Timeline for Why are "Chagossians" considered indigenous to Chagos Islands despite having spent less than 200 years there?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12 at 3:03 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 15 at 10:10 | |||||
| Oct 3 at 23:18 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @ItalianPhilosopher the UK didn’t exactly recognize the 1776 claims either, at least initially :-) | |
| Oct 3 at 22:47 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | 172 years is also not a huge amount less than 156 (1776 US Independence - 1620 Mayflower). Or 404 (2024 - 1620). i.e. be careful when pooh-poohing the lengths of other folks' historical tenures, not everyone can trumpet the CCP's 4000 year of Middle Kingdom history or whatever they are laying claims to. | |
| Oct 3 at 19:09 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 4 at 12:24 | |||||
| Oct 3 at 18:31 | history | reopened |
JonathanReez Number File 264 champagne bottles on ice SurpriseDog Michael Seifert |
||
| Oct 2 at 17:16 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 3 at 18:36 | |||||
| Oct 2 at 15:14 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @StuartF I know several people whose ancestral home is older than 172 years and they can trace their family tree down till the late 1600s. It’s pretty common in parts of Europe untouched by communism - and is also somewhat common for families in New England. | |
| Oct 2 at 15:12 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @quarague it sticks out in the list of indigenous cultures, with just one culture (Greenland Inuit) being potentially disputable. And at least the Inuit had their own culture for thousands of years, compared to a random mix of African tribes and Europeans that was present in Chagos. | |
| Oct 2 at 12:39 | history | closed |
user182601 264 champagne bottles on ice SJuan76 Charlie Evans David Hammen |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Oct 2 at 11:09 | comment | added | origimbo | @quarague or about 6 or 7 generations of the "my father's father's father" kind. | |
| Oct 2 at 9:38 | comment | added | quarague | I don't get why you consider 172 years a short time period. It essentially means that nobody alive today has met in person anyone alive before the period started, that is two complete human live times. | |
| Oct 2 at 9:14 | comment | added | Stuart F | Lots of countries claim control of their territory despite having been founded a lot later than 200 years ago. And I bet your parents haven't lived in their house for 200 years. | |
| Oct 2 at 9:11 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Oct 2 at 3:06 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 2 at 12:46 | |||||
| Oct 2 at 2:59 | answer | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | timeline score: 7 | |
| Oct 2 at 2:54 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | Doesn't the latter report answer your Q? I assume in 150+ pages they manage to explain from what standpoint they're considered indigenous?! Or is it TLDR? | |
| Oct 2 at 2:52 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @IVFcomesfromthetip various activists and international law experts | |
| Oct 2 at 2:50 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 2 at 2:48 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | I'm not expert on this, but conceivably it could mean the first inhabitants of something. Who calls them indigenous, BTW? | |
| Oct 2 at 2:05 | answer | added | Italian Philosopher | timeline score: 17 | |
| Oct 2 at 1:11 | history | asked | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |