undefined | Better HN

0 pointssologoub11y ago0 comments

That's a bit of a straw man argument. If you read closely, the article says: "The Chagossians are largely descended from African slaves brought to the previously uninhabited islands, 2,200km (1,367 miles) north-east of Mauritius, by the French in the 18th century."

Yes, these unfortunate souls have suffered generations of evil, starting with the slave trade and finish off with being expelled from the island(s). That said, I don't really see the argument that it is somehow their land. Should they have been properly compensated or better yet relocated somewhere with better conditions than what they had? Absolutely! In fact, it seems that a law suite seeking that compensation might have better luck than trying to reclaim the land.

The example used earlier with the Balkans is so much more complicated. Depending on who's side of history you take, all sides have a claim to most of the land in the Balkans. Things seem to be much more clear cut here.

0 comments

thizzbuzz11y ago

> That said, I don't really see the argument that it is somehow their land.

I don't see a good argument that any land belongs to any person on earth. That said, subsisting off a single piece of land for 250 years is a much better claim than "we want this for economic/military development". I also tend not to side with the party that gasses 1000 pet dogs as part of their forced relocation process.

sologoubOP11y ago

Got a citation for that dog figure?

thizzbuzz11y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Greatbatch

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/18/the-story-of-the-chag...

About 1,000 pet dogs were taken – some straight from screaming children – and gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles.

geographomics11y ago

> That said, I don't really see the argument that it is somehow their land.

The argument is that they had lived there for generations and made it very much their homeland - only to be turfed out at the whim of a remote, overbearing colonial power.

sologoubOP11y ago

By that same token, the French that first colonized and settled the islands have a claim - they were there first. As do the British who conquered the possession from the French.

These situations are much more complicated than the surface view that the "big evil colonial empire" is picking on defenseless people.

If the original wrong of enslaving the population was corrected, the people relocated by force would have never been on the island in the first place. This of course is impossible.

There are many more similar arguments for either side that one could make. It just shows the unproductive nature of such disputes.

A much more productive approach would have been about compensation and rehabilitation of the displaced persons. Surely there are many things they need that can be provided to improve their lot in life. I strongly doubt that giving this island back (even if the military was willing to give it up) after all these years is going to do them any good.

mercurial11y ago

> These situations are much more complicated than the surface view that the "big evil colonial empire" is picking on defenseless people.

This situation seems pretty clear cut. Hardly anybody ever heard about these people, and the colonial administrator clearly thought them barely human. When there was an opportunity to make a quick buck on their back, no consideration was given to what they may think of it. That's precisely a colonial attitude.

> If the original wrong of enslaving the population was corrected, the people relocated by force would have never been on the island in the first place.

I'd say the least you can do, when you have been mercilessly exploiting a group of people for generations, isn't to screw them over a second time because you can make some money out of it. Especially when you're rather hypocritically talking about "human rights" and "democracy". Not to say that other western democracies don't share the same hypocrisy (the US democratized the native Americans to death, the French defended "freedom" during WWI and WWII while happily oppressing their colonies, etc...). However, "others do it too" isn't a valid defence after kindergarten.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssologoub11y ago0 comments

0 comments

thizzbuzz11y ago

> That said, I don't really see the argument that it is somehow their land.

sologoubOP11y ago

Got a citation for that dog figure?

thizzbuzz11y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Greatbatch

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/18/the-story-of-the-chag...

About 1,000 pet dogs were taken – some straight from screaming children – and gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles.

geographomics11y ago

> That said, I don't really see the argument that it is somehow their land.

The argument is that they had lived there for generations and made it very much their homeland - only to be turfed out at the whim of a remote, overbearing colonial power.

sologoubOP11y ago

By that same token, the French that first colonized and settled the islands have a claim - they were there first. As do the British who conquered the possession from the French.

These situations are much more complicated than the surface view that the "big evil colonial empire" is picking on defenseless people.

If the original wrong of enslaving the population was corrected, the people relocated by force would have never been on the island in the first place. This of course is impossible.

There are many more similar arguments for either side that one could make. It just shows the unproductive nature of such disputes.

mercurial11y ago

> These situations are much more complicated than the surface view that the "big evil colonial empire" is picking on defenseless people.

> If the original wrong of enslaving the population was corrected, the people relocated by force would have never been on the island in the first place.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse