If Kalenjin win Nakuru and Narok - in near future - nearly 1/4

[Nowayhaha]

They Nandi also laid claim to Uasin Gishu having just beaten the Maasai there - but uasin gishu was really no man lands btw maasai, keiyos and nandis.
It was nearly empty pasture land - where you cattle would be stolen anytime.

You see RV , this is a good point you put out. Much of the land in Kenya was no Mans land .  The  Maasai used to be pastoralist  and nomads .Further  Kikuyus Kamba and Maasai used to raid each other . Thats how Kikuyu assimilated the doruba  and Kamba were able to acquire Makueni .
If Nandi can claim Uasin Ngishu which is a Known Maasai land , what is wrong with Kikuyu claiming Nakuru which actually prior to settlers it was not  inhabited .
You are one of the first people to say Nairobi was Maasai land and colonialist came and found Waiyaki wa Hinga already having his village there in Dagoretti . Why the double standards ?

[RV Pundit]

You have to understand things.
Why did the Maasai easily hand over their land.
Brits had been in Mombasa and Zanzibar for 100yrs - circling - but Maasai were fearsome and strong.
When Maasai started civil war - they became so weak - other tribes started beating them.
Before that Maasai were unbeatable. Not by anyone. Even the British feared. The Arab Slave traders told them as much.

Maasai were like the Vikings. Tribes - from luhyas, luo, kalenjin, kikuyu, somalis, kambas, would steal Maasa kids just to  Artificially Inseminate their bravery on them.

The Maasai were not a small tribe - they were popolous - and would raise as much as 10,000 troops (warriors) at one go. That was a spectacle then - and would basically overrun anybody. You could be strong - but 10,000 troops was about many of current tribes population.

Only the Ogoni - Zulu breakway - did stop the Maasai - otherwise Maasai march from South Sudan was the most momentous historical event in East Africa.

But btw 1850 - 1900 - Maasai were fast loosing territory amidst their civil war, rinderpest (from Asia through Eritrea) and name it.

So Maasai basically handed over territories they were losing or about to lose.

In Meru and Nyeri - Mt Kenya - they were starting to lose Timau and Mt Kenya.
In kiambu - they were losing
In Uasing gishu and Tranzoia - they were losing to Nandis and Pokots - and Keiyos.
In Nakuru they were losing to Kipsigis (not kikuyus) and Tugens.
In Nyando valley - they had lost to Luos and Kipsigis.

please don't twist history.

Their territory before then extended nearly all the provinces

You see RV , this is a good point you put out. Much of the land in Kenya was no Mans land .  The  Maasai used to be pastoralist  and nomads .Further  Kikuyus Kamba and Maasai used to raid each other . Thats how Kikuyu assimilated the doruba  and Kamba were able to acquire Makueni .
If Nandi can claim Uasin Ngishu which is a Known Maasai land , what is wrong with Kikuyu claiming Nakuru which actually prior to settlers it was not  inhabited .
You are one of the first people to say Nairobi was Maasai land and colonialist came and found Waiyaki wa Hinga already having his village there in Dagoretti . Why the double standards ?

[Nowayhaha]

You have to understand things.
Why did the Maasai easily hand over their land.

This was because after the construction of the Ugandan Railway they were no longer useful to the colonial administration . Maasai and  Colonial administration had  a symbiotic relationship where Maasai offered corridors for communication during the construction and colonial government would aid Maasai in raids to restock their cattle which had been lost by rinderpest imported from Crimea

Brits had been in Mombasa and Zanzibar for 100yrs - circling - but Maasai were fearsome and strong.

The whites had explored the hinterland , however with the construction of the Ugandan Railway  , they wanted a return in the investment hence they encouraged white settlers which lead in the displacement of the locals including Maasai

When Maasai started civil war - they became so weak - other tribes started beating them.
Before that Maasai were unbeatable. Not by anyone. Even the British feared. The Arab Slave traders told them as much.

Maasai were like the Vikings. Tribes - from luhyas, luo, kalenjin, kikuyu, somalis, kambas, would steal Maasa kids just to  Artificially Inseminate their bravery on them.

The Maasai were not a small tribe - they were popolous - and would raise as much as 10,000 troops (warriors) at one go. That was a spectacle then - and would basically overrun anybody. You could be strong - but 10,000 troops was about many of current tribes population.

