MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands call for Argentine Co-operation
The Falklands Islands Government has again called on Argentina to join with them in maintaining good co-operative relations and welcomed the agreement for the forthcoming Argentine relatives’ pilgrimage to inaugurate the Falklands cemetery Darwin where their 1982 war dead are buried. The Islanders also respect the need for Argentine veterans of the war to visit the battlefields where they fought. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhile I respect and have in high value the islanders' valour, pride and all other aspects of englishness, I would point out that writing a constitution is not, by itself, a proof of being an independent state. Moreover, the islands' governmental institutions are still under the sole of their parent country which, despite what has happened along these past 176 years, cannot forget the fact that they acceded to the South Atlantic arcipelagos by forcing the Argentines out and leaving entire families behind to re-populate those territories. We can make and be friends or even enter together in joint ventures in respect of fishing, oil exploration and extraction, tourism, &c., but I'm afraid that the sovereignty issue is and will be, for all interested parties, a hard nut to crack. Perhaps a joint sovereingty might save time until a full agreement is reached. But this is, again, just wishful thinking. Cheers.
Jun 10th, 2009 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no need for further debate. The Islanders have made their wishes known to the world. They want no part of a transfer of title of the Islands to Argentina. Argentina is itself a country built upon colonialism. Its colonists later broke away from Spain and declared independence. The Falkland Islanders have there own constitution and that is in itself a declaration that they do not want to be colonised by Argentina. All I ever hear in way of arguement from Argentina can be best described as sophistry. Their account of what actually happened in 1833 and prior to 1833 is also very open to question and not as cut and dried as they claim. But events of 1833 are not valid in 2009 and are at odds with the UN enshrined right to self-determination - yes I know we will hear the same attempts by argentina that self-determination doesn't apply to what they call a colony. If that is the case then, given as stated, Argentina is built on colonisation and conquest, then when will Argentina be given back to its indigenous peoples? If the events of 1833 are as described by Argentina, which they are not in truth but for the sake of argument let us say that they are, then it follows that Argentina must, by the same use of logic, give back the land it took during its genocidal Conquest of the Desert. I can already predict the responses of denial and the desperate attempts to say that it is a totally different situation. It isn't. The Falkands are not Britains to give away nor Argentina's to take. They belong to the islanders have they have made their wishes known.
Jun 11th, 2009 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0It works both ways.
Chris, you are free to believe whatever you want, whatever your teachers indoctrinates you to believe in schools. You can continue to believe in axis of evil, in spread of democracy and liberty by your soldiers around the world.
Jun 11th, 2009 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact is that you can only compare our killings of indigenous people in southamerica with your killing of slaves which for you were a common practice. But the difference between indigenous of southamerica with the expelled of argentine settles of malvinas in 1833 is that in the first case indigenous had no nation. No nation in the world considered indigenous as people, like england didn considered slaves as humans.
But in 1833 England expelled settles from a recognized nation. A nation recognized by England itself.
About democracy in malvinas, democracy for who? for the colonizers?.
Just tell me what's your definition of colony becouse if malvinas is not a colony i wonder what is a colony?. Definitions.
another brit joke...
Jun 11th, 2009 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis - with respect you are also free to believe whatever you want, whatever your teachers indoctrinates you to believe in schools. And it is well known that there was much in the way of propoganda in Argentinean text books. The Falkland Islands have a modern consituation, drawn up by themselves and voted upon by themselves. They do not consider themselves to be a colonised people. They have made their voices heard and should be respected and accepted. You ask for a definition of a colony - well if Argentina took the islands over against the democratically expressed wishes and UN enshrined rights to self determination then that would then put the Falklands under colonial status and Argentina would be the colonisers. We are in the 21st century and Argentina should stop trying to act as a colonial power. I do not expect you to belive nor accept nor understand this. I do laugh at the hypocrisy that comes from Argentina when one considers that it is itself the product of the colonial Spain. Grwo up and enter the 21st Century - you will see that it is a lovely place to be.
Jun 11th, 2009 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I read “grow up and enter the 21st century” Please!!!! YOU have to enter the 21st century and realized that you're not an imperial power anymore. So, give back what is not yours. Tomorrow we could invade asension island and send many argentinians to live there and raise their children and grand-children there and 150 years later you can ask them if they want to be british or argentinians. The answer is obvious, they'll surely believe they are in argentine terretory. Do me a favour and accept you are there ONLY because you (UK) are more powerful than us, that's the only reason, BUT, one day that will finish. Be sure!!!
Jun 12th, 2009 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chris, also with respect, no British subject can talk freely about the evils of colonisation after we all learned in school what glorious conquests in the name of God (Onwards Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross... etc) were accomplished by the English all along the Victorian Era to 'civilise' people (wogs) and give them roads (later railways), a true faith, and a form of government without (tongue-on-cheek) interfering with their own, a time when, by the way, they grabbed these disputed islands. Perhaps you remember having seen at school (or on Tallis) those beautiful maps where more than two thirds of the world was tinted red, the same crimson shade of the British troops' cassocks. Oh what a world you had! Pax Britannica at large! Then, Queen Vic died and was succeded by four of her offspring: Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI. George V who invented the House of Windsor was - in my humble opinion - one of the best sovereings England had, Edward fell to the enchantments of an Americanite divorcee and shy (not very well married) George VI took his place but managed to do a fair job in the 2nd WW, thanks to the impeccable action of his PM, Sir Winston Churchill (Nothing is more costly, nothing is more sterile, than vengeance). These were times of bereavement and all the colonies were lost, one by one, like pearls in a necklace when the string breaks. Now, in the dawn of the 21st century, you come to us with awesome stories about the remnants of your granny's jewels that could have been better told by Angela Carter. Oh, come off it!
