Tuesday, January 29th 2013 - 03:02 UTC

Are Falkland Islanders the Mapuches of the South Atlantic?

By John Fowler - Frequently controversial newspaper columnist, Matthew Parris, who was a member of the British Parliament during 1982, has not been noted in the past as a supporter of the Falkland Islands in their struggle to avoid annexation by Argentina. It was something of a surprise therefore to read an article by him in The Times of January 26 entitled Argentina’s hypocrites is steeped in blood.

Matthew Parris calls Argentina the ”Rhodesia of the New World” and asks where have all the South American Indians gone?

Supreme Court of Justice, Eugenio, Raúl Zaffaroni describes Argentina's indigenous peoples as “made invisible, survivors of the genocides practised on them.”

General Julio Argentino Roca, later president and the man who ‘wiped out’ the handful of savages during his famous Desert campaign

The impetus for the article, which began, “The Falklands was just a pantomime skirmish, but the wiping out of the country's native peoples was genocide” concerns the question, “Where have all the South American Indians gone?” which according to Parris, “should haunt every traveller to Argentina.”

The answer that Parris gives is that whereas in neighbouring countries such as Bolivia, Peru and Paraguay there are still large indigenous populations who play a central part in the lives of their countries, in Argentina they have been “wiped from history.” He continues, “The European settlers who now populate Argentina – Italian, Spanish, German, Welsh – are the relatively recent inheritors of colonisers who quite simple exterminated the people whose land this was.” This process, which continued from 1820 to 1880, reached its apogee with what became known as The Desert Campaign of 1879, long after Argentina became independent from Spain.

Parris quotes the leader of the Desert Campaign, General Julio Argentino Roca, who later became President of Argentina and whose name and statues litter Argentina today as saying, “Our self-respect as a virile people obliges us to put down as soon as possible, by reason or by force, the handful of savages who destroy our wealth and prevent us from definitely occupying, in the name of law, progress and our own security, the richest and most fertile lands of the Republic.”

Referring to the claim that a civilian Argentine population was expelled from the Falklands in 1833, Parris says, ”It makes the blood boil to hear the current President of Argentina, in her recent letter to David Cameron, describe a pantomime skirmish involving a handful of people (most of whom stayed put anyway and kept their property) on some windswept islands far out into the ocean as having “forcibly stripped” her countrymen of their rightful land; and as being a blatant exercise of 19th Century colonialism.“ The hypocrisy!

Parris continues by calling Argentina the ”Rhodesia of the New World“ and asks, ”If Britain forcibly stripped Argentina of the Falkland Islands, what does Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner think the nation she leads did on the mainland? What words would she find for the cold-blooded and systematic destruction and total dispossession of Argentina's original population by the European invaders whose descendants' votes she now seeks?”

Of course what Parris is referring to when he talks about the genocide of the indigenous peoples of Argentina or the events in Port Louis in 1833, is history, which as we in the Falklands know to our cost, may have more than one version. Parris's view is shared by many in Argentina, including a minister of Argentina's Supreme Court of Justice, Eugenio, Raúl Zaffaroni who is quoted in Gonzalo Sanchez's book, Patagonia Perdida (Lost Patagonia) as describing the descendants of Argentina's indigenous peoples as “made invisible, survivors of the genocides practised on them.”

An opposite version of this episode in Argentina's history which does not figure prominently in school text books is held by many. The issue of what happened to the indigenous people in Argentina in the 19th Century has become an increasingly live one due to the many claims going through the courts for the restitution of what are claimed to be ancestral lands. Perhaps the most famous of these claims was that made for the restitution of 535 hectares of land made by a Mapuche couple, Atilio Curiñanco and Rosa Nahuelquir against the Italian Benetton family, owners in Patagonia of some one million hectares.

Another journalist, Rolando Hanglin is a recent apologist for the efforts made by successive Argentine governments in the 19th Century to eradicate the native peoples. He supports the view that the Mapuche tribe was not indigenous at all to Argentina, but cane from Chile and by their ferocity had either themselves wiped out or forced integration onto the pre-existing indigenous communities. In chilling detail in a recent article in La Nacion, Hanglin describes their bloodthirsty raids on white settlers of Patagonia, with the consequent throat-cutting, rape and kidnapping of settlements and the carrying off of their extensive herds of cattle.

The whole historical issue is clearly a complicated one and subject to very partisan interpretation. Equally complicated is the legal position in this combat between two cultures, one of which invokes a law based on the absolute right of ownership while the other believes that everything including the land is held in common. The reader might at this stage be justified in asking what this has to do with the Falklands and the Argentine claim and the answer, apart from Parris's accusations of hypocrisy on the part of the Argentine Government, may be 'nothing'. There is, however, an interesting parallel to be observed between a government which refuses to admit the legitimacy of Falkland Islanders as a people and those who also deny the rights of the Mapuches: an indigenous group, which whatever its place of origin and however savage its customs has been present in Argentina since before that country even existed.

We return again to the book Patagonia Perdida by Gonzalo Sanchez and the Argentine Minister of the Nation's Supreme Court of Justice, Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni, who is quoted as describing the Desert Campaign as a real massacre and says, “There has never been a massacre without what in criminology is described as a neutralisation of values. I neutralise my values by demeaning my victim. I neutralise my values by claiming that my victim is the aggressor.”

This concept of 'neutralisation of values' which might be also described as an ability to lie to oneself, goes a long way to explaining many of the attitudes of the present Argentine Government towards the Falkland Islanders, their government, the protective British military presence in the Islands that they make necessary and maybe even towards their many creditors.

Penguin News, Deputy Editor John Fowler

142 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.

1 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:27 am Report abuse
Mr. John Fowler,

United States, Canada, Australia. New World.

Show us the mugs of all the presidents and prime ministers of these nations, which are no Rhodesias...

Check mate, you loser!
2 Frank (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:49 am Report abuse
Oh dear, poor old nostrils is using the argentine 'but what about.......' defence again
3 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:51 am Report abuse
@01 TTT

Still here, kid?
4 Faulconbridge (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:30 am Report abuse
the analogy of the Mapuches and the Falklanders comes even closer. There were those in the Argentine military- such as Patricio Dowling- who favoured exterminating the Falklanders when they proved ungrateful for their liberation.
5 Marcos Alejandro (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:36 am Report abuse
Minute 9;30 ”you are English, you are Brrritish..

6 expbrit (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:59 am Report abuse
It's about time the Jefe of the Italian/Spanish/German colony currently using the name “Argentina” (in honour of the genocidal General Julio Argentino Roca) was hauled in front of the UN de-colonisation numpties to explain her failure to return stolen lands to their rightful owners.
7 LEPRecon (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:22 am Report abuse
@1 Nostril

The difference is that none of the others deny what happened in the past, they accept and take responsibility for what their ancestors did.

You Tobias, don't take any responsibility. It was the Europeans, you say, who committed these acts, conveniently forgetting that you are a descendant of those European settlers.

However there is one important difference between the Mapuches and the Falklanders. The Mapuches have no one to defend them from the continued Argentine aggression, which continues to this day.

The Falklanders are well protected from your murderous colonial ambitions.

Come on Tobias, tell us how the Mapuches come from Chile and how they actually all killed each other. Come on Tobias, tell us the same usual lies that hold no weight.
8 toooldtodieyoung (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:26 am Report abuse
1 Tito The Clown Troll

So, it turns out that Argentina's history is soaked in the blood of the innocent, just like everyone elses history....... who would have thought it huh??

For all your posturing and your “holier than thou” attitude, it turns out that your country was built on the blood of the rightful owners...... Once a thief, always a theif huh, Tito????
9 4quk (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:37 am Report abuse
“British Empire - that the British deliberately adopted policies that caused as many as 29 million Indians to starve to death in the late 19th century, say - you smack into a wall of incomprehension and rage.”
10 reality check (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:50 am Report abuse
See Lord Haw Haw is back. One odious Brit dragging another odious Brit into the debate. Nauseating this time of the morning, need a coffee!
11 Xect (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 08:21 am Report abuse
You'd have to deny reality/history to not agree with what was said in the above document.

A common Argentine trait seems to either be to refuse to accept responsibility for its actions or to simply blame someone else. And whenever something is said they don't agree with they simply try to offset the issue with 'but you did this' nonsense rather than staying with the topic.

All in all, the behavior of children.
12 screenname (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 08:45 am Report abuse
@1 Nostrolldamus the 8th

...a simple sorry would have shown you in a much better light.

But no, we get a 'check mate'.

Genocide is not a game.
13 Pvdv (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:12 am Report abuse
As I am aware there is NO book of Octavio Paz called 'Patagonia Perdida'... Also there was no Presidenta Rosa but Roca..
14 falklandlad (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:20 am Report abuse
@ 11 agreed.
15 Gordo1 (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:38 am Report abuse
BRAVO! The present Argentine regime IS, of course, as immoral as the present regime in Zimbabwe!
16 CaptainSilver (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:58 am Report abuse
Where have all the Indians gone? After dark you can still see a handful on the streets of Buenos Ares gathering up cardboard and plastic before shuffling back to the doorways and tented hovels they call home. Unlike the redskins in the US they have no reservations, They were systematically eliminated by the Spanish colonialists in a holocaust far greater than the Nazi one. That's why Britain must protect the people of the Falklands. With their recent history of genocide of the disappeared and invasion Argentineans are not to be trusted.
17 lsolde (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:10 am Report abuse
Thanks, Captain.
We don't trust them.
18 Usurping Pirate (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:14 am Report abuse
Interesting to note that the argentine press , which quotes from our small regionals when it suits them , has made no mention of this article at all .
Parris obviously hit where it hurts .
19 Anbar (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:23 am Report abuse
NostroTrollmus: you seem unable to grasp the difference between accepting what happened and being shamed by it, and refusing that it happened at all, or claiming “”somebody else did that!”.

