The island has been a traffic stop for seafaring people since prehistoric times. The Europeans ethically cleansed the natives, then spent three centuries contesting their control.
Careful. As in other debates concerning Latin America, magically people outside the region see all the good of colonialism. "Stop crying. 'America' is now the name of a country, even if stolen from your territory". "Mexico lost half the country just as every other country lost territory in the past". "The Falkand Islands belong to Europeans because they claimed them: simple as that". "Well, if you didn't want to lose sovereignty, maybe you should have been stronger against illegal tactics from the CIA and others". Just precious.
Ah, yes, the fact that prehistoric Fuegians may have visited the Falklands surely means they're the birthright of Argentina. Airtight anti-colonialist explanation.
Literally no one was there when France landed there, so you can either a) ask France and Spain for their thoughts, b) resurrect the Fuegians who visited and let them have it, forcibly deporting the people who've lived there for centuries, or c) disregard pragmatism and say they aren't part of any country â either way, you can stop obnoxiously trying to defend Argentina's baseless colonialist claim under the guise of "anticolonialism".
To the extent it belongs to anyone, it obviously belongs to the UK far more than it does to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to assert sovereignty over it.
Conclusion: "rightfully British"? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that's accurate.
However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina's claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup.
Yes it did. Argentina's "Venticinco de Mayo" revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically "the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata", that's being nitpicky).
What no, I'm talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in.
They came back because the Argentinians occupied it.
I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain's claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain.
My post was mostly going for humour, but if we're looking at it a bit seriously, England's claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands.
Because "sail around the world and claim what you want" is fucking great if you're playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world.
But if the islands were empty before? Like there's islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there's also those who just doesn't. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something?
By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you're not going for bullshit like "god gave our King that holy right".
No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America
Does Argentina belong to the Spanish? Why do you think Argentina should take them? Who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came? Who lived in the Falkland islands, nobody.
It doesn't matter who lived there first, because I'll swear on the King's life that the Brits weren't first
Also, "who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?" Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores?
Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were.
Opposing would be free Malvinas or something like that.
The native population of the Falklands is arguably the British people living there. Who have clearly stated their preference to remain part of Britain. While Argentina's plan to displace and deport them, and replace them with Argentinians, is literally genocide and colonialism.
Respecting the native inhabitants' wishes is anti-colonialism.
Wait, who colonized Argentina? And wait who was first to the Falkland Islands? I genuinely don't understand why you think Argentina wanting the Falkland Islands has anything to do with opposition to colonialism.
The British came to the island for resupply and left again, much like prior native peoples who had been visiting the island for centuries. And the British, along with French and Spanish peers, decimated the nearby locals to make the islands exclusive
Later, British explicitly removed the island from Argentinian territorial control, back in 1833. But the islands have been changing colonial hands since the 1700s they've had visitors from the mainland going back to prehistoric times.
Claiming it's uninhabitable after Europeans spent decades ethnically cleansing the mainland is cynical af.
Itâs hilarious how one sided that is. Kim Jong Un style numbers.
And it makes complete sense. Falkland islands isnât a colony. It was uninhabited before the british got there. Itâs literally a freezing windy collection of hills in the middle of nowhere a few dozen british shepherds decided to populate and now rely on mainland UK for loads of stuff. So thereâs no reason to say no.
It has nothing to do with the people. Politicians and oligarchs wave a flag, as they do in any other country, to stir up the masses, but the whole thing is about fishing rights.
Oil has been discovered in the territorial waters, but this was long after the war and is as yet unexploited.
Basically, itâs a rallying point that successive corrupt and failing Argentine governments have deployed in an attempt to distract from domestic failings. Thatâs its value.
Asking the people that currently leave there is not always the correct course of action though.
You want that land over there? Then you just have to kill/displace anyone currently living there, then fill it with your own citizens, then ask them. Easy land grab. Also a genocide.
Except in this case there was nobody living on the island, so the ânativesâ are all of European descent and overwhelmingly (like 90+%) want to stay part of the UK.
Yeah, that happens when you kick out the existing argentinian/spanish settlement (I don't remember if it was before/after independence) and bring your own British settlers, as I explained before.
Idk what European descent has to do with anything. Many Argentinians are of European descent.
You want that land over there? Then you just have to kill/displace anyone currently living there, then fill it with your own citizens, then ask them. Easy land grab. Also a genocide.
It's absolutely bizarre, they have no legitimate claim to the islands. It's like someone moving into your house when you are on holiday, and saying it's theirs.
Plenty of countries have uninhabited islands as part of their territory, it doesn't mean they're up for grabs.
That's the fucking part that blows my mind. They were about to get it back for fucking free. But the Military Dictatorship had to Military it up and then not only got their asses handed to them, but also gave Thatcher and Reaganomics the boost of a lifetime.
Every single time I see anything argentinian named "LAS MALVINAS ARGENTINAS XYZ" it feels so fucking pathetic. They put it on a (now worthless) 50 peso banknote.
It was never really about ownership of the islands as such. The real prize is for Argentine politicians to be able to forment nationalism against an external enemy, to distract and enthuse the voters.
The victims of this conflict are the casualties of a completely pointless war, on either side. Neither side fought for legitimate reasons and both used it to drum up nationalism.
It's only legitimate out of context. The two countries were trying to negotiate a transfer before the war broke out. Argentina was ruled by a military Junta and used the invasion to bolster its internal politics. Thatcher did the same thing by using overwhelming force over a territory that Britain was trying to get rid of. An Argentine cruiser was sunk outside of the exclusion zone.
Afterwards Britain fortified the island to feed its military industrial complex and drum up more support for its decaying empire. Everything about this war was totally pointless except from a domestic political standpoint.
So what should have been the right move then when Argentina invaded the islands? Should Thatcher just have abandoned the people on the Falklands and let them fend for themselves?
The descendants of the only people to live on the islands since pre-history. Literally the only people whose opinions count, including the uk population and government. It doesnât matter what the Argentinians or the British think really, same as Greenland - the people who live there want to be a part of the uk
Sure, I entirely agree on principle. But that's my question, who are these people?
According to Wikipedia, there are no such people:
Although Fuegians from Patagonia may have visited the Falkland Islands in prehistoric times, the islands were uninhabited when Europeans first explored them.
So I suppose I have my answer overall. The people living there are broadly the descendents of the French, Spanich and English who settled there in the late 18th century. The French ceded the settlement to Spain a year after they started, so even just scratching the surface of the situation it looks like it's been a mess for 250 years.
But in any case, the people living there, now, clearly want to remain a UKâŻterritory.
The modern population of the island are the natives, kinda like how Icelands population is completely native to the island. Not to say people didn't fuck around on the island occasionally but there's basically no evidence of prehistoric settlement of the Falklands.
Malvinas not Maldives (they're half a world apart), and there have been briefly Spanish/Argentinian populations on the islands between 1774 and 1820 but none since then. The majority of whom were one of a) a military garrison b) convicts c) guards of convicts. Very small numbers of non military settlers during that period
So broadly yes, everyone who has been there since the early 1800s is aligned with the UK
They have to double check with FIFA Peace Prize recipient Donald J. Trump before they make any calls, they don't want to accidentally discipline the wrong team
The "no politics" rule strips people of a big platform to protest against injustice and further other righteous causes, and that's the INTENTION the corrupt leaders of FIFA had.
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer I've ever seen. Grabbing the English goalie's arms during a corner kick, regularly shoving opposing players in the back and grabbing their jerseys when they got the ball during a fast break. The referee only handed out a single yellow card, and let everything else pass.
Messi wasn't doing it so overtly, but everyone else especially Simeone, were just blatant. Have no dog in this race, but that was just gross.
