The Effects of Falling American Popularity on US Business Abroad Essay

The Effects of Falling American Popularity on US Business Abroad - Essay Example intentions in all spheres. Finally, individual consumers will be more likely to substitute products and to protest U.S. businesses in a variety of ways. As a preliminary matter, both countries and groups of countries will be more likely to inhibit business practices. Muslim countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, may perceive American unpopularity to anti-Muslim policies. Unable to deal with the American government directly, they very well may seek influence by barring certain types of businesses and operations in their own countries. This may manifest itself, for example, in terms of foreign shareholding requirements or excluded enterprises. In addition, trade policies may be changed to restrict imports and exports. This may be done, as well, by larger organizations such as ASEAN. The effects would be to punish U.S. business for American unpopularity. In countries with strategic business resources, whether raw materials or cheap labor, the effects could be severe. In addition, international organizations might become more suspicious of the intentions of U.S. businesses. Claims regarding the sources of manufactured goods, the provision of hidden subsidies, and the compliance with local and international laws might be subjected to much higher standards of proof. U.S. businesses.

Case study based upon on a hypothetical legal situation

Based upon on a hypothetical legal situation - Case Study Example ed improper tactics to pick an all-white jury for a black defendant’s murder trial, [and subsequently] overturned the conviction of a man who has been on death row for 12 years.†1 Application/Analysis: Prosecutors should be allowed to consider race as a factor in the jury selection, as well as gender and age, which could also be problematic for the defense. Since Mr. Woodson was Black, he definitely should have been able to at least have one or two jurors be Black as well so the jury would constitute a reflection of more of a jury of his peers. Alan M. Dershowitz—a lawyer for O.J. Simpson—wrote eloquently in his book, â€Å"We were pleased that we had a largely [B]lack jury, which might be more open to arguments about police perjury, evidence tampering, and so on—arguments we believed were correct. If that is playing the race card, then the race card should be played—because†¦police [often make

Relationship among Organizational Citizenship Behaviours

Relationship among Organizational Citizenship Behaviours Abstract Organizational citizenship behaviour is an important factor that aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). And the job satisfaction is defined to be a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). Researches have been done to measure the relationship between the job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Some results show there are relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours while some argue there are little relationship between this two factors. The aim of this paper is to find out the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours and measure whether other factors such as age and service length by using the questionnaire to collect data. Introduction In recent years a number of studies have expanded the understanding of organizational citizenship behaviour within the workplace. Organizational citizenship behaviour refers to individual behaviours that are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization(Organ, 1988). In the early 1980s, the term organizational citizenship behaviors was created to depict extra-role those behaviors previously described by Katz (Smith et al., 1983). Katz maintained that organizational citizenship behaviors are vital to organizational survival and effectiveness. He also provided several examples of important extra-role behaviors, among them are actions that protect the organization and its property, constructive suggestions for improving the organization, self-training for additional responsibility, creating a favorable climate for the organization in its surrounding environments, and coop erative activities (Katz, 1964). Katz and Kahn (1966) suggested that organizational citizenship behaviors were spontaneous and innovative. Moorman and Blakely (1995) pointed out that organizational citizenship behaviours were beneficial and desirable from an organizational perspective, however, the behaviours were difficult to be increased through contractual arrangements or formal rewards. Bolon (1997) emphasized that organizational citizenship behaviours were not enforceable requirements of the role or the job descriptions, which were the clearly specifiable terms of the persons employment contract with the organization. The behaviors were matters of personal choices. The omission was not generally understood as punishable. Organ (1990) pointed out that the definition did not necessarily imply that organizational citizenship behaviours were limited only to those behaviours, which were lacking in tangible return to the person who performs such behaviours. He also maintained that a continual demonstration of organizational citizenship behaviours over time may influence the impression of coworkers or supervisors who develop concerning a particular employee. The impression could play an important role in future reward considerations, such as a salary increase or a promotion. Organizational citizenship behaviours have been linked to many work-related factors, for example, it has been associated with organizational commitment (Bolon, 1997), and transformational leader behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Studies have found that organizational citizenship behaviour is associated with job satisfaction (eg. Bolon, 1997). Job satisfaction has been gaining steady attention. Job satisfaction could be defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). The term job satisfaction was