The world war on democracy

[Sydney Grew]

The excellent Mr. Pilger has excelled even himself in one of his latest pieces, in which there is much that should be brought to the attention of the populace at large but is not. Here then is a link thereto. It relates the many crimes of the Anglo-Saxon nations. Read and pass on. (By that ambiguous exhortation I do not intend to suggest that you should pass by, but that you might pass it on.) Even if you are, as am I, no advocate of "demo-cracy," his entire piece remains of the utmost importance to a chronicler of contemporary history.

Where are our Orwells, our Shelleys, our Blakes, our Pinters! Mr. Pilger laments. And he is especially telling on the British extirpation of the entire population of the Chagos Archipelago (a place I know to the extent of having sailed close past it in 1963), and on the gassing of all the dogs.

"The act of mass kidnapping was carried out in high secrecy. In one official file, under the heading, 'Maintaining the fiction,' the Foreign Office legal adviser exhorts his colleagues to cover their actions by 're-classifying' the population as 'floating' and to 'make up the rules as we go along.' Article 7 of the statute of the International Criminal Court says the 'deportation or forcible transfer of population' is a crime against humanity. That Britain had committed such a crime - in exchange for a $14 million discount off an American Polaris nuclear submarine - was not on the agenda of a group of British 'defence' correspondents flown to the Chagos by the Ministry of Defence when the U.S. base was completed. 'There is nothing in our files,' said a ministry official, 'about inhabitants or an evacuation.' "

Well! that is just a beginning. There is a great deal more in the article.

[Serial_Apologist]

Isn't this thread a repeat?

[ahinton]

Isn't this thread a repeat?

I don't know. The Pilger article's publicaton date appears to be 19 January 2012, less than three weeks ago although, as is clear from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago, this is not the first time to which that author has drawn attention to this issue (and there are plenty of other references to it towards the end of the Wiki piece for anyone interested to find out more of the recent history of the matter - and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopul...f_Diego_Garcia also might throw more light on it).

I have to admit that, whilst the Chagos facts (or at least some of them) have been known for years without eliciting much attention, they're attracting precious little more notice today now that more information is more easily available, which rather surprises me, even though Indian Ocean islands are not usually news items (although only today I read this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16922570); you'd be unlikely to discover, for example, by visiting Mauritius as I have done that any part of it bore the brunt of the worst of these past actions.

The article cites some pretty unpleasant truths as some even more unpleasant accounts of how they've been largely covered up over the years; its revelation of the motives behind these past actions should alarm but not surprise us given all the imperialist sabre-rattling and military interventions for the US, UK and others have been variously responsible, especially in recent times.

I would have thought that sufficient evidence for the forced evacuations from the Chagos group could be amassed for the purposes of applying for Court attention in Den Haag; where there's a will...

[Lateralthinking1]

I am extremely saddened by this information about the Chagos Archipelago. It was a diabolical thing to be inflicted by our Government on a population. The sixties were obviously not what they were. While though Pilger is to be applauded for his investigation and tenacity, I don't fully buy his bias. He lets himself down by constructing some fairly Hollywood style plotting.

He declares what happened in those islands to be a part of an Anglo-American war against democracy. This he suggests has been going on throughout our lifetimes. These poor people were moved to Mauritius. As an aside, the British brother of a friend of mine managed its airport for six months not very long ago. The country was given voting on the basis of universal adult suffrage in 1959. After a general election in 1967, Mauritius adopted a new constitution and independence was proclaimed in 1968.

We are then told that the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein, an action I opposed, is a part of the same war. And yet this would only be the case if one were to believe that his re-election in 2002 with 100% support truly represented democracy. Similarly while I could believe his contention that 9/11 has been used as an excuse for military action, with threats to the west frequently overstated - in fact I am in absolutely no doubt there - it is disingenous and frankly insulting to those shipped from Chagos to Mauritius to lump them in thematically with the late Osama bin Laden. There wasn't the slightest hint in the former of aggression.

For all his merits, Pilger has a point to make beyond the need to recognise the oppressed. It is that the systems in which we live are in many respects horrendous. He is of an age to know that such a suggestion would once have challenged. Many now ignore it not because they don’t believe it but because they do. We have the net, the evidence is clear and often it is closer to home.

For every major infrastructure project in 2012, there is a willingness to chuck people here out of their homes. Villages will be destroyed at the drop of a hat if this is deemed in the national interest. So if those villagers have no real say in the matter - indeed if large percentages of our population couldn’t care less about them and argue vehemently in favour of such action - why logically would many rush to write to their MP on a distant matter that happened nearly half a century ago?