Jun 12th, 2009 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ah the usual.
Jun 16th, 2009 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0For information, the British Empire wasn't lost it was dissolved by the British themselves. The British Government chose to grant independence because in the 20th Century, Empire was an anachronism. That is why the British retain friendly relations with most of its former Empire through the Commonwealth of Nations and we avoided the costly wars of independence that marked the passing of other Empires.
Britain no longer has any colonial ambitions or imperial desires, they're in the past. To be frank trying to dismiss the British position as in anyway imperial or colonial is simply pathetic. As someone else quite rightly point out the only people with colonial ambitions in the South Atlantic are Argentine. This is indeed the 21st Century, it is time Argentina stopped trying to arbitrarily fix the dispute as to some point in the early 19th.
The other usual Red Herring, slavery. Yes Britain was involved in the slave trade, it was also one of the first European nations to ban slavery and the Royal Navies anti-slavery patrols finally killed it. Argentina's ancestors, the Spanish Empire, saw the abolition of slavery by the British simply as a business opportunity. And if you wish to look at Argentina's record on slavery you might like to consider the betrayal of those slaves who fought in the War of Independence. Promised freedom, they were rewarded with a law that only freed their children (the so-called “freedom of wombs”). Slavery was not abolished till much later; indeed Vernet took slaves to the Falklands in 1828.
I'm also constantly amused by the accusations of indoctrination. Its the Argentine Government that officially approves the version of history to be taught in schools; a version that is mendacious, lying by omission and includes outright lies (such as the alleged expulsion of 1833 that never actually happened) but I digress. I see Luis and others have chosen fit to repeat that lie once more. Tell me, if the Argentine claim is true, pray tell why does Darwin and Fitzroy's diaries document a meeting with the settlers in 1833 and 1834?
If I was a betting man I'd confidently predict the response will be little more than further accusations of bias and indoctrination but little real substance.
And as to what the British teach about their imperial past, well it teaches it warts and all. The British certainly don't shrink from educating their children about the evil things done in the name of Empire.
And to the other commentator that complained the British are only in the Falklands now because of military superiority. Indeed they are but it was Argentina that chose to resort to the use of military force in 1982. Sadly there is still the implicit threat that you would be happy to resort to the same again in future. Seems you did not learn from 1982. Sad indeed that you would condemn your children to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Its encouraging to have heard the Falklanders calling for better relations, sadly the immediate response is simply to insist upon capitulation to Argentine demands and recriminations about the events of 177 years ago; and those based upon a mendacious version of events. All I ever seem to hear from Argentina is dreams about forcing the islanders to bend to Argentine will and never once do I hear of any thoughts of rapprochement or peace.
No doubt we will hear of Argentine demands for talks on sovereignty. Sadly as we've seen here, Argentina has no intention of negotiating; it simply seeks a forum to issues demands. That is not negotiation.
Justin, you keep saying that the argentine settlement was never expelled but it is only your theory. The United Kingdom officially recognize that they expelled the argentine's settlement.Are you sugesting they are lying?
Jun 17th, 2009 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Give me the links where Darwin and Fitzroy's indicate that malvinas are under argentine flag after 1833.
Justin Kuntz, I don'twant the war repeat again but, we are not going to stay without doing anything. we have rigths and we're gonna complain always and put economics sanctions on the islands you like it or not until you sit down on the table to negotiate. End of story.
Jun 17th, 2009 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hi Justin, thanks for your answer. On the one hand, my points as signed out on message 1 and then on 7, were simply personal appreciations. I am neither speaking for other Argentines, nor for our government, but exclusively for myself, because most of my ideas might not be considered fair or even patriotic by many of my fellow countrymen. May I respond you, piece by piece? Some of those ideas related to the Empire might have however been fished out by me - my own interpretation - from James (Jan) Morris' Trilogy, others from Trevelyan, some from Churchill's The English Speaking Peoples, and others from the long times I had the pleasure to spend in England studying, working (legally) and even canvassing for the Conservative Party on pre-elections days. Argentines are not Spaniards, the same as you are not Romans. Coming now to Darwin and Fitzroy, weren't they both English? Suggesting that we may resort to our 1982 games is either childish or a consequence of not being reasonably informed about the strength of our armed forces hardware-wise. Try Jane's. Besides, ours is not a country that would send troops anywhere, under any pretences, and please do not come now saying “except of course to certain islands” because even that wouldn't be really true: we were forced into it by a fairly bold de facto government and - to my humble opinion - there are no more innings left to play. On the other hand, we are no less indoctrinated than you, which I hope you'd accept as normal to every country's educational system, schools and parents included. Unfortunately, you and me appear to be on different banks of the same wide river, but I'm sure that you'll agree with me that the best play of all is fair play. I wrote a couple of poems about the 1982 confrontation that lie somewhere on the web. One is an Elegy dedicated to the Argentine troops (http://www.falklands.info/background/argentine82.html) and another is its epilogue. I suggest you to have a look at the first which, by the way, brought my name to the Wikipaedia, together with the great Borges. Finally, despite what you may believe, your smart alias is not really amusing in this context. Cheers.
Jun 17th, 2009 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hola Salvador, siempre un gusto leerte, aquí como en otros sitios. Podrías sacarme de ésta ignorancia?? a que te referís con lo del alias de Justin? que significa o quiere significar él?? Me quedé afuera en ésto y a ver si me explicas. Un abrazo
Jun 17th, 2009 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Salvador 'tis not an alias, nor is it intended to be amusing. Spanish mother who didn't appreciate the English implications.
