MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Uruguay is the natural gateway to Mercosur markets Falkland Islands businessmen told
A visiting delegation from the Falkland Islands Chamber of Commerce heard on Monday from the Vice-Chairman of the Uruguay-British Chamber of Commerce, Guillermo Wild, that Uruguay offered unrivalled opportunities for trade and access to Latin American markets. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis should be interesting, better get some popcorn.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is a non-news article for the details it’s missing. I can’t make out this to be
Oct 17th, 2013 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Uruguay sees potential in the Malvinas/Falklands and wants to have some shares before hand and is keeping a low profile about it
2) It could be over optimistic propaganda of the islanders, after all the islanders were received by Uruguayan governmental officials two years ago and formalized some agreements in the past. Now they didn’t formalize anything, nor it is very clear which Uruguayan authorities received the delegation.
http://noticias.latam.msn.com/xl/latinoamerica/uruguay/malvinas-busca-incrementar-las-relaciones-pol%c3%adticas-y-econ%c3%b3micas-con-uruguay-17
3) The Uruguayans are giving the Argentine government a traditional diplomatic vendetta for the latest round over the River Uruguay conflict. The oldest stuff in the book.
Maybe I’m missing some previous facts, but I think this kind of articles would be far more richer for the readers if they had some more political introspection in them
2 Don't get all bitter and twisted, the Falklanders and Uruguayans are merely developing contacts for future potential trade. No reason for Argylanders to feel intimidated, unless you want to of course.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2 It could be over optimistic propaganda of the islanders, LOL Argys would know all about propoganda and vendettas eh?
Oct 17th, 2013 - 04:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe I’m missing some previous facts, but I think this kind of articles would be far more richer for the readers if they had some more political introspection in them.
You mean thier ours and we will scream and scream to the UN, C24, and anyone else who will listen (not many) especially if they do a deal with Uruguay
@2 Agree there could be more detail, however it must be said that a trade delegations visit can be extremely successful without a bogus formal signing ceremony (and a cringeworthy declaration of support for the forced annexation of a neighbours territory).
Oct 17th, 2013 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 03
Oct 17th, 2013 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Be serious!
The Falklanders are developing contacts with whom exactly in Uruguay?
6
Oct 17th, 2013 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Surely you must appreciate I couldn't possibly divulge such commercially confident information.
Is that English for “I haven't got a clue”?
Oct 17th, 2013 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here is an opportunity for Uruguay...but it wont take it.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Make some money and trade with a people who can provide you with resources to power your homes and help your industry in 2017.
Or support a ridiculous corrupt regimes propoganda to blind its population from their theft based on a 1940s lie on a series of events that never happened in 1833.
I wonder if Uruguay is a forward thinking democracy thinking about the well being of its people...or...an equally corrupt child-like failed state...fighting pretend conflicts that finished 200 years ago.
I bet I can guess LOL...especially if turd Stevie is anyrthing to go by.
Yes, Monomagia, because Uruguayan well being simply depends on trading with the Falklanders.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Stand in line, the day an agreement is made with the EU, it's almost your turn...
Stevie, why not admit your sour grapes. Guess you have never heard the expression about what can growm from little acorns?
Oct 17th, 2013 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Today the delegation arrives at next destination- Punta Arenas ,Chile. Another long term traditional trading and communications friendly province Capital of a friendly Nation.
@2 my mistake the article of the 4 of September visit is actually of this year, not 2011 like I understood from the link I posted.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0This actually helps point 1) and devaluates 2) and 3) if actually this delegation visit was already agreed upon earlier in September. It's quite an important detail which they could have contextualized better this one If Fowler had re mentioned it
3),4),5) I’m only asking for a better understanding of things, why is that such a problem?? You are the ones being cynical here
What can I say, Islander?
Oct 17th, 2013 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm happy for you, great thing you want the interaction.
But why coming about as one that is doing anybody a favour?
Stevie
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again you show your turdish tendancies.
It is quite possible that by 2017 the Falklands could be the cheapest source of oil to Uruguay. if it isn't then there is no business to be done..fair enough thats the market.
But if it is and if uruguay chooses an alternative source at a higher cost it is DIRECTLY impacting the well-being of its citizens...based on dogma and corruption.
Crikey you're stupid Stevie...i am sure your wind turbines are the solution LOLOLOL
Uruguay is the natural gateway to Mercosur markets.....says FI businessman.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mercosur are 5 countries of SouthAmerica engaged to trade, has nothing nothing to do with FI (britishs bots), its a matter of SAm. Gateways for Mercosur are a lot. What someone of Malvinas?? thinks, who cares.
Don't you worry about that, Monomagia. I'll personally make sure that the finest of technology will be used to achieve the reduction of the need of oil imports in my country. That's the sole reason of my journey...
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wind turbines aren't the solution, they merely offer an impressive amount of energy output, could we find a way to storage it. Until then, they offer free, green energy in windy times...
See, all you think about is money, and you measure happiness and prosperity in dollars and pounds sterling. I'm just happy that you can have a chivito and you send me a penguin...
We'd had trade contact with Uruguay for years before CFK threw another hissy fit.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0malen
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are funny, retarded and thick, but hilariously funny.
Uruguay already trades with Britain retard, as does every other country in “SAM”. Who uruguay trades with is a matter for their government and their people (except for retard Stevie) not you or SAM..
hahahahahaha
what a thick british thinks of Mercosur, who cares
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0haahahaha
Remember that many years ago the Falklands had a very good business relationship with Uruguay. Why can we not have the same again
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 017) What would happen next if there is enough oil for the FI to become a little emirates of the S. Atlantic??
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0What do you the islanders, think will happen in the islands themselves and its relations with the world and Argentina say 50 years from now ??
Just a though
Hilarious, so many Brits and Chileans arguing against Mercosur and now the Kelpers want to do business with Mercosur haha It has been said many times, the Kelpers need Mercosur not Mercosur needs the Kelpers.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 021 *thought
Oct 17th, 2013 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@6 The Camara De Comercio seems to have a president and directors who are Uruguayan. Perhaps if you looked them up!
Oct 17th, 2013 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10 Wonder if Uruguay will be following Brazil's lead? Indicating to argieland where it can get off. Oh, hang on. Seems it already is!
@13 Uruguay is perfectly at liberty to ignore trading opportunities if it wishes. Let's see now, the Falkland Islands GDP (PPP) per capita is 3.4 times that of Uruguay. In simple terms, just for you, that means that the Islands have money and Uruguay doesn't. I reckon that the Islands ARE doing Uruguay a favour in offering opportunities to such an impoverished place!
@15 It's okay. Don't get them knickers in a twist. You see, across the other “side” of “your” continent is an organisation called the Pacific Alliance. The “natural” gateway to that is Chile. And that's where the delegation has gone. Just think how “isolationist” you can be as the Islanders go round you. Incidentally, the Pacific Alliance does more trade than little mercosur.
@16 Oh, goody. Let's see all this technology then. Wind, wave, solar, nuclear. Got it all. Perhaps you've learned how to tap the energy coefficient of interdimensional n-space. Come on, let's hear it. Or is it just peasants on a treadmill?
8
Oct 17th, 2013 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, no, no Stevie, that's not what I said. Have another read and the meaning will become clear, it is not hidden and there are no trick questions.
I was going to say you shouldn't seek to alter what is written and agreed but then I forgot you are merely indulging in the national trait of all Argylanders.
@16
Oct 17th, 2013 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah
“You will personally see to it that uruguay has a reduced need for oil imports..thats your journey”
hahahahahahah...stop, I am wiping my eyes from laughter.
Stevie, I am sorry, I misjudged you. clearly you are just a spotty teenager just out of colege with grand plans and ambitions..LOL...pmsl again and again.
Stevie. It is possible that renewable energy will be part of a solution, and it is possible that storage of renewable energy will lead to a reduced reliance on fossil fuels..
However..is it likely that ground-breaking technology will come out of Uruguay, a country that we have established has no history or record of innovation..? Unlikely at best, but not impossible.
Is it likely that the person who delivers it is an acne ridden racist cretin, who clearly doesn't have the brains he was born with...nah..I think not.
How about a more realistic ambition for someone of your intellect and capabilities...trawling the montevideo sewers looking for a bigger turd than yourself perhaps...?
Good luk with your “journey” Stevie...if nothing else youve given me the best laugh I've had for ages...
“My journey” by racist Stevie lol
or perhaps
“Mein Kampf” lol Lol LOL
Be serious
Oct 17th, 2013 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Between you and me, Uruguayan market is small, Falkland one is... inexistent.
when it comes to trade agreements, it's not only about what you can sell to us, if you haven't got a market for our goods, there is little to be gained from our point of view.
Even if we pay a higher price for the oil elsewhere, those nations invest an important amount in our goods.
I don't expect you to appreciate the difference...
Stevie
Oct 17th, 2013 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 048,000bpd of oil is imported into Uruguay. That is the best part of $2bn of “non-existant” market that you could do...just for starters.
I am sorry if you think $2bn worth of trade is so small.
What you are saying is that you are scared of Argentine reprisals if you took the deal.............see post #9.
@27 Don't underrate yourself. Perhaps the Falklands has a market for moaning whingers. You could be a fog horn. And finally become useful. Did you notice that, on a per capita basis, the Falklanders have more than three times as much money as you? If they choose, they can afford useless curiosities. Something they can stick out on an uninhabited island and organise boat trips to view. From a safe distance.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uruguay has always had good relations with the Falklands andmany ofthe islanders received thier education here and had access to hospital facilities
Oct 17th, 2013 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uruguays lipservice to the Malvinas cause is just a dummy to the spoilt brats of BA to stop them squawking about other things.No matter that those spoiled infants still throw thier toys out of the pram anyway
Inconsistencies Why is there still a monthly flightfrom Mount Pleasant airport Falklands, to Rio Gallegos in Argentina? Doesnt British Airways flight 244 still fly to Buenos Aires? And under the Guacho Rivero law isnt that illegal?
LAN, the Chilean airline recently had its assets in Aeroparque airport in Buenos Aires siezed by the KKK government? Perhapsits timeforthemto move thier hub to Montevideo and inaugerate a direct service to the Falklands from there
27 Seems some Uruguayans disagree but If you are right then you have nothing to worry about.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If in reality you are from Argyland then we all know you have a lot to be worried about and that might explain your nervous anxiety.
No answer from Stevie.....shame.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's quite simple mathematics. The Sealion field will produce 100,000 barrels of oil a day.
Premier Oil have a choice to ship it to Cape Town, the Carribean or to Montevideo.
If they ship it to Montevideo the shipping costs will be a few cents per barrel less than shipping it to Cape Town.
Uruguay needs about 50,000 barrels of oil per day.
Premier can therefore offer the oil to Uruguay at a discount.
Clearly this $2bn a year deal, at a potential discount is insufficient for Stevie, and far more important is an eviction that didn't happen in 1833 and a ill judged fear of Argentina.
Never mind..just have to sell it to Cape Town and the Carribean...LOL
Stevie has the same usefulness as the lighthouse installed bythe Germans at Rincon del Bonete in the middle of Uruguay and kept in order as part of the patrimonio nacional as it serves no other useful purpose
Oct 17th, 2013 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I find it ironic some of the renewable vs oil arguments. The Falklands have both! In fact it won't need much of its own oil because it already produces 40% of its energy by wind. That will increase.
Oct 17th, 2013 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland islands produces the largest proportion of its energy needs from renewables than any where in the world.
@2 The Islanders are playing the long game. This is in opposition to the Argentines methods of government /development by knee jerk reactions.
Looks like the Uruguayans will be sensible and play the long game too...
@15 Malen. Fine, if Uruguay don't take advantage of trading with the Islands someone else will in today's global markets.
@21 My opinion is they will become independent once they can afford their own defence.
@22 the Kelpers need Mercosur not Mercosur needs the Kelpers.
Incorrect. None of the sides needs each other but if they trade, everyone wins. However-the Islanders will within the next 20 years be almost totally powered by renewable sources of power-so the oil will be a money making machine. That money can buy goods, services and labour from South America, Europe or other locations, not exclusively from South America.
.Either way, the Falkland Islanders win, one way South America wins, the other way (not trading with FI) it loses.
@ 6 Stevie wrote: “The Falklanders are developing contacts with whom exactly in Uruguay?”
Oct 18th, 2013 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't know the details, but Uruguay has had trade relations with the Falklands (Malvinas) for 160 years and trade currently reaches 1.6 billion dollars annually - mening: there must be somebody, hein?
Pete
Oct 18th, 2013 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I find it ironic some of the renewable vs oil arguments. The Falklands have both! In fact it won't need much of its own oil because it already produces 40% of its energy by wind. That will increase.”
That's a funny statement. In order to supply energy to 3000 people, you'll need some... what, 7 windmills of the proper dimensions.
That is the number that will increase?
Impressive...
Mercosur doesn't NEED the Falklands. Especially not the military part of it.
As I said, everything the islands has to offer, we either already have, or are able to get elsewhere at a better price.
Fact is, the Falkland market is so small for Mercosur goods, we would really be doing the Islanders a favour and not the other way around.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm all up for favours, as soon as those militaries goes home...
So you can get your 50,000 barrels of oil a day at cheaper rate than the falklands can provide you Stevie...how do you know?
Oct 18th, 2013 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0How do you know that this $2bn a year piece of business couldnt be a win win.
What price are you currently paying?
What price are Premier Oil offering..
You don't know do you Stevie...you haven't got a clue...just shouting your ludicrous mouth off again...dickhead
Monkeymagic
Oct 18th, 2013 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lets say the FI offers us the barrels at the grand price of x dollars a piece.
Lets also assume we today pay 1.5x dollars a barrel for Venezuelan oil and 2x for Arg and Bra oil.
Now, in paper the FI deal is great, but we also sell stuff to Arg and Bra for 3x dollars, and to Ven for 2x.
In the end, as the FI will be able to buy 5 chivitos a year from us, it's a bad deal.
Because as you should know, trade deals are all about give and take...
@Don Alberto
Oct 18th, 2013 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess you are confusing Millions with Billions.
No way a little economy like the FI of around some U$s150 millions can have a trade of U$s1.6 billions as you say with anyone. It is just ridiculous.
That trade (import or export) should be reflected in its GDP.
That amount also would have a major impact on Uruguay economy because would be close to the total exports of Uruguay to Brazil U$s1.9bn which is the major export partner of Uruguay.
“Don't misunderstand me, I'm all up for favours, as soon as those militaries goes home...”
Oct 18th, 2013 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which won't happen unless Argentina irrevocably drop their claim.
Stevie
Oct 18th, 2013 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank God you are not in Government...you are totally clueless.
Trade deals are only about give and take in Arabian bazaars...or perhaps in corrupt LATAM fascist autocracies.
“Linked contracts” such as you describe are generally illegal..we will only sell you that at a fake high price if you agree to buy that at a fake high price...it wouldnt surprise me at all if it was the norm in LATAM.
If you believe that Brazil, Argentina and Venezuala are only buying Uruguay exports because you are paying a premium for their oil, obviously your exports aren't competitive.
Sounds like you support some convoluted mixture of communism and fascism alive and well in LATAM and not free market...
oh well, China grew up, as has India, Russia and perhaps Brazil....I guess another 50 years and Argentina and Uruguay, Venezuala and Cuba may too...after all they are the most backward states on Earth.
Looks like my post at #9 was right all along....hehehehe
What, you thought trade was all about us buying your crap at prices you think are generous?
Oct 18th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now I understand the misunderstanding...
oil exploration in Malvinas is a political matter, not a business opportunity like these brits of white gloves want to sell.
Oct 18th, 2013 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So lets see the context of this, is not like buying onions, are natural resources on a territory in dispute (territorial integrity of Arg) where Britain cannot introduce unilateral decissions. Its illegal.
Stevie
Oct 18th, 2013 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trade is about buying a commodity for a lower price than you are currently paying enabling your population to heat their homes, fuel their cars and power their industry at a lower cost.
Clearly you are thicker than I thought.
Malen
Don't be a turd all your life. The islands are 300 miles off the coast of current Argentina and 1000 miles away from the nearest point when your made-up incident happened in 1833, 50 years before your own actual real genocidal colonialism in 1880.
There is no territorial integrity.
Interesting that the French, Italian and American oil companies involved see it as a business opportunity, as do the multi-national suppliers. Also interesting that Brazil and Nicaragua have awarded the same companies more business opportunities in the oil fields.
Seems like your “political issue” doesn't hold water does it....because just like your Malvinas claim it is toothless and impotent.
44 m&m
Oct 18th, 2013 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“50 years before your own actual real genocidal colonialism in 1880.” LOL
I think it’s perfectly understandable that you defend your country and the islanders, what is really low, dishonest and cowardly is not being able to back up your shit, pack off and run and take it around elsewhere in utter frustration…
I‘m still waiting
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281289
@45
Oct 18th, 2013 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, I didn't think your poor excuse for your genocidal colonialism was serious.
In 1879 was Patagonia part of Argentina...No
In 1881 was Patagonia part of Argentina...yes
Were a great number of the people who lived in Patagonia in 1879 dead by 1881..yes
We're the remainder forced to live under Argentine rule...yes
If that ain't genocidal colonialism, I don't know what is..your weak excuses don't wash any more than the Malvinas myth....you stole land and massacred folk to do it.
46) m&m
Oct 18th, 2013 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Answer
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281452
it is ludicrous.
Oct 18th, 2013 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0YOU invade their continent. YOU steal a landmass the size of Europe. You change you name and blame someone else.
When the indigenous people get upset YOU use it as an excuse to massacre more of them and steal the remainder of THEIR land.
YOUR excuses that they were attacking you, it was on the same continent and that someone else would have done it shows you've not moved on from your colonialist attitudes. Which is why Argentina covets the Falklands.
However, using your logic.
Argentina attacked the Falklands in 1982.
The Falklands is the same continent as Argentina.
Although slightly disproportionate it would be perfectly okay for the Falklands to attack Argentina, massacre a large portion of their population and govern them for 200 years with English as the language.
I am sure there are a few pretty Argentine girls that could escape the massacre to ensure they could pretend to be a fully merged society.
listen to yourself man....in the UK there is a radio show called Fighting talk...and in one round the contestants are challenged to “defend the indefensible”...keep trying.
I'd say Monkeymagic is backing up his claims quite well so far.
Oct 18th, 2013 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So far he has proven
*that Stevie sees Uruguay as nothing more than a vassal state of both Argentina and Venezuela
*Malen has no concept of what territorial integrity actually means
*and that the only country to practise colonial invasion and ethnic cleansing in the 1800s in that region was Argentina.
Monkeymagic seems to answering everyone's lies with reality.
@Monkeymagic
Oct 18th, 2013 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Linked contracts” such as you describe are generally illegal..we will only sell you that at a fake high price if you agree to buy that at a fake high price...it wouldnt surprise me at all if it was the norm in LATAM.”
It is not just a LATAM practice as you say in Europe the same practice are carry out like in the farm agreement, biodisel now, etc.
Have you ever heard about the banana trade war?
http://www.amazon.ca/Banana-Wars-Anatomy-Trade-Dispute/dp/085199637X
I guess that FI will not be able to sell a drop of oil to any SA country at least Argentina agrees with that.
Otherwise this trade will set a bad precedent if allowed to buy oil illegally obtained by Piracy.
Pirate Oil should be banned to be sold in westerns countries...
48) MM
Oct 18th, 2013 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will repeat what I answerd in the other thread... You are simplifying things to much. Focus back to the thirteen colonies established during the 1500s, which is the most fair equivalent Britain and France are historically responsible for the genocide of the Iroquois, but they can’t be responsible for what later on almost 300 years later occurred beyond the Appalachian Mountains, it’s not a question that they changed their names, they emancipated from Britain and recognized their homeland in the New World not in Europe. So it’s up for the US Americans to explain their case, I just explained the Argentine one.
I will remaind you that the topic here is not Argentina's sainthood, if you personally ask me my family and ancestors came to Argentina 30 or 40 years after this war, like most of white Argentines of full European descent. The original point here is the circumstances previous to the 1880s campaing and of course your pathetic attempts to de-rail that have failed, thats the problem isnt it??
@51
Oct 18th, 2013 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cabeza...not over-simplifying at all.
There is no difference in South America, North America and Australia. European colonialists arrived, stole the countries from the indigenous population, declared independence and rule them today.
In India, Africa and elsewhere, European colonialists arrived, stole the countries from the indigenous population, either lost wars of independence or gave them back, and either stayed as a minority or returned home.
The exception to that a truly uninhibited areas such as the Falklands where there was no indigenous.
Dany Bugger
You are a cretin, how is your plan that 100,000 argentines not including you should die taking the Falklands...idiot.
Premier don't need to sell Sealion oil to Latam...moron. However, should someone in SA want to buy some they will get an excellent price. Your view that this is only okay if Argentina says so, made me laugh over and over again....first the idea that Brazil could give two shots what Argentina says....and second because I agree with with regards the rest...see post 9.
Any how time for bed....!
#52 m&m
Oct 18th, 2013 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And...???
WTF are you talking about?? Your arguments are weakening in each comment please explain to me how come Argentina committed a unilaterally offensive campaign against the Indians prior to 1877? How can it be that genocide occurred when 56% of modern Argentines have at least one Amerindian ancestor???
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the Mapuches who were the most aggressive of the tribes were not natives to the East of the Andes, the Criollo settlers had lived in the Pampas for over 300 years by then?? Why can’t you accept facts and stop spouting shit ?
Monkeymagic
Oct 18th, 2013 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's a 300 year gap in your logic.
When the Spaniards left Rio de la Plata in the 19th century, they didn't leave just the original population behind, there were mestizos and decendants from various countries mainly from Europe that had lived there for up to 10 generations.
You say they should go home. I ask you, where is home if not the place they were born? A leg to Italy maybe? The torso to Spain? Tell you what though, the heart stays here...
It's quite amusing though that you never reflected on where you should be sent, should the Celts reclaim their historical terroitories and get them... Anglo-Saxon? Germany, for sure...
54) Steavie.. Yes now its easy to kick MM on the ground
Oct 18th, 2013 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@malen do you now understand why it’s so important to know your own history objectively.... All this leftist or politically correct untruthful version of history that started here in the media and classrooms, Carta Abierta folk wanting to rename plazas and streets that were originally named after Generals and officers that fought against Indians, denying the general circumstances in the run up to the 1976 coup, mystifying Peron and not really understanding him, Argentines that renegade their past and cherry picking from it for political reasons, amongst other things, it also leads to people coming from outside telling you are a genocidal Nazi, fascist country or whatever they will like to add to that and you will end up believing it…
So therefore, Yes I would recommend you reading Tata Yofre, Ceferino Reato et al.
Cabeza
Oct 18th, 2013 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You and Stevie are insane...gobsmackingly indoctrinated...if you genuinely believe the tripe you are writing.
Argentines didn't spring from the rocks in 1814....they were European colonialists...descendants from the genocidal conquistadors who massacred a continent of indigenous people.
What you seem to think is that your wars of independence from Spain, somehow frees you from that history. It wasn't Spain...it was you. If you can't see that then there is no hope. Spaniards in Spain weren't colonialists..it was your ancestors.
Changing your name and deciding to stay doesn't stop you from being colonialists it makes it worse if anything.
So, now we have established that it was your ancestors and not Spain who were the conquistadors, and your name change doesn't free you from that guilt...you have no more right to be in South America than the British in India, Nigeria or Africa.
You then go on to claim that because “over 300 years” (incidentally the British were in India over 200 years) YOU managed to massacre sufficient numbers of indigenous to become the majority, the land became rightfully yours.
You then go on to claim that when the remaining indigenous were still a bit pissed off with you and attacked on occasion, it gave you the right to steal the remainder of their land (the size of western Europe) and massacre a few more. This wasn't colonialism as you were now “South Americans” so that was okay.
Really guys? really??
As I said before. This was all put to bed in 1945 when the world agreed in self-determination. It didn't matter how you got there, whoever is there now determines their own way forward...so it doesn't matter if you want to gloss over your shameful genocidal past...or Britain its.
Which brings us back to the Falklands. How many years Stevie...300? But the islanders have been there 180....and their land grab was far less blood soaked than yours either in 1500s or 1880s.
I am sorry you are not ashamed..you should be.
@ 39 DanyBerger
Oct 18th, 2013 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, I am not confusing millions with billions, but I should have checked my source (Buenos Aires Herald) before quoting. My mistake (sob-sob :)
“... trade currently reaches 1.6 billion dollars annually. The purpose of this trip is precisely to increase business and fuel relations between both communities,” Roger Spink added”
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/143095/malvinas-trade-mission-arrives-in-uruguay-to-fuel-oil-business
56) I thought you had gone to bed… Could not sleep and consulting with the pillow how to reply, have we?
Oct 18th, 2013 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You fail to take the whole point and you choose to ignore the FACTS that have already being presented to you. Again this is not about the sainthood nor the pioneering ancestors and colonizers of Argentina, Uruguay, US, etc. There are two different concepts that you fail to grasp and that is CONQUEST from COLONIZATION
Your are missing the whole point, Spanish Vice-Royalty of the River plate was scarcely populated when the Europeans arrived, there was no windmills, water wells, no horses to cover the vast planes, no agriculture, no wild livestock rooming wildly through the Pampas, they were mostly nomadic hunters and gatherers so there was not many Indians when they conquered this region. Indians preferred mountainous regions where there was water. The most developed, populated and sophisticated agricultural civilizations were North West under the jurisdiction of the Alto Peru.
At the times of the independence the entire UP of the River Plate must of being what half a million?? Not even that perhaps. Most of the population nowadays has an immigrant background that is barely over a century here, but at least in between 5 and 6 argentines have one or more Indian ancestors. Your stuff doesn’t add up you can’t really put the blame on modern day Argentines that most of their ancestors were in Europe at the time.
Next is geography you are LYING, Europe (10.530.751 km²) is 10 times bigger than Patagonia (1.060.631 km²)
@ 45 CabezaDura
Oct 18th, 2013 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CD: “the Indians would attack, sack, pillage cattle and take women to be raped and enslaved down South, the Argentine government had intended to peruse a defensive policy before actually sending out the conquest of the desert.” [1]
CD: “Patagonia was an adjacent territory to the Argentine Confederacy. Indians would attack and raid the Argentine heartlands and this problem was becoming a more often and permanent menace towards the mid-late 1800s. Defensive policy like the Fosa de Alsina was expensive and did not solve the problem from its roots.” [2]
You are right.
The invaders had stolen the land the indigenous people had owned for some 13 000 years, and those creep then had the gall to defend themselves! Thank doG many were butchered, of the survivors the men were sent to an island to perish from deseases and starvation, while the women were kept as house slaves in Buenos Aires.
Hacia 1875 el Presidente Nicolás Avellaneda: “... pero esta presencia no era blanca, ni siquiera mestiza y por lo tanto carente de humanidad reconocible”[3]
“Para el Estado cuando un indígena muere es un problema menos” - Julio A Roca [4]
“llegan los indios prisioneros con sus familias. La desesperación, el llanto no cesa. Se les quita a las madres sus hijos para en su presencia regalarlos, a pesar de los gritos, los alaridos, y las súplicas que hincadas y con los brazos al cielo dirigen las mujeres indias. ...”. [5]
[1] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281189
[2] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281189
[3] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281189 - 5
[4] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281189
[5] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281189
59) Ohh you have touched my heart St John… Invading from Chile, displacing the local tribes, involving themselves actively in Argentine civil wars, raiding the heartlands, instead of re-conquering them from these evil Spanish conquistadors that had already established themselves for 300 years is simply theft and pillage, not defense.
Oct 18th, 2013 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I’m afraid there was no Geneva Convention in those days
@ 53 CabezaDura
Oct 19th, 2013 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is what you are so eagerly defending:
Argentine president Nicolás Avellaneda, 1875: “suppress the Indians and occupy the borders does not mean anything but to populate the desert ...” The Indians were and were not there, the desert was desert despite the presence of humans, but this presence was not white, not even mixed and therefore devoid of recognizable humanity. To populate meant, contradictorily, to kill. [1]
CD: “How can it be that genocide occurred when 56% of modern Argentines have at least one Amerindian ancestor???”
How come there are so many mulattos in the USA? in the majority of cases, one and the same reason:
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violación
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
Now, ask yourself how many present day Argentines have an indigenous last name, inherited from a long line of men?
CD: “Why is it so difficult for you to understand the Mapuches who were the most aggressive of the tribes were not natives to the East of the Andes, the Criollo settlers had lived in the Pampas for over 300 years by then??”
