MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Dancing for Falklands”, MLA Gavin Short takes on Argentina's most mediatic personality
Falkland Islands lawmaker, MLA Gavin Short has picked a dispute with possibly the most mediatic character in Argentina, a simple soccer commentator who in three decades has built a powerful entertainment corporation and is the showman of one of the evening programs which for years has had the highest ratings. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSorry, but this Mr. Gavin gets the worst of it here.
Jan 24th, 2017 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -5An elected leader should rarely if ever get into a shouting match with a media personality. One was not elected by anyone, and the free media (which is why candidates must go to his show). The other is an elected official who must have a good dose of diplomacy.
So Gavin is wrong just as the governor of TDF was wrong in picking a fight with the guy from the British car show.
It is the clash between two egos. Gavin Short is an uncompromising fanatic incapable of respecting those who think differently than him. Marcelo Tinelli is a despicable, superficial, ignorant, misogynistic media merchant, lover of fast and easy money. Gavin Short is a politician and Marcelo Tinelli wants to be a politician to copy Silvio Berlusconi. Marcelo Tinelli will be a perfect Peronist leader. Both, Short and Tinelli are for each other. Both are absolutely despicable.
Jan 24th, 2017 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Tobias,
Jan 24th, 2017 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +4It was social media...not a shouting match. Do keep up.
As for challenging this Argentine idiot who is trying to whitewash history (you know like you Argentines have tried to do over your genocide of Native Amerindians and the African Slaves) and alter the internet into believing that the Falklands are Argentine, when they are not, and have NEVER been Argentine. This is the smart thing to do.
If you have a case take it to the ICJ. NOW. Not when you believe you can stack the deck in your favour, as you have previously mentioned in one of your 'other' incarnations. Because if Argentina was telling the truth you wouldn't need to cheat, would you? Would you?
So it's good that Argentine lies are outed, and the Argentines, such as yourself and Tinelli, are shown up for the lying, cheating and thieving people that you are.
pgerman,
Mr Short isn't a fanatic, he is a man who stands up for his country against a bunch of lying fascists who want to steal it and ETHNICALLY CLEANSE it.
Argentines are the fanatics because they believe something that isn't true and are quite happy to persecute and even murder anyone who doesn't agree with them.
@LEPRecon
Jan 24th, 2017 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Jeremy Moore was able to shake hands with Menendez, Nigel “Sharky” Ward was able to have a nice, and emotional, public radio conversation with the son of the C-130 argentine plane pilot who had died when he shot it down, Simon Weston was able to make friendship with the A4 argentine pilot who had attacked, and sunk, his ship causing him terrible wounds but Gavin Short refused to shake Susana Malcorra's hands...Gavin Short deserves CFK They are, quite clear, one to each other.
By the way, when did Argentina caused a “genocide of Native Amerindians or African Slaves”? Noted that I have the United Kingdom and the British culture in my highest esteem but being you a Britton your sentence is quite ironic and cynical.
“ His name Marcelo Tinelli, and so influential”
Jan 24th, 2017 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2With no chance whatsoever in effecting an Argentine imperialist take over of the Falklands.
And Marcello Tinelli is a complete cock.
Jan 24th, 2017 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@pgerman
Jan 24th, 2017 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why did Gavin Short refuse to shake Malcorra's hand?
And LEPRecon is probably talking about Roca's conquest of the desert. Not sure about the African slaves.
I hope this guy changes his mind about going into politics if he's like Berlusconi. Argentina could do without that!
DemonTree
Jan 24th, 2017 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You should look at this website.
http://www.ibtimes.com/blackout-how-argentina-eliminated-africans-its-history-conscience-1289381
Basically in the 19th century Argentina had nearly as many African slaves as Brazil did. Now given that the population of Brazil is now nearly 40% of African descent, surely Argentina should have similar statistics?
But no. Argentina has approximately 1% of people of African descent. Why? Because the Argentine authorities plotted to wipe them out and 'whiten' Argentina.
http://www.ibtimes.com/blackout-how-argentina-eliminated-africans-its-history-conscience-1289381
pgerman, like many Argentines, refuse to believe that the Argentine authorities murdered the majority of African slaves...hence they have few descendants.
Just like the deny the genocide of the native populations in Argentina too. In fact pgerman suffers from a common Argentine belief that the natives murdered in the conquest of the desert were in fact from Chile and not Argentina.
This 'logic' (and I use that term loosely in this case) ignores several things.
Firstly, the native Amerindians did not delineate South America along the same lines as the European colonists, so to them the difference between Chile, Argentina, Peru, Brazil etc... was not apparent. It was ALL their land, and these Europeans had turned up to steal it.
Secondly, committing acts of genocide against native Amerindians, regardless of where they supposedly came from is STILL GENOCIDE. And therefore STILL a crime against humanity.
No one is saying that the people of Argentina today are responsible for these acts...how can they have been, they weren't even born. No more than the people of Germany today are responsible for the Holocaust.
The difference between Germany and Argentina, is that the Germans acknowledge what happened, and have vowed to ensure such crimes never happen again. In Argentina, they pretend it never happened, or come up with excuses of why it was the 'victims' fault.
It's shameful.
Pgerman- One BIG difference- all those you mention who shook hands and made up - the dispute between them- active warfare was over- standard practise for veterans and those affected from both sides to meet up afterwards - all part of the mental healing process.
Jan 25th, 2017 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse +2Buy- Malcorrra is still actively claiming Gavin,s homeland with no Respect for his wishes and Rights.
So he was very right to refuse her.
There are two really despicable ones here, Fidel Nostrils and pGerman
Jan 25th, 2017 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina having the same african population percentange as Brazil is an absolute bold-faced lie. Obviously Leprichron is desperate.
Jan 25th, 2017 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse -1And he is calling out other countries on not acknowledging the past, while he ALWAYS has denied Britain's.
You can't get more laughable than that.
As I clarified in the other thread, Argentina did not engage in colonialism with the natives, all the other countries in the western hemisphere DID, but not Argentina. Simply because we never signed any treaties with them recognizing anything at all.
The rest, including ANGLOS in USA and Canada did. And then tergiversated and betrayed the Indians. It is YOU who should apologize.
Fiddel
Jan 25th, 2017 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1Hilarious!!!
I must try that one when I steal my next door neighbours garden - “we haven't signed any treaties so it doesn't count as theft” - ha, ha, ha, ha
Can't compare two neighbors today, with relations between two civilizations 150-200 years ago.
Jan 25th, 2017 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse -2The British and the other EUians justify their actions back then, totally ignoring SELF-DETERMINATION, on the fact it was the 19th century and before. So well, the FACTS ARE, Argentina never signed any peace treaties with the Indians, thus never was in violation of anything nor invading anyone. It just never recognized the other side.
If Argentina violated treaties that did not exist and is to be held accountable, so is BRITAIN, SPAIN, FRANCE, NETHERLANDS, GERMANY, ITALY, DENMARK, RUSSIA, BELGIUM, PORTUGAL for DENYING SELF-DETERMINATION TO NATIONS AND PEOPLES (through slavery), and thus be held to reparations in the tune of 777 trillion dollars, as estimated damages to life and property and culture over 400.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference
The above conference being the most shameful event in Human history. Only 16 years away from 1900, some racist Euians deciding Africans had no rights to nation, culture, and freedom, splitting up what didn't even BELONG TO THEM.
And the members here from Europe defend these actions under the cover of “time”.
Fine, but the so can Argentina. And LEGALLY so, unlike them.
Let me get this straight just because you didn't sign a piece of paper then it is fine to exterminate the indigenous population of territories that did not belong to you so you can land grab as much turf as you can before Chile does. This in your view is not colonialism...okay, I get it...I think? (laughs and falls over whilst en route to the toilet to piss himself laughing)...
Jan 25th, 2017 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@LEPRecon
Jan 25th, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no idea about argentine history. You have no idea why there has always been very few color people in the argentine territory and why there are so few native people.
Argentine genocide against the original people?..you suffer from a very common illness in this forum: IGNORANCE.
@LEPRecon
Jan 25th, 2017 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your linked article says Hundreds of thousands of Africans were brought to Argentina, but millions were taken to Brazil. That's not 'nearly as many'. And it also says that despite Sarmiento possibly attempting to wipe them out, they didn't really vanish but are just hidden and forgotten. I had heard before that in the past the government of Argentina encouraged immigration from Europe specifically to make the country whiter, and were pretty successful in this objective.
This bit is interesting:
“Here, if someone has one drop of white blood, they call themselves white.”
The exact opposite of the USA, where for example Obama is considered black although he had one white and one black parent.
@FC
I suppose simply stealing land is slightly better than first signing treaties and then stealing it anyway. But it's still colonialism. Certainly the laws were different back then, as was what people considered acceptable, and in most places it is/was impossible to turn the clock back anyway. Has anyone said Argentina should pay compensation? I don't think that makes sense or would be possible for any of the mentioned countries, but I do think we should help put right the problems that still exist from that time.
@pgerman
Why are there so few black or native people in Argentina then?
Outlawcatcher
Jan 25th, 2017 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Correct, whether you like it or not.
@FC
Jan 25th, 2017 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1So you have no moral problem with genocide as long as you never signed a piece of paper recognising the people you killed?
Lovely.
I am explaining what happened in the past, and why it is not colonialism or genocide.
Jan 25th, 2017 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If it happened today, it would be quite different since Argentina has signed several treaties accepting genocide as a crime.
As for population, the indian population in what is now Argentina was always the lowest in the Americas. Even Before Columbus, most estimates say at best 100.000-300.000 indians lived in the entirety of Argentine territory. That is astonishing low density. Then when the EUains committed genocide through biological warfare (which was estimated to need 248 trillion dollars in reparations to address), then that would have dropped by 90% being average everywhere in the Americas. SO maybe 30.000 by the 16th or 17th century. I think at independence the census said 250.000 people. That's all.
So that's why so few natives and blacks. 6 million whites landed here in 60-70 years... you do the genetic soup math.
Meanwhile Europe should start saving a bit more.
777 trillion in black slave trade reparations.
248 trillion in native american biological warfare damages.
That's in 2000 dollars... let's say now it's 133% that. Plus add on another 500 trillion from the European crimes in India, CHina, South East Asia, Australia...
(1.025 x 1.33) + 500 = 1.900
So Europeans need to start working some overtime, you have almost 2 QUADRILLION dollars to return to their rightful owners. Given the EU GDP at 17-18 trillion per year... just giving your entire GDP output for about 100 years would be enough. Considering what you alll did for 500 years, I'd call that a bargain!
@DemonTree
Jan 25th, 2017 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Black slaves were introduced into South America by Spanish and Portuguese empires to work in the mines and on farms, but in the areas of the current Argentine territory, there were none of these activities. They were really very poor governors, probably the poorest of the Spanish Empire. Black slaves were part of working capital, assets, and cost money. Of course, no one would invested money in black slaves if they would not have economic profits. The few black slaves were of domestic service in the houses of very rich families.
On top of everything, in the declaration of independence, the “freedom of wombs” was introduced, so that slaves were soon free. The Constitution of 1853 declared, definitively, the equality of all citizens.
It is correct that Argentina promoted European and Christian immigration, as did Canada or the USA, but J. A. Roca, during his first presidency, modified the law of promotion of the immigration (called Avellaneda Law) extending the benefits to the Jewish immigrants. Thus, the first group of Jews entered the country in a ship called Wesser. This is why Argentina has one of the most important Jewish collectivities in the world.
On the other hand, the population of native peoples was, in number, non important at all since they were people with low cultural development that only hunted and collected plants. When Nicolas Avellaneda, the President of Argentina during the Desert Campaign, took office, the country had only two million of inhabitants and the “original” people were about 20,000. Approximately one-third of the soldiers who took part in the Desert Campaign as members of the Argentine Army (this is why it cannot be considered a “war of extermination” or at “ethnic cleansing”. You can check pictures of argentine native tribes in the web. You will notice that the chiefs had military uniforms (of the Argentine Army).
These are the historical facts with plenty of supporting documents.
Please do not confuse the Anglo and the EUian and the NorthAmoan with the facts now!
Jan 25th, 2017 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Don't confuse them with the reality of the Argentine climate (too cold for cotton or sugar growing on mass scales, which is the only area black slaves proved profitable), thus Argentina had no need to import slaves.
Don't confuse them with the facts that Argentina's indian population before Columbus, after, before independence, and after, was very small. Again because the climate was hostile and as you pointed out, because outside a few pockets in the northwest, they were all subsistence hunters (not even gatherers based on how the Ona and others lived, not that there was a lot to pick anyhow), only able to sustain 10-18 individuals.
Don't confuse them with the facts that the first pure white Gauchos were in fact Jews.
Don't confuse them with the facts that Argentina allowed no one born a slave after 1833, well before most of the rest of the Americas.
Don't confuse them with the facts that 1930's and 1940's Argentina along with a few hundred Nazi criminals accepted tens of THOUSANDS of Jewish immigrants, while the USA, Brazil, Cuba, Canada and others were turning them away (see the Saint Louis), and to almost certain death.
Don't confuse them with the facts that Argentina was one of the few countries to try it's dictators.
Don't confuse them. The foreigner wants for whatever reason to perpetuate the color racist, native-genocidist, anti-semitic, pro-dicator, pro-nazi, slavery-loving fairy tale. In start contrast of course with the heavenly angel nations of the USA, Britain, Canada, who never had any slaves, never killed or displaced a native, try and jail their reckless leaders that kill or go to war needlessly, never turned-away Jews, and just never ever lie or speak double-talk.
Let them live in their little world. Let the world keep telling the great lie about Argentina.
Guys...remind me that the next time I see some poor old indigenous soul tending to his plants and greenhouse to swot him like a fly because he is not important because of his low cultural development. You do like to defend this historic killing spree your ancestors took part in?
Jan 25th, 2017 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +3More people died in one village in Ireland during the BRITISH induced Famine than in all the Desert Conquests put together.
Jan 25th, 2017 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -3End of story.
@FC
Jan 25th, 2017 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +2So are you trying to say that it wasn't a crime at the time, even if it was wrong? That's not a great argument. The slave trade was perfectly legal at the time, and yet you seem to think Europe should be paying compensation for it. And your argument that the EU should be paying makes no sense either. Finland and the Baltics were part of the Russian empire at the time, Poland didn't even exist as a country, Greece and the Balkans were part of the Ottoman empire, and the rest of Eastern Europe was in the Austro-Hungarian empire.
As for biological warfare, Europeans didn't bring over diseases on purpose, they were just common in those days. There may have been a few small attempts at deliberate infection, but most of the death toll was an unfortunate consequence of a more isolated population coming into contact with a less isolated one.
And by the way, Mao's famines in China killed a hell of lot more people than the Irish one. Does that make it okay or irrelevant?
@pgerman
What a nice, innocent story. So you think the article linked above is wrong when it says that hundreds of thousands of slaves were brought to Argentina? Their descendants should have been a noticeable minority when the country only had 2m inhabitants.
And I think you missed out some words there. What were one third of the soldiers in the Desert Campaign? If you meant that one third of the soldiers were native Indians then that is rather interesting, if as you say they only comprised 1% of the population at the time. Kind of similar to ex-slaves being recruited to fight in Paraguay, actually.
@DemonTree
Jan 25th, 2017 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How old are you? 15? 16? Are you going to boast about your ignorance? I thought your query was serious and not just a new attempt to “twist” historical facts.
No one can say, in figures, exactly how many slaves the Spanish Empire imported into Peru or Bolivia (to cite some countries). It is clear that in the current Argentine territory the Spanish Empire had no mines and there were no agricultural farms. The economy of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata was based on the export of leathers (wild rearing cattle) and skins (from wild animals). It does not take a lot of black slaves for this activity. It would have been more expensive to care and feed them than the economic benefit they could bring to the owners. Quite simple.
As for the native peoples, your opinion is, again, absolutely irrelevant. It is estimated that one-third of the Argentine Army that occupied the “Desert” was constituted by people from local tribes (from the area called the “desert”) serving in the Army. They were, and still are, called “friend tribes”. Have you been checking the information I suggested?
I ask you, please, not to make me waste my time if you will continue in your childish attitude of denying what you clearly ignore and ask for.
There are plenty of people in this forum who would love to waste their time arguing with you.
Regards
@pgerman
Jan 26th, 2017 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0What information have you suggested? LEPRecon at least posted a link, even if it did not match exactly what he claimed. (And don't bother posting more than one, there is a bug where they all become the the same link.)
I don't see why I should trust your opinion about the number of slaves over a published article. And as for the 'friend tribes', it sounds to me like you recruited your own version of Indian Sepoys. It's nearly universal for people to fight with their neighbours, and often they will see the wisdom of allying with a stronger force to beat them, when that stronger force would be able to overwhelm them anyway.
What you say sounds a little too good to be true, but if you have evidence then I will look at it and reconsider.
pgerman,
Jan 26th, 2017 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“On the other hand, the population of native peoples was, in number, non important at all since they were people with low cultural development that only fhunted and collected plants”
Not your right to play god as to who is human and who is it ok to exterminate.
1880's: Roca's genocide of indigenous people.
1982:
Didn't the occupying Argie military officers consider 'getting rid of' the human inhabitants of the Falklands as an ideal solution to the “problem”?
2017:
If you are anything to go by, Nothing has changed in the Argentine psyche in 150 years.
Fidel_CasTroll “Argentina had no need to import slaves”
Jan 26th, 2017 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pgerman It does not take a lot of black slaves for this activity.”
Your spurious opinions are not supported by the historical records.
“The rapid disappearance of blacks from Argentina has been attributed to racial genocide on the part of the Argentine government. Argentine President Domingo Sarmiento is noted for claiming that blacks can have no part in Argentine society. The Argentine government was known to have carried out similar ethnic cleansing of the countries Native American population. Historians that criticize claims of black casualties in the civil wars often cite the fact that women did not fight in the Argentine wars, yet black women disappeared simultaneously with men in Argentina.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Argentine
”It has been alleged that the president of Argentina from 1868 to 1874, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, sought to wipe out blacks from the country in a policy of covert genocide through extremely repressive policies (including possibly the forced recruitment of Africans into the army and by forcing blacks to remain in neighborhoods where disease would decimate them in the absence of adequate health care).
