MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 18th 2018 - 14:22 UTC

Argentina identifies remains of the 92nd combatant buried in the Falklands

Tuesday, June 5th 2018 - 06:37 UTC
Full article 64 comments

The Argentine Human Rights Secretary announced on Monday the name of another Argentine soldier fallen during the Falklands conflict and buried at the Argentine military cemetery at Darwin, taking the number of identified remains to 92. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Brit Bob

    Good for his relatives that this former soldiers final resting place has been identified.

    ''From the Falklands he wrote two letters, one to the head of the school, asking for discretion as to the conditions of fighting in the Islands, and a second to the children apologizing for having abandoned them to go and combat for the motherland and the flag.''

    However, this problem still persists:

    The Argentine government describe the British activities of 3 January 1833 as, 'on 3 January 1833 a British Royal Navy corvette with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement.' And 'The act of force of 1833, carried out in peacetime without prior communication or declaration by a government friendly to the Argentine Republic...' (History – Ministerio de Relacioes Exteriores y Cutlowww.mrecic.gov.ar/es/history 1. History).

    If the Argentinians persist that the Falkland Islands were stolen what law was broken?

    Falkland Islands – The Usurpation (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/34838377/Falkland_Islands_The_Usurpation

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Livepeanuts

    How very sad, there was no need, the kids were unable to save their dictator and in so doing give Argentina even more death flights,failure and corruption, the only reason for which the “heroes” were really fighting on the Falklands in their treacherous and unprovoked war.
    Here we have a teacher and in many ways teachers are partly responsible for that unnecessary war more than any other profession.
    This war was prepared in the 1940s and in the classrooms of Argentina, with the fascist indoctrination which was used by the Peronists to weaponize the minds of 6 year old children. It is time for primary school teachers to start telling and teaching the truth.
    The Crown defeated the forces of the Dictator and in so doing not only saved the Falklands but also Argentina and Chile. Argentina has had uninterrupted democracy for an unprecedented more than 30 years without revolutions. Primary school teachers must now teach with integrity.

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Johnny Colman

    @Livepeanuts,...perfect story, but a hand could also give you to favor the truth, that is, many people wonder why on January 3, 1833 you took possession of the islands if before the United Provinces were the Spaniards, there is a piece of you have to say again, until now they are convinced that these islands were an inheritance of Spain, not everyone knows what happened when you left the islands and returned to own them.

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Voice

    Livepeanuts

    Maybe the teachers struggle to explain how East Falkland where the main population resides...was settled by the French, occupied by the Spanish, settled by the United Provinces before Britain ever set foot upon it...yet somehow claim it...

    Sheer Piracy...

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • gordo1

    Johnny Colman

    Your nonfactual concept of the events of 1833 is totally risible. Pobrecito!

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    How about my factual concept of the events prior to the 1833 first ever of occupation East Falkland...?
    Not True...
    Very True...
    or totally risible...?

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • James Marshall

    So Voice, how does that differ from Argentinas claim to all the other islands as of 2018 (SSI SG etc). What about that factual concept. We are in 2018 not 1833, yet they claim a lot more than East Falkland. Argentina were never in the game, they weren't even on the pitch....

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Voice

    So...because my statement was factual and the British claim is inexplicable you want to move the goal posts and shift the focus onto an area that only the Argentine govt could answer...

    Argentina may not have been in the game, but their forerunner the UP was and before them without question the Spanish were...and before them undoubtedly the French were...

    It appears to me and anyone with any sense...that Britain, as far as East Falkland is concerned...(Hey that is where the capital Stanley is) was never in the game...
    Land grab...nothing else...

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Jo Bloggs

    Gee Voicey, reading your posts someone could think that you are suggesting no countries the globe over, as they stand, are legitimate if there was any suggestion of a land grab...

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    Does that make it right...?

    “Britain's empire was established, and maintained for more than two centuries, through bloodshed, violence, brutality, conquest and war. Not a year went by without large numbers of its inhabitants being obliged to suffer for their involuntary participation in the colonial experience. Slavery, famine, prison, battle, murder, extermination”...

    Some wrongs can never be righted...
    Whilst others have the possibility of negotiation and compromise...
    Just because you are sitting there pretty now Jo, it doesn't mean that you had a legitimate right to...
    ...and if it's East Falkland you are in...you definitely didn't...
    You are an anachronism that shouldn't exist in this day and age...and one day more of the British Tax payers that fund your dated existence will wake up and smell the coffee...