first coined by Hoppock in 1935. He defined it as the satisfactory feeling on both psychological and physical sides of the employees about the working conditions. It is the subjective responses of subordinates to work situations. Porter (1973) suggested that the extent of job satisfaction was the difference between the one who really acquires from work and the one who believed that he should acquire from work. A common view among managers is that satisfied employees were more productive than dissatisfied employees. Robbins (2001) suggested that job satisfaction was not only a general attitude toward ones job, but also the differences between the amount of reward workers received and the amount they believe they should receive. In addition, he presented that the term of job satisfaction refers to an individuals general attitude toward his or her job. A person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive attitudes toward the job, while a person who is dissatisfied with his or her job holds negative attitudes about the job. As a psychological need and a factor to well being, job satisfaction is believed to have an environmental and genetic component (Arvey et al., 1989). There are several different variables, which are related to job satisfaction, such as cultural values, transformational leader behaviours and organizational commitment (Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Feather and Rauter, 2004). There has increasing attention to the possible relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour. Transformational leaders are those who broaden and elevate the interests of their followers, generate awareness and commitment of individuals to the purpose and mission of the group, and they enable subordinates to transcend their own self-interests for the betterment of the group (Seltzer et al., 1989). Transformational leadership is one of the groups of models describing leadership as an influencing social interaction or process. The process refers to one or a group of individuals which influence the behaviour of other people in an organizational setting for the purpose of achieving or accomplishing organizational objectives (Yukl, 2002). Transformational leadership behaviours raise the consciousness of followers about what is important, move followers to transcend the self-interest for the good of the organization, and raise their concerns for higher level needs on Maslows hierarchy (Bass, 1999). Studies have found that transformational leadership behaviours were positively assoc iated with followers job satisfaction, and transformational leaders could increase followers job satisfaction motivated their followers (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Morrison et al., 1997) There is substantial support for the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Bateman and Organ (1983) found a significant relationship between general measures of job satisfaction and supervisory ratings of citizenship behavior. Schappe (1998) also suggested that cross-lagged patterns of the relationships between organizational citizenship behaviours and specific facets of job satisfaction revealed essentially the same results as overall satisfaction. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) identified two separate dimensions of OCB: altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism refers to behaviours aimed at helping specific people directly and intentionally. Generalized compliance refers to a more impersonal type of conscientious behavior that does not provide immediate aid to a particular individual but is indirectly helpful to other people in the organization. Job satisfaction could be a major determinant of an employees organizational citizenship behavior. A satisfied employee seems more likely to talk positively about the organization, help others, and go beyond the normal expectations in their job. Moreover, satisfied employees might be more prone to go beyond the call of duty because they want to reciprocate their positive experiences. Organ suggested that the empirically supported relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours could be described as a reflecting relationship between perceptions of fairness and organizational citizenship behaviours. On the other hand, he also suggested that the cognitive component of job satisfaction appears to be related to orgaizational citizenship behaviours probably reflects the influence of perceptions. However, some studies argued there are no association between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours, which were considered to be related to other variables, such as transformational leadership behaviours (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and personality (Organ and Lingl, 1995). Other studies show that there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours (e.g. Chiu and Chen, 2005; Foote and Tang, 2008). Researchers suggested that job satisfaction could be a mediating variable between organizational citizenship behaviour and other variables, such as job characteristics and team commitment (Chiu and Chen, 2005; Foote and Tang, 2008). Studies show that both job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour are associated to organizational outcomes significantly (Koys, 2001). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour could thus be important variables for both employees and organizations. Methodological differences Methodological differences could explain differences between studies. Most of the earlier studies were based on samples from America and Australia, and almost all participants were employees in industrial companies. There is little focus on people with a higher education level, for example academics. The relation of job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour could be different among academics, because of the high education level and features of academic work. The purpose of the study was to investigate and get a better understanding of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction. In order to guide the investigation, the following specific questions were formulated: 1.What is the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction? 