Only the Ogoni - Zulu breakway - did stop the Maasai - otherwise Maasai march from South Sudan was the most momentous historical event in East Africa.

But btw 1850 - 1900 - Maasai were fast loosing territory amidst their civil war, rinderpest (from Asia through Eritrea) and name it.

Everyone knows Maasais history ....

So Maasai basically handed over territories they were losing or about to lose.

In Meru and Nyeri - Mt Kenya - they were starting to lose Timau and Mt Kenya.
In kiambu - they were losing
In Uasing gishu and Tranzoia - they were losing to Nandis and Pokots - and Keiyos.
In Nakuru they were losing to Kipsigis (not kikuyus) and Tugens.
In Nyando valley - they had lost to Luos and Kipsigis.

please don't twist history.

Their territory before then extended nearly all the provinces

One thing you alluded to earlier was that vast majority of land was no mans land .Secondly Maasai were pastoral nomads meaning they didnt have a fixed habitation and would move from one area to another in search of pasture. Unlike Bantus who practiced farming and settled in the places they farmed and in so absorbed or displaced the pastoralists
If you dig further you will realize this one of the reason the Colonialists had close ties with the Maasai unlike Bantus in General , because Bantus was in direct competition with them . There are several factors which were advantageous to Bantu and made them expand .One of them being Farming . You will notice when Kalenjin switched to farming they had a population boom .
Bottom line is as stated before the white highlands were crafted by displacing locals, either sending them to reserves and or signing treaties to give way , and the vast unused land be it forests bushes or idle land .When the settlers left and were selling the land on a free buyer free seller   Kalenjin (its evident from your thinking) started saying its their ancestral land because the same colonialist had created provinces without any rational basis other than safeguarding their interests .

You see RV , this is a good point you put out. Much of the land in Kenya was no Mans land .  The  Maasai used to be pastoralist  and nomads .Further  Kikuyus Kamba and Maasai used to raid each other . Thats how Kikuyu assimilated the doruba  and Kamba were able to acquire Makueni .
If Nandi can claim Uasin Ngishu which is a Known Maasai land , what is wrong with Kikuyu claiming Nakuru which actually prior to settlers it was not  inhabited .
You are one of the first people to say Nairobi was Maasai land and colonialist came and found Waiyaki wa Hinga already having his village there in Dagoretti . Why the double standards ?

[/quote]

[RV Pundit]

You're still spinning.Brits came to Kenya because maasai started weaking around 1850..long before Railways.Maasai by around 1870 was fast losing territory.Brits were long in coast fighting slave trade..creatimg Rabai and free town of freed slaves.gain you don't understand nomadism.Maasai didnt move completely.. and maasai territory was well known.Bantu territory in Kenya remain very tiny...even after jomo Kenyatta landgrab..there was no basis for willing buyer seller when the land had original dwellers.Why was other tribe not allowed opportunity to buy kiambu.This was a land grab pure and simple..by Kenyatta who had inherited colonial power.This is very common knowledge in rv and coast coz it's recent history..100yrs

[Nowayhaha]

You're still spinning.Brits came to Kenya because maasai started weaking around 1850..long before Railways.Maasai by around 1870 was fast losing territory.Brits were long in coast fighting slave trade..creatimg Rabai and free town of freed slaves.gain you don't understand nomadism.Maasai didnt move completely.. and maasai territory was well known.Bantu territory in Kenya remain very tiny...even after jomo Kenyatta landgrab..there was no basis for willing buyer seller when the land had original dwellers.Why was other tribe not allowed opportunity to buy kiambu.This was a land grab pure and simple..by Kenyatta who had inherited colonial power.This is very common knowledge in rv and coast coz it's recent history..100yrs

I have a question to you , whats you opinion on what is happening in MAU  and the clashes in Narok  ?

[Njuri Ncheke]

They Nandi also laid claim to Uasin Gishu having just beaten the Maasai there - but uasin gishu was really no man lands btw maasai, keiyos and nandis.
It was nearly empty pasture land - where you cattle would be stolen anytime.

