MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Self-determination is the right of Falkland Islanders
By Teslyn Barkman (*) - In March 2013, Falkland Islanders took to the polls in an internationally observed referendum in which 99.8% of voters, on a turnout of 92%, voted in favor of remaining a self-governing Overseas Territory of the UK. We spoke for our future. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesPerhaps Argentina, should lobby the UN General Assembly to have a question put to the ICJ regarding the right (or not) of the people of the Falkland Islands to self-determination under UN resolutions 1514 and 1541?
Aug 04th, 2023 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am sure that Prof. Cohen would fight Argentina's corner at the hearing ;-)
What did the UN ICJ say about the applicability of self-determination in 2019?
Aug 04th, 2023 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Self-Determination Non-Self-Governing Territories (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/100673806/Self_Determination_Non_Self_Governing_Territories
Time to disband the pointless irrelevant C24 committee, it serves no purpose, its all the desperate Peronists have, the Falklands are here to stay end of story,
Aug 04th, 2023 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh sure Teslyn!
Aug 04th, 2023 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse -2we usurp the Isle of Wight we evict its inhabitants and move argie settlers then we do a poll and ask if they want to belong to the UK or Argieland (new name for the isle of Wight) we have been here 10 generations of course the former inhabitants They could show more than 10 generations but of course we have evicted them.
Mrs. Teslyn, you want to build a country with a piece of territory from another country, that is impossible. The consequences experienced by the inhabitants of the islands are the result of the unjustified actions of the United Kingdom in 1833 and its refusal to resolve the controversy since then.
Marv - nothing usurped from Argentina. Your own Seante in 1882 confirmed that Buenos Aires was acting beyond its powers in the Falklands during the 1820s.
Aug 04th, 2023 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/senadoargentina-sesion18820729.pdf
Lying again Malvi. no usurping what so ever, but you know that, you also know that the islands have never been yours, it must hurt so much that everything you have been indoctrinated with over the last 50 years has been proven over and over again nothing bit a pack of lies, repeating the same stuff as Argie Cit is tedious to say the least, stop wasting your life on a lie a myth and a fantasy. go find a hobby and have some fun.
Aug 04th, 2023 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As always Roger Lorton interpreting the texts in his own way, is it that they don't teach reading in London?
Aug 04th, 2023 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The discussion deals with whether it was appropriate to compensate or if land had been ceded to Vernet.
The US attack on the colony is also mentioned (which by the way if Vernet was there by authorization of the British government, it is strange that the British government did not protest the attack on the colony, we already know why he did not, no it did so simply because the islands did not belong to the UK).
It is also mentioned that the islands were invaded in 1833 by an English fleet.
Don't lie anymore Roger is very obvious, he will be able to deceive his followers but not us.
This is yet another proof that the islands were never British.
@ Juan Cervantes Today we have a sunny and cold day, today is friday, friday nights are for football.
Inconvenient truths about the Malvinas Islands (Falkland) part 5
Aug 04th, 2023 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -3How convenient for the British residents of Malvinas Islands to republish a 2013 article with a few amendments to try & make it look its out-of-date claims relevant and current.
Ms Barkman, and all his British compatriots continue trying to push the ‘self-determination’ agenda, stealthily trying to morph the British colonial territory into ‘kelpers self-determination’ = the Illegal Republic of Falkland? There can’t be self-determination when this derives from an illegal act, and it contradicts the international law principle of ‘uti possidetis juris’.
Ms Barkman, how do you think the descendants from the many Governors of Malvinas Islands and the descendants of the Provinces of the Rio de la Plata inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands felt when they were ILLEGALY expulsed by the second invasion & usurpation of the Malvinas Islands in 1833? They inhabited the islands from 1774-1833, but according to your narrative, your right supersedes theirs.
The Malvinas Islands and the Archipelago of the Atlantic South rightfully belong to Argentina, as recognized by the international law principle ‘uti possidetis juris’ principle: the right of new nations to preserve its territories as it was inherited from the colonial power e.g., Spanish dominions in South America & the Atlantic South territories.
Marv - the Senate discussion clearly states that Buenos Aires was operating in excess of its powers.
Aug 04th, 2023 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Vernet’s 1828 concession was later ruled null and void in Argentina too. In 1882 the Argentine government declared in the Argentine Congress that the decree of 5 January 1828 was invalid since it had been issued only by the provincial government of Buenos Aires, not by the whole Congress of the Argentine Federation, which alone had the power to cede national territories.” [Pascoe 2020]
As for Vernet, he lost the UK's implied permission in 1829 when Buenos Aires made their first claim to the Islands and appointed Vernet as Civil and Military Commander.
You should also check out 1879 and 1887.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/1853-to-1899.pdf
GeoFray - you need to read the 2019 Chagos AO. The right of self-determination is attached to the Non-Self Governing Territory. The mere fact that the Falklands are listed as a NSGT is certain proof that they have the right. 1833? Buenos Aires had been warned twice (1829 & 1832) so the minor police action to eject the trespassing garrison should have come as no surprise.
UPJ? An interesting legal theory that the UK does not recognise as relevant to the Falkland Islands. Perhaps you should challenge the UK's view at the ICJ?
Never forget, Argentina is not Spain.
“ There can’t be self-determination when this derives from an illegal act, and it contradicts the international law principle of ‘uti possidetis juris’.”
Aug 05th, 2023 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse -1No, it doesn`t here is what it recognizes there was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
“LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character”
“Ms Barkman, how do you think the descendants from the many Governors of Malvinas Islands and the descendants of the Provinces of the Rio de la Plata inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands felt when they were ILLEGALY expulsed by the second invasion & usurpation of the Malvinas Islands in 1833?”
Aug 05th, 2023 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0.....And there is the GREAT lie, if Argentina was so sure of its case then why the need to lie?
Please provide the list of descendants of Malvinas Governors who were illegally expulsed.
Eleven people left the islands in 1833 who had not arrived as part of the militia in October 1832. Seven of them had already chosen to leave on the Sarandi before the British arrived, one was arrested by Pinedo and three decided to leave later. Nobody except the militia who had arrived 10 weeks earlier were “expulsed”...not a population...not a sausage.
The Spanish did indeed inhabit the islands from 1774-1810, they left voluntarily. The islands were empty for 16 years.
Stop lying!
“How do you think the descendants of inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands felt when they were ILLEGALY expulsed by the second invasion & usurpation of the Malvinas Islands in 1833? ”
Aug 05th, 2023 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares since the action of GB, after two ignored diplomatic protests. In legal terms meant acquiesce by Argentina.
”Not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law.
Akehurst’s Modern Introduction To International Law
Seventh revised edition. Peter Malanczuk
I am still waiting for the list of people expulsed from the Falklands in Jan 1833.
Aug 05th, 2023 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1-Not including those who arrived in October 1832
-Not including those who chose to leave
-Not including anyone not Argentine
Erm....zero....none....nada....
The expulsion myth repeated ad nauseum never happened....it is a great lie, repeated by retards.
Therefore the Falklands belong to the islanders
Argentine propaganda destroyed for the 2000th time, but still they will keep repeating it, I can not understand why they waste so much time posting on here, its pointless,
Aug 05th, 2023 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Inconvenient truths about the Malvinas Islands (Falkland) part 6
Aug 05th, 2023 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -3What you call the ‘Convention of Settlement’ is in fact a ‘Convention to re-establish relations between the Argentinian Confederation and Britain’, of 1846, also known as the Convention of Arana-Southern (name of the representatives that signed the convention). This was later ratified in 1850. This Convention refers primarily to continental navigation and trade, as British and French forces invaded the Argentinian continental rivers.
Although the Question of Malvinas is not mentioned by neither side, this omission by no means meant that Argentina relinquished sovereignty of the Islas Malvinas, which still possessed via ‘uti possidetis juri’.
Regarding H, W. Halleck, 1866, CH. 34 Treaties of Peace,
‘Principle of uti possidetis. A treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary.…”
As mentioned before, Argentina had ‘uti possidetis juri’, and Argentina never relinquished their sovereignty, on the contrary, for more than 180 years successive governments have continuously reclaimed its right over the usurped islands. Furthermore, the expulsion in 1833 of the Argentinian settlement and military garrison by the British invasions wasn’t a discovery, & neither were the islands inhabited.
Britain has tried to acquire the Spanish South Atlantic colonies many times, and every time, it was rejected by army forces and the civilians fighting united against them. They tried again in 1833, just after signing a ‘friendship’ treaty in 1825! This doesn’t surprise, as it confirms a British pattern of ignoring treaties they had signed, like the Utrecht one, in which it acknowledged the Spanish dominions on the Americas as they were at the time of the Catholic King’ (1714). These dominions were later inherited by the newly formed Provinces of the Rio de La Plata (Argentina).
Once an imperialist, always a colonist.
What you say counts for nought. What we can rely on is the opinion of an independent international legal expert, and the fact that Argentina is barred by Utrecht.
Aug 05th, 2023 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
GeoFray, you clearly do not know about the last discussion between Roasa and Southern.
Aug 05th, 2023 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0December 10th, Rosas and Southern hold a long, near all-night, meeting to discuss, inter alia, the resumption of diplomatic relations. To Southern’s surprise, Rosas remains opposed to formal recognition of Southern as an Ambassador until the peace treaty is ratified. In the face of Southern’s protests about how that would appear, Rosas lists Argentina’s demonstrations of ‘good faith’ including his dispensation of the question of compensation
and there having been no mention, so far, of the issue of the Falkland Islands.
“… has not introduced the grave question which is pending of the Falkland Islands” [Rosas to Southern December 15, 1849]
Southern tells Rosas that the peace treaty has resolved these issues.
“... countries and places occupied or conquered remain in the power of the party that occupies them, ... that is to say, things are to remain in the state they are in at the moment of peace; thus each party retains the sovereignty of the territory it occupies.” [ Le Droit international théorique et pratique Carlos Calvo 1886]
“What was the reason for Rosas to omit any reference to the Malvinas Islands? There are two hypotheses: first, because he left them for further negotiation; second because Rosas was so bound to England that he could not even allude to that matter... The first hypothesis, related to the possible subsequent negotiation, could be acceptable, but in that case, it should have, at least, a reservation of rights. For that reason I discard that first hypothesis, … What hidden understanding, what secret commitments, what secret was there between England and this lonely and taciturn man ...?” [Rosas y las Malvinas Absalón Rojas 1950]
However, the abandonment of a spurious claim, does not make it any the less spurious.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/1834-1852.pdf
We have had two Malvinista posters claim that an Argentine population was evicted on this thread, indeed one compared it to the half a million population of the Isle of Wight and the other said generations of descendants of Spanish Governors were evicted.
Aug 06th, 2023 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have asked for a single name, just one of someone evicted from the Falklands in January 1833 who meets the following three criteria
1) must have arrived on the islands before October 1832
2) must be verified that they were evicted against their will by the British
3) must be Argentine
Surely the list would run into hundreds, thousands, millions…all crammed on the Sarandi.
I only want one name
Clue: There isn’t one, it never happened
“Although the Question of Malvinas is not mentioned by neither side, this omission by no means meant that Argentina relinquished sovereignty of the Islas Malvinas”
Aug 07th, 2023 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0According to your interpretation
Meanwhile, in the real world this is the quintessential rule of interpretation.
“ Literal Construction: The determination by a court of the meaning of the language of a document by an examination of only the actual words used in it, without any consideration of the intent of the parties”
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Literal+Construction
“Treaty Interpretation: Rules and Methods - Oxford Academic
The first general rule of interpretation is that it is not permissible to interpret what has no need of interpretation. When a deed is worded in clear and precise terms, when its meaning is evident and leads to no absurdity, there is no ground for refusing to accept the meaning which the deed naturally presents. ”
https ://academic.oup.com/book/8401/chapter/154156993
Still waiting for the name of an evictee, it’s been repeated by our Malvinista friends over and over, they will need the list for the ICJ. Who was evicted? Must meet the three criteria above…..come on Malvi
Aug 07th, 2023 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you show how it is possible for the islands to be considered British without a British population on them?
Aug 07th, 2023 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -1And what is worse with Spain exercising
sovereignty without a single protest. (It is not valid to mention John Davis or a potato farm)
Mention the name of the British population.
