Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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

1131416181924

Posts

  • edited March 2012
    Oakey wrote: »
    I love how you pick up on that but ignore the part where in the previous battle the Argentinians waved a white flag to surrender and then opened fire on the troops that went to take that surrender. You're also happy to accept that as fact before banging on about how it's a biased unverifiable account!
    Sargasso wrote:
    I propose we forget all this and simply ignore Oakley without whose input none of this would have happened

    You are delusional, it was your input that started all this. It was your pig-headedness that chose to ignore all the evidence presented before you and continued to troll this thread. Now you, a member of two days, are trying to get other members (who I've never had a problem with) to ignore another user of eight years? Take your meds kiddo.

    Are you saying that because you are the more senior member, your arguments cannot be questioned?
    Sargasso wrote: »
    I wonder if we were discussing modern day Turkey, if you would be calling the capitol city Constantinople.

    I'm guessing probably no.

    That's apple and oranges man. Turkey was never invaded by the british

    Neither were the Falkland Islands.

    An argentine ship was forcibly ejected and the islands occupied with military personnel. IMO that falls under the definition of invasion.

    Sargasso on
    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    I'm saying you are insane if you are trying to claim I caused all this and that the solution is for everyone else to ignore me.

    steam_sig.png

  • Oakey wrote: »
    I'm saying you are insane if you are trying to claim I caused all this and that the solution is for everyone else to ignore me.

    Is it insane to demand measures to avoid further insults? Is it insane to not enjoy being called a brain dead moron by some stranger who doesn't even know you?

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Guys... Just put him on the ignore list. Works wonders.

    Done.

    steam_sig.png
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    I wonder if we were discussing modern day Turkey, if you would be calling the capitol city Constantinople.

    I'm guessing probably no.

    That's apple and oranges man. Turkey was never invaded by the british

    Actually it was, but that isn't important; the reference, I believe, was to the invasion of Anatolia and Thrace by the Turks.
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    No, it's really not. The words you use to frame a debate influence the conversation immensely. Using the term Malvinas implies that the islands are essentially non-English, which is untrue.

    Well after closer examination of the thread I noticed that I am one of the few users who call them that. So in a way I am balancing the debate instead of creating more controversy.

    Not really. If you could provide support to the idea that the Falklands should be called the Malvinas, then calling them such might be considered balancing the debate. Right now, what you are doing is of the same vein as me referring to the American Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Don't get me wrong, watching you flaunt mental prowess akin to that of the great Mad Morlock is most entertaining, but in this case as with so many others in this thread, you are wrong.

    I base it on the Argentine claim to the islands renewed in 2009.

    Yes, but what supports that claim?

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    No, it's really not. The words you use to frame a debate influence the conversation immensely. Using the term Malvinas implies that the islands are essentially non-English, which is untrue.

    Well after closer examination of the thread I noticed that I am one of the few users who call them that. So in a way I am balancing the debate instead of creating more controversy.

    Not really. If you could provide support to the idea that the Falklands should be called the Malvinas, then calling them such might be considered balancing the debate. Right now, what you are doing is of the same vein as me referring to the American Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Don't get me wrong, watching you flaunt mental prowess akin to that of the great Mad Morlock is most entertaining, but in this case as with so many others in this thread, you are wrong.

    I base it on the Argentine claim to the islands renewed in 2009.

    Yes, but what supports that claim?

    Argentina, of course.

  • Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

    I don't think we should see this as a case of liberalism vs conservatism, just a case of sovereignty between states.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

    I don't think we should see this as a case of liberalism vs conservatism, just a case of sovereignty between states.

    The sovereignty "issue" is crystal clear to everyone except a few wingnuts.

    And when I say "everyone" I include actual Argentinians, because plenty of them consider the Falklands War to be a stain on their countries honor, and the islands themselves to be British.

  • Sargasso wrote: »
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

    I don't think we should see this as a case of liberalism vs conservatism, just a case of sovereignty between states.

    The sovereignty "issue" is crystal clear to everyone except a few wingnuts.

    And when I say "everyone" I include actual Argentinians, because plenty of them consider the Falklands War to be a stain on their countries honor, and the islands themselves to be British.

    We'll you've got the whole of south america and a few other countries (including china, for some reason) who support the argentine claim. Even the UN has called for talks. Can we really call all those governments wingnuts?

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

    I don't think we should see this as a case of liberalism vs conservatism, just a case of sovereignty between states.

    The sovereignty "issue" is crystal clear to everyone except a few wingnuts.

    And when I say "everyone" I include actual Argentinians, because plenty of them consider the Falklands War to be a stain on their countries honor, and the islands themselves to be British.

    We'll you've got the whole of south america and a few other countries (including china, for some reason) who support the argentine claim. Even the UN has called for talks. Can we really call all those governments wingnuts?

    Yeah we can. It's crass land-grabbing. There is no claim to the islands beyond "Hey. I want that. Give it here."

    Which naturally is the sort of claim that China would support.

    What country are you from again? I'll rename it and claim that it should be part of the U.S.

    If you don't like that, we'll send in some troops to claim it.

    And, according to your logic, that will give the U.S. sovereignty over it.

  • simonwolfsimonwolf so enough of this terror we deserve to know lightRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Plus, you seem to conveniently forget that the UK repeatedly attempted to mediate the issue with the Argentines, including taking it to the UN.

    The Argentines refused every time.

    EDIT: Turns out it was the International Court of Justice, not the UN, in the example I was thinking of! My mistake, correcting it here.

    EDIT EDIT: Oh hey, the ICJ is part of the UN! The things I forget at 3am. This paper trail is going to keep on building.

    simonwolf on
  • Sargasso wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

    I don't think we should see this as a case of liberalism vs conservatism, just a case of sovereignty between states.

    The sovereignty "issue" is crystal clear to everyone except a few wingnuts.

    And when I say "everyone" I include actual Argentinians, because plenty of them consider the Falklands War to be a stain on their countries honor, and the islands themselves to be British.

    We'll you've got the whole of south america and a few other countries (including china, for some reason) who support the argentine claim. Even the UN has called for talks. Can we really call all those governments wingnuts?

    Yeah we can. It's crass land-grabbing. There is no claim to the islands beyond "Hey. I want that. Give it here."

    Which naturally is the sort of claim that China would support.

    What country are you from again? I'll rename it and claim that it should be part of the U.S.

    If you don't like that, we'll send in some troops to claim it.

    And, according to your logic, that will give the U.S. sovereignty over it.

    The UK has colonized a huge number of countries, much much more than Argentina and China combined. The US exterminated the local population when settling the land. (about 2% remain). So please don't start down the "crass land grabbing" road and make snide comments about China being evil. Without crass land grabbing by europeans this whole issue would not exist.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?

    I have to say in all honesty, it's situations like this that make me a moderate. Just like how Rush Limbaugh's comments make some people go "You know what, I'm not actually a conservative, I don't want to be in the same intellectual/moral/political category as this pompous windbag."

    That's how I feel about this. I can almost convince myself that I am a liberal progressive, and then a liberal progressive does or says something that is just completely repellent, and then they double down on it when criticized.

    Because at the end of the day, I don't want to try to apologize for people like Sean Penn. I'd just rather not even be the same thing he is politically.

    I don't think we should see this as a case of liberalism vs conservatism, just a case of sovereignty between states.

    The sovereignty "issue" is crystal clear to everyone except a few wingnuts.

    And when I say "everyone" I include actual Argentinians, because plenty of them consider the Falklands War to be a stain on their countries honor, and the islands themselves to be British.

    We'll you've got the whole of south america and a few other countries (including china, for some reason) who support the argentine claim. Even the UN has called for talks. Can we really call all those governments wingnuts?

    Yeah we can. It's crass land-grabbing. There is no claim to the islands beyond "Hey. I want that. Give it here."

    Which naturally is the sort of claim that China would support.

    What country are you from again? I'll rename it and claim that it should be part of the U.S.

    If you don't like that, we'll send in some troops to claim it.

    And, according to your logic, that will give the U.S. sovereignty over it.

