Falkland Islands' Sovereignty Threatened?

[SD_Film Artists]

At least the Falklands get their own semi-independent government; which is alot more autonomy than they can ever expect from Argentina.

Not likely, considering the autonomy Argentina gives its provinces.

Considering that Argentina has refused to give the islanders any say in the matter despite a representative from the islands giving Kirchner an invitation literally by hand, I doubt that Argentina has the best wishes of the Falklanders in mind.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

"Well, that's how things are..." is a shitty argument.



Not likely, considering the autonomy Argentina gives its provinces.

Again, if the concern is the rights of the islanders being too few under British rule, would a reformation of the current administrative status of the Falkland Islands under British flag be an acceptable alternative? My most seems to have gone unnoticed.

Probably.

[Ifreann]

"Well, that's how things are..." is a shitty argument.



Not likely, considering the autonomy Argentina gives its provinces.

Again, if the concern is the rights of the islanders being too few under British rule, would a reformation of the current administrative status of the Falkland Islands under British flag be an acceptable alternative? My most seems to have gone unnoticed.

Maybe if you pretend to be mad you'll get noticed.

[Camelza]

You mean London? Everywhere in the UK has an unequal relationship with Emperor Boris' City-State of London.

"Well, that's how things are..." is a shitty argument.

At least the Falklands get their own semi-independent government; which is alot more autonomy than they can ever expect from Argentina.

Not likely, considering the autonomy Argentina gives its provinces.

Yet Falklanders do not wish to become Argentinians. The Mapuche didn't want either, but I digress.

[Camelza]

Save us, Jack Sparrow!

Britain: "I've got a pile of dirt! I've got a pile of dirt! I've got a pile of dirt! And guess what we call it!"
Audience: "The Falklands!"
Argentina: >:(

Hahaha, that's great.

[Avrellon]

Honestly...I really don't understand why Argentina cares so much about the Falklands. They're literally a couple of rocks out in the middle of the ocean, and Britain has made it rather clear that they don't intend to let them go.

[Mefpan]

Again, if the concern is the rights of the islanders being too few under British rule, would a reformation of the current administrative status of the Falkland Islands under British flag be an acceptable alternative? My most seems to have gone unnoticed.

Probably.

But do the Islanders need liberation if they don't feel oppressed? They seem rather content with, and rather afraid of, British and Argentine rule respectively.

[SD_Film Artists]

Honestly...I really don't understand why Argentina cares so much about the Falklands. They're literally a couple of rocks out in the middle of the ocean, and Britain has made it rather clear that they don't intend to let them go.

It's a tool for diverting attention from domestic issues, like how North Korea likes to launch a few missiles into the sea each time it wants to show how tough the leader is.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

But do the Islanders need liberation if they don't feel oppressed? They seem rather content with, and rather afraid of, British and Argentine rule respectively.

The entirety of the islands' population is comprised of settlers so that's to be expected. That, however, doesn't make the colony-metropolis relationship any more ethic or justifiable.

[SD_Film Artists]

But do the Islanders need liberation if they don't feel oppressed? They seem rather content with, and rather afraid of, British and Argentine rule respectively.

The entirety of the islands' population is comprised of settlers so that's to be expected. That, however, doesn't make the colony-metropolis relationship any more ethic or justifiable.

And what is justifiable? Giving them over to a South American government who has time and time again refused to hear the islander's wishes? Sounds very democratic.
As for "settlers", the current islanders are the closest thing the islands have ever had to a native population.

[Camelza]

But do the Islanders need liberation if they don't feel oppressed? They seem rather content with, and rather afraid of, British and Argentine rule respectively.

The entirety of the islands' population is comprised of settlers so that's to be expected. That, however, doesn't make the colony-metropolis relationship any more ethic or justifiable.

The Falklands had no native population 200 years ago. They do now. So, no, modern Falklanders are not just "settlers".

[Lady Scylla]

What is it with Argentina and Islands ?

Misguided nationalist rhetoric.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

And what is justifiable?

Putting them Falklands on an equal relationship with the UK.

As for "settlers", the current islanders are the closest thing the islands have ever had to a native population.

Doesn't change the fact they're British settlers.

[Mefpan]

But do the Islanders need liberation if they don't feel oppressed? They seem rather content with, and rather afraid of, British and Argentine rule respectively.

The entirety of the islands' population is comprised of settlers so that's to be expected. That, however, doesn't make the colony-metropolis relationship any more ethic or justifiable.

So basically, their opinions don't matter because they just haven't lived there long enough for your liking?

Their ancestors were settlers. Just like most Argentinean ancestors. Before that, the islands were uninhabited. If you were born somewhere and grew up there too, would you look kindly upon people telling you that you do not belong there? Even if your parents, too, were born there?

Fuck, if we're semanticspissing like this then most of Eurasia, hell, the entirety of the fucking world sans a few lakes in fucking Africa has a population consisting of foreign settlers. How many generations does a population have to live on a piece of land in order to be considered legitimate inhabitants? Why that exact number of generations?

[Alvecia]

The entirety of the islands' population is comprised of settlers so that's to be expected. That, however, doesn't make the colony-metropolis relationship any more ethic or justifiable.

And what is justifiable? Giving them over to a South American government who has time and time again refused to hear the islander's wishes? Sounds very democratic.
As for "settlers", the current islanders are the closest thing the islands have ever had to a native population.

Imperialism > colonialism
*nods*

[Vassenor]

And what is justifiable?

Putting them Falklands on an equal relationship with the UK.

As for "settlers", the current islanders are the closest thing the islands have ever had to a native population.

Doesn't change the fact they're British settlers.

But replacing them with Argentine settlers is so much more acceptable.

[Dooom35796821595]

And what is justifiable?

Putting them Falklands on an equal relationship with the UK.

As for "settlers", the current islanders are the closest thing the islands have ever had to a native population.

Doesn't change the fact they're British settlers.

And Argentina are Spanish settlers. Hell, go back far enough and no one has any right to live outside Northern Africa.

[Lady Scylla]

Argentina has refused invitations to talk with the islanders, and Argentina wants to take the land for no better reason than that it's close to them. How is this not colonialism?

That's definitely not it. They have a claim that goes back to the 19th century.

Other than the admittedly fair accusation that the British government were being complacent, I don't see what that the citizenship thing as to do with the issue at all. You've yet to explain why being a BOT is a bad thing. If anything you could say it's a good thing as they're semi-independent.

The relationship between the UK and the Falklands is inherently unequal in favor of the metropolis. That's colonialism and it's a bad thing.

The British claim to sovereignty dates from 1690, the first British settlements were in 1765, and the United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty over the archipelago almost continuously since 1833. Argentina disputes this claim, having been in de facto control of the islands for a non-continuous two-year period between 1829 and 1833. The dispute escalated in 1982, when Argentina invaded the islands, precipitating the Falklands War.

Two years. Two-fucking years. Are we going to lay-out claims that France legally holds sovereignty over Mexico for their intervention and the establishment of the short-lived 4-year long Second Mexican Empire?

[SD_Film Artists]

And what is justifiable?

Putting them Falklands on an equal relationship with the UK

Do you mean total independence or a French style Department system? Either way, as has already been explained, Argentina isn't exactly a better option.

Doesn't change the fact they're British settlers.

So? They could be Italian or Indian settlers for all it matters. The point is that they are the closest thing the islands have ever had to a native population.

[Lady Scylla]

But do the Islanders need liberation if they don't feel oppressed? They seem rather content with, and rather afraid of, British and Argentine rule respectively.

The entirety of the islands' population is comprised of settlers so that's to be expected. That, however, doesn't make the colony-metropolis relationship any more ethic or justifiable.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

So basically, their opinions don't matter because they just haven't lived there long enough for your liking?

lol I did not say that

If you were born somewhere and grew up there too, would you look kindly upon people telling you that you do not belong there? Even if your parents, too, were born there?

No.

Fuck, if we're semanticspissing like this then most of Eurasia, hell, the entirety of the fucking world sans a few lakes in fucking Africa has a population consisting of foreign settlers. How many generations does a population have to live on a piece of land in order to be considered legitimate inhabitants? Why that exact number of generations?

A settler is someone who colonizes an area in detriment of the native population (I know the Falklands were uninhabited), usually backed by a foreign government. European colonialism appeared c. the 15th century so we can use that as a marker.

[The New Iberian Union]

Malvinas are Argentina. Gibraltar is Spain. Argentina is Spain.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

Putting them Falklands on an equal relationship with the UK.



Doesn't change the fact they're British settlers.

But replacing them with Argentine settlers is so much more acceptable.

lol nigga you have serious text interpretation issues.

[SD_Film Artists]

Malvinas are Argentina. Gibraltar is Spain. Argentina is Spain.

Spain is Falklands. Falklands is South Sandwich Islands.

[Lady Scylla]

So basically, their opinions don't matter because they just haven't lived there long enough for your liking?

lol I did not say that

If you were born somewhere and grew up there too, would you look kindly upon people telling you that you do not belong there? Even if your parents, too, were born there?

No.

Fuck, if we're semanticspissing like this then most of Eurasia, hell, the entirety of the fucking world sans a few lakes in fucking Africa has a population consisting of foreign settlers. How many generations does a population have to live on a piece of land in order to be considered legitimate inhabitants? Why that exact number of generations?

A settler is someone who colonizes an area in detriment of the native population (I know the Falklands were uninhabited), usually backed by a foreign government. European colonialism appeared c. the 15th century so we can use that as a marker.

Excellent. So when do the Argentine leave?

Much of the country needs to be divided, but it's time to kick out the settlers.

Indigenous tribes of Argentina

This region includes the provinces of Chaco, Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Formosa, Misiones, Santa Fe, and parts of Santiago del Estero Province.

Charrúa
Lule
Mbya-Guaraní
Mocoví
Pilagá
Toba
Tonocoté
Vilela
Wichí

Northwest
This region includes the provinces of Catamarca, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, San Juan, parts of Santiago del Estero Province, and Tucumán.

Atacama
Avá-Guaraní
Chané
Chorote
Chulupí
Diaguita-Calchaquí
Chicoana
Kolla
Ocloya
Omaguaca
Tapiete
Toba
Tupí
Wichí[24]
Inca

Central

This region includes the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, La Pampa, Mendoza, and San Luis.

Atacama
Avá Guaraní
Comechingon
Diaguita-Calchaquí
Huarpe
Kolla
Mapuche
Querandí
Rankulche
Toba
Tupí Guaraní

South
This region includes the provinces of Chubut, Neuquén, Río Negro, Santa Cruz, and Tierra del Fuego.

Alacaluf people
Fuegians
Haush people
Mapuche
Ona (Selknam)
Puelche people
Tehuelche
Yamana