For somebody who claims to be intelligent you are incredibly naive and, seemingly, utterly incapable of accepting your country's past.
20 CJvR (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:26 am Report abuse

British colonialism in Rhodesia was far gentler than Argentine colonialism in Patagonia.
21 LEPRecon (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:46 am Report abuse
@20 CJvR

But you forget, it was them Europeans who killed all those Mapuches and other Amerindians, it wasn't the Argentines at all. It must be so, because Nostril (nee Tobias, nee TTT, etc...) said so.

He lives in a very black and white world, with no grey to muddy the waters of his thinking.

You see, everything that Argentina does and says is right, therefore everyone else is wrong, no matter how much evidence to the contrary that is produced.

This is why you see Nostril getting in a mood and saying things like, ”We want isolationism. We don't need anybody. Argentina is standing up to (insert name of country or organisation here). Everybody is picking on us. It's Argentina against the world!”

It's this refusal to see accept that Argentina isn't perfect that will be the downfall of Argentina.

I know that not every Argentine citizen is like Nostril, and there are some very honest people who are trying to turn things around in Argentina, but there are too many people like Nostril.

It's easier for them to blame anyone and everyone for their problems, than look at themselves and their country and accept that they are their own worst problem.

It will eventually get to the point where one of two things will happen. Argentina will once again become a dictatorship (it's getting close as it is), or the Provinces will start looking after themselves, and will attempt to cede from Federal control, in order to manage and keep their own wealth for their own people.

Nostril and others like him refuse to accept that this will happen, because in their view Argentina is perfect and everyone is happy, and those that are not happy are obviously paid by the 'enemies' of Argentina to cause trouble.

In the meantime, the Mapuches and other Native Amerindians, are being murdered on a regular basis, with the tacit consent of the authorities.

But Nostril will tell you that these Mapuches are from Chile!! And they are killing themselves, apparently.
22 ChrisR (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:47 am Report abuse
To be completely frank, I would not trust Parris any further than I could kick him.

The only surprise he wrote this article is that somebody paid him enough money.

The Falklands war was a 'little skirmish' indeed. I wonder what he would have said about it if he was on the islands at the time and not ensconced in the safety of the House?

Detestable person (I nearly wrote man, but that would be a sickening moment).
23 CJvR (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:06 am Report abuse
To butcher an old song...

Where have all Mapuches gone?
Long time passing
Where have all Mapuches gone?
Long time ago
Where have all Mapuches gone?
Argies shot them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the Argies gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the Argies gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the Argies gone?
Caught Malvinitis every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have los Malvinas gone?
Long time passing
Where have los Malvinas gone?
Long time ago
Where have los Malvinas gone?
The British hold them every one
You see they have learned.
You see they, have, learned.
24 Joe Bloggs (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:49 am Report abuse

You've said on Mercopress many times that no genocide took place in Argentina.
Do you have any defence to put forward other than “but we weren't the only ones?”Nobody is trying to say that Argentina are the only ones who slaughtered indigenous populations to take over a land.
25 malen (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:50 am Report abuse
what a stupidity...........love the way they change the meanning of words and history so twistted and irreal
the mapuches had an original language, not spanish, an original culture, different to spanish, and were here before the spanish came.
Nothing of this happens with the islanders, that are more british than the british, and they werent original of the land, they came from Britian, 14.000 km away of South America, nothing to do with our region and continent.
Stop with the stupidity, people doesnt eat glass anymore. The lies are incredible.......
26 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:50 am Report abuse
I have already written and discussed about this topic in several occasions. This article is full of historical inaccuracies and has political intentionallity to justify the current status in the FI.

By analyzing the figures of the Campaña del Desierto it's quite clear that there was no genocide at all. It couldn't be proven, with a reasonable doubt, that something close to a genocide was commited. Even from those who was aiming to do so.

Questioning the best generation of Argentine presidents, all free-masons and with excellent economic, cultural and political relacions with the UK, to benefit, and justify, the current FI status is promoting crude and fierce nationalism embodied by Peronism and CFK is a mistake.

Perhaps that's the aim of the writer, Mr. Parris. Perhaps he promotes the existence of Catholic and nationalist extremists ruling Argentina to justify a extremist nationalism in FI.

I have read some posts and comments and it's quite evident that most of them ingore even the most basic facts of Argentine history. But some of them seem to be so arrogant that the claim to know about Argentine history.
27 Welsh Wizard (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:54 am Report abuse
I think that the argument in Argentina generally goes that the current generation, and indeed one generation after the genocide, are substantially “removed” that they are not guilty for those crimes committed before they were born or of an age to stop them. This is a similar argument used by the Germans and one with which I have sympathy. I can't blame the Germans today for the horrific losses suffered during WWII (and as the only country who went to war on a point of principle rather than as a result aggression), we suffered considerably for this. However, the Germans are contrite and teach Holocaust studies at school whilst also trying to ensure that children understand the reasons behind the rise of Nazism…“lest we forget”.

I do not see the same kind of contrition in Argentina. Yes, there are a number of left-wing historians who have decried the treatment of the indigenous population but by no means has this percolated through to the national consciousness (very much like the USA). As such, until this happens there will always be a substantial majority who see the subjugation of other peoples and the subsequent possession of their lands as a moral right, divinely ordained and an ethically acceptable operation of the organs of state. This is where Argentina stands at present. As a nation, it is important to recognise that only by true inner reflection and a historical adherence to the truth can you forge a path of inclusivity.
28 malen (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:03 pm Report abuse
Mapuches still live in Patagonia and have rights as all argentines.
Indegenous mixed with colonists so much, that they surpassed in number them.
And the conquest of the desert was a problem between southamericans, babies.
29 Pheel (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:05 pm Report abuse
Roca`s government had British inspiration and support all the way, anyone knows that but I can`t see reflected neither in the articles nor in the comments. Not only Argentina but Chilean`s contemporary campaign against their own indians too.
British “estancieros” were keen to slaughter the remnant aborigins along the Patagonia.
(Exception should be said on the Chubut Welsh colony.)
At the same time, last Tasman native died under British “Law”.
Instead of Rhodesia you could use Australia as an example of your hypothesis.
30 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:08 pm Report abuse
Any country has is “dark side” in its' history. The UK has it, Argentina also has it. Basically with the Human Rights violation during the last militar government.

But a country, or it's people cannot, be sorry about facts that have never been commited.

I'm sorry, but I would like to invite you to prove, with a reasonable doubt, that a genocide was commited.

Not even the most nacionalst and catholic historians, called “Revisionistas”, could ever proven it.

The alleged genocide of the Campaña del Desierto is a is a hopeless cause.
31 Welsh Wizard (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:18 pm Report abuse
1. A set of rights which has been imposed upon them. In all likelihood they would not have adopted this system;
2. This is inevitable after years of a dominant power imposing its will;
3. The “behind closed doors” argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Germans used a similar argument about the holocaust, Afterall, the majority of Jews were Germans so this was just an instance of German on German violence. The same argument also fails when looking at Rwanda.
32 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:29 pm Report abuse
Dear Welsh Wizard

No matter how many rounds you do about this issue. A genocide must be proven so I kindly invite you to give us real and weighty arguments to prove that it was really commited.

A proof would be (inexcusable) mass graves but nobody could ever find one.

Dear friend, I encourage you to keep trying. Meanwhile, writings as Mr. Parris ones are empty arguments are written without any seriousness.
33 Musky (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:54 pm Report abuse
Parrish is so right about the hypocrissy. CFK spouts rubbish rhetoric about the false 1833 events (only a garrison was removed as well she knows) whilst her own country was guilty of much worse attrocities, even offering bounties for each killed native right up until 1910. The point being is she claims a moral high ground against that of the UK and she has none. Look at your own history Argentina, it's grim.
34 Welsh Wizard (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 12:56 pm Report abuse
Firstly I tried by looking at the census information provided by the indegineous peoples but given that there was none I was unable to determine the exact numbers before and after. I then looked at some of General Roca's comments and he stated (with regards to the desert) that there was nothing there so I could not find any proof there. As it is obvious that he was a liar and that he had re-written history for his purposes. This is pretty easy for anyone to see...
35 Simon68 (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:05 pm Report abuse
The book, Patagonia Perdida, was written by Gonzalo Sánchez, not by Octavio Paz.
36 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:10 pm Report abuse
Dear Musky,
Yuo mentioned that “even offering bounties for each killed native right up until 1910”. This is simply a lie. A law like this was never passed in Argentina. Please, if you think I'm wrong I urge you to inform all of us about the Law number or the Decret Number that established the bounties.

Dear Welsh Wizard.
As we are rational and adult people I urge you to proof with some kind of solid information about the Genocide. Otherwise your arguments are. like Mr. Parris ones', empty ones.

JA Roca, mentioned once that the key of the Desert Campaign was that there were no tribes to fight against. He wanted to express that the “malones” were caused basically by the lack of law and order due to the lack of an organized government. If you want to consider J. A. Roca liar it's up to you. But subjective argeuments and beliefs don't prove a Genocide.
You are on the very same way as the “Revisionistas”, who are basically catholic nacionalists who hae british culture. It's not the best path for you to walk in.
37 LEPRecon (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:11 pm Report abuse
@32 pgerman

Try this:


Also it would help you if your understood the meaning of the word genocide:

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”

So which part of Argentina's role in the conquest of the desert doesn't fit this definition?

So yes, Argentina is responsible for the genocide of the Native Amerindians of Patagonia.

Proof is the fact that Roca ADMITTED to doing it, and was in fact REWARDED for doing so.

You'll be saying next that the Germans didn't commit genocide during the second world war.
38 Welsh Wizard (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:19 pm Report abuse

My arguments are not based on historical fact. Actually, the facts are there i hve just decided to ignore them (for whatever reason). The approach taken by me is exactly the apporach taken by your governemt with regards to the Faslklands. Plenty of extant histrical sources on which to base an argument yet they decide to ignore all of them. Very frustrating especially coming from a country of esentially bright people.

Simon - what is your take on the conquest of the desert?

P.S. pgerman - can you direct me to the law stating that to offer a bounty it has to be passed into law first?
39 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:22 pm Report abuse
Dear LEPRecon

As I have already told you, please, you won't be able to discuss about Argentine history because you don't know it. It's exaclty the same as if I could discuss, in detail, about UK history. Impossible.

If Genocide is determined as “a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group” it's quite evident that the Desert Campaign was not because the goal of it was not to fight against the very few tribes that, at that time were living in the Desert.

Do you have any idea about how many soldiers of the Desert campaign were part of the Argentine Army at that time? Please, check this information

Please, check pictures of the tribes taken at that time and you will see that all the chiefs were wearing militar uniforms. They belonged to the Argentine Army and they recibed their salaries for their job.

Please, I invite you to serach for the law that ordered the Desert Campaign (was a law passed by a Democratic Congress and the Presiden at taht time was Nicolas Avellaneda) and you will be able to read the reasons and goals of the Law

We are all in a dead end since you keep on trying to proof a Genocide without knowing Argentine history and wihout tryng to find proof.
40 briton (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:41 pm Report abuse
Like we always said,

There are two histories,
The real one that the rest of the world relates to,

And the Mickey Mouse one that all indocronoughts are taught.

Poor CFK, she only know the latter one by heart lol.
41 Musky (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:43 pm Report abuse
@36 pgerman

Perhaps I'm wrong to claim an exact date (so disregard it). But in the meantime, ever heard of the Selk'nam People of Tierra Del Fuego ..


I guess further a reference is needed but give me time....

Sorry to depress you.
42 LEPRecon (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:47 pm Report abuse
@39 - pgerman

It isn't about numbers is it? Or maybe it is for you Argentines.

If your population is 2000, and more than 1300 of your people are murdered that IS genocide.

You are trying to twist out of this by saying that this didn't happen, YET Roca himself told everyone that he DID IT. That is an admission from the source at the time of its happening.

The Nazi's in WW2 passed laws against the Jews, so that means by your argument, that those laws were okay, because the German government said it was.

No it isn't, and no it wasn't.

In the 19 century uniforms were irrelvant, because a lot of 'militia' didn't wear uniforms.

Once again you are trying to whitewash Argentine history but the fact is that the Conquest of the Desert took place. The fact is that many Native Amerindians were murdered or driven off their lands. The fact is that Argentina STOLE that land and intergrated into what the country that is now known as Argentina.

It happened. The proof is all around you, only YOU choose not to see it.

You are like Holocaust deniers, you ignore the proof because it doesn't fit in with YOUR beliefs.

Face it, 1st Spain and then Argentina stole the land through conquest. They murdered and dispossed the indigenous inhabitants. Just like the British, French and later the Americans in the North did.

Refusing to acknowledge that Argentina the product of 100% COLONIALISM is outrageous. Refusing to acknowledge that your ancestors stole the land and murdered or ethnically cleansed the local population is also outrageous.

Look around at the population of other South American countries, and then look at the population of Argentina. Tell me, where have all the Native Amerindians gone?
43 stick up your junta (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:53 pm Report abuse
The Argies do tend to like the Guardian :-)

Argentinian founding father recast as genocidal murderer

Julio Argentino Roca being removed from banknotes and street names for alleged role in exterminating indigenous culture
44 Welsh Wizard (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:56 pm Report abuse
Current UN definition of genocide is based on numbers, this is why heads of state don't like referring to genocides as being genocides when they are happening as it [places a legal obligation on them to do some thing (e.g. Rwanda, only a genocide after the killing stopped). This definition does not apply retrospectively (in law) but does in fact/principle.
45 briton (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 02:07 pm Report abuse
CFK in action

We must keep on posting this for the benefit of the free world.
[Malvinas vs Falklands: Negotiations with the U.N ]

ha ha .
46 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 02:14 pm Report abuse

Your figures are completelly wrong. Oficially 1,200 “indios de lanza” were killed in the very few battles of the Desert Campaign. More that 15,000 of others, who beloged to some rebel tribes, were taken as prissioners and finally they accepted the Argentine sovereignty.
Some of them were even released back to their lands.

J. A. Roca was a General that, at the time of the Desert Campaign, was Minister of Defense of the country and he was oblidged to fullfil the Law. So, blame Nicolas Avellaneda who was the President of the Country at that time or the Congress that passed the Law.

You disregard the fact that plenty of tribes were part, officially, of the Argentine Army but this is a vital fact.

Would you imagine the German Army during WWII with jew soldiers?

This is the proof that the Campaign was not against the native people but to bring law and order to this land. Basically to bring the Argentine sovereignty there.

Sir, I'm not white-whasing Argentine history but it's quite evident that you know very little about it and you are just trying to extend it to the FI issue. Basically you need to have a society guilty of genocide as a kind of scapegoat.

Most of the true native people of the current Argentine territory were migrant people with very little popultaion. While in Peru or Bolivia the Inkas stablished an Empire in most of the current Argentine territory there were just migrant people that were not able even to live in cities. That's the reason why most of the Argentine population has European background.

But again, Sir, I'm not trying to proof anything or to extend Argentine history to another current political situations as you are.

So, please, I still want to see if someone in this forum can prove seriously that a Genocide was commited. I would suggest that you contact some of the Peronists historians (called Revisionistas) but most probably they will insult you because they hate British people and culture.
47 stick up your junta (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 02:26 pm Report abuse
16 pgerman (#)Oct 17th, 2012 - 11:06 pm

He reprensents many of us in Argentina who still believe in a liberal and republican country. His statue is in the most important places of the Argentine cities. His image is Even in the 100 peso note.

Not for much longer
48 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 02:39 pm Report abuse
@47 This is the key issue.

Argentina has an historical dilema: it's a country created by free-mason but with catholic polulation.

Nowadays Argentina can be either a liberal and republican country or a catholic and nacionalist one ruled by peronists.

Ironically, some british people here prefer the second option. It's up to them but I still prefer a liberal and republican political organization for my country.
49 Welsh Wizard (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 02:57 pm Report abuse
out of interest, are you a radical?

secondly, you can be catholic and a freemason
50 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 02:59 pm Report abuse
Can we ever forget the war of the triple alliance?Paraguay loses 90% of its population 55% of its land.The Argentinian state of Formosa FORCIBLY STRIPPED from it,remember that phrase ?
The war of 1840 against Uragauy ,and the plan to invade Chile after the Malvinas campaign.The Falkland Islanders are not the only South Americans to be landed with the NEIGHBORS FROM HELL!
51 Ted (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:03 pm Report abuse
They do it seems have a habit of losing (or disappearing) people.
This is from the forum of Assata Shakur, under the heading “Blacks in Argentina What Happened to Them After Enslavement?”
52 ElaineB (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:10 pm Report abuse
“As I have already told you, please, you won't be able to discuss about Argentine history because you don't know it. It's exaclty the same as if I could discuss, in detail, about UK history. Impossible. ”

That statement is absolutely not true. You do not have to be born in a country to analise the history. You just have to be a good historian.
53 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:11 pm Report abuse
Now we jump to Guerra de la Triple Alianza !!!...ahhh yes...and I can imangine that you, Mr. toxictaxitrader2, are an expert about it.

I would suggest that you read Jose Maria Rosa's book..ha ha..
54 Musky (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:13 pm Report abuse
@46 pgerman
We do not need you as a scapegoat, we need you to realise that you can't pontificate when your own history is no better than our own.
55 Conqueror (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:20 pm Report abuse
@22 Really? And the basis for your “judgement”?
@25 You are so right. Where are the Mapuches? I note that you put them in the past tense, so you obviously killed them all. And where did “you” come from? Spain, Italy, Germany? 14,000 km away from South America. Which is not “yours”. “You” are just invading murderers. Still invading and murdering as little as 128 years ago.
@26,30,32 And your incontrovertible evidence for your assertions is what? Evidence from argentine sources? Why would argies want to hide their murderous, genocidal history? Could it be the same sort of reason that Hitler had for trying to destroy the remains of all the people he had murdered? Mass graves? Why would argies go to the trouble? Leave the bodies where they fall. To be eaten by the wildlife. Or toss them into a river or the sea. They rot so much better. Why are you such an apologist? Do you live there? A bit of shame perhaps?
@36,39 Again, your “evidence” please? From non-argie sources. We know that “argies” have been “altering” their history since the 40s. And they've “altered” parts going back 200 years. So, nothing argentine is believable. For most of the world, if argies said that the world was round, nobody would believe them.
@46 Looking back over your comments, would you like to check some pictures of North American indians? Many were photographed wearing parts of US Army uniform. Trophies! And why wouldn't South American indian people do the same? It's hard to imagine a territory of over a million square miles with NO indigenous people. Asia, Australia, Europe, Africa, North America, its never happened. Let's take Asia. The Mongols were a migrant people. They weren't indigenous? Do tell us which you are. Brainwashed or paid?
@54 But his history is WORSE than ours. In less than 200 years, his “country” breached every tenet of “civilised” behaviour. And continued to do so into the 80s.
56 Simon68 (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:21 pm Report abuse
38 Welsh Wizard (#)
Jan 29th, 2013 - 01:19 pm

I'm afraid I'm somewhat biased in my view of Julio Argentino Roca and the Conquest of the Desert, as my maternal grandparents were Mapuches.

JAR defintely set out to kill off the indigenous populations of what is now known as Patagonia that would not bend their knee to the central government, his job which was given to him by Nicolás Avellaneda was to force Argentine svereignty on the empty lands to the south in the face of Chilean claims on them, so the inhabitants either accepted Argentine sovereignty or were killed. In the end some 20.000 accepted to become Argentines, but even today the Mapuche people are mor Mapuche than Argentine!!!!!!

I think the main thing is that there is an estimate of the indigenous population of what is now Argentina in pre-colombian times, which if I'm not mistaken was around 2 million, today there are 600.000 amerindians in our country, so between the Spanish invaders and our own efforts which are going on today, we've managed to slaughter 1.4 million indigenous people!!!!!!
57 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:24 pm Report abuse
I keep reading the following words “the USA, Canada, Australia have accepted and taken responsibility for the past”.

I've read this countless times... but guess what? ZERO evidence, zero corroboration, zero elaboration on the statement.

If I threw a statement out there without backing it up, what would you conclude?

Oh, that's right. Hipocrites much again?

Do I need to bring the articles back about the aboriginals in Australia have the lowest living standards of any people's in so-called “developed” nations? How about the article about Canadian native americans protesting because 150 years and many of the still have no access to WATER (in a land that has one of the world's largest reserves of fresh water!!!). How about brinbing back the article about the massive under-education, disease, and substance abuse problem in American “reservations” (see thesaurus entry = internment camp).

If that's accepting resonsibility in the anglo moral code, then I'm very proud to deny, deny, deny.
58 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:25 pm Report abuse
Dear Welsh Wizard. No, I'm not radical at all. I prefer to define myself as republican and liberal a little bit leftist.

Yes, you can be both catholic and free-mason but the Catholic Church won't accepto you. You are excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Dear ElaineB, you are partically right. The best book written about Rosas was the one of John Lynch a British historian. But my reasoning is applicalbe to common people who are not historians.
59 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:29 pm Report abuse

“think the main thing is that there is an estimate of the indigenous population of what is now Argentina in pre-colombian times, which if I'm not mistaken was around 2 million, today there are 600.000 amerindians in our country, so between the Spanish invaders and our own efforts which are going on today, we've managed to slaughter 1.4 million indigenous people!!!!!!”

That is the biggest Scheißhaufen/tas de merde figure I've ever read here. Quite an achievement.

At best, there were 500.000 in what is today Argentina. That is the highball estimate, low ball is 100.000... may I remind you 1/3 of Argentina is Patagonia and there at best 50.000 lived. And the Pampas only supported basic hunting and gathering, no large communities of any kind. Only in the northwest do you see the ruins of larger settlements, and guess what, take a trip around Salta and Jujuy, I see lots of native faces and influence in the poluation, so they can't all be dead or exterminated.

1.4 million dead your big fat arse.
60 Shed-time (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:38 pm Report abuse
FACT A) General Julio Argentino Roca was guilty of war crimes (genocide)
FACT B) Argentinians glorify him
FACT C) Argentinians glorify war crimes on their bank notes et cetera
FACT D) Argentinians glorify war
FACT E) Argentinians are guilty of war crimes (unmapped mine fields)
FACT F) Argentinians love war and war criminals
FACT G) Argentinian government sponsors international terrorists (The Condors, La Campora)

The facts are pretty clear from where I'm sitting.
61 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 03:42 pm Report abuse


62 ChrisR (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:02 pm Report abuse
60 Shed-time

But you are forgetting (according to pgerman - who probably is) that you can ONLY discuss the history of a country if you live there!

So stating facts counts for nothing.

63 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:05 pm Report abuse
Who are the ones telling me all the time I can't talk about anything because I haven't left Mendoza?

Don't tell me.... another example of HYPOCRISY!!
64 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:17 pm Report abuse
Dear ChrisR, Are you taking “Shed-time” comments seriously?
Please.........we are adults. Aren't we?

As regards the population of the current Argentine territory there has been plenty of discussions about it.

It''s very difficalt to stimate it because most of the true original people were migrants ones that are ususally small groups.

Mapuches, that cannot be considered “true orginal” people use to cross the Andes firstly for trade and them to take part in the “malones”.

But it's sure that Argentina during the Presidence of Nicolas Avellaneda had 2 milion of inhabitants (considering the so called “tribus amigas”) and the Desert Campaign led to take 15,000 native people (add the mentioned 1.200 casualties) so let's infer that by 1880 there were 20.000 poeple living in the Argentine territory that didn't recognize Argentina as a Nation
65 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:18 pm Report abuse

“Now we jump to Guerra de la Triple Alianza !!!...ahhh yes...and I can imangine that you, Mr. toxictaxitrader2, are an expert about it. ”

Toxic, it's laughable that Mr German tries to call you out about being an “expert”.

For the past 7 months I've read his posts, ever since he introduced himself as an Argentinian living in Vancouver Canada who “loves British culture”.

Yes, he does live here, I see him nearly every day, he parks his Ford Escape near my work.
I'm sure that he enjoys living here - it is possible to be a proud Argentinian and enjoy the benefits of British civilisation and a stable peaceful tolerant inclusive, culture, funny that he makes a point of mentioning that though, as if it qualifies him as “impartial” or “open-minded”.

Pgerman, self-described as an Engineer, has stated that he is writing a book on Argentine history, to tell the “real” history, as he says.
Bear in mind that Pgerman is NOT an Academic, or a professional historian, he makes his living as a fulltime Engineer.
Nor does he seem to have the objectivity to write an historically accurate or “correct” history of Argentina.
There have been several times on Mercopress that he has tried assert his opinion of events, but his logic has been proven flawed, his objectivity questioned, and his arguments have omitted certain information. His point of view was easily dismissed by other posters, including historians and other authors with a knowledge of South American history.

He seems pretty full of himself for someone with dubious qualifications for writing a “history”.
66 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 04:27 pm Report abuse
Dear Troy Tempest

I'm sorry Sir, but you are wrong and lying. I have never said that “he is writing a book on Argentine history, to tell the “real” history, as he says”.

And yes I'm an Argentinian born Engineer living in VA, Canada. I got my Degree in UBA and I lived in Bs As several years. And yes, I like British culture. What's wrong with that?

In addtion, I'm not who is under discussion. I'm not so important. Neither you. We have been discussing about J. A. Roca.

So, please, don't make me waste a single minute discussing with you. Don't waste your time writting about me. It's useless. Have a nice day !!
67 CaptainSilver (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:28 pm Report abuse
#59 - Aha Jim lad... I see they were hunter gatherers, is that why you have got the tiny remainder of the indigenous Indians gathering up all the cardboard and plastic after dark?

Nothing much seems to penetrate the Rg bozone layer. A load of ignoranuses. Admit they are a load of colonialists? Not a chance....
68 Troy Tempest (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:32 pm Report abuse
Dear Pgerman

I am not “wrong”, nor am I “lying”. I stand by what I say.

You have cast deirision towards Mr. Toxic, stating that he is not an “expert”, leading us to infer that you know more than he does. What do you know about him.
I am sure that as a proud Argentine patriot, you have studied your own history.
However, from what you have posted on here, I am calling into question, your own objectivity and qualifications as an historian.

You do not seem to think it is not fair for foreigners to criticise argentina. For you to speak against our culture to promote your goals (you and Argentina) while you enjoy the benefits of our society which welcomed you, seems hypocritical.

I am not trying to persuade or argue with you. I just want others to realise that your perspective is only subjective.
Good day.
69 Monkeymagic (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:39 pm Report abuse

What you fail to see is that 99% of posts on these boards come back to the Falklands question and the ridiculous, appealing, childish behaviour of YOUR government , TODAY.

Europeans, your ancestors, my ancestors...whatever, did shit things in the name of Empire. Lots of people died.

