Editing Mau Mau rebellion (section)

=== Native labourer categories ===
Native Kenyan labourers were of three categories: ''squatter'', ''contract'', or ''casual''.{{efn|"Squatter or resident labourers are those who reside with their families on European farms usually for the purpose of work for the owners. ... Contract labourers are those who sign a contract of service before a magistrate, for periods varying from three to twelve months. Casual labourers leave their reserves to engage themselves to European employers for any period from one day upwards."<ref name="Ormsby-Gore 1925 p173"/> In return for his services, a squatter was entitled to use some of the settler's land for cultivation and grazing.<ref name="Kanogo 1993 10">{{Harvnb|Kanogo|1993|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=_go9AGqld1AC&pg=PA10 10]}}.</ref> Contract and casual workers are together referred to as ''migratory'' labourers, in distinction to the permanent presence of the squatters on farms. The phenomenon of squatters arose in response to the complementary difficulties of Europeans in finding labourers and of Africans in gaining access to arable and grazing land.<ref name="Kanogo 1993 8"/>}} By the end of World War I, squatters had become well established on European farms and plantations in Kenya, with Kikuyu squatters constituting the majority of agricultural workers on [[Kipande system|settler plantations]].<ref name="Kanogo 1993 8"/> An unintended consequence of colonial rule,<ref name="Kanogo 1993 8"/> the squatters were targeted from 1918 onwards by a series of Resident Native Labourers Ordinances—criticised by at least some [[Member of parliament|MPs]]<ref>{{Cite web |last= Creech Jones |first= Arthur |author-link= Arthur Creech Jones |title= Native Labour; House of Commons Debate, 10&nbsp;November 1937 |url= https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1937/nov/10/native-labour |work= [[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]] |series= Series&nbsp;5, Vol.&nbsp;328, cc.&nbsp;1757-9 |date= 10 November 1937 |access-date= 13 April 2013 |archive-date= 15 December 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181215221829/https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1937/nov/10/native-labour |url-status= live }}</ref>—which progressively curtailed squatter rights and subordinated native Kenyan farming to that of the settlers.<ref name="Elkins 2005 p17">{{Harvnb|Elkins|2005|p=17}}.</ref> The Ordinance of 1939 finally eliminated squatters' remaining tenancy rights, and permitted settlers to demand 270 days' labour from any squatters on their land.<ref name="Anderson 2004 p508">{{Harvnb|Anderson|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=vD-ZqX4pbbYC&pg=PA508 508]}}.</ref> and, after World War II, the situation for squatters deteriorated rapidly, a situation the squatters resisted fiercely.<ref name="Kanogo1987_96-97">{{Harvnb|Kanogo|1993|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=_go9AGqld1AC&pg=PA183 96–97]}}.</ref>

In the early 1920s, though, despite the presence of 100,000 squatters and tens of thousands more wage labourers,<ref name="Anderson 2004 p507">{{Harvnb|Anderson|2004|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=vD-ZqX4pbbYC&pg=PA507 507]}}.</ref> there was still not enough native Kenyan labour available to satisfy the settlers' needs.<ref name="Ormsby-Gore 1925 p166">{{Harvnb|Ormsby-Gore, ''et al.''|1925|p=166}}: "In many parts of the territory we were informed that the majority of farmers were having the utmost difficulty in obtaining labour to cultivate and to harvest their crops".</ref> The colonial government duly tightened the measures to force more Kenyans to become low-paid wage-labourers on settler farms.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.kenyaembassydc.org/aboutkenyahistory.html|title=History|publisher=kenyaembassydc.org|access-date=13 May 2019|archive-date=22 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190522124317/http://kenyaembassydc.org/aboutkenyahistory.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The colonial government used the measures brought in as part of its land expropriation and labour 'encouragement' efforts to craft the third plank of its growth strategy for its settler economy: subordinating African farming to that of the Europeans.<ref name="Kanogo 1993 9"/> Nairobi also assisted the settlers with rail and road networks, subsidies on freight charges, agricultural and veterinary services, and credit and loan facilities.<ref name="Kanogo 1993 8"/> The near-total neglect of native farming during the first two decades of European settlement was noted by the East Africa Commission.<ref name="Ormsby-Gore 1925 p155-156">{{Harvnb|Ormsby-Gore, ''et al.''|1925|pp=155–156}}.</ref>

The resentment of colonial rule would not have been decreased by the wanting provision of medical services for native Kenyans,<ref name="Ormsby-Gore 1925 p180">{{Harvnb|Ormsby-Gore, ''et al.''|1925|p=180}}: "The population of the district to which one medical officer is allotted amounts more often than not to over a quarter of a million natives distributed over a large area. ... [T]here are large areas in which no medical work is being undertaken."</ref> nor by the fact that in 1923, for example, "the maximum amount that could be considered to have been spent on services provided exclusively for the benefit of the native population was slightly over one-quarter of the taxes paid by them".<ref name="Ormsby-Gore 1925 p187">{{Harvnb|Ormsby-Gore, ''et al.''|1925|p=187}}.</ref> The tax burden on Europeans in the early 1920s, meanwhile, was very light relative to their income.<ref name="Ormsby-Gore 1925 p187"/> Interwar infrastructure-development was also largely paid for by the indigenous population.<ref name="Swainson 1980 p23">{{Harvnb|Swainson|1980|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-pzxavse89gC&pg=PA23 23]}}.</ref>

Kenyan employees were often poorly treated by their European employers, with some settlers arguing that native Kenyans "were as children and should be treated as such". Some settlers flogged their servants for petty offences. To make matters even worse, native Kenyan workers were poorly served by colonial labour-legislation and a prejudiced legal-system. The vast majority of Kenyan employees' violations of labour legislation were settled with "rough justice" meted out by their employers. Most colonial magistrates appear to have been unconcerned by the illegal practice of settler-administered flogging; indeed, during the 1920s, flogging was the magisterial punishment-of-choice for native Kenyan convicts. The principle of punitive sanctions against workers was not removed from the Kenyan labour statutes until the 1950s.<ref name="Anderson 2004 pp507-526">{{Harvnb|Anderson|2004|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=vD-ZqX4pbbYC&pg=PA516 516–528]}}.</ref>

{{Quote box
 |quote = The greater part of the wealth of the country is at present in our hands. ... This land we have made is our land by right—by right of achievement.{{sfn|Curtis|2003|pp=320–321}}
 |source = —Speech by Deputy Colonial Governor<br />30 November 1946
 |align = right
 |width = 33%
 |fontsize = 85%
 |bgcolor = AliceBlue
 |style =
 |title_bg =
 |title_fnt =
 |tstyle = text-align: left;
 |qalign = right
 |qstyle = text-align: left;
 |quoted = yes
 |salign = right
 |sstyle = text-align: right;
}}

As a result of the situation in the highlands and growing job opportunities in the cities, thousands of Kikuyu migrated into cities in search of work, contributing to the doubling of [[Nairobi]]'s population between 1938 and 1952.<ref>{{cite book|author1= R. M. A. Van Zwanenberg|author2=Anne King|title=An Economic History of Kenya and Uganda 1800–1970|date=1975|publisher=The Bowering Press|isbn=978-0-333-17671-9}}</ref> At the same time, there was a small, but growing, class of Kikuyu landowners who consolidated Kikuyu landholdings and forged ties with the colonial administration, leading to an economic rift within the Kikuyu.