Jun 17th, 2009 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0To be frank the comments about the British Empire were out of the ark, they're just no longer relevant to the Britain of the 21st Century. They may be your personal opinions but I would seek to clarify they're ignorant of the current British mind set and attitudes. Talk of Empire is simply an anachronism, its just not in our psyche any more.
As to the comments about military action. Its sad but true that I have to relate the only thing I ever seem to hear from Argentines is dreams of coercing the Falklanders to bend to Argentina's will. It seems that all too often the islanders are characterised as bog-ignorant “kelpers” (a term consider pejorative by the islanders by the way) and that is used to justify what is to all intents and purposes a racist attitude. Sadly a lot of Argentina's “solution” involves the mass expulsion of the islanders. I rarely hear an Argentine ever express the notion of rapprochement.
And again I've published a link before, darwin-online.org. It contains the diaries of both Fitzroy and Darwin. The entry for March 1833 documents both meeting with the same settlers Argentina alleges were expelled in January 1833. Again they're the same settlers that are there in 1834. It happens to be a fact that the British Government made no attempt to colonise the islands before 1841, the major figures in the early stages of the history are virtually to a man (and a very significant lady by the name of Antonina Roxas) settlers brought there by one Luis Maria Vernet. So feel free to check it out, I'm willing to wager you won't (and I am not a gambling man).
This is largely personal opinion, so take it as you will. I personally believe that the origins of the current dispute can be traced back to Luis Vernet. In setting out in his endeavour in the islands, Vernet first approached the British seeking permission to form a settlement. He did so in 1826 and again in 1828. He also provided the British with regular reports and urged the British to establish a permanent garrison. He also portrayed his efforts to the Government of BA as working in their interest, whilst at the same time denying Argentine proclamations to the British. Vernet received no money from BA, the venture was funded entirely from his own personal fortune. The one act of BA was to proclaim him governor in response to his request for the support of a warship. Argentina could not provide one, instead he was basically told to do it for himself.
Dragging myself to a point, the dispute can be traced to the duplicitous actions of Vernet who portrayed himself as working in the interests of both sides. Basically he was hedging his bets to protect his investment.
So whilst the origin of the dispute has a ready explanation, its solution is virtually impossible whilst Argentina clings to a one sided view of events that leaves no room for manoeuvre. And the only hope for Argentina to be involved in the Falklands lies in convincing the islanders its in their interest. Whilst Argentina pursues a policy of an overtly aggressive economics sanctions, publicly denying the rights of the islanders to determine their own future and Argentines relate to the islanders as unter menschen is it any wonder that the islanders want nothing to do with Argentina?
And in anticipation of pointing fingers that the islanders are just as bad - the article above is an offer of an olive branch; one that is immediately rebuffed. Think about it.
A kind of bug after my wrong writing of the code prevented uploading of a message of mine in reply to Justin's fair olive branch (of which I had no backup), and it was impossible to me to get back where the message was. Patience. I'm up to an elephant's eye in work. Sorry.
Jun 17th, 2009 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you Justin. Our exchange is taking much of this forum and I'll try
Jun 18th, 2009 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0to condense my responses as far as I could. I'm so sorry for the confusion
about your alias/name and also that I wouldn't explain my observation to any other person, at least not here.
i) Empire. I agree with you for the simple reason that I'm in permanent
contact with British subjects and I'm well aware that my comment looked out as flipped out of the depths of Noah's Ark. A possible explanation for my resorting to it is that you Queen's subjects come patronising us about the outcome of the 1982 confrontation as well as saying we are violent and treat others as slaves, do not care about human rights and treat neighbours as Untermenschen, without you taking into consideration how young our country is, how we follow the early steps of other countries, the way we manage to conduct our land and the pendulum-swaying of our governments' policies that have sent us to the low place where we are now. Fortunately, our democratic ways shows the world over that we are not all cut from the same log.
ii) Vernet: My white dove took your olive branch firmly in its beak and we both flew to the Google to find your blog. The Google took .26 seconds to spit the outrageous figure of 2,200,000 sites named darwin-online.org. Two darwin-online.org.uk share the name on different IP's and the monstrous figure comprises the rest as blogs and other combinations into which yours surely is. Pray post here a direct link to it. It is good that you're no gambler, but kindly note that I am not an actual historian but a poet and writer who fills copybooks with lines referring to many other subjects, at times involving some history, and only twice in decades referred to these particular islands. This means that I'll have to seek for help because the apparent Vernet doublecrossing was absolutely unknown to me. It doesn't show on the books one reads here. You say it's on Darwin's memories. Well, I'll go back to them again; I can't recall reading anything of the sort. By the way, I've just asked an expatriate islander for help. But if anyone here can deal with Justin's allegations, please be my guest. Don't expect me to discuss about Vernet; I'll instead concede you the benefit of doubt.
iii) The pejorative name for the islanders is not in my dictionary, nor any other name that they may give to themselves (what's in a name?) and if you care to read all what I've written in the past 20 years you won't
find me referring to any south Atlantic kelp harvesters or you-know-what. I deeply respect - as mentioned on my first message - the islanders. I have a few friends who live down there. One had lunch with me about two months ago. Others have moved elsewhere. We share a few words with local Spanglish, say camp, corrral, &c.
iv) As pointed out on i) above we are different from one another, just as all people in all countries appear to be. You see then that there's no point in raising any fingers. We have a minority of fanatics and terrorists as
well as other of pacifists and good people. Some want the arcipelagos back
at any cost while others think very differently.
v) Finally, it is clear that an outside goverment guides the islands' partly
seen and partly 'in der Schatten'... as seen from things that happen from
time to time and I have mentioned in these forums (Latin plural should be fora, isn't it?).
