Saying "they hated it" when referring to their return from the migration to Tahiti is underselling things a bit. Over a third of them died from sickness having no immunity to things having been isolated so long. The island lifestyle there was completely unlike Tahiti of the past due to the influx of non-Tahitian people, and they basically lived in slums. Luckily they were able to sell copper sheathing from the Bounty to pay for the return journey back to Pitcairn.
I met Tom on the island when I stayed there about 12 years ago. He's a cousin of mine - my grandmother was born there and I'm a descendent of Fletcher Christian too. I was there for a month and had a great time. The island is small but very hilly so there's lots of walking around and exploring that can be done. There's definitely a feeling of remoteness when your boat leaves and the realisation that there's no way to leave until it comes back again!
Your article says: "It’s therefore possible that it was the newcomers from Europe who contributed to the island’s societal collapse in the years to come."
Right, as usual, the evil Europeans were the cause of the collapse, and the fact that there were no trees left on the island for hundreds of years prior, and therefore no wood for building things, had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse. This modern rewriting of history according to modern sensitivities is incredible in a society that preaches to value reason and science rather than wishful thinking.
Like it or not, it's what current research - the science you appeal to -- appears to show. As stated here:
"...the researchers determined that the island experienced steady population growth from its initial settlement until European contact in 1722. After that date, two models show a possible population plateau, while another two models show possible decline."
and
"Current research shows that deforestation was prolonged and didn’t result in catastrophic erosion; the trees were ultimately replaced by gardens mulched with stone that increased agricultural productivity. During times of drought, the people may have relied on freshwater coastal seeps." [1]
"Evil Europeans" is your term in an attempt to make it seem as if the European culture is being attacked. There is no "modern rewriting of history according to modern sensitivities", it's rewriting of history taking into account new knowledge that Pacific peoples weren't stupid, had spread across the Pacific using navigation methods unknown to Europeans for thousands of years and recognising the effects of the introduction of outside cultures - disease, slavery and theft.
Diamond argued for a environment caused degradation + diverse factors of their society and thus indirectly attacked the west-"centric-diabolist meat pots.
These papers are a attempt to reconquer lost funding by the very same academics who happily ignore other cultures atrocities, be they in the past:
ATS is great, I’ve used ATS1 and ATS2 quite a bit and it worked well. Unfortunately it suffers a bit from the “rewrite every few years” as research directions change.
> My agenda is to obviously raise awareness that an island that aids sexual abusers is bad
This is another example of you using emotive phrases to imply a narrative that is not true. Pitcairn Island does not aid sexual abusers. Abuse is abhorrent. Trials were held, people were convicted. I'm not sure what is different to how this is handled anywhere else in the world.
Note that Pitcairn Island isn't 47 sq. km. That's the size of the combined islands in the Pitcairn area - Henderson, Ducie, Oeno and Pitcairn. Pitcairn Island itself is 3.2km long and 1.6km wide.
The population has been in the low hundreds in the past, and population pressure was one of the reasons for the 1831 migration to Tahiti and the 1856 migration to Norfolk.
I agree more information on the website would be good.
