Abstract: This study of European settlers’ political struggles encompasses a ten-year period (1902-12) during which the foundations of Kenya’s modern politics were established. The dissertation follows political contestation originating from the East Africa Protectorate’s small European settler community during the administrations of four commissioners/governors. The politics of this period involved varied individuals and organizations that sought to move the colonial state in the direction of policies European politicians advocated in such critical areas as land and labor, the administration of justice, and in the system of government that applied to them and other residents of the protectorate. The settler politicians pushed for a voice in protectorate affairs on the way to the achievement of responsible government on the pattern of South Africa, from which so many of them came to the Kenya highlands. The drive to attain a “white man’s country” that marked this decade was thus very critical for future politics. The segregated system demanded by the Europeans had a huge impact on Kenyan history as did the types of organizations they founded and the tactics they adopted. Nevertheless, the European political struggles, while influential, never led to European political control and the establishment of a minority-ruled Kenya as the political agitation did not cause the Colonial Office to bow to the settler politicians’ demands.



Abstract: Before falling into disuse towards the middle of the twentieth century, the term ‘Dominion’ connoted the autonomous status of select polities on the British Empire’s geographic periphery (and Ireland). This concept factored into British discourse as the extension of liberal norms of self-government. Originally associated with the British-majority settler states of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, Dominion status was in turn extended to the South African Union in 1910. Advocates for a similar form of ‘self-governance’ sought to see the example emulated elsewhere in Africa and, through the Zionist enterprise, in the Middle East. The reluctance of historians of the British Empire to examine the structural manifestations of racism in British policy has obscured the significance of the Dominion concept and its historical evolution. Settler self-governance within the British sphere is still often framed in terms of liberal conceptions of ‘responsible government’, as Lord Durham phrased it his Report on the Affairs of British North America. However, self-government on the Empire’s periphery was a patently exclusionist and racialised practice. Its exclusionist bounds were not so narrow as the Anglo-Saxonist racism that first marked its introduction. By the early twentieth century, French-speaking Canadians and Boers alike were sharing in the enterprise of British representative government. The bounds of exclusion were nonetheless unmistakable. Today, it is in respectable circles no longer acceptable to present settler rule on the African continent as a liberal enterprise. Yet the histories of the original Dominions and of the Zionist enterprise continue to be distorted by intellectuals leveraging an exclusionist politics of self-representation. The valorisation of Israel in particular through claimed rights to self-determination should prompt renewed engagement with this history. The invocation of the Dominions’ example by an earlier generation of pro-Zionist advocates speaks to a shared history that demands critical attention.



Abstract: Following Turkey’s intervention in and invasion of Cyprus in July and August 1974, the island was split into two. In the north, a Turkish Cypriot political entity was established that was only recognized by Turkey. Turkey played a crucial role in the settlement process of between 30 and 45 thousand settlers from Turkey in Northern Cyprus during the first wave of settlement, from 1974 to 1980. The settlers were largely needed to create and consolidate a viable Turkish Cypriot state. In order to successfully carry out this settlement process, which was characterized by a rapid installation of a large group of settlers, Turkish and Turkish Cypriot authorities had to prepare land and housing for the arriving settlers. This was made possible by the large void left behind by the Greek Cypriots that fled and were transferred to South-Cyprus following the 1974 War. The settlement process was thus carried out through an organized, state-controlled demographic engineering, in which housing, land and resources were promised and given to arriving settlers. A lack of settler agency was a distinguishable characteristic of the settlers from Turkey, and ideological conviction played little, or no, role. Due to the historic conflict between Turkish and Greek Cypriots, the first settlers from Turkey were largely viewed as saviours crucial to the political and economic independence of the Turkish Cypriots from the Greek Cypriots. Good settler-native relations were thus largely a characteristic of this first wave of settlement.



Abstract: This article considers the ‘creative education’ of influential Aotearoa/New Zealand art educator Elwyn Richardson, which is based on what he calls the ‘discovery method’: the ‘concentrated study of material from [students’] own surroundings.’ Through a game that his students play with tyres, we explore the role that tools play in Richardson’s classroom and in the imaginary ‘worlding’ of his students’ play. By taking the ‘early world’ of the children’s development to be a product of the tools through which they describe it, we reveal Richardson’s educative process to be essentially technological. His idea of the whole child who emerges through a process of experience and observation – of ‘emotion recollected in tranquillity’, in the well-known phrase of Wordsworth cited by Richardson – conflates the nature of the child and nature of the ‘natural’ world. By this act of ‘natural settlement’ not untypical of settler narratives in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the child’s – and, by implication, other settlers’ – relation to the world of nature is naturalized. Instead, we would argue that the child’s relation to nature is altogether unnatural: it is imprinted by the technological means through which she explores the world and makes it her own – and by which she is made over. The ‘tyre-child’ is no child of nature, but a child of technology (as every settler is a technological settler), for whom creative errors – acts of ‘mis-taking’ like the ones Richardson’s children make in playing with tyres – reveal an imaginary capacity at once theoretical and unsettling.