I sometimes wonder whether these revelations benefit anyone. They simply make the more humane feel more upset, knowing that there is nothing they can do. What I would like to hear from him is more about his motivation now that we live in an era that is very different from the one in which he began his successful career in journalism.

[Simon]

Some journalists typify that style of pseudo-intellectual, wealthy, supposed socialist who can see only one side of a complex situation. There will probably be some sort of psychological problem within their makeup, dating from childhood (and these are usually based in some way on envy or a perceived injustice). Instead of a rounded worldview, appreciating the multifaceted nature of societies and the strengths and weaknesses of political systems, they are able only to view everything they come across in relation to a single blueprint of flawed doctrine. Their factual reporting may be generally accurate, but the slant and the bias that they give it make anything other than the bare facts largely useless for any informed discussion. Most people that I know would tend to dismiss most of Pilger's writings: we leave them to those who can't see through their bias..

Indeed, we read similar blinkered thinking on various internet forums from time to time. The danger is, that so many of these so-called "liberals" are in fact the least liberal of all when it comes to freedoms. So convinced are they of their own rightness that they are always the first to call for censorship and the banning of anyone else who disagrees with them. We should all be free to believe what we want, they say. But in practice, only if what we want to believe fits in with their own ideas - anyone who dares to suggest another viewpoint, or who supports an opposing view, is a "troll" - irrespective of the fact that in some cases this viewpoint is one shared by the vast majority of the population.

Sadly, we see that on here too often, also.

[french frank]

supposed socialist who can see only one side of a complex situation. There will probably be some sort of psychological problem within their makeup, dating from childhood

What would be your thumbnail sketch of a (supposed) Tory?

[Simon]

What would be your thumbnail sketch of a (supposed) Tory?

There are many types of Tory, just as there are many types of socialist. Some people, as I said, seem to typify one of the types that, over the years, you learn to recognise.

There is a pub not so far away where a group of commuters gather in the early evening. I used to call occasionally for a pint if I had to go to bed very early, but found the conversation shallow and haven't bothered for years. With a couple of exceptions, I think, the people there would be Tories. Whilst not overtly unpleasant, their desire for one-upmanship, largely based on their income, managerial position and car, wasn't edifying to see. I am sure that in the majority of these people, most of us would recognise a "type" that will almost certainly exist everywhere.

[Nick Armstrong]

Another of these soapbox threads

Well I suppose it's nippy down at Speakers' Corner this time of year....

[John Skelton]

anyone who dares to suggest another viewpoint, or who supports an opposing view, is a "troll" - irrespective of the fact that in some cases this viewpoint is one shared by the vast majority of the population.

That wouldn't be my definition of a troll. My definition of a troll would be someone who, after 23 posts on a thread titled Harrison Birtwistle each of which is relevant and constructive offers this as post 24:

"Not really. Any attempt to compare the vast musical genius of Wagner with the scratchings of Birtwistle is beyond rational comprehension."

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?4075-Harrison-Birtwistle/page3&highlight=harrison+birtwistle

Or whose recent contributions to this message board include:

Yawn. Naff article. Typical half-thought-through stuff from the oh-so-politically-correct-multicultural-diversity-equality Duchen who I'm sure would prefer rubbish that nobody liked and then a few bongobongo drums.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?4483-Queen-s-Jubilee-Concert&p=130681#post130681

Who begins a thread on the uprising in Syria with

Initially rather surprised to see no comments on the appalling massacres in Syria - but then realised why. So it's down to me.

where events in Syria take a distant place to provocation, insinuation, and point scoring

whose reply to the suggestion that one of Shostakovich's symphonies is 'weaker' than the others isn't any sort of argument against that, but rather

The 5th the weakest? Lol. Who's trying to be a bit too clever here, I wonder?

It's the most popular, I think, so that's probably why some people like to decry it - it's a psychological thing, as it enables them to pretend that they are somehow "above" popular things and therefore "superior" to the mass of popular opinion.

whose favoured way of interacting with people who disagree with him is

No doubt the usual ostriches will come along and have their say, and a few others will pop in and make irrelevant comments. As FHG has managed to do, already. There might even be a couple who will misinterpret, exaggerate or confuse what I wrote in order to make a "point" of their own. Oh sorry - that's already happened too, I see. :-)

who intervenes in a discussion of music which he hasn't heard with

But why say "mea culpa"? It may of course be your fault, or it may not. If the composer can't write music that true music-lovers like, it's hardly the fault of the listener.

If it was a lovely piece, full of entrancing melodies and rich, moving harmonies, than indeed it was culpa tua. But if it was rubbish, then it wasn't.

