> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.