You provided a link to Zanja de Alsina [2]
On that page is a link to a map of the expansion of provincia Buenos Aires ('Frontera hasta la Zanja de Alsina') showing that in 1771 - a century before Conquista del Desierto and at the time when the Mapuches arrived from the Mapuche state south of Bio-Bio, provincia Buenos Aires barely existed; even as late as 1850 it only reached 10 km south of Bahía Blanca. [3]
[1] http://alhim.revues.org/103#tocto1n2
[2] http://alhim.revues.org/103#tocto1n2
[3] http://alhim.revues.org/103#tocto1n2
61) Look I provided the counter links to that in the other article Argentina at the end of the Campaign of the desert had over a million inhabitants, in the following years a shockwave of immigrants over 6 million came to Argentina in fact British immigrants came in lesser numbers but earlier to the bulk of Italian and Spanish ones.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the irony is that most of them radiated in Patagonia shortly after!! And btw one of Roca’s awarded generals in the Desert Campaign was British too.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Fotheringham
Patagonia prior to the campaign was 15.000 and 14.000 of them were exterminated for the army sources of the time (underestimated numbers maybe), but it doesn’t add up to 56% of Argentina’s current demography having at least one Indian ancestor it just can’t be all rape. Most Indians had difficult names and no surnames so the civil registries would give them common Hispanic surnames like Gonzales, Gimenez, Lopez, etc
As the Zanja de Alsina goes, yes but people didn’t live side by side with the Indians who were nomadic, most of the land you talk about in BsAs Province would of being uncharted buffer zone territory back then, settlers would arrive buy land in the frontiers and fence their farms in hope that the Indians would not raid them, or the gauchos would follow the vaquerias down South so the boundaries would of being slowly modifying themselves, yes that’s true. Something very similar would of happened in the mid US as the pioneers gradually settled and displaced the Sioux that were very similar to the Ranqueles in their live style I suppose
@ 60 CabezaDura
Oct 19th, 2013 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Invading from Chile, displacing the local tribes, involving themselves actively in Argentine civil wars,”
“Rosas then promotes [Mapuche chief] Calfucurá to the rank of colonel in the Argentine Confederate Army and entered in an alliance with him”
“Rosas entonces le otorga a Calfucurá el rango de coronel del ejército de la Confederación Argentina y entró en alianza con él” [2]
CD: “the irony is that most of them radiated in Patagonia shortly after!!”
Of course they did. There was plenty of land to be stolen after the genocide, most of it, however, went in huge tracts to government and military cronies.
“one of Roca’s awarded generals in the Desert Campaign was British”
So what? does that make the genocide better or worse?
The unpleasant truth is, that Buenos Aires expanded forcibly into indigenous country - expecting to steal it without the owners' resistance?
Julio Argentino Roca: “Our self-respect as a virile people obliges us to put down as soon as possible, by reason or by force, this handful of savages who destroy our wealth and prevent us from definitely occupying, in the name of law, progress and our own security, the richest and most fertile lands of the Republic.” [3]
The concentration camps in Conquest of the Desert
“The survivors of were ”transported in a civilized way”, walking chained 1,400 km form the Cordilleras to the Atlantic ports. Halfway there was a huge concentration camp near Valcheta (Black River). The Welsh settler John Daniel Evans wrote about that dark place: I believe it contained the majority of Patagonian Indians.“ [4]
[1] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281452
[2] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281452
[3] Kenneth M. Roth: ”Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide”, University of California Press, 2002. p.45.
[4] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281452
Danny B and Stevie- Yes actually £ Sterling 1.6million a year trade with uruguay - £1.9million a year with Chile.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Total Islands economy £150million in 2012 - BUT - Sea Lion Oil field and other explorations mean total FI Economy value projected in 2018-19 will be £1Billion - or US$1.6 billion.
If the new prospect areas turn up another field or two then the whole thing multiplies again.
You will fingd out in a year or so that Uruguayan and Chilean Business will not want to miss out on a lion share of all this as they have what we need and are nearer than UK.
Maybe Punta Arenas could one day become the Aberdeen of the SW Atlantic - Argentina clearly does not want to be involved and get any economic gain.
63) Yes that exactly what I’m saying though I would add that Calfucura who was born in Chile actually was at war with Rosas for some years before they allied with each other. Your point is??
Oct 19th, 2013 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0This was the f_cking XIX century for goodness sakes!!
It doesn’t make the Desert Campaign wrong or right I’m highlighting these facts just to show you how unreasonable and VERY, VERY RICH you stance is. You are not Swiss; you are British as far as I know
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Fotheringham
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Fotheringham
I mean I’m never going around Brit bashing and condemning its imperial past, because I believe it was a pretty much fact of life back then, and I will even add Africa and India benefited of British administration so not everything was bad… But while this was going on in Patagonia, the conquest and submission of nations that Argentina had being at war with for over 50 years, which however you fail to understand most of the territory was scarcely populated... (15,000 inhabitants according to the army for over a million square km of what is most rubbish windswept soil, ask the Falkland islanders if they can plant a tree in there backyards) Yet you were smuggling opium and drugging millions of Chinese, brutally suppressing revolts in India, robbing land from there Boers in SA and the Aborigines of AUS, shooting Zulus in Rock’s Drift and Sudanese in Omdurman and a looooong list of etceteras. You had ¼ of the globe back then at more or less the same time of the Roca’s campaign. And not a single one of these nations under Victorian yoke represented a danger to the British Isles!!! Gosh!! How more rich and unrealistic can you be?? I even miss Redrow and LEPRecon they would have never go in for such idiocy!
“you are British as far as I know ”
Oct 19th, 2013 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0demonstrating, that you don't know as much as you think.
@65
Oct 19th, 2013 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are entirely missing the point. There is no difference whatsoever between conquest and colonialism in this context.
Imagine if Lord Mountbatten had said to Gandhi....“what are you talking about Mahatma, we've been here 200 hundred years, and some of you Indians complaining in Mumbai are from Delhi....all we need to do is call ourselves Indian and slaughter enough of you until we become the majority”
You argument is FUCKING LUDICROUS.
I didn't say Patagonia was the size of Europe, I said YOU Spanish conquistadors stole an area the size of Europe, and when the indigenous people had the nerve to complain you massacred them and added an area the size of western Europe.
However, here is the context.
Northern Argentina, Uruguay Brazil etc was stolen by COLONIALISM and GENOCIDE by the ancestors of those who live there in the 1500-1600s. That is HISTORICAL FACT.
Patagonia was stolen by Colonialism (you want to call it conquest lol) through genocide (you want to call it self defence Lol) by the Argentines in the 1880s.
The Falklands were empty when the British first arrived in 1690, and in 1833, 50 propel we're evicted who'd been there 60 days and had already murdered and raped.
Now, if you can't see the crass, ludicrous, lying, crap hypocrisy of this argument then you are as thick as Stevie. You appear not to be.
Goodness me...
This lot is getting sillier by the day.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0First they invade countries, then they implant a new population, only to tell them they don't belong there after 300 years...
Tell me Monkeymagic, where should the Australian go? The US American?
where should you go after we give your islands to the Celts?
Because you took the islands from them, didn't you.
They were the 1st victims, weren't they?
Stevie
Oct 19th, 2013 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly penis....you finally get self-determination.
You can't go home after 300 years...or 180....you are home...well done...seems like you finally grasp the point.
Therefore the Falkland islanders are home and have the right to live however they want and govern themselves however they want, and defend themselves however they want.
just as you did and have.
I applied you rules for them to you and you hated it and called it silly....yet your penis politicians dick around at the UN trying to do exactly the same thing.
Finally you get it...let your politicians know...self-determination cockwipe, it's the only way.
Who said the Islanders weren't home???
Oct 19th, 2013 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0They are very much home.
The ones we want to send home are the invasive Brits on the islands, not the Islanders.
That was your issue? Now I get it...
I am glad you get it Stevie.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0But actually that is not your governments nor Argentinas governments stance.
Just this year Hector Timmerman at the UN said that “land stolen by colonialism was never rightly the islanders”, your foreign secretary sat next to him nodding.
You deny the islanders the very rights from which your country is founded...and when I suggested you be denied those rights..you though it silly...of course its fucking silly.
#70
Oct 19th, 2013 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can you define “invasive Brits.” on the Falklands ?
In your magnanimous generosity, who in the population would you allow to stay. I presume that a first generation Argentinian would have more right of abode than “Brits” whose descendants had lived there and worked he land for 150 years.
I believe the correct expression for this is ethnic cleansing.
Why don't you apply this to yourself ?
@ 65 CabezaDura
Oct 19th, 2013 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0“shooting Zulus in Rock’s Drift”
1. It's called Rorke's (or Rourke's) Drift [1].
2. The Zulus attacked. Just over 150 British and colonial troops successfully defended the garrison against an intense assault by 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors. [2]
3. The Zulus had invaded South Africa and slaughtered many local Africans [3]
The Zulu kingdom actually shares quite a bit with Argentina: Civil war. Expand. Slaughter the local people. Steal land.
Interesting how a little research yields facts - try it.
[1] Rorke's Drift, South Africa. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rorke%27s+Drift,+South+Africa&hl=da&ll=-28.349977,30.533237&spn=0.021264,0.038581&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.099308,79.013672&oq=Rorke%27s+Drift,south&hnear=Rorke%27s+Drift,+Sydafrika&t=h&z=15
[2] Battle of Rorke's Drift. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rorke%27s+Drift,+South+Africa&hl=da&ll=-28.349977,30.533237&spn=0.021264,0.038581&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.099308,79.013672&oq=Rorke%27s+Drift,south&hnear=Rorke%27s+Drift,+Sydafrika&t=h&z=15
[3] Zulu Civil War. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rorke%27s+Drift,+South+Africa&hl=da&ll=-28.349977,30.533237&spn=0.021264,0.038581&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.099308,79.013672&oq=Rorke%27s+Drift,south&hnear=Rorke%27s+Drift,+Sydafrika&t=h&z=15
That IS TRUE, it was never the right of the islanders, just as little as it was the Uruguayans right to settle in the land of the Charruas.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that you call the islands uninhabited when the Brits arrived, is pure convenience, as there are plenty of proof of earlier settlements. Proof you wish to disqualify having a go at the personalities of the people in question.
A bit like today, when you run out of arguments you start insulting...
I deny the islanders nothing, but the fact that their freedoms ends where ours begin makes me think they have no right to aim guns at my continent.
Blame Argentina all you want, she is NOT aiming guns at anyone.
“The fact that you call the islands uninhabited when the Brits arrived, is pure convenience, as there are plenty of proof of earlier settlements.”
Oct 19th, 2013 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh I can't wait for this.....
But were they dispossessed, ethnically cleansed or murdered by the British?
Was any pre-Colombian culture or civilisation removed or destroyed on the Islands “when the Brits arrived”?
Easy questions!
Easy answers!
Well, the French and the Spaniards didn't remove any civilization from the islands either, making their claim as weak as the British one. About as strong as the Polish one, who happened not to remove anyone either...
Oct 19th, 2013 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And far stronger than the Uruguayan one who did remove a civilian population.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stevie
You claim that the islanders are pointing guns at “your continent” where is you evidence for this, or did you make it up.
Where have the islanders ever claimed any part of your continent except for what we now agree is their homeland?
Where have the islanders ever invaded any part of your continent except for the part which we now agree is their homeland?
but Argentina you say isn't pointing guns at anyone....
Really...but the Argentine defence Minister just this year said that if it weren't for the British defence of the islands Argentina would take them
But Argentina has invaded the islands (foreign military intervention which you despise Stevie) certainly within my living memory
And Argentina continue to claim (with Uruguayan support) that the islands aren't the islanders that they are “pirates”, “squatters” and “thieves”
And somewhere, out of all that, you make Britain the aggressors....Stevie, it's your racism again isn't it...you can't see past it...poor stevie
66, 73) Do you realize what you are saying St, John??… So now the Zulus not were not so much the poor little natives that were being exterminated by some white people, well there you go there is two sides to every story… Just as much as the Mapuches I will add.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So far I stand corrected in what?? That you are not British? In the name of a battle?
This somehow means that Argentina was the only bad guy in Patagonia?
M&M In fact your arguments are the ones that are becoming ludicrous, over simplified and stupid by now.
Britain conquered places like India, Africa and China, but never effectively colonized it like they did with the Eastern coast of the US, Canada or New Zealand. That’s the difference between conquest and colonization. It’s not crap hypocrisy, lies, crass, ludicrous argument, it is the simple truth.
How can you claim such a thing if you were no majority in any part of India and your colonial officials and settlers lived amongst them in a minority??
What I am suggesting is that the UP had being settled for over 300 years by Europeans. The Mapuches were in fact less “natives” to eastern part of the Andes than they were. You can have a case if you talked to me about the Ranqueles, Pampas or Charrúas. Under your mentality the French, Genovese, Venetian, Sicilian, English and German crusaders would have had the right to invade and land grab Andalucía from the Moors who had already being a 800 years controlling half of the Iberian Peninsula and established themselves there because they were “native Europeans” just as much as the Spaniards were
Monkey
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My racism? You really want me to be racist, don't you? Here. Have a hug.
Feel better now? I love your colour, it makes a beautiful contrast in a multinational society. Perfect fit, just as it should be.
Are we done with the racism now?
Great.
I don't hate the Brits, I hate no Brit at all as a matter of fact.
I'm in an idealogical disageement with the British forces in the Islands.
Not long ago, you had to enter through a military camp when entering Uruguay.
War-mongering soldiers spread their truth by convenience, force and lies.
The only difference is that those islands are striclty controlled, making it impossible for a plant to ever Bloom.
As it is, the islands have one purpose and one purpose only, and it's not to bring its people forward and out of the current situation.
It's to offer Britain cheap natural resources as a very strategic military outpost in the South Atlantic.
Stevie
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bullshit..indoctrinated racist Bullshit.
Britain neither wants nor needs a military outpost in the South Atlantic. It has tried to remove its defences (which were minimal) before 1982...and guess what “your continent” invaded.
As for the cheap natural resources...more bullshit. It is unlikely that any Falklands oil will ever come anywhere near the UK, none of the tax and duty is ever payable to the UK.
The islands are so “strictly controlled” that 99.8% of the population support the current position.
You are a moron Stevie....an indoctrinated racist moron. You hate the British and your racism blinds you.
The British military outpost in the south Atlantic...for fucks sake you complete moron. There is no strategic reason for it to be there and before 1982 it was tiny...even your pea-brain can see what a twattish comment that is.
I told you Monkey, I feel no hatred towards the British, as Little as I blame the Brits for people like conqueror...
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will spend no more time trying to convince a brick wall. See my post as a final bid.
“The islands are so “strictly controlled” that 99.8% of the population support the current position.”
Well, exactly my point, if you control who enters, you directly control the opinion...
Your military kills, invades, tortures... all in name of democracy.
And you are trying to tell me they are there for no other reason that to be the buffer between the islanders, whom they themselves control in the border, and the Argentines?
I'm sorry if you believe that, but you'll have to try a lot harder to convince me...
So Uruguay doesn't control who enters Stevie?
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How interesting....so if 12m Chinese wanted to enter tomorrow you'd welcome them in?
Or how about 10m Argentines request to enter, then tell you if you agree they want an immediate referendum to make Uruguay part of Argentina...still welcoming Stevie?
