1955–1963: (Kenya’s Reconstruction and Independence — The Resettlement Scheme Benefiting Loyalists While Failing to Address the Landless Poor, the Hola Camp …

1955–1963: (Kenya’s Reconstruction and Independence — The Resettlement Scheme Benefiting Loyalists While Failing to Address the Landless Poor, the Hola Camp Atrocities Leading Macmillan to Question Empire Itself, Multiracialism Abandoned for African Majority Rule, Kenyatta Released to Lead KANU, the Land Purchase Scheme Purchasing a Million Acres from Departing Europeans, and Independence in 1963 as a New Form of Indirect Rule Transferring Power to a Middle Class Willing to Safeguard British Interests): By 1955, socioeconomic change was accepted as necessary, and reconstruction began — consolidating African landholdings and guaranteeing property rights through a new Kikuyu land settlement scheme. But the British did not address the biggest problem at the root of Mau Mau: the existence of the landless poor, who lost out in resettlement to those identified as loyal. Meanwhile, details of the Hola Camp atrocities emerged — detainees beaten to death under a regime that treated Mau Mau as a pathological illness to be cleansed from body and mind. The revelations provoked widespread outrage during Macmillan’s administration, and events in Kenya led many to question empire itself — Macmillan was now skeptical about the economic advantages of colonies, viewing colonial rule as a political embarrassment and electoral liability. Multiracialism was abandoned in favor of African majority rule, nationalist parties were re-established, and Kenyatta, released from prison, became president of KANU and took Kenya to independence in 1963. In the final months, the British purchased over a million acres from departing European farmers for redistribution, but a willing-buyer-willing-seller scheme meant the beneficiaries were not the landless poor but already prosperous landowners. Britain was transferring power to a middle class willing to safeguard British interests — in some respects this was not decolonization but a new form of indirect rule, and accusations of neocolonialism would follow.