Tellingly, Sarmiento wrote in his diary in 1848: “In the United States… 4 million are black, and within 20 years will be 8 [million]…. What is [to be] done with such blacks, hated by the white race?“ www.ibtimes.com/blackout-how-argentina-eliminated-africans-its-history-conscience-1289381
”As a result, in some places in the interior of the country, Africans and people of African descent made up more than fifty percent of the population in these areas according to Jonathan C. Brown. According the George Reid Andrews in his book The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires, 1800-1900, Buenos Aires’s population itself was a third black at the time of the revolution.” www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27tauo/what_happened_to_the_black_
The really funny thing that shows the lack of knowledge of argentine history is that web sites such as “wikipedia”, or others of the same kind, are used as reference and sources to prove historical facts.
Jan 26th, 2017 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I can cite, and attach, hundreds of these sites where it is “proven” that the F. Islands were Argentine until the British appeared. I imagine that, in this case, these web sites will not be considered a valid knowledge source….
I could mention several sites of Mapuches that claim all the Patagonia as their “original territory” and include the F. Islands. Do not ask me why the Mapuches judge that the F. Islands are “their original territory”. Obviously writing something like this would not be considered any serious information.
The historical facts that I mentioned are not a mystery at all, anyone with basic knowledge of argentine history knows these events. In addition, it is absolutely rational: by the nature of the economic activity of the Rio de la Plata, and its exports, it was not profitable the importation, and use, of black slaves in times of the Colony. Point. Owning a black slave was an eccentricity, a luxury, that was used in few houses of very rich families for domestic tasks.
The same is extended to the existence of the so-called “friendly tribes”. Just look for photos on google to display the images of tribes with caciques in military uniform of the Argentine Army.
What's spurious is your sources Terrence Hill.
Jan 26th, 2017 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Just remember, you are an Anglo, your history is a lie. Your sources are mendacious. And most importantly, we Argentines don't care :).
Carry on. Argentina is the exact opposite of what the British claim it is by trying to foist fake history.
pgerman “Shows the lack of knowledge of argentine history … it was not profitable the importation, and use, of black slaves in times of the Colony.” You sure do Ollie, merely unsupported opines, against that of qualified experts, is no contest at all as yours is just unqualified rubbish. In spite of your blatant attempt to use the fallacy of ’moving the goal-posts’.
Jan 26th, 2017 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0George Reid Andrew, The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires; BA, History, Dartmouth College, 1972; MA, History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1974; PhD, History, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1978 http://www.history.pitt.edu/people/george-reid-andrews
Jonathan C. Brown; Professor — Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin; ://liberalarts.utexas.edu/history/faculty/brownjc
@Terence Hill
Jan 26th, 2017 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would suggest that you read the best, and most serious, research about the Triple Alianza War, published then as “Damn War”, written by Brazilian historian and researcher Francisco Doratioto. With statistics, and official documents, shows his conclusion, among others, that “there is no record, or factual evidence, of the massive presence of black soldiers in Argentine troops.” He also adds: “There are no records of regiments formed by black soldiers in the Argentine Army.” It also demystifies that, to the hatred and rejection of the Argentine nationalists, the United Kingdom did not promote or influence either the Brazilian or Argentine governments at the outbreak of the War to appropriate the “natural resources” of Paraguay or to obtain economic advantages with the war. The book was originally published in Portuguese and, then, it was published in Spanish in Argentina. I don’t know whether it was publish in English or not. It is, by far, the best history book about the Triple Alianza War.
pgerman I don’t need to read about the Triple Alianza War. Since the issue is not how Africans were killed, it is the fact that they simply ‘disappear’ from the Argentine populous.
Jan 26th, 2017 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fidel_CasTroll “Your history is a lie” Is absolutely false as the two historians I have shown are US historians. Thus are neutral, who have specialized in Argentine and S. American history.
@Terence Hill
Jan 26th, 2017 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Linking what had happened during the terrible Triple Alianza War to the fate of the African “genes” of the Argentine people is not casual but responds to the interest of history.
Your response clearly reflects how little you know about both, Argentine history and the “legend” of the ethnic cleansing of Afro-Argentineans initiated by Catholic nationalism, the current political-historical trend maned “revisionism” as opposition to the “liberal”, masonic and “republican” vision ruled Argentina until the beginning of the decade of 1930.
According to “historical revisionism” ethnic cleansing, and whitening, was mainly carried out during the Triple Alliance war by sending to death, and to the most bloody battles, only regiments of exclusively black soldiers.
It is for this reason, in particular, that Francisco Doratioto, Brazilian researcher and historian, clearly neutral regarding some hypothetical cleaning policy of the Argentine State, went deeper into this issue.
I understand, and accept, that your “job” is to despise the investigation of Francisco Doratioto to give a “varnish” of seriousness to your accusation of ” anti-African“ ethnic cleansing carried out by the Argentine State.
pgerman My response clearly reflects how ‘experts’ view your self-serving unqualified opinion, as there is no neutral historian that substantiates your ‘fairy-story’.
Jan 26th, 2017 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘Your “job” is to despise the investigation of Francisco Doratioto ‘ On the contrary my aim is reliance on third-party historians, that are neither Argentine or British, in a truthful and open investigation. “Your accusation of ” anti-African“ ethnic cleansing carried out”. It’s not my suggestion but that of those that are truly qualified. The fact is, in “Some places in the interior of the country, Africans and people of African descent made up more than fifty percent of the population. … Buenos Aires’s population itself was a third black at the time of the revolution.” These people could not have simply vanished of their own accord, this is your countries historical legacy.
@pgerman
Jan 26th, 2017 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is interesting. I will suggest Lukedig has a look at this book if he reappears; he seems to think the whole war was entirely Britain's fault.
Unfortunately there does not seem to be an English translation, and you are right that one can easily find websites that contradict each other. I've been trying to find some actual figures for how many slaves were in Argentina but I'm not having much luck. There are plenty of sites that say slaves were brought to work on haciendas, as well as in domestic service, and also that they were recruited into the army by being promised their freedom. Actual numbers are harder to find.
As for the 'friendly tribes' I don't think that alone can prove whether there was a genocide or not. It seems very likely that the natives who joined the Argentine army were from different tribes to the ones they were fighting against, so not really the same people.
@Terence Hill
Since Francisco Doratioto is Brazilian, presumably he is also a neutral historian. So why shouldn't his conclusions be taken into account the same as the ones you were quoting?
DemonTree
Jan 26th, 2017 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Why shouldn't his (Francisco Doratioto) conclusions be taken into account the same as the ones you were quoting?
Because the only thing that pgerman has claimed is he has ‘gone deeper’ into this issue. Whereas that is not the issue. The issue is what happened to all the Africans that resided in Argentina? To wit: “Historians that criticize claims of black casualties in the civil wars often cite the fact that women did not fight in the Argentine wars, yet black women disappeared simultaneously with men in Argentina.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Argentine
What Terence Hill and Demon suggest, as do all other foreigners, is that Argentines know nothing about their history and foreigners do. This in spite of us needing to study two years of history of Argentina, and they presumably only study about 5 minutes in a general class about South America.
Jan 27th, 2017 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0It would be like me trying to lecture North Americans and Europeans on their history... well I do. Because I know more.
Well, that explains it - every Argentine needs to be de-programmed of 2 years of “fake history”.
Jan 27th, 2017 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then you wonder why I troll you (with mostly the truth btw)? Arrogant foreigners like you come here and tell us we learn “fake history”. And who are you to judge that?
Jan 27th, 2017 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your history of the UK is not fake, not embellished and revised to cast your country in a wonderful light? Judging by what the Brits here talk about their empire years, it would very much look to be the case your books have whitewashed all the bad things that it brought to so many people.
Arrogant foreigner, claiming you know more about our history than we ourselves do.
@FC
Jan 27th, 2017 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're wrong. I didn't learn any South American history whatsoever at school. ;)
But if you think the British history taught in schools is so whitewashed, why would the same not be true in Argentina? Don't all countries want to put their past actions in the best possible light? Also historians' views of past events tend to change over time, so for people older than you, what they were taught may no longer be regarded as correct.
Anyway, you've admitted you do exactly the same, based on exactly the same sort of internet research, and I never said you don't have the right to an opinion.
Also FYI, I dont know what the older people posting here were taught, but I learned nearly nothing about the British Empire at school. I suppose it's better than learning a sanitised and glorified version, but I think it is a kind of whitewashing.
Fidel_CasTroll
Jan 27th, 2017 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Suggest, as do all other foreigners, is that Argentines know nothing about their history and foreigners do” On the contrary what foreigners have learn’t from studying Argentina, is that nothing she states can be relied on, without evidently verification. That as a culture lacks any and all ethical standards, as they proudly embrace the principle of viveza criollo.
“But if you think the British history taught in schools is so whitewashed, why would the same not be true in Argentina?”
Jan 27th, 2017 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0How would you know since you didn't learn any South American history whatsoever in school (hardly something to be proud of your education system. Some general history of the entire globe is beneficial).
If you didn't learn anything about the British Empire in school, then what the heck do you learn in school?
I was just hearing about Churchill. He has been made by BRITISH historians into the savior of civilization. But it turns out he wasn't that altruistic as they portray him to be. It seems he had a hand in the extermination of many dark peoples, and that he wanted to destroy all of Italy and Germany by undiscriminating carpet bombing, he had to be stopped by his own generals. And then he seemed to go against an invasion of southern France, preferring an invasion through Italy, which makes no sense at all given the terrain. It seems he wanted the British to then take over the Italian colonies plus Greece.
