this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023

451 points (98.3% liked)

World News

39375 readers

3374 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

451

Falkland's sovereignty 'not up for discussion' Britain warns after new Argentinian president vows to 'get them back' (www.lbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 year ago by thehatfox to c/world

317 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just a reminder: that there was no one living in the Falklands prior to the UK and France showing up. My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby. While it's weird that the UK has a colony all the way down at the tip of South America, there's no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership due to the population being mostly British and French.

[–] galloog1 51 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I think the people living there are technically indigenous.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean the original US states were also British colonies with ethnically British people having fairly British culture. They just revolted over unfair taxes and the culture diverged with immigration of other Europeans.

The main difference between the pre revolution colonies and the Falklands is that there weren't any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first, and the Falklands are much smaller and less important.

[–] CosmicCleric -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Falklands is that there weren’t any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first

Actually I believe there were a few Argentinians there they were removed forcefully, in 1833.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was discovered and settled by Britain, France, and Spain (in that order). But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)

Pinedo entertained plans for resisting, but finally desisted because of his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew (approximately 80% of his forces were British mercenaries who refused to fight their countrymen).[citation needed] The British forces disembarked on 3 January and switched the flags, delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on 5 January.[3]

Recognising Vernet's settlement had British permission, Onslow set about ensuring the continuation of that settlement for the replenishment of passing ships. The gauchos had not been paid since Vernet's departure and were anxious to return to the mainland. Onslow persuaded them to stay by paying them in silver for provisions and promising that in the absence of Vernet's authority they could earn their living from the feral cattle on the islands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)

The modern nation of Argentina didn't exist in 1833. They were the "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata". If you think they have a claim, then Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay have an equal claim. Do you believe that?

[–] CosmicCleric 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)

I mean, that's blatantly not true.

From the wiki article ...

France was the first country to establish a permanent settlement in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port-Saint-Louis on East Falkland by French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764.[2] The French colony consisted of a small fort and some settlements with a population of around 250.

A pop of 250 is not "some gauchos and soldiers". They were not even "(many of whom were British)".

I mean, we can go down the rabbit hole and start a population census conversation based on year-to-year, but that seems excessive for the conversation being had, and something that is really not needed.

Its fair to say that the French had a presence there, they gave that presence to Spain, and Argentina inherited that presence from Spain (going around the long way, as the Doctor would say).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The gauchos are the settlers you mentioned. The soldiers were mostly British mercenaries. Did you read the article?

[–] CosmicCleric 0 points 1 year ago

A colony of 240 people are not a few people, and are not all comprised of just gauchos or British mercenaries, they were French there as well.

I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.

[+] CosmicCleric -16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

beginning of human habitation

They're not Aboriginal though.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.

In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.

[+] CosmicCleric -14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.

Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina's objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.

In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.

That's not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.

Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.

[–] RobertOwnageJunior 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you're still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn't they technically belong to France by your logic?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know what you're reading, but the actual history of the island reads as follows:

"The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans. France established a colony on the islands in 1764. In 1765, a British captain claimed the islands for Britain. In early 1770 a Spanish commander arrived from Buenos Aires with five ships and 1,400 soldiers forcing the British to leave Port Egmont. Britain and Spain almost went to war over the islands, but the British government decided that it should withdraw its presence from many overseas settlements in 1774."

[+] CosmicCleric -18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby.

Bingo!

there’s no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership

The United Nations says otherwise.

The Wiki page is really interesting reading on the ownership of that island, really jumps around over the centuries.

This one part of the article really jumps out at me...

That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[93][94]