Hidden Histories: Britain's ethnic cleansing of the Chagos Archipelago (1968-1973)

Benny_Cake

Rebelheart wrote: »

I see. So specifically condemning British imperialist claims and actions in lands beyond Britain is "generalised Brit-bashing"? Is English your first language, or is your thought process really as sloppy as your understanding of that language evidently is?

From your OP:

It seems even in 2012 they for all British cosmopolitan protestations of being beyond their iniquitous Empire just can't let go of this Empire stuff....

It was a British government decision to expel the indigenous population from Diego Garcia - one which they went to great efforts to keep secret. The great majority of the British public probably have never even heard of Diego Garcia. Watch the John Pilger documentary linked to above. It seemed (and your posting history would appear to bear this out) that you were far more interested in compiling a list of British wrongs than in the plight of the Chagossian people. If I've misrepresented you I apologise but that's how it comes across.

However, if someone reads this and informs themselves regarding what happened to the people of Diego Garcia that can only be a good thing.

AngryHippie

The people who lived there were sold out by the Mauritius government, then HMG made deported the lot of them, and later turned the place into a marine park (except for the military installations of course) in order to prevent them from being able to return.
Pretty harsh if you were happy go lucky coconut and fish fan who happened to live there.
In terms of the global Ethnic Cleansing issue, I believe the Palestinians are further ahead in the queue......
Actually I think to label this as Ethnic Cleansing at all is to sensationalize the entire affair, as it is attempting to put them in the same category as Rwandans, European Jews, Croats, Armenians and all of the other ethnic groups who have been ethnically cleansed in the most despicable manner possible.
Money changed hands, the land was effectively sold, the people were given some form of compensation, or at the very least their government was. The Marine reserve status was put in place in order to prevent some bleeding heart international court from reversing the whole thing because they didn't have the teeth to solve any of the worlds REAL problems.
Boom!

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Excellent, old bean. I look forward to thousands of white English Protestants being forcibly expelled by the British military from their homelands in Kent or Sussex to make way for the latest British political aim

What, you seriously think people in the UK haven't been evicted from their homes to make way for military bases. I'm pretty sure there was a spate of compulsory purchases when the USAF moved in to Greenham Common.

Tell me, were the poeple who lost their family homes when the Poulaphuca reservoir was created "Ethnically Cleansed"?

Rebelheart wrote: »

(and we won't mention that massive "famine" of white English Protestants between 1845-51). Scots, Paddies or Chagossians - that's a different story.

Yes, that is a different story so why bring it up? oh sorry, nearly forgot, your just a ****ing troll.

tac foley

Mornin', including Mr Rebelheart [is that your real name?], Great early breakfasty here at Denny's - most of you would have enjoyed it, especially the pancakes and MS!!

Seem to me that the UK has its fair share of wailing villagers for one reason or another, like coastal erosion, general decline of the local industry, redevelopment or plain old flooding so that a reservoir could be filled. But there are at least three compulsory moves on record - Stanford in Norfolk, Inber in Wiltshire, and Tyneham in Dorset, where the inhabitants were given a period of time, up to fifty days or so, to move out, or get caught up in the military training that was going on. After all, there was a war on, y'know.

So as to cheer up Mr Rebelheart, let me remind you all that these were not a bunch of coconut-clopping, fish-fondling, grass-skirt-wearing natives, but full citizens of the United Kingdom.

Believe me, it pays to be open-minded about these things, and not to use history as a means of generating a fume over your corn-flakes, something that our OP friend seems to relish. After all, when you think about it, there's always a war on, somewhere.

I'm going to see some friends of mine this morning, and hopefully we are all going out for a Fall cook-out this evening down by the Landing Place. They were displaced persons, too. They are Mohawks, kicked out of their homelands in New York state by the ungrateful winners of the American War of Independence back in 1784. Instead of whingeing and wailing about it, and reliving misery, they got on with their lives.

A lesson, friends, for us all. It's a well-known fact that a good old red-faced, high-dudgeon level rant and rage can knock a year off your life, while a happy shrug not only costs a lot less calories, but is a whole lot less strain on the heart, and consequently makes you feel better.

You still there, Mr Rebelheart?

I'm surprised.

Best to all

tac in Ontario, watching the morning sun shimmer over the water, and thinking calm thoughts.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Their ethnic background was irrelevant, it is a complete red herring. The sole reason for their expulsion was to build a military base on their land, hence my referring to it as a compulsory purchase.

They were treated badly, but their ethnicity played on part in it, only their misfortune to own land on islands considered strategically important.

It's mot downplaying it, that is the reality.

Well is that strictly true?

Had they been American or British citizens (i.e. ethnic backgrounds rather than subjects), would they have been so easily dismissed?

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Mornin', including Mr Rebelheart [is that your real name?], Great early breakfasty here at Denny's - most of you would have enjoyed it, especially the pancakes and MS!!

Seem to me that the UK has its fair share of wailing villagers for one reason or another, like coastal erosion, general decline of the local industry, redevelopment or plain old flooding so that a reservoir could be filled. But there are at least three compulsory moves on record - Stanford in Norfolk, Inber in Wiltshire, and Tyneham in Dorset, where the inhabitants were given a period of time, up to fifty days or so, to move out, or get caught up in the military training that was going on. After all, there was a war on, y'know.

So as to cheer up Mr Rebelheart, let me remind you all that these were not a bunch of coconut-clopping, fish-fondling, grass-skirt-wearing natives, but full citizens of the United Kingdom.

Believe me, it pays to be open-minded about these things, and not to use history as a means of generating a fume over your corn-flakes, something that our OP friend seems to relish. After all, when you think about it, there's always a war on, somewhere.

I'm going to see some friends of mine this morning, and hopefully we are all going out for a Fall cook-out this evening down by the Landing Place. They were displaced persons, too. They are Mohawks, kicked out of their homelands in New York state by the ungrateful winners of the American War of Independence back in 1784. Instead of whingeing and wailing about it, and reliving misery, they got on with their lives.

A lesson, friends, for us all. It's a well-known fact that a good old red-faced, high-dudgeon level rant and rage can knock a year off your life, while a happy shrug not only costs a lot less calories, but is a whole lot less strain on the heart, and consequently makes you feel better.

You still there, Mr Rebelheart?

I'm surprised.

Best to all

tac in Ontario, watching the morning sun shimmer over the water, and thinking calm thoughts.

Please stay on topic. You mention another poster in a mocking way on 3 occasions in quoted post, hardly relevent to the thread topic. Take this as a warning and stick to the topic in future.

Moderator

Benny_Cake

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Well is that strictly true?

Had they been American or British citizens (i.e. ethnic backgrounds rather than subjects), would they have been so easily dismissed?

Fair point - the treatment of these British subjects compared to the treatment of the Falkland Islanders when their homeland was occupied is striking.

Judgement Day

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Fair point - the treatment of these British subjects compared to the treatment of the Falkland Islanders when their homeland was occupied is striking.

Do you really think that the Falkland Islanders would have been treated much differently if Britain/USA had decided that the islands were needed in their perceived strategic interests? There might have been compensation but they would have been relocated - those were the times that we lived in - three minute warning and all that.

GRMA

So JD, in times of national interest (rather, Imperial interest) the rights of natives don't really matter - that it was for the "greater good" and we should all be grateful to the British, or Americans or whomever, for evicting these people to set up military bases?

Or have I picked you up wrong?

Judgement Day

GRMA wrote: »

So JD, in times of national interest (rather, Imperial interest) the rights of natives don't really matter - that it was for the "greater good" and we should all be grateful to the British, or Americans or whomever, for evicting these people to set up military bases?

Or have I picked you up wrong?

Spot on but Imperial doesn't come into this particular case.

GRMA

Judgement Day wrote: »

Spot on but Imperial doesn't come into this particular case.

A reprehensible, fascist view to hold imo.

Fratton Fred

GRMA wrote: »

So JD, in times of national interest (rather, Imperial interest) the rights of natives don't really matter - that it was for the "greater good" and we should all be grateful to the British, or Americans or whomever, for evicting these people to set up military bases?

Or have I picked you up wrong?

As I asked Mr Rebelheart.

Does the same apply to the folks evicted from their (Ancestral) family homes to build the Poulaphuca reservoir?

Or the M50?

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As I asked Mr Rebelheart.

Does the same apply to the folks evicted from their (Ancestral) family homes to build the Poulaphuca reservoir?

Or the M50?

As I asked Mr Fratton Fred: do you really equate the rights of a white English Anglican with the rights of a darkie/papist/etc in lands beyond England, or indeed beyond Britain?

That you are denying that a vastly different modus operandi was in place during the forced expulsion/ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Chagossian people than would be permitted in the removal of white English people in Kent discredits anything you're saying here. If you were to be believed, British rule in lands beyond Britain was as fair as it was to British people in Britain and, moreover, race, religion or the like had nothing to do with British dominance in those places. Disgustingly dishonest of you.

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

As I asked Mr Fratton Fred: do you really equate the rights of a white English Anglican with the rights of a darkie/papist/etc in lands beyond England, or indeed beyond Britain?

you are getting more and more juvenile by the post. You are simply putting words in people's mouths and looking for a fight.

