Whither freedom if there is no choice?

"The African is in the best position properly to discuss and disclose the psychological background of tribal customs, such as irua, etc.,..."

A few paragraphs before writing this, Kenyatta writes,".... for most of their information is derived from Gikuyu converts who have been taught by these same Christians to regard the custom of female
circumcision as something savage, and barbaric...."

Are these Gikuyu converts not African too? Have they not had the same experiences as other Gikuyu people have? Does interacting with the colonizer completely erase their identity and experiences of being part of the Gikuyu people? Is it truly so hard to imagine that amongst the hundreds of people that have gone the irua ritual, there might be some who are not in favor of it or resent having it done to them?

Kenyatta's criticisms of the nature of colonial intervention is valid enough. The colonizer does not seek to understand why the native practices a certain ritual, he only seeks to fit that ritual into his own narrow world view, and when this does not happen, the immediate response is to label that practice as 'barbaric' or 'oppressive'. Which is why Kenyatta goes to great lengths  to peel away the myths surrounding mutilation practices amongst the Gikuyu people to show that what the colonizers term as barbaric is actually of great psychological significance to the Gikuyu people. He goes so far as to say,"...that the moral code of the tribe is bound up with this custom and that it symbolises the unification of the whole tribal organisation." 

I don't disagree with Kenyatta's criticism of the nature of colonial intervention, however what I find disparaging is this compete rejection of any Gikuyu people that may disagree with the  irua ritual. These 'converts' seem to be voided of all agency to think for themselves or make their own choices by Kenyatta, if they have chosen to reject this ritual it is because they have been 'detribalised' and given into colonization. Their identity as Gikuyu, as people who have experienced this ritual personally seems to hold no value at all. 

While trying to free themselves from the definition of liberated, and civilized that the colonizer has created, people like Kenyatta and Fanon end up creating a binary which leaves little room for third world people, especially women to be able to make choices for themselves. What is the point of freedom if it is not accompanied by the ability to make your own choices, to have the agency to decide for yourself what you believe is right or wrong?

In examining freedom in the context of decolonization it becomes apparent that within this binary the freedom that the colonized men talk about operates within certain native systems and hierarchies, beyond which the concept of freedom condenses into subjugation to colonial rule. At the same time the freedom which the white man talks about also operates within certain predefined notions, and anything beyond these notions is either subservience to the colonized man or defiance to the white man.

The nature of colonial conquest was such that it pervaded into every aspect of the lives of the colonized so that even the smallest act of carrying out local culture or tradition was seen as an act of resistance, a rejection of colonial rule. And while it is understandable why this was the case, it is also important to realize that in labeling every cultural practice an act of resistance, we tend to look over practices that might be anti-colonial, yes, but also oppressive/violent towards groups .i.e women, within local populations. So when people within these groups make choices for themselves, it is unfair to label them as colonized or converts because they are essentially just creating their own paths to freedom from whatever it is that oppresses them; colonial rule or native hierarchies/ traditions. Freedom is entrenched in being able to make your own choices, not in the either or of colonialism and native hierarchies/ traditions.