Talk:Lari massacre

Seriously?
From the article: "The colonial government used the attack as propaganda and showed the massacre to journalists."

So, ... they should have just hidden the massacre of old men, women and children? Journalists in Kenya were pretty good back then and didn't need the Government's permission to cover massacres. The Mau Mau murdered an estimated 5,000 persons (mainly Kikuyu and mainly at night) - I can assure you, the Newspapers of the time were regularly running these as front page stories. They also did the same when the Kenyan Authorities or the British committed atrocities (The Hola Massacre for example, being uncovered by the East African Standard).

From the article: "400 Mau Mau were reputedly killed by colonial troops, including the King's African Rifles, in revenge"

Hunting down the perpetrators of a massacre of defenceless civilians is not 'revenge', especially as the Mau Mau had declared war on the state and previously expressed a genocidal agenda. Also, Caroline Elkins (who is cited in both instances) is a discredited source for studies on the Mau Mau (she has been described as "biased", "inventive", "sensationalist",  an "anglophobe", a "profiteer" and with regards to her math: engaging in a  "sleight of hand" - members of the Pulitzer Prize committee who acclaimed her book have since expressed their regret).

2001:8003:70F5:2400:D974:9D03:6894:1B58 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Retaliatory killings
Clicked on the talk page to make more-or-less the opposite point (to the above) about the sentences "The massacre prompted retaliatory attacks.[9] 400 Mau Mau were reputedly killed by colonial troops, including the King's African Rifles, in revenge.[1]"

My relatively cursory reading (including Elkins of course) so far suggests there is at best loose and uncertain relationship between perpetrators of the massacre and the subsequent extrajudicial killings, which should certainly be described as 'retaliatory' or 'revenge'? My question was whether these two sentences might be misleading for implying that all those killed in this phase were complicit with the original massacre? And even that they were enemies killed in combat, and/or were captured and subject to investigative and legal proceedings? I think the section should be expanded to include more detail about what is and is not known about these killings.

The order of the sentences could be misleading too - it doesn't really sound like it happened quickly after?

I think a good version of this article would need to be a lot longer, and carefully map different perspectives and sources.

The backstory about tensions over evictions and land paid in compensation also seems relevant to include here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:8AB1:7B01:B048:F577:96CD:3DBD (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)