450
submitted 9 months ago by thehatfox@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 78 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world 51 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 9 points 8 months ago

I think the people living there are technically indigenous.

[-] 15Redstones@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

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).

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

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

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months 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.

load more comments (21 replies)
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
450 points (98.3% liked)

World News

38167 readers
2361 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

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

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS