Case studies of nationalist movements Questionbank

They used their military experience and increased political awareness to strengthen resistance

They were banned from participating in any political activities by the Kenya African Union (KAU)

They remained loyal to the British crown and discouraged resistance

They emigrated to Europe, leaving the resistance movement without leaders

Oppression → Organisation → Resistance → Negotiation or Conflict → Independence

Independence → Negotiation → Resistance → Oppression

Negotiation → Conflict → Oppression → Independence

Organisation → Independence → Oppression → Conflict

To establish constitutional terms for Kenya’s transition to independence

To finalize the hut tax collection process

To negotiate the terms of land redistribution for white settlers

To organize the military response to the Mau Mau uprising

monarchical system

democratic government

princely federation

communist state

To demonstrate that independence movements follow an identical pattern in all geographical regions.

To highlight the unique historical, social, and political contexts of different movements.

To prove that all independence movements are triggered by the same global economic factors.

To show that external intervention is the only common factor in all successful movements.

Free trade agreements

Industrial nationalization

Forced labour and hut taxes

High import tariffs on British goods

It introduced diarchy at the central level under the Governor-General

It immediately unified all princely states into one federation

It completely abolished the role of the Governor-General

It granted universal suffrage to all Indian adults

To fund local African-led government councils

To encourage the development of local Kenyan industries

To provide insurance for African farmers in the White Highlands

To create economic hardship and force Africans into the colonial labor market

It increases moral legitimacy by demonstrating the ability to maintain law and order in a volatile region.

It has little impact on moral legitimacy because international law generally respects the sovereignty of colonial empires.

It decreases moral legitimacy as such actions often lead to international condemnation and highlight the contradictions within colonial rule.

It increases moral legitimacy by proving the colonial power's commitment to protecting the interests of the settler population.

It caused nationalist leaders to abandon their demands to support the British Empire

It led to an immediate and peaceful voluntary withdrawal by the British

It strengthened the British economy, allowing them to keep their colonies longer

It weakened Britain economically and highlighted the hypocrisy of fighting for 'freedom' while denying it to colonies