Talk:Chagossians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chagossians[edit]

It seems the islanders prefer to be called the "Chagossians", as "Ilois" has come to have pejorative connotations. See para 17 of the recent court case:

"17. ... These latter were known as the Ilois, a term not always used with a precise or commonly agreed definition. Most of them lived on Diego Garcia, the largest island. They now describe themselves as "Chagossians", but again with no precise or commonly agreed definition. Chagossians is a name which they prefer to "Ilois" because that has come to have pejorative connotations."

Rwendland 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. A Google search also shows the two terms appearing roughly as often (26,000 results for Chagossians, 28,400 for Ilois). Moving the article to the preferred name is probably justified. — Itai (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page to 'Chagossians' as proposed above (over a year ago!). It is the preferred self-description of these people, and also the most commonly used: it now gets twice as many Google hits as 'Ilois', and also more than 'Chagos islanders'. 'Chagossians' is therefore the name best fitting the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). I have replaced the word 'Ilois' with 'Chagossians' throughout the article. Terraxos 01:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not going home[edit]

Looks like they're not going home, unless the European court has a say.[1] kwami (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Disgusting[edit]

If more people know about this, these people will be going home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.67.42 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indigenous inhabitants?[edit]

I have deep sympathy for their plight, but calling them " indigenous inhabitants" is a bit mis-leading. They immigrated to the islands sometime in the mid-18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.67.138 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a cutoff date for being "indigenous"? The Malagasy didn't arrive in Madagascar until the 1300s -- do they not count? --Jfruh (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is anybody going to remove the suggestion that these people were "indigenous". The most important consideration, surely, is that not one single Ilois ever owned any property in the Chagos archipelago. I suggest it would be best for the original author to make the change but, if it doesn't happen soon, I feel I will have to do it. Agent0060 19:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)
They are referred to as indigenous by many sources (excluding those rationalizing exile like British government cables). Chagossians ARE indigenous. Period. Firstly, the Chagossians didn't "immigrate" to Chagos, their ancestors were forcibly taken there as slaves (from different places, not any one pre-Chagos point of origin). Secondly, Chaggosians not having paper ownership deeds to the land (being slaves, later de-facto sharecroppers) is IRRELEVANT - indigenous status isn't conditional on brutal European colonizers/occupiers deciding if people can have deeds to land or not, it's about historic ties, place & process of ethnogenesis. As it stands, the Chaggossians are the FIRST and ONLY ethnic group to originate in/undergo ethnogenesis in the archipelago and it is their SOLE Vatan (historic homeland). No other people claims Chagos as their historic homeland or the birthplace of their ethnic group.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That they weren't the first setlers on the islands gives pretty decent credit to the consideration that they are not indigenous to that area. Post slavery from they worked on 2 year contracts. It's like saying oil rig workers are indigenous to the oil rig because they got someone pregnant there. easytiger (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you stated is relevant to their indigenousness though. They are not the original inhabitants of the islands, because no one is. By your argument of ethnogenesis, along with longer history in the region, Americans originally of European descent have a stronger claim to indigenousness compared to Chaggossians, which isn't a very fruitful position to have. FelixSta (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indigeneity comes with previous sovereign ownership of territory by definition. Chagossians never had that. Period.
While this is interesting case, this whole issue looks more like a failed attempt to make a nation, that UK never planned or was not forced to do and has nothing to do with ethnicity related issues. GrimDawn (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship?[edit]

What is the citizenship status of the Chagossians? Are they considered citizens by the Mauritian government? Are they stateless? --Jfruh (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're Mauritian. 92.15.57.66 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship is a most important aspect indeed, and deserves a separate section in the article. As far as I can recall many of them (possubly a majority) are UK (hence EU) citizens resident in the UK nowadays. Apcbg (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any Activist Groups In the United States[edit]

It seems like all activism is focused in Britain. But the United States is also responsible. The United States could rescind its objection to Chagossians returning home and effectively end all this. Are there any organizations in the United States supporting the cause of the Chagossians? If not there needs to be.75.133.90.126 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Chagossians[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Chagossians which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.avaaz.org/oceans_annoncement_BBC
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chagossians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chagossians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chagossians&oldid=1200764368"