Saturday, August 18, 2018

A half-century after being uprooted for a remote US naval base, these islanders are still fighting to return

So I saw this on Drudge today. 

Now usually I post to Facebook, but in light of the censorship, I will just post on my blog and put the links there.

I have also decided against buying more ads on Facebook to protest the election manipulation.

So the article is heavily one sided but this factoid jumped out at me.  However in light that 90% of the population has zero logic skills the point was missed entirely.  Even by the writer who masquerade opinion as fact.

The writer is also Indian... Probably h1B visa.

So If you extract these facts related to the article and omit the opinion and unrelated items in the article including tidbits that the island has a gold course now.

There are the relevant facts:
A half-century after being uprooted for a remote US naval base, these islanders are still fighting to return

But in a 1965 military deal with the United States, Britain detached Chagos before granting independence to Mauritius three years later. Renaming the islands the British Indian Ocean Territory, Britain forcibly expelled all the inhabitants from 1968 to 1973 and leased Diego Garcia to the U.S.

Aware of possible backlash, the allies agreed to portray the islanders as temporary workers. After the last residents had been banished, the State Department instructed officials to tell journalists that Diego Garcia “had no permanent native population.”

Chagos had been continuously inhabited since the 1780s, when enslaved Africans were brought there to work on colonial coconut plantations. The French were the first to claim the islands, in the early part of that century, before losing them to Britain after the Napoleonic Wars in 1814.

After slavery was abolished, indentured laborers from India followed. By the middle of the 20th century, the islanders had grown into a small but distinct community with their own language, a French-based creole.


So this really begs the question, How can some descendents brought over by the Europeans for work, and then removed by the Europeans be considered a native population to the island?

Second, how is that White Americans who have been in North America for 500 years not be considered natives at this point?  My own descendants have been in the US since 1777 when forcibly used as a military conscript under the British and after remained in the new US.
By that same logic as the article, should I not have the same status as these so called Natives who have not even been on the island in over 50 years?

However we all know the reason.  Things like this is forever a shifting definition and yet another example of the shameless hypocrisy of the left.  Just remember the left wants you dead and memory erased.