    The UK has colonized a huge number of countries, much much more than Argentina and China combined. The US exterminated the local population when settling the land. (about 2% remain). So please don't start down the "crass land grabbing" road and make snide comments about China being evil. Without crass land grabbing by europeans this whole issue would not exist.

    I don't think you get to claim that the past land-grabbing of the U.S. and the U.K. is terrible and simultaneously use it to justify land grabs by other people now. It is either terrible, or it isn't.

    Ignoring what the people who live there currently want is much worse, but of course you're happy enough to do that.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I am marking this point as that past which, if Sargasso posts again, he will be banned.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?
    Yes, U.S. + 1812.

    If it's fit for the goose...

    World's best janitor
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?
    Yes, U.S. + 1812.

    If it's fit for the goose...

    Hmm, care to elaborate? Didn't that war suffer from unpopularity and anti-war sentiment from within the U.S.?

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Also, isn't the attempts at spinning the War of 1812 for U.S. sympathy limited to the razing of Washington DC?

    I can't say that I've ever heard anyone, anyone at all, at any point in my life suggest that because we invaded and got driven out and counter-attacked that that means Canada is rightfully ours.

    Which is what is going on with the Falklands.

  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Plus, you seem to conveniently forget that the UK repeatedly attempted to mediate the issue with the Argentines, including taking it to the UN.

    The Argentines refused every time.

    EDIT: Turns out it was the International Court of Justice, not the UN, in the example I was thinking of! My mistake, correcting it here.

    EDIT EDIT: Oh hey, the ICJ is part of the UN! The things I forget at 3am. This paper trail is going to keep on building.

    That's right, I believe Argentina said they would ignore any final decision by the court.

    steam_sig.png
  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited March 2012
    lu tze wrote: »
    Is there any other case of a belligerent state making a failed land-grab like Argentina did, and then managing to get sympathy from the knee-jerk liberal Sean Penn set and spin themselves as a victim?
    Yes, U.S. + 1812.

    If it's fit for the goose...

    Hmm, care to elaborate? Didn't that war suffer from unpopularity and anti-war sentiment from within the U.S.?
    I don't know, at the time I think it was probably much more popular in the south than the north. It can't have been all that unpopular though, since it was conducted for what, 5 years against an enemy who was primarily defensive?

    I was more making a passive aggressive jibe at the fact that seemingly quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    Edit: 3 years.

    lu tze on
    World's best janitor
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Oakey wrote: »
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Plus, you seem to conveniently forget that the UK repeatedly attempted to mediate the issue with the Argentines, including taking it to the UN.

    The Argentines refused every time.

    EDIT: Turns out it was the International Court of Justice, not the UN, in the example I was thinking of! My mistake, correcting it here.

    EDIT EDIT: Oh hey, the ICJ is part of the UN! The things I forget at 3am. This paper trail is going to keep on building.

    That's right, I believe Argentina said they would ignore any final decision by the court.

    Right, it's only after the war that they have said they want to renew diplomatic negotiations. And Britain has rightfully refused. That's really not how diplomacy is supposed to work. You don't get to bypass diplomacy and go to war, lose the war, then later start making noise about how you want to gain through diplomacy what you failed to secure through war.

    War is harsh like that, when you lose you lose things, you don't gain them. When you lose a war, you are negotiating to have things not get taken away from you.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Thank the mods, the insanity has left this thread. I was reading an opinion piece in the Washington Times (link) thinking to myself that it would be a good reference to summarize the pro-British position. Then I noticed the byline that's after the link to page 2.
    Byline wrote:
    Luke Coffey is the Margaret Thatcher Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org) and a former senior adviser to the British defense secretary.

    :)

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    override367 on
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit
    I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes.

    Is that based on a single anecdote from the 1950s in the Guardian's Notes and queries section?

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    Casual wrote:
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit

    Doctoring history to save national pride is hardly a new thing. I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes. In the Americans case it's easy to see why they would leave the truth for people who choose to study history at a collage level, you can't really say "whelp kids, our country was kind of founded on a lie". If you want to see what happens when you do that, go read the comments in the cracked article where they go through exactly how the founding fathers fabricated a lot of their grievances. People refuse to believe it and actually get pretty mad.

    Still in the end it's kind of meaningless because the US was simply too big to stay under British control forever. People should just learn to let 300 year old bygones be bygones and study history as it happened.

    It doesn't HAVE to be like that. I don't think it's like that in Canada. We're taught about the Riel Rebellion and how the punishment was totally unjust, about the horrors of the residential schools, about how we brought smallpox to the natives, etc.

    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit
    I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes.

    Is that based on a single anecdote from the 1950s in the Guardian's Notes and queries section?


    No actually, it's based on knowing a couple of French people.

    psyck0 wrote: »
    It doesn't HAVE to be like that. I don't think it's like that in Canada. We're taught about the Riel Rebellion and how the punishment was totally unjust, about the horrors of the residential schools, about how we brought smallpox to the natives, etc.

    I'm willing to believe that Canada may be better than most, but trust me, your elementary school history will be as off the mark as anyone elses. It's usually a cross of propaganda and an idealized version of what your country wishes its history was.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit
    I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes.

    Is that based on a single anecdote from the 1950s in the Guardian's Notes and queries section?


    No actually, it's based on knowing a couple of French people.

    Well, the French here in France don't seem to think the same way.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Waterloo is very Obi-Wan Kenobi.

    Napolean lost at Waterloo, yes. But depending on how you look at it, you could say "Napolean routed the British forces at Waterloo" and that would be a truthful, if misleading statement.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited March 2012
    It was British units that finally broke the Imperial Guard, leading to a general rout of the French, so I've no idea how you can come to that conclusion.

    Unless routing some units = routing a whole army now. Then yes, Napoleon definitely won Waterloo. /rolling my eyes so hard I'm getting a fucking migraine.

    At the end of the day, it was the allies that held the field... and it was Napoleon who was sent on a little holiday. So no, he didn't win a thing.

    lu tze on
    World's best janitor
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit
    I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes.

    Is that based on a single anecdote from the 1950s in the Guardian's Notes and queries section?


    No actually, it's based on knowing a couple of French people.

    Well, the French here in France don't seem to think the same way.

    That's the point isn't it? Even something that should be a comprehensive fact, like who won a historically significant battle, will be different from one person to the next depending on which school they went to. Have you personally interviewed everyone in France to know what they were taught?

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    It was British units that finally broke the Imperial Guard, leading to a general rout of the French, so I've no idea how you can come to that conclusion.

    Unless routing some units = routing a whole army now. Then yes, Napoleon definitely won Waterloo. /rolling my eyes so hard I'm getting a fucking migraine.

    At the end of the day, it was the allies that held the field... and it was Napoleon who was sent on a little holiday. So no, he didn't win a thing.

    It was really the Prussians who carried the day, without their timely arrival Wellington had lost. Now, Wellington was banking on their arrival so you could call it a strategic victory. Not that it really mattered, since even with a complete French victory at Waterloo the war would hardly have been over. There were numerous other allied armies on the continent and Napolean would have lost later if not then.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    I honestly don't think they are taught that, because there was a bit of a tantrum about the connecting station for the English side of the Channel Tunnel being Waterloo.

    I think they wanted us to change the name.

    World's best janitor
  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited March 2012
    It was really the Prussians who carried the day, without their timely arrival Wellington had lost. Now, Wellington was banking on their arrival so you could call it a strategic victory. Not that it really mattered, since even with a complete French victory at Waterloo the war would hardly have been over. There were numerous other allied armies on the continent and Napolean would have lost later if not then.
    The Prussians carried the day, because they got there last.

    Blucher, Wellington and Napoleon all knew that the allied forces couldn't beat the French on their own. That's why Waterloo was such an important battle, Napoleon had outmanoeuvred the allies and almost succeeded in splitting the armies up. The man was a damned genius.

    If the British hadn't held, then the Prussians would've been just as fucked soon after, and they knew it. Some of the higher ups wanted to withdraw because they didn't think the British would be able to hold, but Blucher gave them a timely lecture about honour AFAIK.

    lu tze on
    World's best janitor
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    Casual wrote:
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit
    I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes.

