Update: The beaches have been demined
The Falklands penguins that would not explode
obvs wrote: You mean the people living in the islands now?
You do realize that, other than a brief period where they dropped landmines everywhere, Argentinians haven't ever occupied the place, right? Also, the current occupants would prefer to stay British. Seems simple enough to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/blog/201 ... nd-islands
-
Séamas
- Posts: 6884
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
- Title: Honorary Consul General
- Location: Where am I?
Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?
Hmmm.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?
Hmmm.
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
Séamas wrote: Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?
Hmmm.
Which is which?
juice wrote:Séamas wrote: Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?
Hmmm.
Which is which?
BoJo may be ridiculous, and right-wing, but as far as I know, he isn't a dictator.
-
DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33223
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
Séamas wrote: Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?
Hmmm.
Odd, how strangely familiar that choice seems ...
intellectual/hipster/nihilist
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
What's your opinion on uninhabited lands right next to indigenous people's settlements in Canada, but which were claimed by the indigenous people?TOS wrote:obvs wrote: You mean the people living in the islands now?
the only people to have lived on the islands, ever, i believe
obvs wrote:What's your opinion on uninhabited lands right next to indigenous people's settlements in Canada, but which were claimed by the indigenous people?TOS wrote:obvs wrote: You mean the people living in the islands now?
the only people to have lived on the islands, ever, i believe
now you know i hate arguing hypotheticals and metaphors
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
It's easy for outsiders to say that the Falklands should belong to the UK, because you're not part of the indigenous population of a country with another country claiming a tiny piece of land that by all geographic reasoning should be part of your country, land that was only gotten by the other country because it was an invading force in your land.
Okay, so a part of the population of Argentina isn't indigenous, or doesn't consider themselves indigenous. And okay, that land wasn't considered to be part of Argentina when Argentina was created. That's because the reason that Argentina exists in the first place is because of the invaders coming.
You can't claim that land doesn't inherently belong to a country (because it wasn't considered to be part of said country when said country was created) if the country was only created as part of a chain of events that was set in motion by you destroying the groups that originally had a claim to said land.
After hundreds of years, the indigenous population are counted within the Argentinian population. Even if the "native" groups don't consider themselves to be part of that, even a given average latino person has some native ancestry.
The population of the Falkland Islands is less than 3000 people. It would not be a major difficulty to resettle those people, even for England to compensate them for the land they held while they were there. This is a bit of a different situation than in the U.S. and Canada, which have tens or hundreds of millions of people, and many of whom themselves do have some indigenous ancestry.
Okay, so a part of the population of Argentina isn't indigenous, or doesn't consider themselves indigenous. And okay, that land wasn't considered to be part of Argentina when Argentina was created. That's because the reason that Argentina exists in the first place is because of the invaders coming.
You can't claim that land doesn't inherently belong to a country (because it wasn't considered to be part of said country when said country was created) if the country was only created as part of a chain of events that was set in motion by you destroying the groups that originally had a claim to said land.
After hundreds of years, the indigenous population are counted within the Argentinian population. Even if the "native" groups don't consider themselves to be part of that, even a given average latino person has some native ancestry.
The population of the Falkland Islands is less than 3000 people. It would not be a major difficulty to resettle those people, even for England to compensate them for the land they held while they were there. This is a bit of a different situation than in the U.S. and Canada, which have tens or hundreds of millions of people, and many of whom themselves do have some indigenous ancestry.
Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
obvs wrote: It's easy for outsiders to say that the Falklands should belong to the UK, . . . . . . .
The Falklands belong to the UK.
The Malvinas belong to Argentina.
Unlimited Growth is the Ideology of a Cancer Cell
obvs wrote:Might makes right, and all.maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
We are in the middle of abandoning that as a universal precept, while having to deal with the ramifications of a world built off it. Sometimes it's best to let history be history. A forced relocation of thousands of people with hundreds of years of history in a location, that'd be another scar, not healing.
obvs wrote:Might makes right, and all.maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
So, what would you call forcibly removing the islanders at the hands of the Argentinians? Oh, wait - Argentina tried that once and got their asses kicked. In other words, they tried the might makes right thing and it didn't work out so well for them.
Let them be British if they want. Argentina has no real claim to the land other than what some knuckle-headed pope said centuries ago.
jkahless wrote:obvs wrote:Might makes right, and all.maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
We are in the middle of abandoning that as a universal precept
we're what?
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
You really do subscribe to the Euro-centric view of the world, don'tcha.maurvir wrote:obvs wrote:Might makes right, and all.maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
So, what would you call forcibly removing the islanders at the hands of the Argentinians? Oh, wait - Argentina tried that once and got their asses kicked. In other words, they tried the might makes right thing and it didn't work out so well for them.
Let them be British if they want. Argentina has no real claim to the land other than what some knuckle-headed pope said centuries ago.
TOS wrote:jkahless wrote:obvs wrote:Might makes right, and all.maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
We are in the middle of abandoning that as a universal precept
we're what?
Never said we were doing it very quickly or successfully, but every expansion of rule of law, every expansion of human rights is a move away from might means right. The world is slowly becoming a better place.
The world moves slower than we think, as far as I'm concerned we still haven't finished the first industrial revolution.
obvs wrote:You really do subscribe to the Euro-centric view of the world, don'tcha.maurvir wrote:obvs wrote:Might makes right, and all.maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.
After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
So, what would you call forcibly removing the islanders at the hands of the Argentinians? Oh, wait - Argentina tried that once and got their asses kicked. In other words, they tried the might makes right thing and it didn't work out so well for them.
Let them be British if they want. Argentina has no real claim to the land other than what some knuckle-headed pope said centuries ago.
No, I believe that there is no good reason to upset the apple cart here. The people on the island are happy being British. If they wanted to be Argentinians, I wouldn't have an issue with Argentina taking over the place.
obvs wrote: The importance of the Falkland Islands isn't as a location for homes. It's as a location for natural resources.
And those natural resources should not inherently belong to a country for only the fact that it happened to go around invading every other country.
Tell that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years and see it as first their home.
You can't invade an uninhabited perhaps even unvisited island.
Argentina is just an imperialist European power once removed. Just exactly like every other government in the Americas.
Every country in the Americas is ruled by an invading, foreign culture. No government has a clean claim to power over any land or any people.
Every country in the Americas is ruled by an invading, foreign culture. No government has a clean claim to power over any land or any people.
Not even duct tape will fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.
They found canoes and arrowheads on the Falkland Islands. They were not unvisited.jkahless wrote:obvs wrote: The importance of the Falkland Islands isn't as a location for homes. It's as a location for natural resources.
And those natural resources should not inherently belong to a country for only the fact that it happened to go around invading every other country.
Tell that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years and see it as first their home.
You can't invade an uninhabited perhaps even unvisited island.
And I really question invading forces' accounts that an island is uninhabited.
obvs wrote:They found canoes and arrowheads on the Falkland Islands. They were not unvisited.jkahless wrote:obvs wrote: The importance of the Falkland Islands isn't as a location for homes. It's as a location for natural resources.
And those natural resources should not inherently belong to a country for only the fact that it happened to go around invading every other country.
Tell that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years and see it as first their home.
You can't invade an uninhabited perhaps even unvisited island.
And I really question invading forces' accounts that an island is uninhabited.
As I understand it, there's multiple theories as to the source and time line of those artifacts. Which is why I said "may". We're dealing with a possibility from hundreds of years ago balanced against thousands of people's self determination today.
As for disbelieving accounts the island was uninhabited... that seems a little fantastical. Neither the Spanish nor the British had any qualms about wiping out indigenous populations and recording that they did. European's fastidious record keeping tends to support indigenous land claims.
obvs wrote: I am not making an affirmative statement.
Please don't change this discussion to be about claims I've never made.
Am I the only one who's confused here? I'm looking at what you wrote, and I'm pretty sure I responded directly to the points you raised.
The only people probably indigenous to the Falklands are the people there now. Argentina’s claim to the islands stems from colonial era Spanish occupation, not indigenous claims of precolonial occupancy. (Which are speculative at best.)
And even if that weren’t true, the people using landmines are pretty much always the bad guys,
But fiddlesticks whitey, amirite?
And even if that weren’t true, the people using landmines are pretty much always the bad guys,
But fiddlesticks whitey, amirite?
obvs wrote: Me saying that I doubt the trustworthiness of statements from invading forces who happened to rape and kill a bunch of people in other areas is not equivalent to me making an affirmative statement that there were people in this one particular area.
Is this a difficult distinction to convey?
"And I really question invading forces' accounts that an island is uninhabited."
I don't know how I could have assumed you were referring to the Falkland Islands... obviously you're just speaking of invasions and islands in general, with no bearing on this discussion.
Let's flip it around. Why should Argentina be able to kick everyone off the island and claim it as their own?