You see RV , this is a good point you put out. Much of the land in Kenya was no Mans land .  The  Maasai used to be pastoralist  and nomads .Further  Kikuyus Kamba and Maasai used to raid each other . Thats how Kikuyu assimilated the doruba  and Kamba were able to acquire Makueni .
If Nandi can claim Uasin Ngishu which is a Known Maasai land , what is wrong with Kikuyu claiming Nakuru which actually prior to settlers it was not  inhabited .
You are one of the first people to say Nairobi was Maasai land and colonialist came and found Waiyaki wa Hinga already having his village there in Dagoretti . Why the double standards ?

You are driving pundit to a melt down, but honestly he is telling almost the whole truth, problem with him is that he gets so ingrained in his truth and forgets other factors, like the point you raise that most of the white highlands were no man land. This is now the whole truth, but pundit attributes most of these lands to masaai occupation and over hypes masaai domination, i would think pund has some masai blood he likes repeating and resuscitation of this fact. No one refuses masaai were most dreaded in Kenya. But its laughable and idiotic to say they kept the british at the coast from fear of going inland, wah he took stale mursik on this. Another honestly silly comment is that the nandi werw the only tribe forced to pay mzungu for war, this is dumb almost all kabilas that fought mzungu were made to pay even kisii, embu, its well documented. In all white highlands were 60% no mans land then 30% Masaai land then 10% other kabilas

[RV Pundit]

Mau forest boundaries should be fenced. Mau is complicated because Ogiek/Dorobo calls it home. The Mau Narok that Kipsigis occupied were basically owned by Ogiek. I live next to Mau forest - and these evictions are not first or last - as a Kid I remember people would move to Mau - many use to sleep in our place - in kalenjin you have to welcome a foreigner - they would stop and then plot their way to Mau - forest - to go settle in Tinet etc. My father eventually had a food store reserved for such kinds. A few months later they would troop back. Their house burnt. When they cross over - they become Ogiek - Ogiek speak either kalenjin or maasai.

Now in mid 90s - Moi got tired chasing and burning their house - gov decided to settle them with funding from WB -

Long story short - Fence the forest like was done in Aberderes/Mt Kenya - The current fake Ogiek will get land - sell it - and head to the forest - and clear it.

I have a question to you , whats you opinion on what is happening in MAU  and the clashes in Narok  ?

[RV Pundit]

Here come the Mountain warrior farmer with his limited history.

You have a problem with either history or the truth.

Arabs were in Mombasa by 10th century. They would run their slave trade except in territories occupied by Maasai.The Portugues were in Coast by 15th century - they had basically colonized Mozambique and Angola by then. The dutch had colonized South Africa. British were all over Ghana and Nigeria from 15th century. The British were all over Africa in 17th century - working to stop slave trader. I think they had long colonized Zanzibar/Mombasa - stopped the slave trade - and were settling freed slaves. But they dreaded the interior...thanks to Maasai reputation.

This was long before the 19th century - 1880 Berlin conference official partioning of Africa. Maasai were feared by almost all tribe. Definitely the Arab slave traders even with their guns could never dare Maasai. Infact they live in fear of Maasai attacking Mombasa. The same fear of Maasai was spread far and wide.In fact when first Mzungu crossed Maasai land and documented it - it became a best seller in modern world - Europe/US.

When it come to war repartartion. Many tribes were fined in cattle and such. Maybe a few were told to give up little piece of land for establishing of gov office..maybe 100 acres. Nandi war was something - and they were fined heavily - not only in thousands of cattle but in almost them secede from all their land.

Some facts are stubborn. My friend Maasai occupied land from Lake Turkana to Lake Tanganyika. From some 50kms from Mombasa to Uganda border. Show me a tribe in East Africa with even 1/4 of their land.

Most of kenya tribes especially the bantus would send their women to be fertilized by Maas so they could get Maasai blood. That is why the current Kikuyu or meru is closer to Dinka or Maasai  (half nilotic) while the current Luo is closer to Bantu Luhya. Maybe the Bantus you'll get that are genuine are the Mijikenda.

Many like in Luhya would hire Maasai mercenaries to fight for them.

If the British struggled against Nandis - don't think they would have defeated Maasai at their prime.