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    The Falklands archipelago was disputed between Spain and Britain.

    Argentina was never in the game.

    BA was even warned to stay away in 1829 and 1832 - warning that BA chose not to discuss but to ignore.

    Britain's action was inevitable, and no international laws existing at that time were broken.

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    Warned to stay away from Spanish territory...
    ..that Britain hadn't been near for 60 years...
    Yeah that sounds like a legitimate sovereignty claim...
    I must have missed the part where Britain had any legitimate claim to East Falkland...

    Tell me it again so I clearly understand...Britain warned BA to stay away from Spanish territory....oh yeah I get it now...
    Do you even believe the drivel you write...

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    Still missing the point Voice - no change there then.

    Back in the day, Britain only perceived ONE island with a Sound running diagonally across it. Therefore we had been in occupation from 1765/6 and did not recognise any French rights. In that view the British were at one with Spain, who also did not recognise any French rights.

    Interestingly, in the recent book by Pena and Pena, they also argue that Spain viewed the archipelago as only consisting of one island, although their argument stutters, IMHO, with Spain naming two islands in 1771. Something that Britain had not done.

    They also raise the question of the legitimacy of French rights:

    “It has been argued that the Third Pacte de Famille or Family Compact signed by France and Spain on August 15, 1761, by which both crowns pledged to recognise and protect each other's possessions in any part of the world, would invalidate the right of France to settle Port St. Louis in 1764. If such were the case, England would then be deemed first occupier, having settled Port Egmont on West Falkland two years before Spain. ...”

    “... some Frenchmen did set up a temporary establishment in one of the Malouines Islands, but when the King of Spain raised a claim against such occupation, the French king ceded all his rights to His Most Catholic Majesty. If the Spanish doctrine is correct and no title can be acknowledged in favour of France, then said cession must be reputed null, and it is also a fact that such was the appraisal of Spain who relied solely upon her original claim in her dispute with Great Britain.”

    In 1829 ans 1832 Britain warned BA to stay away from disputed territory - a dispute that BA was not a party to.

    BA should have listened.

    Jun 05th, 2018 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Jo Bloggs

    I’ve never been called an anachronism before...I must look that up one day...yes, I’ll do that.

    Never mind Voicey... you’ll never get over it but don’t let it weigh you down too much.

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    Ha... for nearly sixty years Britain did not dispute the Spanish title they were in sole command of the islands...that is a solid claim to title...making the French title irrelevant...
    There was no dispute with Spain for Britain to warn BA about...
    It's all after the fact nonsense...
    After all you are always quick to mention...a claim to one small part doesn't equate to sovereignty over the whole...
    It is an inescapable fact that Britain has not one shred of evidence to back a claim for East Falkland...
    They are there by theft and theft alone...
    ....and that is not right...
    If anyone was going to succeed to Spanish territory...it wouldn't be Britain...
    There is no denying that UP tried to settle former Spanish territory...if Britain hadn't intervened they would have been successful...
    ...and that brings us to the whole point of the Argentine position...
    There is a dispute and it is not settled...

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Firstly, there is no '60 years'. Britain withdrew its garrison in 1774 but was still issuing permits for whalers to use Egmont as late as 1779. And then there was the very public rejection of French claims during the Amiens negotiations 1801/02. An act of sovereignty that Spain did not question. We also had Royal Navy ships there in 1813.

    Secondly, that the dispute with Spain was ongoing was raised by the US envoy to BA, Francis Baylies, in 1832. Spain was asked about its position by the USA and replied, in 1833, that its still held onto its claims. Britain's warning of 1829 and 1832 also reiterated the dispute with Spain.

    Thirdly, the dispute was effectively settled long ago - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/hurd-says-settled-december-1994-in-fi-newsletter.png

    Fourthly; a further quote from Pena & Pena:

    “The interpretation of some authors that France then acknowledged the Spanish claim and disavowed its own does in fact strengthen the British position. Under the principle that nobody can transfer a better title that he possesses 'nemo plus iuris transfere (ad alium) potest quam ipse habet', France's disclaim of its own title would turn illegitimate and null any cession of rights to Spain... the disavowal of prior French rights to the islands would place the Argentine claim in dire straits because it would imply a gap in the chain of succession of the sovereignty titles. Indeed, if the French title were to be denied and the Papal Bulls and Tordesillas were to be declared insufficient to sustain the rights of Spain to the Islands, the question would arise as to what the Spanish title would be, on which the Argentine claim is founded.”

    The only 'drivel' comes from you Voice

    ;-)

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • gordo1

    Voice

    The dispute was settled in 1833 when the UK asserted its sovereignty to the archipelago. Any subsequent claims from Argentina to the contrary are nonsense. Pies in the sky!

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 05:34 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • James Marshall

    Voice, you stated thus...

    '..Maybe the teachers struggle to explain how East Falkland where the main population resides...'

    My comment highlights that those same teachers do not struggle to explain their need to land grab completely unlinked islands in 2018, or the land grab in the 1860's in Patagonia. They only, apparently, struggle with an issue that wasn't in their favour.

    Maybe the reason they struggle so much, is due to the generations of indoctrination, when suddenly you realise that what you have been taught all along is lies, but you can't believe it to be untrue.

    There is no moving the goal posts, just pointing out major hypocrisy in your statement.

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Voice

    Yeah don't talk to me about hypocrisy...
    Read this and weep....or at least you should...
    http://worldsworstmassmurderer.blogspot.com
    ...thus
    “Maybe the reason you struggle so much, is due to the generations of indoctrination, when suddenly you realise that what you have been taught all along is lies, but you can't believe it to be untrue.”

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    You can always tell a fair and unbiased source by how it calls people 'spawn'. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    Also, Hitler and Stalin aren't white now? I must have missed that memo.

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Argentina was established, and maintained for more than two centuries, through bloodshed, violence, brutality, conquest and war. Not a year went by without large numbers of its inhabitants being obliged to suffer for their involuntary participation in the colonial experience. Slavery, famine, prison, battle, murder, extermination”...
    “One of the most notorious and tragic instances of genocide in modern ....”
    The genocide of indigenous peoples in the formation of the Argentine Nation-State.
    Hector Hugo Trinchero
    “In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
    ”Afroargentines and the whitewashing of history by Daniel Voskoboynik

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    You all just don't see the hypocrisy do you...Britain was the perpetrator of the biggest land grab in the history of mankind...second to none...
    ...now tell me that's an unfair and biased source...

    “In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
    I wonder who brought them...
    ....all 3.4 million of them...ya dope..

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    There have been many Empires. In many ways, they still exist. The British Empire was no worse than the others, some would argue that it was better. just a part of the human condition.

    Personally, I'm proud of the British Empire.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6447470/stop-making-me-ashamed-to-be-english/

    Some of our most efficient colonial administrators were Scots of course.

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    We know you are Roger...
    You obviously didn't read the link, biased or not it's all true...
    If anyone can be proud of that...they have got to be sick...
    ...you should ask the Tasmanian aborigines what they think...oh that's right, you can't they are now extinct...the whole race...
    Are you sure you are proud...?

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Yes.

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
    “I wonder who brought them...” We don't have any doubt as to who killed them all.
    ”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?“ w ww.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.” w ww.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/27tauo/what_happened_to_the_black_
    http://en.mercopress.com/2017/01/24/dancing-for-falklands-mla-gavin-short-takes-on-argentina-s-most-mediatic-personality/comments#comment460051

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @Voice
    “I wonder who brought them...”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiento#Holders_of_the_Asiento

    I skimmed your link. I don't think the British Empire was any worse than other empires.

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    That link is indeed very biased.

    I've found this site far more balanced - https://www.britishempire.co.uk/

    Jun 06th, 2018 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Voice

    You have a strange understanding of the term balanced...I see nothing of the brutal oppression and naked greed with which it was built...
    I also see nothing about the bloodshed, violence, brutality, conquest, war, genocide, slavery, famine, prison, concentration camps, murder and extermination...
    You live a very blinkered existence...
    There are links to numerous to list of the atrocities, but I guess they must all be biased so I won't bother listing them...

    “I don't think the British Empire was any worse than other empires.”
    I don't see mass murder as being any worse than any other mass murder...

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    You see what you want to see Voice. Did you get past the first page?

    The Scots grasped the concept of Empire building with both hands, hence the Scottish diaspora (Argentina has the largest population outside the English-speaking world descended from Scots I understand?)

    You like to look down on us Voice - but you are one of 'us'.

    Go learn.