4 yellow cards, 1 for England, 3 for Argentina. Martinez, Romero, and De Paul all got carded, as did Anderson
Personally, I think the ref should have started handing them out right from the start to set the tone, but then I hate dirty football. I personally think you should beat the other team by playing better football
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer Iâve ever seen.
You have to watch the France - Paraguay game. Absolutely crazy. Paraguayan players literally punching, elbowing, karate chopping French players, no fouls called.
Throughout this tournament, I'm legitimately baffled at some of the things that aren't even considered fouls, according to the announcers. Like defenders literally tackling players to the ground. The announcer; that's good clean play, no foul there, that's great defense, good "no call" by the ref. Might as well start wearing helmets and pads and calling this football now...
That's just CONMEBOL and CONCACAF football tbh. It's kind of funny watching Europeans being all smug about Americans only watching football every 4 years, when it's equally amusing seeing Europeans who aren't aware that the American game tends to be more physical and chippy.
It would be interesting to see them actually succeeding with conquering those islands just to see them do this:
Now they actually had to deal with their ruined socioeconomic problems instead of political rallying around a made up issue.
The issue with the malvinas/Falklands is that there are no "historically rightful owners", since no one lived there when they were discovered by the British.
But it's also not as easy as "the British discovered, so it's theirs", because they just discovered and left. They didn't leave no settlement.
The islands have a complicated history, both sides have strong arguments in favor of themselves, there's no clear cut "rightful owner".
The British didnât discover the islands - the French (and then the Spanish) did. But they won them after that, so your points are still good - just wanted to point this part out
To clarify, Britain didnât âwinâ them. The previous occupants had abandoned it totally as it wasnât worth much to them. When Britain arrived, it was desolate and abandoned with no prior claim. This was, by the way, some time before Argentina existed.
The French discovered Thema in 1764 , the britisch claimed Thema in 1765, the spanisch came only in 1770 with a force oft about one and a half thousand nen forcing the british off of the Islands
Well the islands are settled now and they're settled by people who think they're British so I can't really see how you can functionally come to the conclusion that there is any mystery.
Argentina's claim to the islands seems to be their they are sort of close to Argentina, although far enough out to be an international waters and there was once a Spanish settlement there back before Argentina existed as a country. By the time Argentina became its own country the Spanish settlement was no longer in existence.
So from most of human history the islands were uninhabited or only sporadically inhabited and we're talking the level of driftwood huts here, no permanent structures. If anyone had any legitimate claim to the island it would be Spain they were the first to build proper buildings on the islands, at least they had a settlement there until they abandoned it, but then they quite happily sold the rights to the land to the British.
I agree with this take. The claims are plausible from both sides but England obviously won the battle. The inhabitants being established are a result of the military positioning, so their votes will obviously be skewed. Not sure their votes are comparable to those of say native populations of other disputed territories (since there were none).
So I can understand why the Argentines feel aggrieved.
The Argentine claim is implausible. The Falklands were British before Argentina was created. Their reasoning is that it had been used by the Spanish, and so had now-Argentina, therefore dibs.
Actually no - they were driven off by the spanisch in 1770 but never gave up their claim - however Ehen the british resettled the Islands in 1830 they were in fact abandonded
Right but the claim predates Argentina's existence.
The only way Argentina has legitimate claim to the island would be if Spain still maintained the claim to the island at the time Argentina became independent and even then they would have to have to cead the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Which of course never happened.
Hm that's tough. I always like to think boundaries set by countries are bullshit anyway, but it is located closer to Argentina. Another comment says they both want it because the island comes with vast amount of fishing so economic reasons. And the UK probably put money forth to develop some sort of living situation on there.
The UK is the only one's who have ever invested on infrastructure. And it is all mostly to support the fishing industry. This is about money for the UK. The people who live there are descendants from people of all sort of places, because they were fishermen for a British fishing company. No wonder when asked, they prefer to be considered British. All Argentina has ever done on the island is bombing them.
Proximity matters but only up to a point. The Islands aren't that close to Argentina, I can't remember what the exact limit is but under international law islands along to the country whose coastline is closest to them up to a distance of 10 nautical miles as long as there is no claim already in place. Of course that's an international treaty which historically didn't necessarily count, which is why you've got things like American Samoa and Hawaii.
Maybe for some things that works but the island is deep in international waters and Argentina never had any cultural ties to the place. It's purely economic.
And while I don't really care for the British. There's really nothing Argentina has a right to I think.
The claim for Argentina is about as strong as America's claim to Greenland
I don't want to comment on Argentina's claim since I know nothing about it. But England should never be allowed to own any other piece of land, and definitely not one in another continent.
To clarify, the ENGLISH are assholes about SPORT, not the UK, there are other cultures in there that are vastly different in their attitudes, it will be import to remember that when it comes to election time as well since you will find different parts of the UK will be voting in very different ways.
Every Argentine believes it should be colonized by them. Not a surprise when the country is like 90% descendants of colonizers. Itâs the whitest in South America, the indigenous people have been mostly displaced. And itâs also the place that gave fleeing Nazis a home.
It's a shame it has come to this, especially that Scaloni - Argentina's coach - opposed the whole war undertones by saying that "it will be just a football match and nothing more" during a press conference.
Remember the shit that the officials threw at team captains who wanted to wear a rainbow-colored team captains band? That was two or four years ago. IIRC they threatened to ban the player or team for political messages on the field.
If this banner is not a ban-worthy offence, I don't know it.
I thought the whole Falkland Islands war in the 80s was mainly as an outlet for Thatcher to rally people behind and justify austerity, which was wanted by the neoliberal admin to distract from the privatization making things more expensive.
I thought the whole Iran war in the 2020s was mainly as an outlet for Trump to rally people behind and justify unchecked cost of living increases, which was wanted by the billionaire class to distract from the privatization making things more expensive, and also the Epstein Files.
I thought the whole Iraq war in the 2000s was mainly as an outlet for Bush to rally people behind and justify unchecked sprawling surveillance, which was wanted by the neocons and their rich donors to solidify their social control from / and the privatisation.
Under the 25-year rule most govt docs are released at the National Archive and, counterintuitively, turns out Thatcher went above and beyond to prevent war, even offering to negotiate the future status of the islands. In their dictatorial vigour the Argentines declined to talk. It was only the coming of Southern winter and the prospect of an entire season where the Argentines could fortify that convinced her to send the fleet.
You do know the only reason Lemmy exists for you to freely speak on, is because of explicitly anticapitalist devs toiling to combat the gross shit for-profit digital platforms are doing? Just making sure.
counterintuitively, turns out Thatcher went above and beyond to prevent war, even offering to negotiate the future status of the islands. In their dictatorial vigour the Argentines declined to talk.
It's incredible that if the dictatorship did nothing, they'd have the fucking islands by now. Same as china and Hong Kong, they didn't have to start installing puppets and be an asshole just yet, they could just have waited a bit more and the island would be 100% theirs with 0 controversy.
Right, I'm not saying she somehow was working behind the scenes to provoke an attack, just that at a time when she was being pressured by people like Milton Friedman to privatize-max, she couldn't just make British taxpayers buckle down for austerity for seemingly no reason. The war then became a "good" reason to justify people contributing to the war effort. At least that's my understanding from Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine."
i'll do a test later tonight and see if it's same thing here, i guess if someone who has the energy and sees this can lookup whether lemmy has a bug/feature request somewhere in their github/git/whatever to get this looked at?
eh, I don't care about this honestly. actually i don't think they even care, it's just getting a rise out of the country they beat. Argentina had way worse problems with racism to worry about this imo.
Dumbass Gauchos failed history. The facts are written below. Are there resources or precious metals on and around the Falklands? Go Spain! I hope they smash the Argentinians, because of Milei.
Interestingly, Argentina have recently expanded their claim to the South Sandwich Islands and the UK's theoretical claim of Antarctica. They don't have any justification for it, they simply think they can get away with it as long as they claim victimhood if they don't get it.
How many people actually live in the Falklands? Looks like there's mostly nothing on that island. Edit: Looked it up, it's about 3,600. So an incredibly small population. Census shows over 60% of that population is labelled 'immigrant', so non-indigenous.
I know Falklanders want to remain in UK control majority-wise. I also somewhat get why Argentina wouldn't want what is essentially a potential base of operations off their coast (though realistically they couldn't really do anything about it even if they did have sovereignty over it).
EDIT: as mentioned in another person's comment, Argentina also wants it for the fishing rights. The fishing rights area is fairly sizeable, but not, like, HUGE
At the same time, i can't really make sense of why the hell have the british fought to keep ahold of the Falklands. Maybe just because the british just love collecting shit that means nothing to them but have major significance to other nations' people? I don't really get it.
Edit: someone mentioned that the UK wants to keep the falklands in order to maintain claim to Antartica. Weird but okay. Have not looked into that one.
The Falklands have massive fishing rights over a massively rich area. It has nothing to do with a few thousand people and a few sheep. The UK couldn't care less about the people. Same for Argentina. You don't fight a war over a forlorn rock. Same with Gibraltar ( as the UK has shown with Brexit. Gibraltar is strategically important for Spain and the UK, nothing more. The people are just an excuse)
The UK actually was at one point, in the process of handing over administration to Argentina. The population petitioned parliament to stop it.
While Iâm never going to accept that the Brits are over their horrific colonial past and have zero interest in The Falklands, there is a pretty strong moral argument from the indigenous population not wanting to become part of Argentina.
Argentina argues it inherited sovereignty from Spain after independence, and that it was actively administering the islands (with a governor and settlers) when Britain forcibly removed the Argentine garrison in 1833 and installed its own settlers â an act Argentina considers an illegal seizure of territory it has never accepted. Argentina also points to geographic proximity: the islands sit about 300 miles off the Argentine coast, versus roughly 8,000 miles from Britain.
So invading an occupied territory 8000 miles from your country is fair play?
This happening today would trigger all kind of global outrage and ONU actions.
Tl;DR, settled and abandoned several times, Argentina's claim depends heavily on a legally dubious hand over of ownership from Spain and proximity. UK's claim is based on ongoing occupation of abandoned islands which it had never agreed their claim to was relinquished or invalid.And the fact that the independent settlers who were living there in the most recent re-settlement rejected Buenos Aires and asked for London's help to secure themselves.
All people who have been living on the islands for near 2 centuries want to be British (see referendum posted on here).
As for the "occupied territory" - well I think the South American natives might want to have a similar discussion about European settlers in Argentina who have also been there several centuries - if you want to unwind one in fairness you need to unwind the other.
Dot point version:
Uninhabitated prior to European settlement/invasion of South America
The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville and the 1765 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by Captain John Byron (for clarity - separate parts of the island group, both groups unaware of each other as far as any documentation can tell).
In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain, which renamed the French colony Puerto Soledad the following year. Problems began when Spain detected and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771
The British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain'withdraw the garrison from the islands, leaving a plaque claiming the Falklands for King George III. Spain's Viceroyalty of the RĂo de la Plata became the only formal presence in the territory. West Falkland was left abandoned, and Puerto Soledad became a penal colony. Amid the British invasions of the RĂo de la Plata during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the islands' governor evacuated the archipelago in 1806; Spain's remaining colonial garrison followed suit in 1811
Since the islands had no permanent inhabitants, in 1823 Buenos Aires granted German-born merchant Luis Vernet permission to conduct fishing activities and exploit feral cattle in the archipelago. Vernet settled at the ruins of Puerto Soledad in 1826, and accumulated resources on the islands until the venture was secure enough to bring settlers and form a permanent colony [NOTE that was NOT a colony beholden to what is now Argentina, it was attempting to set up an independent state]
Vernet's venture lasted until a dispute related to fishing and hunting rights led to a raid by the American warship USS Lexington in 1831, when United States Navy commander Silas Duncan declared the dissolution of the island's government.
Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month and was followed the next year by the arrival of British forces, who reasserted Britain's rule
The British troops departed after completing their mission, leaving the area without formal government.[48] Vernet's deputy, the Scotsman Matthew Brisbane, returned to the islands that year to restore the business, but his efforts ended after, amid unrest at Port Louis, gaucho Antonio Rivero led a group of dissatisfied individuals to murder Brisbane and the settlement's senior leaders; survivors hid in a cave on a nearby island until the British returned and restored order
In the late 1830s, an appeal was made to the Colonial Office in London by businessmen seeing potential profit, for organised settlement of the islands.[49] In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony
The fact that Israel is committing a genocide and razing Gaza as the world watches mostly unmoved destroys your last sentence. The world doesnt care at all. This has nothing to do with sovereignty or administration or even colonialism. This is just about money (for england) and distracting people from the fact that Argentina's economy is collapsing (again, money).
This conflict is what happens when the military makes political decisions. Argentina could've had the islands for decades if they weren't so eager to play fascist invader themselves.
Oh, you meant like stern letters and tons of meetings where the US vetoes everything? Sure there would be some of those. But no one will actually do anything outrageous to stop it.
Like, a ton of people will still make money out of selling weapons to both sides. And somehow governments will publicly denounce the conflict while also making record profit on war technology, as is tradition with global outrages.
Lots of tiktok and Instagram posts, surely as well, at least during the first weeks.
Los habitantes de las Falklands llevan siendo britånicos desde hace 200 años. Nunca en la historia de las islas ha habido una población de origen argentino de un tamaño significativo.
Lo que tĂș propones es que Argentina ocupe las Falklands, en contra de la voluntad de sus residentes, y, en el peor de los casos, los reemplace con individuos de origen argentino. Eso es, por definiciĂłn, colonialismo.
Argentina celebrates a colony becoming a country, just like the US does. It does not celebrate the exiting of a conquering race and the return to pre-colonial conditions and territories. There is a fundamental difference.
Hereâs an â/sâ to put at the end of my first comment - I honestly didnât think of the need to be so explicit that I was taking the piss with those sentences.
Yeah ok, my bad for missing that one. I've just met too many Argentinians who claimed they are better than their neighbors and their reasoning was very close to what you wrote.
255 Comments
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 161 pts · 44d
Sore losers even when they're winning.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -108 pts · 44d
Opposing colonialism is being a sore loser now?
Jumi@lemmy.world · 93 pts · 44d
You are aware that the first inhabitants of the Falklands were French? There was nobody to be colonised.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · -90 pts · 44d
đ
That's certainly a theory.
Noite_Etion@lemmy.world · 55 pts · 44d
Yeah they colonised some penguins... Got em
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · -28 pts · 44d
The island has been a traffic stop for seafaring people since prehistoric times. The Europeans ethically cleansed the natives, then spent three centuries contesting their control.
Noite_Etion@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 44d
How do you know if it's pre-historic..?
Who were these pre historic natives, and how did they manage to get there without boats?
Did you graduate from any form of schooling?
Are you mistaking penguins for humans
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 43d
I would consult an anthropologist on that one.
Evidence of prehistoric human activity in the Falkland Islands
I'm not mistaking them for the French, if that's what you're asking.
blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 43d
It can't be both a traffic stop and a home.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 43d
The dispute is over whether it should be a military base of a foreign power
Katrisia@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 43d
Careful. As in other debates concerning Latin America, magically people outside the region see all the good of colonialism. "Stop crying. 'America' is now the name of a country, even if stolen from your territory". "Mexico lost half the country just as every other country lost territory in the past". "The Falkand Islands belong to Europeans because they claimed them: simple as that". "Well, if you didn't want to lose sovereignty, maybe you should have been stronger against illegal tactics from the CIA and others". Just precious.
Jumi@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 44d
You must be American
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 82 pts · 44d
Please explain to me how this is opposing colonialism? They want to colonise the Falklands themselves.
stoly@lemmy.world · -30 pts · 44d
The islands are on the continental shelf.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 29 pts · 44d
OK, so?
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -46 pts · 44d
There's evidence of pre-Columbian Argentine peoples using the island.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 44d
Ah, yes, the fact that prehistoric Fuegians may have visited the Falklands surely means they're the birthright of Argentina. Airtight anti-colonialist explanation.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -27 pts · 44d
It certainly doesn't belong to the British.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 44d
Literally no one was there when France landed there, so you can either a) ask France and Spain for their thoughts, b) resurrect the Fuegians who visited and let them have it, forcibly deporting the people who've lived there for centuries, or c) disregard pragmatism and say they aren't part of any country â either way, you can stop obnoxiously trying to defend Argentina's baseless colonialist claim under the guise of "anticolonialism".
To the extent it belongs to anyone, it obviously belongs to the UK far more than it does to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to assert sovereignty over it.
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -23 pts · 44d
No land "belongs" to anyone, least of all to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to keep their empire alive
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 44d
They belong to me.
I have as good as a claim on the Islands as Argentina.
blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 43d
Funny how quick the anti-colonialism argument got abandoned when facts entered the picture.
guy@piefed.social · 32 pts · 44d
So pre-Argentine as well?
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 43d
Ah, the Israel school of territorial claim
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -48 pts · 44d
They sure as fuck don't belong to England
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 44d
They've belonged to them for over 200 years, I don't see why they don't.
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 44d
Let's recap islands history:
Deserted, no permanent population.
French set up a settlement.
English makes another, fight the French.
Spain buys French port, fights British.
Britain leaves.
Spain leaves.
Deserted, no permanent population.
Argentina sets up a settlement.
England comes back, fight them off.
Conclusion: "rightfully British"? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that's accurate.
However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina's claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 43d
Argentina didnt exist yet
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 43d
Yes it did. Argentina's "Venticinco de Mayo" revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically "the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata", that's being nitpicky).
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 44d
đ€ Why did England come back? Are you saying Argentina won the war in the 1980s?
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 43d
What no, I'm talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in.
They came back because the Argentinians occupied it.
I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain's claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain.
My post was mostly going for humour, but if we're looking at it a bit seriously, England's claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands.
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 44d
Because "sail around the world and claim what you want" is fucking great if you're playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world.
Natanael@slrpnk.net · 28 pts · 44d
But if the islands were empty before? Like there's islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there's also those who just doesn't. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something?
pipi1234@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 44d
There weren't empty at the time of the British invasion.
There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison.
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -24 pts · 44d
There weren't "people" in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 44d
Eh, nobody else was using them for anything.
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -37 pts · 44d
Thatcher's dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn't going to get her to sleep with you
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 44d
You've still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt.
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 43d
By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you're not going for bullshit like "god gave our King that holy right".
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -18 pts · 44d
No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America
spock@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 44d
Does Argentina belong to the Spanish? Why do you think Argentina should take them? Who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came? Who lived in the Falkland islands, nobody.
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -24 pts · 44d
It doesn't matter who lived there first, because I'll swear on the King's life that the Brits weren't first
Also, "who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?" Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 44d
Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up?
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -10 pts · 44d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas
moriquende@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 44d
Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were.
blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 43d
It does if the argument is about colonialism.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 43d
No one lived there before Europeans arrived.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 43d
They sure are fuck belong to whoever the majority of inhabitants want it to belong to.
Just like Greenland.
knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de · 48 pts · 44d
Isn't that promoting colonialism?
Opposing would be free Malvinas or something like that.
8oow3291d@feddit.dk · 20 pts · 44d
The native population of the Falklands is arguably the British people living there. Who have clearly stated their preference to remain part of Britain. While Argentina's plan to displace and deport them, and replace them with Argentinians, is literally genocide and colonialism.
Respecting the native inhabitants' wishes is anti-colonialism.
spock@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 44d
Wait, who colonized Argentina? And wait who was first to the Falkland Islands? I genuinely don't understand why you think Argentina wanting the Falkland Islands has anything to do with opposition to colonialism.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 44d
Please recount to me the tales of how the Falklands war ended up going in the 1980s. I'm fascinated by your take.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -13 pts · 44d
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 44d
This is sad. I wanted to know your perspective, why not try again without deleting it?
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 44d
Sure as hell the fascist military Junta wasn't right. I can tell you that.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 44d
Genuinely can't tell which militarily force you are supporting.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 44d
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 44d
Argentina supports Israel and has an ancap president. They aren't anti colonial.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 44d
Australian New Car Assessment Program? What do they have to do with this?
TassieTosser@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 44d
Anarcho-capitalist. The end state of muh free marketz morons.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 44d
Millei is not ancap. He hasn't legalised jack shit, and is anti abortion. He's just a conservative.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 44d
From the horses mouth
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 43d
ah si claro, y el legaliza un montonazo de cosas como minarchista para sacar el gobierno de la libertad de la gente /s
sos boludo?
ah yes, and milei has legalised a BUNCH of shit like any minarchist, in order to take the government out of the way of the freedom of the people /s
Are you a dumbass?
Do you also think the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democracy?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · -16 pts · 44d
It's not real colonialism. It's Sparkling Regime Change.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 44d
What regime did the English change when they showed up to an uninhabited island a few hundred years ago?
Natanael@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 44d
Nature's /s
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 44d
The British came to the island for resupply and left again, much like prior native peoples who had been visiting the island for centuries. And the British, along with French and Spanish peers, decimated the nearby locals to make the islands exclusive
Later, British explicitly removed the island from Argentinian territorial control, back in 1833. But the islands have been changing colonial hands since the 1700s they've had visitors from the mainland going back to prehistoric times.
Claiming it's uninhabitable after Europeans spent decades ethnically cleansing the mainland is cynical af.
actionjbone@sh.itjust.works · 160 pts · 44d
Funny how Argentina never thinks to ask the people who actually live there.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 77 pts · 44d
They might answer the wrong way you see...
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 44d
They did answer the wrong way for Argentina
2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum
FundMECFS@quokk.au · 17 pts · 43d
Itâs hilarious how one sided that is. Kim Jong Un style numbers.
And it makes complete sense. Falkland islands isnât a colony. It was uninhabited before the british got there. Itâs literally a freezing windy collection of hills in the middle of nowhere a few dozen british shepherds decided to populate and now rely on mainland UK for loads of stuff. So thereâs no reason to say no.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 43d
Not to mention you look at Britain (with failings) and look at Argentina (mostly failings) and youâre not going to pick one of them to join.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 44d
Sort of the thing with war. If you're on the losing side, it can get a little awkward when you try to stick around.
elucubra@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 44d
It has nothing to do with the people. Politicians and oligarchs wave a flag, as they do in any other country, to stir up the masses, but the whole thing is about fishing rights.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 43d
The fishing is bad there.
Oil has been discovered in the territorial waters, but this was long after the war and is as yet unexploited.
Basically, itâs a rallying point that successive corrupt and failing Argentine governments have deployed in an attempt to distract from domestic failings. Thatâs its value.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 44d
Asking the people that currently leave there is not always the correct course of action though.