I am telling you exactly that Stevie..the British military is entirely there as a deterrent to a belligerent aggressive fascist Argentina who has invaded at a large loss of human life, during my life time.
Tell me Stevie, one single act of aggression towards South America the British military has made from the Falklands...one notional “strategic benefit” this so-called military outpost has brought....
None..not one.
Your buddies, who you sit next to at the UN, reckon the islanders are “squatters and pirates” , they reckon land “stolen” never becomes yours, and they would “take the islands if Britain didn't defend them”
So Stevie much as you are less ridiculous than your leadership...we will stay as we are thanks...and you will continue to be Hector Timmermans poodle...why don't you roll over Stevie and let him tickle your tummy....bless
Well Monkey, we don't have the military receiving people at the border. Kind of Nazi, don't you think?
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I know you will stay as you are, that's all up to Britain, for regardless of what you want the World to believe, we all know how much of a say the Islanders have in the process. What we don't know though, is how many Islanders there actually are.
3000 people... Remove the military, is that about half?
Remove the foreigners. How many are those, some 500 people?
Remove the ones that leave to never come back (London is, after all, a bit more exciting than Port Stanley, not to mention education and job possibilities).
How many are the Islanders whose families have lived there for 300 some years?
MM is like those 5 year old kids that only know and have studied up to the 5 multiplication table, from the 6 onwards he doesn't know so he deflects to the previous time tables...
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stevie
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am not an islander and neither are you, Isolde, Islander,M of FI and others are (or at least claim to be) perhaps you should ask them, I believe they have complete say...and they say they didn't like being rounded up at gunpoint, used as a human shield and having minefields planted on their homeland...would you like that Stevie...they also seem very grateful that the British military (that you despise) rescued them in their hour of need. (there are plenty of folk around the world who are grateful to the Britsh military Stevie...although it sickens you even to consider it)
In answer to your other point as to how many islanders there are...I am sure you could research it as well as I could. I am not sure it matters...it's their home.
Well Monkey
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We didn't like being tortured with electrical devices, or the early form of Water boarding.
Still we have no right to build military bases in Cuba and point guns at the US population...
And yes, it's their home. Not yours.
I wasn't aware the UK had a military base in Cuba Stevie...where is that?
Oct 19th, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you have an opposite stance to your government Stevie, believing that the Falklands belong to the islanders...perhaps you should make them aware..because until they and Argentina agree with you..the defence will stay.
I never said the Island belongs to the Islanders Monkeymagic.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said it's their home.
The fact that they belong to the Islands doesn't make it necessasrily true the other way around.
A cat may be an animal, but not all animals are cats...
Argylanders like dancing on the heads of pins. Meanwhile back in the real world the Falkland Islanders are working hard to secure their futures on the land, on the sea and in the air.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 83 Stevie There are lots of people here where their families date back 9 generations or so, my family came here in the 1850's. but lets look at it like this, all countries around the world are the same, people come and go, just because you come and go and have not been in that country for loads of generations does not mean that a country should lose it's identity, or soverienty. The Falklands are British and will always be!
Oct 19th, 2013 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry to disappoint you mate.
Oct 19th, 2013 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Islands were never British, nor will they ever be.
Only in your maps.
@ 78 CabezaDura
Oct 19th, 2013 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please get your act together.
The Zulu Kingdom played a major role in South African history during the 19th and 20th centuries and the Zulu are the largest South African ethnic group, with app 10-11 million members. During the British-Zulu war, the Zulus had app 6,000 casualties, a very far cry from being exterminated by anyone.
CD: “So far I stand corrected in what?? That you are not British? In the name of a battle?”
So the rest of my post somehow disappeared in your version of Mercopress?
- or did you only read the first few lines?
2. The Zulus attacked. Just over 150 British and colonial troops successfully defended the garrison against an intense assault by 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors.
3. The Zulus had invaded South Africa and slaughtered many local Africans.
CD: “This somehow means that Argentina was the only bad guy in Patagonia?”
This means that none of my ancesters weren't and my country wasn't involved in the Patagonian genocide.
As for “Argentina was the only bad guy in Patagonia” - which states assisted in the genocide?
Ignacio Fotheringham, to whom you linked, was born elsewhere like all the other immigrants, but arrived in Argentina as a 20 years old and became “militar argentino” - argentino, not British.
You are now talking the hind leg off a donkey about the God damn Zulus that is stated way back in #65 amongst all the other examples. You are starting to look pathetic St. John I thought you where better than that
Oct 20th, 2013 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“So the rest of my post somehow disappeared in your version of Mercopress?
- or did you only read the first few lines?”
I’m sorry its that you don’t have a point and you are not addressing any of what I say in #65
“This means that none of my ancesters weren't and my country wasn't involved in the Patagonian genocide.
As for “Argentina was the only bad guy in Patagonia” - which states assisted in the genocide? “
I would only rebuff that statement if you were a modern day Indian denying that the malones ever existed on Argentine heartlands. I never said that Britain was to blame for what occurred; I said it was rich and disproportionate of their part to point fingers to Argentina about the Desert Campaing considering that they settled shortely after
Oh, so Britain colonised Patagonia in the 1880s? I didn't know that.
Oct 20th, 2013 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you suggesting, that Britain is somehow responsible for those of its citizens who became Argetine citizens?
In #63 you told me, that
CD: “You are not Swiss; you are British as far as I know”
No, I am neither Swiss nor British.
CD: “you fail to understand most of the territory was scarcely populated.”
I know as much as just about anyone else, how small the Patagonian population was.
CD: ”Yet you were smuggling opium and drugging millions of Chinese, brutally suppressing revolts in India, robbing land from there Boers in SA and the Aborigines of AUS, shooting .. (Zulus).. and Sudanese in Omdurman and a looooong list of etceteras. You had ¼ of the globe back then at more or less the same time of the Roca’s campaign. ...“
No I did not, neither did my country.
”How more rich and unrealistic can you be?? I even miss Redrow and LEPRecon they would have never go in for such idiocy!“
Ah, that is what you mean when you write ”you are not addressing any of what I say in #65 ”
OK, if it can make you happy: You are rich and unrealistic and an idiot :)
94) You are just making a very big deal about the fact that I assumed you were British (That’s actually taking your word for it) because you don’t really have anything to counter the whole argument that is put forward to you. This is what really 90% of comment #94 is about. Other than that I could not care less where you are from...
Oct 20th, 2013 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only new question you raise is the number of Indians in Patagonia, the army said at the time there were only 15.000 and 14.000 of them killed but Clarin link I posted puts it round 30.000 killed. If there is no real numbers or trusted data about the numbers pior to 1877 then you cannot conclude there was a whole genocide. This argument is not on your benefit.
What I would want you to do is abandon this retarded and dishonest behavior and really tackle the main points of my argument
1) Where the Mapuches “natives”, even more so than the UP settlers in the Pampas??
2) Did the Indians raid and assault Argentina prior to 1877?
3) Was the genocide up to the extent of erasing the geneticall component of Amerindians in Argentina ?
@95 CabezaDura
Oct 20th, 2013 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“then you cannot conclude there was a whole genocide.”
Ah, you have no idea of what the word “genocide” means - that explains a lot.
Article 2 of the United Nations 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide' [1] defines:
”genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
which, according to Argentine newspapers, reports and statement from Argentine politicians, was exactly what was the goal of 'Conquista del Desierto'.
“Para el Estado cuando un indígena muere es un problema menos” - Julio A Roca [2]
[1] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. http://web.archive.org/web/20080502140534/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
[2] apiavirtual.net/2012/06/16/argentina-%E2%80%9Cpara-el-estado-cuando-un-indigena-muere-es-un-problema-menos%E2%80%9D/
96) Ohhh, you daft idiot, do you even realize up to what state you are retreating?? What about 1) 2) and 3) ??? I never said there wasn’t a technical genocide, what I’m saying is that if you don’t have a clear idea of the numbers of the native Patagonians prior to 1877 then you can’t be so sure of a genocide can you?? I mean yes newspapers and politicians of the XIX century could of said a lot of things…. After all they hated the Indians there is no question about that. What matters is what really happened and in the context in which it did
Oct 20th, 2013 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 97 CabezaDura “Ohhh, you daft idiot”
Oct 20th, 2013 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0One of the things I have learned during more than 50 years of debate is, that when an opponent uses foul language, he has run completely out of rational arguments.
“you can’t be so sure of a genocide can you??
Even though I carefully directed you to the definition of a genocide, you still don't get it, do you?
How do you prove a genocide?
How about the Holocaust? no millions of corpses to show, so it didn't happen, or what?
How does one prove it did take place?
Statements and witnesses.
Selknam Genocide
The Selk'nam had lived for thousands of years of semi-nomadic life in Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego.
In the 1880s, Europeans introduced sheep ranches to the large open areas of Tierra del Fuego. Numerous European immigrants arrived to work in the new industry. The ranches created strong conflicts with the Selk'nam natives, who had traditionally hunted this territory and considered the sheep game. They had no concept of European property rights. The large ranchers tried to run off the Selk'nam, then began a campaign of extermination against them, with the compliance of the Argentine and Chilean governments. Large companies paid sheep farmers or militia one pound sterling per Selk'nam dead, which was confirmed by the redemption of a pair of hands or ears, or later a complete skull. Repression against the Selk'nam persisted into the early twentieth century.
The above i from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selknam_Genocide the Spanish version 'Genocidio selknam' in es.wikipedia has ”forgotten“ to mention ”with the compliance of the Argentine and Chilean governments” - the usual mythology, which you have just demonstrated.
Marvellous, isn't it? Santa Fe can expand its territory without assaulting the indigenous people and stealing their land. Fantastic technology, creating land out of nothing!
Provincia de Santa Fe - territorial expansion by thieving from the indigenous people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selknam_Genocide
98) St John…
Oct 20th, 2013 - 05:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“One of the things I have learned during more than 50 years of debate is, that when an opponent uses foul language, he has run completely out of rational arguments.”
“OK, if it can make you happy: You are rich and unrealistic and an idiot :)”
So make up your mind St John…. The way I see it is when an opponent victimizes himself, he has run completely out of rational arguments
I’m still waiting to see if you can address the questions 1),2),3)
You can’t be up in arms about the genocide while you ignore those points. Well you can, but its hypocrisy.
Now you deflect to the Sek’nam genocide which most of the killing was carried privately and not by the Argentine State (the Army) like in the rest of Patagonia, though it was sponsored by, so we are talking of different responsibilities here.
Of course that if you want to find skeletons in Argentina’s closet you will find them, which country large and old enough hasnt?? But considering over how much you have already retreated over and diluted yourself from originally, I think I can call it a day
So genocide can only be carried out by uniformed soldiers in the pay of a Government and not by civillians in the pay of a Government. Hmm never heard of that distinction before.
Oct 20th, 2013 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ stevie 91 Sorry to disappoint you mate.
Oct 20th, 2013 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Islands were never British, nor will they ever be.
ha ha, who lives here, has been here for generations? BRITISH people, the time the Argentine people were here when it was British because you were here with permission from the British Government until some Argentine pirates decided they wanted it and put up their snot rag, so we kicked them out again just like in 1982.
101
Oct 20th, 2013 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I could steal your car.
I could paint it.
I could change to winter tires.
I could even add a Wunderbaum.
Still not my car...
100) I said and I quote ”the Sek’nam GENOCIDE which most of the killing was carried privately and not by the Argentine State (the Army) like in the rest of Patagonia, though it was sponsored by, so we are talking of different responsibilities here. ”
Oct 20th, 2013 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you read St. Jonh's comment in #98 you will realize that the payment was made by the sheep ranches and the estancieros
Stevie - So the Islands were never British etc? Do please tell me:
Oct 20th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who made the first written and recorded sighting of the Islands in 1592? If you claim they were discovered earlier, please provide the source and proof of the written evidence to back it up..
1. Who made the first recorded landing and raised the flag on the unoccupied group of Islands with no native indegenous population in 1765?
2. People of which national origen have settled here for 180 years and have been responsible ofr the development of the Islands into the small but thriving free and open democracy of their own choice today.
looks like stevie's car just backfired.
Oct 20th, 2013 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I could steal your car.
I could paint it.
I could change to winter tires.
I could even add a Wunderbaum.
Still not my car... your damned right it's not your car stevie!
Islander
Oct 20th, 2013 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I could not care less about your lots convenient history lessons...
You lot always manage to free yourselves from historical faults.
The UK islands were uninhabited when you lot got there, so were the Falklands.
You lot did indeed trade with slaves, but that was before 16 o'clock in the evening and only of thursdays.
You lot did indeed commit genocide in what is today USA and Australie, but that's ok, because you lot said “Hey... sorry.”
Enough with your stupid excuses as to why you lot are free to take, kill, murder, rape, or do whatever your moral grounds tells you to.
Only on your maps the Falklands are British.
ok if that is the way you think... then explain the history of how Argentina claims South Georgia, South Sandwich I slands, do you have twisted history for that too? I want an answer.
Oct 20th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I haven't got a clue...
Oct 20th, 2013 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0whole problem closed
Oct 20th, 2013 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@69 “
Oct 20th, 2013 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly penis....you finally get self-determination.
You can't go home after 300 years...or 180....you are home...well done...seems like you finally grasp the point.”
Well, that's the reason why most Argentinians think self-determination is evil.
if this is the case, then Argentines are evil as they have enjoyed self-determination, for actually less time than we have.
Oct 20th, 2013 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@106
Oct 20th, 2013 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're not very bright are you Stevie?
Héctor Hugo Trinchero: “Las masacres del olvido”
Oct 20th, 2013 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(Lic. Antropología Social. M.A. Antropología Social. Dr. Antropología)
Napalpí y Rincón Bomba en la genealogía del genocidio y el Racismo de estado en la Argentina
Abstract
The aim of this article is to draw up a genealogy of certain genocide practices in Argentina and, thus, understand the recurrent massacres of native and non-native populations produced by the Argentinean national State in its neo-colonial formation process. Specifically, it will examine two cases in the past century, long after General Roca’s “final solution” and the extermination campaigns carried out by the Argentinean army in the north, and prior to the genocide of the last military dictatorship. These cases are the massacre of Napalpí, which took place in 1924 in Chaco province, and the “Rincón Bomba” massacre of 1947 in Formosa province. Both massacres of indigenous peoples have recently come under review as part of a necessary exercise for truth and memory.
