Sore losers even when they’re winning.
Opposing colonialism is being a sore loser now?
You are aware that the first inhabitants of the Falklands were French? There was nobody to be colonised.
the first inhabitants of the Falklands were French?
😐
That’s certainly a theory.
Yeah they colonised some penguins… Got em
The island has been a traffic stop for seafaring people since prehistoric times. The Europeans ethically cleansed the natives, then spent three centuries contesting their control.
How do you know if it’s pre-historic…?
Who were these pre historic natives, and how did they manage to get there without boats?
Did you graduate from any form of schooling?
Are you mistaking penguins for humans
How do you know if it’s pre-historic…?
I would consult an anthropologist on that one.
Who were these pre historic natives
Evidence of prehistoric human activity in the Falkland Islands
Are you mistaking penguins for humans
I’m not mistaking them for the French, if that’s what you’re asking.
It can’t be both a traffic stop and a home.
The dispute is over whether it should be a military base of a foreign power
Careful. As in other debates concerning Latin America, magically people outside the region see all the good of colonialism. “Stop crying. ‘America’ is now the name of a country, even if stolen from your territory”. “Mexico lost half the country just as every other country lost territory in the past”. “The Falkand Islands belong to Europeans because they claimed them: simple as that”. “Well, if you didn’t want to lose sovereignty, maybe you should have been stronger against illegal tactics from the CIA and others”. Just precious.
Please explain to me how this is opposing colonialism? They want to colonise the Falklands themselves.
They sure as fuck don’t belong to England
Does Argentina belong to the Spanish? Why do you think Argentina should take them? Who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came? Who lived in the Falkland islands, nobody.
It doesn’t matter who lived there first, because I’ll swear on the King’s life that the Brits weren’t first
Also, “who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?” Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores?
Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up?
Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for “indigenous people of Argentina” delivers ample evidence that there were.
They’ve belonged to them for over 200 years, I don’t see why they don’t.
Let’s recap islands history:
Deserted, no permanent population.
French set up a settlement.
English makes another, fight the French.
Spain buys French port, fights British.
Britain leaves.
Spain leaves.
Deserted, no permanent population.
Argentina sets up a settlement.
England comes back, fight them off.
Conclusion: “rightfully British”? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that’s accurate.
However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina’s claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup.
Argentina didnt exist yet
Because “sail around the world and claim what you want” is fucking great if you’re playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world.
But if the islands were empty before? Like there’s islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there’s also those who just doesn’t. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something?
There weren’t “people” in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s
There weren’t empty at the time of the British invasion.
There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison.
Thatcher’s dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn’t going to get her to sleep with you
You’ve still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt.
By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you’re not going for bullshit like “god gave our King that holy right”.
No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America
The islands are on the continental shelf.
OK, so?
There’s evidence of pre-Columbian Argentine peoples using the island.
Ah, yes, the fact that prehistoric Fuegians may have visited the Falklands surely means they’re the birthright of Argentina. Airtight anti-colonialist explanation.
It certainly doesn’t belong to the British.
Literally no one was there when France landed there, so you can either a) ask France and Spain for their thoughts, b) resurrect the Fuegians who visited and let them have it, forcibly deporting the people who’ve lived there for centuries, or c) disregard pragmatism and say they aren’t part of any country – either way, you can stop obnoxiously trying to defend Argentina’s baseless colonialist claim under the guise of “anticolonialism”.
To the extent it belongs to anyone, it obviously belongs to the UK far more than it does to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to assert sovereignty over it.
it obviously belongs to the UK far more
No land “belongs” to anyone, least of all to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to keep their empire alive
Isn’t that promoting colonialism?
Opposing would be free Malvinas or something like that.
Argentina supports Israel and has an ancap president. They aren’t anti colonial.
Remember the shit that the officials threw at team captains who wanted to wear a rainbow-colored team captains band? That was two or four years ago. IIRC they threatened to ban the player or team for political messages on the field.
If this banner is not a ban-worthy offence, I don’t know it.
And FIFA won’t do anything about it, as usual.
Funny how Argentina never thinks to ask the people who actually live there.
They might answer the wrong way you see…
They did answer the wrong way for Argentina
It’s hilarious how one sided that is. Kim Jong Un style numbers.
And it makes complete sense. Falkland islands isn’t a colony. It was uninhabited before the british got there. It’s literally a freezing windy collection of hills in the middle of nowhere a few dozen british shepherds decided to populate and now rely on mainland UK for loads of stuff. So there’s no reason to say no.
It has nothing to do with the people. Politicians and oligarchs wave a flag, as they do in any other country, to stir up the masses, but the whole thing is about fishing rights.
The fishing is bad there.
Oil has been discovered in the territorial waters, but this was long after the war and is as yet unexploited.
Basically, it’s a rallying point that successive corrupt and failing Argentine governments have deployed in an attempt to distract from domestic failings. That’s its value.
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer I’ve ever seen. Grabbing the English goalie’s arms during a corner kick, regularly shoving opposing players in the back and grabbing their jerseys when they got the ball during a fast break. The referee only handed out a single yellow card, and let everything else pass.
Messi wasn’t doing it so overtly, but everyone else especially Simeone, were just blatant. Have no dog in this race, but that was just gross.
That’s just CONMEBOL and CONCACAF football tbh. It’s kind of funny watching Europeans being all smug about Americans only watching football every 4 years, when it’s equally amusing seeing Europeans who aren’t aware that the American game tends to be more physical and chippy.
I can’t think of a nation with a bigger chip on their shoulder than Argentine. It’s kind of weird.
It’s absolutely bizarre, they have no legitimate claim to the islands. It’s like someone moving into your house when you are on holiday, and saying it’s theirs.
Plenty of countries have uninhabited islands as part of their territory, it doesn’t mean they’re up for grabs.
Had they not invaded there’s a good chance they would be Argentinian by now, which is the funniest part of the whole fiasco.
Gave Thatcher an easy election win, which is genuinely unforgivable.
That’s the fucking part that blows my mind. They were about to get it back for fucking free. But the Military Dictatorship had to Military it up and then not only got their asses handed to them, but also gave Thatcher and Reaganomics the boost of a lifetime.
Every single time I see anything argentinian named “LAS MALVINAS ARGENTINAS XYZ” it feels so fucking pathetic. They put it on a (now worthless) 50 peso banknote.
Dumbass Gauchos failed history. The facts are written below. Are there resources or precious metals on and around the Falklands? Go Spain! I hope they smash the Argentinians, because of Milei.
Helpful, but is there more context here?
Such as who are there people currently living there and therefore voting in this referendum?
The descendants of the only people to live on the islands since pre-history. Literally the only people whose opinions count, including the uk population and government. It doesn’t matter what the Argentinians or the British think really, same as Greenland - the people who live there want to be a part of the uk
Sure, I entirely agree on principle. But that’s my question, who are these people? According to Wikipedia, there are no such people:
Although Fuegians from Patagonia may have visited the Falkland Islands in prehistoric times, the islands were uninhabited when Europeans first explored them.
So I suppose I have my answer overall. The people living there are broadly the descendents of the French, Spanich and English who settled there in the late 18th century. The French ceded the settlement to Spain a year after they started, so even just scratching the surface of the situation it looks like it’s been a mess for 250 years.
But in any case, the people living there, now, clearly want to remain a UK territory.
Also this:
Argentina invaded the island killed 3 Falklanders and then got their ass whooped. And to this day Argentines think they are the victims.
The victims of this conflict are the casualties of a completely pointless war, on either side. Neither side fought for legitimate reasons and both used it to drum up nationalism.
How is defending against an invasion not legitimate?
It’s only legitimate out of context. The two countries were trying to negotiate a transfer before the war broke out. Argentina was ruled by a military Junta and used the invasion to bolster its internal politics. Thatcher did the same thing by using overwhelming force over a territory that Britain was trying to get rid of. An Argentine cruiser was sunk outside of the exclusion zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano
Afterwards Britain fortified the island to feed its military industrial complex and drum up more support for its decaying empire. Everything about this war was totally pointless except from a domestic political standpoint.
So what should have been the right move then when Argentina invaded the islands? Should Thatcher just have abandoned the people on the Falklands and let them fend for themselves?
No, those 907 people absolutely had to die so that Britain could keep its frozen rock halfway around the world.
I doubt the regime that threw dissidents out of helicopters would have just let the British Falklanders live peacefully among the Argentines.
Its good to have an opinion. And it’s great to be able to show and talk about things. Political or otherwise.
Just don’t get mad or surprised when some people show you the door and ask you to leave.
Interestingly, Argentina have recently expanded their claim to the South Sandwich Islands and the UK’s theoretical claim of Antarctica. They don’t have any justification for it, they simply think they can get away with it as long as they claim victimhood if they don’t get it.
