Almost a half century after it broke out, Mau Mau uprising continues to be a subject of controversy. Major questions are: What is the legacy of Mau Mau in Kenya? What is its legitimacy? Was Mau Mau a nationalist or tribal movement? Is Kenya’s independence a product of Mau Mau? As the amount of literature on the subject of rebellion continues to grow, it is becoming clear that the historical meaning and interpretation of a movement such as Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya is to be determined to a large extent by the perspective of the historian who is making the study. Mau Mau has been described as a peasant revolt, an atavistic socio-religious movement, a visible manifestation of the psychological breakdown of a primitive tribe in a modern age, a critical stage in the development of a legitimate nationalist movement, and innumerable other things. The only element which appears to remain consistent throughout all these various views is that the context of the historian and his/her method of analysis affect his/her interpretation as much if not more than the context of the rebellion itself. However, any significant historical event is marked by its attachment to the people, events and institutions to either side of its occurrence. This nexus, or series of linkages, is the determinate, if unstated, context of the event which gives it nearly all its importance. If a movement, person or event came out of nowhere and went nowhere, people, and especially historians, would very soon forget it. The Mau Mau rebellion continues to attract the attention of many people for the simple reason that it still has a great effect on people of Kenya and the rest of the world. Obviously it has in some fashion advanced into the present day, fifty years after independence. This linkage was established not because Mau Mau was successful, nor because it failed; it exists fifty years after independence because people, especially historians, have been unable to define the legacy which Mau Mau has