Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The fighting Prince Harry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ginger Yellow
    replied
    The Royal Courts of Justice, Court 38
    Before MR JUSTICE WARBY sitting as a Judge of the CHANCERY DIVISION


    Wednesday 29 July 2020

    At 10:30 AM

    Application Hearing

    IL-2019-000110 Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited

    *Court 13 is available for press/media access and will be ticketed. If a representative of the media wishes to attend the hearing they should contact the listing office chanceryjudgeslisting@justice.gov.uk who will put them in touch with the relevant person
    They seem to be doing this hearing in person, which seems unwise. Maybe don't hang out with any tabloid journos for the next couple weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by Toby Gymshorts View Post

    Mr W Mortimore's comment BTL is priceless. The UK isn't a racist country, apparently, as long as you discount the Prime Minister, the vast majority of his cabinet, the...
    The title of the article hilarious
    Last edited by Tactical Genius; 14-01-2020, 11:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by G-Man View Post

    Your history is imprecise. In brief, most* Indians were brought to South Africa, specifically Natal, to work as indentured labour, with a view to their return at the end of the slave contract. They were brought in because the local Zulu population was not looking to be employed in rural servitude, and the colonialists didn't find them "suitable" for argricultural employment.

    In short, their influx was driven mostly by economics rather than politics.

    * There was an early influx of slaves abducted from the sub-continent, especially, to the Cape colony. They were absorbed into what would become known as the Coloured community.
    I don't necessarily disagree with you here G-Man, but I still stand by my assertion migrant labour were brought in to undermine the locals. The Indian migrant labour were easier to control as they relied on the British for food, board and protection. You could pay them what you want and treat them however you like. It's not like they could pack up and walk away into the African hinterland or jump on one of your boats back to India if they were not happy.

    I am sure the Zulus would have worked if they were given a good deal. But since the preceding decades was spent nicking their land, the priority was to keep them politically and financially impoverished to maintain the status quo.
    The British had learned from the numerous peasant revolts in middle age England that employing locals to work the fields tends to me problematic and cause issues down the line.

    The importation of the so called, "coolie labour" happened at the same time all over the British Empire and in most of these places there was a ready pool of cheap Labour (Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana).
    Actually, there are some parallels with the cheap labour from Eastern Europe brought in to work in some sectors of the UK leading to some tensions similar to post colonial Uganda, Kenya, Fiji or Even South Africa.



    Leave a comment:


  • Toby Gymshorts
    replied
    Mr W Mortimore's comment BTL is priceless. The UK isn't a racist country, apparently, as long as you discount the Prime Minister, the vast majority of his cabinet, the...

    Leave a comment:


  • G-Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post

    Most Ugandan Asians were brought in by the British to act as a buffer class and keep the local populations in check. This also happened in places as disparate as Singapore, South Africa, Mauritius and the Caribbean.
    Your history is imprecise. In brief, most* Indians were brought to South Africa, specifically Natal, to work as indentured labour, with a view to their return at the end of the slave contract. They were brought in because the local Zulu population was not looking to be employed in rural servitude, and the colonialists didn't find them "suitable" for argricultural employment.

    In short, their influx was driven mostly by economics rather than politics.

    * There was an early influx of slaves abducted from the sub-continent, especially, to the Cape colony. They were absorbed into what would become known as the Coloured community.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Awesome Berbaslug!!!
    replied
    I think it would be fair to say that attitudes are hardening here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
    Your last response has been fairly heavily edited and I'd agree with what's there now a lot more.
    My edit added the last two sentences and cleared up the spelling.
    I have been very consistent throughout.
    The current population of Southest Asia and the pacific has change dramatically in the last 200 years as a result of European Colonialism and the importing of people from India, China and Japan.
    New Zealand is a slightly different case as the majority of the early settlers were European and when Europeans turn up, everyone gets a lot lighter real quick. See South Africa and Australia for examples.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyne...ers,_2008).png

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post

    Sources?

    No need to be shy and vague?
    https://news.temple.edu/news/genome-...ip-melanesians

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    Your last response has been fairly heavily edited and I'd agree with what's there now a lot more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
    genetic markers wouldn't agree with you.
    Sources?