Resumen
El objetivo del artículo es intentar trazar una genealogía de algunas prácticas genocidas en la Argentina y, de esta manera, poder comprender las formas recurrentes de masacres sobre población indígena y no indígena producidas por el Estado nacional argentino en su proceso de formación neo-colonial. Específicamente, se detendrá en dos casos que sucedieron ya bien entrado el siglo pasado, es decir, muy a posteriori de la pretendida solución final del General Roca en el sur y las campañas de exterminio desarrolladas por el ejército argentino en el norte y muy anteriores al genocidio de la última dictadura militar. Se trata de la masacre de Napalpí, llevada a cabo en el año 1924 en la provincia de Chaco, y la masacre denominada “Rincón Bomba”, perpetrada en el año 1947 en la provincia de Formosa. Ambas masacres de pueblos originarios están siendo revisadas recientemente como un necesario ejercicio de la verdad y la memoria.
http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/runa/v30n1/v30n1a03.pdf
Stevie, Sorry my FACTS about early Falklands history do not suit you! But then FACTs have never been a favourite of anyone Argentine inclined - you all prefer fantasy instead!
Oct 20th, 2013 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No idea about th relevance of slavery? never any here and it so happens that England was the leading nation who first decided to abloish it.
As for slavery in America- check your history- I think you will find that America was an Independent Nation by then NOT British Territory.
What do you say to India today in 2013 - the re are estimated 13 million people in slavery condirions there today
Actually the British Isles have been inhabited by people for at least 5000 years!
Do try and be relevant.
113) LOL… I think it’s quite ironic that you are now sourcing the same historians that go Brit bashing and blaming the British, Jews and Americans, etc for modern day Argentine woes. Again if you are to look for skeletons in Argentina’s closet you will find them
Oct 20th, 2013 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But what you don’t understand is the mentality ruling conservative classes and elites of Argentina back then, who run the huge Estancias, the sugar plantations and companies.They had the local police and provincial governmets raped around the fingers pertty much like the soybean oligarchs do in the north nowdays whith the feudal governors. This has more to do with syndicalism struggle, than a whitening policy and genocide than you realize. I would ask you why aren’t the repressions of the Patagonian strikes of 1920-1922 or the uprisings of La Forestal in 1921 considered genocide then?? Because they were whites or criollos, don’t tell me. Politically correct edition of History in 3, 2, 1 ...
Even in the article you post it mentions the existence of the repression of Polish, Ukrainian and Russian immigrant farmers that were protesting they were paid peanuts for their Tobacco in 1936 in the Province of Misiones, where is this whitening policy, pro European immigration policy you so talk about?
#106
Oct 20th, 2013 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Only on your maps the Falklands are British”.
Yes,quite so, these are legitimate and correct ones with the names in ENGLISH, not Spanish. Also the correct flag flies over it, not the rapacious flag of Argentina. Upsetting for you ? TOUGH TITTY.
The UK islands were uninhabited when you lot got there,
Another of your unsubstantiated throw-away remarks.
Please explain.....Who are we lot ?
Descendants of the first stone age people after the icecap retreated ?
Descendants of one of the many tribes from Europe who migrated here over the millennia ?
As an obvious expert on Anthropology, your opinion would be highly valued.
Upon reflection...I think I may be descended from....a Troll...;-)
Oct 20th, 2013 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After the final defeat of the Spanish forces, and the declaration of independence of Argentina and Chile, these latter abrogated the Treaty of Quillin between the Spanish Crown and the Mapuche, and declared Mapuche land as theirs by decree. Under the same pretext of promoting civilization used by the Spanish, they started a gradual take-over of Mapuche land that led to military aggression, persecution and extermination of entire communities.
Oct 21st, 2013 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0In Argentina, debate raged in the 1870s as to how to solve the “Indian Problem”. Two main positions crystallized. The one propounded by Minister of War, Alsina, consisted of containment, using a line of forts and ditches, and aimed at a gradual integration of the indigenous tribes. The second, propounded by his successor, General Julio A. Roca, advocated uncompromising conquest and subjugation. With the same clarity as the policy of Manifest Destiny in the United States, the likes of Roca viewed that herein lay the future of the Argentine nation.
Roca led an army south in 1879, and his brutal Conquest of the Desert was effectively over by the following year, leaving over 1300 indigenous dead and the whole of Patagonia effectively open to settlement. Roca was heralded as a hero, and swept to victory in the 1880 presidential election on the back of his success. He believed strongly in a highly centralized government and consolidated his power base by using the vast new tracts of land as a system of patronage.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/argentina1879.htm
Trading with Uruguay? Good idea. Just a few tips:
Oct 21st, 2013 - 05:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Keep it low profile, almost secret. It will avoid taxes and foreign interference.
- Instead of one big trade contact, best to have many small ones.
- Do not trust anyone.
Stevie
Oct 21st, 2013 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were you drunk when you wrote 101 and 106?
We have already established in this thread that the Falkland islands are far more the moral, legal and historical property of the current population than Uruguay, Argentina, and Patagonia are of theirs.
Using your ridiculous analogy:
You can steal a house
You can massacre 90% of the people who currently live in it
You can rape one of the daughters
You can claim the off-spring is mixed and therefore so is the houses population
You can steal the house next door
You can try and steal the house over the road and get kicked out
Its still not your house....LOL...
or....
You can sadly concede that there used to be lots of stealing, lots of houses and lots of cars...and they are all owned by the people who currently own them or live in them.
LATAM has far more to lose by sacrificing self-determination than embracing it.
its funny how you mention murder, rape and torture.
The islands have only been under de facto Argentine control for two lots of two month windows in 1832 and in 1982.
Rape...yes and brutal
Murder...yes and brutal
Torture...yes and brutal
kill...yes and brutal
Seems like your moral compass only recognises this when its your “enemy” not when your “buddies” at the UN at doing it.
118) So what?
Oct 21st, 2013 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CD: ”1) Where the Mapuches “natives”, even more so than the UP settlers in the Pampas??“
Oct 21st, 2013 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes.
Not a few of these ”Mapuches“ were local tribes who had subjected themselve to the Mapuches, who in the 17th to 19th centuries migrated eastward into the Andes and pampas, fusing and establishing relationships with the Poya and Pehuenche. At about the same time, ethnic groups of the pampa regions, the Puelche, Ranquel and northern Aonikenk, made contact with Mapuche groups. The Tehuelche adopted the Mapuche language and some of their culture, as it also happened with e.g. the Incas, and which is the same as happened in South Africa; other bantu tribes adapted to Zulu.
CD: ”2) Did the Indians raid and assault Argentina prior to 1877?“
Of course they did. They were pressed by the expanding usurpers and fought back.
CD: ”3) Was the genocide up to the extent of erasing the geneticall component of Amerindians in Argentina ?”
What happened fits the definition of genocide to a T.
Genocide is not nececssary the total destruction of a people, according to the United Nations' definition, which I previously quoted, and which CD obviously deliberately did not read (or cannot comprehend?), is the eradication of part of a people sufficient to constitute genocide, provided that the intention is present, as demonstrated by quotes from e.g. Roca.
Julio A. Roca: “To the state it is a problem less, when an indigenous person dies.” (“Para el Estado cuando un indígena muere es un problema menos”). [1] and “Our self-respect as a virile people obliges us to put down as soon as possible, by reason or by force, this handful of savages who destroy our wealth and prevent us from definitely occupying, ... the richest and most fertile lands of the Republic.” [2]
[1] http://www.argenpress.info/2012/06/argentina-por-que-urge-decapitar-al.html
[2] Kenneth M. Roth: ”Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide”, University of California Press, 2002. p.45.
@122 St.John
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding 1)&2); But the Spaniards were already there in the XVI century, and this is no coincidence that the Spanish came first because the Mapuchizacion (which was not always peaceful upon their cousins) of the eastern tribes was due in part because they had already adopted the horse and made it a center of their culture. One had come after the other
http://bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_noticia=5535
And the most significant immigration to the Eastern side of the Andes was in the early XIX century after their Royalist allies had being defeated by San Martin and O’Higgins in Chile. They shifted to the other side of the mountains and started attacking there. They were repelled and the Argentines pushed them as far back as the River Limay and Rio Negro in 1833, but then abandoned do to the civil wars up North. In the following years they regrouped and launched attacks deep in Argentine held territory
http://bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_noticia=5535
If you look at the Map of the actual Araucan kingdom which is even more generous to what the claim today you will see how far beyond they were attacking well into Southern Cordoba and San Luis and even beyond into the Province of Buenos Aires which in those days didn’t have a land extending more than 100 km from the Capital. That is why you don’t understand that most of the in between was a buffer zone or no mans land.
http://bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_noticia=5535
3)And finally to the -Genocide- term itself. I never denied it fits in into the modern definition of it; It’s not what I’m asking you and you know it… You were the first claiming Argentina deliberately pushed forward a whitening policy which simply did not occur despite what Roca might have said at the time. You already lost the genetical argument
“the Spaniards were already there in the XVI century”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where?
There were no Spaniards in Patagonia before 1878.
CD: ”1) Where the Mapuches “natives”, even more so than the UP settlers in the Pampas??“
(part 2)
“It is commonplace to assume that the territory that now forms the Republic of Argentina, was almost deserted from the moment of contact with European invaders. But apart from a common place is also a lie. It is true that the population density area was not at all comparable to that held the high Andean and Mesoamerican cultures, but that didn't mean that it was uninhabited. The myth of an immense wild territory that only a few hordes of hunters ”barbarians“ passed through has been particularly pleasing to the historiography of Argentina, ” ... “Many years ago J. Steward proposed that these groups would exceed the 300,000 members, although a more realistic calculation, which includes the high productive capacity of agricultural villages in the northwest, which would amount to only 200,000 people may raise this figure to half a million inhabitants.” [1]
(part 3 to follow)
[1] Dr. Miguel Alberto Bartolomé, profesor-investigador del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia de México. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro INAH Oaxaca, México: “How Argentina became white” http://culturepotion.blogspot.com.ar/2010/05/inhabitants-of-desert-genocide.html
Uruguay is naturally suited to trade with the Falklands. Sure there are closer ports in Argentina, but you know, they are not really reliable.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, do not expect a “gateway” to the Mercosur, for it's dead. Perhaps in time, many long years in the future, Mercosur can get back to life, but right now business will rely on agreements on a per country basis, instead of considering an agreement with the block. Mercosur rules are being ignores (mainly by Argentina and Brasil) so no investor will rely on them or care to include them on a business plan.
Only time will tell if, like English folks about they king, we can say: “Mercosur is dead, long live to Mercosur”?
“And finally to the -Genocide- term itself.”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are confusing the word “genocide” (there is only “the modern definition of it”, as it was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944) with its meaning. Attempts to exterminate a people are age-old, Timur Lenk did it in the 14th century.
CD: ”1) Where the Mapuches “natives”, even more so than the UP settlers in the Pampas??“
(part 3)
'Republican Genocide: the conquest of the “desert”'
“In the last decades of the nineteenth century, the newly structured centralist state decided to take up the challenge to conquer and consolidate its ”borders.“ These internal borders, euphemistically called ”The Desert“, were formed by large areas that since the colonial era had been under the control of indigenous groups. For nearly three centuries equestrian hunters of Patagonia and the Gran Chaco had retained their independence, at the expense of an almost constant state of military tension, occasionally disrupted by a short-lived peace treaty. During this time the difficulty of subjecting and subordinating classless societies and chiefdoms were revealed , since they had no power groups that could be destroyed or purchased, or top leaders that could agree with those enduring alliances. The decades that hosted the ”Guerra del Malón” (war of raid), as called for military raids against the indigenous natives of the border establishments, had exacerbated ethnic antagonism, ideologically justifying the war of extermination, which Argentina's history suggestively calls “The Conquest of the Desert.” ... ”Resulta prácticamente imposible valorar con exactitud el impacto demográfico que produjo la invasión militar, aunque el registro de enfrentamientos militares en el siglo XIX consigna las cifras de 10,656 nativos muertos en Pampa y Patagonia y 1, 679 en el Chaco (C. Martínez Sarasola,1992:570).” [1]
(part 4 to come)
[1] Dr. Miguel Alberto Bartolomé: “How Argentina became white” (as in part 2)
124), 126) First of all you could do damn well with a map of Argentina,
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are trying very hard to portrait this as a whole but you are actually mixing (DELIBERATELY??) apples and peaches. You can research as much as you like, that’s fine but there is some facts that can’t be changed, and more so you can do with a bit more of common sense.
If you ever being to an unaltered patch of native pastizal and monte landscape of the Pampas you will see why it’s so farfetched what Bartolome and Steward are saying. Horses, plows, iron tools, water wells, agriculture and the wheel did not exist in these lands before the Spaniards arrived. It was a complete game changer in a much more harsh landscape than what we think of it today.
He FAILS right from the start when he says, “although a more realistic calculation, which includes the high productive capacity of agricultural villages in the northwest, which would amount to only 200,000 people may raise this figure to half a million inhabitants” because the actual natives of the River Plate without considering the Mapuches i.e Querandies, Charruas and Ranqueles were not sedentary farmers, but really nomadic hunters and gatherers. If you are going to consider the northwestern tribes like Diaguitas, Huarpes, Chiriguanos and you better be fair and start blaming the Bolivians and Chileans of genocide and white cleansing too.
This is about the Argentine Pampas and heartlands that were colonized since the XVI century and endured increasing attacks and raids in the XIX century from Chilean Indians moving in from the Southwest
Plus there were no Spaniards in Patagonia in 1878 and neither thereafter for that matter.
CD: ”1) Where the Mapuches “natives”, even more so than the UP settlers in the Pampas??“
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0(part 4)
“Los nostálgicos del desierto: La cuestión mapuche en Argentina y el estigma en los medios”
“During the last few months, several Argentine media outlets have published a series of articles, which common denominator was to discredit the pre-existence of an indigenous population called “mapuche”. These discourses appear in a context of increasing territorial conflicts. The purpose of this article is to analyse the main arguments provided by these journalistic articles and point out its fallacies in anthropological terms, taking into consideration that these readings resort to essentialist and biologistic explanations of the identities.”
Read this very carefully: http://www.culturayrs.org.mx/revista/num8/Trentini.pdf
It shows that your nationalistic view is completely wrong.
Sorry, I forgot that of course you know much better than:
Miguel Alberto Bartolomé, profesor-investigador del Instituto Nacional de Antropología
Lic. Florencia Trentini, Licenciada en Ciencias Antropológicas. Becaria doctoral CONICET. Instituto de Ciencias Antropológicas, Instituto de Ciencias Antropológicas - Facultad de Filosofía y Letras - UBA
Dr. Sebastián Valverde,Doctor en Ciencias Antropológicas. Investigador del CONICET. Instituto de Ciencias Antropológicas, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UBA
Dr. Juan Carlos Radovich, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras UBA. INAPLA. Secretaría de Cultura. UNCPBA. Alejandro Omar Balazote, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras UBA, Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. UNLu. UNCPBA.
