Talk:Indians in Réunion

Untitled
In Réunion, the term Indo-Réunionnais is not mainstream. It would be better to have separate articles called Malbars and Zarabes. As for Franco-Réunionnais, it has been coined by Wikipédia. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, their number and influence doesn't merit separate recognition. Together however, they have made a bigger impact. As For Franco-Réunionnais, they have their own article because they have a significant influence, and are their own ethnic category --Maurice45 (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Franco-Réunionnais simply do not exist as an ethnic group. That's because all Réunionnais are French. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is important that you understand that the situation is not the same as in Mauritius, where Indo-Mauritian and Franco-Mauritian are established terms to designate ethnic groups. In Réunion, the segmentation is different, and that is why we should better have Malbars and Zarabes rather than Indo-Réunionnais as a whole. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * still, you must admit that there are obvious ethnic differences, despite the citizens holding French passports. I have heard that the France Réunionnais are often called "zoreilles". This is proof of their ethnicity. Are you honestly telling me that there are absolutely no French people living on the island, and, if they do, do not consider themselves to be Réunionnais, but simply French? --Maurice45 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the two groups would not fare well in separate articles. What has each individual group done to establish different articles? What significance would they have? In fact, Both articles would probably be deleted. This is why:

Together, they have more influence. The population of both groups is more significant when added together. Similarly, both groups are descended from India. And As a result, have a similar culture, save for Religion. Language too, is a uniting factor. Indians in Réunion as a whole can be researched more easily than as separate groups.

Take away these factors and what are you left with? Very little to go on --Maurice45 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not. There are many authors writing on these questions, Lucette Labache, Jean Benoist or Jean-Régis Ramsamy for example. They use Malbars or Zarabes, and eventually Réunionnais d'origine indienne for the entire group. But Indo-Réunionnais is very rare. In fact, this last term is the very one that needs to be proved correct. I mean, can you tell me which social scientists use it? Can you tell me what are the references for such a title? Because if you have none, then what you fear for Malbars and Zarabes will have to be feared even more regarding Indo-Réunionnais — deletion. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indo-Reunion people never feel them self as a group, even between Karanes and Zarabes (ie Shiia and sunni). The confluence between Karanes and Zarabes interest is very recent, and now Karanes themself say they are Zarabes. Sometimes you can read the terme Indo-pakistanais, but it mean Indo-muslim only. I never meet Indo-Réunionnais. Vincnet (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have created Tamil Réunionnais quoting few lines from this article. Any how there is lot of variations between Tamils or called as Malabars in Reunion and North Indians. So I created this page. if any one having disagreement with me. please feel free to talk with me. --BlueLankan 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs)