The remarkable robust 1945 line and the Falkland Islands dispute
By Gwynne Dyer - International human rights campaigner and occasional actor Sean Penn, whose well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize continues to be delayed for mysterious reasons, was the first famous foreigner to lend his support to the cause. “The world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology,” he told Cristina Kirchner, the president of Argentina. He was speaking, of course, of the Falkland Islands.
This was music to the ears of CFK, who has marked the 30th anniversary of the Argentine invasion and British recapture of the Islands with a high-profile nationalist campaign to “recover” the Falklands (or Las Malvinas). Penn then went home to California, but it wasn’t long before Fidel Castro weighed in too. Unfortunately, Castro hadn’t read the script.
CFK chief talking point was an accusation that Britain was “militarizing” the South Atlantic by sending an “ultra-modern destroyer” to patrol the waters around the Islands. (It replaces an obsolete, leaky destroyer, we must suppose.) But Castro unhelpfully mocked the British, claiming that “the English only have one little boat left. All the English can do is sending over a destroyer, they can't even send an aircraft carrier.”
One could make a meal of this silly quarrel—“The Falklands thing was a fight between two bald men over a comb,” as Argentine poet and essayist Jorge Luis Borges once said—but it wouldn’t be a very nourishing meal. A more useful approach would be to consider why it is so fundamentally silly.
It’s not that the history of the rival claims is silly (although it is: first French settlers in 1764, then British in 1765, then the French hand their share over to the Spanish in 1767, followed by half a dozen more changes of ownership or control until the Islands finally fall under permanent British rule in 1833). Nor is it that the Islands are now worth considerably more than a comb (though they are, with seabed oil and rich fisheries surrounding them).
It’s just that you are no longer allowed to shift control of territories from one country to another by force. That was the way the world was run for thousands of years, but after the Second World War the nations of the world changed the rule and in effect froze all the borders where they were at that moment. They did that not because it was just, but because most wars were over territory and wars had got too big and destructive to fight any more.
Argentina can claim that the brief presence of Argentine colonists in the Islands at one point before 1833 gives it an eternal right to the Islands, and Britain can insist that the wishes of the present, English-speaking residents, who want to remain British, must be respected, but neither is really relevant. The Falklands will remain British because we now define any attempt to change borders by force as “aggression”.
This is the point at which the frantic protests about British “colonialism” usually erupt. They come from Argentina, where the European settlers dispossessed the aboriginal inhabitants. They come from Sean Penn, whose house sits on land that was part of Mexico until the United States conquered it in 1846. They come from everybody who wants to draw a line under history just after the situation that favors their interests came to pass.
But the line was actually drawn in 1945, and it has proved remarkably robust. When new African countries got their independence, they got it within the existing borders, even though those were originally drawn by the imperial powers with little heed to ethnic realities. When the old Soviet Union fell apart, all fifteen successor states accepted the administrative divisions of that empire as their new national borders.
And whenever somebody who hadn’t got the message tried to change their borders by force, pleading historical justice, ethnic similarity, or geographical tidiness, they were firmly rebuffed by almost everybody else. Indonesia seized and annexed East Timor in 1975, but eventually had to give it its freedom. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990, but was driven out by an international army after only a few months.
And Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982. It was driven out by a British force, not an international one, but the United Kingdom would never have fought such a difficult war over Islands then seen as almost valueless if it had not had international law on its side.
Argentina’s action was privately seen as inexcusable by almost every other government, even if its Latin American neighbors did not say so in public. The generals who ordered the invasion were ignorant men who didn’t understand that the world had changed, and they lost power in Argentina as a result of the war. More importantly, the law was upheld.
And that is why Alsace-Lorraine, after changing hands a dozen times in its history, will remain French. California, similarly, will remain American however much the Mexicans dislike it. As for Kashmir and the West Bank—but that’s a subject for another day.
Suggested Stories
-
May 18th 2013
Argentina forces cancellation of all Lan flights by suspending ground services
-
May 17th 2013
Argentina’s ‘autarkic project’ worsens bilateral relations and multiplies problems
-
May 17th 2013
Argentine whitewash bill turning into ugly electoral debate
-
May 17th 2013
Uruguay’s José Mujica lauds booming Brazil ties
131 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Clearly you didn't manage to read beyond Paragraph 1 then...
poor delusional sod!!
That shows the incompetence of Mercopress :D
“Sean Penn’s house sits on California land that was part of Mexico until the US conquered it in 1846”
Total BS and desperate from a tea drinker Gwynne Dyer. The United States bought California that was part of Mexico. It wasn't conquered. It's a totally different issue than the Falklands/Malvinas conflict.
But that doesn't mean territories can't change status by diplomatic means.
Only the british warmongers are the ones who cry every day about how Argentina could attack the islands, about how their defense budget is not enough, boast about the destroyers they send to this part of the world... If someone didn't get the message, its the Brits.
Go read the un charter and come back once you understand the right of self determination!
In fact, that began after WWI with Wilson's attempt at the League of Nations. Then came the UN and all its spheres such us the International Court of Justice and so on and so forth.
But contrary to what Mr Gwynne Dyer suggests, the world did not erase history in 1945 in fact it looked upon history to help create what we know know as “international law”. Needless to say, as in any law, it is ever changing and evolving.
It also does not mean that post 1945 boundaries are static and cannot be changed. In fact, if that were so Hong Kong would have never been handed over to the Chinese nor could Scotland hope to achieve its independence as a sovereign state.
The second Iraq ware created so much controversy precisely because the US ignored the post WWII convention and acted unilaterally by invading a sovereign state. More ironic is the fact they were the main drivers behind the creation of international organizations.
I am quite appalled at the level of journalism these days to be honest. One only has to look at the several UN resolutions calling for the negotiations of the Malvinas sovereign dispute to realise that history before 1945 has not been erased from all records and does weigh in international law.
“calling on negotiations”....precisely, they can not force, they can only recommend. And why/ becuase they cant be bothered listening to the squabble, and effectively say “can you guys sort this out please” .....thats it, they have not taken sides yet!!
And you are able to see outside of your own interests are you? Calling me a “brain dead, single focused gimp” talks volumes about your ability to at least consider what I have to say.
But the fact remains Mr Gwynne Dyer's article is poor. You don't have to be an expert in history or international law to appreciate the differences between California and Kuwait to that of the Malvinas. For starters, none of the two former are colonies. You can call Malvinas what you like “British Overseas Territories” and other fancy names, but its a colony. California was a independent Republic when the US forces annexed it to the Union - not a part of Mexico. So was Texas for that matter. Kuwait was also an independent State when Iraq attacked.
So we can go back and forth with discussions about the principle of “self-determination” and colonialism but that doesn't rule out the fact that this article is appalling.
As for “self-determination” - it doesn't apply to a colony of 1500 fishermen. Hence why the Malvinas are listed as one of the unsolved colonial disputes in the UN. With that reasoning York or Nottingham could also become city-states and claim “self determination” when it pleases them. So could any small territory or town in the world and that might sound pretty appealing to some but that's not how it works, especially a territory that has been claimed for more than 150 years. savvy?
You reveal much ignorance. First Hong Kong was leased from China, a lease which expired in 1997 and which The United Kingdom duly honoured. If the inhabitants of Hong Kong, like Taiwan, want independent status, it is up to those people to seek it. Likewise the people of Scotland, as the Falkland Islanders, may desire independence from London, that is their right. However, if they sought to extend their established borders, as does Argentina, that would be an entirely different matter.
The only valid comparison with China is China's desire to acquire and re-colonise Taiwan as Argentina similarly covets the Falkland Islands.
Mentioning Hong Kong and Scotland as examples is possibly the most ridiculous statement yet. Hong Kong was leased, the lease expired and was handed back.
I'm not really sure how Scotland can be referenced as part of the discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with international law.
And using the phrase 'British warmongers' is ridiculous in the extreme. Britain has at no point been the aggressor in the Falkland's situation, it has always been Argentina hence the requirement to defend the islands with a show of strength.
Bizarre, truly bizarre.
I won't dispute that. What I am saying is that this article has wholes all over the place. Its just uses all the wrong examples; contains historical inaccuracies and dodgy interpretation of international law.
Now we both know that the issue here is whether the cause for the land-grab is legitimate or not. Many countries in the world say it is.
And what do you mean by “normal” countries?
Would sending away the natives of some islands in the Indian ocean be considered ”normal and in line with today's or post WWII conventions?
No it doesn't. Drop the word 'valid' and you may be about right.
Claim until the end of the world,
BUT,
This IS OUR land & we're NOT going to give it to you.
You may as well resign yourselves,
You'll NEVER get OUR land.
You said NEVER get OUR land !! you are really pavota and funny!!
www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf
why do some argies and others really care what mr penn thinks,
he has no more interest in the british falklands,
then he has in his next film.
he is a man who seeks attention to his flagging carrear,
so if you take him at his word then more fool you.
just ignore the fool.
We don't have a problem with Brazil just up the road from the Falkland’s; we don't have a problem with Chile just down the road from the Falkland's or Uruguay next door to Argentina, just Argentina who can’t somehow get it into their thick heads that the island have never belonged to them. The only aggressors in that area are Argentina no one else who do all they can to blockade the very existence of the people who live on those Islands and who have repeatedly said that they want to remain British. Now that should be the end of the matter but as I have said the thick bastards living across from them are not capable of understanding.
@4 “In 1846 settlers rebelled against Mexican rule during the Bear Flag Revolt. Afterwards, rebels raised the Bear Flag (featuring a bear, a star, a red stripe and the words ”California Republic”) at Sonoma. The Republic's first and only president was William B. Ide,[38] who played a pivotal role during the Bear Flag Revolt.
The California Republic was short lived; the same year marked the outbreak of the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). When Commodore John D. Sloat of the United States Navy sailed into Monterey Bay and began the military occupation of California by the United States, Northern California capitulated in less than a month to the U.S. forces.“
You were saying?
@8 ”One only has to look at the several UN resolutions calling for the negotiations of the Malvinas sovereign dispute to realise that history before 1945 has not been erased from all records and does weigh in international law.“ UNGA resolutions are NON-BINDING and irrelevant. Also, there is no such place as ”Malvinas“.
@14 ”normal countries“ = not argieland. Those islands in the Indian Ocean you refer to are the Chagos Archipelago, are they not? A group of islands that has NEVER had any ”natives“!
@20 An excellent link. Far better than the usual rubbish carefully selected by argies from that site. Especially after the site owner, Stephen Luscombe, was called to account and taken to task, by myself amongst others, for publishing untruths.
@22 You would know all about ”manipulation“ as your cuntry operates it so assiduously. Significantly, you mention only one supposed instance of ”manipulation“. Perhaps you could clarify the ”manipulation“ presented by argieland as the deployment of a single member of the RAF as ”provocative“. Or the ”militarisation” of the South Atlantic represented by replacing a frigate with a destroyer. A process Britain has undertaken since 1982.
Thats it, you've got it. “You'll NEVER get OUR land.”
Thank you, l knew you could do it if you tried!
And you are hillarious. Gracias. Don't cry.
It seems to me that the real answer to this stupid conflict is to be an independent state, member of the UN and the Commonwealth.
Does this make sense?
Troneas - your above statement is inaccurate. The United Nations has not recognised that a VALID claim exists. The United Nations has merely recognised that a claim has been made.
Taiwan is a good example of why the 'independent state solution' is not the ideal that it might seem.
There are not enough Falklanders to adequately defend themselves and I doubt Argentina would acknowledge them as an independent state any more than they do as a BOT.
Thanks for the answer, but wouldn't being a member of the UN and the Commonwealth solve the defense problem?
If we became independant (as we could), the day after the British Military left the Falklands, Argentina would arrive and take over. We are not big enough to defend ourselves against a proven agressor. We all understand fully that Argentina claim to want a peaceful resolution, would go the way of all the other lies if they thought they could achieve it militarily. Aside from that Falklanders actually like being part of the UK despite the RGs claiming we are an oppressed people..
That makes it a lot clearer.
I wonder if you could do the independence thing with a proviso that the UK carries on with the defense until such a time that you could cover it yourselves. Just an idea.
International law provides a way to right the wrongs of the past without needing to resort to force. There's a Decolonization Committee working on the case and Argentina is in the best position to cost effectively administer the Falklands.
Zimbabwe is/was a member of the commonwealth - the commonwealth doesn't do a lot to help your average Zimbabwean. The commonwealth is not a defense pact.
Alternatively Syria, North Korea, Iran and again Zimbabwe are members of the UN and the UN does little to protect their citizens rights either.
Show us the way?
The Conquest of the Desert (Spanish: Conquista del desierto) was a military campaign directed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s, which established Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. The Conquest is commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina.[1]
Looks as though the independence road is a “No Entry”. What a shame, it seemed like a really elegant solution to this idiotic conflict.
Back to the drawing board.
have a nice day Falkland Islanders
30 Years On
Peace and quiet a tiny place of freedom and tranquillity
The thunderous waves that crash upon their salty wind swept shores.
The abundant wild life , the amazing scenery the people and the place
The rugged stone runs the winding rivers that carve the valley floors.
This was the life so many new where people were proud to be part of
With rural settlements a tiny town an envied way of living.
The unlocked doors of peoples homes, the trust they had in everyone
The unselfish friendliness of all it's people leave you warm with a happy feeling.
But that would all change one fateful day in nineteen eighty two
When the very lives of these peaceful people would loose their cherished dreams.
An invading force from a nearby shore had come to take these lands
They raped the peoples hearts and soles as they stole their sovereign claims.
Seventy four days of war and crime our people did endure
While diplomats around the world to stop this crime they had no doubt.
But the Argentines refused to budge to end their human greed
So a British task force would be sent to win the battle and kick them out.
Now it's thirty years later these islands are still British and proud
Still doing what they've always done that’s living of the land.
They will always owe to the British armed forces a debt of gratitude
Who came to restore democracy saying they were pleased to give a helping hand.
These Islands hold a special beauty which the tourists now come to admire
The people living on these shores have seen their dreams become reality.
A multi million fishing fleet, the vast oil wells beneath the sea
Will secure their British way of life and that is the way it should always be.
Long Live Republic
Long Live United Islands of South Atlantic [ UISA ] !
Apr 13th, 2012 - 01:08 pm
Of course the danger in thinking that the UN or the Comomwealth or Mercosur or NATO or the FPDA or any other such pact or agreement will guarantee certain things is that they will not, cannot and were never intended to do any such thing.
Countries still need to take responsibility for their own behaviour. KFC seems to think that Mercosur is like a shield of steel and it has buoyed her courage to poke the wasps nest. That and the age old Argentinian mistake of thinking that the UK is weak and has no support. Just like they did in 1941 and 1982.
Apr 13th, 2012 - 01:56 pm
LIAR! PIRATE! SQUATTER! MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS!
Oh very sorry I had a funny turn for a moment there. Normal service will be resumed shortly.
Mutter mutter.
There FIXED that for you. No charge. :-)
I think that Argentina needs to move on in life from being a idiotic adolescent into a mature young person.
Quite how or even if it can achieve this while the CFK tribe are in charge, without bloodshed, escapes me.
Until that time though Argentina is the undoubtedly the laughing stock of the thinking world.
The subs are roughly $1bn each - how many do you want?
“illegal aliens want to remain british they are all welcome to go back to UK ”
How does one 'go back' to a place one has never been? An interesting concept.
Apr 13th, 2012 - 02:49 pm
Argentinian nuclear defence program? You cannot defend anything with a nuclear weapon. They are political weapons, a deterrent, nothing more. In any case I thought Latam was supposed to be nuclear free. Or is that just another 'Argentinian Promise'?
Agreed
The point is that countries and boundaries were primarily formed 200 years ago by invasions and treaties and now invasions are not part of civilised behaviour.
The 1945 reference is a pretty good benchmark to how little things have changed, since then changes are due to the break up of the USSR some teritory which it grabbed during the war.. but things are by and large settled...but the world is a big place.
The thrust of the article is, that boundaries are now fairly stable and only invasions and self determination can cause them to change. You have a choice, invade the Falklands (and we will remove you) or let them decide for themselves whenever they want to.
Contra invasions actions are valid for non Anglo Countries ?
- I welcome the conclusion of defending the consumption of coca leaf, and the request of Argentina to reclaim the Falkland Islands.
- The Falkland Islands are of América”
Well, Evo has got a grain of truth - the Falkland Islands ARE of America - and so is Britain, France, and Netherlands with OCTs. But maybe Evo could fix his first tweet to say that he welcomes the defence of the Falkland Islands and requests Argentina to consume coca leaves.
And you haven't got many of these due to a bad harvest this year. Tu, tut! By the way, when are you illegal aliens in Argentina going to go back to your original country of origin and give the land back to the native South Americans?
@47 - agreed. Pirat-hunter doesn't understand several things about having nuclear weapons:
1. The moral responsibility of having a weapon so terrible that it can devastate huge areas and leave them uninhabitable for decades, if not hundreds of years.
2. Maintaining the upkeep of weapons so their nuclear load doesn't leak causing a health hazard to the local populace. (can be very expensive).
3. Realising that should you use your magic nuclear weapons, that you could expect to be retaliated against in a similar fashion, or that using them against a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons could be considered illegal and risk retaliation from countries that do have them.
4. Perhaps one of the most important reasons is maintaining the security of these nuclear weapons against every nutter and whack job with a chip on their shoulder, who wants to make the world pay for not automatically following their beliefs.
This is why the nuclear 'club' is so exclusive and become twitchy about less stable nations wanting to acquire them. Argentina couldn't afford to develop, buy the necessary parts or maintain these types of weapons, and as you said their glorious leader wants the South America's and South Atlantic a nuclear free zone, and we believe her don't we? Dear Cristina wouldn't lie, much...LOL
This should be entertaining !!
i do want to chat with you on some “” i Phone“”..“” i Pod “”...“” videos “”....
“” MP 3 converters “”......or......“” music ...love guitar ? “”..............!
Rufus ...!
Even if it did buy the technology in, it would be like 30 years behind the UK because no country sells its modern nuclear tech. Russia sells nuclear tech but only the older stuff.
And then you'd be in breach of the treaty you've been so busy trying to defend at the UN.
So essentially not only is it a complete fantasy, its one Argentina can neither afford nor carry out.
I actually think Pirat-munter would fit in very well with the Argentine government, maybe there's a career for him there?
You overworking boy ..
You mused inside of “” pdf “” files again ......didn't you ?
I am always here ...Rufus ...!..whenever you want...Rufus ..!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/9200047/Argentina-to-invade-Falklands-after-30th-anniversary-furore-dies-down-commander-warns.html
To keep posting this link is pointless, repetitive, and boring.
Nothing to see here, move long...
Apr 13th, 2012 - 08:53 pm
Rest assured. If they think they can they will.
show these posters a few YouTube videos...
Rufus !...my ingenious friend..........
Thanks for pointing the true history,Dr Cohen.
The authors salt& pepper,are useless.....
The only aggressors in that area are Argentina
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
NUke the brits PIRATES!
They are so discusting the brits....Oh my God.They are such hateful bunchs
Now settle down, signor ltaliano.
You might tear your stitches too.
Theres a good chap.
The only reason that you don't like Pascoe & Pepper is because they have exposed Argentina's lies.
lf they supported you, you would love them.
Argentina ARE the aggressors & yet you deny it?
Are you mad? Can't you read the truth? Or you just don't like it?
Argentina has NO CASE.
The Falklands are NOT YOURS.
They have NEVER belonged to you.
They NEVER will be yours.
You will NOT return.
So you want to nuke us now, do you?
Thats very nice of you.
lf you did, the UK would nuke you back & we'd both be dead.
And what about your neighbours?
The nuclear dust would blow over them too.
Have you thought about that, or don't you think?
And so you hate us. You've never met us.
You hate us because we defy you.
All we are doing is, quite rightly, refusing to surrender OUR land to you.
You, who have NO RIGHTS here at all, but think you do.
You, who have mismanaged a resource rich & fertile country & driven it into the ground,
You, who deny the natives their basic right to food, shelter etc,
You, who have slums in all your major cities. We have no slums.
You unmentionables do not deserve to live in a country that has the potential, like Argentina.
You should be all kicked out & the land given to a people who would appreciate & look after it.
And the sooner the better.
Mend your ways, ungratefuls
Rufus is busy on YouTube DVD converters right now..
The biggest supremacist, hipocrates the world has ever seen.
You MAY not be Argentino but you are certainly in their mould (Venezuelan, Bolivian, etc.)?
Hysterical, pompous beyond belief, illiterate and misguided.
You do not 'recall' anything: you were not there when these things in our past happened, because in general that was hundreds of years ago.
But you are quite correct in one thing. We have excellent hipocrates (doctors). The word you were seeking I suspect given your diatribe was 'hypocrits', which is exactly what anyone with your name will be.
The British did indeed set up concentration camps during the Boer War, and received a lot of critism from within the British public at the time, as locking away women and children was considered bad form.
However, they were completely the oppposite of what the German's called 'concentration' camps, which actually were a subterfuge for their true purpose. The true name for the camps set up in Germany and territory occupied by Germany in WW2 were DEATH camps, as they were designed to exterminate anyone who didn't fit into the Nazi ideal or way of thinking. So comparing them to the British ones is in fact a deception, or maybe you just honestly didn't know the difference.
The British Empire had it's less than stellar moments over the years, but were quite tame compared to the Spanish conquiscadors, who vigourously wiped out entire civilizations and culture's because they didn't fit in with their 'catholic' ideal.
You mention slavery. The British did not INVENT slavery, it had been happening for thousands of years, and indeed in many parts of Africa during those times it was considered normal business. The British joined in an already established trade along with just about every other European country, and yes people were robbed of their freedom and transported halfway around the world. Then the British people decided that slavery was a bad thing, and it was the BRITISH who stopped the slave trade, not the Spanish, French, Americans, Italians or Dutch. We were able to do this as we had the most powerful navy in the world at the time.
Unlike countries like Argentina, the British face up to history and our place in it. We don't avoid the truth, even when it is painful or embarrassing, unlike others who are constantly bending the truth to fit in with their view of the world and their place in it. That's why we have integrity.
So who is the bigger hypocrite, those who face the truth or those who deny it?
Hello, my Namibian Wabenzi adversary......
I can see that you are in a “Brit Bashing Mood” today.....
Remember that the Bwanas dislike hearing the truth from their inferiors...
Like most anti brits, you know nothing, other than hypocrisy,
At least tell the bloody truth, before you hand draw and quarter us,
Theirs a good chap.
OH and one more little tiny minute thing that might be of interest to you,
The African governments / dictators and leaders , today, and in the past, have committed more slaughter , massacres , murder , of its own people, than most European empires put together.
Go home boy, and lighten up .
Thank you for showing Pedro for the smug, pompous prick that it is.
@69 LEPRecon,
Ditto to the above,
Plus l couldn't have put it better what you wrote,myself.
Actually the Spanish had concentration camps in Cuba before the British.
A fact often conveniently “forgotten” by the anti-Brit crowd.
@70 Think,
You, yourself don't like to hear the truth about the Falklands.
lt upsets your ridiculous malvinista ideas.
@71 briton,
Right on, briton. Refreshing to read after silly Think's silly post.
@72 fermin,
Sean Penn is as inconsequential as you are.
You can check it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory
That is the way Britain treats and uses people living at their territories when they are no longer useful.
As interesting as all you have written is; it has nothing to do with Argentina trying to illegally take over OUR land.
Stick to the subject at hand dear fermin.
We don't care what you say, think or feel about the Falklands.
We only know that we have no doubt that the lslands are OURS & NOT YOURS.
And you would like to remove us from OUR(NOT YOUR)lslands.
Maybe Britain did treat people as you say,
Argentina threw them alive out of aircraft,
Which would you prefer?
It's like saying 'I'm not racist, but I hate all black people.' A contradiction in terms.
In my post about the British concentration camps, I never said they were a good thing or that people didn't suffer in them, but you compared them to German concentration camps which is ridiculous.
The purpose of the British camps in the Boer war was (as the name suggests) to concentrate the people in one area - to keep an eye on them. And no, they were not a good thing, and people did suffer terribly and die in them.
However, the purpose of the so-called German concentration camps was the pre-meditated extermination of groups of people based on their religion, political views, race, sexual orientation or physical deformity.
In other words, people who did not fit in with the Nazi ideal.
The Boer's in the British camps did suffer greatly, no one denies this, just like the Germans don't deny what happened during WW2.
As for Africa, they have been killing each other for a long time based on tribal or religious grounds. Just like Europeans did throughout our history. That's human nature. And the majority of African countries have accepted the borders that now exist and don't think it's a problem. I wonder why you do?
However, as I have said, the British have faced up to the wrongs we have done and admitted them, to ourselves and to the world.
In Argentina they still deny that they systematically wiped out the native populations, and when they do admit it they say they were only doing it in self-defence, and that the indigenous population had no right to try to defend themselves as their land was being stolen.
So who is more deluded and arrogant? Who is the real hypocrite? Those who acknowledge the truth or those who deny it?
As for Africa - not once did I attempt to defend African despots - unlike you that admits to an extent but then throw in the BUT every time. As for the borders do you know how many people died in Africa because of British borders and still are - do some homework before you “dont understand” As for extermination of indigenous population any where on the globe you are correct.
To cut a long story short some Argentines and some Britains need to grow up and reason without attempting to generalise and claiming superiority,integrity, truth etc when neither can.
As for racism - I am black Sir so I know all about it. No lectures required.
I'm beginning to like you, Boy....
A pity that you are such a Neo-liberal Rooinek....
Communists and rednecks have one thing in common! The colour red. As for neo-liberal - nah! More like Libertarian.
Kinda like you too.
Like others here apart from 'I don't Think' who will weasel his words to ingratiate anyone who seems to 'like' him, I am confused.
Just what is it you stand for (apart from being rabidly anti-British) and what is your make-up?
Were your family slaves and are you an American perchance?
Brits ( generalised by Brits = noble responsible people that may have Nuclear weapons because they are responsible and stand for selfdetermination. Argentine generalisation - Brits are pirates etc. My point is: Brits are people like the rest of the world. They have more skeletons in their cubbards ( historically) than most. Many issues of which are still conflicts today - Falklands for example. Therefore please argue but recognise that claiming the moral high ground with your history is really not clever. Rather base your arguments on facts like UN resolutions, International law etc.
Again I dont hate Brits, I hate people that claim supremacy and think they are better than everyone else. Especially when they become personal for lack of solid Arguments.
As for who I am. Perhaps some of my ancestors were slaves - I dont know and dont particularly care. I am of mixed breed - colored,mulatto whatever you like. My mother Afrikaans/Portuguese (Angola - later Mozambique) my father Tswana from Botswana. So I have both black and white genes.Therefore I dont have the luxury to choose between cultures - I am of different cultures. I have many Brits as friends, studied with them even dated some. The Brits in Africa seem much more in tune with historical facts and rerfrain from getting on the superiority train. I also lived in Argentina for a while. So now you know - knock your self out.
I couldn’t have put it better myself…..
I will refrain in the future from calling you Namibian :-)
Thank you for that.
No need to knock myself out, I think I now begin to understand your own personal conflict and lack / rejection of historical facts.
But why on earth call yourself black? The sympathy vote? Be proud of your mixed race, there is absolutely no need to hide that at all.
I am still confused though: you lived in Argentina for a while suggesting that you no longer do.
If you liked it so much and seemingly have much in common with the indigineous natives, what few are left after the genocide by the mixed bag of Argentinos who colonised their land, why do you support them (the murdering Argies) over the Falklanders who did neither?
All the Falklanders want to do is to live in peace in their own country: not in someone elses like the Argies.
lt seems that you, dear fellow are jumping to conclusions.
Nowhere have l ever stated that l am or feel superior to any race or nationality.
l do however absolutely despise malvinistas because of their lies & because they want to take over my home.
l also answer insult for insult as these malvinistas continually insult us then get offended when we reciprocate.
l don't live in an ivory tower as you say, just a modest house. Hint of jealousy there?
l consider sr Think to be one of the biggest anti-British hypocrites that l've ever encountered & l think you're one too.
ln short, if you're an African then our “differences” with Argentina have nothing to do with you.
So why don't you just back off.
British history is longer than most of the younger nations in the 'new' world, but as for skeletons in the cupboard - not as many as you may think. We tend to take our history and publicly air it, we don't let it fester in cupboards. We have faced up to the truths of actions done in our past, and acknowledged that our ancestors did some rather bad things of hitch we are not proud. We also acknowledge that our ancestors did some good things too.
You said in post 77, why should you acknowledge atrocities done by other nationalities, yet you were the one to bring up the German concentration camps. You were the one that compared the Brits to the Germans. All I did was to correct you on this point. Approx 27,000 people died in British concentration camps. These were not pre-meditated deaths, but the action or inaction by British authorities was unpardonable. No one denies this happened. Not a skeleton in the cupboard.
You also appear by your own posts to be anti-British. You bring up an atrocity committed by the British but conveniently don't bother to bring up any atrocities done by Argentina, and there are a few to pick from, some dating only as far back as the 1970/80's.
So you can see why we believe you are anti-British.
Answer this question. The Falkland Islanders have been continuously living on theses Islands for more than 180 years. They killed no one to get the land, it was uninhibited. Do they have the right to determine their own future and allegiance?
anti brit.
Pity they didn't give him a bit of rope and a sudden drop and stop.
“The scorched earth policy is a military strategy or operational method which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. The term was first coined by Lord Kitchener during the Second Boer War, as a measure to force the Boer generals into submission. The Scorched Earth Policy created by the British government in 1900 has become synonymous with the general military strategy where all of the assets that are used or can be used by the enemy are targeted, such as food sources, transportation, communications, industrial resources, and even the people in the area” (Wikipedia) Now I quote you: These were not pre-meditated deaths, but the action or inaction by British authorities was unpardonable.
Thats that then: Proof that it was a planned military action with known consequences and that you are dishonest in your reasoning.Kitchener new the Boer women and children would starve - he didnt care.Anything to win the war.In fact that is how he won the war. The Boer generals could not continue to allow the suffering and extermination of their women and children. That is why they surrendered. Very effective policy indeed.
But I dont count on you attempting to deal with it. Now that is a bridge too far - dashed unsporting I would say.
What did you call the Memsahib ?!?
Una garrapata en el pliege ano-caudal de una vaca?
Well…........
That says two things about you my worthy Tswana foe….
You know about cattle....
And you certainly know about women ;-)
And for that abusive use of the Espanol and the utterly unacceptable comment therein towards our femalesI have reported you to MercoPress.
I agree .
96 Pedro
Anti British,
We have no interest, in you .
.
You seem to be spending an awful lot of time talking about what happened in the Boer War, which everyone agrees was an atrocity. It really is time to move on.
Yes it was terrible, people who are long dead were unlawfully killed (murdered) by other people who are long dead.
Oh, and just to even things up, so people know you aren't anti-British (despite all you comments to the contrary) here is an Argentine atrocity.
Conquest of the Desert in the 1870s were the Argentinians committed what is recognised as an act of genocide against the indigenous tribes.
The current Argentinians are no more responsible for these acts than current British people are for the acts of our ancestors, so I'm not sure why you constantly feel the need to harp on about it, in your completely unbiased way of course. ;-)
So now we've established that the ancestors of British and Argentinans did some very bad things, just like the ancestors of just about every nation on the planet! (gasp!).
Can we get back onto the subject, as I know that since you are not anti-Brit (honest!), you can answer the question I posed in post 88 repeated here just for you:
The Falkland Islanders have been continuously living on theses Islands for more than 180 years. They killed NO ONE to get the land, it was uninhabited. Do they have the right to determine their own future and allegiance?
Answers on a postcard to....
Remember that in Spanish, gender follows nationality.......
It should read “ Mujer Inglesa” ;-)))
Anyhow, you better watch it next time you are in Uruguay!
You seem to have offended poster (98) Mr. ChrisR, a British pensionist from Punta del Este.
And he is a very daaaaaaangerous person.
He has repeatedly, on these pages, threathen us Argies with slashing our jugulars with his “Razor sharp flick knife”.................
He also writes that he has great difficulties learning Spanish.
He hasn't mastered the Spanish “Ñ” yet.
His new year greetings for his Uruguayan friends read.......:
*** Feliz ano nuevo ***
Maybe he was refering to their “ano-caudal pleat”??
Chuckle chuckle©
Thank you for your support, Chris.
Don't worry about Think or Pedro,
l wrote them both off as wasted space quite a while back.
We really have no need to worry.
Poltroons of their calibre will never be a real threat to us.♥
A bit like jeckle and hide.
.
Thank you for your support.
The lies that 'I don't Think' tells are as a result fo his frustration with how things are going for his 'cause' and the fact that I think he cannot think for himself. :o)
You said (in nearly perfect Spanish)…..:
“If I had to choose between an English woman and a cow, I would take the cow”
I say:
If I had to choose; I would take a pretty good look at both ruminants before deciding which one to take ;-)
(104) Isolde
Well……….“Writing me Off” is a giant improvement from last year………. when you threatened to shoot me in the stomach with your 7.62 FAL….
(106) ChrisR
Lies……….? What lies……….?
Truth is “On Record” for anyone that wants to see it….:
en.mercopress.com/2012/02/08/french-photographer-stabbed-to-death-when-taking-pictures-of-buenos-aires-malvinas-memorial / Post No.: 12
I have indeed moved on.Several times. You however remain stuck in your British superiority complex as your incessant whining attests to. There are always three sides to any story as you obviously dont know. The Argentine version,the Brit version and the real version. That is why you should sit around the table about it. I'm not holding my breath though as it took 400 years for the English to stop supressing the Irish.
Bwana Chris please be a good sport, dont report me, I am shivering, please dont, I begg you Bwana Shuh, have mercy on a phoa Blackman Shuh.
Isolde
It is clear that you are experiencing a complete lack of sunshine. After-all going to Maenam,s pier daily to go suck on a Cod - same as yesterday and the day before can be depressing. It can be resolved though. At some point you will have to attempt an Argentine steak. That should boost you energy levels To no end. Try Matahambre, with a bit of chimichurri and Fernet con Cola.Chimichurri tastes a bit like your perfume but not as sweet. That should relieve the constipation and in doing so, your viewpoint on the Falklands conflict.
Now I can see why I, in the past, had to “Think” a bit before responding to your wanton attacks against our beloved Government and our glorious Leader……
You're good :-)
Now just admit defeat and change your views of CFK and this is the beginning of a big friendship :-)
She may be an old cow.
But she gives us milk, filmjölk, butter and cheese.
Besides, most of us remember the time when we didn’t have any cow, but a lot of vain, useless raging bulls that ravaged our veggie garden time after time after time.
If you don't mind, I “Think” we’ll keep our cow.
* As in “Non-Believer”
I take it then that 'the real version' is that according to St Pedro? I bet it has nothing to do with sovereignty.
BTW, you are not black, are you? Why do you use it so, is for the sympathy vote?
At least you have more of an intellect than 'I don't Think'. But that is not saying much.
Pedro, you keep talking of British superiority. In fact YOU'RE the only one talking about it on this forum, which probably means you have an inferiority complex. Well never mind, there are psychiatrists who can help you with this problem.
Every time you post you let a bit more of your racism out. I'm of Irish descent, and I don't need a racist troll like you to tell me what my past is, or the relationship of Ireland to England and the rest of Britain for that matter.
Oh, and what does the colour of your skin have to do with anything? Who cares? Or are you just using it (assuming you are actually black and not just trolling that too), so you can spout you racist drivel? Because, you can't possibly be racist if you is black right?
But back to the subject, because mister “I'm not biased about the British, except in everything I post on this forum” Pedro, are you going to answer the perfectly straight forwards question I have asked you twice?
Oh, how silly of me, of course you're not, it's easier to prevaricate and divert attention than to engage in any actual serious dialogue about the topic at hand.
By the way, I hope you don't live in Argentina, 'cos you are gonna be bankrupt very soon, rapidly helped along your way by those clowns called the Argentinian government. Have a nice day. :-)
How disappointing that you now attempt the old race card. I find individuals that attempt to win arguments with that particular tactic intellectually challenged. Old fox you are Chris - asking me who I am and when I respond, you pull out your crumpled race “ace” Pathetic! My reference to it, because yours and my fathers generation shoved the race issue down my generations throat ad nauseum.I remain uninterested in that subject your generation however cling to it.Is it guilt or hatred? As for blacks not being able to be racist - what a ridiculous notion Leper. Me calling myself black? I am classified as such by my Government and I am totally at peace with who and what I am. I dont require your sympathy, old man, nor anyone elses. The day when we an African and a Brit can call each other (pompous prick - curtesy Isolde) without race comming into it will be a glorius one.
Dear Leper you dont read too well do you. Read a bit and you will see that I clearly state that I used to live in Argentina. As for prevaricating and sidestepping the issue, that is precisely my point.Seldome on this forum do you not resort to the pompous prick tactics and name calling instead off debating. I can sling mud with the best when required, you are welcome to test me.
Finaly the Falklands issue should be taken to an International court in my opinion. If you (Brits) are sure of your case you should have no objections. That would be the civilised way. As far as CFK is concerned my criticism is well documeted on this forum. The latest insanity - Repsol.
Firstly you brought up race, so it's no use complaining about it now. Secondly you call people on here names then appear upset when they respond in kind. If you can't take insults then don't dish them out.
You make a lot of assumptions about posters on this site (strangely enough only the British ones), and despite all your protestations to the contrary show yourself to be anti-British. By the way you have no idea about my age or even my gender so why do you call me old man?
Finally, you could try doing a bit of reading yourself. The UK have tried on 3 separate occasions to take this dispute to the international court of justice, and Argentina have refused.
I wonder why they have refused? Is it perhaps the fact that they know that they don't have any legitimate claims to the islands?
The Argentine government also likes to make statements such as international law doesn't apply to them, and that the people of the Falklands have no right to self-determination, despite this right being enshrined in the UN charter, which they, Argentina signed up to.
The Argentines call the Falkland Islanders squatters and 'imperialist' colonisers, despite the fact that these colonists can trace their ancestors back to about 50 years to before Argentina existed as a fully independent 'colony' free from Spanish rule.
And despite even more ludicrous claims by Argentina the only people expelled from the islands by the British in 1833 where United Provinces soldiers who had set up an illegal penal colony, who then subsequently mutinied and murdered their own commander.
The actual colonists, who'd asked Britians permission to set up in 1832, remained, and Charles Darwin described them in his diary on his voyages on the Beagle, in 1834.
So, who has the better claim to the Islands, the actual people who live their and can trace their ancestors on the islands back more than 180 years, or Argentina who well, can't?
Firstly, what I said was not racist: you mentioned your mixed race (you are not black then by definition, despite what your government says) and I ENCOURAGED YOU TO STAND BY IT. It matters not one jot to me.
Secondly, I agree that the Falklands (there are no Malvinas) SHOULD have been taken to the ICJ. When Britain offered that (some years ago) Argentina REFUSED.
Shows who has the strong case there then.
This things you say demonstrate a deep ignorance, you are really exposed to a corporate media that is not being transparent to you.
Argentina is not asking people living in Malvinas to change their nationality, to change their culture, to change anything.
And if you do not distinguish from the antidemocratic Argentine Government that kidnaped and killed dissidents and the democracy (strong like never before) that Argentina has today you should really start reading something about Argentina.
Different points of view could make you grow as a person, and you could reaffirm part of what you believe and also realize that some things are not as you thought.
How can you talk about Argentina as a menace when the UK is the one being aggressive, even to its own british citizens, Cameron likes democracy, freedom and self-determination as much as Israel likes Palestine.
Fermin, l don't care what you or Argentina want.
You have no rights in the Falklands, never have had & never will have.
lt matters not to me whether you think that l should “grow as a person” by presumably accepting Argentine rule or not.
We will NEVER accept your subjugation of OUR country.
ln other words take your Argentina & get lost.
@108 Pedro,
Black, white, purple or pink,
Who cares. l stand by what l say,
You're a pompous prick.
Maybe l should add resentful & misogynist as in :-
A resentful, misogynist, pompous prick.
You & sr Think have much in common.
As has been pointed out to you,
The UK has offered several times to take the Falklands case to the ICJ & in each instance Argentina has refused.
lmagine IF they did take it to arbitration & the decision went against them.
Do you honestly think that they would accept the ruling?
l guess we'll never know AS THEY WON'T GO!
What does that tell you?
Thank you for your interest in my welfare but l've have enough sunshine to last me the rest of my life.
l revell in the cold.
Lastly, you keep telling me that l feel superior?
Keep it up myneer & l'll start to believe it! (oj!).
@Think,
Up to your slimy tricks again sr Think.
l prefer an FN to a FAL. don't want to burn out the barrel.
Heavy little blighter though.
No, Thinkus, thats too quick for you.
l could think of quite a few exquisite ways of finishing off a malvinista!
lnvade again & you'll find out.
Besides your “flattering” comments and name calling, you've got me stumped. Myneer - ??? Whats that? Are you coming on to me?
You made “flattering” comments & indulged in name calling also.
Doesn't that count?
l made a spelling mistake, big deal.
Coming on to you♥-Are you man enough?
“How can you talk about Argentina as a menace when the UK is the one being aggressive, even to its own british citizens, Cameron likes democracy, freedom and self-determination as much as Israel likes Palestine.”
Please explain, as this has got me confused !
Settling anything through the UN framework or International bodies of any kind is something Argentina has already said it cannot do, regardless of it saying otherwise. Just look at ICSID.
AHAHaha
MAlvinas Argentinas,brits imperialist!
At last we have common ground. The Argentine can have full title to the ficticious Malvinas and we will keep the Falklands.
Can you say something meaningful & intelligent just for once?
Can we rationally debate something with you?
Perhaps you could tell us a little about yourself or your business?
l promise not to insult you if you act like an adult.
Pretty please?♥
You say:
l promise not to insult...........
As Malvinero1 very often (and very rightly) says...:
AHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA...
You insult everybody that dares to raise their eyebrow at British haughtiness and extremism.
Last examples?:
Mr. Skåre that is on your side on the Malvinas Issue but didn't like your haughtiness and extremism...
Mr Pedro that is on your side on the Malvinas Issue, but doesn't like your haughtiness and extremism...
A little introspection my dear squatterette tease.....
A little introspection.....
l can't help it Think, dahling.
Since you have rejected me, my mind is all aflutter ☺⌂.
You should know all about extremism, cher Think.
You should know all about haughtyness.
As you are both haughty & extreme.
lf you think that Falklanders will bend to your haughty will.
Think again, Think.
Tough luck, Thinkus.
You picked the wrong ones to try that on.
Why shouldn't l insult you or others?
You insult me continuously.
Just who do you “think” you are? Dahling♥
I “Think” you totally misunderstood Pedro...
Comparing you to a tick on a cows anus-pleat was no insult, it was actually a compliment.
A thick that reaches such position in life is a bloody lucky tick.
A comfortable place for a tick, sheltered from the burning sun and from rapacious predators.
A great place for a lucky tick to grow fat and complacent and to reproduce herself in a disproportionate manner.
The only minor catch is the bullshit that surrounds the thick her whole life.
Poor Pedro, l'm sure that he's man enough to get over it.
Stop snivelling, Think.
You're making it up as you go along!
And its “tick” not “thick”
Thats what you malvinistas are--“thick”
Now, about ALL those unanswered questions, Thinkus.
Answers? (no, l haven't forgotten?)♥
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!