You never hear British historians talk about these no.
Fidel_CasTroll
Jan 27th, 2017 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Churchill. He has been made by BRITISH historians into the savior of civilization.” Which is largely true unless you believe that Germany under the Nazis was right. “But, it turns out he wasn't that altruistic as they portray him to be” I don’t know of any British historian that has portrayed him in the manner you describe, perhaps you can lighten us. But, regardless of your attempted fallacy of ‘moving the goal-posts what does that have anything to do with dispelling the genocide of of Argentina against it’s Africans?
@FC
Jan 27th, 2017 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Having read various posts of highly dubious accuracy, I concluded that Argentina is the same as Britain in this respect. The War of the Triple Alliance is a good example. Many people were apparently taught in school that it was all started by Britain, acting as some kind of behind the scenes puppet master. But I could find no evidence of this, and according to pgerman Francisco Doratioto also dismisses the theory in his book.
And I didn't say I was proud of Britain's education system. My history lessons consisted of in-depth studies of just a few events/eras. What we studied was well taught, but there was no overview of world or even British history, which I think should be essential.
What did you cover in your 2 years of history?
As for Churchill, you WILL hear British historians talk about these things, but it takes a long time for changes to filter through into school textbooks and curricula. We spent a good amount of time on the Second World War, and I remember there was a section on whether the atomic bombings of Japan and the firebombing of Dresden were war crimes. We looked at the evidence and the arguments for and against and had a class discussion about it.
Also when was this planned invasion of southern France? Vichy France was officially neutral so I'm surprised anyone planned to invade it.
DT,
Jan 27th, 2017 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nostrils is deflecting again. Don't fall for it.
i don't know anyone in Britain who attempted a genocide in the Americas.
Meanwhile, if Nostrils is to be believed, he currently prospers and lives on the land of the Mapuches who were displaced and exterminated for immigrants like Nostrils to move in.
“i don't know anyone in Britain who attempted a genocide in the Americas.”
Jan 27th, 2017 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Well, even if we were to believe this funny story, you still have 4 other continents to account for.
As for my 2 years of history, one of them was Argentina history, and the other was the European Age of Exploitation and Subjugation. I studied nothing about WWII however.
Fidel_CasTroll
Jan 27th, 2017 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Well, even if we were to believe this funny story” So you have conceded the fact that Argentina engaged in genocide against it’s African populous. Since you have engaged in the massive fallacies of ‘moving the goal-posts’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Your concession is indicated by the logical proposition “Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent ...”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
@Kanye
Jan 27th, 2017 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Meh, I'm not really bothered if he's deflecting; I'm curious to know what children learn in school in Argentina.
Also surely you live somewhere in the Americas too? Isn't all the land there pretty much stolen from other people?
@FC
“the other was the European Age of Exploitation and Subjugation.”
Of course it was (I'm rolling my eyes right now). Did you cover recent history like the Junta and all the people they 'disappeared'? And what did you learn about the Paraguayan war? I'd like to know if it's changed since LukeDig was at school.
When I was at school I also learned about the cold war, so we covered some recent US and Soviet history. That was actually pretty useful for understanding the state of the world today.
No we didn't study any recent US or Soviet history, only history that affects Argentina in some way. So the Condor history was studied, as is the changing patterns of Chilean-Argentine, and Brazilian-Argentine relations.
Jan 28th, 2017 - 05:49 am - Link - Report abuse -2Terence Hill,
Wrong again. I just come from a civilized nation where we are open to compromise and a bit of yield. Thus I said “assuming” and not “acknowledge” (concede). Get a thesaurus for your own language, I would feel bad to have to teach and Englishman English.
You in the UK an USA are primitive, backwards societies where it is my way or the highway. Thus you get Trump and May. In the civilized word we are open to some compromise and also debate.
I will keep talking about Britain's ugly history if you keep talking about Argentina's history in spurious terms, just live with it. The ridiculous excuse that the topic here is Argentina thus if I talk about Britain I am off-topic is the clearest example of how weak your positions are. You all come here to talk trash and I guess you think I am supposed to say nothing about your country because this section just happens to be about Argentina... hahahaha, how silly and idiotic some of you Anglos are.
Mr Short. Please try and not ruin a finally friendlier dialogue and venue of communication for our two peoples to start talking as people who share the geography and history of this region, after all these years of distasteful classless and immature assaulting of one another, with completely irrelevant issues more related to mankind's entire history on the planet, than to the Falkland Islands or the Malvinas matter between Argentina and Great Britain. You have been relentlessly campaigning your “WW2 fascist Argentina/wanna be Colonial empire” propaganda pamphlet along side a handful of archaically antagonistic characters from the islands and abroad too long, tragically attempting to represent your people this way, sadly to their future, for the well intended good islanders meaning to be forthcoming about better ways of seeing and resolving inteligently the Argentine dispute, never get a chance to speak up. Time to leave the old story script sir. No one bought the; Argentina=Third Right country reincarnated in South America OK? Even if Hitler was hiding in Paraguay all these years, he is most certainly dead by now. We all know what Argentina is upset about. Argentina is denouncing that Britain decided what was fair in 1833 forcefully cutting out any diplomatic recognition on a matter that clearly concerned Argentina's right to inherit ex Spanish land before Britain's right to it. If the Islanders are saying “It's too late, we now live here”, well there are -many- ways of saying that sir without insulting anyone. And there are -many- ways of standing on that, while recognizing Argentina's point and predicament in this chapter of European Colonial History, even while recognizing Britain abused its power against Argentina on more than one occasion during those days, and still ask Argentina to compromise for the common good. Why not break it down into a hierarchy of aspects and discuss those in appropriate relevance to FI or to GB while standing on your sovereign right?
Jan 28th, 2017 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse -4Fidel_CasTroll and (his alter ego) Vaca_Muerta_peTroLLium
Jan 28th, 2017 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse +2‘Thus I said “assuming” and not “acknowledge”’
The reality is you ‘ducked’n issue of ‘Africans’ after ’shoe-horning’ yourself into the subject. So this how the authorities judge such conduct. “Thus, who keeps silent consents” which means you have conceded the African matter to me.
“I will keep talking about Britain's ugly history” You are engaging in the fallacy of Avoiding the issue Ignoratio elenchi, “an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. ... “ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
I will show you for the person you really are. A defeated arguer who attempts make ‘end-runs’ around established rules of making a proper argument.
@Trollboy
Jan 28th, 2017 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ANOTHER name change? Is it in honour of anything in particular? I don't know what to call you now.
I didn't really think you would have studied any US or Russian history, that was just something my lessons covered. But Operation Condor was actually connected with the Cold War. The US funded the Juntas and gave them training because they were anti-communist and the US was always afraid of communism spreading to more countries. It's ironic that if instead they had spent the money helping those countries to develop, they probably wouldn't have turned to communism in the first place.
Did you learn why Argentina is closer to Brazil than Chile these days? I hadn't thought about it before, but it is a little surprising. Doesn't Argentina have more in common with Chile really? Also did you learn about the Falklands War? I didn't learn anything about it at school.
Anyway, you obviously learned about British history online, and you just said you intend to keep talking about it, so I will keep talking about Argentine history too.
And I don't believe Terence Hill is an Englishman. No one makes 'end-runs' around here, that's an American term.
Patrick R
Jan 28th, 2017 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Anouncing that Britain decided what was fair in 1833 forcefully cutting out any diplomatic recognition on a matter that clearly concerned Argentina's right to inherit ex Spanish land before Britain's right to it.” Rubbish! Britain made two diplomatic protests against Argentine forceful usurpation , which Argentina chose too ignore, So its hypocritical to initiate a course of conduct and then critise your opponent for reciprocating. You were explicitly barred under prior Anglo-Spanish treaties from ever holding sovereignty. Under Utrecht and Nootka Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration. But even if these prior conditions didn't exist and the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them, it was perfectly legal in 1833.
“the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them, it was perfectly legal in 1833.”
Jan 28th, 2017 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1HAHAHAHAHA, and here we go, ANGLOS WILL BE ANGLOS.
Now let's remember I have been trying to educate this very same poster on Argentine history, and why Argentina did not commit any colonization and land usurpation. I explained to him (and Demon Tree), that unlike the other countries, including the USA, Mexico, Peru, Chile (with the Mapuche), Brazil, etc, Argentina never signed any treaties or recognized the existence of the indian nations as such at all. As a result, Argentine never broke any laws, and certainly completely legally marched over the prairies and took the land, it was perfectly legal in 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880.
Then he has the audacity to berate me for my ignorance of my own history, and excoriate Argentina for being so mean and evil with the indians. Even Demon Tree said “well but it's still wrong”...
Then isn't sailing the ocean blue and taking something also wrong???????
There is a reason why I keep bringing hypocrisy all the time, and why I have to use the phrase “Anglos will be Anglos” every day!
I never claimed that Argentina broke any laws that existed at the time. Only that its actions may still be considered a genocide now. Yes, sailing across the ocean and taking something as also wrong, even though it may have been legal at the time.
Jan 28th, 2017 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, and I don't agree with TH; Argentina was not bound by any treaties between Spain and the UK, just as the UK was not bound to respect Argentina's inheritance from Spain.
This is a rather silly argument where each side brings up things that the other side did, and says 'look you're just as bad, you did it too!' And the things they bring up become less and less relevant to the issue at hand. Totally pointless.
