Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#41

Post by easytiger »

pessimizer wrote: post #39
easytiger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. Yes, they were freed by the British and compensated in 1833. As they were post removal in 68. 1838 was the year they were working in Chagos on 2 year rolling contracts (as was common for non enslaved people in such businesses prior to 1833). > so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. And they were brought there by the british & french ma…

Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendants of the people who lived there, because some Europeans started plantations there (that they then imported to Mauritians to work themselves to death on) is a bizarre racial claim. You're claiming that all Europeans, by virtue of being of the race that discovered an island, have a better claim to the island than its fo…

What laid the basis for Indo-Mauritians population (majority of extant population) largely emigrated to there subsequent to the abolition of slavery. Over simplification of what were undoubtable moral affronts doesn't help a rational view of history.

Franco-Mauritians still indeed exist in small but wealthy numbers.

> Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendants of the people who lived there

I'm saying in linear time they indeed have an earlier claim. I say it because the term in relation to the relocated people of Chagos is often that they are "indigenous". Which isn't true

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#42

Post by pessimizer »

skissane wrote: post #37
GekkePrutser wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these enclaves and foreign colonies haven't really been kept to support the locals though, but more as a power play. A remote base of operations and a statement to the world. I truly doubt Thatcher really cared about the couple thousand of remote inhabitants during the falklands war, but rather the prospect of losing a strategic remote base and losing face in the geopolitical arena (as well as at home obvious…

> Importing your own population into conquered territory and letting them vote is a dirty trick we don't accept from countries like Russia But isn't that exactly what the Europeans did in the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, even Argentina? Import new people, who vastly outnumber and outvote the descendants of the original inhabitants? (And not just Europeans – it is also what China did to Taiwan.) The fact…

> But isn't that exactly what the Europeans did in the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, even Argentina? Import new people, who vastly outnumber and outvote the descendants of the original inhabitants?

This is an example of how something is good? These were some of the worst acts in history, and involved many, many, mass graves.

> And not just Europeans – it is also what China did to Taiwan.

Taiwan was invaded by the retreating ROC army. So this is what that army did to the Formosans, not what "China" did to "Taiwan.* Again: the current government of Taiwan were the people who brutally suppressed the Formosans, and took over their island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_the_government_of_t...

Indigenous Taiwanese make up 2% of the current population, and live in the mountains.

> The fact that Russia's annexation of Crimea is only a few years old is a very large part of the challenge to its legitimacy.

Crimea became part of the Soviet that corresponds to Ukraine under the Soviet Union in 1954, and its population was and is Russian speaking. There is no serious challenge to its legitimacy other than the fact that the US is going to use every opportunity to harass Russia and China it can, no matter the claim.

Speaking of recent claims, The current Ukraine's claim to Crimea dates from 1995. Crimea hoped to be independent after the fall of the USSR, until: "In October 1993, the Crimean parliament established the post of president of Crimea. Tensions rose in 1994 with election of separatist leader Yury Meshkov as Crimean president. On 17 March 1995, the parliament of Ukraine abolished the Crimean constitution of 1992, all the laws and decrees contradicting those of Kyiv, and also removed Yuriy Meshkov, the then president of Crimea, along with the office itself."

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#43

Post by skissane »

pessimizer wrote: post #42
skissane wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Importing your own population into conquered territory and letting them vote is a dirty trick we don't accept from countries like Russia But isn't that exactly what the Europeans did in the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, even Argentina? Import new people, who vastly outnumber and outvote the descendants of the original inhabitants? (And not just Europeans – it is also what China did to Taiwan.) The fact…

> But isn't that exactly what the Europeans did in the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, even Argentina? Import new people, who vastly outnumber and outvote the descendants of the original inhabitants? This is an example of how something is good? These were some of the worst acts in history, and involved many, many, mass graves. > And not just Europeans – it is also what China did to Taiwan. Taiwan was invade…

> This is an example of how something is good?

No. But it is evidence that people have different standards for more distant wrongs than more recent ones. Many Argentines think the UK should “give it back” the Falklands, but how many European-descended Argentines think Argentina should be “given back” to its original indigenous inhabitants? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

> Taiwan was invaded by the retreating ROC army.

The Qing dynasty ruled Taiwan from 1683 to 1895, and that is when Han Chinese colonisation started. The Europeans came before that - Chinese colonialism pushed out European colonialism, and Chinese colonialism was in turn displaced - for a period - by Japanese colonialism. But there were already very many Han Chinese in Taiwan before the defeat of Japan, or the flight of the KMT from the mainland.

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#44

Post by ijuhoor »

goodcanadian wrote: post #27
clarionbell wrote: post #15

Nobody can blame people wanting to return to their homes. But if I were in their shoes I'd be very careful about what their new government will do next. People of Chagos were useful as a leverage and international shaming tool. But once they return, and islands go to Mauritius ... they will be tiny, economically deprived minority, sitting so far unexploited resource trove. And you can ask East Timor how that goes. Th…

I have long been generally supportive of the people's right to return, but I am far more sceptical of Mauritius' claim to the islands. They were administered from Mauritius when Mauritius was a British colony, but otherwise, they do not have a strong geographical or historical connection there. I guess, ultimately, it is up to the Chagosian people what political arrangements they want, and I hope the negotiators make…

I’m not expecting my government (Mauritius) do do some meaningful change though. They already did a similar thing in a small island: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/8/5/why-is-india...

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#45

Post by easytiger »

MrsPeaches wrote: post #22
easytiger wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. Yes, they were freed by the British and compensated in 1833. As they were post removal in 68. 1838 was the year they were working in Chagos on 2 year rolling contracts (as was common for non enslaved people in such businesses prior to 1833). > so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. And they were brought there by the british & french ma…

> And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. So were slaves in the Caribbean. Should they not have rights to the islands on which they have lived for generations? It’s pretty simple: They were taken from their homes as slaves. They were forced to work in plantations for generations. Slavery ended but they had no “home” to return to and called the island where they had settled home. Whether they were…

> Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here.

Most of the population are descended from people who arrived subsequent to the abolition of slavery. And any former slaves died 150 years ago

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#46

Post by MrsPeaches »

easytiger wrote: post #41
pessimizer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendants of the people who lived there, because some Europeans started plantations there (that they then imported to Mauritians to work themselves to death on) is a bizarre racial claim. You're claiming that all Europeans, by virtue of being of the race that discovered an island, have a better claim to the island than its fo…

What laid the basis for Indo-Mauritians population (majority of extant population) largely emigrated to there subsequent to the abolition of slavery. Over simplification of what were undoubtable moral affronts doesn't help a rational view of history. Franco-Mauritians still indeed exist in small but wealthy numbers. > Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendan…

> majority of extant population

Indo - 66% Afro - 28%

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

This is common breakdown of places that were slave colonies that needed labour after the end of slavery during Empire (e.g. Guyana, Surinam).

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#47

Post by nirimda »

iso1631 wrote: post #25
louistsi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with this argument is resettlement of citizens not from that region to alter the demographics, as is the case of Northern Cyprus. If your nation isn't given the right to self-determination until your existing community is outnumbered by settlers 2:1, did you really ever have the right to self-determination in the first place? Does a referendum in that case accurately represent the native communities that re…

Hence "I accept there's probably some discussion about how recent immigrants count" The big question is when do people become native. You can't go back 200 years for obvious reasons, if you're born in America you're and American, just because your grandfather was born in Belfast it doesn't make you Irish. If you moved to Belfast when you were 10 and have lived there for 30 years though, then you clearly are. Northern…

The argument amounts to might makes right. You're stronger than your neighbor? Just forcibly resettle some of your citizens there and give them an interest in your success.

The principle of self determination worked very nicely when there were pre-existing contested territories as a way to extinguish claims. But it must not be allowed to create competing claims or else it will do vastly more harm than it has so far eliminated. This is why it's generally not recognised. This is why Crimea and Catalonia's claims of UDI were disregarded. This is why Scotland is seeking independence through internal negotiation.

What harm are you trying to heal with self-determination? Or is it just some ideological commitment to the idea no matter how much suffering comes from it?

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#48

Post by easytiger »

MrsPeaches wrote: post #46
easytiger wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What laid the basis for Indo-Mauritians population (majority of extant population) largely emigrated to there subsequent to the abolition of slavery. Over simplification of what were undoubtable moral affronts doesn't help a rational view of history. Franco-Mauritians still indeed exist in small but wealthy numbers. > Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendan…

> majority of extant population Indo - 66% Afro - 28% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mauritius This is common breakdown of places that were slave colonies that needed labour after the end of slavery during Empire (e.g. Guyana, Surinam).

That is indeed what i said. And contrary to the previous point

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#49

Post by funshed »

clarionbell wrote: post #15

Nobody can blame people wanting to return to their homes. But if I were in their shoes I'd be very careful about what their new government will do next. People of Chagos were useful as a leverage and international shaming tool. But once they return, and islands go to Mauritius ... they will be tiny, economically deprived minority, sitting so far unexploited resource trove. And you can ask East Timor how that goes. Th…

Indeed - though negotiations could tie the USA and UK into some form of recognition and protection. Especialy since USA wants to keep its base.

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#50

Post by blibble »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #31
tyho wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not, the principle is self-determination which means we keep the Falklands by a very clear margin.

Most of these enclaves and foreign colonies haven't really been kept to support the locals though, but more as a power play. A remote base of operations and a statement to the world. I truly doubt Thatcher really cared about the couple thousand of remote inhabitants during the falklands war, but rather the prospect of losing a strategic remote base and losing face in the geopolitical arena (as well as at home obvious…

> would the Gibraltar population really be so much worse off if they were ruled by Spain? The hundreds of thousands of British that live in Spain clearly don't think so.

the tens of thousands of that live in Gibraltar clearly do think so

Post reply on HN