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @Voice
    No, I have seen other sources that are NOT so biased, and they make far more impact because of it.

    But I don't know what point you are trying to make. None of us can change the past, only choose what we do in the present.

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Took a quick scan of that Tasmanian issue. The application of the word 'genocide' appears very controversial, particularly in Australia. Early problems between the British and native people appear to have been about the lack of women (seem to have heard that before) and access to resources. It does not seem to have been long before the introduction of diseases, particularly sexually related, started to diminish the local population - infertility rates rose dramatically after 1823 apparently.

    Trouble really flared up after 1825 when Tasmania became a self-governing colony. Nomadic hunter gatherers and settlers were never likely to be a good mix - they weren't anywhere else. Settlers and natives clashed between 1826 and 1832. Women and resources again. Governor Arthur appears implicit in much of the killing although he apparently blamed the settlers when writing to the British Government.

    Historians appear to be in dispute about whether disease or semi-judicial killings were the biggest cause of the native population demise, hence the controversy over the word 'genocide.'

    In 2016, there were 23,000 aboriginal people on Tasmania, many of who claim ancestry going back to the British colonization of Van Dieman's Land. There is no indication that the British Government ordered any mass murder in Tasmania - but it was a quick scan.

    Perhaps Voice could do some serious research and let us know the details?

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    “At the time of British settlement in 1803, the indigenous population was estimated at between 5,000 and 10,000 people. Through the introduction of infectious diseases to which they had no immunity, war, persecution, and intermarriage, the population dwindled to 300 by 1833. Almost all of the indigenous population was relocated to Flinders Island by George Augustus Robinson.”

    Well over 9 in 10 dead in only 30 years, that's horrifying.

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • James Marshall

    Really Voice, moving goal posts eh..... I am not here to discuss what the British Empire did centuries ago....I pointed to the hypocrisy of the Teachers in Argentina that you suggest 'struggle to explain'. Conveniently you have moved away from your spurious statement and have indeed 'moved the goal posts'.

    I and the others on this site are in no way responsible for what certain members of the British Empire did centuries ago. Many despicable things were done in the name of the British Empire, I do not struggle to understand that or deny it Voice.

    Weeping for what happened 200 years ago, will not help those poor people now, but learning from it and understanding how it affects their decedents for the future has far greater interest to me. Your cheap and puerile attempts to divert the thread clearly show any lack of substance. empathy or morals.

    ..’Your country did some nasty things 200 years ago, so you have no right to complain about another country wanting to do those thing now’, is frankly laughable, it is 2018 Voice, you are a joke.


    I will ask again, why do the same teachers not struggle to explain the need to land grab completely unlinked islands in 2018, or the land grab in the 1860's in Patagonia. They only, apparently, struggle with an issue that wasn't in their favour.

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    In denial already Roger...It wasn't Britain's fault they had only existed there for ten thousand years before the Brits arrived...
    What changed...oh yeah the British arrived to civilise them and give them a better life....
    This probably didn't help...

    “The “patrol teams” chased and killed Tasmanians as the soldiers had the authority to immediately kill any Tasman they found in the settled areas. Afterwards, a price was set for native heads: five British pounds for an adult, two pounds for a child caught alive. This pursuit was known as “catching blacks”. It became a business venture for both private and official patrols teams. A commission was established to recommend an official policy on the native issue. The commission considered options such as catching the natives and selling them into slavery, poisoning them, and catching them in traps or hunting them with dogs. Ultimately, the commission decided to continue the price system and to use mounted policemen in the hunt.”
    Still proud Roger...?
    Also perhaps you could do some serious research and find out what happened to the “mythical” 100 settlers of Jason's town....
    I'm still betting there wasn't any...just buildings for the 200 plus sailors that were stationed there for their yearly stint...

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “...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.”
    “I wonder who brought them...” The Spanish speaking none-indigenous purchasers.
    Who demised them? Some of the above

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    Some of the above...is not enough where is your proof...

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Voice - If the Romans hadn't come to the British Isles ................. ?? What if ......?

    I understood the bounty was offered for cases of unlicensed trespass, and was set after Tasmania became self-governing in 1825.

    Yes Voice - still proud. Bad things happen...nature of the beast.

    Changing the subject again?

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    I'm not changing the subject....just “still” waiting for you to lift your idle butt off those laurels and do some serious research...
    You haven't earned your medal doing half a job...