    No need to be shy and vague?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    genetic markers wouldn't agree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
    Of course Austronesia and Melanesian people got together. But Māori didn't look much like Fijians or Papuans.
    And I have covered the reasons why.

    Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia are not as separate as distinct as I suspect you think.

    Polynesians have the most in common with each other as most (if not all) of the islands they populated were empty when they turned up. and most of those islands were only populated in the last 1500 years by the same group who would island hop every 50 years ago.
    This is why they all had similar languages, similar cultures and all knew about each other.

    It's like the European expansion of the Americas, minus the rape and Genocide.

    Melanesia has larger islands and have been populated for tens of thousands of years so would have a variety of human subgroups.

    Also, it is impossible for the Polynesians to go from Taiwan to Polynesia without going through Micronesia and or Melanesia

    Jonah Lomu is of Tongan descent (Polynesian) and Is pretty dark skinned. As were the original Maoris and Hawaiians.
    Last edited by Tactical Genius; 13-01-2020, 22:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    Of course Austronesia and Melanesian people got together. But Māori didn't look much like Fijians or Papuans.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    Most Irish people are not genetically (predominantly) German. But they speak a Germanic language. The same also applies to Britain in varying degrees.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    22.02 quote was badly written. Meant a Melanesian led culture never got to Hawaii.
    Last edited by Lang Spoon; 13-01-2020, 23:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
    There are people in Borneo etc who may be of mostly "native" DNA (from upwards of 70000 years ago), but long before Europeans or Modern Chinese migrants ever got to say Malaysia or Indonesia, they had been pushed to the margins by Austronesian folk.
    Dude, try reading my posts or clicking on the links provided. You would save yourself a lot of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    Talking about

    "a human subgroup you can easily identify by common physical features"

    can be very problematic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    It seems like you are arguing against yourself Lang Spoon.

    Lang Spoon 22:02 "But the Austronesians still got there thousands of years before any European. And they never got to Hawaii."

    Lang Spoon 22:47 "Austronesian as peoples from Vietnam Malaysia etc all the way to New Zealand and Hawaii (all Polynesia)"

    Also this i disagree with, "Cos language has f all to do with genetics and all to do with cultural exchange, in most of human history."

    You cannot Share culture without sharing genetics. Culture and language is usually shared by trade, war or religious prophetising. All three tend to include large numbers of randy men. For example a large proportion of West African Christians have at least a smidgen of European DNA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    There are people in Borneo etc who may be of mostly "native" DNA (from upwards of 70000 years ago), but long before Europeans or Modern Chinese migrants ever got to say Malaysia or Indonesia, they had been pushed to the margins by Austronesian folk.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesians

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_peoples

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    Austronesian as peoples from Vietnam Malaysia etc all the way to New Zealand and Hawaii (all Polynesia). Melanesian meaning Papua etc. Some Melanisian peoples in places like Vanuatu or Fiji would end up speaking austronesian languages. Cos language has f all to do with genetics and all to do with cultural exchange, in most of human history.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
    Melanesians populated much of the South Pacific before Austronesians. But the Austronesians still got there thousands of years before any European. And they never got to Hawaii.
    Do you have sources for this as mine seem to differ wildly from yours and you appear to be getting your terms confused.

    For a start Austronesians is more a broad language or culteral group than a human subgroup you can easily identify by common physical features (like Melenesians) as in many places they mixed with the existing populations (the pacific islands are different) and they did make Hawaii. Most (if not all) of the pacific islanders have a common ancestry as these islands have only been populated by humans in the last 1500 years. I believe New Zealand was empty until around 1200AD.

    The term Austronesian like Indo-European can be anyone from a Brit to an Arab or even an Indian. It only works as a cultural or a language description.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lang Spoon
    replied
    Melanesians populated much of the South Pacific before Austronesians. But the Austronesians still got there thousands of years before any European. And they never got to Hawaii.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tactical Genius
    replied
    Originally posted by Diable Rouge View Post

    Well, there still exists a small Taiwanese aboriginal population, but have long been outnumbered by successive waves of migration from the mainland, particularly after 1949, of course.
    These Aboriginal communities still exist all over South East Asia and tend to live in isolated areas like mountains.
    I saw a few when i was in Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines.

    Malaysia
    https://youtu.be/JgB4OxqWXZM
    Philipines
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ghkgZSEOI

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X