Talk:History of Solomon Islands

Ragusans in Solomons

The presence of explorers and traders from the Republic of Ragusa needs to cite references. I did a quick Google looking for some verfication:

http://www.croatians.com/DISCOVERY-VICEROY-BUNE.htm - says that Vice Bune was a Ragusan in Spanish employ who was at one point Viceroy of Mexico.

http://www.goacom.org/goanow/99/apr/history.html - seems to verify the presence of Ragusan traders in Goa.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/iranian_origin_croats.pdf - mentions Vice Bune and Ragusans in Melanesia, but the document deals with what I would call "fringe history" (ie. the Old Iranian origin of the Croatian people), so that discounts that, at least in my mind, as independent verification.

Failure to appear on Google doesn't prove anything, but it does nothing to allay my suspicions. Please provide citations, preferably from published material (books, articles). Citing old records and the like isn't quite good enough if you can't show where these have been published.--Iacobus 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vice Bune

The reference to this figure should probably be deleted until independent documentary evidence of his activities can be found. The only reference to Bune's being in the Pacific is other WP sites. See extensive discussion at {http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Vincentius_Bune]--Nickm57 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion regarding Vice Bune (a real merchant from Dubrovnik who served the Spanish crown, but about whom verifiable details are very limited) at [1]. Apparently main WP deleted an entry about him some time ago, deciding he was a non-existant person. The few remaining references to him on google are generally based on the old WP entry.

Note: I notice all the WP entries relating to Vice Bune and alleged Ragusian exploration of/trade with the Pacific appear from two anonymous IP addresses on 28 and 29 October 2006. --Nickm57 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "Natives" offensive?

Original "Natives"?

I understand that this is somewhat accepted in American usage, but in British circles (a few billion people) calling a human a "native" can be perceived as extremely patronising, even insulting, as if they were a species of plant.

I would suggest that a better term than Original Natives might be Original Settlement, Original Inhabitants, or Original Discovery.

I also have issues with use of the word "rediscovered", suggesting as it does in a section on "European exploration" that the islands were discovered by a European. Suggest that "sighted" be used instead, as in the first sentence. Thoughts?

The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law Volume 11 - Page 208 http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=IdIHAQAAMAAJ&q=British+colonialism+%22natives%22+disparaging+patronising&dq=British+colonialism+%22natives%22+disparaging+patronising&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8gSUUdm2JcaaiQee6oDQCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ

2004 - Snippet view - More editions

... distinction between the Western Area and up-country parallels a distinction between creoles and 'natives' - 'natives' being the disparaging term for the ... As Fyfe (1962: 455) says in a discussion of this divide within the British colonialcontext, 'Few creoles felt sympathy for the "aborigines, the "natives," words normally used in a slighting, patronizing sense (though to Europeans creoles were "natives"). Avaiki (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)