Subject: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,Bob Date: 23 Jul 07 - 07:29 PM Has anyone watched a documentary called "Stealing A Nation" by journalist John Pilger ? It was amazing. It's about the expulsion of Chagos Islanders from Diego Garcia. They were forcibly removed by the British government between 1967 and 1973 to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away, so that the island could be used as an American airbase. How was this allowed to happen ? How did the story remain a secret for so many years? |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 07 - 07:38 PM Timeline 1814 Islands ceded to Britain by France 1965 Renamed the British Indian Ocean Territory 1967-71 Deportation of 2,000 islanders to make room for US base on one of the islands, Diego Garcia November 2000 High court rules expulsion illegal. Ruling initially accepted by foreign secretary, Robin Cook, but a "feasibility study" ordered into the potential return June 2004 UK government tries to block return of islanders through two orders in council, royal decrees which declared no one had right of abode May 2006 The high court overruled the orders in council, describing their use to expel an entire population as repugnant 2007 Foreign office appeal rejected Story here. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 07 - 07:54 PM What secret? Lack of interest is the reason. The islanders were descendants of slaves and East Indians brought to the islands to work the plantations. They were resettled, finally to Mauritius. About 4500 at present count. The base in for joint use by the United States and the United Kingdom. It is an important naval base as well as airbase. Suit was brought by the islanders, seeking to return. In 2000, the High Court (UK) granted the islanders right of return, and also granted UK citizenship. In 2004, the British government issued Orders-in-Council reversing the 2000 Court decision. In 2006, the British High Court ruled that the Orders-in-Council were unlawful, and this was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Will the UK government appeal? No decision yet. There is much on the internet concerning this situation. I have not gone to the Court documents, so I cannot verify that the information above is completely accurate. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 07 - 07:59 PM Cross-posting here, but no conflict in basic facts. The Chagos Islands were never a nation so the thread heading is incorrect. The islands were uninhabited until the French brought in workers; the British took over after the defeat of Napoleon. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,Bob Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:14 PM One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and usually a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. A nation extends across generations, and includes the dead as full members. More vaguely, nations are assumed to include future generations. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: pdq Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:23 PM John Pilger is the most vile propagandist on planet Earth. Pilger say that "journalism is a weapon of war", and uses it that way to destroy his own country. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM Yeah, almost as much as Bush/Cheney have used it to destroy the USA. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: pdq Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:29 PM Abviously 'truth' looks like 'propaganda' to the true believer. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,meself Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:33 PM Okay then, pdq - what is the 'truth' about the Chagos Islanders? Inquiring minds, and all that ... |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: pdq Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:37 PM That's not my department, but thanks for the question. As I said, Pilger is the issue. And propaganda. Look up some of his other work. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: pdq Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:52 PM Obviously, the corollary is also true: "'propaganda' looks like the 'truth' to a true believer". That's why we need more science majors (who look for truth') and fewer liberal arts majors. Journalism seems to attract people who believe that 'truth is relative'. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:08 PM PDQ: If you haven't heard the PBS interviews with those who were displaced by the manipulations of the British government at the time, for commercial reasons, you might want to do so before you accuse Pilger of trying to "destroy" Britan, which is a highly exagerrated claim. The British destroyed an existing community with many generations of life in a homeland. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,Russ Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:19 PM Hey is this ass pdq for real ? Man face facts, John is a really sound guy who knows what he is talking about, more than can be said for you. So your saying you fully support what they did on these poor people ? I bet you think the Palestinians need their ass kicked too ? Ever considered changing your name to pms ? Buddy, seek help soon. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: pdq Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:21 PM Guest,Russ: blow it out you ass, fool> And have the balls to sign up so someone send you a PM. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:22 PM There's a difference between truth and fact. Facts can be measured empirically. Truth cannot. Facts tell us what happened, but not why. The facts as outlined in Peace's post above tell us what happened. What we don't know is why the particular course of action was taken or what justifications were used. To get to "why" one must look at human motivations which is something no empirical data collector is going to be able to do. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,meself Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:23 PM Now, now, Russ - as one GUEST to another, we are trying to keep this civil - |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:42 PM Truth is relative, unless it is demonstrable in the laboratory. Pdq is ignorant of the meaning of "liberal arts." Take Dartmouth or Oberlin as typical of a liberal arts college- Academic programs at Dartmouth are divided into four divisions: the humanities, the sciences, the social sciences, and interdisciplinary programs. Sciences are an integral part of the liberal arts. Defining the liberal arts more closely, programs would include language, philosophy, history, literature and abstract science (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). The purpose is to develop the intellectual capacities (as reason and judgement) as opposed to professional or vocational skills. Journalism is one of the professional skills, as, e. g., mechanical engineering. Unfortunately many so-called journalists, outside of those on the better newspapers, have never received any training in the discipline. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: pdq Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:55 PM Fine, Q, but a 'liberal arts" college is welcome to offer courses in science, animal husbandry or under-water basket weaving. That does not make those subjects 'liberal arts'. Nice try, though. Also, all of the journalism majors I have known went into journalism as a profession. History and philosophy are also 'liberal arts'. Claiming that "increasing reason and judgement" are part of liberal arts is downright comical. Almost are weird as claiming the politics is a vehicle intended to promote 'truth'. B-Dubs: I believe that 'facts' are a sub-set of 'truth', but it is too late to elaborate. Nite all. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:05 PM Compensation for losses of home and employment seems to be called for- seemingly the British government removed them without providing proper restitution. Comparison could be made with the Islanders removed from Bikini Atoll, but the latter were part of a culture of long standing. Since the people on Chagos were not native to the islands, the position of the British government is understandable, if not humane. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:20 PM "Hey is this ass pdq for real ?" 1) He is a very sharp individual (as in intelligent). 2) He's a good guy, and he's real. 3) His views differ from many on Mudcat, but that's just because he's misguided. 4) I think of him as a friend, and I hope he thinks the same way back, despite that we differ about 180 degrees politically. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM Q, please remember they had established communities on the island for multiple generations and had come to consider it their home. It was not just leant to them. To then remove them by force and transplant them somewhere they had bnever been is the equivalent of treating them as slaves. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:48 PM The same removal of people has happened many times in recent history. the removal of Muslim from Hindu areas in India at the time of separation was massive. Many died. The removal of Chinese from the Yangtze basin perhaps nvolves half a million, and similar displacements are occurring in other areas of China. Of course the famous westward removal of the Cherokee,and of the Navajo from their land are part of American history. The Navajo are one of the few groups who were able to return to their central homeland. I cannot get excited about the Chagos Islanders. And to us, the removal of the Bikini Islanders and the atomic explosion carried out there as a 'scientific' test should receive more attention. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Metchosin Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:50 PM Remember this was ca 1967 not 1767: In a memo dating from this period, Colonial Office head Denis Greenhill (later Lord Greenhill of Harrow) wrote to the British Delegation at the UN: "The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee. Unfortunately, along with the seagulls go some few Tarzans and Man Fridays who are hopefully being wished on Mauritius." How many hundreds of years does one have to live on the land to be considered a culture of long standing? The answer is Blowing in the Wind..... I agree with the British High court, this is repugnant. In fact, IMO, this is beyond repugnant. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Peace Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:53 PM Hear, hear, Metchosin. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 24 Jul 07 - 01:23 AM Removal of people from their land has happened many times in history. That does not make it right. We should know that by now. Where is your homeland, Q? I think you mentioned Canada. If that is so, I suppose you have the opinion that you entitled to take whatever you want from the rightful owners of the land, regardless of whether or not there has been a treaty or compensation paid to the original inhabitants. What makes you think you are so special? In fact, if you provide your address, I can tell you exactly who owns the land you think is yours. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Teribus Date: 24 Jul 07 - 01:31 AM Then no doubt Mr Pilger explained that in 2016 the "Chagos Islands" agreement will probably expire, on the the part of either of the two parties involved. Failing that if expires for certain in 2036 (IIRC - This was all set out in another thread that covered this topic). |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: mandotim Date: 24 Jul 07 - 03:38 AM This thread is taking an interesting turn; one of the many post-imperialist injustices is being opened up to scrutiny. The difficulty for me is the messenger. John Pilger has made a name for himself as a breaker of news about scandals of one sort or another, and along the way has done some good things; but he has also made some monumental mistakes, and hurt some innocent people in the process. Seems to me that most journalists, even John Pilger, are not motivated by the search for truth, but for a good story. My Mum used to tell me stories when I was little, and she's a good woman, but I don't think all of them were true... Tim |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Jul 07 - 04:39 AM If those people were not native to that island after many generations, where does that leave the US, the majority of who's inhabitants are more recent than some of those from the Chagos Islands? It is pure semantics bringing origin of a people