You are driving pundit to a melt down, but honestly he is telling almost the whole truth, problem with him is that he gets so ingrained in his truth and forgets other factors, like the point you raise that most of the white highlands were no man land. This is now the whole truth, but pundit attributes most of these lands to masaai occupation and over hypes masaai domination, i would think pund has some masai blood he likes repeating and resuscitation of this fact. No one refuses masaai were most dreaded in Kenya. But its laughable and idiotic to say they kept the british at the coast from fear of going inland, wah he took stale mursik on this. Another honestly silly comment is that the nandi werw the only tribe forced to pay mzungu for war, this is dumb almost all kabilas that fought mzungu were made to pay even kisii, embu, its well documented. In all white highlands were 60% no mans land then 30% Masaai land then 10% other kabilas

[Kadudu]

Totally wrong. Then Turkana and most parts of NFD are "no man's land". That expression was used by European settlers to occupy other continents. How can land that nomads use even once in a year be no man's land? Europeans were farmers and beleaved only their way of living is the right one. Communal land was a strange phenomena to them.
I agree with Pundit and history points to it, most of the land in RV was in the hands of the Maasai.
Also the slave traders never penetrated into East Africa for fear of the Maasai. This is a known fact and till today the Maasai have their place in the minds of Europeans as being a fearless people.

You are driving pundit to a melt down, but honestly he is telling almost the whole truth, problem with him is that he gets so ingrained in his truth and forgets other factors, like the point you raise that most of the white highlands were no man land. This is now the whole truth, but pundit attributes most of these lands to masaai occupation and over hypes masaai domination, i would think pund has some masai blood he likes repeating and resuscitation of this fact. No one refuses masaai were most dreaded in Kenya. But its laughable and idiotic to say they kept the british at the coast from fear of going inland, wah he took stale mursik on this. Another honestly silly comment is that the nandi werw the only tribe forced to pay mzungu for war, this is dumb almost all kabilas that fought mzungu were made to pay even kisii, embu, its well documented. In all white highlands were 60% no mans land then 30% Masaai land then 10% other kabilas

[Nowayhaha]

You're still spinning.Brits came to Kenya because maasai started weaking around 1850..long before Railways.Maasai by around 1870 was fast losing territory.Brits were long in coast fighting slave trade..creatimg Rabai and free town of freed slaves.gain you don't

The Brits expansion to Kenya was through the construction of the Uganda Railway necessitated by fear of losing Uganda to Germany. The railway would be used to replenish their supplies and transport soldiers . The Brits feared if Germans were to get hold of lake Victoria as it was the source of River Nile it would have an impact to Egypts Suez canal which was their gateway  to Asia  . Upon construction of the Railway it was now easier for the m to Govern and concurrently they wanted a return on their investment , hence they promoted settlers to relocate to Kenya.

understand nomadism.Maasai didnt move completely.. and maasai territory was well known.Bantu territory in Kenya remain very tiny...even after jomo Kenyatta landgrab..there was no basis for willing buyer seller when the land had original dwellers.Why was other tribe not allowed opportunity to buy kiambu.This was a land grab pure and simple..by Kenyatta who had inherited colonial power.This is very common knowledge in rv and coast coz it's recent history..100yrs

I asked your opinion on the clashes in Narok pitting Kalenjins and Maasai and you skirted around it .Wish you would have elaborated as you have done on other posts in this thread .
In regards to your question in Kiambu . One of the reason why Colonialists established provinces and crafted they way they were was simply because there was a population boom in Kiambu and they knew it was a future problem   . See the earlier settlers leased the land they had acquired to the locals(minus the reserve lands )  , secondly they compensated local labour with small pieces of land and majority of the locals became squatters . By the time independence was knocking the door there were almost 300000 people in Kiambu  , simply saying it would not be viable to subdivide the land again .

[RV Pundit]

Nowayaha, you don't know history.Berlin conference settled the European dispute.It won't be until WWW 1 in 1911 that issues would arise.The British built the railway long after taking over Kenya and Uganda.They had long taken over Zanzibar which included Mombasa.They feared the interior thanks to Maasai.In fact they sneaked in and colonized Uganda first.As regards boundaries you're repeating nonsense you heard.Mzungu hired prof of survey from UK and a commission that went round the country.Kenyans wanted their tribal borders to be their district and related or friendly tribes wanted their provinces.Kiambu was white settler..kiambu itself was claimed by maasai and dorobo..part of it..the rest of kikuyu land didn't lose any land contrary to well known propaganda.Thry were given land by mzungu at edges of white highlands in exchange for labour.They were declared redundant with mechanization...thus begin this land myth.