2.Are age, gender and length of service related to job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours? The hypotheses of this study are: H0: There is no significant correlation between organizational citizenship behaviours and job satisfacton. H1: There is a significant correlation between organizational citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction. Methods Survey questionnaires were administered to staff of Department of Human Sciences in Loughborough University. Both academic staff and support staff were invited in this study. Participants were invited to participate in this study by e-mail. The e-mail outlined the survey details, such as the research proposal and the type of questionnaires. Volunteers read the study information and filled in the informed consent, using tick boxes to agree to consent before completing the questionnaire. Data collection was based on an online questionnaire system (Surveymonkey.com). The system provided a completely anonymity system. Participants filled the online questionnaire in directly to enable anonymity and confidentially. Data were collected automatically by the survey system. Of the 61 total personnel involved in such teams, 32 participated in the study. Of the respondents, 62.5 percent were female. Further, the mean age of participants was 45 years. The mean length of service was 11.5 years. Measures Organizational citizenship behaviours. To measure organizational citizenship behaviours, a 13 items five-point Likert scale (from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) was using (Smith et al., 1983). The 13 items questionnaire assesses citizenship behaviours and gestures through items such as I am willing to help others who are not able to work, I am willing to volunteer to give orientation and guidance to new members who join our team and I make innovative and good suggestions which help to improve the department. The instrument has two sub scales, which measure altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism refers to behaviours aimed at helping specific people directly and intentionally (e.g. giving orientation to new members, assisting others with a heavy work load). Generalized compliance refers to a more impersonal type of conscientious behavior that does not provide immediate aid to a particular individual but is indirectly helpful to other people in the organization (e.g. punctuality). In the study by Smith et al. (1983) the coefficient alpha reliability estimates were .91 for Altruism and .81 for Generalized compliance. Job satisfaction. To measure job satisfaction, a 5 items five-point Likert scale (from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) was using (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). There are The 5 items questionnaire assesses job satisfaction through items such as Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job and I frequently think of quitting this job (reverse items). In the study by Hackman and Oldham (1975), the coefficient alpha reliability estimates were .74. Statistical Analysis The data were analyzed in order to provide an answer to the research questions and test the hypotheses. To test the hypotheses and assess the correlation between organizational citizenship behaviours and job satisfacton, Pearson correlation analysis was preformed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.0. Discussion The statistical analysis results show that there are relation between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours, while either age and length of service do not influence job satisfaction or organizational citizenship behaviours. However, some researchers have found that there is no relationship between organizational citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1990; Organ and Lingl, 1995), while other studies reported significant correlation between the two variables (e.g. Bateman and Organ, 1983; Schappe, 1998). A possible reason might be because the features of samples are different. As personal choices rather than duties, organizational citizenship behaviours could be influenced by culture, education level and organizational commitment. One limitation of this study is the response rate. In this study, the valid response rate is about 50 present. Moreover, the sample size is relatively small. Another possible problem is that people who have higher organizational citizenship behaviours levels are more likely to participate the study than people who have low levels organizational citizenship behaviours. In addition, one limitation of the study is that university staff need to do more individual duties rather than co-operations. For this reason, the results of the study may not be suitable for organizations which need more co-operations, for instances, customer services companies or manufacturing industry Future studies In this study, the sample size is relatively small. The larger the sample size, the more sensitive the research in exploring the relationships of the variables. Subsequent studies could cover more samples. In this study, the questionnaire of organizational citizenship behaviours were answered directly by the employees, which was not appraised by their supervisors or co-workers. For this reason, the self-reported data may be inflated. Therefore, subsequent researchers may improve the design of surveys to avoid the bias Conclusion As the data gathered from Loughborough University Human Science department suggest that there are significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior while there seems no correlation between the job satisfaction and the stuffs age and service length. This conclusion may only apply to those workers who engage in more personal works and a different result could be expected when using workers whose duty includes more co-operation with others.

Essay --

Marketing Orientation focuses on identifying and meeting the hidden needs of the consumer (Unknown, 2013). The textbook states that there are five marketing orientations; social marketing, production, strategic marketing, customer and sales (Daniels, Radebaugh, & Sullivan, p. 595). Avon addresses the customer, production, strategic marketing and social marketing by granting each country the independence of selecting products based on the demand of the consumer as well as to develop those products. Distribution of the products is also considered as it pertains to each individual country. For example, door to door sales are not allowed in China so Avon launched beauty boutiques, beauty country and independent stores throughout the country to accommodate the law of the land. Avon’s sales has increased dramatically as the company expands its’ footprint globally. There are a few reasons why Avon is so dependent on its foreign operations in comparison to the home operations. For one, Avon recognizes that competition at home in the beauty industry has increased immensely. The business has done so well and grown so much that there is hardly any remaining untouched market space in the United States for the products. To expand would mean that the company would have to take sales from competitors. A feat in my opinion the company cannot easily take on. A customer can purchase whatever brand of beauty product of their choice from any store that sells that product so unless that customer is not in a position to do this they may be less likely to purchase from Avon. Additionally with security concerns being the way they are in today’s society no one takes pleasure from anyone knocking on their door trying to persuade them to buy a p... ... Additionally the nearness of the customer and supplier are of absolute importance to ensure costs are kept to a minimum. The current dynamic and competitive environment of businesses today is not without challenge. Avon is faced with having to compete with quick market changes and must enhance their ability to innovate as well as remain attentive to the various trade rules and differences in each country. The cost to examine and expand a product line in the global market could be very high. Having to increase quality throughout the entire product line may be tough. Delivering the right products at the right cost, at the right moment and in the right quality are key factors to Avon global success. Avon must maintain an effective supply chain management system in order to save the company money as well as help to provide great value of products to the customers.

Why We Shouldn’t Write Essays

For many students, writing essays are not exactly our number one choice. Unfortunately, writing essays in High School is like the fog in Daly City- it's inevitable. Writing essays in Science class on the other hand, is like a sunny day quickly covered by fog. It's somewhat expected, yet still disappointing, and surprising at the same time. We're most expected to write essays in our English class, so writing an essay in any other subject such as Science makes us hate writing essays even more. In general, writing essays interfere with our personal responsibilities, and our activities outside of school.The main problem students have with writing essays is not knowing how to manage their time well. Often times, we procrastinate because we choose to do other things instead. Given a 1-2 week time period to complete an essay seems like a lot of time until procrastination takes over. Writer's block, and distractions are a huge contribution to procrastinating as well. Sometimes you just don't know where to start when you write an essay, or your ideas and words may not flow together. You'll try over, and over again but it just doesn't sound right.As a result, you become discouraged and leave it to do â€Å"later. † Instead of trying to write your essay, you get distracted by your phone, favorite show, or computer. This easily makes â€Å"later† become the night before it's due, and by then we're struggling to cram in all of the other homework we have to do still. Nowadays, teacher's give so much homework. It's really important that we use our time wisely, or we won't finish what we need to get done on time. Doing an essay on top of homework can be very time consuming, and sometimes we just don't have the time.Some may say, â€Å"You have all the time in the World,† but in reality it's the time you have after school, and how you use that time. Most students in High School have after school activities such as Club meetings, sports, dance, etc. If you h ave practice 2-3 hours after school, by the time you get home you'll most likely be too tired and lazy to start, or finish your essay. Having a significant other requires you to dedicate your time to them, depending on how serious your relationship is. Dedicating all your time to our boyfriend, or girlfriend can be a huge distraction when you're writing an essay. For example, you may be constantly calling, or texting each other which won't benefit you at the end. By the time you're done talking to him/her, chances are you'd either say your essay for â€Å"later,† or not finish it at all. Maybe you're not the type to procrastinate, but you have committed to other responsibilities in addition to your school work such as babysitting your little brother, or household chores.This can make it difficult to complete an essay because you're trying to do too many things at once. If you pick up your sibling from school, still having to take bus home, you're not left with a lot of time o nce you get home to do everything you need to do. Washing the dishes is a common chore done by teenagers everyday which doesn't exactly take 5-10 minutes to do, especially with a big family. With that being said, the time taken out of when you do your homework can be very crucial. After writing many essays, you'd think it would only get easier, and sometimes it does.Other times, most times, it only gets harder. Writer's block can especially discourage students from writing an essay. This leads to distractions, which then turns into procrastination. For some, they might just not have the time due to other responsibilities, or activities. Writing an essay in a Science class doesn't appeal to many students simply because essays are expected in an English class. What we do expect, and are used to in a Science class are research papers, and worksheets.