into an argument as an excuse for treating them like shit. It's racism when it's done like that, pure and simple racism. Giok |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: mandotim Date: 24 Jul 07 - 05:44 AM Hear hear, Giok. However; something encouraging here is that at least in the UK the checks and balances between the executive and the judiciary seem to be in working order, if very slow. Not sure the same is currently true across the pond though. When i first saw the thread title, I though it was another one about Shrub and his cronies. Tim |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 Jul 07 - 07:17 AM If you visit Chatsworth House in Derbyshire, where Pride and Predjudice was filmed and Mr Darcy lived - that is the ancestral home of the Dukes of Devonshire, ever since he decided that he wanted a palace there. There was a village there, but the villagers were all 'relocated'. The story has many precedents. At least nowadays there seems to be some sort of legal framework to dispute the right of the rich and powerful, or plain malicious. Pilger is a talented writer. Sometimes he gets it right, sometimes not. By and large he is unsympathetic to the view, or pretends to be unaware that America is constantly engaged in military struggle to maintain its position of pre-eminence in the world, and that American democracy is the last best hope of everybody. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Azizi Date: 24 Jul 07 - 08:19 AM What John 'Giok' MacKenzie said in his 24 Jul 07 - 04:39 AM post. But I also think that things like this happen because for some power, greed, and self-interest trump consideration and concern, and rule by law for other people-regardless of whether those people belong to the same race, ethnicity, or religion or belong to a different race, ethnicity, or religion. But then again, those with power write the laws & inteprete the law to suit themselves, and disregard the law when it doesn't suit their purpose to retain power and gain more power, and retain and gain more wealth. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Jul 07 - 08:19 AM Wrong though it is, at least they still remained within their own country, and among people who spoke the same language. G |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Azizi Date: 24 Jul 07 - 08:43 AM Also, injustice that happens to any person any where impacts all of us to greater or lesser degrees regardless of where we live or who we are. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Jul 07 - 09:43 AM OK, Dianavon, anyone who has ever moved onto someone else's territory without paying adequate compensation is a thief and should be removed and sent back to wherever. Send them marauding Indians back to Asia and leave the land to the coyotes- but moving forward a few thousand years to the ranchers and resource exploiters, and I think it was Treaty 7 that dealt with the area where I squat. The redskins are going to get revenge for any shortfall with a casino-resort that will scalp the present inhabitants. Odd that no one has yet named the diasporas that lie at the root of most of the Mideast unrest and rise of terrorism. A few thousand Jewish tribesmen kicked off their land 2000 years ago and leading 60 years ago to the Palestinians who eventually succeeded them being removed to refugee camps or confined to the most non-productive lands in the region. Such is history. Everybody moves or gets moved. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,ifor Date: 24 Jul 07 - 11:04 AM Actually John Pilger is Australian and one of the finest journalists to be working and exposing the crimes of the rich and powerful today!He is doing his job and no wonder the powerful hate his guts.Good on yer John!. ifor |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Amos Date: 24 Jul 07 - 11:08 AM Well, Q, it may be history, but that does not really change the ethics of the thing. The right to claim some rocks because you had the firepower to force the residents off them is scarcely moral high ground, or even conscionable, given that the islanders were doing no harm to others. The core equation of the action was along this line: "I would be richer if you were gone; therefore, be gone or I will kill you." A decent respect for individuals alone would make it clear that this was essentially an unconsciable piece of bullying. Getting away with it is no excuse. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 24 Jul 07 - 12:41 PM "The redskins are going to get revenge for any shortfall with a casino-resort that will scalp the present inhabitants. - Q If it were white gangsters doing the same thing (as they've done elsewhere) you wouldn't say a word about it. I hope they make enough money to cover the legal fees so that more land claims can be settled. I also hope they put a billboard in your front yard. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jul 07 - 01:02 PM English courts more often get it right than many.... But what was that gem above: "American democracy is the last best hope of everybody"? Shome mishtake shurely/// |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Jul 07 - 02:28 PM The Tsu-tina are welcome to put a billboard in my front yard, if they pay enough. I would even help them fight the provincial regulation that prohibits billboards on public rights-of-way, such as streets and roadways. Amos, allowing business men in Hawai'i to depose the Queen and her constitutional monarchy and pave the way to American sovereignty was hardly moral, but it was done. And billions in trust held by the U. S. government that were used through the years for other purposes were never repaid and never will be. More equivalent is the case of the Bikini Island natives who were removed from their homes so that their little paradise could be used for experimentation with the atom bomb. No, claiming some rocks because you have the fire power is morally unjustifiable, but it is history and can't be reversed. Andrew Jackson fought a war with the Mexicans and took the west from them. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo can hadly be said to have offered any resonable compensation. When the Israelis pay proper restitution to the refugee Palestinians, then I might moan (for all of 30 seconds) about such minor cases as a few Chagos Islanders (who, itseems, may receive some compensation, though delayed. If they do, they will be ahead of almost any other group who was displaced "for the common good." As I said, move or be moved. Such is recorded history. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Metchosin Date: 24 Jul 07 - 02:53 PM Gotta love your cynicism Q. "Displaced for the common good?" The act was unfortunately common, but perceived as good? An interesting defence of might is right and the meek may inherit the earth, but they will never take title to it. While you state that you cannot "get excited" over the forced removal of the Chago Islanders, it certainly peaked your interest enough to defend those that were responsible for their illegal removal. Why get your shirt in a knot because someone steals your car or mugs you and takes your wallet, Q? It happens all the time somewhere in the world, so its OK, right? I'm guessing you might have a different response if somehow it was your ox that was being gored. Teribus, of what relevance is the expiry date of the agreement? Someone dumps you from your car and then defends the action by saying, "Screw you, I put insurance on it and I'm going to use your vehicle until the insurance runs out." What is difficult about the understanding the concept of theft as an "illegal act"? One cannot right the wrongs of ancient and past history to any great extent, but one sure as hell, will reap the consequences. All the more reason to make some effort to advocate for the legal and correct thing to be done when it occurs under your watch. Good on the British Courts, I certainly hold them in higher regard than most US courts of late. Little wonder the actions of some governments of western democracies, holding themselves up as champions of the rule of law and human rights, ring hollow over much of the world. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,meself Date: 24 Jul 07 - 04:02 PM 'If they do, they will be ahead of almost any other group who was displaced "for the common good."' Of course, many of the United Empire Loyalists landed on their feet - with considerable help from Mother Britain ... More to the point: there's a substantial difference between the idea of righting the wrongs of ancient history and the idea of righting the wrongs of forty years ago. Some of us like to think that we as a society have moved a little beyond the time when it was acceptable to treat indigenous people, or poor people, or foreigners, or - name your group - like animals ... The fact that injustices from bygone days cannot be undone is no excuse for tolerating present injustices. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,crazyhorse Date: 24 Jul 07 - 04:58 PM But what was that gem above: "American democracy is the last best hope of everybody"? They have protected europe three times in the last hundred years. Pilger writes for money. He's written some good stuff and a lot of tripe,always anti-establishment. Most of his readership have student rail cards, which is how it should be. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: bobad Date: 24 Jul 07 - 05:21 PM "They have protected europe three times in the last hundred years." Not by themselves. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Amos Date: 24 Jul 07 - 05:23 PM American democracy, that Grand Experiment, is only 231 years old. Much too soon to quit, and it is my deepest hope it recovers from its bemusing 20th century "future shock" and pulls itself out in good working order. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Cluin Date: 24 Jul 07 - 05:53 PM Lots of not-well-known stories from history, GUEST Bob. Google "Kinmel Park Mutiny" sometime. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Jul 07 - 09:29 PM ""They have protected europe three times in the last hundred years." Not by themselves." I got castigated for even hinting that Bobad ... |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,michaelr Date: 24 Jul 07 - 10:45 PM "American democracy is the last best hope of everybody." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Buddy, I live here, and observe what this country does. What the fuck are you smoking, wld? |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 Jul 07 - 11:55 PM Elaborate....... |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: Teribus Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:41 AM Number of things that Mr. Pilger didn't mention. The Chagos Islands were privately owned, the British Government bought out the owners of the copra plantations in the early to mid 1960's, so legal title to the islands belongs to the UK Governmernt, the people who lived there at the time did not own any property there. The title of the threat is "Stealing A Nation" - Mr. Pilger's title to a documentary piece. Well to steal implies to permanently deprive someone of something, which can hardly be the case if there are mutual opt out clauses and an end date as part of the agreement. "In the medium term the US lease of Diego Garcia is by treaty currently set to expire in 2016, although both Governments have the option of extending the lease for another 20 years if considered necessary. Beyond this date, it appears from statements made by Mauritius to the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the United Kingdom has undertaken to cede the islands to Mauritius once they are no longer required by the United States. However, this undertaking appears to have been made on the predication that the islands continue to remain uninhabited; if the Chagossians are able to resume settlement the United Kingdom may decide to treat the islands in accordance with general principles of self-determination, potentially rendering the geopolitical future of the islands in the hands of its displaced people." - Wikipedia In legal terms, all looks to be set for the Islanders return, I sincerely hope that they do. |
Subject: RE: BS: Stealing A Nation From: GUEST,redhorse at work Date: 25 Jul 07 - 03:03 AM So they'll be ceded back "once they are no longer required by the United States". And that'll be in 2036? Maybe that's what a literal reading of the law implies, but I'll believe it when I see it. For an undoubtedly intelligent person, Teribus seems frighteningly naive about the behaviour of superpowers when law and national interest come up against each other. nick |