King Charles III is wrapping up a state visit to Kenya. It is his first trip as king to Africa, as well as to a member-state of the Commonwealth of Nations. The visit is replete with symbolism; his late mother, Queen Elizabeth, learnt of her father’s death while in Kenya.

The king’s itinerary included such fluffy staples as a state dinner; a visit to a new museum commemorating Kenya’s independence; an appearance at a co-working space that hosts many representatives of Kenya’s vibrant tech sector; and a trip to a local farmers market, from which he got some vegetables for a hospital.

Nevertheless, and quite predictably, a substantial proportion of the commentary around the royal visit has focused on the darker aspects of Britain’s colonial legacy. The New York Times put emphasis, for instance, on a call by some Kenyans for the king to apologise for atrocities committed against members of the Mau Mau, an armed insurrection against British colonial government; some, like the United Kingdom’s High Commissioner to Kenya, tried to downplay these calls.

Unfortunately, as has become the norm, the whole conversation is unnecessarily simplistic. Perhaps it’s because most commentators take regular humans for fools, who are unable to consider matters from multiple perspectives. The truth is that, as with most things, opinions about Britain’s colonial legacy in Kenya don’t have to go either of two ways. We can, with reason, hold multiple opinions. 

Yes, the British colonial administration visited brutality on some members and sympathisers of the Mau Mau and then hid the evidence. But the uprising itself was also quite brutal. In a rejoinder to a popular book on Britain’s atrocities against the Mau Mau, Kenya’s foremost historian, Bethwell Ogot, listed the Mau Mau’s crimes: “decapitation and general mutilation of civilians, torture before murder, bodies bound up in sacks and dropped in wells, burning the victims alive, gouging out of eyes, splitting open the stomachs of pregnant women.”

And though Britain has gone as far as compensating 5,228 Mau Mau veterans who were brutalised by the colonial administration – it took a court case, sure, but at least there was a court to petition – the Mau Mau never so much acknowledged their crimes. Its claim to the moral high ground is taken for granted.

Yes, the Brits colonised Kenya. But they didn’t just loot the country. No one has done the accounting, but it’s highly likely that the colonial project lost Britain money. For instance, the Uganda Railway – which arguably created Kenya – was built at a loss, and operated at a loss for decades; it was so expensive and so impractical that it was nicknamed the Lunatic Express by a member of the British Parliament.