Dra. Mónica A. Berón, CONICET - Museo Etnográfico “Juan B. Ambrosetti”, Universidad de Buenos Aires, INCUAPA, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Dr. Alejandro Omar Balazote, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras UBA, Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. UNLu. UNCPBA.
Excessive abuse of the “”, politically correct bla bla bla, typical latinoamerican college empty talk if you ask me. You can refer and copy paste extracts as much as you like, they can be academics as much as you say they are, but that doesn’t mean that they can alter the facts of by now famous CabezaDura’s 1,2,3….
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Where the Mapuches “natives”, even more so than the UP settlers in the Pampas??
2) Did the Indians raid and assault Argentina prior to 1877?
3) Was the genocide up to the extent of erasing the geneticall component of Amerindians in Argentina ?
Anyway I found this track of native Mapuche Music, I thought you and your leftie PC collage mates may like. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zI95Ex4Lb4
You are as usual jumping to silly conclusions. I have been right-side right wing since I was 15.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hardhead,
Why are you repeatedly trying to deflect from the fact, that the 1878-1880 genocide took place in Patagonia, which wasn't part of Argentina and why do you argue with prejudices only?
This is NOT about the Argentine Pampas and heartlands, it is about Patagonia, where the genocide took place. Hello! are you awake? In Patagonia.
Argentina 1876 did not extend further south than a line through provincia Buenos Aires (about 1/10 of the present province) toward west in a line south of San Luis and including app half of provincia Mendoza.
'Presidente Nicolás Avellaneda, expresaba que: “...suprimir a los indios y ocupar las fronteras no implica en otros términos sino poblar el desierto...”' [1]
“los guerreros ecuestres fueron derrotados, sus aldeas incendiadas, las mujeres y los niños masacrados; se llegó incluso a recurrir a la guerra bacteriológica enviando prisioneros con enfermedades contagiosas a las aldeas que no se doblegaban” [2]
“to enter and persecute them in the desert without mercy or contempt until exterminating them, to submit them, or to force them to seek refuge south of the Río Negro” [4]
Ébélot “... having witnessed a series of mass executions ...” [5]
[1] Néstor Tomás Auza:“La ocupación del espacio vacío ...”, en “La Argentina del ochenta al centenario”, Sudamericana, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1980, pp. 61-91.
[2] Dr. Miguel Alberto Bartolomé: 'Los pobladores del “desierto”; 'Genocidio republicano: la conquista del “desierto“' http://alhim.revues.org/103
[3] Dr. Miguel Alberto Bartolomé: ”How Argentina became white” (opus cit.)
[4] Coronel Alvaro Barros (later to become the first governor of Patagonia): “Fronteras y territorios federales de las Pampas del Sur”, pp. 81f
[5] Ebélot, Alfredo. 1876-79. Frontera Sur, Recuerdos y relatos de la Campaña del Desierto. Buenos Aires: G. Kraft, 1968
http://alhim.revues.org/103
Its not my business if you are right or left I said your mates are typical latinamerica collage left wing social science profesors. I know them very well, and they are specialist in creating dogmas and explaining how the world works from inside of an office. They will not recognize a FACT even when it hits them in the face.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now you further carry on to say “This is NOT about the Argentine Pampas and heartlands, it is about Patagonia, where the genocide took place. Hello! are you awake? In Patagonia.”.Desparete. Because by now you know perfectly well that the Indians rampaged, sacked and attacked the Argentine Pampas and UP territory from deep within Indian territory in basically what is today the Provinces of Neuquén and Rio Negro. You know this because I have said this to you many times already. You want to focus on the 1877 Patagonia, without considering what went on North previously. It just doesn’t work like that. You can argue that the Argentine response was disproportionate, the oligarcs greedy and brutal. I will give you that, but to leave this as the poor little Indians victims of Argentines and white cleansing is bonkers.
CD: “You were the first claiming Argentina deliberately pushed forward a whitening policy ...”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I sometimes don't believe my own eyes.
The whitening of Argentina is a well known phenomena called “El blanqueamiento”.
Domingo Sarmiento e.g. wrote proudly, that the banners of the African nations that one used to see at the old carnival celebrations now had been replaced by the flags of the various French, Italian and Spanish clubs and societies. G. R. Andrews: “The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires: 1890-1900”, p. 106
“Political leaders, such as Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, wanted to modernize Argentina and looked to the United States, England,
and France as models. ... As Argentina’s connections with industrialized countries strengthened, it adopted popular scientific racism, which stressed that a modernized country could only be a white country. George Reid Andrews: ”The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires, 1800–1900”, University of Wisconsin Press, 1980, pp. 102-105
Juan Bautista Alberdi (abogado, jurista, economista, político, estadista, diplomático, autor intelectual de la Constitución Argentina de 1853): Send the roto, the gaucho, the cholo, the basic individuals of our populace, to all transformations of the best education system, in one hundred years you will not have transformed him to a British worker, who work, consume, live dignified and comfortably. Put a million inhabitants, which is the average population of these republics, trough the best possible education, as learned as the canton of Geneva in Switzerland, as the most literate French province: does that create a great and flourishing State ? Certainly not: one million men in a territory, which suits 50 million - is it anything but a wretched population?
Constitution of the Argentine Nation (1994), official version in English:
Section 25. “The Federal Government shall foster European immigration ...” - European, white aren't they?
http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/english.php
(contd.)
StJohn Yes the Argentine founders imagined a White, European style Argentina. They encouraged European immigration. But a “Blanqueamiento” of which you speak of is not what actually happened.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder who wasn’t racist by today’s standards or did not believe about the supremecy of European Civilization in the XIX century?
CD: “typical latinoamerican college empty talk if you ask me”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why didn't I understand that beforehand. We cannot trust people with a Dr. Phil., a Ph.D. or lic.; when I quote La Constitución de la Nación Argentina (an infamous socialist manifest), and people like Juan Bautista Alberdi, Alfredo Ebélot, Alvaro Barros, Julio Argentino Roca, los presidentes Domingo Faustino Sarmiento and Nicolás Avellaneda, who lived when the genocide took place, they become typical latinamerica college left wing social science profesors - ¡Maravilloso!
- especially when one know that a person like Alberdi was further to the right than Dzenghis Khan.
Nothing wrong with your imagination.
We can, of course, only trust your sources, who are ... los cartoneros? - or something written on the wall of a public toilet?
Do you also consult shamans and witch doctors if you get ill?
Given some of your comments without any kind of source, I suggest you do as I have done throughoput the years: read some unofficial Argentine history to avoid the worst myths, and check what you read against primary sources like the above mentioned.
Official bicentenario de independencia 2010 - Huh!?!
I’m not saying that they can’t be trusted because they are ignorant nobodies, I’m saying that they can’t answer the straight forwards questions I’m asking you, in the way you will like them to be answered because FACTS and COMMON SENSE is not there strength. Believe you me, it’s like that.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where the Mapuches “natives”, even more so than the UP settlers in the Pampas??
A: No
2) Did the Indians raid and assault Argentina prior to 1877?
A: Yes
3) Was the genocide up to the extent of erasing the genetical component of Amerindians in Argentina?
A: No
St. John It’s actually you that has being reading to many official Argentine revisionist history without reading the previous history that has being revised and rewritten to fit in political agendas. ....
1), 2) 3) answered
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In Argentina a difuse racist ideology has been built, founded in European supremacy. This ideology tends to maintain that Argentina is a country populated by European immigrants “straight from the ships”, who are often referred to “our grandparents”, who established a special kind of European and “white”, not Latin American, population. Additionally, this ideology tends to regard as unimportant, and possibly undesirable, all cultural influence from indigenous peoples, African, Latin American, or Asian. The Argentine white-European racism has similarities to the 'White Australia' policy, which was carried forward from the early twentieth century.
The Argentine white-European has been organized by the state and has a legal basis in Article 25 of the Constitution, inspired by Alberdi who distinguishes between “European immigration” (which should be encouraged) and non-European immigration.
This ideology was originally configured to include Spaniards, Italians, and Jews among the undesirable group, arguing that the “races that could improve the species” in Argentina, were those who came from northwestern Europe, especially in England and France, the most progressive countries at that time. [1]
“The phenomenon of the low numbers of Afro-Argentines in the twentieth-century population of the Republic of Argentina is sometimes referred to as the 'riddle' of the disappearance of the Afro-Argentines, or even the 'black genocide'.” [2]
Alejandro Solomianski: “Identidades Secretas: La Negritud Argentina”, Rosario, Beatriz Viterbo, 2003, ISBN 9 508 45127 0 refers to afro-Argentines' absence from Argentine history as a “discursive genocide”, p. 119. [3]
[1] “La Argentina y el racismo de Estado” http://www.taringa.net/posts/ciencia-educacion/6622583/La-Argentina-y-el-racismo-de-Estado.html
[2] Corbière & Ruchansky, “Negritud y Racismo: El genocidio de la poblacion negra de Argentina”
[3] http://www.taringa.net/posts/ciencia-educacion/6622583/La-Argentina-y-el-racismo-de-Estado.html
Yes 1),2) & 3) have been answered in a simple and straight forward way. BY ME…. LOL
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As any reader but you know, I answered your 1),2) & 3) in ## 122, 124, 126 and 128.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CD: “you better be fair and start blaming the Bolivians and Chileans of genocide and white cleansing too.”
Do two wrongs make a right?
Are you saying that “well, yes, I stole the money, but others steal too” means innocense?
CD: “But a “Blanqueamiento” of which you speak of is not what actually happened.”
- You are perfectly uninformed, as shown by a pile of articles by historians and Antropologic scholars.
Why do I have a feeling that you think that your undisclosed or low trust sources have any value compared to the sources (including the primary ones), which I quote?
CD: “Believe you me, it’s like that.”
- I do NOT believe anything you claim unless you can substantiate it with sources, and given your dismissal of scholars as not trustworthy, it has to be primary sources, won't it.
Show us your sources, reliable sources if you have any. The ones you have given are downright ridiculous, and your argumentation childish:
CD quotes start:
Do you realize what you are saying St, John??
You are now talking the hind leg off a donkey
You are just making a very big deal about the fact that I assumed you were British
Ohhh, you daft idiot, do you even realize up to what state you are retreating??
Again if you are to look for skeletons in Argentina’s closet you will find them
First of all you could do damn well with a map of Argentina,
you are actually mixing (DELIBERATELY??) apples and peaches
Excessive abuse of the “”, politically correct bla bla bla, typical latinoamerican college empty talk if you ask me.
your mates are typical latinamerica collage left wing social science profesors
End CD quotes.
This has clearly become something personal for you.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, part of what I have been studying for years.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your sources are?
CD: “I wonder who wasn’t racist by today’s standards or did not believe about the supremecy of European Civilization in the XIX century?”
Constitución de 1994 & Turismo.gov.ar (2006)
- from the 19th century? - seriously?
Claudia Briones (UBA/CONICET): “Mestizaje y Blanqueamiento como Coordenadas de Aboriginalidad y Nación en Argentina” - tyhe title talks for itself. “1869, the proportion of the national population who were of African origin was registered as 26.1%; in 1895, it was 1.8%.” [4]
Records estimated that 75,000 Africans entered the ports of River Plate, within a 220-year span or an average of 340 slaves per year. ... Census information compiled between 1778 and 1836 reveal that blacks accounted for a sizable minority of the Buenos Aires’ population. Of the 24,363 individuals documented by the 1778 census, 7,236, or more than 30 percent, were black. [5]
“Ten interior cities and the territories surrounding their jurisdiction were home to approximately 60,000 Afro-Argentines in 1777.” [6]
A recent example from an Argentine state organ: “El 95% de los argentinos son de raza blanca, descendientes principalmente de italianos y españoles. Con la llegada de la masiva inmigración europea, el mestizo — cruce entre blanco e indio — se fue diluyendo poco a poco, y hoy sólo supone el 4,5% de la población racial argentina.” [7]
[4] http://www.ram-wan.net/restrepo/identidad/mestizaje%20y%20blanqueamiento-briones.pdf
[5] G. R. Andrews: “The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires, 1800–1900”, p. 66
[6] Russell Edward Chace: “The African Impact on Colonial Argentina”, University of California Santa Barbara, 1971, p. 101
[7] Turismo.gov.ar
A few recommended titles to read about the genocide (1):
La Historia oficial argentina: Julio Roca ... personalmente comando el exterminio de indios para dar lugar al latifundimos mas vergonzante y nefasto. http://www.ram-wan.net/restrepo/identidad/mestizaje%20y%20blanqueamiento-briones.pdf
(contd.)
There is things that rings a bell when you are a common sense person. You don’t need to read thousands of books or study for years to develop that.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Facts like 56% of Argentines have at least one or more Amerindian ancestors, is pretty much an end discussion. However, perhaps you recent Argentina is not as brown as Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc are or as dark as Ecuador or Brazil are. But in all these places the mentality of the ruling elites of the XIX Century was the same, awful and similar stuff happened in all the world back then much more frequently than they do.
Something’s are just common sense like the response of the Argentine army to Indians launching attacks and raids from there strongholds and bases in Neuquén and Rio Negro into central Cordoba, San Luis and even further beyond into the Province of Bs.As. And the fact is that even Alsina tried to create perhaps the longest trench in history to stop them from doing so, before Roca became the Defense minister.
Facts like apart from all this copy paste bla bla bla, Calfucura himself was born in Chile.
Sorry old boy but it’s the facts that matter in the end, you can study all your life but you cannot changed what really happened and neither can I for that matter. That must be a reason you are getting so frustrated you have studied this for years and some commentator in his mid 20s owned you.
“Facts like 56% of Argentines have at least one or more Amerindian ancestors, is pretty much an end discussion. ”
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not when one woman gets children who gets children ... then it spreads like the branches of a tree. You can have one female single ancestor type A + 63 type B, in which case a large number of great ... grand daughters can have type A mtDNA.
The Araucanization of Patagonia was the expansion of Mapuche culture, influence, and language from Araucanía across the southern, low Cordilleras de Los Andes into the plains of Patagonia. Historians disagree over the time period during which the expansion took place, but estimate it occurred roughly between mid XVI century and 1850. Amerindian peoples of the pampas, such as the Puelche and Tehuelche (Mapuche names), adopted Mapudungun as their main language.
The interest of the Mapuche groups in the Araucanía region focused mainly on their wealth in cattle. Another reason was the pressure exercised by the Spanish population in their campaigns in the Arauco region. Besides, there was the high population density in the region. Although officials estimated between 100,000 indigenous in 1793 and 70,000 in 1812, the actual figure probably reached 150,000-200,000, after which the great migrations to the Pampa commenced.
Calfucurá crossed over to Pampas around 1830 to aid the local indigenous when Juan Manuel de Rosas fought the Boreanos tribe.
How do you explain that these warlike Mapuches successfully resisted many attempts by the Inca Empire to subjugate them, maintaining the Río Maule border, and later kept the Spanish and Chilenos at bay for more than three centuries, maintaining the Río Bío-Bío border, yet you claim that the Mapuches somehow abstained from resistance against the expansion in Argentina?
As previously written: These scundrels attacked the Argentines just because the Argentines waged war on them. Outrageous!
Your unfounded claim to 'have won' is childish.
Your sources, please.
I can refer to any amount of sources, but there is no point if you are not going to accept the facts as they are, you are much more comfortable with all the Bla,bla,bla PC stuff of your collage mates. I’ve given my sources like the Clarin article, that I really wonder you have read it carefully and in detail. We have already discussed the genetical aspects in the Priebke thread. You are just running around in circles. And it even is clear the majority of crossings were between European mothers and Indian fathers…What you say is just as true for Indian women as for European women and their descend, so what, ???
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your argument of ”Mapuchizado peoples” defending themselves of the criollos would have a base if you concentrated on Querandies, Chaná and Charruas that were conquered and extinguished by the Spaniards in the actual lands surrounding the River Plate, so the southern borders where the more or less the Rivers Carcaraña, Fourth , and Salado etc, so that’s what the Europeans actually settled and held permanently till 1877 but the problem for you is that these peoples were NOT Araucanizados ever as the Mapuches came after the Spanish had already arrived, conquered and colonized. That is why I say you would do well with an Argentine map that has the actual distribution of native civilizations in it
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patagonian_lang.png
This is the actual border (in blue) of the UP that Rosas defended shortly after Calfucura’s invasion from the West in 1830. The Borogas where actually Chilean Mapuches sub branch NOT Ranqueles and had being at war with the criollo government since the independence war begun as they sided with the Spaniards.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patagonian_lang.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patagonian_lang.png
That would not change to 1877-1880
“Calfucurá crossed over to Pampas around 1830 to aid the local indigenous when Juan Manuel de Rosas fought the Boreanos tribe.”...this is wrong !!!.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Calfucura arranged a meeting with Boroganos chiefs for trading and once in their land he attacked these people and killed their leaders. This happened in a placed called Salinas Grandes. In the current province of La Pampa.
Mapuches started crossing the Andes right after the independence of Chile since most of them supported the Spanish Empire and fought on their side. They also took part of the “Guerra a Muerte”, a kind of Chilean civil war, and those who took part in the defeated side had to left the Chilean territory. Others, like Calfucura, just crossed the Andes to the East as invaders.
J.A. Roca “personally chase indians”..ha ha ha ha !!!!!... again this tale of the Argentine Genocide? This tale is so old that nowbody believes it.
I really find it hard to understand why Peronists and people of the FI, Chile and the UK still go back to this story invented by “revisionistas” (that are fascists) to blame republicans (such as Alberdi, Mitre, Sarmiento, Urquiza, J.A. Roca, etc)
I believe that they just want to blame Argentina of something that never happened.
Firstly, I would suggest that you read Argentine story a little bit .....
Why were they so successful?? Well the Indian civilizations that were nomadic hunters and gatherers that adopted the horse and developed cavalry like the Ranqueles, Mapuches and there Sioux nations like the Comanches, Appache, Sioux etc were difficult to deal with in vast planes like there is in Argentina Pampas and the Midwest of the US.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A different story was the great Aztec and Inca armies that fought in a conventional forme so to speak of...That was until the Remington Rolling Block came around. That was a game changer. General Custer liked it too.
http://coleccionrosatto.blogspot.com.ar/2010/02/remington-patria-1879.html
http://coleccionrosatto.blogspot.com.ar/2010/02/remington-patria-1879.html
Argentine design Rolling Block in actual practice!!
http://coleccionrosatto.blogspot.com.ar/2010/02/remington-patria-1879.html
@145 Just after the Argentine Army was provided with “Rifle Patria” the same traders provided the Mapuches with Remington rifle...so both contenders, Argentine Army and the Mapuches had, more or less, the same weaponry.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0145* Comanche, Appache and Sioux civilizations, I didnt mean the Comanches and Appaches were tribes of the Sioux.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0146) There is no question that the Mapuches had rifles (I don’t know if they had the Remington though), Maybe the Argentine Army had a couple of light artillery pieces but not that much. The difference is that thei Indian tactics consisted mainly of hit and run with light cavalry which ware mostly lancers and had boleadoras. They were clearly very brave in a couple of thousands raiding Estancias and small settlements and specially brave against defenseless women. However a well disciplined column of huinca infantry armed with the Rifle Patria would of killed a couple of horsemen charging towards them from far and in result the Indians would turn and flee in panic chased by the Roca’s cavalry armed with cutlasses. Most of the skirmishes would of being very much the same.
Most of the writers and witnesses mentioned that both, the Argentine Army and the Malones used the very same rifle sold by traders and smugglers to both sides of the Andes.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In addtion, the Argentine Army (I would not call it Roca's calvary since they were a regular army and the President of Argentina was Nicolas Avellaneda at that time) fought very few battles against the Confederacion Ranquelina since the indians ran away when they were informed, by their own people, that several Army colums were “in movement”.
All in all, only 1,200 casualties, between killed and wounded, were officially reported to the Congress so it was far of being a “genocide”. That led J. A. Roca to mention that the “true about indians is that there were no indians”.
I guess they don’t call it the Conquest of the “Desert” for nothing.
Oct 22nd, 2013 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my grandfathers massive 3 tome book of Historia Argantina of D. Abad de Santillan (1965) , most of the campaign is about the accounts advancing columns of Villegas, Lavalle, Godoy, Lagos, Daza and Racedo there was no real battle most of it was small skirmishes, foundations of temporal forts, Indians being captured and others running leaving behind some horses and cattle they had stolen previously. The synthesis of the campaign is of 1600 fallen and injured Indian warriors, 10.500 chusmas (civilians) captured and of those 1050 “reduced”, 6 high chieftains captured. However it states some small remnants were still South of Rio Negro and Neuquén, specially in the high valleys of the mountains. Half a million square kilometers added by then.
He later continues; “En conocimiento de lo ocurrido, los caciques de las tribus al Sur del Rio Neuquén buscaron la paz, y ya durante el resto de 1879 Renque Curá, Sayhueque y otros entraron en tratos con el gobierno y se mantuvieron tranquilos”
What is for certain is that no more Indian Malones were registered since then. Roca had planned the campaign in detail and advance, perhaps the magnitude of his success has contributed to some of this belief of a mass slaughter.
A few recommended titles to read about the genocide (2):
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Herman Schiller: El Genocidio en Argentina de Roca a Videla
http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
Ni derechos, ni humanos - De Roca a Videla, tiempos de apropiación
http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
Julio Argentino Roca - El gran genocida 1
http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
Argentina: “Para el Estado cuando un indígena muere es un problema menos”
http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
Presidente del HCD, Dr. Miguel Delmagro: La campaña del destierro
http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
“Llegan los indios prisioneros con sus familias. La desesperación, el llanto no cesa. ...”
http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
“14000 aborígenes fueron capturados, ... tomándolos como sirvientes, destinándolos como trabajadores forzados a la Isla Martín García, ...” http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
Coronel Alvaro Barros, later to become the first governor of Patagonia in “Fronteras y territorios federales de las Pampas del Sur”, pp. 81f: “to enter and persecute them in the desert without mercy or contempt until exterminating them, to submit them, or to force them to seek refuge south of the Río Negro”
Ébélot “... having witnessed a series of mass executions ...”
Ebélot, Alfredo. 1876-79. Frontera Sur, Recuerdos y relatos de la Campaña del Desierto. Buenos Aires: G. Kraft, 1968
http://3m1l.wordpress.com/2004/04/15/el-genocidio-en-argentina-de-roca-a-videla/
When you offhand claim that a contemporary newspaper journalist from La Nación, Coronel Alvaro Barros and Alfredo Ébélot, all personally present who tell us what happened cannot be trusted, then you expect an adult to trust your opinion, tsk, tsk.
StJohn
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL I never said the eye witnesses of those days are not trustworthy. You know of who I’m talking about. Please stop mincing my words. I know you have run out of arguments for some time, but there is no need for that. You know of who I’m talking about; it’s the left wing politically correct revisionist collage junk that is incapable of recognizing the facts of the time; neither do you for that matter. You got to be kidding when you are even sourcing the speeches of the Municipality of Trenque Lauquen, xD !!!!
However I can understand this has become personal for you. You can start challenging them with the questions I’m asking you. You can be a academic your whole life but you can ever beat a free thinker and neither you can change the facts as they are. You should THINK, MEDITATE, CONTEXTUALIZE AND QUESTION OF WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN FED WITH.
I have already told you why the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium fails [1], but you seem to have problems understanding a plain English prose text. If in doubt, check your source to the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Two of the most important assumptions underlying the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are:
1. mating is random.
2. there is no migration.
Migration inherently include nonrandom mating, in most cases rendering the Hardy–Weinberg proportions invalid.
When 56% of the Argentines have an indigenous ancestor and the net immigration was app 3.7 million, thus app 60% of the entire population increase in the period was by immigration, then:
Based on your simplistic view, and considering that the number of immigrated women is in the range 1.400.000 to 1.800.000, how many indigenous women were necessary to reach the 56%?
Try: in the range 560.000 to 1.000.000.
Given that you claim “about 30.000 people in the more generous scenario possible in Patagonia” [2] the genocide then should have killed at least 545.000 women in order to balance the number of female immigrants.
You should have been able to deduce that yourself, when you wrote: “Hardy-Weinberg principle would have buffered the genetical proportions of the population back to its original ones in a couple of generations like it did in places like Peru, Bolivia and Mexico where the Indian heritage survived the most brutal Spanish onslaught.” [3]
Peru, Bolivia and Mexico had very few immigrants.
[1] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281727
[2] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281727
[3] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281727
LOL you are SO FUNNY !! I was the actually the first one to mention as how the Hardy- Weinberg would of functioned and being broken in a scenario of mass rape that you explained at the time was the reason of modern day 56% of modern day argentines having one Indian ancestor or more therefore I responded to
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0CD: “So the next generation would have been 100% hybrid Euro-Amerindian (mestizos) that would have broken the Hardy Weinberg equilibrium of the first population, but the contradiction is that genocide did not occur as a general concept as the women were not entirely exterminated (this is what you are already accepting when you explain (wrongly) that 56% of Argentines have Indian ancestry by rape)”
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281744
Anybody cats can see this, hahahaha !!! You really are going nuts over this whole thing aren’t you??
Calm down, get your act together and address me again, because your new genetical argument is not even worth considering. It’s Junk
You are NOT as CLEVER as you THINK YOU ARE, AND I’M NOT STUPID AS YOU THINK I AM
@ 144 pgerman
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0““Calfucurá crossed over to Pampas around 1830”...this is wrong !!!.”
Calfucurá crossed over to Pampas around 1830 and settled in the great plains of the Pampas, he was called in by the Ameroindian tribe Borogas who, having breached the agreements they had with the government of Buenos Aires, received constant complaints and threats by Governor Rosas.
“Calfucurá hacia 1830 cruzó los Andes y se radicó en las grandes llanuras pampeanas, llamado por los indios borogas que, habiendo incumplido los acuerdos que tenían con el gobierno de Buenos Aires, recibían constantes reclamos y amenazas por parte del Gobernador Rosas. Estos caciques, especialmente Rondeao y Melín, y tal vez otros como Cañuquir, Cañuillan y otros, pidieron la protección de Calfucurá.” http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calfucur%C3%A1#Campa.C3.B1as_militares
- what is your source?
“J.A. Roca “personally chase indians”..ha ha ha ha !!!!!”
Who wrote that - except for you?
”go back to this story invented by “revisionistas” (that are fascists)”
You'll have to discuss this with CabezaDura, who call them socialists (left wing politically correct revisionists).
“I would suggest that you read Argentine story a little bit”
Well, I would suggest that you read some Argentine history
- you can then tell us, how many battles were fought in the civil wars 1814-1880.
@ CD. “sourcing the speeches of the Municipality of Trenque Lauquen”
I know you didn't read it.
I sourced it in, because it contains verbatim concurrent quotes from “El Nacional” and El comandante Prado, uno de los protagonistas de la campaña.
@154) But don’t you realize what Prado actually is lamenting according to the Municipality of Treque Lauquen is that the lands where given away for peanuts in concession, public lands by then, and he states that for that matter he would rather have them in the Chieftains control, not that he actually complaints about the desert campaign itself. ???
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 04:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 155 CabezaDura
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I have read, what Prado wrote.
But what you wrote was “You got to be kidding when you are even sourcing the speeches of the Municipality of Trenque Lauquen, xD !!!! ”
So I was not kidding, it contains verbatim concurrent quotes, while you are - in vain - trying to deflect from the fact that you had not read the relevant text.
@ 153 CabezaDura
So now you are fantasizing about a scenario of mass rape.
You will have to provide very solid sources for such a scenario.
As we all know, sexual abuse and rape of servant and slave girls were common; in the campo sexual abuse of servant girls isn't uncommon in todays Argentina - you want a job? then you f*ck the boss.
CD: “Calm down, get your act together and address me again, because your new genetical argument is not even worth considering. It’s Junk ”
I have a lot of fun of observing your youthful naivity and childish behaviour - oh the innocent young years.
To get a real understanding of the 56%, I suggest you read this version with a photo of the actual Clarín page (p.3 in .pdf): http://www.winisisonline.com.ar/tea/info/3100-3199/C-3125.pdf
Indigenous woman + non-indigenous man: 37% = mestizos con marcador de la madre
Indigenous woman + ... indigenous man: 10% = indigenas puros
Non-indigenous woman + indigenous man: 9% = mestizos con marcador del padre
- these are your 56% of modern Argentines have at least one Amerindian ancestor.
Non-indigenous woman + indigenous man: 9% = mestizos con marcador del padre
Non-indigenous woman + non-indigenous man: 44%
CD: “Naff said, so the majority of crossings was by European mothers with Indian fathers and not the opposite as you state… ”
A majority of 9%?
As can be seen only 9% of the non-indigenous (“European”) women mated with indigenous men. Nine percent, a small minority. Exactly as I wrote.
No I don’t think it has at all “verbatim current quotes” it has what they interpret of what Prado wrote.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NO, you are not kidding but your source is junk
Now you carry on to say
@ 153 CabezaDura
“So now you are fantasizing about a scenario of mass rape.
You will have to provide very solid sources for such a scenario.”
WTF ??? Should I refresh your memory???