[RV Pundit]

Totally wrong. Then Turkana and most parts of NFD are "no man's land". That expression was used by European settlers to occupy other continents. How can land that nomads use even once in a year be no man's land? Europeans were farmers and beleaved only their way of living is the right one. Communal land was a strange phenomena to them.
I agree with Pundit and history points to it, most of the land in RV was in the hands of the Maasai.
Also the slave traders never penetrated into East Africa for fear of the Maasai. This is a known fact and till today the Maasai have their place in the minds of Europeans as being a fearless people.

You are driving pundit to a melt down, but honestly he is telling almost the whole truth, problem with him is that he gets so ingrained in his truth and forgets other factors, like the point you raise that most of the white highlands were no man land. This is now the whole truth, but pundit attributes most of these lands to masaai occupation and over hypes masaai domination, i would think pund has some masai blood he likes repeating and resuscitation of this fact. No one refuses masaai were most dreaded in Kenya. But its laughable and idiotic to say they kept the british at the coast from fear of going inland, wah he took stale mursik on this. Another honestly silly comment is that the nandi werw the only tribe forced to pay mzungu for war, this is dumb almost all kabilas that fought mzungu were made to pay even kisii, embu, its well documented. In all white highlands were 60% no mans land then 30% Masaai land then 10% other kabilas

precisely

[Nowayhaha]

Nowayaha, you don't know history.Berlin conference settled the European dispute.It won't be until WWW 1 in 1911 that issues would arise.The British built the railway long after taking over Kenya and Uganda.They had long taken over Zanzibar which included Mombasa.They feared the interior thanks to Maasai.In fact they sneaked in and colonized Uganda first.As regards boundaries you're repeating nonsense you heard.Mzungu hired prof of survey from UK and a commission that went round the country.Kenyans wanted their tribal borders to be their district and related or friendly tribes wanted their provinces.Kiambu was white settler..kiambu itself was claimed by maasai and dorobo..part of it..the rest of kikuyu land didn't lose any land contrary to well known propaganda.Thry were given land by mzungu at edges of white highlands in exchange for labour.They were declared redundant with mechanization...thus begin this land myth.

https://www.tesocollegealoet.sc.ug/news/the-kenya%E2%88%92uganda-railways-wild-journey-to-completion-2/

Charles Miller called it “The Lunatic Express” in his 1971 book by the same name on the history of the Kenya–Uganda railway, and the term has since entered the public imagination.

The British came up with the plan to build “the iron snake” in the 1890s to take control of Lake Victoria, the source of the Nile River. Miller wrote, “Whatever power dominates Uganda masters the Nile, the master of the Nile rules Egypt, the ruler of Egypt holds the Suez Canal.” Once they had control of the Suez Canal, the British would control trade between Europe and the rest of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people_in_Kenya

Although the first Land Regulations Act was passed in 1897, few Europeans settled in the country before completion of the Uganda railway. In 1902, Sir Charles Eliot, then-British Commissioner of the Protectorate, initiated a policy of settling European colonists in what would become the White Highlands region. Eliot's vision for the Protectorate was to turn the Highlands into a settlers' frontier, perceiving the region to be admirably suited for a white man's country.[5] The Crown Lands Ordinance was thus passed, allowing for Crown Land to be granted either freehold or leasehold for 99 years. Eliot believed the only way to improve the local economy and ensure the profitability of the Uganda railway, was to encourage European settlement and endeavour in hitherto large areas of uncultivated fertile land

The White Highlands

[RV Pundit]

You're googling as you go. British were in Mombasa by 1840s. The first church in Kenya was established in Rabai in 1840s. The British were all over coast during that period. Mombasa was the Capital of Kenya long before it became Machakos and then later Nairobi. British despite being in Kenya coast dared not enter Maasai territory - or the hinterland until late when Maasai power diminished.