Rebelheart wrote: »

That you are denying that a vastly different modus operandi was in place during the forced expulsion/ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Chagossian people than would be permitted in the removal of white English people in Kent discredits anything you're saying here. If you were to be believed, British rule in lands beyond Britain was as fair as it was to British people in Britain and, moreover, race, religion or the like had nothing to do with British dominance in those places. Disgustingly dishonest of you.

what exactly am I denying? If the RAF decided that the best strategy in the cold war was to turn Kent into the biggest US base outside of Nevada do you think the locals would have had any say?

Yes, they would have been treated differently because they are also voters and therefore governments would treat them differently, but the end result would be the same. "We want that land, here's some cash, **** off and don't come back".

Now, Poulaphuca and the Quinns of Ballinahown......

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what exactly am I denying? If the RAF decided that the best strategy in the cold war was to turn Kent into the biggest US base outside of Nevada do you think the locals would have had any say?

Yes, they would have been treated differently because they are also voters and therefore governments would treat them differently, but the end result would be the same. "We want that land, here's some cash, **** off and don't come back".

There is a big difference when it is a whole population of an Island thousands of miles away, than your comparison of Kent. Its not like with like. Thousands were moved on for training purposes in WWII but that is considered acceptable as there was a considerable national interest for both the wider community and indeed for those who were moved.

Could Chagos have been repeated in Hong kong for example if it had been considered militarily advantageous to have a large military base their? And as for your counter argument on indigenous infrastructure projects- I don't see any relevance.

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There is a big difference when it is a whole population of an Island thousands of miles away, than your comparison of Kent. Its not like with like. Thousands were moved on for training purposes in WWII but that is considered acceptable as there was a considerable national interest for both the wider community and indeed for those who were moved.

Could Chagos have been repeated in Hong kong for example if it had been considered militarily advantageous to have a large military base their? And as for your counter argument on indigenous infrastructure projects- I don't see any relevance.

It was easier to move a couple of thousand people than it would have been to move six or seven million.

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

It was easier to move a couple of thousand people than it would have been to move six or seven million.

That's my point. When does it become unacceptable.

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

That's my point. When does it become unacceptable.

When it's dome by the British obviously.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When it's dome by the British obviously.

In which case you should be able to give examples of other countries clearing islands 1000's of miles from home for military reasons. Oh and show how it is deemed acceptable....

getz

chagos was purchased in 1965 from mauritius for 3 million,so to build a joint US/UK miitary base,one could say , it was a mauritius problem it was their duty to relocate them ,not the UKs,i notice that now the area is rich in natural resource,as well as the US/UK business benefit,mauritius wants it back,but the now population of the archipelago 3,000 dont want to know,where have i heard that before ?

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

That's my point. When does it become unacceptable.

It becomes unacceptable where there are still jobs left on a particular island and where re-settlement monies aren't handed over. The plantations on Diego Garcia were closed when the Americans started constructing their "island aircraft carrier", so there was nothing for the former plantation workers to do.

The Mauritian government was paid to look after the people who were shipped off. I wonder what they did with the money?

I know from when I lived near a USAF base in the UK, that the Americans just don't like the "natives" getting anywhere near their bases if they can avoid it, as they don't want to waste any time looking over their shoulders.

I think there's more to the Diego Garcia situation than is in the public domain, no doubt locked up in an MI6 safe at Vauxhall.

tac foley

ejmaztec wrote: »

I know from when I lived near a USAF base in the UK, that the Americans just don't like the "natives" getting anywhere near their bases if they can avoid it, as they don't want to waste any time looking over their shoulders.

Well, there's an interesting POV.

I live in one of four villages that actually surround what used to be one of the largest US bases in the UK, and four miles down the road from another base, oddly enough, also bounded by a further three villages - all full of local 'natives'. Many of those natives are employed on the bases, BTW, my shooting 'native' buddy is the boss-man of the water treatment, power, heating and electrical generation system on one base, so the Americans don't seem to be 'looking over their shoulders' much at HIM.

I think you'll find that, in general, the military don't overly care for civilians of any kind getting anywhere near their bases - the paperwork when one gets ingested into a fast-jet intake would amaze you, as does getting squished under a tracked vehicle.

As the RoI has no bases on its soil that don't belong to the PDF, you don't own a horse in this race, so let's just inject a note of realism into your comment. Try sauntering onto any of your OWN military establishments and see how far you get.

Military and civilians generally do not mix.

tac

getz

tac foley wrote: »

Well, there's an interesting POV.

I live in one of four villages that actually surround what used to be one of the largest US bases in the UK, and four miles down the road from another base, oddly enough, also bounded by a further three villages - all full of local 'natives'. Many of those natives are employed on the bases, BTW, my shooting 'native' buddy is the boss-man of the water treatment, power, heating and electrical generation system on one base, so the Americans don't seem to be 'looking over their shoulders' much at HIM.

I think you'll find that, in general, the military don't overly care for civilians of any kind getting anywhere near their bases - the paperwork when one gets ingested into a fast-jet intake would amaze you, as does getting squished under a tracked vehicle.

As the RoI has no bases on its soil that don't belong to the PDF, you don't own a horse in this race, so let's just inject a note of realism into your comment. Try sauntering onto any of your OWN military establishments and see how far you get.

Military and civilians generally do not mix.

tac

one american base near harrogate,called menwith hill is very jumpy,i have drove passed it many times ,its just off a main road you cannot miss the two giant golf balls,the local community says they have no problem with their 2,200 american neighbours,unless you ask them what they actually do, but if you drive off the main road within two miles of the base and stop,there will be military police next to your car within 5 min,

ejmaztec

tac foley wrote: »

Well, there's an interesting POV.

I live in one of four villages that actually surround what used to be one of the largest US bases in the UK, and four miles down the road from another base, oddly enough, also bounded by a further three villages - all full of local 'natives'. Many of those natives are employed on the bases, BTW, my shooting 'native' buddy is the boss-man of the water treatment, power, heating and electrical generation system on one base, so the Americans don't seem to be 'looking over their shoulders' much at HIM.

I think you'll find that, in general, the military don't overly care for civilians of any kind getting anywhere near their bases - the paperwork when one gets ingested into a fast-jet intake would amaze you, as does getting squished under a tracked vehicle.

As the RoI has no bases on its soil that don't belong to the PDF, you don't own a horse in this race, so let's just inject a note of realism into your comment. Try sauntering onto any of your OWN military establishments and see how far you get.

Military and civilians generally do not mix.

tac

I know that some locals are/were employed in the UK bases, and that these people were more than heavily vetted before they were taken on, but in my opinion they were given these jobs as a bit of a public relations exercise. The Americans could have just as easily brought their own people in to do the jobs that the "natives" did.

I also know that it's a definite no-no for a member of the general public to go wandering around a military base, and that's the same in any country.

The Diego Garcia plantation working natives wouldn't have had the skills to do much in the way of any work on the base, so from that point of view they would have been unemployable. The UK natives employed on the USAF bases probably have a lot more skills than those people, so wouldn't be unemployable.

If the British and the Americans were true "evil villains", they would have let the unemployed plantation workers starve to death, or rounded them up and shot them, before burying them in mass graves. I doubt anyone would have found out had that been the case.

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

If the British and the Americans were true "evil villains", they would have let the unemployed plantation workers starve to death, or rounded them up and shot them, before burying them in mass graves. I doubt anyone would have found out had that been the case.

Wow.

They were thrown out for their own good!!!!
This thread gets more paranormal than historical as it goes on.

Were the islands inhabited before being used as military bases?

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Wow.

They were thrown out for their own good!!!!
This thread gets more paranormal than historical as it goes on.

Were the islands inhabited before being used as military bases?

There's nothing "wow" about it, and there's certainly nothing "paranormal" about it either.

As far as I can see, there's a strong possibility that the so-called natives were migrant workers, or descendants thereof at a stretch, whose sole aim was to work on the plantations, and when that work came to an end, that was it.

What were they supposed to do when there were no jobs left?

ejmaztec

A bit of info:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm

Probably the place's prickliest subject is the issue of the 1,200 to 2,000 members of the Ilois, former inhabitants the British moved off the island in the late 1960s. They now live 1,200 miles away on the isle of Mauritus. As the descendants of workers who arrived on the island in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they had lived there for several generations. But U.S. and British government texts refer to them merely as temporary workers, not indigenous inhabitants. Before those colonial workers, apparently no one ever settled there. The U.S. lease expires in 2016, and the Ilois are making plans return to turn the place into a sugarcane and fishing enterprise

Judgement Day

Global warming may ultimately take care of the pesky Yanks but where that leaves the 'natives' is another story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

What were they supposed to do when there were no jobs left?

I am sure their ancestors managed.

Are you trying to say that they would have had to leave anyway or whats your point?

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am sure their ancestors managed.

Are you trying to say that they would have had to leave anyway or whats your point?

Their ancestors managed because the plantations hadn't been closed.

I have explained that there wouldn't be anything for them to do, so they would have had no choice.

I suggest you have a look at the Diego Garcia satellite view on Google maps, and then you'll see what they had to play with.