning Kaputei] Maasai and the southern Gikuyu, the warriors of the two tribes joined together to invade another section of the Maasai, like Loita or a section of Gikuyu, like Mbeere or Tharaka.”
Periods of peace that might last from one to over 10 years between warring groups were negotiated.
Leakey recording that the friendships that resulted from these peace treaties were so deep that it was not uncommon for parties of Maasai warriors to be invited to spend a whole dancing season in Kikuyu country as guests of the Kikuyu warriors, who would teach them their own dances and allow them the privilege of having Kikuyu girls as “sleeping partners” at night.
These periods of peace between specific groups involved rituals, and the oaths and curses under which they were established and which both believed in, brought calamity on anyone of either group who broke them. In such times, the people of both tribes mixed freely and visited each other’s country.
However, in due course, when one or other of the sides (or both) believed that their interests would best be served by resuming raiding, this was brought about by paying a Kikuyu group who had not taken the oath of peace to attack the other side. Similarly, the Maasai followed the same procedures. Once blood was shed, it was then legitimate for all to resume raiding.
One outcome of the relationship between Kikuyu and Maasai was, in Leakey’s words, that, “… there were plenty of women in Kikuyu country who were more or less bilingual. These Kikuyu women who could speak Maasai were drawn from two groups. Either they were Maasai girls who had married Kikuyu men and who had become Kikuyu in all but origin, but who, of course, spoke both languages, or they were Kikuyu girls who had been made prisoners by the Maasai as children, but who, after several years in Maasai country had either been ransomed or recaptured. These bilingual women were called by the Kikuyu hinga, which means hypocrites or dissemblers because they could appear to belong to either side.”
Yet to capture the relationship between Kikuyu and Maasai, nothing provides a better illustration than the case of “Batian” — one of the most prominent of all 19th century Maasai leaders.
Again, it is best presented in Leakey’s own words, “The Maasai were always particularly keen to make use of Kikuyu medicine men and diviners, and it was due to this that the Kikuyu sub-clan known as Mbari a Gatherimu gradually obtained enormous power over the Kaputei Maasai, some members of this Kikuyu family eventually becoming chiefs of this section of the Maasai tribe. The famous Maasai chief Lenana [Ol Onana] was the son of Mbatia, a Kikuyu. Mbatia was the son of Gathirimu and Lenana was the recognised chief of all the Kaputei Maasai at the time of the coming of the Europeans.”
Leakey used the term “chief” when leader would have been more appropriate as neither Kikuyu nor Masai had chiefs in the strict sense of the word.
Nevertheless, Mbatia wa Gathirimu, known to history as the Maasai leader Batian, was originally a Kikuyu who assumed great prominence when, in the mid-19th century, he induced a coalition of Maasai sects to unite in real civil war against the two most powerful of all Maasai groups, first the Uasin Gishu and then the Laikipiak. Both groups were all but annihilated.
The relationship between Kikuyu and Maasai was not repeated between the Kikuyu and their other neighbours, the Akamba, so it cannot be argued that it was merely the outcome of being neighbours. It seems that it was unique.
They may have raided one another, but much of this was not warfare with intent to displace or annihilate the other.
Their social organisation had many common features. They used the same weapons of war, similar shields, and similar shield designs. Their customs were similar — even to the dislike of eating wild animals. Their management of livestock was essentially the same.
Individuals could move between their respective communities and live in them for extended periods.
Personal friendships were in some cases strong enough to protect individuals from the consequences of raiding and the manner in which women of both sides could trade regardless of whether their communities were at “war” was absolutely unique.
Even if the Maasai might not acknowledge with the same certitude that Ukabi Kikuyu are Maasai, the fact that they exist is strong suggestion that it was Maasai influence that brought about the change from a matrilineal to a patrilineal system among the Kikuyu.
A great difference between the Kikuyu and the Masai was their retention of two different languages.
Were it not for this, and even if not correct, it would be understandable if the Kikuyu were described as agricultural Maasai or the Maasai as pastoral Kikuyu.
Of course, such a view pertains to the Maasai in highland Kenya within reach of Kikuyu influence.
That the two groups have not merged more than they have could reflect that within the vast territory once held by the Maasai nation there will have been Maasai who had no contact with the Kikuyu. They would have been a counterforce to merging.
Be that as it may, what Leakey, Kenyatta and Muriuki have recorded goes a long way towards explaining the ease and scale on which previously pastoral Maasai have been adapting to arable agriculture in modern times.
It gives some understanding also of the ease with which this change has been accompanied by a parallel change from communal to private land tenure. It gives insight into the extent to which Kikuyu and Maasai intermarry at rates not matched between other groups. After all, they have been at it for a very long time.
So, what is the relevance of all this to the Kenya of today?
It is this: Like no two other groups in Kenya, the Kikuyu and the Maasai have a long history of integration.
In the face of human increase, modern technology and Kenya’s “internationalised” modern economy, it is entirely natural that, wherever it is possible, arable farming will expand into areas once only used for pastoralism.
It is equally logical that sedentary cultivation, which is favoured by private land tenure, will gradually displace the communal land tenure that is essential to nomadism of any sort.
We see the process before us: The division of communal range into group ranches, followed by the division of group ranches into private farms and livestock giving way to planted crops.
Ideally it should be a gentle, gradual process, and overall, it has been.
However, here and there strife and displacement have broken out.
A potent element in fomenting this strife is the claim that the Kikuyu have taken advantage of the “marginalised” Maasai.
The term “marginalised,” favoured by Western activists and aid agencies, is difficult to equate with the Maasai, whose tribe is probably still the largest landowner in Kenya. Given their long historical association, conflict between them and the Kikuyu is where it should be least expected.
Take heed of history. Do not buy the myth that the Kikuyu and Maasai were traditional enemies, for history shows that they have had a rare degree of integration.
Take note, proof that it continues around Ngong and in a swathe south of Nairobi is in the number of mixed Maasai/Kikuyu and Kikuyu/Maasai marriages and households in these areas.
Therein, surely, lies the way forward
-
Over-sexed articled.
Yes at least 25% of Maasai have bantu blood; just like 25% of Kikuyus have nilotic blood.
About 50% of Maasai/Kalenjin have 50% cushitic blood.About 25% bantu/others. 25% nilotic.
Maasai was a large nation.
The section of Maasai here are those that lived in Ngong and Kajiado.
Kikuyu tend to conflate Maasai with small neigboruing clans of Maasai around them.
Part of our Clan trace it's history to Maasai.
Our family clan name is Sigilai - from Sigilia maasai.
The Maasai who lived in Nyando valley.
This where Miguna now call home.
Kisumu was central meeting place btw Luos and Kalenjin and Maasai.
Now that is small branch of Maasia.
There were Maasai some few Km of Mombasasa. There were Maasai in Mt Egon. Maasai in Kitale. In Narok. In Laikipia. In Tanzania - Arusha - all over the huge Serengeti - all the way down to Lake Tanganyika.
Maasai were in present day nearly all 14 counties of rift valley, Nairobi, Kiambu, Thika, Nyandarua, Nyeri, Machakos, Makueni, even Meru.
Maasai were living in area nearly 1000 by 1000kms - Mombasa to Malaba - lake Turkana to Lake Tanganyika.
Please try to understand that Maasai occupied nearly all the plains of Kenya and Tanzania.
AND WAS BY FAR LARGEST TRIBE
RV what will you say of rhe below article which says Maasai are Kikuyus
https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/magazine/strange-misunderstood-relationship-1293278?view=htmlamp
Louis Leakey, writing in The Southern Kikuyu before 1903, Kenyatta and the very sound Kikuyu historian Godfrey Muriuki all accept that the Kikuyu originally had a matrilineal society in which descent, identity and inheritance was derived not from the father’s line, but from the mother’s. In addition, women played a prominent role in governance.
Matrilineal societies were most commonly found among farmers, whereas patrilineal societies dominated by male lines were the rule among pastoralists.
The strongest evidence of matrilineality among the early Kikuyu is the traditional belief that they are the descendants of Mumbi (Muumbi) who took a husband, Gikuyu, and produced nine daughters (Wanjiru, Wambui, Njeri, Wanjiku, Nyambura, Wairimu, Waithira, Wangari and Wangui).
Ngai (the Maa term for God) provided nine men as mates for the girls, but their father Gikuyu stipulated that they could only marry if they agreed to live under a matriarchal system.
Though apocryphal, Leakey felt, “It is no doubt significant that in this tradition it was the women who took husbands, and not the men who took wives.
This supports the view — which can be based on many minor customs even in Kikuyu life today — that the tribe was, originally, matrilineal.” The strongest evidence of sustained matrilineal custom was in certain marriage arrangements.
Again in Leakey’s words, “By Kikuyu custom no girl was forced to marry against her will, and every opportunity was given to girls to contract love marriages. Those who failed to do so had two alternatives. They could become the second or third or later wives of men who had already a first or senior wife, or they could contract a matrilineal marriage, live at home, and bear children who would become members of their mother’s clan and family.” No stigma was attached to such a woman bearing children out of wedlock.
However, if the father of a woman who had opted for a matrilineal marriage was wealthy and had serfs (ndungata) attached to his household, and his daughter was agreeable, he could arrange for a serf to “marry” her without making the normal marriage payments.
This man would then be available to beget children and take on all ceremonial marriage responsibilities.
However, any children would take their names from the mother’s family, belong to their mother’s clan and live in the homestead of their mother’s father.
At some point in Kikuyu history, the tribe switched from being matrilineal to patrilineal.
Identity became determined by the father’s line, as was inheritance and governance. It is not clear when this happened.
The neighbouring Akamba, who are linguistically close to the Kikuyu, went through a similar transformation.
If, as their languages suggest, the two peoples had a common origin, did the change from matrilineal to patrilineal societies happen in distant times before they assumed separate identities?
That the matrilineal traces in Akamba society are not as apparent as they are among the Kikuyu, hints they changed at different dates.
Why would they have made the switch? One can only speculate. Perhaps it had something to do with their partial adoption of pastoralism, for while the two communities are primarily cultivating farmers, they both keep considerable numbers of cattle, sheep and goats and are thus at least partly pastoral.
As already pointed out, pastoralism and patriarchy go together and perhaps bringing livestock into their cultures initiated the change.
Where the Kikuyu are concerned, several lines of evidence suggest that the Maasai were in some way involved.
Traditional Kikuyu society was governed by rituals that, if not followed exactly, ensured trouble, not only for those who broke the rules, but for their relatives as well. This strong belief gave everyone reason to make sure one’s relatives conformed to the rules.
However, rather as within Christian Western Europe there were two major schools of religious procedure — Catholic and Protestant — so every Kikuyu followed one of two ceremonial systems for which Leakey used the term “guilds.” One was either of the Gikuyu guild or the Ukabi guild.
This is of particular interest because the term for a Maasai is Mukabi (plural Akabi) and Ukabi implies of the Masai.
This is initially strange given the commonly held view that the Kikuyu and the Maasai were enemies.
Indeed, the term Mukabi in both Kikuyu and Kikamba was commonly used as a synonym for enemy. Yet as is so often the case, common views are often at least partly wrong.
First, were the two people truly enemies? In his book Facing Mount Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta wrote, “To take a concrete case, my grandmother, on my father’s side, was a Maasai woman called Mosana, and in reciprocity for this friendly feeling, my aunt (i.e. elder sister of my father) was married to a Maasai chief called Sendeu, and was treated as the head wife. Exchange visits were made on both sides, and I had the opportunity of visiting her and staying there for some months as a member of the family.”
Leakey records that there were permanent and longstanding agreements between the two tribes in the following words, “In order to conduct trade with the Maasai the Kikuyu made agreements… whereby the women of both groups were never molested when engaged in trade activities, even when the tribes were at war… These agreements were always faithfully observed by both sides.”
Elsewhere he wrote, “Sometimes, especially in times of food shortage and of great drought in Maasai country, Maasai women would hand over their children to the Kikuyu women who had gone trading, in exchange for food. This was not in any sense a question of selling their children as slaves, for these children, if they survived, did not become slaves but fully adopted members of the Kikuyu family, with identical rights to those of the Kikuyu-born children… Blessing by the Maasai mother was essential, as was the approval of the Maasai father. Later, back in Kikuyuland, ceremonies converting the Maasai child into a Kikuyu were performed. Notably, the main ceremony was more complex if the child was being adopted into a Kikuyu [guild] family and more simple if the new parents were of the Ukabi guild.”
Later on the same subject Leakey continued, “If the child’s adopted mother and father belonged to that section of the Kikuyu who were initiated by Ukabi guild rites, then the ceremonies were less complex … Such a child did not have to be changed from a Maasai into a Kikuyu, for those who belonged to the Ukabi guild regarded themselves as sufficiently akin to the Maasai for this to be unnecessary.”
Notably, the children of these cross-tribe adoptions were always girls — boys were not acceptable.
Nevertheless, both Kikuyu and Maasai men did move across the divide.
Writes Leakey, “If a man or a woman dwelt for a time in Maasai country, either voluntarily, as was sometimes the case, or through being taken prisoner, then, either by a ceremony held in Maasai country, or simply by the fact of living there for sometime, he or she had become a Maasai (Muukabi) while at the same time a Kikuyu by birth. If, and when, such a person returned to Kikuyu country again, he or she was thereafter regarded as a member of the Ukabi guild of the Kikuyu people, and would in the future have to observe and adhere to the special rules and customs of that guild…”
While most trade between Kikuyu and Masai was conducted by women under the free passage agreement, some men also traded with considerable freedom — “… three men are famous in the Kikuyu traditional history of the 19th century as successful leaders of trading expeditions.
These men were Karua wa Muthigani, Waithaka wa Mathia, and Gitau wa Gathimba. These men had lived for quite a long time in Maasai country and had made friends with individual Maasai elders in many places.”
When the Kikuyu and Maasai did fight — which was frequently — the battle was conducted according to laid down rules.
Leakey observed, “It was a common and recognised custom that the armies of the Kikuyu and the Maasai made use of trading parties as means of exchanging challenges. The Kikuyu or the Maasai warriors would send a message, for instance, to the effect that they intended to raid in a particular area, or that they planned to come and rescue a prisoner. Or again, they would send offers of or demands for ransom.”
Not all conflicts were bloody and were occasionally resolved when two champions, one from each opposing side, stepped out before the assembled warriors and fought to the death.
The outcome was accepted as determining which side had won.
Perhaps more usually, a Kikuyu raiding party attacking a Maasai settlement, killed all the men, older women and boys, but carried off girls and younger women as prisoners. Yet even in such situations, there were rigid rules to be observed.
On page 1068 of his work, Leakey writes, “It was absolutely taboo for any warrior to rape, seduce or in any way have sexual contact with such girls and women during the raid or on the journey back to Kikuyu country, and any warrior who did so would be severely reprimanded by the others for jeopardising the raid. Moreover, once a man had brought a Maasai girl or woman back to his parents’ home as his prisoner, he had to behave towards her as towards his own sisters, and having sexual contact with her would be counted as incest… The normal procedure after capturing a Maasai girl or young woman was to send messages to the Maasai with the women who went trading asking for a ransom. If the Maasai wished to ransom the girl they would do so, and they could safely come to Kikuyu country to negotiate if they brought murica (tokens of peace) … If no ransom was forthcoming [always a possibility if the men in the girl’s family had died in the raid] the girl prisoner became a member of the Kikuyu family, and when eventually some other Kikuyu wished to marry her and she was willing, her captor received the marriage payments …”
Raiding was integral to both Kikuyu and Maasai cultures (and others in Kenya as well).
Indeed, the term war is in many instances inappropriate and the fighting, with notice in advance of where to expect a raiding party, and the attendant rules and rituals, made it more a brutal form of sport than real war. Seldom, if ever, were all Kikuyu “at war” with all Maasai.
The raiding usually involved a local group from several mbari pitting themselves against a specific section of Maasai.
Kikuyu were as likely to raid other Kikuyu as they were to raid Masai and, vice versa, Maasai to raid other Maasai as they were to raid Kikuyu. Again quoting Kenyatta, “In territories where this friendly relationship was established, especially between the Kaptei [sic — meaning Kaputei] Maasai and the southern Gikuyu, the warriors of the two tribes joined together to invade another section of the Maasai, like Loita or a section of Gikuyu, like Mbeere or Tharaka.”
Periods of peace that might last from one to over 10 years between warring groups were negotiated.
Leakey recording that the friendships that resulted from these peace treaties were so deep that it was not uncommon for parties of Maasai warriors to be invited to spend a whole dancing season in Kikuyu country as guests of the Kikuyu warriors, who would teach them their own dances and allow them the privilege of having Kikuyu girls as “sleeping partners” at night.
These periods of peace between specific groups involved rituals, and the oaths and curses under which they were established and which both believed in, brought calamity on anyone of either group who broke them. In such times, the people of both tribes mixed freely and visited each other’s country.
However, in due course, when one or other of the sides (or both) believed that their interests would best be served by resuming raiding, this was brought about by paying a Kikuyu group who had not taken the oath of peace to attack the other side. Similarly, the Maasai followed the same procedures. Once blood was shed, it was then legitimate for all to resume raiding.
One outcome of the relationship between Kikuyu and Maasai was, in Leakey’s words, that, “… there were plenty of women in Kikuyu country who were more or less bilingual. These Kikuyu women who could speak Maasai were drawn from two groups. Either they were Maasai girls who had married Kikuyu men and who had become Kikuyu in all but origin, but who, of course, spoke both languages, or they were Kikuyu girls who had been made prisoners by the Maasai as children, but who, after several years in Maasai country had either been ransomed or recaptured. These bilingual women were called by the Kikuyu hinga, which means hypocrites or dissemblers because they could appear to belong to either side.”
Yet to capture the relationship between Kikuyu and Maasai, nothing provides a better illustration than the case of “Batian” — one of the most prominent of all 19th century Maasai leaders.
Again, it is best presented in Leakey’s own words, “The Maasai were always particularly keen to make use of Kikuyu medicine men and diviners, and it was due to this that the Kikuyu sub-clan known as Mbari a Gatherimu gradually obtained enormous power over the Kaputei Maasai, some members of this Kikuyu family eventually becoming chiefs of this section of the Maasai tribe. The famous Maasai chief Lenana [Ol Onana] was the son of Mbatia, a Kikuyu. Mbatia was the son of Gathirimu and Lenana was the recognised chief of all the Kaputei Maasai at the time of the coming of the Europeans.”
Leakey used the term “chief” when leader would have been more appropriate as neither Kikuyu nor Masai had chiefs in the strict sense of the word.
Nevertheless, Mbatia wa Gathirimu, known to history as the Maasai leader Batian, was originally a Kikuyu who assumed great prominence when, in the mid-19th century, he induced a coalition of Maasai sects to unite in real civil war against the two most powerful of all Maasai groups, first the Uasin Gishu and then the Laikipiak. Both groups were all but annihilated.