DemonTree
Jan 28th, 2017 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Argentina was not bound by any treaties between Spain and the UK,” Perhaps, but her ‘silence’ on the matter is indicative of her acquiescence to the status quo.
It's the British posters here who do it, instead of sticking to the subject of Falklands when relevant they go into all these tangents about Argentine afros, fascists, nazis, indians, squatters, and on.
Jan 28th, 2017 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If they stop, I stop. Simple. I have been waiting 5 years for them to stop, and they can't help themselves. Anglo self-control is very poor apparently. I guess that “hot-tempered” Latin thing the Anglos always used to point as a flaw they did not have, actually they have any more.
I mean what country would vote Brexit or Trump just to do a one-day F-U to spite the political class? With a decision that will have significance to them and their kids.
Vaca_Muerta_peTroLLium and DT
Jan 28th, 2017 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Then isn't sailing the ocean blue and taking something also wrong” and “Totally pointless.” Only if you want to lay aside hundreds of years of evolving international law. So regardless of your subjective musings here’s what international law says. Even if you discount the treaty arrangements that disqualify any and all claims by Argentina while endorsing the UK’s rightful entitlement under international law at that time.
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice SHARON KORMAN
“In the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession,”
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
(a Judge of the ICJ from 1982 and president between 1991 and 1994)
“…The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. …”
@Troll
Jan 28th, 2017 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1They aren't going to stop, because there are lots of them, and while you may be able to change one person's mind, you can't change everyone at once. So no need to worry that you will ever have to stop trolling.
Argentines are just as bad though, as I can easily see by the comments on this website and others.
And I am sure that nearly nobody voted for Trump or Brexit just as a FU. I do think a lot of people were unhappy with their lives and with the way each country was going, and thought that changing things had to be better than sticking with the status quo. I do think they were foolish to believe that things couldn't get any worse though - whether they actually do or not, it is certainly possible for things to be lot, lot worse.
@TH
We weren't even talking about the Falklands (for once) so we are not interested in hearing about your treaties.
And something can be wrong without being illegal. For example, slavery used to be legal, and it was still wrong. If you don't agree with that, then I have nothing more to say to you.
There was no Conquest....
Jan 28th, 2017 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Englishman...?
Terry is just a nosey Canadian...
Government's can issue all the statements and declarations THEY WANT, regarding their own will and unilateral mentality on international affairs, but if two countries aren't talking reciprocally back and forth, it means nothing in this World. You're comments simply exemplifies Britain's contempt for the World, and hideous disregard for other countries situations. Where is that “protest” “Britain issued” ? You could war on Spain and France at the same time, ... but you couldn't deal with fledgling Argentina's un protectable territorial claim against you?
Jan 28th, 2017 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Where was there any dialogue established?
Diplomacy and negotiations, political discussions and so forth ARE PREFERRED to War. Ask any country or any person. Arms and War do not give you rights to any land on this Planet. We know this. It is Britain, not Argentina who merely wants to talk about it, who is having a sociopathic entanglement in remembering how to put a gun down. Both countries are acting like cowards over something silly in it's scale compared to other conflict in the world. And you know why? Because BOTH countries have “a financial class of people in industry and financing” WHO USE this sequestered Justice for their own gain, at the expense of the sovereign freedom of the Islanders, who are the most conditioned and indoctrinated group of all, comfortably kept for Britain's gain and advantage, in an information production zone of lala superficiality and inarticulate victorian flag-waving simplicity that utters no thought other than the well learned WW2 “good allies” propagandist ancient rhetoric against “enemy ideas”. British foreign policy, is an exclusively self furthering policy of warring and taking by force coercion and underhanded manipulation from those who once trusted them. Weather we are talking about 1833 or 1982.
I don't think MLA Short is on this forum...
Jan 28th, 2017 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Send him an email...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 28th, 2017 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Three lines, race and nationality are two of them. Glad to see your xenophobia is still festering away.
The definition according to the PCA explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: “Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are based act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession,”
So you can suggest any form of sophism you wish, at the end of the day you’re just that lonely little petunia of one personal opinion. Who is refuted by no less a compelling majority opinion of a properly constituted court of international law.
DT
Who’s we? You don’t advocate for others, how arrogant. I don’t care that my advocating international law, as the only applicable rational format. Doesn’t conform to your childish emotionally based view of the situation. “Something can be wrong without being illegal” Then enlighten us Oh! Great One, and explain what is wrong there that should be made illegal. Bearing, in mind that it is a universal axiom that you can’t apply international law retroactively.
...and yet still there was no Conquest...
Jan 28th, 2017 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Unless of course your definition of conquest differs from the definition that International Law appears to use...
Is there a Canadian version...?
btw...
You still appear to be referring to me as other personalities....?
Do you have any proof of that...?
Is it a claim you are making?...because I think the burden of proof that you are always keen on quoting...is upon you to prove this is so....
...and don't keep silent about it, otherwise I will have to accept that silence, as an acquiescence that you are wrong...
...as usual...
IN FACT, nearly all of the more financially technologically advanced countries leading in the world today, which Britain is one of, characterize their military involvement against other countries, by those “enemy countries” ironically originally having honorably trusted them, before any belligerency appeared possible in their relationship. Whether we are talking 200 years ago or 2000 years ago. Indeed most situations where today's leading countries are acting, supporting or influencing militarily against usually smaller and weaker countries, are countries that never once assaulted their homeland territory. While They DO allow themselves to do that.
Jan 28th, 2017 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -3How can Britain presume its righteousness can stand fair and true, when one compares the vast amount of foreign war exportation and affliction onto other people's countries, to nearly zero attack aggression or invasion of its own Territory? You can't. Moreover, the math in it leads you to the opposite. Britain being the abuser and rapper of people's free sovereignty, the World, the victim of its war machine. Whether you call it “a Colony”, whether you call it a BOT or a Commonwealth Country; extra-national territories tied into military activity or purpose; hide a lie, plus one country's imposed presumption on EVERYONE'S World, without any universal or equally shared agreement. Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Germany and Holland all ended their political economic Colonialism. Britain didn't, and worse yet, it allowed for the U.S. to depart from its own Independence and Constitutional principals, to go on unquestioned by its own people in the practice against countries like Puerto Rico and Hawaii, Guam, and many others, because Britain made it appear “disappeared” and thus acceptable to the world by showing a civilized guiltless front, about these new self-serving political inventions. .
All the Hispanic Countries in the world should be proud to not hold any form of colony or pressure ploy on any of the planet's people
Are you still talking to Gavin Short...?
Jan 28th, 2017 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not a public notice board...
@TH
Jan 28th, 2017 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Oh, but I do advocate for others. If anyone disagrees with me, they are perfectly able to comment and say so. Since no one has, we are entitled to assume... that silence means consent. ;)
How sad that you think having principles is childish. Do you think that the people who campaigned to abolish the slave trade were being childish? How about Nelson Mandela who went to jail for 27 years for campaigning against apartheid? There are more important things than laws, and laws are frequently changed anyway - laws are supposed to serve society.
And since all the things I have mentioned as wrong, have already been made illegal, the answer to your question is nothing. Since I wasn't talking about the Falklands at all, I have no idea why you think these treaties are relevant.
@Patrick Edgar
“Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Germany and Holland all ended their political economic Colonialism.”
Actually France still has two non-self governing territories on the UN's list, and most of the others did not give up their colonies willingly. As for economic colonialism, that is a little more complicated.
Interesting you say that Britain 'allowed' the US, a much bigger and more powerful country, to do something. How? And what did the US do to Hawaii?
Patrick Edgar
Jan 28th, 2017 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1‘Where is that “protest” “Britain issued” ?’ Text of Britain's first protest in PRO, FO 6 499, p. 33: November 19th, 1829
“Britain protested again when Vernet announced his intentions to exercise exclusive rights over fishing and sealing in the islands.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
The judgement of the PCA “such as occupation” is confirmed by “Argentina's new president demanded the UK enters talks over the “unlawful” Falklands occupation as he snubbed David Cameron's call for a “more mature relationship”… In a statement, the Argentinian Embassy, said Mr Macri's administration has been ”unanimous in its rejection of the British military presence in the South Atlantic“ and called for ”an end“ to the Falklands occupation.
The statement said: ”On 3 January 1833, the Malvinas Islands were occupied by British forces, which evicted the Argentine population …and “ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
You still appear to be referring to me as other personalities....?
Do you have any proof of that...? Yes answered four times and you have never denied my assertion, even once. So what was that about silence again?
“Is it a claim you are making?...because I think the burden of proof ...and don't keep silent about it, otherwise”
I'm carrying on a long established practice based on my empirical knowledge in which I have posted to you under the above title. Secondly, with your acquiescence, with little or no protest, latest title being 'Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire.' Prior to that it was simply 'Voice, Vestige, Think'. Step up take bow, you work very hard at your subterfuge. But, I can see what a breeze it must be for one practised in viveza criolla.
UK Overseas Territories …Sep 17th, 2016
Macri/Cameron coincide on new relationsh
Pedgar
Jan 28th, 2017 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“All the Hispanic Countries in the world should be proud to not hold any form of colony or pressure ploy on any of the planet's people”
What about the Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla? All 'belonging' to Spain but on a different continent.
They may be small but the principle's the same
Terence Hill, Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub
Jan 29th, 2017 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse -1“Do you have any proof of that...? Yes answered four times and you have never denied my assertion, even once. So what was that about silence again?”
Was I silent here...?
”Terry me old son... You seriously can't see that you keep contradicting yourself....can you...? You also claim I'm Vestige and Think without one iota of proof... You need to differentiate what you believe to be true and factual... With what is ....true and factual..”
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/01/22/macri-cameron-coincide-on-new-relationship-falklands-left-for-further-on/comments#comment428149
Not even once was it....;-)))))
What on earth is the rest of your drivel...?
Post 1833 British occupation of the Falklands is irrelevant as to who has legal claim to the islands..
I seriously doubt whether you understand the meaning of the legal entitlements through...
Conquest....
Occupation...
Cessation...
..under international law...
DemonTree
Jan 29th, 2017 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Oh, but I do advocate for others. If anyone disagrees with me,” without their consent is fraud, so thanks for the confirmation.
“How sad that you think having principles is childish” How arrogantly immature to assume you are the only person with principles, Your rejection of rational discourse for your subjective notions puts you on a par with Argentinians. I was primarily responding to Vaca_Muerta_peTroLLium and secondly your dismissive “is a rather silly argument …Totally pointless.” as to any legal status.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
“Was I silent here...?” To little too late as that horse has left the barn ages ago, with your complete acquiescence.
“Post 1833 British occupation of the Falklands is irrelevant as to who has legal claim to the islands..” not according to the PCA who uses the very word that Macri
uses, namely ‘occupation’ in it’s ‘findings’ makes it conclusive. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/631271/Falkland-Islands-Argentina-Britain-Mauricio-Macri-David-Cameron-Malvinas “I seriously doubt whether you understand the meaning of the legal entitlements through…” Unfortunately for you I do.
People. When we are talking about international sovereignty among the world's nations, what is “legal” dwells in its own exclusive understanding environment. For anything to be “legal internationally” beyond principle, but also in practice it must be agreed universally by all nations, and all their people actively and equally on willing to use and refer to them. You can't force another nation to abide by an “international law” it did not sign on to. And should not simple have other nations jump on board and adopt laws without those nations creating their share of international guidelines for the planet, which of course must later be approved and condensed developed by the rest of the world's country's. Then you can shout at another country, “abide by what you yourself stipulated”! THAT is freedom.
Jan 29th, 2017 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse -3Patrick Edgar
Jan 29th, 2017 - 04:47 am - Link - Report abuse +1“You can't force another nation to abide by an “international law” it did not sign on to”
“International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations
Public international law; globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens)”
International law; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isn’t being a member of the UN dependent on being bound by the norms of international law ?
”Nations that remain silent, however, may become bound by the rule, even if they did not expressly support it. Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.”
p. xxv, FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW //lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/s3fs-public/uploads/2013/05/FRLCM_FM.pdf
Of course nations can still exercise choices, but it is likely to incur unintended consequences, if they are in a severe breach.
DT,
Jan 29th, 2017 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0It appears that the Argentines are the only European supplanters that are in denial that the indigenous peoples were forcibly displaced and abused horribly.
@TH
Jan 29th, 2017 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh no. You are always telling us that silence means consent. Therefore I do have consent, so no fraud.
“How arrogantly immature to assume you are the only person with principles.”
This is a lie. I never assumed I was the only person with principles, in fact I mentioned various people with principles in my comment. I also asked you if you agreed with the principle that slavery is wrong, which question you have still not answered. So, do you have any principles?
And I do not reject rational discourse, with people who are capable of it. I reject bringing irrelevancies into an argument. For example, the legal ownership of the Falklands is irrelevant to whether the Conquest of the Desert was a genocide, and vice versa.
Also the fact you compare me to Argentines as an insult shows you are prejudiced against a whole country, something that really is irrational (and wrong).
@Patrick Edgar
You are wrong. International law has never been agreed by all nations, yet the UN, or rather its members, does force other nations to abide by international laws they did not sign up to, with sanctions and even military force.
And this is similar to how it works within countries too. You are not asked to agree to the laws of your country when you are born, nor when you become an adult, but you are forced to obey them anyway.
@Kanye
I don't think that is true. In every country there are people who recognise that these things occurred, and others who are more or less in denial, or just don't care. What the various countries are doing to fix the still-existing problems of poverty, exclusion etc is probably more important.
DemonTree
Jan 29th, 2017 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Therefore I do have consent, so no fraud.” Then it should be breeze proving that claim, incidentally as you bear the burden off proof.
Since you’re an expert on basis of Argentine claims to the Islands, please share this insight. Since I’ve been unable to find an any support under international law that would make it rational.
I already proved it according to you. “Silence means consent.”
Jan 29th, 2017 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0And I am not an expert on Argentine claims to the islands, and have never said I was. You are attempting to put words in my mouth claiming I said all kinds of things that I did not.
You still haven't answered my question. Is slavery wrong, and was it wrong in the past when it was legal?
DemonTree
Jan 29th, 2017 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I already proved it” Run that by me again, where is there anywhere in the discourse of logic that you are entitled to claim you are representative of someone else, without their express permission. You can’t, you’re just shooting your mouth off again. “Is slavery wrong” always, but how does that relate to the UK’s legally supported claim to the Falklands. Come on, show us how their wrong.
@TH
Jan 29th, 2017 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse +1It's exactly the same 'proof' that you have claimed many times, eg in this thread when you said Voice was a sockpuppet. Either silence proves consent or one needs express agreement, which is it?
I am pleased to know that you do have some principles however, and trust you no longer think it is childish to discuss them. Obviously slavery has no relation to anyone's claims over the Falklands, but may do to the unrelated claim about a genocide of former slaves in Argentina. Which is what we were originally discussing.
As for the UK's claim on the Falklands, why would I want to show it's wrong? I don't believe it is. If you want to argue about that then address yourself to Voice.
The British talking about African genocide by any other country is like Germans talking about the Spanish Inquisition. You are just not allowed to talk.
Jan 29th, 2017 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -4DemonTree
Jan 29th, 2017 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It's exactly the same 'proof' that you have claimed many times,” My assertions are fully, supported both in logic and law. So where is the your support in the context you’re claiming?, to wit: SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
”..He who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. “
”Nations that remain silent, however, may become bound by the rule, even if they did not expressly support it. Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.”
p. xxv, FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/s3fs-public/uploads/2013/05/FRLCM_FM.pdf
Whereas, I’m showing that by failing to meet your burden of proof, your ’silence’ means what you’ve stated is not true period
“As for the UK's claim on the Falklands, why would I want to show it's wrong?” So you’ve reversed your claim of Yes, sailing across the ocean and taking something as also wrong, even though it may have been legal at the time.”
@Troll
Jan 29th, 2017 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We weren't talking about genocides in Africa, what are you on about?
@TH
If you can't even understand that my argument is identical to yours, then I am evidently wasting my time.
But for the sake of anyone else reading: I think sailing across the ocean and taking other people's land is morally wrong, however, I don't think it would be right or feasible to try and give those countries back to the original inhabitants now. I was only talking about the moral aspect however, not the legal ones, which are a separate issue.
The FALKLANDERS wish to remain a BOT for the forseeable future so live with it. You all on this site can argue back and forth but still the FALKLANDERS remain a BOT. The UK did this Argentina did that so what. It is what the FALKLANDERS wish that overides everything
Jan 29th, 2017 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Vaca_Muerta_peTroLLium
Jan 29th, 2017 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Talking about African genocide by any other country is..” No comparison, unlike Argentina, they never instituted any policy of genocide period.
DemonTree
Don’t try and worm out it, your attempts to institute an argument just for the sake of it, have blown up spectacularly in your own face. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Well, right there you are lying and have proven yourself an argie-hater who will just say anything and tell all sorts of lies. To claim not only that Argentina committed genocide against Africans, but that it is the only country in the world to ever do so show your argie-hating, semi-racist stripes.
Jan 29th, 2017 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Vaca_Muerta_peTroLLium
Jan 29th, 2017 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“You are lying and have proven yourself an argie-hater” No I am simply responding to your own xenophobic diatribe. ”As a result, in some places in the interior of the country, Africans and people of African descent made up more than fifty percent of the population in these areas according to Jonathan C. Brown. According the George Reid Andrews in his book The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires, 1800-1900, Buenos Aires’s population itself was a third black at the time of the revolution.” www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27tauo/what_happened_to_the_black_
So where are they now? How can you justify their unprecedented decline of such a huge percentage of your population. In view of Argentine bragging that they were the ‘whitest’ S.American country.
Well this has got even weirder. The biggest African genocide was in Rwanda, it was done by Rwandans against their fellow citizens, and the rest of the world stood by and did nothing. There was another genocide in Africa done by the German Empire; I don't know if there were others.
Jan 29th, 2017 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have to say that Terence Hill has definitely shown he is prejudiced against Argentines though.
@golfcronie
Agreed. The people who live there are by the far the most affected, so it should be their decision.
The crazy man that stands on the street corner shouting at folk..“You are Lucifer, you are the devil, you are Beelzebub”...
Jan 29th, 2017 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1We all cross the road and ignore what he says, but does that mean our silence means we are what he says...? Is the burden of proof upon ourselves to prove that he is wrong..?
Of course not, he's just a crazy old man with an outlandish opinion...
Welcome to the world of Terry Hill it's like falling down a rabbit hole...or through a looking glass...