Nowayaha, you don't know history.Berlin conference settled the European dispute.It won't be until WWW 1 in 1911 that issues would arise.The British built the railway long after taking over Kenya and Uganda.They had long taken over Zanzibar which included Mombasa.They feared the interior thanks to Maasai.In fact they sneaked in and colonized Uganda first.As regards boundaries you're repeating nonsense you heard.Mzungu hired prof of survey from UK and a commission that went round the country.Kenyans wanted their tribal borders to be their district and related or friendly tribes wanted their provinces.Kiambu was white settler..kiambu itself was claimed by maasai and dorobo..part of it..the rest of kikuyu land didn't lose any land contrary to well known propaganda.Thry were given land by mzungu at edges of white highlands in exchange for labour.They were declared redundant with mechanization...thus begin this land myth.

https://www.tesocollegealoet.sc.ug/news/the-kenya%E2%88%92uganda-railways-wild-journey-to-completion-2/

Charles Miller called it “The Lunatic Express” in his 1971 book by the same name on the history of the Kenya–Uganda railway, and the term has since entered the public imagination.

The British came up with the plan to build “the iron snake” in the 1890s to take control of Lake Victoria, the source of the Nile River. Miller wrote, “Whatever power dominates Uganda masters the Nile, the master of the Nile rules Egypt, the ruler of Egypt holds the Suez Canal.” Once they had control of the Suez Canal, the British would control trade between Europe and the rest of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people_in_Kenya

Although the first Land Regulations Act was passed in 1897, few Europeans settled in the country before completion of the Uganda railway. In 1902, Sir Charles Eliot, then-British Commissioner of the Protectorate, initiated a policy of settling European colonists in what would become the White Highlands region. Eliot's vision for the Protectorate was to turn the Highlands into a settlers' frontier, perceiving the region to be admirably suited for a white man's country.[5] The Crown Lands Ordinance was thus passed, allowing for Crown Land to be granted either freehold or leasehold for 99 years. Eliot believed the only way to improve the local economy and ensure the profitability of the Uganda railway, was to encourage European settlement and endeavour in hitherto large areas of uncultivated fertile land

[Nowayhaha]

You're googling as you go.

Referencing what I pointed out . Unlike you who is mixing History and your own facts . I you could just stick to history verbatim wise without mixing with opinion or trying to justify or drive a  theory

[Njuri Ncheke]

You're googling as you go.

Referencing what I pointed out . Unlike you who is mixing History and your own facts . I you could just stick to history verbatim wise without mixing with opinion or trying to justify or drive a  theory

You have knocked out pundit so many times but he doesn't want to throw in the towel. well put pundit suffers from a disorder of mixing facts with his own lofty wishes in his head.

[Nefertiti]

This pointless debate. Maa and Nandi were supreme in stone age - when spear and arrow ruled. Maa were mzungu resistors, then collaborators hired as mercenaries against Nandi. Maa occupied vastness of "Lake Turkana to  Lake Tanganyika" by brutality and genocide of Bantus, Luos, etc. Lenana treaty sequestered them to Kajiado, Narok, Laikipia. So you can argue that the White Highlands belonged to Maa - then change color like a chameleon and claim Jomo "grabbed" the land in RV and Lamu. Why is the Maa displacement of others legitimate and not Kikuyu's via Jomo? No tribe dropped from the sky into their territory. At least Jomo did not use spears and arrows to displace Kalenjin and Maa. Land should be taken from NOW - and noone "owned" the land 100 years back when there were no title deeds. That's why I call the Kalenjin violence against Kikuyu or Gusii savagery. Today Maa are still walking around town with cows dressed in blanket - and Ntimama or Ledama spew some nonsense about their ancestral land. Nandi and Kipsisgis are multiplying like roaches - way behind Kikuyu fertility curve - and they want to blame mzungu or Jomo for their poverty. Land grievances are principally a failure to adapt to modernity.

I never see Kikuyu crying poor Gusii in Kiambu are land grabbers. Kalenjin hate Kikuyu for the same reason Kikuyu hate Somali - jealousy and being outshone by all metrics.

[RV Pundit]

I agree with you principally. Kikuyu paid for the land through MauMau.So they deserve that land. But like you admit savagery is savagery. You cannot codemn Maasai savegry and praise Kenyatta landgrab or codemn Kalenjin savagery. What Kenyatta did is wrong. What Kalenjin do in tribal clashes is wrong. What Maasai did those days was "probably" wrong.

Now what is right?

Anyway I agree with your conclusion. At end of the day - all land grab from Maasai, European, Kikuyu and Kalenjin is just the primitive apetite for land as source of livelihood. Once urbanization kicks in - that primitive land grab will cease.

Kalenjin especially if they don't copy Luos and Luhyas - and send their kids to urban areas to work in industries and mjengo - will soon cause very big war in rift valley that may take down kenya.

The same is true with Maasai.

This pointless debate. Maa and Nandi were supreme in stone age - when spear and arrow ruled. Maa were mzungu resistors, then collaborators hired as mercenaries against Nandi. Maa occupied vastness of "Lake Turkana to  Lake Tanganyika" by brutality and genocide of Bantus, Luos, etc. Lenana treaty sequestered them to Kajiado, Narok, Laikipia. So you can argue that the White Highlands belonged to Maa - then change color like a chameleon and claim Jomo "grabbed" the land in RV and Lamu. Why is the Maa displacement of others legitimate and not Kikuyu's via Jomo? No tribe dropped from the sky into their territory. At least Jomo did not use spears and arrows to displace Kalenjin and Maa. Land should be taken from NOW - and noone "owned" the land 100 years back when there were no title deeds. That's why I call the Kalenjin violence against Kikuyu or Gusii savagery. Today Maa are still walking around town with cows dressed in blanket - and Ntimama or Ledama spew some nonsense about their ancestral land. Nandi and Kipsisgis are multiplying like roaches - way behind Kikuyu fertility curve - and they want to blame mzungu or Jomo for their poverty. Land grievances are principally a failure to adapt to modernity.

I never see Kikuyu crying poor Gusii in Kiambu are land grabbers. Kalenjin hate Kikuyu for the same reason Kikuyu hate Somali - jealousy and being outshone by all metrics.

[Nefertiti]

The line should be drawn at civilization - rule of law - especially land law and right to property. There were no human rights or title when Maa reigned supreme. Jomo had legal power to allocate the land in RV and Lamu. But today Uhuru has no such power and he is looting in stealth - unlike Jomo who baptize brazen looting as "willing buyer willing seller" - yet the very same hyena was both buyer and seller.

Maa have no right to evict Kipsigis - the riparian land or River Maa hurt them because they still rear worthless zebu which need pasture - while Githunguri dairy farmer with 20 acre is middle class. Maa violence against Kipsigis is savagery - they need to blame someone as they go extinct from absolute failure to adapt. Kipsigis or Ogiek should be handled by GoK - ideally if there was no backward politricks - the Environment CS should be Kipsigis like Isaac Rutto  - or at least a Kalenjin. Which reduce the tribal sentiments tunaonewa. Ruto if he win should evict Kalenjin out of the Mau as Kibaki kicked Gema from Aberdares.

Kikuyu have right to be in RV. Kipsigis have right to be in Narok. Luo have right to be in Kibra. Gusii have right to be in Kiambu. Somali have right to be in Eastleigh. Follow the law today - not 1960 or 100 years ago.

I agree with you principally. Kikuyu paid for the land through MauMau.So they deserve that land. But like you admit savagery is savagery. You cannot codemn Maasai savegry and praise Kenyatta landgrab or codemn Kalenjin savagery. What Kenyatta did is wrong. What Kalenjin do in tribal clashes is wrong. What Maasai did those days was "probably" wrong.

Now what is right?

Anyway I agree with your conclusion. At end of the day - all land grab from Maasai, European, Kikuyu and Kalenjin is just the primitive apetite for land as source of livelihood. Once urbanization kicks in - that primitive land grab will cease.

Kalenjin especially if they don't copy Luos and Luhyas - and send their kids to urban areas to work in industries and mjengo - will soon cause very big war in rift valley that may take down kenya.

The same is true with Maasai.

This pointless debate. Maa and Nandi were supreme in stone age - when spear and arrow ruled. Maa were mzungu resistors, then collaborators hired as mercenaries against Nandi. Maa occupied vastness of "Lake Turkana to  Lake Tanganyika" by brutality and genocide of Bantus, Luos, etc. Lenana treaty sequestered them to Kajiado, Narok, Laikipia. So you can argue that the White Highlands belonged to Maa - then change color like a chameleon and claim Jomo "grabbed" the land in RV and Lamu. Why is the Maa displacement of others legitimate and not Kikuyu's via Jomo? No tribe dropped from the sky into their territory. At least Jomo did not use spears and arrows to displace Kalenjin and Maa. Land should be taken from NOW - and noone "owned" the land 100 years back when there were no title deeds. That's why I call the Kalenjin violence against Kikuyu or Gusii savagery. Today Maa are still walking around town with cows dressed in blanket - and Ntimama or Ledama spew some nonsense about their ancestral land. Nandi and Kipsisgis are multiplying like roaches - way behind Kikuyu fertility curve - and they want to blame mzungu or Jomo for their poverty. Land grievances are principally a failure to adapt to modernity.

I never see Kikuyu crying poor Gusii in Kiambu are land grabbers. Kalenjin hate Kikuyu for the same reason Kikuyu hate Somali - jealousy and being outshone by all metrics.

[RV Pundit]

British used rule of law. Slavery was rule of law. Colonialism was rule of rule.
I think what is right or wrong doesn't need the law.
If it's morally repugnant or feel unjust - it's wrong.
The Maasai are starting to go extinct - and it's starting to look moral not okay to eliminate them from kajiado and narok.

The line should be drawn at civilization - rule of law - especially land law and right to property. There were no human rights or title when Maa reigned supreme. Jomo had legal power to allocate the land in RV and Lamu. But today Uhuru has no such power and he is looting in stealth - unlike Jomo who baptize brazen looting as "willing buyer willing seller" - yet the very same hyena was both buyer and seller.

Maa have no right to evict Kipsigis - the riparian land or River Maa hurt them because they still rear worthless zebu which need pasture - while Githunguri dairy farmer with 20 acre is middle class. Maa violence against Kipsigis is savagery - they need to blame someone as they go extinct from absolute failure to adapt. Kipsigis or Ogiek should be handled by GoK - ideally if there was no backward politricks - the Environment CS should be Kipsigis like Isaac Rutto  - or at least a Kalenjin. Which reduce the tribal sentiments tunaonewa. Ruto if he win should evict Kalenjin out of the Mau as Kibaki kicked Gema from Aberdares.

Kikuyu have right to be in RV. Kipsigis have right to be in Narok. Luo have right to be in Kibra. Gusii have right to be in Kiambu. Somali have right to be in Eastleigh. Follow the law today - not 1960 or 100 years ago.

I agree with you principally. Kikuyu paid for the land through MauMau.So they deserve that land. But like you admit savagery is savagery. You cannot codemn Maasai savegry and praise Kenyatta landgrab or codemn Kalenjin savagery. What Kenyatta did is wrong. What Kalenjin do in tribal clashes is wrong. What Maasai did those days was "probably" wrong.

Now what is right?

Anyway I agree with your conclusion. At end of the day - all land grab from Maasai, European, Kikuyu and Kalenjin is just the primitive apetite for land as source of livelihood. Once urbanization kicks in - that primitive land grab will cease.

Kalenjin especially if they don't copy Luos and Luhyas - and send their kids to urban areas to work in industries and mjengo - will soon cause very big war in rift valley that may take down kenya.

The same is true with Maasai.

This pointless debate. Maa and Nandi were supreme in stone age - when spear and arrow ruled. Maa were mzungu resistors, then collaborators hired as mercenaries against Nandi. Maa occupied vastness of "Lake Turkana to  Lake Tanganyika" by brutality and genocide of Bantus, Luos, etc. Lenana treaty sequestered them to Kajiado, Narok, Laikipia. So you can argue that the White Highlands belonged to Maa - then change color like a chameleon and claim Jomo "grabbed" the land in RV and Lamu. Why is the Maa displacement of others legitimate and not Kikuyu's via Jomo? No tribe dropped from the sky into their territory. At least Jomo did not use spears and arrows to displace Kalenjin and Maa. Land should be taken from NOW - and noone "owned" the land 100 years back when there were no title deeds. That's why I call the Kalenjin violence against Kikuyu or Gusii savagery. Today Maa are still walking around town with cows dressed in blanket - and Ntimama or Ledama spew some nonsense about their ancestral land. Nandi and Kipsisgis are multiplying like roaches - way behind Kikuyu fertility curve - and they want to blame mzungu or Jomo for their poverty. Land grievances are principally a failure to adapt to modernity.

I never see Kikuyu crying poor Gusii in Kiambu are land grabbers. Kalenjin hate Kikuyu for the same reason Kikuyu hate Somali - jealousy and being outshone by all metrics.