Falkland Islands and the right to self-determination

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They were both planned. Just that one society had limited knowledge and mobility. Seriously, stop implying that early human settlers had no agency. It's demeaning and infantilizing to them.

Now, can you state why you think there is a moral difference between claiming unoccupied land after travelling on foot versus claiming unoccupied land after travelling by boat?

Did you get bored halfway through my sentence and stop reading or are you just being dishonest?

Hint: It's not the planned part that is the issue. It's the systemic colonisation of swathes of territory for expansion of your empire and economic benefit.

I'll give you one last chance to respond sensibly.

 

[Giz]

Hint: It's not the planned part that is the issue. It's the systemic colonisation of swathes of territory for expansion of your empire and economic benefit.

So the peaceful settling of first peoples on the falklands is tainted by the activities of Britain in other parts of the world? Personally, i'd view british activity in the falklands in 1840 differently to british activity in india in the 1840s.

I'll give you one last chance to respond sensibly.

Well, look who's planting their flag over this thread. I assume you were the first poster?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you honestly think there is no difference between what happened and the King of Norway sending out a military expedition to claim the land and then settling it with Norwegians and claiming it as part of Norway?

No, as you can tell by my continual comments that there are similarities. But I see it as a much less significant difference than that between settling on a patch of land that has nobody living on it, and settling on a patch of land by virtue of enslaving or otherwise dispossessing the people already living on it; and equating the two situations by referring to both as "colonisation" seems to me more than a little misleading.

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

I think the thing I'm struggling to understand is, why should today's Falkland islanders have no right to have their property and their way of life defended from theft?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So the peaceful settling of first peoples on the falklands is tainted by the activities of Britain in other parts of the world? Personally, i'd view british activity in the falklands in 1840 differently to british activity in india in the 1840s.

Of course it is. It's all part of the same thing. it's only 'peaceful' because nobody put up a fight.

I mean you can view thing X and thing Y differently. You can view Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland differently than his invasion of Poland. It doesn't make either of them OK.

 

[The Don]

Of course it is. It's all part of the same thing. it's only 'peaceful' because nobody put up a fight.

I mean you can view thing X and thing Y differently. You can view Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland differently than his invasion of Poland. It doesn't make either of them OK.

It also doesn't make either of them analogous to the settlement of the Falklands.

 

[Giz]

Of course it is. It's all part of the same thing. it's only 'peaceful' because nobody put up a fight.

I mean you can view thing X and thing Y differently. You can view Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland differently than his invasion of Poland. It doesn't make either of them OK.

There was no one in the Falklands! No one was dispossessed, or colonized, or invaded. (As opposed to British India, or Germany in Poland etc etc).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It also doesn't make either of them analogous to the settlement of the Falklands.

I don't think I ever said it did. But I would argue that the 'peaceful settling' of the Sudetenland is definitely tainted by the bigger picture of the activities of Nazi Germany in other areas.

 

[3point14]

I think the thing I'm struggling to understand is, why should today's Falkland islanders have no right to have their property and their way of life defended from theft?

Colonist bastards, displacing all those penguin.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think the thing I'm struggling to understand is, why should today's Falkland islanders have no right to have their property and their way of life defended from theft?

You would have to ask someone who argued that.

Of course had Argentina won the battle and taken over then there wouldn't really have been much room for those defending colonisation to complain since apparently having the resources to take over and defend a territory is apparently sufficient to establish ownership.

 

[Giz]

Colonist bastards, displacing all those penguin.

But what if they were Emperor penguins?

 

[Rolfe]

Colonist bastards, displacing all those penguin.

Plenty penguins still there mate. The colonialist bastards positively encourage them to come up and pose nicely with the tourists.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, as you can tell by my continual comments that there are similarities. But I see it as a much less significant difference than that between settling on a patch of land that has nobody living on it, and settling on a patch of land by virtue of enslaving or otherwise dispossessing the people already living on it; and equating the two situations by referring to both as "colonisation" seems to me more than a little misleading.

Dave

Fair enough I can see your point but still disagree. I would say that they are both colonisation because they were done by the same system with the same intent and with the same methods. And that's why they are the same thing.

Specifically on the Falklands that was a territory that was in dispute for centuries prior to the permanent settlement by Britain. Its not as if Britain just came across it one day and suddenly a boat load of people moved there to start farming.

Had the Spanish been in the stronger position to claim it and defend it and it had ended up part of Argentina then it would have been equally illegitimate but possibly less obviously ridiculous.

It's clearly better that there wasn't an indigenous population to displace but I don't think that is the be all and end all. It's a mere accident that this is the case. The reason why the Falklands is British is because Britain had an empire gained by the sword that exploited its colonies for economic benefit. This gave it the economic and military might to take control of and hold onto whichever bits of land they saw fit to take. The whole damn lot of it is tainted in my book.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Specifically on the Falklands that was a territory that was in dispute for centuries prior to the permanent settlement by Britain. Its not as if Britain just came across it one day and suddenly a boat load of people moved there to start farming.

Actually, that's pretty much what did happen originally. France did the same thing about the same time. Spain then chucked both groups out by force, and that's where the dispute began.

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

The Falklands had no permanent settlement until fairly recent history. It's not hard to see why. They're very far from the mainland and the land is challenging to farm. Indeed, it's much more suitable for livestock farming than for crop cultivation. A few settlers dropping off in a coracle isn't going to happen. It's going to take a lot of effort to get there and a lot more to get the resources there that you'll need to get a self-sustaining colony started. If it was even possible, nobody thought it was worth the effort.

Then in the end it happened. There are people there now who were born there like their parents before them. They own land, they have a government and laws and currency and an economy. The islands have become their home and they have become the islands' first true inhabitants.

Why should they have no right to assistance to defend their property from theft?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Actually, that's pretty much what did happen originally. France did the same thing about the same time. Spain then chucked both groups out by force, and that's where the dispute began.

Dave

I think this discussion has run its course. I disagree with your view. You disagree with mine. We haven't been able to convince each other and I don't think we ever will. I at least appreciate that you were able to discuss it in good faith.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why should they have no right to assistance to defend their property from theft?

Whether or not they have a right to assistance when threatened is a different question than whether the UK has a rightful claim on the territory or whether 4 generations of living there gives you ownership.

Although I am tempted to say 'live by the sword, die by the sword' I don't think that would be fair to the current inhabitants.

 

[3point14]

Whether or not they have a right to assistance when threatened is a different question than whether the UK has a rightful claim on the territory or whether 4 generations of living there gives you ownership.

Although I am tempted to say 'live by the sword, die by the sword' I don't think that would be fair to the current inhabitants.

They have four Typhoons based there.

 

[Information Analyst]

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

They've never been either.

 

[Information Analyst]

I think it is irrelevant whether you call them "indigenous" or not. Frankly, does "indigenous" actually accord anyone a greater right than a non-indigenous person?

Somewhat ironically, the Chagossians have been mentioned in this thread as a group whose rights need defending/reasserting, even though they were just as much a transplanted population as the Falklands Islanders, just about 50 years earlier. If we believe - as I think most here would - that the Chagossians should be allowed to return and reclaim Diego Garcia, then the same applies to the Falklanders in situ.