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Some of the above...is not enough”
    It's duly noted that you don't deny the conclusions of four historians. There is certainly enough circumstantial
    evidence to support their identical conclusions. Or are you suggesting they were so happy with their treatment that they all spontaneously died of happiness?

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    How little you know Voice ..... LOL

    500 years of history takes time. Only been at it 8 years so far.

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Voice

    So you are not dealing with proven facts only circumstantial...
    They probably disappeared into a neighbouring country like Brazil...
    Keep your guesswork, hearsay and probably's...it's great for selling books, but not much else...

    Jun 07th, 2018 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Jo Bloggs

    Poor old Voicey’s all bitter and twisted. I wonder what his real issue is. It certainly isn’t just a random curiosity about the Falklands. What happened to you, Voicey? Unrequieted love? A job refusal? Did you have a bad Falklands experience?

    Something got under your skin. Tough shit. Suck it up.

    Chuckle chuckle.

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “They probably disappeared into a neighbouring country like Brazil...”
    “Probably” Doesn't cut it, as in the only other times a race of people 'disappears' so completely is historically genocide has been perpetuated against them. Other wise you'd be able to provide other instances for your claimed 'natural selection'.
    So you are not dealing with proven facts only circumstantial...” Definition of circumstantial evidence. : evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue.

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Usual nonsense from Voice. When an opportunity presents itself I shall continue work upon the details of MacBride's voyage to the Falklands. It's actually more likely that the settlers returned with MacBride - he appears to have experienced a particularly wet summer.

    I'm not selling a book - and I deal in facts. Sadly Voice, you don't know many.

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    Roger, my last comment was to Terry and his crazy...'Where did all the Black people go conspiracy nonsense in Argentina'

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    So first, take people's land, and then kill them for 'trespassing' on it? Was death the usual penalty for trespass in those days?

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Johnny Colman

    A proverb says that “not all damages are always causing damage”, seeing how Argentina is governed, I believe that not everything is due to chance, my final thought is: Long life for the British management in the islands.
    P.S .: Best regards to Gordo1

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - As I said, a quick scan, but yes, death was often the result of trespass “in those days” ..... everywhere.

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Where did all the Black people go conspiracy nonsense in Argentina” Yes the disappearance of “...all 3.4 million of them...” Isn't usually described in such casual terms, the word genocide is more apparent when considering Domingo Faustino Sarmiento wrote “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?”

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    They weren't offering a bounty for specific individuals though, were they? It wasn't punishment for a crime, even nominally.

    Jun 08th, 2018 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    I suspect that unlicensed access to settler land had been criminalised, otherwise there would not have been much point in creating a licensing system. The bounties were imposed on 'unlicensed' trespass.

    I have only given this scant attention DT, but throughout the world and across many Empire, people were executed for what we would now consider very minor offences. In Imperial China, looking the wrong way at the wrong time could cost your head.In the America's there was a bounty system for Indian scalps. These things were rarely questioned then, it was the way it was. Far too easy now to look back and say it was wrong. Way out of context.

    Think yourself lucky to be living in a - mostly - civilized world. That said, I doubt that the Rohingya count themselves as being lucky in the modern world. Or the natives of the Brazillian rain forests.

    Historically, life has been considered cheap .............. just hope that the 21st century is not just a blip in that thinking.

    For the record, I'm a cynic.

    Jun 09th, 2018 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I'm not an expert either, but we did learn about slavery at school, so I know that even at the time there were plenty of people saying it was wrong and campaigning against it.

    It's also obvious that those trying to find excuses to justify it were doing so because they were benefiting, either personally or as part of society.

    I'm glad that I live in a mostly civilised country in a more civilised world, and I'm very grateful to the people in previous generations who weren't cynics but fought hard for a better world and won. We need to continue that fight to ensure the 21st century is not a blip and our descendants can say the same of us.

    Jun 09th, 2018 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
    His racist diatribes included at least three races, and exhibit precisely his mens reas. “Be careful of your words, for your words become your actions.” “The Jewish people. Scattered throughout the land and practicing usury accumulating million, ...it is the origin of the race, continues today disrupting the economy of the societies in which they live, but which are not part. And now in the barbaric Russia and Prussia illustrated rises the cry of revulsion against this people that believes chosen and lacks human feeling, love of neighbor, the attachment to the land, the cult of heroism, virtue , of the great facts wherever they occur.
    Descendants of races Guarani Indians savages and slaves who act on instinct or no reason. In them, perpetuating the colonial primitive barbarism ... It was necessary to purge the land of all that human excrescence, lost race which got rid of contagion.
    Will we be able to exterminate the Indians? On the savages of America feel an invincible repugnance could not help it. Such rabble are only a few Indians ...Unable to progress, their extermination is providential and useful, sublime and great. They should be exterminated without even forgive the small, who already has the instinctive hatred civilized man.
    Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. Argentinean Activist, Intellectual, Writer, Statesman and President of Argentina 1811 to 1888
    http://www.greatthoughtstreasury.com/author/domingo-faustino-sarmiento
    Also: ”Do not try to save the blood of gauchos, this is a fertilizer that must be made useful to the country, blood is the only thing they have of human beings.” Letter to Miter , 1861

    Jun 09th, 2018 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Terry...

    “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
                                                    Winston Churchill

    Jun 09th, 2018 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
    He may well have been less than thrilled. But, he never had expressly wished, like Sarmiento for their demise, which subsequently occurred. So you just keep moving the goal-posts. As your claim, “They (Afro-Argentinean} probably disappeared into a neighbouring country like Brazil...” Is totally discredited as there are no descendants that you can indicate.

    Jun 09th, 2018 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Churchill was a man of his time. My Grandfather, who served in India in the 1920's, held similar views although he always recalled with great fondness the British Army Curry.

    Jun 09th, 2018 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    He wasn't. Other people at the time were trying to help with the famine, and the very next government agreed to India's independence.

    Jun 10th, 2018 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Arthur Herman, author of Gandhi & Churchill, has argued that without Churchill the famine would have been worse. Once he was fully aware of the famine's extent, “Churchill and his cabinet sought every way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort”, Herman wrote.

    Jun 10th, 2018 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @V. You seem to be overlooking a couple of vital points. There has NEVER, at any time, been any recognition in international law that territory could be acquired by “inheritance”. Moreover, between 1811 and 1860, argieland was a colony in rebellion. Therefore, it had no legal standing. Also, in 1982, Britain rather effectively demonstrated its “right” to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands by definitively beating the shite out of argieland. You may remember that the argies surrendered and the relevant “government” was evicted. And I don't give a damn what a few million brainwashed argies or you believe.

    Jun 10th, 2018 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    Churchill's 'time' was the turn of the century.

    Jun 10th, 2018 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    What, and he didn't learn anything new in the 40 years following? I've seen people's opinions change in my lifetime and that isn't 40 years. Do you hold exactly the same views now as you did in 1980?

    Besides, Britain's first Indian MP was elected before 1900, so there must have been enough voters who didn't share Churchill's view even then.

    Jun 11th, 2018 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Fraud Terry...?
    Here is your quote...

    “In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”

    Did Argentina exist in the late 18th Century....;-)
    ...are you taking about the UP?
    Or are you taking about BA...?
    What was the population of BA in the late 18th Century...?
    In 1776 it was 2200...
    In 1806-1807 the city of Buenos Aires had 15,708 Europeans, 347 indigenous and cholos (mestizos), and 6,650 Africans and mulattoes, while in 1810 there were 22,793 whites, 9,615 Africans and mulattoes, and only 150 indigenous and cholos. The area most densely populated by Africans was located in the neighborhood of Monserrat, also known as Barrio del Tambor (Drumtown), just a few blocks from the Congressional Palace”

    So tell me Terry... quantify your statement...“In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
    What was the population of Argentina in the late 18th Century and could a third of it equate to 3.4 million...?
    Ya dope...

    Jun 14th, 2018 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Fraud Terry...?Here is your quote...” I'm just the messenger so you'll have to quibble your nuances with the following. 'Afroargentines and the whitewashing of history by Daniel Voskoboynik'
    “Quantify your statement.” Don't have to as my reliance was on your statement, you fraudster.
    So you only get one kick at the can, you are now estopped from claiming anything else whether it be true or not. It's a long tradition in all aspects of law that you cannot benefit from your own fraud. So I don't have to do anything else as it's not my burden.
    http://en.mercopress.com/2018/06/12/new-spanish-government-surprises-gibraltar-at-c24-calling-for-bilateral-talks-with-uk/comments#comment489361

    Jun 14th, 2018 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

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