The WT wanted a martyr to draw attention to their work in China, and they got a willing participant in Nancy Yuen. Though most of the blame rightfully goes to the organisation who trained and conditioned Mrs. Yuen to make such dangerous decisions, there is a huge part of me as a mother that feels that she chose an organisation over her family. She had an exit visa to Hong Kong (which had to be extremely difficult to get at the time) to join her family, but she chose to stay and had to have an inkling as to what would happen. She's not a hero or a martyr. Her children needed her as their mother, but she had other things in mind. She could have been in good standing with 'Jehovah' even if she went to Hong Kong and preached there. It was entirely unnecessary, and the Society should have had the foresight to wait on a more favourable political climate to emerge in China (as it eventually did) to push more strongly on their missionary efforts. I'd be curious as to what her children think of her and what she did now, and if they and her husband still are JWs.
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
JoinedPosts by Las Malvinas son Argentinas
-
18
Nancy Yuen China 1953- 23 years jail for refusing to stop door to door! Why did she do it?
by Witness 007 inthe new communist government were reasonable.
you can preach in your halls just not "door to door.
" missionary stanley jones and other non chinese stoped...but encouraged the chinese brothers to continue.
-
-
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Splash -
I'd have to read the book and check their sources before coming to a conclusion on that one either way. I am left to speculate. From what little I can gather from that article, it depends on whether or not you believe in the principle of a 'successor state'. Uruguay was created as a buffer state by Spain and Portugal to placate Portugal's claims to the area. Many in Argentina view Uruguay as a sister country of equal status, and they also use the Sun of May in their flag as they were born out of the same revolution. If it came to it, Uruguay's claim would be the weakest out of all three states involved as they have never formally claimed it nor has there ever been any Uruguayan administration of any kind. They would have to register the new claim with the UN in 2013 and stand in line. Realistically, Uruguay would irritate both Argentina and the UK for no good reason if they all of a sudden stood up, and it's difficult to see what this would accomplish. Neither would your tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a UK annexation of Argentina. I think these two guys want to sell some books more than advance a real solution to the dispute.
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
So Splash -
Is that what you were looking for by starting this thread?
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
No apologies needed, mate. I do congratulate you on your work with ex-JWs though. I'm sure many find it useful (and no, that is NOT sarcasm).
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Note the word 'direct'. The opposite of direct would be 'indirect'.
And 'apologizing' is spelt 'apologising'. You using an American spell checker?
I don't need to rewrite history. My sources are the Sunday Times of London, Sir Simon Jenkins, and British Foreign Office correspondence. What are yours?
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Yet if you were Irish, you'd know quite a different story regarding the 'Troubles'. A sectarian conflict to be sure, but one which was directly instigated by the English Crown in 1606. The untold suffering which resulted was caused by the feudal landowning system put in place by the British, placing a wealthy few in charge of so much land. The plots of land got smaller as the Irish population grew, leading to the great Irish famines of the 19th Century. By the early 20th century, the Irish had had it with foreign domination, and tried to shake the yoke of the Crown off their fragile shoulders. Instead of letting a straight up/down 'self-determination' vote happen in Ireland (or even in Ulster), the British knew better and gerrymandered for themselves an Irish rump state. 'Self-Determination' vote quickly and swiftly followed!
No one is making a direct correlation between the Malvinas and Ulster. Rather, I choose the make a point about the mentality of people being conditioned to explain their imperial adventures away without abandon. If one can chalk up the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland to a simple Catholic/Protestant conflict (which conveniently finds a way for the Crown to disavow involvement) and ignore completely the history behind the conflict and how it got there, you can easily deduce why some insist that the British had only been greeted by penguins in 1833. It's history being selectively written and remembered by people who have every conceivable reason to rewrite it.
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
By saying that there were only penguins to greet the British settlers there is stretching the truth, but then I realised that you are speaking about the Port Egmont settlement of 1765/66. It was actually a garrison of troops rather than settlers, but there were both settlers and troops with the duly constituted settlement of Port Louis/Puerto Soledad. The British and Spanish exchanged unpleasant words until the Spanish expelled the British a few years later, and then the British were allowed to return to Gran Malvina (West Falkland). The British then abandoned their garrison there in 1774. The British then ceded their claims to any islands adjacent to South America in the Nootka Sound Conventions in the 1790s in exchange for ceded Spanish claims for what was then known as Oregon Country. Britain had earlier declared her eternal right to 'Falkland's Ysland' in the singular, meaning West Falkland. This the British Foreign Office found out about in the 20th century, and they rightfully concluded that if Britain had any legal claim, it was to West Falkland alone (For more information, read "The War in the Falklands : The Full Story" by The Sunday Times of London). The British were never established on Isla Soledad (East Falkland) until the usurption of 1833. It had been a solely French, Spanish, and most recently, an Argentine settlement. The American warship the USS Lexington then sacked the settlement and deported most (but not all of the settlement). It was into this vacuum the British stumbled into in 1833, yet there were still some gauchos, settlers, and Argentine troops in Puerto Soledad. If there were only penguins there to greet the British, why was Captain Don Pinedo ordered to leave with his troops and the remaining settlers?
So in reality, the British did indeed find 'penguins' at Port Egmont in 1766, only to abandon it permanently less than a decade later. They found Argentines at Puerto Soledad in 1833, and that is from where this dispute eminates.
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
The recuperation of the Malvinas in 1982 on 2 April was indeed a national highlight; a time to shine. The war which followed was not so much so. And to think that the recovery was relatively peaceful, quite unlike Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939. Not a single British soldier was killed on that fateful night, though they got a bit cross with us when we forced the Royal Marines face down in the mud of Puerto Argentino. I admit, it was downright stupid of us to be condescending and humiliating to a nation that practically invented the concept. It was indeed ill-fated for the islanders, especially when three of them were killed by British shells - the only civilian casualties of the conflict. There were many in Argentina that expressed their condolences about that. No condolences were given (or expected) when Margaret Thatcher directly ordered the ARA General Belgrano to be sunk as she was well outside the British declared exclusion zone and headed back to port in Argentina. However, condolences continue to be handed out like candy to us whenever we see British pop and rock stars like Morrissey and Roger Waters do our country great honour by playing in our clubs and arenas, and by shouting out "Las Malvinas son Argentinas!" at their shows. We welcome more of your artists and educated socialists to come down and join us in solidarity against an imperial dagger lodged in the back of South America.
Diest : They don't want to talk about a subject they cannot logically defend.
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
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'.
-
94
The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!
by Splash in(oops!
should read 'falklands' of course!).
who's going to be the next ones to claim them?.
-
-
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