Falkland Islands and the right to self-determination

[Rolfe]

Oh gosh, saving a British protectorate from a brutal military dictatorship , such futility.

Oh wait, actually probably the best uses of our military.

I don't know whether Maggie set that going because she wanted the game points to win the 1987 election, or because she (+/- the government as a whole) was so convinced of the islands' strategic importance that they were determined to keep them out of Argentine hands, or simply because the inhabitants were under British protectorate and saving them was the right thing to do.

But having been there and seen how it is and spoken to some of the people there and listened to their account of their lives and how they manage and how they love the place, the last one was the right thing to do. If the military isn't going to protect a civilian population they're responsible for from a foreign invasion, they might as well pack up and go back to civvy street. What do they think they're trained and paid for?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I don't know whether Maggie set that going because she wanted the game points to win the 1987 election, or because she (+/- the government as a whole) was so convinced of the islands' strategic importance that they were determined to keep them out of Argentine hands, or simply because the inhabitants were under British protectorate and saving them was the right thing to do.

But having been there and seen how it is and spoken to some of the people there and listened to their account of their lives and how they manage and how they love the place, the last one was the right thing to do. If the military isn't going to protect a civilian population they're responsible for from a foreign invasion, they might as well pack up and go back to civvy street. What do they think they're trained and paid for?

This.

 

[Rolfe]

There was a lot of territorial chest-beating going on at the time, and I knew very little about the issues. But I do remember one thing. I was in Shrewsbury the week it all blew up, on a work-related placement. I was in the same small hotel as another guy who was also doing a placement in the same lab, and we chatted in the lounge in the evenings. I remember him saying, when news of the Argentine invasion came through, that the government would never abandon the Falklands because of the people living there.

I think I only really understood how right he was 37 years later when I got there myself and saw the place and met the people. And spent some time in the museum in Port Stanley.

And to think I avoided the lectures about the Falklands war on the ship on the way there from Montevideo, because the whole thing made me feel so uncomfortable and I thought in some way I couldn't quite articulate that there was some colonial aggression involved. Well yes there was, I imagine, when the islands were first colonised. But I almost believe that war was fought for the people, and even if that wasn't the whole story, it was worth doing for that reason only.

 

[Giz]

If the military isn't going to protect a civilian population they're responsible for from a foreign invasion, they might as well pack up and go back to civvy street. What do they think they're trained and paid for?

Agreed

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh gosh, saving a British protectorate from a brutal military dictatorship , such futility.

Oh wait, actually probably the best uses of our military.

You are welcome to go next time.

 

[Giz]

You are welcome to go next time.

To quote Rolfe:

“If the military isn't going to protect a civilian population they're responsible for from a foreign invasion, they might as well pack up and go back to civvy street. What do they think they're trained and paid for?”

 

[jimbob]

You don't get what?

That importing your people to a location and then claiming legitimacy of your ownership because those people are 'us' is colonial BS?

I'm not saying anything about the strength of Argentina's or anyone else's claims. I'm merely pointing out that the colonial shizzle don't fly with me.

I have absolutely nothing against colonisation of actually virgin territory with no previous inhabitants especially if it happened 4 generations ago.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You said before :"Well then the Argentinians can just ship in some Spanish speaking Argentinians and 4 or 5 generations later everything will be fine and it will be Argentinian.".

THAT would actually be colonialism, by either forcing a settled population out, exterminating them, or exerting control over an unwilling population. No one lived on the Falklands when the British first settled it.

What would the alternative be? No population ever expands to empty territory. When should that have ended precisely??

Ah ok, sorry that comment was slightly sarcastic. It was just supposed to be highlighting the silliness of the logic that if you ship a bunch of people in to a place then X number of years later you can claim rightful ownership because the people there speak your language and share your culture. Of course they do! You put them there!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The indigenous population, the only group to ever have a community there (births, deaths, families), are the Brits. That makes them the first peoples and the Argentinians the colonial imperialists trying to plant a flag on someone else's homeland.

The Brits are not indigenous to the Falklands. FFS. I've seen some nonsense in my time but this post is right up there

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I have absolutely nothing against colonisation of actually virgin territory with no previous inhabitants especially if it happened 4 generations ago.

Fair enough. I do, though.

 

[3point14]

The Brits are not indigenous to the Falklands. FFS. I've seen some nonsense in my time but this post is right up there

How do you think people first arrived on the islands? Which people do you think that was?

Who do you think were the first people to live on the islands and where did you get that information?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It was just supposed to be highlighting the silliness of the logic that if you ship a bunch of people in to a place then X number of years later you can claim rightful ownership because the people there speak your language and share your culture. Of course they do! You put them there!

So how would you suggest ownership of uninhabited land should be determined?

Dave

 

[3point14]

So how would you suggest ownership of uninhabited land should be determined?

Dave

Following his line of logic, nobody is indigenous.

If arriving on an uninhabited island and inhabiting it doesn't make you indigenous, nothing does.

 

[Rolfe]

It's particularly bizarre since he apparently wants to evict the existing population to give the land to the Argentinians. Who themselves are Spanish people who colonised the land where they now live by cruelly oppressing and exploiting the indigenous populations who were there when they arrived.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How do you think people first arrived on the islands? Which people do you think that was?

Who do you think were the first people to live on the islands and where did you get that information?

Indigenous means originating or naturally occurring. British people neither originated nor occurred naturally on the Falkland Islands.

Various peoples have established various colonies on the Falklands throughout its history. The UK one being the one that stuck. None of them are or were indigenous.

You can make arguments for maintaining the colony there but trying to co-opt the concept of indigenous peoples to apply to Falkland Islanders is both laughable and slightly offensive. Especially when done so by flag-waving jingoistic right-wing loons.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So how would you suggest ownership of uninhabited land should be determined?

Dave

That's a very good question.

1. Do they need to be owned at all? Couldn't we just leave them as they are?

2. If you really need to determine ownership, then I think 'nearest populated territory' is a pretty good starting point though there may be exceptions made where it makes sense.

3. I don't think whoever claims it and is militarily strong enough to defend it is a very good starting point.

Claiming the Falklands is part of the UK and, even sillier, part of the European Union is a nonsense.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's particularly bizarre since he apparently wants to evict the existing population to give the land to the Argentinians. Who themselves are Spanish people who colonised the land where they now live by cruelly oppressing and exploiting the indigenous populations who were there when they arrived.

Just for the record, I only said to put Argentinians there to expose the ludicrousness of your logic that because the Falklanders speak English and are culturally British that makes the Falklands British. You aren't the only one to have missed that point though so fair enough.

 

[3point14]

Just for the record, I only said to put Argentinians there to expose the ludicrousness of your logic that because the Falklanders speak English and are culturally British that makes the Falklands British. You aren't the only one to have missed that point though so fair enough.

I think we're all missing your point.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Following his line of logic, nobody is indigenous.

If arriving on an uninhabited island and inhabiting it doesn't make you indigenous, nothing does.

Not when you are shipped in with the sole purpose of colonising the damn place!

People had been fighting over the islands for bloody ages before any of these 'indigenous' people had ever even seen or heard of them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think we're all missing your point.

Then I will make it clearer for you.

1. Claiming that the Falkland Islands are British because the people who colonised it want to be British is a nonsense.

2. The people on the islands are in no way 'indigenous' and it's a joke to even try to claim they are.

If you want to dispute these points go ahead but neither of these are in any way dependent on the strength of Argentina's or anyone else's claims to the islands nor on whether the islands were inhabited or not prior.