No sabía que esta red estaba tan llena de fachos; qué decepcionante cómo defienden tan férreamente al colono inglés en las respuestas.
“Facho” es cuando uno respeta la voluntad de los habitantes de las Falklands.
¿Respetás la voluntad de los sionistas que ocupan Palestina?
Los habitantes de las Falklands llevan siendo británicos desde hace 200 años. Nunca en la historia de las islas ha habido una población de origen argentino de un tamaño significativo.
Lo que tú propones es que Argentina ocupe las Falklands, en contra de la voluntad de sus residentes, y, en el peor de los casos, los reemplace con individuos de origen argentino. Eso es, por definición, colonialismo.
Asúmelo.
¿Y cuándo propuse yo cualquier cosa 🤣? Qué inútil debatir por internet.
¿Y qué piensas que habría que hacer con los británicos que viven en las Falklands y que no quieren ser argentinos?
Encontré al Argentino!
¿Lo buscabas?
Tus abuelos fueron Nazis
No tenés idea de mi familia, ¿por qué harías una afirmación así? Ni que esto fuera Twitter.
Some facts that most of you might you not know:
Argentina argues it inherited sovereignty from Spain after independence, and that it was actively administering the islands (with a governor and settlers) when Britain forcibly removed the Argentine garrison in 1833 and installed its own settlers — an act Argentina considers an illegal seizure of territory it has never accepted. Argentina also points to geographic proximity: the islands sit about 300 miles off the Argentine coast, versus roughly 8,000 miles from Britain.
So invading an occupied territory 8000 miles from your country is fair play?
This happening today would trigger all kind of global outrage and ONU actions.
That’s a very slanted version of the history. It is much more complicated than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History
Tl;DR, settled and abandoned several times, Argentina’s claim depends heavily on a legally dubious hand over of ownership from Spain and proximity. UK’s claim is based on ongoing occupation of abandoned islands which it had never agreed their claim to was relinquished or invalid.And the fact that the independent settlers who were living there in the most recent re-settlement rejected Buenos Aires and asked for London’s help to secure themselves.
All people who have been living on the islands for near 2 centuries want to be British (see referendum posted on here).
As for the “occupied territory” - well I think the South American natives might want to have a similar discussion about European settlers in Argentina who have also been there several centuries - if you want to unwind one in fairness you need to unwind the other.
Dot point version:
-
Uninhabitated prior to European settlement/invasion of South America
-
The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville and the 1765 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by Captain John Byron (for clarity - separate parts of the island group, both groups unaware of each other as far as any documentation can tell).
-
In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain, which renamed the French colony Puerto Soledad the following year. Problems began when Spain detected and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771
-
The British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain’withdraw the garrison from the islands, leaving a plaque claiming the Falklands for King George III. Spain’s Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata became the only formal presence in the territory. West Falkland was left abandoned, and Puerto Soledad became a penal colony. Amid the British invasions of the Río de la Plata during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the islands’ governor evacuated the archipelago in 1806; Spain’s remaining colonial garrison followed suit in 1811
-
Since the islands had no permanent inhabitants, in 1823 Buenos Aires granted German-born merchant Luis Vernet permission to conduct fishing activities and exploit feral cattle in the archipelago. Vernet settled at the ruins of Puerto Soledad in 1826, and accumulated resources on the islands until the venture was secure enough to bring settlers and form a permanent colony [NOTE that was NOT a colony beholden to what is now Argentina, it was attempting to set up an independent state]
-
Vernet’s venture lasted until a dispute related to fishing and hunting rights led to a raid by the American warship USS Lexington in 1831, when United States Navy commander Silas Duncan declared the dissolution of the island’s government.
-
Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month and was followed the next year by the arrival of British forces, who reasserted Britain’s rule
-
The British troops departed after completing their mission, leaving the area without formal government.[48] Vernet’s deputy, the Scotsman Matthew Brisbane, returned to the islands that year to restore the business, but his efforts ended after, amid unrest at Port Louis, gaucho Antonio Rivero led a group of dissatisfied individuals to murder Brisbane and the settlement’s senior leaders; survivors hid in a cave on a nearby island until the British returned and restored order
-
In the late 1830s, an appeal was made to the Colonial Office in London by businessmen seeing potential profit, for organised settlement of the islands.[49] In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony
-
That is really funny. Too bad england deserves it. Not really.
Hell yeah! Stick it to the colonizing bastards…twice!
Yeah - Argentina was never colonised. They just natively look (mostly) quite European and speak Spanish.
