Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU
Posts
That ... doesn't exactly sounds like much of a population.
The guys who came to the islands after it was abandoned by the spanish. I still don't understand your idea about racism but ok, I won't use that word again if you are unhappy.
Bolded part is especially amusing. Do you think the island had a native population of Argentinians? The only reason Argentine people were there is because (after French, Spanish and British settlers) they were sent there in an effort to colonise the place (as a penal colony, in Argentina's case).
You know, there's a rumour that Argentina might be the result of some kind of colonisation in South America. Probably just a rumour, though. I'm sure that they've been there the whole time and the land shouldn't be returned to the original inhabitants.
Apparently all you need is a round dozen and you have a native population. It must have been a concerted effort by Britain to outbreed such a mighty host. Exactly analoguous to the situation in Tibet and not a remarkably stupid comparison at all.
*Makes Sean Penn levels of stupid comments*
*Gets fact checked into oblivion*
Now the options are: belligerently defend position ignoring all counter points and facts or disappear from the thread for good.
I think the second option would be best.
The only reason why Argentina even gives a rats ass is because they're looking for a fast buck at the expense of a smaller indigenous population.
Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!
Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!
It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.
I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.
I guess when westerners take land it's always justified and a great thing for the locals. But when others do that it's an invasion. Thanks for clarifying.
Because that is the claim you were trying to make?
All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.
Except it isn't my argument. It's yours. According to you a dozen guys from Argentina (and more from other countries) left behind when the Argentine penal colony was abandoned constitute the rightful owners of the island. If that's true, then the rightful owners of Argentina (and yes, pretty much every other country) aren't the guys there now. Why is the Falklands a special case for you? Why give that 'back' but no other land?
Besides, if it's first come, first served then Britain never left. We staked a claim there before Argentina was even a country.
And seriously, if you can't see the difference between what's happening right now in Tibet and Britain claiming the islands after all but 12 Argentines leave two hundred years ago then I don't know what to say to you.
Oh yeah because when the english invaded a small island thousands of kilometers from their own it was for the benefit of the locals, and totally not for profit. True story.
So when two sides have a dispute over territory, neither should get it?
So taking abandoned land is the same as invading owned land?
and here it's different, the first settlers were the first to arrive. The malvinas were uninhabited since they are an isolated island.
The offshore oil, not so much.
As someone who lives in Disputed Territory, albeit Territory that's sort of internally disputed if that makes sense, I'd rather this not be the standard solution.
Hey, me too!
So rather then have Argentinians feel bad about not getting control over a large oil deposit, you posit that it would be better to deport some 3000 individuals who have lived there their entire lives so that the island can be a nature preserve?
.
..
...
What makes you think the Argentinians won't simply move right in and drill like crazy?
Like, I'm getting the impression that you desperately need to read the better part of this thread before commenting sargasso.
I get the distinct impression that you thought that there was a thriving Argentine colony there before a cruel invasion by Britain or something. You were wrong. How are you dealing with this new information? Are you accepting it and modifying your views, or are you ignoring it and pressing on regardless? Also, you bought up first come, first served, and since Britain laid a claim on the islands before any Argentine settlement was placed there, does this information change your mind at all?
Ooh, who disputes you?
But the malvinas were uninhabitated before the europeans who would later call themselves the argentinians arrived. That is why the situation is particular. If there were natives from long ago I would never even have brought this issue up, since as you pointed out my whole premise would have been flawed.
As for the whole Tibet thing, I do realize the facts are different but the underlying illegitimacy is the same. The difference is one of scale, not one of premise.
To be honest, all of this probably won't matter in the long run but I'm just tired of seeing southerners get bullied into submission. I didn't mean to lash out like that, but you can't get heard otherwise.
I am more sympathetic to the penguin's cause than to either the argies or the brits. So by all means let them have the island and the oil.
And what part of the world is this technical friendship taking place?[/Killed Cat]
They only people being bullied are the Falkland Islanders themselves, who are having transport links to the mainlad cut by Argentina to apply pressure on them. Sounds sorta like bullying to me.
Mmnope, it's a difference of premise too!
You should probably look at some 1940s census data for Konigsberg and Wroclaw before making pronouncements about Tibet. Even if we had ousted a thriving Argentine community (which we didn't just in case someone misinterprets this) and resettled with British people, the Falklands would be way down the list of territory transfers that would need to take place under your principle.
Hell, why not say the British are the Nazis, and those dozen guys were like Czechkoslovakia?
1) The decision made by the UK to protect the Falklands are not something a serious person can dispute, but some (a lot) of the actions taken within that conflict were bullshit, and Thatcher's government made matters worse by applauding them. Ambushing and sinking a ship, murdering 300 conscripted Argentinians, just to show the dictator you mean business, is maybe the best example.
2) Argentina is very poor and very run down for a country of it's size. What little wealth that hasn't been tapped by a variety of multinational organizations has been stolen by the government, leaving the public with decaying infrastructure and brutal police forces (they used to openly engage in 'disappearing' people; apparently this has stopped, and we're supposed to be impressed that law enforcement officials are no longer paid to kidnap & murder dissidents).
Obviously that's not any reason to support the actions of Agentina, but it's why a lot of people sympathize with that country instead of the wealthy & monolithic UK.
Argentina never owned them. Under the rule of first there keeps it, you can make a claim for Spanish, French, or British sovereignty.
However we don't do such things because by that silly reasoning every country in the Americas is illegitimate. Instead, we rely on 200 years of continued British presence and sovereignty to assert: yeah, that's theirs. Just like we say: Argentina has been sitting in that spot in South America for 200 years now, so that place is theirs. Instead of claiming that it somehow belongs to the indigenous population (i.e. whoever came before the Inca).
Well, the Spanish murdered all of the indigenous peoples of the region, so there's no original claim to it anymore..
And, gobsmackingly awful Sun headline aside, even that isn't the absolutely unforgivable action you make it out to be.
I was under the impression that the Argentine authorities and the captain of the General Belgrano both conceded that the sinking was a legitimate wartime action?
Like I said, it's a difference of scale. The theft of land and the destruction of culture was common in those days, and just because it concerns less people in the argentinian case doesn't make it any less wrong than say, the french in maghreb or the british in india.
These are completely different things
completely and utterly