Talk:West India Regiments

Victoria Cross
I believe that Samuel Hodge from the 4th West India Regiment, was the first non-European (apologies for this term, as it is a bit cumbersome) to receive the Victoria Cross, doing so in 1866. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The regiment's second Victoria Cross recipient was William James Gordon, received for actions in Gambia in 1892. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the We Were There website, Samuel Hodge was actually the second non European person to receive the VC. William James Gordon was the third. Incidentally the first was William Hall, an able seaman in the Royal Navy, who received his award in 1857. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Eleventh British West India Regiment
Can anyone suggest what "Eleventh British West India Regiment" might refer to, as cited at St. William Grant? Many thanks. -Arb. (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. There are a couple of possibilities, I believe (depends on the context)—could you provide the quote in which he says it? The possibilities are, I think: 11th Battalion, British West India Regiment, or maybe 11th was being used as a numerical regimental designation as in "11th Regiment of Foot" sort of thing. To be honest, I don't know, I'm just guessing (which is never a good thing). I would lean towards the first explaination. I believe that there were eleven battalions of the British West Indies Regiment in the First World War (note that is different to West India Regiment of which there were only two battalions in that war). Not sure if this helps at all. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Possibility one does sound the most likely. The information about Grant's military service comes from, the paragraph numbered 4. Have also now linked this from the article! -Arb. (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion between West India Regiment and British West Indies Regiment
An anonymous editor has altered part of the section dealing with the history of the West India Regiment in World War I with the comment "it appears that inaccurate information by white historians and ignorants who cannot deal with real history are being included in this article over the well documented facts". This edit appears to arise from confusion between two different West Indian units - the long established West India Regiment (1795-1927), which is the prime subject of this article, and the British West Indies Regiment which was a war time unit (1915-1919). Both regiments were recruited from exactly the same black Caribbean population and it is incorrect and offensive to suggest that prejudice by "white historians and ignorants" is playing down the WWI role of one against the another. The referenced records cited in the article make it clear that it was the British West Indies Regiment which served against the Turks in 1918 while the West India Regiment fought (with equal distinction) against the Germans in Africa but did not see active service in the Palestine campaign. If editor 93.96.4.215 has "well documented facts" which show this to be incorrect could he or she please cite sources and I will change the article accordingly. In the meantime I have reverted the text to the reference supported original. buistR 07:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My limited knowledge of this subject leads me to believe that bustR is correct on this matter. One suggestion I have is that perhaps a separate article could be created for the British West Indies Regiment, as they would be notable by themselves, IMO. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or sources to help out, however. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

West India Regiment
The West India Regiment is being vandalised by whites and Africans in London either seeking to downplay the combative role the regiment played in their campaign in Palestine as well as overzealous racist Africans either trying to impose themselves into Caribbean history or to downplay the combative role the regiment play out of malice and their continuous efforts to reate conflicts as well as in their job working for British law enforcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribbeandiaspora (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Activities in Africa
The West Indian Regiment appears to have been involved with activities in West Africa. Transporting troops across the Atlantic is expensive; what were the men doing? Suppressing the slave trade? Colonizing the land? Something else? Andrew Swallow (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically providing a well trained and dependable field and garrison force in Britain's newly acquired West African colonies. In Sierra Leone alone the West India Regiment took part in eight separate campaigns between 1820 and 1898. (buistR 08:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)).


 * Sounds like a lot of bravery there. Plenty for the inhabitants of the West Indies to be proud of.  Someone needs to write the book to tell them.  Andrew Swallow (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The West Indians also served in East Africa during World War I and were highly respected by both their fellow British troops and their German adversaries. Bear in mind that the West India Regiment were professional soldiers on the regular British Army establishment as opposed to the militia style colonial forces raised in Africa. Not many people realize the incredible bravery and loyalty of the various colonial forces of the European powers, especially during both World Wars. 69.115.242.114 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Campaign
Someone is getting his dates wrong.
 * "Too often the facts with references to the Regiment's campaigns against the Turks in Palestine deleted from its flase claims that their role was a non-combative one to complete wipe-out. Wonder who is doing this? Can't wikipedia pin-point the low-lives doing this and have the racist garbages prosecuted! No point in referring to talk pages. They do not work."

Dates that start with a '19' occurred in the twentieth century. You will find the fight against the Turks described in the section marked World War 1. Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes quite correct. See also discussion above under heading "Confusion between West India Regiment and British West Indies Regiment". Buistr (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nickname
Regiments normally get a nickname. What was the West India Regiment's nickname? I hope it was not too politically incorrect. Andrew Swallow (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Start of the regiment
The start of the regiment has been changed to 1692, more than a century earlier. Is this correct? Also what did the troops do during the 1700s? Andrew Swallow (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)o
 * Hi. There were no regular West Indian units until the 1st WIR was raised in April 1795 - followed by another seven "West India Regiment"s over the following months. The "Carolina Corps" had been raised to serve in the Leeward Islands about 1780 but this was recruited from American loyalist blacks. No idea where the 1692 date came from. Perhaps there is confusion with the earliest of the dozens of British home regiments sent to serve in the West Indies during the 18th century. I have reverted the change and added some more details. Buistr (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Officers
Under Officers, it is not clear if there were Black officers able to serve? It hints that the WIR was not exactly of a high social standing, but John Perkins was an officer in the Royal Navy while being Black and I remember that Blacks were generally allowed in the Royal Navy- but the officers here were quite different from the army so it seems unclear. While it seems unlikely that the commission could be purchased nearly as much as it was by Whites, they could of course be raised from the ranks and don't forget that there were wealthy Blacks and Black slave owners who couldn't gotten sufficient Wealth. I am not suggesting or speculating AT ALL that there were Black officers, only that it could've happened and should be looked into and if it did indeed happen or was forbidden it should be mentioned and properly referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8161:C100:D113:F49F:DD5B:E41B (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)