One day I'll land there, you bet, but for the time being my work doesn't pay to cater even for the airfare. If I were younger I would have moved ages ago, perhaps for good to work with sheep and cattle. The reasons are however not to be explained in here. Bye for now.
Cheers.
Salvador,
Jun 18th, 2009 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is indeed pleasant to be able to converse on the subject of the Falklands with an Argentine, without the exchange becoming needlessly confrontational and antagonistic. Sadly to relate that it is often your fellow countrymen that reduce such discussions to a base level.
Regards your points:
1. Indeed, yes, you now acknowledge that the comments about the British Empire are out of place. Why, pray tell, did you raise them in the first place? Has the subject not soured relations between our two nations for so long that we can needlessly raise such base accusations? As regards my countrymen's knowledge of Argentine, perchance that is coloured by memories of a miltary regime that sought to maintain itself in power by exploiting the carefully nurtured “Malvinas Myth” to galvanise the people.
2. Let me provide you with a direct link:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
Please do take the time to peruse the diary entries for March 1833 and ask yourself why Matthew Brisbane was allowed to return as Vernet's representative, if as the Argentine Government claims Vernet's settlement was expelled in January 1833. I await your response with interest. Rather thah expecting you to concede to what I assert I would encourage you to consider the evidence objectively and reach your own opinions.
3. My reference to a pejorative name was more concerned with how your fellow countrymen relate to the islanders. I have pointed out why the term is considered offensive previously, noticeably your fellow countrymen have chosen to continue to use it. Consider for a while the impression that leaves.
To be honest I would encourage you to try and visit the islanders, I would equally encourage many of your countrymen to do the same. Its only be relating to the Falklanders as human beings that rapprochement is achievable. Ask then why it is so difficult given that the Falklanders have facilitated it - a hint its not the FIG that limits air links.
Can I just point out, I have just finished my time as a student, and at no point was there any mention of the Falklands War, if it was not for the news talking about it at very rare intervals I would have never known there was a war.
Jun 18th, 2009 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin, thanks for being so kind and helpful.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 01) I explained already why I resorted to that old junk, but I may clarify. Who knows who's across the line and what his/her intentions/motivations are? Especially in forums like this one. My first instinctive reaction is to drop as much shite as I can to build a spiked skirt all around me. I'm sorry for you because you didn't deserve it. The historic moment was crucial however to both our government and the Iron Lady's: they needed some noble action to prop up their credibility and this war gave them a much needed alibi. In the end, (as should have been forecasted by our military 'planners') it only worked for her.
2) With regard to Vernet's doublecross issue, according to my islands' expat friend whose knowledge of the islands' history, information and accuracy I heartily respect, all what you've mentioned is correct and perfectly checkable, hence I also acknowledge here that you are right (noblesse oblige). I shall study more about it and to this end I've saved your link for future reference.
Visiting has - for most of us - an unsurmountable base/legal problem: passport stamping. This implies full recognition of a foreign sovereingty (estoppel) over the islands, by each and every Argentine that sets a foot on that soil... doesn't matter whose, but clearly not Argentine. Cheers.
- - - - - - - - -
Chris, is that a tongue-in-cheek remark? Or in 82 you were too young? More than 2000 dead are looking at you, son.
Having arrived to this point, I wonder whether Ms. Sukey Cameron is watching and following our discussion on this thread.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Ms Cameron, if you are around, would you kindly leave your comments? Thank you.
Justin, Salvador. The Fact that Darwin saw some gauchos inhabitants in malvinas does not means the argentine settlement was still there. You are corromping the facts. Even malvina's colonial government thinks differently likewise the uk government. the United Kingdom official possition as long as islanders from malvinas think that england expelled the argentine settlement. Did Darwin saw an United Province flag waving there on the islands after the events of 1833? show me the transcript becouse i didnt found it.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Link of british sources about history in 1833 which i dont agree but proof your theory is wrong even for your Comrades:
http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html -read where it say “The British Reoccupation”
http://www.falklands.inf
http://www.falklands.inf
http://www.falklands.inf
http://www.falklands.inf
http://www.falklands.inf
http://www.falklands.inf
So guys what you wanna prove?.
Justin about your point 3, the kelper nickname was not made by Argentines. It was made by british, right now the british use the nickname bennys to refer to its comrades islanders. I agree that we should not nickname to people but underestand that we cant name them falklanders becouse we believe there is not such thing as the falklands. In any case it should be malvinenses.
Well actually for anyone interested I can offer a great deal more. For example the diary of Thomas Helsby, yet another one of those settlers taken to the Falklands by Vernet. Just for starters.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands.info site does not say the settlement was expelled. The only people Onslow asked to leave was an Argentine warship, the Sarandi and its crew. The Britannica entry merely confirms that fact, as does the history channel and the yahoo site.
The BBC website is simply incorrect.
The difference is that unlike the Argentine claim the settlement was not expelled. But then we've discussed this before and you spammed the same set of links before and totally ignored everything else I'd pointed out.
And just to re-iterate:
If the British did expel the settlers in January 1833, could someone please explain how they're still there in March 1833 when Darwin and Fitzroy visit. See http://darwin-online.org.uk/ for the complete works of Darwin and Fitzroy. Could you also explain how they're still there in 1834 when they visit again the following year.