The relationship between Kikuyu and Maasai was not repeated between the Kikuyu and their other neighbours, the Akamba, so it cannot be argued that it was merely the outcome of being neighbours. It seems that it was unique.
They may have raided one another, but much of this was not warfare with intent to displace or annihilate the other.
Their social organisation had many common features. They used the same weapons of war, similar shields, and similar shield designs. Their customs were similar — even to the dislike of eating wild animals. Their management of livestock was essentially the same.
Individuals could move between their respective communities and live in them for extended periods.
Personal friendships were in some cases strong enough to protect individuals from the consequences of raiding and the manner in which women of both sides could trade regardless of whether their communities were at “war” was absolutely unique.
Even if the Maasai might not acknowledge with the same certitude that Ukabi Kikuyu are Maasai, the fact that they exist is strong suggestion that it was Maasai influence that brought about the change from a matrilineal to a patrilineal system among the Kikuyu.
A great difference between the Kikuyu and the Masai was their retention of two different languages.
Were it not for this, and even if not correct, it would be understandable if the Kikuyu were described as agricultural Maasai or the Maasai as pastoral Kikuyu.
Of course, such a view pertains to the Maasai in highland Kenya within reach of Kikuyu influence.
That the two groups have not merged more than they have could reflect that within the vast territory once held by the Maasai nation there will have been Maasai who had no contact with the Kikuyu. They would have been a counterforce to merging.
Be that as it may, what Leakey, Kenyatta and Muriuki have recorded goes a long way towards explaining the ease and scale on which previously pastoral Maasai have been adapting to arable agriculture in modern times.
It gives some understanding also of the ease with which this change has been accompanied by a parallel change from communal to private land tenure. It gives insight into the extent to which Kikuyu and Maasai intermarry at rates not matched between other groups. After all, they have been at it for a very long time.
So, what is the relevance of all this to the Kenya of today?
It is this: Like no two other groups in Kenya, the Kikuyu and the Maasai have a long history of integration.
In the face of human increase, modern technology and Kenya’s “internationalised” modern economy, it is entirely natural that, wherever it is possible, arable farming will expand into areas once only used for pastoralism.
It is equally logical that sedentary cultivation, which is favoured by private land tenure, will gradually displace the communal land tenure that is essential to nomadism of any sort.
We see the process before us: The division of communal range into group ranches, followed by the division of group ranches into private farms and livestock giving way to planted crops.
Ideally it should be a gentle, gradual process, and overall, it has been.
However, here and there strife and displacement have broken out.
A potent element in fomenting this strife is the claim that the Kikuyu have taken advantage of the “marginalised” Maasai.
The term “marginalised,” favoured by Western activists and aid agencies, is difficult to equate with the Maasai, whose tribe is probably still the largest landowner in Kenya. Given their long historical association, conflict between them and the Kikuyu is where it should be least expected.
Take heed of history. Do not buy the myth that the Kikuyu and Maasai were traditional enemies, for history shows that they have had a rare degree of integration.
Take note, proof that it continues around Ngong and in a swathe south of Nairobi is in the number of mixed Maasai/Kikuyu and Kikuyu/Maasai marriages and households in these areas.
Therein, surely, lies the way forward
-
What remain now of huge maasai land is this. On average they still have more fertile land than any tribe but before this - they basically owned Kenya/TZ. Other communities were hidding in forests and mountains. Maasai without their civil war could have resisted the British easily. No tribe could stand the maasai...because they could assemble 10,000 warriors in one raid..which was a spectacle during those days.
Only the Zulus could - and Ongoni breakway did stop Maasai advancing south - by defeating them in Lake Tanganyika.
Zulus/Ongoni were also advancing north.
Both zulus and Maasai were incredibly rich - with large land holding and thousands of cattle.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/MAASAI_MAP.PNG)
-
I have Maa blood, so am good. We wuz kangz n shit!