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

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#21

Post by louistsi »

iso1631 wrote: post #13
pelagicAustral wrote: post #5

Pop! Here we go. Argentina has entered the chat. Claims over the Falkland Islands are likely getting dusted once again, right side of the Andes.

Undemocratic countries do not like self determination. If the vast majority of people who were born and live in a region want to be an independent country, that's their call. That could be Scotland, Falklands, Catalonia, Northern Cyprus, Texas, Ceuta, Crimea, Tibet, Hong Kong, Quebec, Reunion, etc. If they want to be part of another country then it's still their call, but obviously the other country also has to agree…

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 represented the invaded nation, or does it then represent the invading nation through the settlers?

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#22

Post by MrsPeaches »

easytiger wrote: post #7
sterlind wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from your own link: > The abolition of slavery in 1833, and the entitlement of slaves to remain in the colony in which they were freed, meant that many freed slaves had continued to work the plantations. so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. and as an aside, what do you mean by Marxist terminology? I didn't see "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie," nor workers seizing the means of production. it's slo…

> 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 forcible taken there doesn’t suddenly mean it’s not their home.

> because someone might have been exploited

Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here. As much as might like to talk about “compensation” (source??) these are people who were taken from their homes as slaves, transported across vast oceans and forced to work in generally pretty horrible conditions. There is no “might have been exploited” here, they were very clearly exploited in an extreme way.

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#23

Post by easytiger »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #19
easytiger wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never Mauritian. I think what you mean is it was part of the British territory in the region prior to gaining independence. Mauritius itself was an unpopulated island before being discovered by the Dutch. The Dutch have more claim to call themselves indigenous to Mauritius than most Mauritians

The Chagos did belong to Mauritius until 1965, beyond that I think the most problematic in this case, which kept it an open issue, is that the British then deported all the inhabitants and refused that they come back. And yes, all those countries are ultimately creations of European colonial times but that's irrelevant.

> And yes, all those countries are ultimately creations of European colonial times but that's irrelevant.

These countries were totally unpopulated before Europeans arrived. Of course it isn't irrelevant.

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#24

Post by mytailorisrich »

easytiger wrote: post #23
mytailorisrich wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chagos did belong to Mauritius until 1965, beyond that I think the most problematic in this case, which kept it an open issue, is that the British then deported all the inhabitants and refused that they come back. And yes, all those countries are ultimately creations of European colonial times but that's irrelevant.

> And yes, all those countries are ultimately creations of European colonial times but that's irrelevant. These countries were totally unpopulated before Europeans arrived. Of course it isn't irrelevant.

Whether they were populated or not before Europeans arrived is irrelevant in this case and in general.

Every place on Earth was not populated. At one point they became populated, people made their homes there, different entities emerged. That's what happened there as well.

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#25

Post by iso1631 »

louistsi wrote: post #21
iso1631 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Undemocratic countries do not like self determination. If the vast majority of people who were born and live in a region want to be an independent country, that's their call. That could be Scotland, Falklands, Catalonia, Northern Cyprus, Texas, Ceuta, Crimea, Tibet, Hong Kong, Quebec, Reunion, etc. If they want to be part of another country then it's still their call, but obviously the other country also has to agree…

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 Cyprus is what it is now. Yes there were issues 50 years ago when it was partitioned, but life moves on. On the other hand if the US had invaded Basra, displaced the population, put in 2 million of its own citizens, and then claimed independence 2 months later based on overwhelming support, that wouldn't be reasonable. 100 years later, then sure.

Sometimes people lose out. It's sad, and shouldn't have happened, but after some time (that might be 10 years, it might be 100) you have just as much right to your voice as everyone else living there.

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#26

Post by easytiger »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #24
easytiger wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yes, all those countries are ultimately creations of European colonial times but that's irrelevant. These countries were totally unpopulated before Europeans arrived. Of course it isn't irrelevant.

Whether they were populated or not before Europeans arrived is irrelevant in this case and in general. Every place on Earth was not populated. At one point they became populated, people made their homes there, different entities emerged. That's what happened there as well.

I disagree. Absolutely relevant to the details

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#27

Post by goodcanadian »

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 determining that a priority.

Re: UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

#28

Post by ijuhoor »

iso1631 wrote: post #14
captn3m0 wrote: post #10

Article title: > UK agrees to negotiate Title on HN: > UK agrees to hand over title should be changed. Did Guardian update it at their end?

You can tell " UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius" isn't a Guardian title -- no spelling mistakes.

My bad, I got excited. I can't edit the title though.
Post reply on HN