And in March 1833, could you explain how Captain Matthew Brisbane is able to return as Vernet's deputy to be encouraged by Fitzroy to continue with Vernet's enterprise. Could you explain how in August 1833 Thomas Helsby, another settler brought by Vernet, is able to record in his diarythe murder of Brisbane and the other four senior members of Vernet's settlement, all settlers brought by Vernet, by a band led by Antonio Rivero, a gaucho in the employ of Vernet. Could you also explain Helsby's accounts of the survivors of the Gaucho massacre fleeing to Bird Island to a man, woman and child all settlers brought there by Vernet.
In fact according to Helsby's narrative after the Clio left on January 7 there was a grand total of 24 residents on Port Louis.
Captain Matthew Brisbane (superintendent), Thomas Helsby, William Dickson, Don Ventura Pasos, Charles Russler, Antonio Vehingar (known in Buenos Ayres as Antony Wagner), Juan Simon (Capitaz), Faustin Martinez, Santiago Lopez, Pascual Diego, Manuel Coronel, Antonio Rivero, Jose Maria Lune, Juan Brasido, Manuel Gonzales, Luciano Pelores, Manuel Godoy, Felipe Salagar, Lattore; three women: Antonina Roxa, Gregoria Madrid, Carmelita and her two children.
Again to a man, woman and child all settlers brough by Vernet. Of those Manuel Coronel goes on to become a major figure in the early history of the islands until his untimely death in 1841, upon his passing his contribution to the Falkland Islands was noted by the Governor. Antonina Roxas goes on to become a rich lady and a major landowner in Stanley. Carmelita Penny and her sons, widow of Juan Simon are still there in the census of 1851. Santiago Lopez is the St Jago of Darwin's diary.
I do simply ask that you might set aside what you've been taught in the officially endorsed Argentine version and consider objectively. But then thats unlikely as you've already demonstrated no intention to do anything but lecture me - and you distort what I actually wrote.
I don't actually seek to “prove” anything, I'm simply trying to have an adult conversation. I would hope that by a less one sided version of events would allow people to actually discuss the current situation. But sadly no that doesn't appear to be possible. Sad indeed, the article was about an olive branch offered by the Falklanders, immediately its slapped down.
And Luis, Kelpers was originally an English word, its now used as a pejorative by Argentines. I also suggest you look at those Argentine geography books printed pre-1930. You may be surprised at the references to Las Islas Falkland.
Oh and Salvador, may I just say that you allow yourself to use the passport issue as an excuse.
Look Justin, if you want to debate history,thats fine for me, but your theory contradict the argentine point of view,the british point of view, and even islander's point of view. Are you trying to impose a new british position?.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0About the link of the “falkland” government i gave you, first you said “”The Falklands.info site does not say the settlement was expelled“” i quote from the link:
((The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands.))
So if the argentine settles with the Argentine flag were forced to withdraw whats left from Argentine government?
Then you said “”The Britannica entry merely confirms that fact, as does the history channel and the yahoo site.“”
the britannica and i quote from that link:
((In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot.))
This confirm the Argentine officials were expelled.
The bbc take exactly what for the british happened in 1833.
Justin, if i called islanders kelpers, i did not tried to used it in a pejorative way. Is just that i cant call them falklanders becouse for me there is no such thing as the falklands. British military instead call them bennys, kelpers, andies and stills, so dont make a big deal of it.
Next time, i sugest you that all your historical theory be delivered to your own government, so they can acurate their history files with your information and darwin diary at http://darwin-online.org.uk/.
Saludos
No, Justin. An excuse for what? At any rate, not mine. I only mentioned the passport stamping issue to remind you that this is a further sovereingty-related boobytrap. Has it curtailed visits? Nope. Then what? Come off it, will you.
Jun 20th, 2009 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis, actually if you read those document, no they don't contradict what I said. Indeed as a representative of the Falkland Islands Government observed at the C24:
Jun 20th, 2009 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2009/06/18/argentina-appeals-to-types-of-force-that-pre-empt-peaceful-solutions
“Contrary to Argentine assertions, whilst the garrison was indeed returned to Argentina following the murder of their Governor - which had led to the intervention of the British in the first place - the civilians were invited to stay on the Islands.”
As I said, whilst the garrison brought by Mestivier in late 1832 were asked to leave, the settlers were invited to remain and did so. In January 1833, Onslow went to great lengths to persuade the Gauchos present to stay, in March 1833 Fitzroy did the same.
If you wish to discuss the history, fine, happy to do so. But at least open your mind to information outside of the narrow confines of Argentine Government endorsed embroidery of the facts.
For instance. One Antonio Rivero is revered in the “Malvinas Myth” as El Gaucho Rivero, single handedly leading a revolt against the British. Except the British weren't there. Onslow left 7th January, Fitzroy visited in March. But in August of 1833 when the Gaucho murders took place they were not present. Rivero murdered the five senior members of Vernet's settlement. His motives to do so were not patriotism but sheer naked greed, he though Brisbane had gold. And Brisbane the victim of Rivero's crime, is neglected though he did more for his adopted country of Argentina that any other single person in the Falklands. Shackleton is famous for his voyage in an open row boat to South Georgia, Brisbane (a most remarkable and resourceful man) did that three times after shipwrecks in Antarctic waters. Most notably sailing from South Georgia to South America. Yet Argentina prefers to denigrate the memory of a most remarkable man to favour his murderer.
Rivero's actions were the final nail in the coffin of Vernet's enterprise, it collapsed after that. Yet the people who survived the Gaucho murders are all important members of the Falkland Islands early history. So in fact the collapse of Vernet's enterpise is down to a man now lauded as a folk hero. Ironic isn't it.
In addition, the Gaucho murders prompted the British Government to establish a permanent presence. Prior to August 1833, the British plans for the Falklands revolved around the continuation of Vernet's settlement and an annual visit by a warship. Rivero's crime changed that and a permanent presence was established. Again, ironic isn't it that the actions of a man lauded as a folk hero, were the stimulus that prompted the establishment of a permanent presence.
And of Vernet, he continued to influence events. He convinced G.T.Whittington of the potential of the Falkland Islands. Whittington's petition to the British Government prompted the establishment of the colony in what was only intended to be a naval outpost. He also convinced Samuel Fisher Lafone to invest in the islands.
And regarding Kelpers and Malvinenense. You'll notice I'm careful to never use the term “Argies”. Perfectly valid prior to 1982 as an English word, its association with the Falklands War and the baser elements of the British press turned it into a pejorative. I would never use it. The Falklanders consider many of the names you would use as pejorative. Falklanders is their name, to use it recognises them for their identity nothing else.
Salvador, I merely point out that the passport issue is an excuse, an excuse not to get to know the Falklanders and to see them as human beings. It isn't a sovereignty laden booby trap, more a case of what I've spoken of previously. Argentina traps itself in its anti-Falklands rhetoric, again I point out this article refers to the islanders offering another olive branch only for Argentines to smack it away.
Justin, in case you didnt read my post i will quote again what the “falklands” oficial webpage tells about history in 1833:
Jun 20th, 2009 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0((The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands.))
How is that this statemen dont contradict what you said about the Argentine settlement not being expelled????.Dont confuse yourself we are talking about the argentine flag and its representation of the argentine nation.
How is that the “falklands” government webpage, the bbc, the foreign and commonwealth office and the history channel which are british sources are wrong but you have the truth????.
Sincerelly i know you like history but those links i gave to you of british sources, specifically says that the argentines were expelled, otherwise the Argentine flag would still be waving in Port Louis.
I used only british sources so stop acusing the argentine government of propaganda.
more links of british sources:
http://www.stampmagazine.co.uk/content/commonwealth/falk.html
In this page if you read it says this:
((In 1833 the Royal Navy was despatched to the South Atlantic to expel the remaining Argentine troops and settlers at Port Louis))
http://www.stampmagazine.co.uk/content/commonwealth/falk.html
If you read where it says 1833 it says:
British remove Argentines and establish sovereignty in Port Louis.
Please take a mature attitude about this dont take a side blind. If you see it Objectively what islanders said in the c24 are only propaganda contradicting what it was their official position.
Luis
Jun 20th, 2009 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read it again, nowhere does it say that Vernet's settlers were expelled; they were not. It says, as I have acknowledged, that the Argentine Government representatives were asked to leave. They were.
It is Argentina's claim that the settlers were expelled and replaced with Brits. They weren't, they stayed and were encouraged to do so. British settlers didn't arrive until nearly 10 years later.
And many sources incorrectly report what Argentina claims, going back to original sources and eye witness testimony, the claims are exposed for the lie that they are.
I suggest you consider taking a more mature attitude yourself, the Argentine propaganda you're quoting is not the be all and end all of the matter. As I've pointed out, and I do point out the original sources, there is plenty of evidence to contradict them. But indeed it is telling that you do not have an open mind prepared to objectively consider evidence that contradicts what Argentina claims.
Justin, i suggest you to think twice. In all my replys i used british sources so you could not acuse me of reading argentine propaganda and you continue to do so, ja! incredible.
Jun 20th, 2009 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the expelled Argentines, It is all in your mind, you see what you wanna see, i didnt show you argentine sources, i presented you the oficial islanders homepage, british sources where it clearly says they were expelled, so if you had read it and still believe in your own theory, there is nothing else to say. i wonder if all your comrades think the same as you about it and post an honest comment.
Saludos.
Luis,
Jun 20th, 2009 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again none of the sources you quoted say the settlers were expelled, with the exception of the BBC (which is simply incorrect). The original sources I quoted demonstrate quite clearly that the settlers were not expelled. You are quoting Argentine propaganda, the sources you quote don't say what you assert they do, you merely pick the British sources you think support your position but they do not.
And it isn't my own theory, it happens to be what the original sources confirm. Again:
1. If the settlers are expelled in Januay 1833, how come they are still there in March 1833 when Fitroy and Darwin arrive?
2. If the settlers were expelled in January 1833, how can Vernet send his deputy Matthew Brisbane to take control over his settlement? And if the British are hell bent on expelling any Argentine, why would they allow Vernet's representative to return.
3. If the settlers were expelled in January 1833, how can Thomas Helsby record in his diary the murder of the 5 senior members of Vernet's settlement in August 1833?
4. If the settlers were expelled in January 1833, then please explain how Antonina Roxa became a major landholder in Stanley as she was a settler in Vernet's settlement?
5. Again how can Manuel Coronel, another of Vernet's settlers become a major figure in early Falklands history?
6. Who is in the Falklands between 1833 and 1841 when the British decided to formally colonise the isalnds? Up to 1841 the British did no more than maintain a minor naval outpost.
Again, if as the Argentine propaganda asserts the settlers were expelled, then I'm sure you will be able to provide an objective explanation for the contradictions in the documentary evidence. I am prepared to listen, though apparently you are not.
Luis,
Jun 20th, 2009 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin Kuntz shows lots of evidence of thinking twice. I don't think you can accuse him of not thinking - at least twice.
It's not just in Justin's mind, it is also very well documented that the civilians were not expelled. Some of them even appear in Falkland Island census records in the 1870s.
Not all sources are accurate - British and Argentine - but I think it has been well established now that the civilians Vernet bought with him were allowed and encouraged to stay.
Justin(both), more proof that argentines were expelled from the islands.