British Colonialism & the Kikuyu Resistance

Colonisation appears to invariably cause conflict. Even where the proto-indigenous population is totally eliminated or absorbed, as in South Africa and Canada, and supplanted by new aboriginals (Canada) or settlers (South Africa), conflict will ensue as either new colonists arrive (Canada) or another wave of settlement arrives and collides (South Africa). The point might be, colonialism ends in violence. It enervates one group to fight the other, no matter the odds. Colonialism must adapt to a new reality for peace to arrive.Much like the North American aboriginal experience, two major shifts occurred in the late 19th century Kikuyu area of Africa. First, a mass outbreak of epidemics took a catastrophic toll its the indigenous population. Then, the ensuing famine forced the devastated populations to vacate the areas they had traditionally farmed. These favourably fertile lands, coined as the White Highlands, became the focal point for British colonialism in Kenya. Parliament then enc ouraged its subjects (i. e.British citizens, East-European Jews, and United South African Boers) to settle the recently acquired land, marketing it as a â€Å"paradise lost†. This marked the second, more influential and important shift in Kenyan society: an influx of white-foreigners. Kikuyu resistance was limited and sporadic, as they ‘lacked a cohesive organized administration’, suppressed by the British colonials as ‘an assault on public order. Violence was sporadic and limited. The East African Protectorate did not command sufficient importance in London politics, and thus received little attention.In 1902, the East African Protectorate acquired fertile lands around Lake Victoria marking the beginning of railway expansion. The completion of the Mombasa-Victoria railway in 1903 shifted London’s perception on the importance of its newly acquired African land. Subsequently, with significant Parliamentary encouragement, European settlement surged int o the East African Protectorate. Although seemingly a principle tenet of colonialism, the last priority of the settlers seemed to be the working of the land that they had acquired.Rather, they opted for cheap local labour, namely the Kikuyu, to work their plantation ‘cash crops’. Soon, London issued a sequence of edicts, laws, and policies to â€Å"encourage local support†. This ‘general policy’ removed the native Kikuyu from their traditionally perceived lands, and forced them either into remote and infertile reservations or semi-urban communities where they constituted a source of inexpensive labour. Such repressive policies were regarded as appropriate actions on the basis of racial supremacy, and therefore justifiable in the eyes of white-settlers, if executed within that perception of fairness.The locals were black, and perceived by whites as un-equal humans. In their eyes, the natives had no inherent right to the land and certainly it was widel y-held by the colonists that they, the kikuyu, didn’t utilize it efficiently anyway. During the 1920s, Kenya’s white society reached a politically critical mass. British administration recognized its increasing affluence and influence. Consequently, London decisively established Kenya (named after the great mountain) as a colony, thereby trapping its indigenous population within a colonial system.They could not get rid of it and instead faced two options: be put to work as virtually another domestic animal, or be forced into a remote reservation. *Despite social repression, a relatively small number of Kikuyu were educated through established Missionary schools. Soon enough, this educated minority realized that the people were being ruled for and by European settlers. Natives were prohibited from cultivating the colony’s primary cash crop, or able to own land in ancestrally-farmed areas. Administratively held to low-wages, natives required ‘settler-control led passbooks’ to travel freely.In light of these, and other, discriminatory state-sponsored practices, the Kikuyu Central Organization was formed. However, the evolution of the Kikuyu’s political and intellectual state was fought and opposed at every turn. During a 1920 peaceful protest over the arrest and exile of one of its leaders, uniformed police and settlers fired upon the Kikuyu Central Organization’s street gathering. This incident cemented the white’s discriminatory view of the natives, and further exacerbated the fear amongst the Kikuyu people. In 1925, London ruled that 150,000 Kikuyu â€Å"squatters† had no traditional ownership rights in settler areas, effectively eliminating the Kikuyu’s surviving economic and legal defenses. *Furthermore, the Kenya Land Commission of 1934 affirmed European title rights to virtually all fertile land within the colony. While the consequences were not immediate, they became increasingly visible as the Kikuyu population’s growth surged, creating severe overcrowding within reserve confines. The inverse relationship between power and population became apparent during the Second World War; when Kenya’s native opulation numbered 4. 