If I glooped together an unmusical set of pointless discords and you didn't like it, I wouldn't expect you to take the blame. I'd expect you to tell me that I had glooped together an unmusical set of pointless discords.

Of course, I could put a spin on it, and tell you that you "didn't understand" it - and if enough snobs, chatterers and fellow-travellers with no musical perception jumped on the bandwagon, you might even begin to doubt your own ears and brain, and to wonder if my "composition" did indeed have some kind of worth.

But it wouldn't alter the fact that it was in reality an unmusical set of pointless discords.

I'm looking forward to listening to the piece, then of course I can decide for myself. I do hope it's astoundingly beautiful. But given your comments, I feel that I may be disappointed.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?3826-Richard-Barrett-CONSTRUCTION&p=102552#post102552

You did it for years elsewhere. Sadly, we see that on here too often, also. Quite.

[amateur51]

Another of these soapbox threads

Well I suppose it's nippy down at Speakers' Corner this time of year....

I used to to Speakers' Corner quite a lot in the 1970s, when you'd get skilled debaters like Donald Soper who could listen tio an argument from the crowd and then respond to it.

Not much chance of that from that soapboxer you spotted, Caliban

[amateur51]

Bravo John Skelton! @ msg #375

[Chris Newman]

Sorry, Simon, I do not find your feuilleton (I choose that word as I am sure it will continue) convincing. What you say about John Pilger and socialists could equally apply to you and the way you choose to try to put down those with whom you disagree. The Chagos incident is (is not was) a dreadful blot on the history of this nation. The population of a colonial territory were expelled from their country and foisted upon another then colony. For Britain then to give their island to another ally was despicable.

To write that someone is only seeing one side of a complex situation without you actually explaining what the other side of the situation might be is being disingenuous, i.e. stating that your point of view is a fact but failing to argue your case. As for questioning the psychological make-up of those with whom you disagree? If I were Mr Pilger I would consider a chat with my lawyer there.

Started by lateralthinking
I sometimes wonder whether these revelations benefit anyone. They simply make the more humane feel more upset, knowing that there is nothing they can do. What I would like to hear from him is more about his motivation now that we live in an era that is very different from the one in which he began his successful career in journalism.

They simply make the more humane feel more upset

Tough! Ugly truths need telling sometimes. As for the story in question about Chagos, it has been brought up before. I have not read Pilger's latest article, but most journalistic references to the sordid issue are to do with Britain's failure to compensate the Chagans and Mauritians. If an issue has not been resolved justly I believe it is quite right to raise it again and again. That is good campaigning and it is good journalism. As I said I have not read the article and as yet do not understand the bit about Osama bin Laden which may well be Pilger flying his own kites.

[Nick Armstrong]

Donald Soper who could listen tio an argument from the crowd and then respond to it.

He was still at it when I moved into the area in the early 90s, Ammy - I went along with me zoom lens one Sunday and have a great set of pics of him engaging good-humouredly with his detractors! I remember him using the phrase "silly arse" in such a way that the arse in question didn't mind at all and everyone had their say and no ill feelings.

A lesson to us all!!

[Lateralthinking1]

Tough! Ugly truths need telling sometimes.

That is fine. You will note that I didn't say he should be stopped from writing about it. However, as a reader of any article I have to ask myself what realistically I can do, particularly given the uphill struggle it is even to campaign effectively on current matters here. It seems to me that a professional writer might also ask him/her self what is wanted from the reader, other than an ever greater sense of indignation and gloom. Even better, a statement at the end of the piece with constructive suggestions.

[Simon]

RE #9 - Thank you, John, for reminding me of some good posts. Far from the general definition of trolling, clearly. I've been around too long for that (trolls tend not to stay on forums and contribute to a wide range of subjects for seven years).

That apart, I'd be fascinated to know which of my points you disagree with. I mean, do you think that Sir Harrison is comparable with Wagner, for instance? Did you think that Ms Duchen's article was balanced and worthy, or simply pandering to a small section of Indie readers? Do you think we should not comment on Syria, where people are being systematically murdered by the state? Do you believe that people don't deliberately misconstrue or exaggerate what others write, in order to attempt a "point" of their own? Do you not think that AH's outrageous comment that Shost 5 was "the weakest" (admitted by he himself to have been an error) to have been worth at least a laugh smiley and some incredulity? Do you believe that some don't decry "popular" music in order to gain some perceived superiority? Do you think that if I glooped together a set of unmusical discords, they would in fact be rather wonderful, and that it would be the listener's fault if s/he didn't think so?