Jun 21st, 2009 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0british and international sources links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands quote: Settlers from Argentina were replaced by those from Britain and elsewhere, notably Gibraltar
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands
cronology: 1833 British forces arrive and repatriate remaining Argentinians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands Cronology: 1833 – Britons set up naval garrison, expel Argentinians and establish a settlement...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands quote: In 1833 Britain reasserted its sovereignty and expelled the Argentine settlement.
Justin and Justin not only officers were expelled, they were all expelled and many british sources didnt specify it becouse it is more than clear that when it says “argentines were expelled” they mean exactly that.
Luis,
Jun 21st, 2009 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is there any chance you could throw some primary sources at us? Like Darwin's diary for instance.
I don't think the links you have provided are to very good sources, especially not the Guardian link: That is the biased opinion of Richard Gott, nothing more.
Justin, Darwin as english subject, was on an expedition of the british empire, so is very unlikely that he said the islands were argentines. Like its very unlikely i will ever found a quote of the queen saying that the islands are argentines. But most of british sources are very clear when they say argentines were expelled in 1833.
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0You see only what you want to see, no objectivity.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm
This list is proof enough that the islands are a colony.The same with resolution 2065 recognize there is a sovereignty dispute and the fact it is made by a decolonization committe is proof enough that recognize the islands as a colony.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htmo/background/census2001t.html
And this census show that mayority of population in the islands were born in england, wales, scotland, northirland or in other commonwealth member so the myth of original population is fake in their own census.
cheers.
Luis,
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0You keep quoting secondary sources, all of which quote the same original source; namely Argentine propaganda.
I've invited you to comment on original sources that directly connect to the events under discussion. They all contradict the claims made in Argentine propaganda.
I also invited you to offer an explanation for this contradiction, I was prepared to listen.
Instead of a response, you have chosen to rubbish the author; namely Charles Darwin. Your reasons are somewhat bizarre; apparently you seem to believe that Darwin was so prescient he anticipated the Argentine claims of the 20th Century.
No, Darwin merely records meeting the settlers you claim were expelled. Its interesting to observe an indoctrinated mindset in action, clear objective documentary evidence contradicts the propaganda you believe in so passionately that you will invent reasons to ignore it. It perfectly illustrates the impossibility of a solution to the Falklands question at this time; Argentina has backed itself into a corner with its self-serving, self-reinforcing “Malvinas Myth” there is no room for accommodation of the views of others.
And you also illustrate this mindset with your comments on the census figures. Objectively looking at those figures it is clear that your conclusion is not correct.
2001 figures show that 1325 of the populaton of 2913 was born in the islands. In 1982, the population was 1800, reflecting a long term economic decline. Clearly the majority of the population prior to the Argentine invasion was original. The figures to 2001 reflect two influences.
a) the economy has expanded resulting in immigration.
b) due to the threat posed by Argentina, Britain is forced to maintain a garrison to deter further aggression and this inflates the figures.
Its in the notes, you only had to look.
Telling isn't it, you didn't consider the evidence, you merely seized on the fact that quoting out of context reinforced your preconceived notions. The figures do not show the myth of an original population, rather they confirm it. Again the inherent prejudice of a viewpoint that refuses to recognise that the people of the islands have the right to determine their future for themselves.
And Luis, to reiterate.
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands were listed on the C24 list because in 1947 when it was compiled it was a colony and Britain chose to list it. It has no bearing on the modern relationship between the UK and the Falkland Islands. It is not “proof” they are colony, it merely reflects that the original purpose of the C24 has been perverted from its mission to represent the people of dependent territories to being a propaganda mouth piece for Argentina.
To clarify population - the census is of civilain residents only and always excludes the military and their support staff. It has increased from 1850 in 1982 to today,s 3000 as a direct result of the removal of the sovereignty threat we faced before. This ended in 1982 and is guaranteed by the prescence of british forces and backing of all main political parties in UK. The increase came from Islanders returning home to new jobs etc and immigration from many countries including even Argentina-not just UK.
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for history arguments - why not give Argentina back to Spain,Brazil to Portiugal,USA to Britain - after all they were first Eurpeans to invade and settle there? Or even better go back more and give these countries back to their native indigenous populations and all of todays Argentines go back to Spain and Italy etc! Well that is the same type of reasoning you argue against us - many who are 6-8 generations born here.
This is why todays modern free world has moved on from the past and belives more in the democratic wishes of the people that live in the country and their basic human rights.
Justin Kuntz, im not quoting secondary sources, i refused to quote Argentine sources to avoid beign acused of biased or propaganda. I quoted british sources, United Nations sources, “falklands” government sources,etc.
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now if you pretend me to search into vernet diary, i dont have it, i dont know if he was sleeping in the left side of the bed, i dont know. This is not a dispute between you and me, this is a dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina, So if the “falklands” government claim they are selfgoverning becouse they writed a constitution, im not going to ask the governor if he feel free or colonized they have to prove it. Decolonization committe doesnt care if the governor give his word.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm
This list was not made in 1947 this list is actually from 2002, it is writed on the link and was not modified since becouse there was no modifications on the status quo of those territories and it is available in the un.org.
About the census Justin, the military garrison and the civilian personnel of the military garrison were excluded acording to that link.
And one more thing, your critisism to the un reflect exactly the kind of posture the United Kingdom use regarding international affairs, which is unilateralism, and we both must agree that unilateralism is not the way to resolve disputes.
To islander, Argentina in no way can return to spain, becouse we are not a foreign power who expelled spaniards in 1810, we are the population who born in this territory under the spanish colony, independized from them and there was no other nation prior to the spanish colony here on this land. In time of independence there were only 6000 spaniards and 700000 born in this land.