DemonTree
Jan 29th, 2017 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Shown he is prejudiced against Argentines” Never, I have just assembled the historical facts to answer the racist rantings I someone like you. Who is also an Argentine apologist.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
“It's like falling down a rabbit hole” Certainty is Ollie, when the axioms of law and logic blow your sophistic offerings apart.
@Voice
Jan 29th, 2017 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed.
“Your rejection of rational discourse for your subjective notions puts you on a par with Argentinians.”
That certainly sounds prejudiced to me.
DemonTree
Jan 29th, 2017 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your rejection of rational discourse for…” More of your subjective musings, when all I have indicated is irrationality and lack of any objective foundation.
@Demon Tree.
Jan 30th, 2017 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse -1There is a fundamental difference. A country is created in concept and function by few but, for ALL its people, it is “released” upon its creation to all its people, and later it is all its people who continue its maneuvering into the future through their influence and suggestion, retaining the right to remake it if necessary (in principle). Hardly the case with the United Nations, which was created following on the power of the same group of nations that created the League of Nations after WW1, by Britain and America practically, with the token participation of France, China and Russia. Not to mention that its biased beginnings, only lofted more severely as it gained the external self serving agenda of essentially the same handful group of countries with the creation of additional elite groups in the interest of their own security and their own economies. The vast majority of nations that joined, did so in good faith that the creators of the U.N. were going to be true to its preamble which so strongly suggests universal equality of participation and importance for all nations. One can see it is no secret that many countries have increasingly been disappointed with the way the U.N is performing in its fairness and supposed selflessness, simply by listening to country leaders speak before the National Assembly.
Britain has the same attitude about expecting documents jealously created by the self invested interest of a specific selected tinny class of super powerful people in the 17 and 18 centuries, presuming all others to simply abide by them. We forget that Argentina, as well as America, Mexico, Venezuela and Chile were all politically born in the loathing of Colonialist Tyranny. Argentina is not obliged to honor Britain's utilitarian expansionist purpose for the Falklands, whence it understands a different political situation to be the case. One in which all People's have at least once an equal right to form their political and territorial existence
Patrick Edgar
Jan 30th, 2017 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0So in your ‘Ïf I ruled the world scenario’ you would re-create the UN in a manner that was wholly compliant to Argentine aspirations.
Which would accomplish what exactly? A Britain that would that find this acceptable? Give your head a shake.
@Patrick Edgar
Jan 30th, 2017 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A country is created in concept and function by few but, for ALL its people, it is “released” upon its creation to all its people”
I suppose many were created that way, but others such as the UK (my country), were not. Whatever powers the people have now is because we fought for them over time. And of the countries that were created as democracies, many have been ruled by dictators since, giving the people no rights over their own country. So I don't think the way a country or organisation is created is the most important thing, but how it works now, and whether it is getting better or worse.
The UN was created by the winners of WWII, and it's original primary purpose was peacekeeping. And obviously it is true that some members have always had more power than others. I don't believe the members were ignorant of those facts when they joined, they just thought they would be better off in than out.
The problem with laws is that people or countries will only obey them for two reasons: because they choose to, or because they are forced to. So the UN will never be fair while some countries are so much more powerful than others.
“We forget that Argentina, as well as America, Mexico, Venezuela and Chile were all politically born in the loathing of Colonialist Tyranny.”
Were they? I'm afraid I don't know so much about those countries, but what were their complaints against Spain? As far as I know Spain was still an absolute monarchy before Napoleon invaded, so the colonists couldn't complain that they had less rights than the Spanish themselves. And the people leading the revolutions were the descendants of colonists, not natives fighting against an 'occupying force' as in Africa and Asia.
“Britain's utilitarian expansionist purpose for the Falklands”
Why do you think Britain wants to keep the Falklands, exactly?
I was referring to the way all countries at one point or another started. Winning through war, is just part of it or not part of it. I am talking about the equal right to be created and exist among nations every country had at least once in this world. Before any nation was created, the world was and still is, shared by all its men and women IN EQUAL RIGHT. Whatever country first used it's power to have dominion of the lands of other people, was the first country to transgress unjustly it's right to be on this world. From this point, which most nations including Argentina and Britain have trespassed, only retraction to consolidated unity, brings the most Justice and Truth to the People or Peoples. Argentina was done expanding a century and a half ago, and is only left with a dispute against Britain. Britain is still trying to expand, through sovereign access to other territories, ownership of lands and companies in other countries, military bases, financial infrastructure etc; in the form of extraordinary political inventions of distribution and governmental power. Britain still wants control of the area no different to why it invaded the Plata River and later again imposed it's military will against the countries of the Parana River. It plays Chile against Argentina. It blackmails the Argentine international economy and sphere of formal communications by sequestering the diplomatic freedom of this sovereignty dispute with a brutally unnecessary and disproportionate military base on the islands.
Jan 30th, 2017 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Britain keeps bases around the world even when obsolete, it engineers treaties and agreements for the purpose of retaining its foot-hold wherever conflicts may be, it never does anything to bring peace to the world. It only produces the fake appearance of the intent of it. In fact it is the most sophisticated and central component among the world's war industry agents of cause and production. Yet it pushes a ridiculous campaign to have Argentina appear like the villain.
Patrick Edgar, another political activist, was it not Argentina with its expansionist idea to “ invade ” a peace loving country off the east coast of Argentina called the FALKLANDS? Pot, kettle black springs to mind eh.You keep referring back to the past, why not look forward as you and I are “ NOT ” going to change the past, no matter how many times you bring it up.
Jan 31st, 2017 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse +1... just “another”? Is not Political Activism what you and everyone else on this planet is doing?
Jan 31st, 2017 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -2So you're first word of engagement is snide loathing. Lovely.
You should know very well, I assume, that far from describes the Falkland / Malvinas War. I'm sorry, but I'm not letting you get away with contrangulating a toxic surge of semantics, ambitiously attempting to profuse a different story. The Falklands is not “another country”. The matter discusses a territory Britain now calls Falkland Islands British Oversaeas Territory, and Argentina calls The Malvinas Islands.~ These Islands have yet to be a nation genuinly desired and created by it's settlers. So far only the will of her Majesties British Government has structured their use and purpose to satisfy its own interest. This nearly two centuries year old claim by Argentina, and two and a half centuries old claim by Britain of these islands, has only played off through the years in the saddest of fashions any two countries' relationship can go about a shared dispute affecting their peoples in such an intimate and self reliant place to any nation, its territorial sovereignty. It's covetousness and unmanly political leadership (with the exception of Mrs Thatcher's actions of course), has permeated with the worst insolent aloofness any country deserves, flooding it's entire history, and allowing for the island's inhabitants to live above the most unsettled and uncertain foundations, backed only by a far away country's government militant voice, calling to stand firm. The question is; is it to resist, or is it to take? The matter has...riddling the diplomatic relationship against the denouncing country in the dispute, Argentina with abusive greed insolence and disrespect wherever and whenever the two countries' touch on the matter, beyond the already continuously present contempt and invasive attitude Britain has always had towards this Hispanic Hemisphere, yet while easily drawing plans to use and presume.
Patrick Edgar
Jan 31st, 2017 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You can waffle on with all the BS you want. But, what you can’t do is present anything under international law that even gives Argentina support for her spurious claim.
Now the UK and Argentina are both aware that after this length time, that Argentina has lost the opportunity to mount any legal claim. There is no requirement for the UK legally to even discuss the issue. Argentina was the first to refuse to engage in discussions. By acting so she has endorsed the correctness of the British legal position. She was the first to attempt the use of force by setting up a garrison. So she is now in no position to complain about UK reciprocating in alike manner.
@Patrick Edgar
Jan 31st, 2017 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2People were fighting wars with each other, and stealing other people's land before any country existed. Only a very few countries can claim to have fought no wars, and those were created recently.
And I don't know why you say Britain is still trying to expand, when only 70 years ago it had an empire, and part of the UK itself split off less than 100 years ago. Yes, it still has some military bases, and companies that invest in other countries for their own profit. But it is neither so evil nor so powerful as you imply. And Britain has helped bring peace to the world, even if only for its own benefit. However, America is much more powerful now.
As for the Falklands, they spent a long time being mostly ignored by “her Majesties British Government”, and the UK had no interest at all in building a military base until it was shown to be necessary.
thanks both. arguments are subtle, and two unimportant for this world today. I feel both countries should care more about leading with a good example of friendship and compromise, by for example splitting the islands West and East, finish slicing up Antarctica, with fare adminstrative pie slices to Britain, Norway, Argentina, Chile, Australia etc... Argentina might give up it's claims to South Sandwich and Georgia Islands... Who knows people! If we don't try and propose -something-, -nothing- is going to happen.
Feb 01st, 2017 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse -1Patrick Edgar
Feb 01st, 2017 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1“I feel both countries should care more about”
I don’t believe that such subjective nuances have any place in consideration. An effective solution lies in a proper and right determination based solely on the rule of law.
@Patrick Edgar
Feb 01st, 2017 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At least the countries are actually speaking again, under Macri, but I can't see any kind of resolution happening in the short term. The two countries stated positions are evidently incompatible, and neither has shown any willingness to compromise. The UK refuses to even talk about it unless the Islanders agree, and they don't think they have much to gain by talking. And Argentina has added its sovereignty claim to the constitution, so surely no government could legally agree to split the islands as you suggested until this is changed?
