4 ms·

Return the islands? To whom? They are populated by "95.88% British / American" it seems.

by jnwkw 7y ago

objectivetruth 7y ago
The article provides a clear and detailed explanation of how the traditional inhabitants, who had settled there over a century ago, were forcibly re-settled by the British. The court decision in question calls for them to be returned to the descendants of those people. I presume you got the quoted statistic from the Chagos Islands info box on that Wikipedia page. If so, I'd urge you to scroll down just a little bit farther to learn the info that the rest of us read in the article. Here's a link to help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago#Sovereignty_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago#Sovereignty...
- mrob 7y ago
  If they get their island back, why don't the Native Americans get their whole countries back too?
  - blibble 7y ago
    it was also never their island, they lived there as employees only. their ancestors were brought to the uninhabited island by the French it would be like claiming an oil rig or country estate as your family's property because you've had several generations of drillers/domestic staff employed by the owners
    - ujoh1 7y ago
      Hello See how you can start making steady extra living incomes of $100 daily on virta stock trading without you risking your money and your investment visit the website here http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php for more details
    - bloak 7y ago
      No, it's not like that at all, because an oil rig counts as a vessel, whereas an island is land.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    It’s a bit different when the territory is settled by non-indigenous people for a few generations, versus occupied, or just a few structures built and no one really lives there at all.
- mherdeg 7y ago
  My sense is that people mostly just don't want to hear or think about the sometimes messy way that things got to be the way they are (I saw "-2 points" when discussing this a few months ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19626519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19626519 ). This isn't unique to tech startups. I live in Massachusetts and do not regularly think about what exactly happened to the Massachusett people. It was not great.
imdsm 7y ago
Regardless of the moral questions surrounding the resettlement of the people who lived on the islands, I do wonder what the legal implications are of Mauritius accepting the money to begin with. Surely if you sell an Island, you can't later claim that it still belongs to you? In 1968 the "UK paid the self-governing colony of Mauritius £3m for the islands" which equates to approximately £52m today[1]. At the very least, you would expect that Mauritius would have to pay this back. But, there is also the question of value. The islands, especially given the state of the world today, are probably worth much more than £52m from a strategic point of view. > Mauritius prime minister Pravind Jugnauth has attempted to smooth things over by saying the country is prepared to reach an agreement with the US and UK to allow the Diego Garcia military base to continue to exist – presumably in return for a fat check each year - arguing that such an approach would "provide a higher degree of legal certainty" than the current situation. Yes, that /is/ a presumption, but seems quite likely. I still think my above point about ownership stands. If a country sells an island, they surely also sell any claims to sovereignty too. Looking into it further though, it doesn't appear that the islands were sold, but that they were split off from the territory (along with some others too) to form another, the British Indian Ocean Territory. Mauritius was compensated the £3m. So, I suppose what this really comes down to is the question of colonial ownership, but the implications of this are huge, after all, the US, Canada, Australia, aren't all these countries also former colonies? [1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/ using 1965 as start year and 3,000,000 pounds as start value.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  > If a country sells an island, they surely also sell any claims to sovereignty too. That is a question a judge can answer differently depending on the circumstances of the deal. Was the buyer informed correctly about the consequences? Was the deal made under duress? Was the buyer legally mandated to perform the sale? The diplomatic cable mentioned in ElReg's article is illustrative of the kind of circumstances the deal was made in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diplomatic_Cable_signed_by_D.A._Greenhill,_dated_August_24,_1966.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diplomatic_Cable_signed_b...

Return the islands? To whom? They are populated by "95.88% British / American" it seems.

by jnwkw 7y ago

Return the islands? To whom? They are populated by "95.88% British / American" it seems.

The article provides a clear and detailed explanation of how the traditional inhabitants, who had settled there over a century ago, were forcibly re-settled by the British. The court decision in question calls for them to be returned to the descendants of those people. I presume you got the quoted statistic from the Chagos Islands info box on that Wikipedia page. If so, I'd urge you to scroll down just a little bit farther to learn the info that the rest of us read in the article. Here's a link to help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago#Sovereignty_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago#Sovereignty...

mrob 7y ago
If they get their island back, why don't the Native Americans get their whole countries back too?
- blibble 7y ago
  it was also never their island, they lived there as employees only. their ancestors were brought to the uninhabited island by the French it would be like claiming an oil rig or country estate as your family's property because you've had several generations of drillers/domestic staff employed by the owners
  - ujoh1 7y ago
    Hello See how you can start making steady extra living incomes of $100 daily on virta stock trading without you risking your money and your investment visit the website here http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php for more details
  - bloak 7y ago
    No, it's not like that at all, because an oil rig counts as a vessel, whereas an island is land.
- zaroth 7y ago
  It’s a bit different when the territory is settled by non-indigenous people for a few generations, versus occupied, or just a few structures built and no one really lives there at all.
mherdeg 7y ago
My sense is that people mostly just don't want to hear or think about the sometimes messy way that things got to be the way they are (I saw "-2 points" when discussing this a few months ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19626519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19626519 ). This isn't unique to tech startups. I live in Massachusetts and do not regularly think about what exactly happened to the Massachusett people. It was not great.

imdsm 7y ago

Regardless of the moral questions surrounding the resettlement of the people who lived on the islands, I do wonder what the legal implications are of Mauritius accepting the money to begin with. Surely if you sell an Island, you can't later claim that it still belongs to you? In 1968 the "UK paid the self-governing colony of Mauritius £3m for the islands" which equates to approximately £52m today[1]. At the very least, you would expect that Mauritius would have to pay this back. But, there is also the question of value. The islands, especially given the state of the world today, are probably worth much more than £52m from a strategic point of view. > Mauritius prime minister Pravind Jugnauth has attempted to smooth things over by saying the country is prepared to reach an agreement with the US and UK to allow the Diego Garcia military base to continue to exist – presumably in return for a fat check each year - arguing that such an approach would "provide a higher degree of legal certainty" than the current situation. Yes, that /is/ a presumption, but seems quite likely. I still think my above point about ownership stands. If a country sells an island, they surely also sell any claims to sovereignty too. Looking into it further though, it doesn't appear that the islands were sold, but that they were split off from the territory (along with some others too) to form another, the British Indian Ocean Territory. Mauritius was compensated the £3m. So, I suppose what this really comes down to is the question of colonial ownership, but the implications of this are huge, after all, the US, Canada, Australia, aren't all these countries also former colonies? [1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/ using 1965 as start year and 3,000,000 pounds as start value.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Freak_NL 7y ago
> If a country sells an island, they surely also sell any claims to sovereignty too. That is a question a judge can answer differently depending on the circumstances of the deal. Was the buyer informed correctly about the consequences? Was the deal made under duress? Was the buyer legally mandated to perform the sale? The diplomatic cable mentioned in ElReg's article is illustrative of the kind of circumstances the deal was made in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diplomatic_Cable_signed_by_D.A._Greenhill,_dated_August_24,_1966.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diplomatic_Cable_signed_b...