Category talk:Merchants from the British West Indies

English/British?

This page includes at least a couple of Scots (Paterson and Ross): should the introduction recognise this by referring to people from Great Britain, rather than people from England? 45ossington (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Paterson traded from London - it is people from England not national origin. There seem to have been few Scots involved - perhaps Ross should be removed? Eddaido (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken on Paterson, but I suspect that more Scottish West Indies merchants may emerge. If so - and if Hercules Ross and they are to be separated off into a different category, we would presumably need two categories, namely "English West Indies merchants" and "Scottish West Indies merchants". But is the distinction between English and Scottish very significant in the present context (Paterson being a case in point)? Why not simply identify "British" West Indies merchants? In fact it makes me wonder whether the unqualified category "West Indies merchants" is rightfully to be restricted even to British West Indies merchants: why do merchants of other nationalities trading in the West Indies not count as "West Indies merchants"? What about (1) opening up the category of "West Indies merchants" to include all nationalities, and/or (2) creating sub-categories for West Indies merchants of different nationalities? But I am not any sort of categorisation expert and wouldn't presume to dictate. (By the way, I have just added Moses Benson, who was undoubtedly an English West Indies merchant.)

45ossington (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since the category clearly included Scots and at least one Irish merchant, I changed the definition from people from England to people from the United Kingdom. Have also linked merchant, which specifically mentions the sugar and tobacco trade with the New World. This raises the question: why should this category exclude merchants from the Danish West India Company, the Dutch West India Company, the French West India Company, and the Swedish West India Company?
  See West Indies for clarification. Also note, West India is a redirect to Western India. . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The name of the category is the name that was given to a bunch of people with strong and active links to the West Indies who were based in London, often of W I birth. It seems to me to have been assumed it relates to anyone at all who has or had business dealings with those islands. I won't exaggerate to make my point. It seem Dave souza's concern is for Scotsmen or men of Scots birth (who were also sugar importers of which there were a very large number around Bristol and Liverpool and some in London all of which places were where there was no marmalade factory). To add to my puzzlement please look at this item about an Australian merchant (cannot think of better name for him within the present context but I shouldn't think it would have been used at all in his day).

Now if it is to be used in a different way from its (you find abstruse) historical meaning it should say so and in absolutely any case 'from the United Kingdom' is no good unless you add prominenty something about from its central American colonies aka West Indies. The central concern seems to be place of (presumed) birth. Am I right? For a good laugh go read the beginning of the Dalgety biography! Regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As above, there's no apparent reason why this category shouldn't include all merchants involved in trade with the West Indies. When I first looked at the category, it already included Scots and Irish merchants as well as English merchants, the obvious first step was to cover these by the statement People from the United Kingdom, merchants involved in trade with the West Indies (not West India). You are of course free to propose a sub-category for "English West Indies merchants", but that looks inappropriate. . dave souza, talk 09:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No It should not include all merchants trading with the West Indies. That would make a total nonsense of it wouldn't it. Are you aware that at the time of the American Revolution the West Indies was significantly more important (defence as well as economic) to Britain than the the future USA which is one of the reasons the "loss" of part of North America was not rued as much as many assume. Do you know why the Scots had to pass their government to England? Because they spent absolutely everything they had to found a colony of Scots in central America which would make them colossally wealthy too. It was a tragic disaster for their nation as well as the "colonists". Don't believe me? Then please read this Darien scheme. You can't leave the note at the top of the cat. the way it is because most (without me checking) will have been born in WI which makes a nonsense of your sub-heading. Tell you what, I will leave the matter to bubble along until I find a citation to suit you and me. But they were a very specific bunch of people and if birth not trading place matters then you will have to expand your "United Kingdom". Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just read about Lamont. He turned up too late, after the Napoleonic wars which destroyed, terminally, the economy of the West Indies by blockades causing development of other sources of sugar e.g. sugar beet. Eddaido (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)