Pretty much everybody else in the world has moved on and accept that the land where you live belongs to the people that live there, as of today.

You could make the odd territorial integrity argument, and there are a few recent historical issues (e.g. Israeli/Gaza/Golan Heights) but none of these are in any way relevant to the Falklands.

Quite frankly, the Malvinista case (as repeated ad infinitum by your government) is absurd, massively hypocritical and downright offensive.

Your government claims the land was usurped. Think admits that the only eviction was of 50 odd rapists and murderers who'd been there only 10 weeks and were mostly non Argentine.

Your government claims Britain wants access to the oil, but the only government that will profit is the FIG.

Your government claims the Falklands are militarised...30 years ago 900 people died because ey weren't defended.

Your Government lies...simple as that. If they dropped the ludicrous claim to other peoples homes, homes that came at a cost of 900 lives in living memory, you'd find these boards virtually empty.

The Argie-bashing that you detest is a direct result of the insane propoganda perpetrated by your Government. Perhaps next time you are in a voting booth you should consider that.
70 pgerman (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 05:47 pm Report abuse
Dear Trot Tempest.

I'm a person and I make mistakes, I can be wrong or write things that are not nice based on the fact that English is not my mother tonge. So, probably, sometimes, it might happens that I don't have the best or the right vovabulary as to express myself without being rude or politically wrong. If so, please, accept my apologises.

But you mentioned that you have been following my posts, if this is true I chanllenge you to find a comment or post from me against British culture or against the Crown. Or against the FI people. Just to the contrary, I have alwaus been more than gratefull with Canada and the British people. And I mentioned that several times. The fact that I think a little bit different from you about FI doesn't change my good thoughts about UK and it's culture at all.

But somtimes I noticed that in this forun people like me, an Argentine that accept british people and like British culture is not wellcome because plenty of you need us as your enemy.

In addition, I love Argentine history so it's quite evident that some people here mix things trying to take a theorical avantage towards FI situation.

But, forget about me. I'm not the problema here to be discussed
71 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:01 pm Report abuse

Yes, we are going to vote based on “what the UK or the rest of the world is gonna think of us”.

You are more deluded than I even thought, and you know what I think of Europeans.
72 GeoffWard2 (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:04 pm Report abuse
Well, for the apologists, many colonised regions of South America suffered real genocides (see Diamond J.). It happened both before modern national boundaries were established and after it ... right up until the present day.

We 'turn the blind eye' to the excesses of the coronels and their pistoleros, and the ranchers, and the loggers.
We set up protection agencies such as FUNAI (Brasil's National Indian Foundation) and then disregard and manipulate the law to circumvent the protections. Such is corruption when there are valuable resources at stake.

I must thank Think - or was it Chris? - for directing me to Monte Reel's 'The Last of the Tribe'. This shows that at least some parts of this great Continent have attempted to reserve land for the indiginants.

But it seems to me that certain nations have tried to eliminate not only the native tribes but also their Black populations. This is unacceptible.

It is obvious to me that absorption of races/tribes/genomes will take place across a highly populated and massively mobile world.
(I have, done my bit but not in the interests of a better society - were I still able (!) my offspring would be a mix of European caucasian, Mayan, and African negro).
In Europe the echo of neanderthal genes are present in most caucasians.

It would have been preferable to allow such absorbtive processes in the New World, rather than to resort to genocide, but 'modern' colonisations are spasmic and overwhelming.
Human nature at its worst prevails; arguable nowhere more so than in Argentina.
I have more time for Parris (a Conservative) and, in general, admire his analyses and thoughts, but I disagree with his perview of the Falkland Conflict/War and where this leads his specific argument.
73 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:10 pm Report abuse
“In Europe the echo of neanderthal genes are present in most caucasians.”

The brits wholeheartedly denied this when I said it. I was racist, they said, so must be you then. Right my neanderthalish Brits??

“Human nature at its worst prevails; arguable nowhere more so than in Argentina.”

I'll argue where humanity is far worse than in Argentina:

Antigua & Barbuda

Bosnia & Herzegovina
Burkina Faso
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Congo Democratic Republic of
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
East Timor
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea

Korea North
Korea South
Marshall Islands
Myanmar (Burma)
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Palestinian State*
Papua New Guinea

(to be continued)
74 cornishair (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:27 pm Report abuse
“I'll argue where humanity is far worse than in Argentina” it looks like Think, thinks Argentina is the centre of the world :) awesome lol, not a bighead then!
75 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:32 pm Report abuse
On the contrary, I'm saying compared to the crimes that have been commited in Europe over the centuries (including the UK, and even recently in the balkans), in Africa even today, in Asia (ditto), in North America, and the gang/drug crimes in Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru back in the day (sendero luminoso)... Argentines are veritable saints.

You are monstrously evil societies, you all disgust me.
76 cornishair (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:42 pm Report abuse
hmmm..... ar·ro·gant



Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


haughty - proud - conceited - supercilious - lofty
77 Think (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:42 pm Report abuse

Firstly, I must say that I’m glad and thankful for every inch of text written anywhere in the World in support of the Indigenous Peoples plights and struggles in South-America and especially in Argentina…..

Every little drop helps…..

Having said that........, I “Think” that the Indigenous Peoples Issue in Argentina is totally irrelevant to the “Malvinas Issue”…….
As irrelevant as the Indigenous Peoples Issues in the UK (like the Highlands Clearances or the Irish Famine) are to the “Malvinas Issue”…….


Article asks…:
Are the Falkland Islanders the Mapuches of the South Atlantic?

I say……..:
No, they aren’t !
But them Kelpers certainly are quite similar to the Orangemen of Ireland, I must say…..
78 Monkeymagic (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:55 pm Report abuse

I actually said you should vote on whether you want a government that lies to you and world and makes you a laughing stock.

Your “problem” is you think your government is you...insult the government and insult Argentina. A strategy used by most pariah governments.

This is where Simon is far more intelligent.

He sees the corrupt, thriving, lying, murdering shithole of a regime and wants better for “his” Argentina. You are proud of it, and see them as brave and honourable.
79 stick up your junta (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 06:56 pm Report abuse
But them Kelpers certainly are quite similar to the Orangemen of Ireland, I must say…..

And the Argies are not too disimilar to the I R A

Historical detective trail reveals 'ethnic cleansing' by IRA in Cork
80 Think (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:01 pm Report abuse
Article asks…:
Are the Falkland Islanders the Mapuches of the South Atlantic?

I say……..:
No, they aren’t !
But them Kelpers certainly are quite similar to the Orangemen of Ireland, I must say…..
81 Tobers (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:02 pm Report abuse

Its relevant for the very simple reason that your -government- keeps using the world -colonialism- against Britain. Argentina is a product of colonialism. Its culture is European. If you didnt want to speak spanish, pray to a christian god, give your land, food and taxes to the white man, or want your wife raped by a soldier - you were killed.
82 DanyBerger (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:04 pm Report abuse
@5 Marcos Alejandro

The stupid woman from the F islands trying to sound English and claiming to be white. Ha ha

Hello sir i’m white you know?
I didn’t noted that?
Where are you from again?
FI sir

And your pyjamas?
83 briton (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:06 pm Report abuse
I'm saying compared to the crimes that have been committed in Europe over the centuries
Argentines are veritable saints.=
Yes but
Those same saints throw nuns out of helicopters did they not?

Not very civilised,

When Argentina has a two thousand year old history,
As most of Europe and Africa does,

Please feel free to come back and repeat that story!!
84 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:12 pm Report abuse

Ah the “our history is longer” card.

But aren't you Euros proud of your long history and culture, and brag about it by saying in comparison Argentina has no history or culture??

As I have always said, and once again proven, you Europeans and Brits want to be lauded for the positive appurtenances of a long history... but then want to disown the dirty laundry such a long history piles up.

Just like I've always said.


Show me the threads and posts where I have openly supported the government. I have never said whether I support them or not. I do not discuss domestic affairs with foreigners.

Argentines must stand united against foreigners, not against one another that is exactly what you all want and I refuse to participate.
85 4quk (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:12 pm Report abuse
Effect of King Philip's War on Plymouth Colony
In the fourteen months of King Philip’s War in 1675-1676, Plymouth Colony lost close to eight percent of its English adult male population to Indian warfare or other causes associated with the war. Indian losses were much greater, with about 2,000 men killed or who died of injuries in the war, more than 3,000 dying of sickness or starvation, and another 1,000 Indians sold into slavery and transported to other areas, such as the Caribbean. About 2,000 Indians escaped to other tribes to the north or west; they joined continued Indian attacks from those bases well into the next century. Historians estimate that, as a result of King Philip’s War, the Indian population of southern New England was reduced by about 60 to 80 percent.
86 falklandlad (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:12 pm Report abuse
#80... ah ah, El Think you are alive and well then...that's good, but I see you have not answered my earlier question though.
But in respect of this string, what is wrong with showing allegiance, especially to Queen and country, or have I missed something?
87 stick up your junta (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:17 pm Report abuse
@ 85
Something a bit more modern

Desaparecidos is the Spanish word for “The Disappeared.” For thousands of Argentine families, this word has become a symbol of a long harrowing nightmare
88 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:23 pm Report abuse

Something a bit more modern thant modern, such as in “recent”.


89 Think (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:30 pm Report abuse
(86) falklandlad ... ah ah Falklandlad, you are alive and well as well then....... that's good too.

1) Havn't I answered you earlier question?.... What question was that?

2) Nothing wrong with showing allegiance to Queen and Country...... when you are a “Full Metal Jacket British Squatter” serving the geopolitical interests of the UK in the South Atlantic....

3) What's wrong is when you Kelpers whine about being a “Small Nation” of “Distinct People” who want to live in “Peace and Harmony” with their neighbours.......... Have I missed something?
90 briton (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 07:54 pm Report abuse
84 Nostrolldamus

Ah the “our history is longer” card.
[ but others are longer, if you go anti clockwise, is this not true ]

But aren't you Euros proud of your long history and culture,
[[sometimes yes, sometimes no, a bit like argentina really. ]]

brag about it by saying in comparison Argentina has no history or culture??
[you have both, just not as long as us,]]

As I have always said, and once again proven, you Europeans and Brits want to be lauded for the positive appurtenances of a long history... but then want to disown the dirty laundry such a long history piles up.
[well, we could always blame it on either the bell boy, or Africa. ]]

Just like I've always said.

Argentines must stand united against foreigners,
[but most of you are … ]]

man made , man taught , man corupted ..
91 CJvR (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 08:16 pm Report abuse

Actually Neanderthal genes are present in all modern humans except pureblooded Africans. It has to do with the migration patterns of the early hominids.
92 Think (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:08 pm Report abuse
Fresh from the oven.....

93 redpoll (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:24 pm Report abuse
Can I put an oar in for the Welsh colonists of Patagonia? They got along extremely well with the indigenous population. One of the main points of thier disagrremnt with the RG govt was thier refusal to do military service against the tribes
94 toxictaxitrader2 (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
I propose that when Formosa is returned to Paraguay,the U.K. The EUROPEAN UNION and the Falkland Islands Government should go to the U.N. and talk.
95 yankeeboy (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:22 pm Report abuse
Nice letter from CELAC the Falklands should respond with:

This was settled in 1982 with the surrender of Argentinian forces.

please see below:
96 lsolde (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 10:40 pm Report abuse
@77 & 80 Think,
“the Kelpers are similar to the Orangemen of lreland”
you mean, dear Think, the Europeans of Chubut Province, don't you?
The only killing done here in “them” lslands were by a few criminal gaucho squatters while in your “peaceful” province there was genocide against the natives, the rightful owners of the land.
So you not only murdered them, you stole their land as well.
Truly despicable, Think. Then you have the hypocritical gall to say that OUR land belongs to you.
Go away, Think, go far,far away.
May you be forgiven by someone for your outrageous lies.
By someone, but not by me.
97 andy65 (#) Jan 29th, 2013 - 11:38 pm Report abuse
@84 Nostrolldamus the 8th Not sure why you have a hatred of Europeans after all thats how you came about because of your European Ancestors screwing each other or perhaps your European Daddy played around with you when you were small but one things for sure it's quite obvious your darling lady president SS Kirchner definetley likes sitting on European C..k with a name like Kircher northern European C..k. Perhaps you should complain to her about it and find what she finds so nice about us Northern Europeans you dick head.
98 redpoll (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 12:30 am Report abuse
Poor old thunk knows nowt about the Orange order
If he did he would be marching along with them under the banner “Remember 1690 : No surrender” and beating the hell out of his Lambeg drum till the blood from his knuckles stained the drum
Sounds a bit like him and his colonist Scandinavian ancestors mebbe?
99 Nostrolldamus the 8th (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 12:49 am Report abuse
I see that the entirety of the UK contingent here submissively and cravenly burked @88.
100 Bongo (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 01:06 am Report abuse

Ohhhhh a letter, how terrifying.

The UK will immediately give up and hand the islands over to Argentina.

Seriously, trying to find intelligence in a Malvinista is akin to locating a brain in an atheist. In theory it should be achievable, in practice it's near impossible.
101 Musky (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 08:29 am Report abuse
@55 conq
True, their history is worse. They are in denial, their integrity is lost. We have feathers in our cap, they have no cap essentially.
102 Monkeymagic (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 10:01 am Report abuse

Did Argentine show them your “National Archives” which show that the only Argentines ever removed were only there for 10 weeks and had already murdered and raped...or did you lie to them too?

“Moreover, they reiterate the importance of complying with the provisions of Resolution 31/49 of the United Nations General Assembly, which calls upon both parties to refrain from adopting decisions that entail the introduction of unilateral modifications to the situation while the Islands are subject to the process recommended by the General Assembly”.

LOL..like invading at the cost of 900 lives...jesus!!!
103 DanyBerger (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 10:27 am Report abuse
Hello Mapuches everything all right?

Can someone tell me how to say “UK a falling country” in Mapuche language?

104 ChrisR (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 11:11 am Report abuse
100 Bongo

I am an atheist.

Justify your statement regarding “trying to find intelligence in a Malvinista is akin to locating a brain in an atheist.” by using hard facts, not your opinion.
105 Clyde15 (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 11:34 am Report abuse
Careful Dany, the UK may just fall on Argentina -game set and match to us.
106 Welsh Wizard (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 11:37 am Report abuse
93 redpoll

That's because us Welsh are a bunch of fcuking legends
107 LEPRecon (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 01:48 pm Report abuse
@99 - Nostril

You have posted that website before. It isn't proof. It is maintained by a 'British' hater and Taliban/Terrorist sympathiser, such as yourself.

Most of the so-called 'incidents' on there NEVER happened, and those that did happen have all been investigated and dealt with under the law. You see they add the ones that did happen to give the site so-called legitimacy, and then add blantant lies on there so people will think its true, but there is no EVIDENCE supporting their claims.

You do realise that anyone can create a website, don't you Tobias? And that anyone can add anything they like and make any accusations they like, and idiots (Yes Tobias I mean you) believe in what they write. There is NO proof, and you trying to use this website AS proof, shows just how weak your so-called argument is.

Try Amnesty International if you want an unbiased view of what is REALLY happening around the world.

What about the native Amerindians that are still being murdered in Argentina, Tobias?

In fact, look around you, where ARE all the Native Amerindians who used to live on the land that YOUR ancestors stole?

Oh, that's right YOUR ancestors murdered them, didn't they? And the few that suvived aren't treated as equals in Argentina because they are not WHITE.

Yes WHITE, Tobias, just like YOU. A descendent of WHITE Europeans, who murdered, raped and stole the land that you currently reside on.

That is why the world sees Argentina as hypocrites. Argentina a product of aggressive colonialism.

The rest of the world, including your South American neighbours, see right through Argentina. But you don't need anyone, do you Tobias?

Soon you'll be like North Korea. A country so bad, and lacking in food that the people are forced to eat their own children.

108 JohnN (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 02:00 pm Report abuse
South Georgia December News & Events just uploaded!

Click link below to read:

- Next Commissioner Announced
- Invasion Of South Georgia - Thatcher’s Worst Moment
- Shipping News
- Worsley’s Almanac Returns To The Island
- Far-flung Jurisdiction Visit
- Mountains - New Stamp Issue
- Bird Island Diary
- South Georgia Snippets


If link broken, go to homepage and in left frame click on news+events: www.sgisland.gs
109 stick up your junta (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 02:04 pm Report abuse

There you go dippy

Argentine police officers accused of torture that appears on video
110 briton (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 07:22 pm Report abuse
A French minister today caused havoc across France when he stated that France was broke/bankrupt, and could not afford its debts,

Straight away French officials bolted from TV, Station to radio station, saying he did not mean what he said, he made an error,
He was very quickly and sharply shut up and removed..

David if this is not a further warning, Europe is collapsing fast, and they are lying and deceiving, to cover it up, and they will drag us down with them,

As for you indoctrinated anti British Argies,
Perhaps you should aim your spear at the French and not us,
For it is the European Union that’s finished,

But the British are holding there own, as usual..
111 axel arg (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 07:38 pm Report abuse
I parris, fowler, and many others people who publish their opinions in the press about this conflict, would know much more about our constitution, they would not make such a mediocre and hipocrite comparison.
While it is true that a conservative genocide like julio roca decimatted the originary populations when he leaded the so called desert campaign, in fact, according to the scientist commission that accompanied roca during the campaign in 1880, the 56% of the originary populations, some of them were killed, and others were arrested, beside, they were despoiled from their lands, which were divided among the 300 riches families from buenos aires, beside, roca reimplanted slavery, due to the people who survived after the genocide were forced to work as servents of the rich families.
Anyway, despite this genocide, the argentine state made a historic reparation for the originary populations, due to article 17 of chapter 4th from our constitution, expresses that it's a duty of the congress to signalize the ethnic and cultural pre existance of the originary populations, beside, it is also a duty of the congress to give legal protection to their lands, beside, it must also to regulate the grant of lands etc etc. In dicember 2011 were restituted the lands to the curruhinca population from neuquen.
On the other hand, there is still a lot to do for our brothers from the originary population, because some of them are still victim of powerfull masters who expeal them from their lands, with the purpose of planting soya.
Now my question is, when will the u. k. make any historic reparation for arg., for having deprived it from the islands in 1833?, don't worry, i already know the answer, its never, because like it or not, such an admirable nation like the u. k., in some aspects still behaviours like the same thief of XIX century which deprived arg. cowardly from the islands in 1833.
112 briton (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 08:07 pm Report abuse
your axel is broken again,,
running on 3 wheels is blindingly false reading .
113 Islander1 (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 09:12 pm Report abuse
Axle, 1833 - are you talking about the River Plate States Militia and their wives/companions who had been in the Islands for just 3 Months (approx 90 days only) prior to Jan 3rd 1833 - who were indeed expelled.