You want that land over there? Then you just have to kill/displace anyone currently living there, then fill it with your own citizens, then ask them. Easy land grab. Also a genocide.
jumjummy@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 44d
Except in this case there was nobody living on the island, so the ânativesâ are all of European descent and overwhelmingly (like 90+%) want to stay part of the UK.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 43d
1,513 voted yes to stay part of the UK overseas territories. 3 people voted no.
Even those no voters were not saying yes to Argentinian rule.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 43d
I believe some (or all) said they did it for a prank.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 44d
Yeah, that happens when you kick out the existing argentinian/spanish settlement (I don't remember if it was before/after independence) and bring your own British settlers, as I explained before.
Idk what European descent has to do with anything. Many Argentinians are of European descent.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 43d
The settlers complained of the conditions they were living in and asserted that Vernet had misled them. Duncan offered passage to the mainland and most settlers chose to leave
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 43d
The islands were totally abandoned and relinquished when the British arrived.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 43d
That's virtually all of human history.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 43d
But not the Falklands, when the British arrived the population consisted of Penguins and nothing else.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 43d
Nah. For most of human history there were not referendums to "let them choose". They just annexed the place.
The referendums is a relatively modern "invention".
PumpUpTheJam@lemmy.world · 115 pts · 44d
I can't think of a nation with a bigger chip on their shoulder than Argentine. It's kind of weird.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 68 pts · 44d
It's absolutely bizarre, they have no legitimate claim to the islands. It's like someone moving into your house when you are on holiday, and saying it's theirs.
Plenty of countries have uninhabited islands as part of their territory, it doesn't mean they're up for grabs.
PumpUpTheJam@lemmy.world · 67 pts · 44d
Had they not invaded there's a good chance they would be Argentinian by now, which is the funniest part of the whole fiasco.
Gave Thatcher an easy election win, which is genuinely unforgivable.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 44d
That's the fucking part that blows my mind. They were about to get it back for fucking free. But the Military Dictatorship had to Military it up and then not only got their asses handed to them, but also gave Thatcher and Reaganomics the boost of a lifetime.
Every single time I see anything argentinian named "LAS MALVINAS ARGENTINAS XYZ" it feels so fucking pathetic. They put it on a (now worthless) 50 peso banknote.
8oow3291d@feddit.dk · 10 pts · 44d
It was never really about ownership of the islands as such. The real prize is for Argentine politicians to be able to forment nationalism against an external enemy, to distract and enthuse the voters.
Tikiporch@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 44d
Buttsore from the fall of the third Reich.
Jyrdano@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 44d
They are up there with Serbia and Russia
liffeyman@lemmy.world · -57 pts · 44d
How about Ireland, you American clown đ
PumpUpTheJam@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 44d
Totally different kettle of fish.
Also I'm not American, you eejit.
ZMoney@lemmy.world · 94 pts · 44d
stark@sopuli.xyz · 18 pts · 43d
Also this:
Argentina invaded the island killed 3 Falklanders and then got their ass whooped. And to this day Argentines think they are the victims.
ZMoney@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 43d
The victims of this conflict are the casualties of a completely pointless war, on either side. Neither side fought for legitimate reasons and both used it to drum up nationalism.
stark@sopuli.xyz · 14 pts · 43d
How is defending against an invasion not legitimate?
ZMoney@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 43d
It's only legitimate out of context. The two countries were trying to negotiate a transfer before the war broke out. Argentina was ruled by a military Junta and used the invasion to bolster its internal politics. Thatcher did the same thing by using overwhelming force over a territory that Britain was trying to get rid of. An Argentine cruiser was sunk outside of the exclusion zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano
Afterwards Britain fortified the island to feed its military industrial complex and drum up more support for its decaying empire. Everything about this war was totally pointless except from a domestic political standpoint.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/british-sovereignty-falklands-absurd-imperial-hangover-argentina
stark@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 42d
So what should have been the right move then when Argentina invaded the islands? Should Thatcher just have abandoned the people on the Falklands and let them fend for themselves?
ZMoney@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 42d
No, those 907 people absolutely had to die so that Britain could keep its frozen rock halfway around the world.
stark@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 42d
I doubt the regime that threw dissidents out of helicopters would have just let the British Falklanders live peacefully among the Argentines.
bigpEE@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 42d
It's legitimate in context. I'm not addressing all your points, but the exclusion zone was never "this is the only place we'll be fighting"
axx@slrpnk.net · -6 pts · 44d
Helpful, but is there more context here?
Such as who are there people currently living there and therefore voting in this referendum?
PennyRoyal@sh.itjust.works · 65 pts · 44d
The descendants of the only people to live on the islands since pre-history. Literally the only people whose opinions count, including the uk population and government. It doesnât matter what the Argentinians or the British think really, same as Greenland - the people who live there want to be a part of the uk
axx@slrpnk.net · 12 pts · 43d
Sure, I entirely agree on principle. But that's my question, who are these people? According to Wikipedia, there are no such people:
So I suppose I have my answer overall. The people living there are broadly the descendents of the French, Spanich and English who settled there in the late 18th century. The French ceded the settlement to Spain a year after they started, so even just scratching the surface of the situation it looks like it's been a mess for 250 years.
But in any case, the people living there, now, clearly want to remain a UKâŻterritory.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 43d
The French and Spanish occupants had long abandoned the islands before the English arrived.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 43d
The modern population of the island are the natives, kinda like how Icelands population is completely native to the island. Not to say people didn't fuck around on the island occasionally but there's basically no evidence of prehistoric settlement of the Falklands.
Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 43d
Greenland wants to be part of the UK đ€
PennyRoyal@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 43d
Nah, I meant that the population of Greenland want to remain under the administration that theyâre currently under
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 46 pts · 44d
People who has always live there?
The Maldives has never had Spanish/Argentinian population.
Argentina only claims it based on physical proximity, not on the will of its population.
thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe · 28 pts · 44d
Malvinas not Maldives (they're half a world apart), and there have been briefly Spanish/Argentinian populations on the islands between 1774 and 1820 but none since then. The majority of whom were one of a) a military garrison b) convicts c) guards of convicts. Very small numbers of non military settlers during that period
So broadly yes, everyone who has been there since the early 1800s is aligned with the UK
axx@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 43d
Thanks, this was helpful and also prompted me to look more into it.
Takashiro@lemmy.today · 71 pts · 44d
These types of displays were banned by FIFA, no? If so , shouldn't there be some kind of disciplinary action?
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 83 pts · 44d
They have to double check with FIFA Peace Prize recipient Donald J. Trump before they make any calls, they don't want to accidentally discipline the wrong team
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 27 pts · 44d
They were, but IMO there shouldn't.
The "no politics" rule strips people of a big platform to protest against injustice and further other righteous causes, and that's the INTENTION the corrupt leaders of FIFA had.
baldingpudenda@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 44d
Red card everyone in that pic. Then the next day say you had a chat with Milei and now the coach is red carded too.
fubarx@lemmy.world · 67 pts · 44d
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer I've ever seen. Grabbing the English goalie's arms during a corner kick, regularly shoving opposing players in the back and grabbing their jerseys when they got the ball during a fast break. The referee only handed out a single yellow card, and let everything else pass.
Messi wasn't doing it so overtly, but everyone else especially Simeone, were just blatant. Have no dog in this race, but that was just gross.
SaraTonin@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 44d
4 yellow cards, 1 for England, 3 for Argentina. Martinez, Romero, and De Paul all got carded, as did Anderson
Personally, I think the ref should have started handing them out right from the start to set the tone, but then I hate dirty football. I personally think you should beat the other team by playing better football
starlinguk@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 44d
They've always been like that. They poisoned a player once. FIFA did nothing.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 43d
You have to watch the France - Paraguay game. Absolutely crazy. Paraguayan players literally punching, elbowing, karate chopping French players, no fouls called.
dellish@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 44d
Agreed, watching the match was painful. Spain vs France was a much, much better game.
eleijeep@piefed.social · 5 pts · 44d
The refereeing in that game was arguably worse than the Argentina-England game. And this is coming from an England supporter.
Evotech@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 43d
And Norway got their goal annulled because some little push.
FIFA corrupt
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 43d
His dad was one of the dirtiest players to ever wear a football kit. I guess he must be proud.
el_psd@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 43d
Simeone should have been sent off, but more than anything I'm shocked that one Argentine backbencher didn't get booked for excessive celebration lol
The second half was fantastic football though. Unfortunately England earned the loss
save_the_humans@leminal.space · 1 pts · 44d
Throughout this tournament, I'm legitimately baffled at some of the things that aren't even considered fouls, according to the announcers. Like defenders literally tackling players to the ground. The announcer; that's good clean play, no foul there, that's great defense, good "no call" by the ref. Might as well start wearing helmets and pads and calling this football now...
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 44d
Rule of thumb. If they touch the ball then it's not a foul.
socsa@piefed.social · 1 pts · 43d
That's just CONMEBOL and CONCACAF football tbh. It's kind of funny watching Europeans being all smug about Americans only watching football every 4 years, when it's equally amusing seeing Europeans who aren't aware that the American game tends to be more physical and chippy.
thoro@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 43d
The English league is notoriously more physical than the other big leagues in Europe.
Argentina was no more physical than England that game. They were both trading fouls in the first half
raman_klogius@ani.social · 56 pts · 44d
It would be interesting to see them actually succeeding with conquering those islands just to see them do this:
Now they actually had to deal with their ruined socioeconomic problems instead of political rallying around a made up issue.
Jhex@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 44d
they'll sink their economy just like the rest of Argentina
deft@lemmy.wtf · 48 pts · 44d
Not sure how I feel about this.
From my understanding the island wishes to stay part of the UK, but I don't know if historically that's because they colonized the fuck out of it.
Argentina is also kind of an asshole country, so is the UK. Both in their own way.
Argentina also played like absolute assholes. The UK is notorious for being assholes about football.
I guess I'll just say oof.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 44d
There was no colonization.
The issue with the malvinas/Falklands is that there are no "historically rightful owners", since no one lived there when they were discovered by the British.
But it's also not as easy as "the British discovered, so it's theirs", because they just discovered and left. They didn't leave no settlement.
The islands have a complicated history, both sides have strong arguments in favor of themselves, there's no clear cut "rightful owner".
adj16@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 43d
The British didnât discover the islands - the French (and then the Spanish) did. But they won them after that, so your points are still good - just wanted to point this part out
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 43d
To clarify, Britain didnât âwinâ them. The previous occupants had abandoned it totally as it wasnât worth much to them. When Britain arrived, it was desolate and abandoned with no prior claim. This was, by the way, some time before Argentina existed.
Caves_of_steel@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 43d
The French discovered Thema in 1764 , the britisch claimed Thema in 1765, the spanisch came only in 1770 with a force oft about one and a half thousand nen forcing the british off of the Islands
echodot@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 43d
Well the islands are settled now and they're settled by people who think they're British so I can't really see how you can functionally come to the conclusion that there is any mystery.
Argentina's claim to the islands seems to be their they are sort of close to Argentina, although far enough out to be an international waters and there was once a Spanish settlement there back before Argentina existed as a country. By the time Argentina became its own country the Spanish settlement was no longer in existence.
So from most of human history the islands were uninhabited or only sporadically inhabited and we're talking the level of driftwood huts here, no permanent structures. If anyone had any legitimate claim to the island it would be Spain they were the first to build proper buildings on the islands, at least they had a settlement there until they abandoned it, but then they quite happily sold the rights to the land to the British.
ieGod@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 44d
I agree with this take. The claims are plausible from both sides but England obviously won the battle. The inhabitants being established are a result of the military positioning, so their votes will obviously be skewed. Not sure their votes are comparable to those of say native populations of other disputed territories (since there were none).
So I can understand why the Argentines feel aggrieved.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 43d
The Argentine claim is implausible. The Falklands were British before Argentina was created. Their reasoning is that it had been used by the Spanish, and so had now-Argentina, therefore dibs.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 43d
Argentina gained independence from Spain on 25 May 1810
In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony and Scottish settlers subsequently established an official pastoral community.
Stamau123@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 43d
Crown colony is just a title, the UK had settled the island decades prior
Caves_of_steel@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 43d
Actually no - they were driven off by the spanisch in 1770 but never gave up their claim - however Ehen the british resettled the Islands in 1830 they were in fact abandonded
echodot@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 43d
Right but the claim predates Argentina's existence.
The only way Argentina has legitimate claim to the island would be if Spain still maintained the claim to the island at the time Argentina became independent and even then they would have to have to cead the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Which of course never happened.
Caves_of_steel@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 43d
But they were claimed by the britisch in 1765
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 42d
British and Spanish.
Now, is independence from Spain also independence from all it's territories? I would argue yes.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 44d
Hm that's tough. I always like to think boundaries set by countries are bullshit anyway, but it is located closer to Argentina. Another comment says they both want it because the island comes with vast amount of fishing so economic reasons. And the UK probably put money forth to develop some sort of living situation on there.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 44d
The UK is the only one's who have ever invested on infrastructure. And it is all mostly to support the fishing industry. This is about money for the UK. The people who live there are descendants from people of all sort of places, because they were fishermen for a British fishing company. No wonder when asked, they prefer to be considered British. All Argentina has ever done on the island is bombing them.
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 43d
Argentina also confined the townsfolk in makeshift prisons and blew up bridges.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 43d
The UK has never profited from the islands. It has been a sinkhole of money.
echodot@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 43d
Proximity matters but only up to a point. The Islands aren't that close to Argentina, I can't remember what the exact limit is but under international law islands along to the country whose coastline is closest to them up to a distance of 10 nautical miles as long as there is no claim already in place. Of course that's an international treaty which historically didn't necessarily count, which is why you've got things like American Samoa and Hawaii.
stark@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 43d
The US is closer to Greenland than Denmark is.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 43d
But with that thought Canada is closer.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 43d
Greenland could become part of Canada some day. Though proximity is just a minor part of it.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 42d
A simple rule of thumb in geopolitical disputes is to see who England is supporting, and support the other side.
Corollary: a simple rule of thumb when trying to figure out why some historical tragedy occured is to ask what England was doing at that time.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 42d
Maybe for some things that works but the island is deep in international waters and Argentina never had any cultural ties to the place. It's purely economic.
And while I don't really care for the British. There's really nothing Argentina has a right to I think.
The claim for Argentina is about as strong as America's claim to Greenland
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 42d
I don't want to comment on Argentina's claim since I know nothing about it. But England should never be allowed to own any other piece of land, and definitely not one in another continent.
Tingle@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 44d
To clarify, the ENGLISH are assholes about SPORT, not the UK, there are other cultures in there that are vastly different in their attitudes, it will be import to remember that when it comes to election time as well since you will find different parts of the UK will be voting in very different ways.
Reverendender@sh.itjust.works · 43 pts · 44d
someguy3@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 44d
What season was this from?
Reverendender@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 44d
"Treehouse of Horror II"
Oct 31, 1991
S3·E7 (5:25)
Reverendender@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 44d
CptOblivius@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 44d
Argentina then belongs to Spain. Do your thing Lamine.