StJohn:“If there was genocide and whites imposed themselves, how come 56% of Argentines have at least one Indian Ancestor?”
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violación
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape”
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/13/argentina-will-not-accept-the-remains-of-nazi-officer-erich-priebke#comment281509
“I have a lot of fun of observing your youthful naivity and childish behaviour - oh the innocent young years.”
LOL, I don’t think you are having much fun at all; you spend hours on internet trying to find out sources to argue me. You are clearly very winded up by now. Whilst I’m got it wrong in second instance, because I could not find further data you got it wrong first with the mass rape scenario and now you are getting it completely wrong again
“As can be seen only 9% of the non-indigenous (“European”) women mated with indigenous men. Nine percent, a small minority. Exactly as I wrote.”
No what it means is that of the crossings between non-indigenous women and the Indian men produced a male decadence that is 9% and has the Y chromosome DYS199, but what you are missing is of those women that resulted in this crossing and hold European mtDNA and are considered in the pool of the 44% of “Europeans”. So statistically speaking as chances of resulting a boy or a girl in each crossing are 0,5%-0,5%, I would say near 18% of Argentines result as a crossing between an Indian father and non-Indian mother. So the pure non-indian ancestry would be around 35%. Obviously Roca and Sarmiento whitening policies failed
@St.John
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you deny that Calfucura attacked and destroyed the Boroganos?...and you ask us about our sources? Calfucura attack is an historical fact that nobody denies
In addition, why do you mention alledged genocides from “Roca to Videla”? What about the famous “Coluna de la Izquierda” of Rosas?
Based on your links it’s quite evident that you are influenced by the “revisionist tales” that is fascist history. I'm sorry but I cannot take you seriously.
In addition, do you know some of the achievements of J.A. Roca during his 1st and 2nd Presidency? If so, Would you consider his presidencies acts of a Genocide?
St.John I’m not really interested in the genocide discussion because as the definition refers to as in whole or in “part”, I guess that most of history would be covered with genocides, I don’t think it’s a much useful concept for this case because “part” is what ??? ½, ¾, ¼, 1/5, 1/64 of the population??
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem here is that there is not a clear idea of the amount of population the Indians had prior to 1877. And there relies the weakness of your case, because if you overestimate the population they had back then the concept of genocide becomes much exaggerated, so therefore you would have to reduce the actual number to fit your argument, but of course the fact is that the Mapuches are still alive and kicking today and there is the 56% or more of people having Indian ancestry...
And as I am generous we will forget for a moment the FACT the Mapuches were highly aggressive and invaded from the South West and attacked Argentina for nearly most of the XIX Century or the other FACT that Alsina was willing to build the longest trench in history at the time to protect the country from their attacks
You and your revisionist collage mates are not proving what you have to prove, you are not wining the arguments you have to win, you are just spinning around in circles because the FACTS can’t be altered. You can be a academic, spend your life writing abstract stuff and cherry picking to prove something, but anybody with common sense and with internet nowadays who checks the facts will own you in a couple of hours of research if you are on the wrong side of the argument.
If you want to shut us up and you are certain of your case you have to go digging with your Politically Correct revisionist collage mates to Neuquen or Rio Negro in search of mass graves like the good old archeologist, anthropologist did in the old days, instead of sitting in a office, going around giving symposiums, conferences at Universities and writing junk to fit in political agendas
Please, find below listed some of the achievements of Roca during his 1st presidency:
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Defeating the revolt of Tejedor in Bs As that was the last armed civil war in Argentina
Took office after winning the elections and appointed Bs As as the site of the Federal Government. This vanished the possibility of another civil war.
Built the Casa Rosada (the country had not presidential palace) and a new port (Puerto Madero ) since there was no port to export the products.
Occupied Neuquen and Chaco and I incorporated them to the national territory.
With Chile it was agreed to apply for the first time and forever the principle “high mountains-water divider ” to define the border. It was agreed that Chile would stay with the Strait of Magellan and Argentina be the possession of Patagonia from Rio Negro to Tierra del Fuego .
With Brazil the borders were fixed definitively.
He created the national currency, the “Argentine Peso”. Until then people and provinces used chaotically Pounds, Francs, Marks and bonds generated by the provinces.
Law 1420 of Secular, Free and Mandatory Education (He had to expel the Vatican's representative during 16 years). Thanks to this law while in 1881 the country had 85,000 students there were 200,000 when he left the office (+235%).
He created the National Education Counsel.
He approved the Civil Marriage Act (pulling it out of the orbit ecclesiastical).
When he become president there were 2,300 km railway in ten lines but when he left the office the railway were 6,100 km (+265%).
National Income step from 23 million to 46 million in six years (double).
He promoted a law that officially created and protected the two most important universities of that time . The UBA and the National University of Cordoba.
He officially created the Armada Argentina.
We could add that during his 2nd presidency he failed to get two laws passed in the Congress. The Divorce Law (1902) and the Labour Rights Law.
Are these the actions of a Genocide?
Something tells me we won’t be seeing St John again for some time… He must be into some serious soul searching by now.
Oct 23rd, 2013 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0160) PRESIDENTES eran los de antes....
@ 158 pgerman Where do I deny that Calfucura attacked and destroyed the Boroganos?
Oct 24th, 2013 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%)“
Autosomal DNA: Overall across Argentinean samples,the mean ancestry components as revealed from the STRUCTURE analysis were 78.6% for European, 17.3% for Native American, and 4.2% for West-African ancestry”
Y-chromosomal: “Argentinean samples the overall ancestry components as revealed from NRY data were 94.1% for European, 4.9 % for Native American, and 0.9% for African ancestry”
mitochondrial DNA: “... overall mtDNA-based continental ancestry components were estimated at 44.3% European, 53.7% Native S-American, and 2.0% African”
- app the same proportions as in Corach, Sala & Marino: “Impacto de las contribuciones genéticas de los diversos grupos étnicos en la población actual del país”.
“Whereas 96% of the individuals with European surnames carried European Y-chromosomes, 50% of the samples from individuals with Amerindian surnames had European Y chromosomes.” - like I told you.
“Typically, the proportion of Native American ancestry is low for male lineages but high for female ones, whereas European ancestry is high for male lineages but low for female ones, as a consequence of sex-mediated ancestry differences in the admixture history of the population.” - like I told you.
“an increased proportion of offspring from European males and Native American women were born, due in part to low European female population size and the reproductive preponderance of the European invaders” - like I told you.
Daniel Corach & al.: Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA - Annals of Human Genetics (2010) 74,pp. 65-76 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2009.00556.x/pdf
So the Spaniards and Europeans did more the Indian women than the Indians did the Spanish women …. Big news. So what?? Is that genocide, ethnical cleansing??
Oct 24th, 2013 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ CabezaDura
Oct 24th, 2013 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is genocide?
Quote my exact wording about “mass rape“. Misquotes seem to be your specialty, when you aren't jumping to wrong conclusions.
Yes my boy, your father is stronger than mine.
I so love your childish remarks, both those in http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/17/uruguay-is-the-natural-gateway-to-mercosur-markets-falkland-islands-businessmen-told#comment282203 and e.g. ”Something tells me we won’t be seeing St John again for some time… He must be into some serious soul searching by now.“
Your childish idea that simply claiming something without providing solid sources, doesn't hold water, same as the unfounded nationalistic myth that the Mapuches weren't natives to Patagonia. In the mid-19th century Argentina and Chile began an aggressive phase of expansion into the south, increasing confrontation with the indigenous populations. [1]
After totally destroying your ridiculous postulates that ”the majority of crossings were between European mothers and Indian fathers“ implying that 18% is more han 37% I will leave it to the readers to check my sources, realize that you didn't provide any reliable sources, that your postulate doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and that I have proven my case.
They will also see, that even after I have shown you wrong, you waste an ocean of words trying to deny it, at the same time blabbering about me ”You are clearly very winded up by now” although it is obvious, that the one of us who wrote is winded up is the one who wrote e.g. “Ohhh, you daft idiot”, “retarded and dishonest behavior” and “YOU C_NT!!!” [2] - namely CabezaDura.
Let's face reality: You are a couple of nationalistic nuts, who under no circumstances will face reality and therefore I see no reason to waste more time on the subject.
[1] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/17/uruguay-is-the-natural-gateway-to-mercosur-markets-falkland-islands-businessmen-told#comment282203
[2] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/17/uruguay-is-the-natural-gateway-to-mercosur-markets-falkland-islands-businessmen-told#comment282203
LOL St.John you are just desperate in proving me wrong on at least something no matter how insubstantial it is to the whole argument, just to leave you an escape road to run off. OK, that’s fine.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But It’s just pathetic how you are playing the victim here, “Ohhh you said this and that to me” actually you said to someone else I was “white trash” and other things, etc on the other thread, but I don’t write that down, because I don’t play the victim.
A clear proof of how biased you are in quoting the Wikipedia (which is un-sourced) statement that was preceded by this one…
“in the case of Calfucura many other bands of Mapuches got involved the internal conflicts of Argentina until Conquest of the Desert. To counter the cattle raids a trench called Zanja de Alsina was built by Argentina in the pampas in the 1870s.”
And there is many examples of this even I your own sources that I can’t even bother to let you know because it diverts even further the thread
It was never the case of who F_ked who here; the case was that 56% of Argentines have at least one or more Indian ancestors so you refuse to recognize it because that completely destroys the whitening policy you accuse Argentina of, so there for you divert first to the massive rapes, and then who did who. In fact I went along for what Clarin you had gathered in 2005 of Corach’s research in the Priebke thread, I think it is actually you the one who is being childish, bad loser and bitter when you decided to talk the hind leg off a donkey about this, that is the reason I didn’t go into sourcing something that is not on the question, I have no problem in recognizing that you were right in that aspect but it was a secondary or accessory instance to the topic (Btw both of your last sources end up contradicting each other on the Y chromosome). You don’t grasp general concepts or facts; so you can’t possibly address 1),2),3)
@164 I'm not a nacionalist at all. Justo to the contrary.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you have been trying to prove......just trying to prove....is that it was a “mass rape” in Argentine history that shaped our identity and population. That's something without any logic, and has not any single historical reference. It's something out of the blue.
There is not a single historical event in mankind history like this..not even in Germany after WWII or in Palestine....
There were agressive campaigns to take control of large and vacant portions of lands in Patagonia and in the South of Chile but this doesn't mean that it was a genocide. I would like to point our that I know very little about Chilean history.
In addition, you tend to ignore or to diminish crimes such as the malones where men were killed, livestock and kids were stolen, towns were burned and women were reduced to slavery.
If you check the definition of genocide of the UN you will notice that it's more, by far, close to the malones thanb to the Conquest of the Desert.
At the same time you are ignoring an historical and accepted ethnical process called “araucanizacion” of the Patagonia that was a violent and sudden process lead by Mapuche people against other tribes.
As genocie is, currently, a crime that doesn't expire and can reach names of death people and their descendants you must prove it. Nobody can prove it, not even the bigot most “revisionist”
@ 160 pgerman
Oct 24th, 2013 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Roca's other achievements says nothing about the genocide.
It is like a communist claiming that Stalin and Beria were nice men, because they were seen kissing little girls and stroking kittens. Sorry, that won't stand up to scrutiny.
Using the same line in “logic”, a child abuser and child molester is a good guy if he donates a large sum to charity.
166) You must feel sorry for St.John, he is being studing this for years and has taken revisionist biased rubbish as dogmas, so dont expect him to accept the facts as they are and the context of the XIX century. Roca was a leader forging a country and he had a vision of what the country he would want like him or hate him nobdy can deny that, but StJohn will see him as a tyranic monster and the poor liittle mapuches as “native” victims. He will never concent and be confortable about the fact that some random commentator with common sence will ridecule him and prove him biased and wrong therefore he will be very picky in things that dont make to the question, and he will continue do talk the hind leg of a donkey about it.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CabezaDura, you have obviously forgotten that you cannot erase, what you have written in this debate.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who is writing how much?
169) And you cannot change the facts of Argentine history...
Oct 24th, 2013 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@167
Oct 24th, 2013 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sir, neither you nor any other historian, or scientist, could prove that a Democratic Argentine Government was responsible for Genocide against native people.
I wrote “Argentine Government” because in the Conquest of the Desert times' Nicolas Avellaneda was the President of the country, the Argentine Congress passed the law to start it and J. A. Roca was the Defense Minister that followed orders.
You are not proving a genocide at all. That's the key issue.
You refused to accept, to discuss or to comment something about the “humanitarian” nature of the “malones”...
You mentioned that Mapuches have always lived in the East side of the Andes. That's false.
You don't want to discuss about the “Araucanizacion” of the Pampas and Patagonia.
You pretend, following “revisionist” trend, that native people were nice, friendly, pacific, generous and inocent people victimized by a european tyrany. A sort of revival of “the good savage”. This is simply not true because this is not in human nature. It's not in our nature !!!
You pretend that a mass rape, hidden by historians. witnesses and writers during 200 years shaped our people !!! ..this is simply impossible. It has no sense.
I am not trying to change the facts of Argentine history. They are as I have described. 'tis as simple as that.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pgerman's nonsense is embarrasing. I have asked where I claim what pgerman claims I do. No answer.
But St John if it is not trying to prove that our population comes from mass rape as pgerman says, why were you on about the proportions of Indian Y chromosomes and Indian mtDNA vs the European ones?? Cant you see you are a bag of contradictions and of shifing arguments?? Nobody can take you seriousely. The paramount fact is 56% of Argentines have Indian blood in them, and that is a contradiction to your genocide argument.
Oct 24th, 2013 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say there was genocide but…
WHERE are the mass graves, the battlefields where are the settlements or the archeological evidence that good historians and professionals searched for in the old days??
You deny the fact that the Mapuches were NOT native on this side…
WHERE Mapuche settlements, remains, graves, pottery, whatever it is to be found in the eastern side of the Andes and -most importantely the Pampas- that predates the arrival of the Spaniards in the 1500s??
Me thinks, Indiana Jones can do with a whole lot more of field work and digging.
But of course the problem is that there is any real historical and archeological evidence to what you sustain out there, is there? And your collage revisionist mates know it
From CabezaDura lots and lots of words, a tirade without substance.
Oct 25th, 2013 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0You claim e.g. that “I can refer to any amount of sources” [1] but as we all can see: you cannot deliver.
[1] http://en.mercopress.com/2013/10/17/uruguay-is-the-natural-gateway-to-mercosur-markets-falkland-islands-businessmen-told#comment282245
Say you, say me...yeah whatever. Get over it
Oct 25th, 2013 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have proven you wrong on all counts and shown that you cannot deliver on your promises. Viveza criolla.
Oct 25th, 2013 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Case closed.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!