Or are you talking about the civilian settlers - some of whom had been in the Islands for 2-3 years - of whom approx 22 freely chose to stay and accepted British rule.
Or the 4 who chose of their own free will to leave(2 Uruguayans and 2 Brazilians).

Of those who freely chose to stay - one lady later married a british settler - and that blood is still in the islands today.

The eldest of those original 22 finally died here 1868 an
is buried in Stanley Cemetery.

Now does a 3 months residency in a place enable you to claim to be the people citizens and sons of that land?
Or the Islander family that has 9 generation born here?

Do tell me which has the better right of claim to call these Islands their home?
114 lsolde (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 10:24 pm Report abuse
@113 lslander1,
Axel is a dopy idiot, who just goes on with the same old rubbish everytime it posts.
The evidence of his country's ridiculous “claims” have been pointed out to him many times, but it is inconvenient to his warped thinking so he just ignores them.
He says that he is a Geography teacher somewhere.
lf so, then l pity his students.
He thinks that Argentina actually has “rights” in the Falklands & that they would be doing us an almighty favour to “negotiate” with us!!!
He can't get it through his thick head that this is OUR country, NOT Argentinas & we are under no obligation to “negotiate” with anyone.
He rabbits on about non-binding UNGA resolutions but conveniently forgets UNSC binding resolutions, like #502 for example, that Argentina refused.
All in all, Axel is a sad biased stupid malvinista, who refuses to accept that Argentina has lost any chance it ever had in conquering the Falklands.
115 Pete Bog (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 10:57 pm Report abuse
“when will the u. k. make any historic reparation for arg., for having deprived it from the islands in 1833”

Hello calling planet Earth? Britain claimed the Falklands in 1690 and you Argies (founded in 1853 by the way), were not there when Britain settled in 1765 (that's 68 years before 1833).
116 Clyde15 (#) Jan 30th, 2013 - 11:18 pm Report abuse
You always use the epithet cowardly when speaking of the UK.
There are many things you could say which may have a ring of truth, but this is not one. How would you describe the Argentinian actions of invading a small peaceful island, practically undefended and holding them at gunpoint to make them submit to your will.
Oh, of course, in Argentinian parlance this is heroism, at least that is what your “history ”of the Falkland's war proclaims
117 DanyBerger (#) Jan 31st, 2013 - 09:30 am Report abuse

“Careful Dany, the UK may just fall on Argentina -game set and match to us.”

Really? And when that is going to happen?
118 Clyde15 (#) Jan 31st, 2013 - 12:02 pm Report abuse
Watch this space.
119 axel arg (#) Jan 31st, 2013 - 02:14 pm Report abuse
Respecting the historic facts, i have already told you that if you think that only our politicians omit information about them, before the u. n., or before any other forum, then it means that you have been perfectly indoctrinated by your own offical history.
If i decided to investigate, it's because i have never believed in our official history, accept it or not, the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations.
Anyway, i'm going to explain you AGAIN, many of the points that you expressed in your comments.
Maybe it's true that the u. k., discovered the islands, which is very arguable, however, the discovery just gives a precarious title, which must be improved with a permanent occupation, and the u. k. just occupied permanently port egmont for 8 years, the fact that it left an insignia which claimed for british sovereignty, when it abandoned the island in 1774, was not enough to claim for sovereignty, or in case that it had right to claim for the soledad island too (actual east falkland), it should have negotiated with the u. p., instead of depriving our authorities from the island, don't forget that spain had exercised an effective controll for 45 years, and the rights of our country, were based on the sucession of states. Spain had never ceaded any sovereign right to the u. p., when our country decided to claim it's independence in 1816, however, according to the international right, it had right to exercise it's sovereign rights over the island, after declaring it's independece.
What the u. k. did in 1833 was as coward as the invasion by arg. in 1982, i have always said this, the only one positive aspect of the occupation of the british empire in 1833, is that there wasen't any war.
Respecting the wishes of the islanders, you already know that i have always said that their wishes, and our claims should be taken into account, in order to find a solution for this conflict.
120 Terence Hill (#) Jan 31st, 2013 - 05:47 pm Report abuse
119 axel arg

“however, according to the international right, it had right to exercise it's sovereign rights over the island, after declaring it's independece.”
This is simply your take on the situation, there is no endorsement for such a view from any of the legal scholars of the day.
What the UK did in 1833 was entirely legally appropriate, and very restrained under the circumstances.
As the UK stated they were not going to allow Argentina, what they had denied Spain.
121 briton (#) Jan 31st, 2013 - 06:58 pm Report abuse
he lives in the past,
im very surprised he has not mentioned what the spannish did in the 1500s.
122 lsolde (#) Jan 31st, 2013 - 09:10 pm Report abuse
@119 Axel,
Are you still here, telling more lies?
You do not own our country & never did or will.
Please concentrate on your own broken country & keep your nose out of our business.
We have a “fair solution” & it doesn't include Argentina.
123 axel arg (#) Feb 01st, 2013 - 07:28 pm Report abuse
What i said about the rights of our country over the islands, is not base on a personal opinion, i have investigated deeply, and i continue doing it, about the arguments of both parts of the conflict. That's why i have always said that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations.
Respecting the reasons why the u. p. had right to occupy the islands, let me tell you that according to the international right, the sucession of states is applied to all the emancipatted colonial territories, which are sucessors of the rights of the metropoli. The u. p. didn't need spain's licence in order to declare it's independence, and after the declaration, the country had right to occupy the territories which were under the jurisdiction of the viceroalty of the river from la plata, beside, i talked to professors of international right, and asked them about all these questions, thats' why i say that what i express about the rights of our country over the islands in 1833, is not base on a personal opinion, it's actualy based on the academic knowledge of professors of international right, but regarding what i express about the wishes of the islanders, that's entirely based on a personal opinion.
On the other hand, if the u. k. was so interested in the isands, why didn't it protest during the 45 years of spanish sovereignty?. The case is much more complicated than the usuall mediocre analysis that many people in this forum express.
124 lsolde (#) Feb 02nd, 2013 - 10:58 am Report abuse
What a load of codswallop.
You have NO RIGHTS here.
Don't you understand anything?
lf you think that you have the right to occupy any of the territories of the old Spanish Vice-royalty, then why doesn't you country “claim” Uruguay also?
Just too hard eh, Axel?
Nevermind, the UN will finish Argentina's ridiculous “claims” after March, this year.
Then you'll have to find something else to cry about.
125 Terence Hill (#) Feb 02nd, 2013 - 11:43 am Report abuse
123 axel arg

I'm assuming your claim of “according to the international right, the sucession of states is applied to all the emancipatted colonial territories, which are sucessors of the rights of the metropol” is based on the principle of Utis Possidet.

Utis Possidet is inapplicable. It wasn't adopted until 1847 at the Lima Convention, and its forbidden to apply international law retroactively i.e. 1833. Also, its not applicable to none signatory nations.

The New International Law

The Prohibition on Ex Post Facto Laws

One issue that floats in the background of the decision is the general prohibition against ex post facto laws, known as the nessun poena sine lege principle(no punishment without law)

The Acquisition of Territory in International Law
by Robert Yewdall Jennings

Intertemporal Law

The rule that the effect of an act is to be determined by the law of the time when it was done, not of the law of the time when the claim is made, is elementary and important. It is merely an aspect of the rule against retroactive laws, and to that extent may be regarded as a general principle of law. It is especially important in international law because of the length of the life of states. It is peculiarly apt to questions of title; though by no means confined to questions of title,1


Seventh revised edition
Peter Malanczuk

the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law’.73
126 briton (#) Feb 02nd, 2013 - 08:16 pm Report abuse
so Axel
will you finaly get the message,

Argentina has NO claims of the falkland,
never have had,
never will have.
127 Don Alberto (#) Feb 02nd, 2013 - 08:32 pm Report abuse
@ 13 Pvdv
“As I am aware there is NO book of Octavio Paz called 'Patagonia Perdida'”

Patagonia Perdida by Gonzalo Sanchez: www.editorialmarea.com.ar/patagoniaperdida.html
128 axel arg (#) Feb 02nd, 2013 - 09:31 pm Report abuse
I wasen't talking about utti posidettis.
If our country had right to declare it's independence, without any spain's licence, then it means that it had right to occupy all those territories that had been subdued to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty.
It is often said in this forum, by planty of ignorant people who don't know anything about international right, that arg. has no right to claim for the islands, because when it got the independence, the viceroalty was joined also by uruguay, paraguay and bolivia, and now those countries are independent. Actualy that anlysis is very stupid and mediocre, because if those countries decided to separate part from our country, it doesen't affect our claim for the islands, because the main reason why the islands are under british govt. since 1833, is because arg. was deprived by the u. k., when onslow asked our authorities to leave the archipelago.
There is a big contradiction among many of the people who criticise our claim for the islands, because at the same time that many of you say that arg. had no right over the islands in 1833, you justify the invasion of that year, arguig that the u. k. had a prior claim, however, in my comment 119, i explain how is considered the discovery by the int. right, and what are the necesary conditions, in order to claim for a territory.
On the other hand, i recommend you to search in the news archive of this website, the statement by councellour norma edwards, where she complained before the u. n., about the way that the u. n. has always considered this cause, which has always been considered like a special colonial situation, and about the lack of application of the right to self determination for the population from the islands, the date is june 24th 2010. Beside, i recommend you also to search the words of the president from the decolonization committee, respecting the application of self determination for the islanders, the date is june 14th or 15th 2012.
129 Terence Hill (#) Feb 02nd, 2013 - 11:51 pm Report abuse
So your not talking about utti posidettis. “If our country had right to declare it's independence, without any spain's licence, then it means that it had right to occupy all those territories that had been subdued to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty.” That good as far as it goes, except that Spain did not have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the islands. I don't no of any instance in in international law where there appears to be joint sovereignty, where a third party could come and claim exclusive jurisdiction. If you are claiming the right to Spanish territory as justified by the use of force, and attempt the same with Briton, by way of an armed garrison, over Briton's official objections. Ultimately, you are in no position to complain since you were the party that initiated your own downfall. As the UK stated they were not going to give to Buenos Airs what they would deny Spain. According to some academics the Nootka Convention governs Spain and Britons legal relationship

Nootka Convention

The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the
130 celeste (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 02:13 am Report abuse
Keep the Falk-Slum-Lands in you big british arse! The islands don't worth a shit!
131 Terence Hill (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 02:25 am Report abuse
129 Terence Hill continued

and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.[5]


The words of the president from the decolonization committee, respecting the application of self determination for the islanders, the date is june 14th or 15th 2012. Are of no legal consequence. They are utterances of a very biased political hack pot-banger.
132 PGH (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 07:33 am Report abuse
@2 Frank
That's EXACTLY what I think every time you play the (let's call it) “Mapuche card”.

Pretty silly argument, isn't it? It doesn't really address the question, it just diverts.
133 Pete Bog (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 11:28 am Report abuse
“What the u. k. did in 1833 was as coward as the invasion by arg. in 1982”

No it was not.

The UK in 1833 sent a letter to Pinedo to request his flag was lowered -it was not done at gunpoint. No direct force was used.

In those days (before the UN) the UK had as much right to reclaim territory as the UP had to claim territory.

Do you realise that the reason Pinedo did not oppose the UK re-occupation, was that most of his sailors were British born who refused to fightbtheir own countrymen. Therefore Pinedo's own men were for the British.

If the British occupation was wrong why did the majority of the South American settlers when requested, mainly the gauchos want to stay under the British flag rather than return to South America.

If I were an Argentinian, I would actually find it embarrassing that more British people were expelled from the Islands, by the British in 1833, than those of South American origin.

If the UP had wished to pursue their claim to the islands why did they not return between January 1833 and January 1834, when there was no British military garrison to stop them?
134 PGH (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 03:20 pm Report abuse
British people who celebrated Argentina's independence every May 25th... weird Brits, for sure.
135 axel arg (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 10:38 pm Report abuse
I have always known about the secret article of the nootka sound convention, in fact, i have always said that maybe the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, in virtue of it, because arg. had stablished it's first settlement in 1820, which had been published in the times in 1821, and in newspapers from u. s. a., however there was not any protest by the u. k., anyway that settlement didn't last so much, but along the years, there were others, and the first protest by the u. k., was in 1829.
On the other hand, if the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, in virtue of that secret article, or in virtue of it's arguable discovery, it didn't mean that it had to deprive arg. from the archipelago, it should have negotiated a solution with the u. p.
Why do many of you justify so strongly the u. k's occupation of 1833, arguing a prior claim, and reject the u. p's right, which were based on the sucession of states?, i already explained you in my comments 119 and 123 how is considered the discovery by the int. right, and the conditions to claim for territories.
Respecting utti posidettis, it had been invoked by different countries since 1810, in order to preserve their borders after their independence, in fact, it had been aplied in XVIII by the spain and the u. k., when the ear's war, guerra d orejas ended.
Regarding the occupation of the islands in 1833, beyond the decision of argentine gauchos, who had decided to stay in the islands, despite the british usurpation, what really matters, is the fact that our country had started to claim since the first moment, beside, don't forget the huge economic dependence that arg. had with the u. k. since XIX century and for more than 100 yeras, so, it coulden't do so much.
Beside, beyond onslow's warn, the true reason why he could force the argentine authorities to leave the archipelago, it was because the u. k. took advantage of the u. p's vulnerable posistion, so, it a coward act.
136 St.John (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 10:54 pm Report abuse

The Indians who survived the massacre were sent to work in the cane fields in the North to the lords and masters of sugar, in absolute exploitation, or serve for six years in the army and navy. Indian women were divided among the aristocratic families as maids and children placed for adoption. The newspaper “El Nacional” reports: “They come to Buenos Aires Indian prisoners and their families. Despair, crying continues. It robs children of mothers to give them away in his presence, despite the cries, the screams and pleas that kneeling with his arms to heaven lead Indian women. In a human context that cover their faces, others look down resignedly, the mother pressed against her womb the child of her womb, the father crosses in front to defend his family.”
Los indios que se salvaron de la matanza fueron enviados a trabajar a los cañaverales del Norte para los dueños y señores del azúcar, en condiciones de absoluta explotación, o a servir durante seis años en el ejército y la marina. Las mujeres indias fueron repartidas entre las familias aristocráticas como sirvientas y los niños dados en adopción. El diario “El Nacional” informa: “Llegan a Buenos Aires los indios prisioneros con sus familias. La desesperación, el llanto no cesa. Se les quita a las madres sus hijos para en su presencia regalarlos, a pesar de los gritos, los alaridos y las súplicas que hincadas y con los brazos al cielo dirigen las mujeres indias. En aquel marco humano unos se tapan la cara, otros miran resignadamente al suelo, la madre aprieta contra su seno al hijo de sus entrañas, el padre se cruza por delante para defender a su familia”.
137 Terence Hill (#) Feb 03rd, 2013 - 11:39 pm Report abuse
It's a situation that evolved from a time when might was right, we might well ask why didn't Argentina respond to the two protest notes from Briton in 1829. They didn't and therefor they forced Briton to act, when they attempted their usurpation. Briton simply countered in a like manner, and was the more successful, legally thats the end of the story.
What conventions nations like the Briton and Spain used too solve other conflicts, or former South American colonies used is not binding on the international law. At the best it may be somewhat persuasive.
The other issues you raise are out of the remit of legal adjudication, and are more of the the academic realm of moral philosophy or history. You may well be correct when the situation is judged by experts from such fields. But such considerations are a little obtuse to say the least. The central question is who holds legal sovereignty, and therefor is in the right?
138 axel arg (#) Feb 04th, 2013 - 05:47 pm Report abuse
S. T. JOHN: Read my comment 111, please.
I respect your opinion but i don't agree with it respecting some points of you analysis.
As i said before, maybe the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, in virtue of the secret article of the nootka sound convention of 1790, or in virtue of it's arguable discovery. However, it didn't mean that it had to deprive our authorities from the islands, and i explained you the reasons why i think this.
On the other hand, my considerations to defend our rights over the islands, are much more than what i said in my comment 135 about 1833.
139 lsolde (#) Feb 04th, 2013 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
@138 Axel,
So you agree that the UK had the right to occupy OUR lslands.
Thats very noble of you. We don't & didn't need your permission, Axel.
Your feelings have been hurt because we ejected the Argentine(?) squatters from OUR lslands!
Who cares about your precious feelings, your countrymen(?) didn't care about ours when they illegally invaded OUR lslands, twice.
Don't cry, Axel, thats for little children.
140 row82 (#) Feb 06th, 2013 - 02:44 pm Report abuse
Please support this page - Falklands Forever British - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the lunacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and winding up their Internet trolls - www.facebook.com/truthfk
141 axel arg (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 03:50 pm Report abuse
As i said in another comment, the agreement of 1850 didn' t have anything to do with the dispute for the islands. On the other hand, it would be honest to take into account the context of those years, as a said in many others comments, during XIX century, and for more than 100 years, arg. had a very big economic dependence with the u. k., so, it was obvious that it wasen't in conditions to claim for it's sovereign rights over the islands.
Beside, despite the intervalls in our claims, in 1968, 1974 and 1980, the u. k. tried to find a solution with arg. for this dispute.
If we have intellectual honesty, we must recognize that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations, and it's necesary to discuss seriously about them.
If the agreement of 185o, and the intervalls in our claims mean that arg. recognized the british sovereignty over the archipelago, then why did the u. k. try to find a solution for this dispute in 3 oportunities?.
Beyond the differences in our opinions, i appreciate the fact that we can discuss seriously about this case, as you can see, it's not posible to discuss with planty of people in this forum, due to many of them are just reactionary people who insult deliberatly, or don't have any intellectual honesty, which is necesary in order to discuss about something so complicated like politic issues are.
142 lsolde (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:21 pm Report abuse
Dear Axel,
There is nothing to discuss. Don't feel too bad about it.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!