I don't agree with Terence Hill though, IMO negotiating a solution would have been perfectly possible if the war had never happened, but now it is much more difficult, and the bad relations until recently made it even harder.
And as for slicing up Antarctica, all claims are frozen by the Antarctic Treaty anyway, and I hope it stays that way. I don't want to see companies drilling oil wells and digging mines in such a fragile environment.
As both countries under the UN Charter are bound to accept what determination the Islanders choose. Therefor, there can be no negotiations or even a legal determination, without their endorsement. Since, their self determination is Public international law; globally accepted standards of behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens)” International law; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Feb 01st, 2017 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In other words binding.
PE
Feb 01st, 2017 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Paraphrasing PE - the world's land and resources are to be shared by all.
Sure.
Sounds reasonable to someone from a country that has less and less each year, have mismanaged what they have, and sees others who have successfully built economies and industries, and created a good place to live.
You don't understand the point.
Feb 01st, 2017 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1There is so much and so many Earthly resources for the planet's people and the nations they create to live. The Earth belongs to us all equally. It does not belong more to the first one that invented gun powder or the warship, plaques or pretty words saying her Majesty considers lands elsewhere hers. One People => One Nation. Not One People => Several Nations or, One Nation=>Several Peoples.
The Kindom of Fairness and Justice will arrive. And I'll tell you one thing is certain. It aint the United Kingdom. Ever since the Spanish Nations started brewing in their creation, your country has been circling South America like a shark. You're industrial capitalism has only been invasive, disregarding and self servingly apathetic to our realities. Every Country has the right and duty to build itself and stand on its own well constructed feet. Stop lending money and looking to put your tentacles overseas ! Honor a country's rightful argument with the respect of equality among all Peoples nations. Have the People of the Falklands make their own independent nation or cut your losses and get out, let countries and peoples build themselves. The world is no longer infinite, and no; mankind's psyche or civilization does not require or seek war in order to exist. That is simply Britain's perverse lie. No one wants war. We simply put up with bullies. Mt Pleasant is a hostile aggression when considering the whole truthful context of this conflict. Make no mistakes about it. Argentina is being politically attacked, and has been politically attacked since 1805, by Britain.
Patrick Edgar
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Industrial capitalism has only been invasive” Is the province of private citizens not nations, with exception of the former Soviet bloc. What ever it did was with the support of your government,
“Have the People of the Falklands make their own independent nation or cut your losses and get out” Is it a national trait that you and your government presume to tell
others how to order their own affairs. With-out any colour of right, if I was them, I’d tell you in the immortal words of Lord Byron to Mrs. Wordsworth “Fuck-off”
“Mt Pleasant is a hostile aggression” Mt Pleasant is perfectly proper and rational precaution against further Argentine aggression.
“Argentina is being politically attacked” Rubbish! The British largely ignores Argentina, just responding to claims to Islands with a perfunctory legal notice.
After 1833, a little over ten years later, Britain started bringing people, encouraging even, allowing to settle the islands for the sole purpose of making sure Argentina did not settle them, whilst knowing Argentina claimed the islands and continued to evoke a conflict. Britain knowingly put people in harms way in order to settle the islands. And it did so because it saw Argentina as a Spanish country, small weak and perpetually unprepared before the warring colonial empire of Britian, defenseless and presenting no threat.
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders are not the one's claiming the Falkland as theirs, Britain is doing that and having the Islanders sign an agreement to that. ... That doesn't sound like a people who fight for their self determination to me. That to me sounds like a people who are comfortable and safe under the umbrella of those who want to use the islands.
Patrick Edgar
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain started bringing people, making sure Argentina did not settle them” They’d have been pretty stupid not to given their recent experience. Argentina knew exactly what they were provoking, given that the British had made it perfectly clear to Spain that were prepared to go to war over their prior encroachment .
It doesn’t matter a fig what you think it sounds like, the reality is the Islanders rights are the top priority under international law. Regardless of their motives, since they don’t owe anyone an explanation.
TH,
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Patrick” is a hypocrite.
He argues that all the wield'resources and territories should be shared. Then he goes on to say the Falklands belong to Argentina.
He says it is wrong that Britain defended the Falklands militarily twice after Argentine military invasions.
He says the inhabitants should be solely responsible for their own defence, not backed by a larger power, but would have Argentina invade and hold the islands with their military of a larger country.
He says the British should not force the Islanders to say they are British, but it was ok for Argentina to invade and subjugate the Islanders against their will.
Nothing more than an indoctrinated Troll.
@TH : “They’d have been pretty stupid not to given their recent experience” ? Huh? They would have to have been pretty stupid in 1833, given their experience in 1982 ? (two completely different worlds practically!)
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then “Argentina knew exactly what they were provoking” ? again; in 1833 ?
Argentina was struggling then to finalize it's boarders, in 1806 they fought off the English who tried to invade Buenos Aires, they were so unprepared, that people dumped boiling oil from roof tops at the invading soldiers. You think they wanted to “provoke” the British Army?. It is obvious that you combat the “idea” of the country of Argentina, with the recent indoctrinated cultural and social propaganda with which Britain belittles all countries with the same measuring one size fits all stick. I'm seeing now you're co-nationals suddenly studying Argentine history, yet still, it only exalts your bigoted prejudice against dozens of countries like Argentina, by seeing how you interpret our history. Your country now, sadly only knows having enemies. Enemies it created against itself. And people like you, born into this new diplomatically bullying thick skinned stubborn militarily avid Britain, have grown to only know the world this way. I can see you find it impossible to understand this region of history and the world of the day, thinking contemporarily about this 184 year old conflict, as if it was Britain and its problems with the world today. Spain too had discovered and landed on the islands, built on them as Britain, and Argentina eventually did too. Which is when the islands were closest to being a country. Britain has the same rights and the same intelligence other countries do. Something perpetually difficult for your culture to understand, and it is not getting better I see.
@Kanye, name calling?
“He says the Falklands belong to Argentina” Lie.
“He says the inhabitants should be solely responsible for ...” Lie
The fact is, both of you don't know what I believe.
@PE
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you rather not have industrial capitalism? You could buy some land and become a subsistence farmer. No modern labour saving devices, everything created by hand. No computer to write these messages on. It would be hard work, and you would be very poor. Is what you really want?
As for circling like a shark, the UK did have a lot of power and influence in South America in the 19th century. But it has very little today. Compare the small effect of the 2008 financial crisis on the region with the big effect the slowdown in China is having on Brazil and Argentina. And you could as well blame your past governments for borrowing money as the British banks who lent it. I'm in favour of debt relief for struggling countries, but Argentina already got rid of most of it's debt by defaulting.
As for the Falklands, I think the plan is the let them become an independant nation, but 3000 people is really not enough for that. Maybe in the future.
How is Britain making the Islanders sign anything? In the 60s and 70s Britain did not even really want the Falklands, they were no longer of much use and the UK government did not make any investments, did not claim an EEZ, did not even bother to build an airport until Argentina agreed to provide flights. It was the Islanders who protested against being handed over to Argentina.
And I wish you were right, but some people do want war, or are willing to use it to achieve their aims. For example your military government in 1982, and plenty of ordinary people were cheering them on. Some people here would like a war now.
What do you mean when you say Britain has politically attacked Argentina since 1805? What has it actually done, through all the wars and changes and different governments between then and now?
Capitalism is nothing more than another inadequate political / resources distribution system. It has by now already unequivocally proved it leads with excess and waste, enriches loftily very few, and leaves millions hopping to get there before they die. Man can create and invent one political system; it can create and invent many. One, will one day no longer pin the unheard, the poor, the meek and the trusting bighearted people, crushed underneath the powerfully armed with money and capital, status quo and intimidating armed authority, and for the first time truly have men living as equals.
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correction, Britain still does have A LOT of influence and makes many decisions upon South American countries' right to free destiny and their right to a self created thriving future. The difference is that each decades it learns better how to keep a low profile, and be silent about it, as much as it can. ... But things are still the same essentially ~
We know that ultimately “independence” is always the emergency last door, for all of Britain's colonial plans. Its obvious to many politicians how and why it has been meticulously working at its political inventions these last 200 years. My personal views all orbit around the notion of the islanders primary fundamental right to a homeland. However. You are missing a large chunk in your equation. There is another country that has been claiming sovereign rights to those islands for 184 years. And Believe me, how well and what way you respect that other country will imprint what the world will know about that future “nation”, if there ever is one, and don't be so sure that the geography of those islands will ever allow for the necessary momentum for that to happen. As things are today, what Britain has produced towards that so far, is a voice which will remind the world of the abusing, using and stealing of political sovereign rights from Argentina, hurting South America yet again, in order to keep what amounts to a military base.
PE
Feb 02nd, 2017 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NOBODY is quite sure what you are saying as you contradict your own logic, or attempt at.
British ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and money, built Argentina's transportation, communications, and industrial, infrastructure.
It made you the 5th largest economy in the world - until you “nationalised” everything.
Now, under your own political and economic policies, you can't pay your debts and you can't even keep the lights on.
It seems to me that Argentina has more than one base in the South Atlantic and doesn't want her neighbours Chile, or the Falklands to have any.
The 3,000 Islanders know that leaving the Falklands undefended and vulnerable to you lot, would be foolish and would end with them having no Self-Determination and being very unhappy.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!