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 29 pts · 44d
So Messi believes that Argentina should colonize the Falklands? Man I really wish he had just stayed a football autist.
stark@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 43d
Every Argentine believes it should be colonized by them. Not a surprise when the country is like 90% descendants of colonizers. Itâs the whitest in South America, the indigenous people have been mostly displaced. And itâs also the place that gave fleeing Nazis a home.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works · 28 pts · 43d
Oh shit, some people who kick a ball around for money have unfurled a banner.
Its over.
jaemo@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 43d
Fr. Caesar don't GAF about the gladiators' political views.
PromKingJosh@tarte.nuage-libre.fr · 26 pts · 44d
Source in case you're wondering if the photo is real: www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/15/malvinas-is-argentinian-world-cup-holders-celebrate-win-over-england-with-banner
It's a shame it has come to this, especially that Scaloni - Argentina's coach - opposed the whole war undertones by saying that "it will be just a football match and nothing more" during a press conference.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 43d
Remember the shit that the officials threw at team captains who wanted to wear a rainbow-colored team captains band? That was two or four years ago. IIRC they threatened to ban the player or team for political messages on the field.
If this banner is not a ban-worthy offence, I don't know it.
yuki_gassen@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 44d
I thought the whole Falkland Islands war in the 80s was mainly as an outlet for Thatcher to rally people behind and justify austerity, which was wanted by the neoliberal admin to distract from the privatization making things more expensive.
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 44d
It was also so the dictator of Argentina could rally people behind him because he was losing popularity.
yuki_gassen@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 44d
Oh yes, 100%. Just another case of regular people being used as pawns for the interests of the elite ig
RaftDespairPoise@lemmy.zip · 25 pts · 44d
I thought the whole Iran war in the 2020s was mainly as an outlet for Trump to rally people behind and justify unchecked cost of living increases, which was wanted by the billionaire class to distract from the privatization making things more expensive, and also the Epstein Files.
axx@slrpnk.net · 14 pts · 43d
I thought the whole Iraq war in the 2000s was mainly as an outlet for Bush to rally people behind and justify unchecked sprawling surveillance, which was wanted by the neocons and their rich donors to solidify their social control from / and the privatisation.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 43d
Nah it was also about Cheney's thirst for oil and blood.
yuki_gassen@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 43d
^^
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 43d
Under the 25-year rule most govt docs are released at the National Archive and, counterintuitively, turns out Thatcher went above and beyond to prevent war, even offering to negotiate the future status of the islands. In their dictatorial vigour the Argentines declined to talk. It was only the coming of Southern winter and the prospect of an entire season where the Argentines could fortify that convinced her to send the fleet.
Godric@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 43d
I'm utterly flabbergasted. FLABBERGASTED I SAY!
yuki_gassen@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 43d
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents?intcmp=122http
You do know the only reason Lemmy exists for you to freely speak on, is because of explicitly anticapitalist devs toiling to combat the gross shit for-profit digital platforms are doing? Just making sure.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 43d
It's incredible that if the dictatorship did nothing, they'd have the fucking islands by now. Same as china and Hong Kong, they didn't have to start installing puppets and be an asshole just yet, they could just have waited a bit more and the island would be 100% theirs with 0 controversy.
yuki_gassen@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 43d
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents?intcmp=122http
Above and beyond to prevent war is a misleading simplification...
Caves_of_steel@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 43d
I mean ... She did not Start the war Without the argentines attacking there is no falklands war
yuki_gassen@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 43d
Right, I'm not saying she somehow was working behind the scenes to provoke an attack, just that at a time when she was being pressured by people like Milton Friedman to privatize-max, she couldn't just make British taxpayers buckle down for austerity for seemingly no reason. The war then became a "good" reason to justify people contributing to the war effort. At least that's my understanding from Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine."
4shtonButcher@discuss.tchncs.de · 17 pts · 43d
But daddy Infantino said this is just about sports and not politics?!? /s
Noite_Etion@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 44d
If they are yours then why don't you go there... Oh wait.
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 43d
And FIFA wonât do anything about it, as usual.
LovelyMover@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 43d
It's pronounced Falklands.
Shall we talk about Argentine genocide of their black population now?
el_psd@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 43d
... Shall we? I'm on your side here, but Britain of all fucking places is not going to come out looking better afterwards
zhyl@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 43d
Let's start with Jallianwala Bagh to give them a head start.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 43d
That is not a conversation the brits can win on
tixnou@feddit.cl · 8 pts · 43d
might be worth noting that a government having done this does not mean the people there actually support it
oh also this happened under a dictatorship backed by the US sooo
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 43d
xSikes@feddit.online · 8 pts · 44d
Disqualified?
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 44d
Only one way to settle this - a sudden death dodgeball match.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 44d
i just realised lemmy.zip is converting all images to avif
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 44d
it's really fucking annoying because it won't do "click thumbnail to expand" and always puts them in a new tab.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 44d
i'll do a test later tonight and see if it's same thing here, i guess if someone who has the energy and sees this can lookup whether lemmy has a bug/feature request somewhere in their github/git/whatever to get this looked at?
pyre@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 44d
eh, I don't care about this honestly. actually i don't think they even care, it's just getting a rise out of the country they beat. Argentina had way worse problems with racism to worry about this imo.
DrCake@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 44d
Should have fought harder for them then when you invaded. Sucks to suck
Agent641@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 44d
ARA General Belgrano belongs to Posiden
Clutter@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 43d
Its good to have an opinion. And it's great to be able to show and talk about things. Political or otherwise.
Just don't get mad or surprised when some people show you the door and ask you to leave.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 42d
Dumbass Gauchos failed history. The facts are written below. Are there resources or precious metals on and around the Falklands? Go Spain! I hope they smash the Argentinians, because of Milei.
Gonzako@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 44d
Gibraltar español!
richardwallass@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 44d
Now I understand why they elected Javier Milei.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 43d
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/70/0a/6e/700a6e255a60c0eaaa18b4969529bb16.jpg
spittingimage@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 44d
They didn't hear you, Argentina. Better shake your fist sternly at them again.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 43d
Awesome, let's make every event about shitty political takes so that we cannot have anything nice ever again
Can we please not?
blackbeards_bounty@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 43d
Which faulkand islands we taking about
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 44d
How's that inflation going? At least you have a few people that are good at kicking a ball around though.
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 42d
Nope, they won a game of sports ball
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 44d
CumbrianCucumber@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 42d
Interestingly, Argentina have recently expanded their claim to the South Sandwich Islands and the UK's theoretical claim of Antarctica. They don't have any justification for it, they simply think they can get away with it as long as they claim victimhood if they don't get it.
JayDee@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 44d
How many people actually live in the Falklands? Looks like there's mostly nothing on that island. Edit: Looked it up, it's about 3,600. So an incredibly small population. Census shows over 60% of that population is labelled 'immigrant', so non-indigenous.
I know Falklanders want to remain in UK control majority-wise. I also somewhat get why Argentina wouldn't want what is essentially a potential base of operations off their coast (though realistically they couldn't really do anything about it even if they did have sovereignty over it).
EDIT: as mentioned in another person's comment, Argentina also wants it for the fishing rights. The fishing rights area is fairly sizeable, but not, like, HUGE
At the same time, i can't really make sense of why the hell have the british fought to keep ahold of the Falklands. Maybe just because the british just love collecting shit that means nothing to them but have major significance to other nations' people? I don't really get it.
Edit: someone mentioned that the UK wants to keep the falklands in order to maintain claim to Antartica. Weird but okay. Have not looked into that one.
elucubra@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 44d
The Falklands have massive fishing rights over a massively rich area. It has nothing to do with a few thousand people and a few sheep. The UK couldn't care less about the people. Same for Argentina. You don't fight a war over a forlorn rock. Same with Gibraltar ( as the UK has shown with Brexit. Gibraltar is strategically important for Spain and the UK, nothing more. The people are just an excuse)
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 43d
Fish stocks may be rich, but for half the year forget about taking a boat out in that.
JayDee@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 44d
Ah that explains it the best. Now I feel like Argentina has more claim than the UK.
nightlily@leminal.space · 7 pts · 44d
The UK actually was at one point, in the process of handing over administration to Argentina. The population petitioned parliament to stop it.
While Iâm never going to accept that the Brits are over their horrific colonial past and have zero interest in The Falklands, there is a pretty strong moral argument from the indigenous population not wanting to become part of Argentina.
Thereâs a bitter sense of irony here.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 44d
CIA - The World Factbook -- Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) https://user.iiasa.ac.at/~marek/fbook/04/print/fk.html
tmijail@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 44d
The islands are the basis for the British's claim to Antarctica
Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 43d
That is really funny. Too bad england deserves it. Not really.
pipi1234@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 44d
Some facts that most of you might you not know:
Argentina argues it inherited sovereignty from Spain after independence, and that it was actively administering the islands (with a governor and settlers) when Britain forcibly removed the Argentine garrison in 1833 and installed its own settlers â an act Argentina considers an illegal seizure of territory it has never accepted. Argentina also points to geographic proximity: the islands sit about 300 miles off the Argentine coast, versus roughly 8,000 miles from Britain.
So invading an occupied territory 8000 miles from your country is fair play?
This happening today would trigger all kind of global outrage and ONU actions.
thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe · 24 pts · 44d
That's a very slanted version of the history. It is much more complicated than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History
Tl;DR, settled and abandoned several times, Argentina's claim depends heavily on a legally dubious hand over of ownership from Spain and proximity. UK's claim is based on ongoing occupation of abandoned islands which it had never agreed their claim to was relinquished or invalid.And the fact that the independent settlers who were living there in the most recent re-settlement rejected Buenos Aires and asked for London's help to secure themselves.
All people who have been living on the islands for near 2 centuries want to be British (see referendum posted on here).
As for the "occupied territory" - well I think the South American natives might want to have a similar discussion about European settlers in Argentina who have also been there several centuries - if you want to unwind one in fairness you need to unwind the other.
Dot point version:
Uninhabitated prior to European settlement/invasion of South America
The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville and the 1765 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by Captain John Byron (for clarity - separate parts of the island group, both groups unaware of each other as far as any documentation can tell).
In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain, which renamed the French colony Puerto Soledad the following year. Problems began when Spain detected and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771
The British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain'withdraw the garrison from the islands, leaving a plaque claiming the Falklands for King George III. Spain's Viceroyalty of the RĂo de la Plata became the only formal presence in the territory. West Falkland was left abandoned, and Puerto Soledad became a penal colony. Amid the British invasions of the RĂo de la Plata during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the islands' governor evacuated the archipelago in 1806; Spain's remaining colonial garrison followed suit in 1811
Since the islands had no permanent inhabitants, in 1823 Buenos Aires granted German-born merchant Luis Vernet permission to conduct fishing activities and exploit feral cattle in the archipelago. Vernet settled at the ruins of Puerto Soledad in 1826, and accumulated resources on the islands until the venture was secure enough to bring settlers and form a permanent colony [NOTE that was NOT a colony beholden to what is now Argentina, it was attempting to set up an independent state]
Vernet's venture lasted until a dispute related to fishing and hunting rights led to a raid by the American warship USS Lexington in 1831, when United States Navy commander Silas Duncan declared the dissolution of the island's government.
Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month and was followed the next year by the arrival of British forces, who reasserted Britain's rule
The British troops departed after completing their mission, leaving the area without formal government.[48] Vernet's deputy, the Scotsman Matthew Brisbane, returned to the islands that year to restore the business, but his efforts ended after, amid unrest at Port Louis, gaucho Antonio Rivero led a group of dissatisfied individuals to murder Brisbane and the settlement's senior leaders; survivors hid in a cave on a nearby island until the British returned and restored order
In the late 1830s, an appeal was made to the Colonial Office in London by businessmen seeing potential profit, for organised settlement of the islands.[49] In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony
dustyData@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 44d
The fact that Israel is committing a genocide and razing Gaza as the world watches mostly unmoved destroys your last sentence. The world doesnt care at all. This has nothing to do with sovereignty or administration or even colonialism. This is just about money (for england) and distracting people from the fact that Argentina's economy is collapsing (again, money).
This conflict is what happens when the military makes political decisions. Argentina could've had the islands for decades if they weren't so eager to play fascist invader themselves.
pipi1234@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 44d
Speak for yourself, I've seen massive outrage about Gaza genocide.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 44d
Oh, you meant like stern letters and tons of meetings where the US vetoes everything? Sure there would be some of those. But no one will actually do anything outrageous to stop it.
Like, a ton of people will still make money out of selling weapons to both sides. And somehow governments will publicly denounce the conflict while also making record profit on war technology, as is tradition with global outrages.
Lots of tiktok and Instagram posts, surely as well, at least during the first weeks.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 43d
Only if it happened to white people.
(Ironically, I expect this statement to offend Argentinians more than anyone else)
usjelo@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 44d
No sabĂa que esta red estaba tan llena de fachos; quĂ© decepcionante cĂłmo defienden tan fĂ©rreamente al colono inglĂ©s en las respuestas.
dustyData@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 44d
Encontré al Argentino!
usjelo@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 41d
ÂżLo buscabas?
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 43d
âFachoâ es cuando uno respeta la voluntad de los habitantes de las Falklands.
usjelo@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 41d
ÂżRespetĂĄs la voluntad de los sionistas que ocupan Palestina?
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 41d
Los habitantes de las Falklands llevan siendo britånicos desde hace 200 años. Nunca en la historia de las islas ha habido una población de origen argentino de un tamaño significativo.
Lo que tĂș propones es que Argentina ocupe las Falklands, en contra de la voluntad de sus residentes, y, en el peor de los casos, los reemplace con individuos de origen argentino. Eso es, por definiciĂłn, colonialismo.
AsĂșmelo.
usjelo@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 40d
ÂżY cuĂĄndo propuse yo cualquier cosa đ€Ł? QuĂ© inĂștil debatir por internet.
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 40d
ÂżY quĂ© piensas que habrĂa que hacer con los britĂĄnicos que viven en las Falklands y que no quieren ser argentinos?
Chivera@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 44d
Tus abuelos fueron Nazis
usjelo@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 41d
No tenĂ©s idea de mi familia, Âżpor quĂ© harĂas una afirmaciĂłn asĂ? Ni que esto fuera Twitter.
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · -18 pts · 44d
Hell yeah! Stick it to the colonizing bastards...twice!
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 44d
Yeah - Argentina was never colonised. They just natively look (mostly) quite European and speak Spanish.
bandanawearingbanana@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 44d
They natively look and speak Spanish lmaoooo.
When they celebrate their independence day I guess they really mean independant of will and strength of character not independence from Spanish crown.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 44d
Argentina celebrates a colony becoming a country, just like the US does. It does not celebrate the exiting of a conquering race and the return to pre-colonial conditions and territories. There is a fundamental difference.
bandanawearingbanana@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 43d
Argentina was never colonised.
It celebrates a colony becoming a country.
Biiiig think here.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 43d
Hereâs an â/sâ to put at the end of my first comment - I honestly didnât think of the need to be so explicit that I was taking the piss with those sentences.
bandanawearingbanana@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 41d
Yeah ok, my bad for missing that one. I've just met too many Argentinians who claimed they are better than their neighbors and their reasoning was very close to what you wrote.