    Is that based on a single anecdote from the 1950s in the Guardian's Notes and queries section?


    No actually, it's based on knowing a couple of French people.

    psyck0 wrote: »
    It doesn't HAVE to be like that. I don't think it's like that in Canada. We're taught about the Riel Rebellion and how the punishment was totally unjust, about the horrors of the residential schools, about how we brought smallpox to the natives, etc.

    I'm willing to believe that Canada may be better than most, but trust me, your elementary school history will be as off the mark as anyone elses. It's usually a cross of propaganda and an idealized version of what your country wishes its history was.

    I don't think we HAVE any canadian history in elementary school. Most of it comes in in high school.

    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    I don't think we HAVE any canadian history in elementary school. Most of it comes in in high school.

    Depends on the province, really. I remember doing some in junior high (7-9) in Newfoundland, but for the most part a proper history course doesn't come in until high school.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Casual wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit
    I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes.

    Is that based on a single anecdote from the 1950s in the Guardian's Notes and queries section?


    No actually, it's based on knowing a couple of French people.

    Well, the French here in France don't seem to think the same way.

    That's the point isn't it? Even something that should be a comprehensive fact, like who won a historically significant battle, will be different from one person to the next depending on which school they went to. Have you personally interviewed everyone in France to know what they were taught?

    I obviously didn't interview everyone, I'm just saying that the dozen or so people I asked after reading the assertion here were honestly surprised that anyone would think so. And seeing how they're from all over France(although in the same university now), it seems that this claim isn't exactly widespread. But anecdotes anecdotes. It's disingenuous to assume that the few French people you know, or the dozen I spoke to form any sort of a general sample of the French as a whole. Might be I met the dozen freaks in France who never heard this claim in their years of schooling, or the few people you know studied in some sort of nationalist-minded schools. Who knows.

    Incidentally, I'd like to see any support for this that isn't anecdotal or a single mention in the Guardian. Not directed specifically at you, I'm just curious about this.

    Rhan9 on
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    Whilst I don't doubt that some surrendering Argentines may have been murdered, I also doubt the claim 100+ were. Mostly because the Argentine army casualties were 194, 100 dead isn't something that would disappear into statistics in the same way as they did in WW2.

    Whilst searching for some evidence, I was interested to discover that 70 Argentine officers had been tried for war crimes against their own troops

  • ComahawkComahawk Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    Casual wrote:
    Casual wrote: »
    lu tze wrote: »
    ...quite a few Americans refuse to believe they've been the belligerents in any war ever.

    There are very serious issues with the way American history is taught in primary and secondary schools. The first college history class you take obliterates the fantasy.

    Honestly the series James madison led to me researching America's founding more

    I was really disappointed that almost everything I learned in school re: the founders and their grievances with britain was bullshit
    I heard that in French schools they're actually taught they won the battle of Waterloo for christs sakes.

    Is that based on a single anecdote from the 1950s in the Guardian's Notes and queries section?


    No actually, it's based on knowing a couple of French people.

    psyck0 wrote: »
    It doesn't HAVE to be like that. I don't think it's like that in Canada. We're taught about the Riel Rebellion and how the punishment was totally unjust, about the horrors of the residential schools, about how we brought smallpox to the natives, etc.

    I'm willing to believe that Canada may be better than most, but trust me, your elementary school history will be as off the mark as anyone elses. It's usually a cross of propaganda and an idealized version of what your country wishes its history was.

    I don't think we HAVE any canadian history in elementary school. Most of it comes in in high school.

    Alberta rolled everything together into Social Studies, and we definitely had Canadian history taught to us in elementary.

    I found it interesting that you mentioned the Riel Rebellion. As far as Canadian historical discourse, the events associated with that period are contestable, and, as per Louis Riel's execution, historians are generally split between "it was unjust!" and "he was a criminal." So I wouldn't say our public school system lacks bias, although I would like to think it is better than some other countries.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
This discussion has been closed.