The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!

by Splash 94 Replies latest social current

• 

  Phizzy

  When it comes to ownership of lands and islands, how far do you go back ?

  Geoffrey of Monmouth , writing his "History" in the late 12th century says Britain was first of all inhabited by a shipload of Greeks, now I know old Geoff is not actually a relible historian, more of a myth-maker, but, for fun, let's assume he is correct, does that make Britain really belong to the Greeks ?

  Dear Emilie's argument that Britain's claim is on dodgy ground because of something that did or did not happen in the mid 19th Century is a nonsense.

  It is necessary to deal with things as they are in the 21st century. The U.K's claim to many of its holdings is as doubtful as that of other nations and their claims to their holdings, but you cannot suddenly turn the clock back to some arbitrary point in history and say that will fix the problem in any satisfactory way, except for those who stand to gain by choosing that particular time point.

  Geographic proximity is a nonsense too, as has been shown above, so what is to be done ?

  Surely the democratic will of the inhabitants, ( forever to be known as Flaklanders on JWN) , trumps other methods of determining a fair outcome ?
• 

  finallysomepride

  May the people who live there be forever free

  and everyone else go and f... themselves
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  he would not accept the offer of a meeting involving the islands' government, which Argentina does not recognise as legitimate.

  He said he was sorry Hague could not "meet without the supervision of the colonists from the Malvinas".

  Those two snippets from Timerman's position explain precisely what the Argentine position is. It's the same reason why Israeli settlers are not present at any Israel-Palestine talks. Any inclusion of the islanders or their representatives implies that their colonial legislature is legitimate.

  So, possession must be 9/10ths of the law? Now I see how you grew your empire. Our civilisation wasn't good or strong enough to maintain a Malvinas outpost. How could you sit back and let the Falklands turn into a humble Latin American outpost? Why not let the British demonstrate how to set up a proper colony? After all, you are the masters at it. Put up your banner with the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick. Set up omnipresent portraits of your strange Hanoverian dynastic rulers. Implant settlers and wait 150 years. Just add water, stir in lime. Serve with Yorkshire pudding. What a quaint and typically English recipe! Now that the odds are firmly stacked in your favour, call for a vote that you already know the result of. Is that what you call democracy? A monarchy/theocracy founded on the values of Henry VIII!
• 

  cedars

  Emilie

  So, possession must be 9/10ths of the law? Now I see how you grew your empire.

  I'm glad you've finally figured it out!!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8

  Cedars
• 

  Chariklo

  Whether or not possession is nin-tents of the law may be debated, but at the very least, the rest of the justification of possession of an inhabited territory must surely be the wishes of those who live there. In the case of the Falklands, nine generations of families have made their wishes clear, and have the chance to formalise this when they vote in March.

  Meanwhile, here, perhaps, is the real reason why Cristina Fernandez is wanting to distract attention from her problems back home, and is seeking to cast greedy eyes on these islands.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/28/falkland-islands-british-oil-exploration

  The prospect of mineral and gas wealth must be very enticing.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  When listening to such argumentation, I think of the example of Ulster. That was a bigger usurpation than the Malvinas could ever hope to be. Instead of a fledgling Argentine settlement and presence, we had there a native population firmly entrenched in the land of their forbearers. Their sin was to follow the Pope in Rome, and they paid for it dearly. Ulster was not chosen by any accident either. It was considered the most Gaelic of Irish provinces at the time of the foundation of the Ulster Plantations. Self-determination was a principle that could wait until the demographics slowly changed in Britain's favour, until finally they couldn't ignore it anymore with the Easter Rebellion almost 100 years ago. What did the modern day champions of 'self-determination' do? They gerrymandered six of the nine counties of Ulster into a synthetic creation known today as 'Northern Ireland'. They didn't have the votes in Ulster for the union, so they redrew the border until they did. This time to 'vote' passed, just barely, and with many Republican voters refusing to even participate in an election they didn't view as genuine. Ask the 14 men slaughtered in Derry about 'self-determination'. It was denied to them, and they paid for it with their lives.

  To hear from the same people who have time and time again destroyed the integrity of the principle of 'self-determination' to flaunt it now in defence of one of their last remaining colonial redoubts is a bit rich for some in the world to hear. Not least to this Argentine, who sees and continues to see the usurpation of 1833 as having nothing to do with self-determination and everything to do with 19th century British imperialism. Hate to say that word over and over again, but I have to call it by its true name. And to my brothers in sisters in the occupied six counties of Ulster, I say:

  Tiocfaidh ár lá!

  Our Day Will Come

  Emilie
• 

  Chariklo

  Ah, no, that just won't wash. The history of Ireland is far older and far more complex than that, but it's a very understandable attempt to distract attention from the woefully inadequate position the Argentine president has landed her country in. We're certainly not going to resurrect the healing sadness of Ireland here in this thread.

  But maybe eight out of ten, Emilie, for a very good try! ;) I almost feel sympathy for you. Fernandez has really landed you in an indefensible position, hasn't she, giving the lie to her accusations of imperialism by refusing even to listen to the people who have been living there for so long.

  It's interesting to note that the islanders are not by any means all British. There are even some of Argentinian descent! Yet they all seem to want to continue their close association with Britain! Do you see them protesting about British imperialism? No? Thought not!

  Maybe the penguins have staged some kind of demonstration?
• 

  cedars

  I agree. Using Northern Ireland is way below the belt.

  Cedars
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  There are no Argentines in the Malvinas. There are Chileans. They are a completely different people in case you didn't notice.

  To blame Argentine claims on the Malvinas solely on Fernandez's political aspirations is to ignore the longstanding affection and sense of national pride that we have for islands that are ours. With that said, it was a decent attempt to combine the reality of the Malvinas usurpation with the political fortunes of a fading and unpopular politician. Just because you support the British claim to the Falklands, does that mean you are a Thatcherite? A Tory? Not in the least, but to my credit I refuse to use the same argumentation you use to lump me in with Fernandez.

  My Ulster analogy was never meant to be a direct parallel to the Malvinas, but rather a broader demonstration of national mentalities. The accusation has been made on more than one occasion that I have fallen for my country's 'propaganda' and 'lies' about our claims and rights to the Malvinas. I make the counter-remark that yours is a culture that has not yet healed and fully dealt with your country's abominable record of colonialism, imperialism, and exploitation. After all, it was Churchill who made the observation that he was the only one fighting against the twin forces of evil - Hitler and Gandhi! That you defend it with aplomb is of no great surprise to me, nor does it make me feel any sense of prejudice towards you. You feel that I am a victim of my country's propaganda, and I feel the same way about you. The ill-fated Malvinas War of 1982 has landed you in the tenuous position of having to defend your colony largely due to the fact that so many of your fellow countrymen died and suffered as a result. I can fully understand the mentality to hold on them now. Unfortunately, the relatively recent memories of the conflict have clouded the all-pervasive question of whether or not you had a right to be there in the first place. I'll answer that with a definitive 'no'.
• 

  Splash

  So what would Argentina do with the islands if they had them?

  What would happen to the people (and the economy) there?