4 ms·

See how sneaky the language being used is crafted to not put blame on the UK: "Britain took control of the Chagos Islands, of which Diego Garcia is part, from

by cies 2y ago

See how sneaky the language being used is crafted to not put blame on the UK: "Britain took control of the Chagos Islands, of which Diego Garcia is part, from its then colony, Mauritius, in 1965. It went on to evict its population of more than 1,000 people to make way for the military base." -- BBC They "took control" (sound quite nice) and "evicted" (probably also the nicest word they could find). The intend is also clear: kick out the natives to make a military base in a place of the world far from their home-island. See how this language changes when Russia "takes control" of the Donbas. At least Russia claims to step up to rescue the Russian population of Ukraine that lives in a bordering region that Russia controlled not too long ago. Hence I consider the BBC to be tax paid UK state propaganda, not much better or worse than RT.com in Russia.

beardyw 2y ago
Whataboutism
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  I respond instead of reflexively downvoting. This is not an argument. And even if that one line could be considered one, it is lazy and does not address the point OP is making.
  - beardyw 2y ago
    Launching an attack on the authors of the article rather than joining the discussion about the topic appears to be a diversionary tactic.
blibble 2y ago
there weren't any natives as the islands were uninhabited when European explorers first encountered them
- cies 2y ago
  At some point no humans existed on earth. But when the UK "took control" (a.k.a. invaded) there were inhabitants that apparently had to be "evicted" (a.k.a. expelled or forcefully kicked out). I believe the people that inhabit a place should have some say in their future.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    The 'local' people were workers brought to the island by the British, and then forced to leave the island once the job ended.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians says "The Chagossians are a mix of African, Indian and Malay descent.[4] The French brought some to the Chagos Islands as slaves from Mauritius in 1786. Others arrived as fishermen, farmers, and coconut plantation workers during the 19th century." The slaves brought there by the French predate British control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians adds that before 1835, the "workers brought to the island by the British" were not really "workers" but forcibly transported slaves, in the same sense that the slaves the English brought to Jamaica were "workers."
    - cies 2y ago
      > The 'local' people were workers brought to the island by the British, and then forced to leave the island once the job ended. You are using exactly the kind of positive wording for horrible things that I was making a point against. Slavery = job. Slave = worker Brought to = forcefully shipped to as slaves "local" = more local than the policy makers that decided they had to make place for a military base Human Rights Watch called it a crime against humanity. And it takes quite a bit of evil for them to do so wrt a western countries crimes.

by cies 2y ago

beardyw 2y ago

Whataboutism

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
I respond instead of reflexively downvoting. This is not an argument. And even if that one line could be considered one, it is lazy and does not address the point OP is making.
- beardyw 2y ago
  Launching an attack on the authors of the article rather than joining the discussion about the topic appears to be a diversionary tactic.

blibble 2y ago

there weren't any natives as the islands were uninhabited when European explorers first encountered them

cies 2y ago
At some point no humans existed on earth. But when the UK "took control" (a.k.a. invaded) there were inhabitants that apparently had to be "evicted" (a.k.a. expelled or forcefully kicked out). I believe the people that inhabit a place should have some say in their future.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  The 'local' people were workers brought to the island by the British, and then forced to leave the island once the job ended.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians says "The Chagossians are a mix of African, Indian and Malay descent.[4] The French brought some to the Chagos Islands as slaves from Mauritius in 1786. Others arrived as fishermen, farmers, and coconut plantation workers during the 19th century." The slaves brought there by the French predate British control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians adds that before 1835, the "workers brought to the island by the British" were not really "workers" but forcibly transported slaves, in the same sense that the slaves the English brought to Jamaica were "workers."
  - cies 2y ago
    > The 'local' people were workers brought to the island by the British, and then forced to leave the island once the job ended. You are using exactly the kind of positive wording for horrible things that I was making a point against. Slavery = job. Slave = worker Brought to = forcefully shipped to as slaves "local" = more local than the policy makers that decided they had to make place for a military base Human Rights Watch called it a crime against humanity. And it takes quite a bit of evil for them to do so wrt a western countries crimes.