With your pretext, what keeps nations today from invading each other?
With your pretext, One nation can invade another nation, keeping a colony replacing its original population, for 150 years and then claim selfetermination for it own. Is that legal for you?
Luis,
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you do not understand the term secondary source. Darwin's diaries are a direct record record of the event, they would be a primary or original source. If someone were to draw upon Darwin's work, that would be a derivative or secondary source.
So to reiterate, all of the sources you quote are secondary source. In truth tertiary sources would be more appropriate term, since they are all reporting somone elses work.
The evidence in the original sources, the direct record of events, all contradict what Argentina claims; that of an expulsion of the settlers. It did not happen, it is as simple as that.
And as regards your example of Argentina. Argentina is largely a nation of European immigrants, you are descendants of Europeans who took the land through armed conquest from its indigenous population. So if we are to take your example, does the fact that you displaced the original population, robbed them of their land and imposed a colony to replace the original population with European settlers mean that modern day Argentines do no enjoy the right to self-determination? Let us not forget that the Conquest of the Desert is a much more recent event than the British Return to the Falklands. This simple reduction ad absurdum demonstrates the logical fallacy of your argument.
And your comments about one nation invading another. Do I take it from that comment Argentina intends to return territory you took from Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance? Again a more recent event than the British Return. Again a simple reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the logical fallacy of your argument.
And turning to islander's example, the birth of Argentina. Well from a Spanish perspective, an illegal land grab has been reinforced by importing European immigrants to replace the original population. And again this would be a more recent event than the British Return. Again a simple reductio ad absurdum illustrates the fallacy of your argument.
Your argument is entirely fallacious and hypocritical. Were we to apply the same standards to Argentina, most of the population would have to return to Europe, you'd have to hand back Patagonia and parts of Paraguay. But experience would leave me to expect you will claim all that is different but its not.
You argument is fallacious, because like all irredentist claims you seek to fix a point in time at which you perceive you have an advantage. In reality even there Argentina does not. Argentina's claims regarding Vernet's settlement are fundamentally holed beneath the water by the simple fact that Vernet approached the British for permission for his enterprise, you cannot claim a land for a settlement when you asked the owner's permission. Oh but thats another inconvenient fact missing from the “Malvinas Myth”, another one for you to deny but it happens to be true.
Returning to the census once more. If you read the notes and to save you the trouble I'll quote them:
”## The 1996 and 2001 figures include persons present in the Falkland Islands in connection with the military garrison, (1996=483; 2001=534), but excludes all military personnel and their families.”
One of the reasons that the population has expanded are those persons resident in connection with the garrison. The garrison is however excluded. My comments were factually correct but could have been miscontrued.
And again to re-iterate, the Falklands are listed because Britain listed them as a colony pure and simple. A UN official did not sit with an atlas and compile a list of colonies, they were declared by nation states. It was only ever listed because Britain declared it, pure and simple. And this is easily verified should you take the time.
The Falklands are self-governing and to be honest if you wish to ignore that fine. You may stick you head in the sand as long as you like, it won't change the fact. Argentina can ignore the FIG, its the FIG that decides its own future. Again we happen to be conversing on an article where the FIG offers an olive branch to Argentina, only for Argentina and Argentines like you to dismiss it. You can make all the pretences you like about seeking negotiation, your nations conduct clearly demonstrates the contrary.
You neatly summarise why the C24 is a farce, it doesn't actually care about the people it is supposed to represent. Rather it perverts its mission to provide a platform for Argentina to whine about the events of 200 years ago.
Kuis, Justin has spoken exactly for me also, about the indigenous population of indians whom your ancestors hunted down and murdered to take their land and colonise it- and this was after your independence - this was Argentina that murdered the original inhabitants. This is why we need to put history away - and talk about the reality of today - not who did what to who 200 years ago. On civil population I must check but I was sure the figures excluded all the civilian contractors who live on the miltary base as well as they have nothing to do with the islands and do not pay any tax here.as such.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin, Luis, &c. Your arguments had been discussed on the Falklands-Malvinas Forum (now extinct) for more than a decade without turning the weight to any side. All interested parties - and I'm sorry to say this - appear to suffer from OCD (in Spanish TOC) and would not accept that no reason is absolutely right and no right is absolutely reasonable. We are stuck in a 180 years mud of which only goodwill, good faith, patience and fair play may eventually pull us out. Fortunately, both in the Falkland-Malvinas Forum as in here, education, humour, moderation, empiricism, values, courtesy, fair play, modesty and a reasonable dose of hypocrisy prevail. Otherwise it would be impossible to live, not only here, but in the whole bleeding world. Cheers.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent comment Salvador!
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Salvador, I just went on a hunt for the Falklands-Malvinas forum you mention. I had never heard of it before.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems to be going still:
http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/index.php
Interesting to note Salvador, that this page is made by islanders and as such they post pro-british or anti-argentine “news” but as freedom of speach, the difference with Nora Femenia falkland forum is that Nora used her scissors on every pro-argentine comment. So i prefer to talk directly with islanders and not be focused by a woman that have a degree on mediation and never mediated in all her live.
Jun 24th, 2009 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're right Justin. Sorry. I had Femenia's emails last years saying that she was going to close the site but it is certainly still alive'n kicking. Thus I signed in, dropped a message and left. Met a few old buggers there...
Jun 26th, 2009 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Norma snipping every pro-Argentine comment that I somehow doubt. I'm sure Salvador would agree - the one thing you could say about her was she was even handed.
Jun 26th, 2009 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis, by all means talk directly to islanders, you might try listening as well.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!