4 ms·

Back? They weren't populated until the British brought them there and were never a Mauritian property. Futhermore the only people who lived there were there as

Back? They weren't populated until the British brought them there and were never a Mauritian property. Futhermore the only people who lived there were there as employees of the Chagos Agalega Company. From 1838 onwards. It's like getting a job on an oil rig and demanding you get to keep the rig. The fog of pseudo history written in terms of marxist terminology descends on our civilisation determined to rewrite reality https://www.uniset.ca/naty/2003EWHC2222.htm https://www.uniset.ca/naty/2003EWHC2222.htm

sterlind 4y ago
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 sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman.
- easytiger 4y ago
  > 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 mainly. The french & dutch inhabited it first, before any of these people's ancestors. > 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 sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman. Ignoring history by framing everything as a class/exploitation problem rather than looking at what really happened. It's very common to ignore history now and use feelings to assert because someone might have been exploited that overrides reality.
  - MrsPeaches 4y ago
    > 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.
    - easytiger 4y ago
      > 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
  - WeylandYutani 4y ago
    Actually real history has always been about class and exploitation. JFC you said it yourself Mauritius was a slave colony! The British weren't there for the weather. Nothing Marxist about understanding the human condition- people suck.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    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 forced residents. I don't know how you can claim to be the reasonable one here.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
The Chagos were part of Mauritius until the UK split it at independence in order to provide a military base to the US and they expelled the inhabitants in the process...
- easytiger 4y ago
  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
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    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.
    - easytiger 4y ago
      > 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.
      - mytailorisrich 4y ago
        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.
        easytiger 4y ago

sterlind 4y ago

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 sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman.

easytiger 4y ago
> 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 mainly. The french & dutch inhabited it first, before any of these people's ancestors. > 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 sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman. Ignoring history by framing everything as a class/exploitation problem rather than looking at what really happened. It's very common to ignore history now and use feelings to assert because someone might have been exploited that overrides reality.
- MrsPeaches 4y ago
  > 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.
  - easytiger 4y ago
    > 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
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  Actually real history has always been about class and exploitation. JFC you said it yourself Mauritius was a slave colony! The British weren't there for the weather. Nothing Marxist about understanding the human condition- people suck.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  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 forced residents. I don't know how you can claim to be the reasonable one here.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

The Chagos were part of Mauritius until the UK split it at independence in order to provide a military base to the US and they expelled the inhabitants in the process...

easytiger 4y ago
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
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  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.
  - easytiger 4y ago
    > 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.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      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.
      - easytiger 4y ago