3 million, while the white-settlers remained at around 25,000. There was no real cohesive political structure – a British appointee governed the colony. Despite a native population of over four million Kikuyu, the white minority completely dominated all colonial life. Aside from serving in the British Colonial Army and as reservation ‘chiefs’ and administrators appointed to enforce British rule, the natives were completely exempt from all colonial practices. In this context, the colonial administration justified the expulsion of close to one hundred thousand local Kikuyu from the â€Å"white areas†.With nearly every acre of fertile land expropriated for whites-only usage, the Kikuyu had only the overcrowded re servations, or equally destitute urban center ‘shantytowns’. Increasingly, the Kikuyu suffered economic and social deprivation, creating a politically explosive situation. The ensuing, increasing dissidence amongst the Kikuyu prompted the British authorities to criminalize the Kikuyu Central Association in 1940. Under the ruse of â€Å"a wartime security measure†, British colonialism destroyed the Kikuyu’s only peaceful means of expressing grievances, further exacerbating racial tensions within the colony.The collapse of Hitler’s Third Reich brought to light the ultimate horrors of ethnic supremacy. International revulsion at Nazi Germany’s actions subsequently evoked condemnation for the colonial repression of blacks. Consequently, colonial authorities decriminalized Kikuyu representation, allowing for the creation of the Kenyan African Union. This new organization sought recognition as a real political party, advocating the removal of discr iminatory state practices. With only a handful of committed men as its primary leadership, it’s beginning was unpromising.Changing the names, locations, and dates in this sequence would probably read as any other generic history of African colonial resistance. Similar to other African insurgencies, the violence was scattered and sporadic, with a notable vendetta against the white-foreign oppression. What happened in Kenya, however, was distinctively a Kikuyu issue. Increasingly, large numbers of Kikuyu sought methods to organize themselves for strong political advocacy. ( The Kikuyu found neither justice nor substance in nationalism, religion, or Communism.Instead, the Kikuyu linked cultural traditions with the symbolism of ceremonial oath-taking, to encourage social and political unity. Unbeknownst to its membership, this practice effectively gave rise to an informal sense of nationhood within the Kikuyu people. Like all insurgencies The Emergency began modestly, starting in 1950 with only a group of a dozen young activists from the Kenyan African Union. Increasingly frustrated with ineffective bargaining with the whites, this group, the self-proclaimed Kiambaa Parliament, took the baby steps of resistance organization.The ensuing war between the natives, settlers and colonial authorities, which engulfed Kenyan society from 1952-1960, was indisputably brutal, archaic, and oppressive, during which only thirty-two European settlers and less than two hundred police and militia were killed. Why, then, did such a relatively small number of colonial deaths prompt such a blood-chilling rhetoric? Firstly, many of the insurgents were former ‘employees’ of the white-settlers who, while considering the majority of colonial settlers to be severe and even cruel, also considered many as kindly and caring, and were therefore loyal to their previous employers.In the eyes of the whites, â€Å"Jeeves had taken to the Jungle†. That these apparently lo yal employees should revolt against their employers represented â€Å"the ultimate treachery; biting the hand that fed you†. To settlers, this act was all the evidence they needed to vilify the natives, cementing the racial stereotypes in mind. Secondly, the white settlers lacked a thorough understanding of the Kikuyu insurgent’s cohesion. The movement’s lack of nationalism or commitment to a religion or ideology, which gave other insurgencies a unity, evoked fury from the settlers.The Kikuyu’s leaders created unity through cultural traditions (i. e. ceremonial oath-taking), which was perceived by the settlers as ‘black magic’ or ‘witchcraft’. While the terms used would have been very different to the locals, the natives agreed with the resulting terror. The aforementioned ceremonial ‘oathing’ was designed to vilify normal behavioural codes, and psychologically ‘mark’ its taker. Participants transcended normative mental barriers that had constricted their actions, presumably making the participant emerge as a new person, a revolutionary; an itungati.New members were forced to commit acts, sometimes brutal and disturbing acts, to solidify commitment to the cause and the rebel brotherhood. Militants were thus altered into a different person, associated with other, similarly-changed members, within an organization from which it was extremely difficult, if not suicidal, to withdraw membership. The Mau Mau revolt certainly had grounds to take root. The South African and European settlers had appropriated all the land, land that the 1. 5 million Kikuyu perceived as their national patrimony.Converted into cheap market labour to work the lands, the Kikuyu were no more valuable to settlers than serfs to a lord. They had no civil rights to speak of, and were subjected to arbitrary state violence at the hands of militia and police. No effective say was allocated to Kikuyu in their own tribal affairs, let alone Kenyan affairs. Furthermore, while other African countries were moving closer towards freedom, Kenya was seemingly slipping further into white-minority control, as was happening in South African and Southern Rhodesia.Even when British authorities loosened the reigns on their colonies, it was only the white settlers who benefitted, not the natives. Therefore, the Kikuyu felt alienated in their cause and had no hope for improvement; instead, they feared the some twenty-five thousand whites who dominated them. Settlers were horrified to see their standard of living challenged, and demanded massive and indiscriminate suppression of â€Å"the savages†. The response was certainly to their liking. Sir Evelyn Baring, the newly-appointed colonial governor, found that his staff knew little to nothing about what had disaffected those Kikuyu who joined the Mau Mau revolt.Consultation with the British appointed Kikuyu chiefs served little purpose and, in a sense, exacer bated the situation. The chiefs simply vocalized what they felt that the British authorities wanted to hear, maintaining and protecting their own positions. However, Baring accepted uncritically the notion of illegitimacy behind the Kikuyu movement, concluding that â€Å"if you don’t get Kenyatta and those around him and shut them up somehow or other we are in a terrible, hopeless position†* Initially, it seemed as though the British government had fallen into the ‘counterinsurgency trap’, meeting increasing danger with increasing force.However, it was soon realized that force alone would ultimately fail, co-incidentally around the same time London parliament found the conflict â€Å"prohibitively expensive†. A new strategy focused on ‘rehabilitation’ that would not rely entirely on violence and oppression, but which nevertheless failed to recognize the key issue, the rule of Kenya by foreigners. British authorities looked over at Malay a for a ready â€Å"school† of â€Å"proper counterinsurgency†. Its colony had been combatting against a mainly ethnic Chinese rebellion since 1948*.However much other colonial models of counterinsurgency taught lessons, the Malaysian principle would fail in Kenya. Regarded as â€Å"irredeemable Communists†, British Malaysian authorities deported thousands of ethnic Chinese detainees as â€Å"foreigners†. It was impossible, however, to exile even the most committed Mau Mau Kikuyu as a â€Å"non-Kenyan foreigner†. Furthermore, the fervent hate of the Malays for the Chinese, who were far more intrusive and oppressive than the British, could not be replicated in Kenya since everyone was Kikuyu.Instead, Kenyan colonial policy reflected tactics deemed suitable to the local issues, internment camps coupled with robust grilling. British authorities decided that, above all else, information was needed on the Kikuyu resistance. Strategically, authorities so ught an understanding as to why the Kikuyu supported the Mau Mau resistance; tactically, they sought who supported and supplied them. The process of grilling (i. e. interrogation under torture) provided authorities with information that was extorted through force.Once all they could glean was gathered from them, the remaining guerrillas (many died under examination) were placed within the internment camps, out of touch with the active resistance movement. Purely out of luck rather than strategy, did colonial authorities managed to apprehend the charismatic figurehead of the guerrilla movement, in January 1945: Waruhiu Itote. Intensive interrogation revealed all that the authorities wanted to know. Itote revealed everything from his headquarters location, to the support organization, to the size and structure of his guerrilla army.They were revealed to have less than half the fighting capability that the British had thought (i. e. around several thousand fighters, only), and seriousl y underequipped with a pitiful arsenal of weapons (e. g. 361 bolt action rifles/shotguns, 1 hand grenade, & 1,230 ‘homemade weapons’). Surprisingly, much like Tito’s partisans, the Mau Mau had constructed a factory to manufacture and repair the rudimentary weapons they had stolen or created, all while receiving absolutely no external support. Despite the new-found intelligence, the British authorities were at a loss.Like all sensible guerrillas, Mau Maus fighters fled when at a disadvantage. The advantages of advanced aircraft and highly mobilized ground forces were negated by the Mau Mau ability to hide in the forests around Mount Kenya. Lacking progress, authorities pushed Itote to pursue peace negotiations, but gained no ground as neither party trusted the other. Instead colonial authorities utilized the hiatus to identify supporters, arresting over a thousand Kikuyu and beginning a massive detention campaign immediately after talks broke down. Effectively, Br itish authorities imprisoned the entire Kikuyu urban population.Entire villages were de-populated; virtually every Kikuyu male was separated from his wife and children. Over thirty thousand people were plucked from their homes. Ultimately, the British authorities â€Å"packed up† close to 150,000 Kikuyu into interment camps. On a more ‘practical’ level colonial authority sought to encourage loyalty to the state by promising land to those who fought against the Mau Mau. Yet the insurgency did not cease. It became clear to the British authorities that two main problems had been greatly overlooked: the issue of land, and the ceremonial oath.In response, authorities created three separate answers for, what they perceived, as three separate problems. Firstly, to find a way to release the Kikuyu from their oaths of resistance, secondly, to meet the desperate hunger for land amongst the Kikuyu, and finally, to bring forward an acceptable leader to replace the militant I tote. The bitterest issue amongst the Kikuyu was the appropriation of tribal land. Coupled with the post-First World War population explosion, it turned large numbers of Kikuyu into landless labourers.Furthermore, the social policy implemented during the 1930s swelled the population. Those unlucky â€Å"white highlanders† would have no hope of finding land anywhere in the already overcrowded â€Å"cultivable leftovers†. Indeed with such bleak options available, large numbers flocked into urban centers. The surge of slums, particularly in Nairobi, housed the idle landless farmers who had no skill or trade to sustain their living. If Kenya wanted to achieve a lasting peace, this problem had to be addressed promptly.However, ruling authorities (under settler pressure) adamantly refused to â€Å"reward† Kikuyu rebels by the appropriation of land for them from the colonists, and instead proposed increasing current land productivity. Given contemporary fiscal, technol ogical, and social restraints, the proposed policy had the effect of furthering the wealth of the white landowners without addressing the problem of the landless poor. As a result of colonial resistance to large-scale land distribution, over one million Kikuyu were packed into, Kenya’s version of, government-run villages. An improvisation on the ontemporary fortified village program run by the British in Malaya, the inhabitants regarded them as vile prison camps, almost a step down from the internment camps. Even assuming that these villages were acceptable, the land assigned to them was of poor quality, leaving the only source of fertile farming land within the white community. Ultimately, however, reluctant colonial authorities agreed on the repurchase of settler land for native use. From a more military perspective, colonial authorities agreed the second step would be to stop, or at the very least diminish, the impact of the ceremonial-oaths being taken.Seeking to remedy t he issue of zealous commitment, the colonial government commissioned Louis Leakey to create â€Å"un-oathing ceremony†. Renowned for his anthropological work, Leakey’s perception was that Christianity was the greatest counterinsurgency tactic available. He promptly created a program for rehabilitation. With a strong understanding of the Kikuyu’s culture, Leakey knew full well that such a ceremony could remove the moral commitment of many Mau Mau rank –and-file. For the time it was certainly a radical approach to counterinsurgency strategy, and was the most effective application devised.Under this program of rehabilitation over repression, colonial authorities encouraged defection. However this program was far from infallible. Those who opted out were left with long-term imprisonment, or hanging. Ultimately, after a token trial for the suspected Mau Mau sympathizers, colonial authorities hanged a gruesome tally of 1,090 Kikuyu. Such a number reflects upon its oppressive implementers, that justice under British colonial rule in Kenya â€Å"was a blunt, brutal and unsophisticated instrument of oppression†. (p. 122) Conclusively, the white settlers lost their ‘dirty war’.Ultimately, no military or security forces can recreate the pre-insurgency situation. Killing sympathizers and soldiers, hanging the leadership, and interning masses of innocent people creates an uncontrollable socio-political situation. London would no longer condone the actions of the Kenyan white minority. Parliament only saw a dwindling treasury, diminishing international prestige, and no substantial progress towards a solution. So, in 1959, the conservative government sought a tabla-rasa and began dismantling the legal framework of the Kenyan police-state.Finally, the tables had turned, and the white supremacists’ world shattered. The white settlers would be forced to sell their lands now that Kenyans had been given majority rule and open land franchise. The 1961 national reconciliation begun by Jomo Kenyatta, paved the way for independence in 1963. It was the actions of Kenyatta which subdued the Mau Mau rebels. With strong support from London, Kenyatta was able to give the people what they cried for, what the Mau Mau fought for, and what all nations ultimately desire: independence.