Falkland Islands and the right to self-determination

[3point14]

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

So, every single peoples arrigving anywhere, ever, then?

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

They had? My history is off. Which peoples were on the islands before the French arrived?

My understanding is that there were no people on the island when Europeans first arrived. Which people were living there first?

 

[3point14]

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.

By that logic the native Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. There was no-one there, they arrive with the express intention of living there (colonising) and are still there now.

 

[Ian Osborne]

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 far back do you take that argument? The Brits aren't indigenous to Great Britain either; they arrived by crossing the European land bridge around 800,000 years ago.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

By that logic, we should be demanding the return of Iceland to the UK.

Dave

 

[3point14]

How far back do you take that argument? The Brits aren't indigenous to Great Britain either; they arrived by crossing the European land bridge around 800,000 years ago.

I think he's under the misapprehension that there were actually people (South Americans) living on the island before the Europeans arrived.

As I have always understood it, that is not the case, the islands were not at all inhabited before the Europeans arrived.

If he can demonstrate that there were people there first then I will have learned something and he will be right.

If not then he will have learned something and I will be right.


It's a win-win situation!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So, every single peoples arrigving anywhere, ever, then?

No, not every single people ever. There is a big difference between people naturally moving to or finding new settlements nearby existing ones and countries shipping in people with the express intent of colonising the land.

These British settlers were no more indigenous than the ones who went to America, Australia, New Zealand or umpteen other places.

They had? My history is off. Which peoples were on the islands before the French arrived?

My understanding is that there were no people on the island when Europeans first arrived. Which people were living there first?

France, Spain and Britain had all fought over the islands long before the 'modern' British colony was established. As you seem to be well aware of.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

By that logic the native Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. There was no-one there, they arrive with the express intention of living there (colonising) and are still there now.

Is your argument that the settlers in the Falklands are every bit as indigenous to the Falklands are the Maoris are to New Zealand? Really?

Because that's idiocy.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How far back do you take that argument? The Brits aren't indigenous to Great Britain either; they arrived by crossing the European land bridge around 800,000 years ago.

They weren't shipped in by a foreign power with the express intent of claiming the islands as their property were they?

I don't believe you guys seriously think that the people on the Falklands are just as indigenous as all the other actual first peoples and it's a pretty horrible thing to claim actually.

 

[3point14]

Is your argument that the settlers in the Falklands are every bit as indigenous to the Falklands are the Maoris are to New Zealand? Really?

Because that's idiocy.

My logic is that the first human beings to arrive somewhere, where there are no human beings already living, and set up their lives there are indigenous.

Your logic seems to have the caveats 'only if they did it without the intention of living there' and 'it must be prehistoric'. I don't understand your logic, sorry.


What's the cut off date for not gaining indigenous status after being the first to live in a place? BC? AD? Prehistory?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think he's under the misapprehension that there were actually people (South Americans) living on the island before the Europeans arrived.

As I have always understood it, that is not the case, the islands were not at all inhabited before the Europeans arrived.

If he can demonstrate that there were people there first then I will have learned something and he will be right.

If not then he will have learned something and I will be right.


It's a win-win situation!

You have misunderstood. The UK colony was established in the mid 19th century. These are the people you are claiming to be indigenous to the islands. But you are well aware there had been British, Spanish and French disputes over the territory well before that.

And NONE of these people are indigenous. None. Not one.

 

[3point14]

You have misunderstood. The UK colony was established in the mid 19th century. These are the people you are claiming to be indigenous to the islands. But you are well aware there had been British, Spanish and French disputes over the territory well before that.

Which is why I asked you if you thought the French were indigenous. They were the first humans ever to live there.

And NONE of these people are indigenous. None. Not one.

Can I see your definition of indigenous?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My logic is that the first human beings to arrive somewhere, where there are no human beings already living, and set up their lives there are indigenous.

So your logic is that you make up the meaning of a word?

Indigenous peoples are not shipped in to a location to colonise it. Indigenous peoples are the opposite of colonisers.

 

[Tolls]

They weren't shipped in by a foreign power with the express intent of claiming the islands as their property were they?

I don't believe you guys seriously think that the people on the Falklands are just as indigenous as all the other actual first peoples and it's a pretty horrible thing to claim actually.

At what point do the colonial people become indigenous then?

The Maori were in New Zealand for maybe 500 years before European settlers began arriving, if you want to use that as a guide.

 

[3point14]

So your logic is that you make up the meaning of a word?

No, I looked it up.

Indigenous peoples are not shipped in to a location to colonise it. Indigenous peoples are the opposite of colonisers.

Ho hum.

Have a nice day.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Which is why I asked you if you thought the French were indigenous. They were the first humans ever to live there.

Can I see your definition of indigenous?

I thought I already gave you it:

adjective
originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
"the indigenous peoples of Siberia"

If a handful of people wander across from Place X to Place Y and set up a settlement then I think we can say that was naturally occurring.

Colonisation is deliberate and the very opposite of what indigenous describes.

And let's be honest, had their been indigenous peoples on the islands that wouldn't have stopped the British claiming it anyway.

So can we agree that the British were neither the first people on the land (that was the French) nor indigenous. What they are is the first permanent colony, established about 150 years ago.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

At what point do the colonial people become indigenous then?

Never. Colonising a place and being indigenous are incompatible.

The Maori were in New Zealand for maybe 500 years before European settlers began arriving, if you want to use that as a guide.

Maori didn't colonise New Zealand though. Settled it, perhaps.

Can we agree on the difference in the terms?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, I looked it up..

Can you point me to your definition then? I have never seen any definition of indigenous which is compatible with colonisation.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Here is the UN definition of indigenous people:

'Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems."

Pre-colonial being a key word there I think. I don't think the people of the Falklands are anywhere near to satisfying this definition.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Colonisation is deliberate and the very opposite of what indigenous describes.

The problem I have with this is not whether the Falkland Islanders may be considered indigenous, but rather with the definition of colonisation being used. The Falklands were not colonised, in the same sense as the majority of the British Empire, by the subjugation of an indigenous population, but rather populated through settlement of land that was previously uninhabited. They aren't therefore a colony in the same sense of the world as, for example, Australia. So I'd like to understand how Argentina's claim on the Falklands is stronger than, for example, the UK's claim on Iceland, as the nearest occupied territory to a land that was unoccupied before its occupation by inhabitants of another country.

Dave

 

[Tolls]

Here is the UN definition of indigenous people:

<snip>

Pre-colonial being a key word there I think. I don't think the people of the Falklands are anywhere near to satisfying this definition.

That definition (being that it specifically targets those peoples who were living in areas later colonised by Europeans etc) precludes most of us from being classed as indigenous.

Consequently it's a pretty pointless definition, and the Maori would not have been classed as indigenous until Europeans arrived.