Comments by "" (@tinkeringtim7999) on "UK to hand Chagos Islands to Mauritius after decades long dispute" video.

Oh, and uninhabited _according to who_? Could well have been frequented, or inhabitants fled on French arrival.
3
@amiablekangaroo9934 thanks for the pointers, where would I look that up? Home office memos isn't much good to me as I don't have access to a library of memos to search! Any blogs, researchers, books, papers etc?
3
@James-tk9to The "inhabitants" who were contract workers were expelled to Mauritius and Seychelles to make a cold war base. They were not families living there generationally in their own homes. That is a mis-use of self determination, could call it ethnic cleansing but again that's facetious. Oh, and they were discovered by the Portuguese not the French.
2
@paulbo9033 to answer your question, we spent the money on colonialism and then on cold war neo-colonialism. In terms of money, it was a good investment, morally it was reprehensible.
2
"building up an Island" are you OK? You know it's a natural Island? They used it for 200 years. Absolutely should shut down the naval base, colonialism is bad for everyone, the less we can project miliary power over the world the better.
1
@James-tk9to no, that wouldn't be extending the logic, that would be distorting/disfiguring it. If you can't tell the difference, then my words are not for the like of you.
1
@James-tk9to I think you're right, that's a very healthy attitude. I don't deny it was forced on them, I just don't think it's right to call them an indigenous population (as they were, to my knowledge, not permanently and generationally there but in company accommodation). If you have objective information I don't have, or sources to check, I'd appreciate being directed at them. But I agree that it doesn't make sense for us to debate, especially over youtube.
1
@James-tk9to Why are you laughing? I didn't intend any jokes.
1
Lets see what this changes about Mauritius voting in the UN. Very suspicious timing.
1