Mention the name of a single British settler from that British village.
Mention the year in which the islands were incorporated
into the British crown.
Come on Monkeymagic, you can do it.
My, my each term de facto mirrors the other, so its purpose is crystal clear.
Aug 07th, 2023 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”
Convention of Settlement
“ A treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character”
Marv
Aug 07th, 2023 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Britain protested in 1770. Spain backed down in 1771.
The British population in 1771 was called British, living in Jasons Town.
Thomas Boutflower (drew some nice maps - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/1766-saunders-island-by-thomas-boutflower-north-to-the-bottom-of-the-map.jpg )
1764 (Byron)
Go learn, Marv
Inconvenient truths about the Malvinas Islands (Falkland) part 6
Aug 08th, 2023 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse -1The ‘uti possidetis juris’ principle preserves the territories of states originated from former colonies. This principle was used recently by the ICJ in the Mali/ Burkina Faso dispute. This ruling sets a precedent that applies in the defence of Argentina’s case against the XXI century British imperialism
2ndly, through their history the British Empire has maintained one ‘quality’ constant, & that is a pattern of empty declarations (unless they serve their own purpose), & deceiving actions such as signing treaties they never intended to comply with, as it was the case of the Utrecht Treaty, & the 1925 Treaty of ‘Friendship (!!!), commerce and navigation’ signed with the newly formed Provinces of the Rio de la Plata.
In the UT 1714 Britain not only acknowledges the Spanish dominions on the Americas as they were at the time of the Catholic King, but vowed to RESPECT Spanish territories in South America.
In the 1925 Treaty, Britain recognised as a state the Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, & consulates were established. Again, empty words: not only they ignored the Provinces territories, but would invade the Malvinas Islands in a few years.
3rd Before the imperialists in this thread start complaining that Britain ‘discovered’ the islands (refuted by Spanish history and early maps), and possessed’ them (refuted by the UT 1714), let me remind you that they were expulsed from the islands by Spanish forces.
4th Las Islas Malvinas Argentinas & the South Atlantic Archipelago are located in the Argentina’s continental shelf. This is a geography basic knowledge. Do yourselves a favour and get acquainted with this fact; also, the 200 nautical miles concept doesn’t apply, in case you want to bring it into consideration.
Lastly, and more important, Argentina NEVER relinquished its rights on the Archipelago of the South Atlantic. Period.
GeoFray - Mali/Burkino Faso is not in South America. All the African nations signed up for UPJ. None of the South American nations did.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse +1“... the effective possession of part of a region, although it may be held to confer a right to the acquisition of the sovereignty of the whole of a region which constitutes a single organic whole, cannot confer a right to the acquisition of the whole region which, either owing to its size or to its physical configuration, cannot be deemed to be a single organic whole ...” [Reports of International Arbitral awards: Guiana Boundary case (Brazil, Great Britain) June 1904 vol.11 pp.11-23]
“The ancient Viceroyalty of Buenos Aires, dating its movement of emancipation, as also does Chile, from 1810, declared itself independent in 1816, under the name of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata; but the territory, to which it in whole or in part laid claim, came sooner or later to form the four independent states of Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia. … When the process of emancipation was complete, not a single boundary line had been actually agreed upon and defined, much less marked. Even where attempts were made to indicate them, the indications were insufficient or defective, owing to the want of precise geographical data. The earlier laws, decrees and orders of the former Spanish government, home and colonial, were for the same reason necessarily insufficient.” [Memorandum on Uti Possidetis J. B. Moore 1913]
“... the uti possidetis principle,.. is essentially an accord on boundaries between successor states of the same (Spanish) empire, not an assertion of sovereignty against outsiders.” [Falkland Title Deeds Malcolm Deas 1982]
Utrech? 1713? Read Art.8
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/1480-to-1762-10.pdf
Inconvenient truths about the Malvinas Islands (Falkland) part 7
Aug 08th, 2023 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse -1To RL:
The uti possidetis juri recognises the right of former colonies to maintain the territorial integrity of the territories inherited at the time of independence.
You missed the point regarding the International Court of Justice use of the ‘uti possidetis juris’ principle when ruling in in sovereignty disputes. This is important as it sets a legal precedent, even if the territories the ruling refers to are in Africa. That legal precedent from the ICJ is also applicable to Argentina's sovereignty over the South Atlantic Archipelago.
Malcolm Deas’ opinion piece on ‘uti possidetis juri’ fails to consider the core of the principle, which is to preserve the boundaries of the territories inherited by former colonies to define sovereignty and territorial integrity. For this reason, and contrary to his opinion, it is an ‘assertion of sovereignty against outsiders’ e.g., such as the usurpation of the Malvinas Islands by an act of force, and without warning by the 1833 British illegal invasion.
Finally, the Utrecht Treaty article I cited is exactly the 8th: read it in its entirety, & you will see Queen Anne committed to respect the Spanish dominions in South America, as they were at the time of the ‘Catholic King’.
Doesn`t matter how many times you raise it.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Utrecht Treaty is based on only its contents, not what is not written in it. It is exactly same interpretation as a contract is given, a literal interpretation. WHICH MEANS Argentina is subject to it,
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
So GB has restored its conditions on lying Argentina.
Geofray, the time of the Catholic King was 1700 - 67 years before Spain ever saw the Falkland Islands. And it only applied to the Caribbean - which is what West Indies meant to everyone but Spain.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The terms of these conventions were however so vague, that they seemed rather to increase than lessen the causes of dispute. The meaning of the expression 'Spanish West Indies' never could be fixed or defined to the satisfaction of both parties...” [Greenhow 1842]
“Discrepancy arose when it became necessary to define what should be understood by 'West Indies under Spanish dominion.' Spain understood that the term included both mainlands and islands, discovered or not, inhabited or vacant, as long as they were located to the west of the line drawn by Pope Alexander VI and extended by Tordesillas. Other European powers such as England, France and Holland, maintained that the term 'dominion' implied control, jurisdiction and government, and consequently Spain was only entitled to the territories it had actually settled or were under its effective influence at the time of the death of King Charles II of Spain on November 2, 1700.” [Peña & Peña 2018]
Returning to UPJ
“The principle of uti possidetis does not imply that a state created in the wake of a process of decolonization will necessarily acquire the same territorial rights as the previous colonial power, without regard to the geographic territorial unity of the colonial empire, and the occupation of the territory in question by the newly created state... In consequence, it has to be concluded that Argentina did not acquire the Islands in 1816 automatically after independence, without regard to the principle of effective occupation. Spanish territorial
rights over the Islands continued.” [The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands: Past and Present Rudolf Dolzer 1993]
And there I was, out of characters again.
Bottom line Geofray - take it to the ICJ, if you are right how can you lose?
No Roger Lorton, that's his clandestine garrison on Trinidad Island. Then they recognized Spanish sovereignty and withdrew.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am speaking after the withdrawal, with the Spanish exercising sovereignty, how is it possible that they consider the British Isles since the first town founded was Puerto Luis.
They evicted the population of Puerto Soledad, a place where they had never been.
Mention the name of the British population.
Mention the name of only one settler from that town.
Mention the year the islands became part of the British crown.
Byron? Incorrect, the French were already established in the islands, therefore it is not possible that the islands are British.
Go learn Redhoyt.
Malvi et al
Aug 08th, 2023 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who gives two funkies mucks about what happened or didn't happen 200 years ago. We can't go back in time so why don't you leave the Falkland Islands etc out of your Argentine South Atlantic Empire and leave them to live the life they wish.
Why is that such a problem for you or is it just down to Argentine envy that you can't stand the thought that they have a better standard of living than you do.
So Malvinense
Aug 08th, 2023 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have proven that no Argentine population was expelled so you know it and continue to lie. Thank you. You can now refrain from repeating the lie over again.
First answer to your question, Britain first exercised sovereignty of West Falkland in 1766 (the date you asked for) in Port Egmont for 8 years, this was aligned with Spain in 1770 after a small scuffle. John MacBride was the leader of the British camp (the name you asked for).
However, both Britain and Spain left....voluntarily and therefore by 1811 failed to retain formal sovereignty.
Argentina claim the Vernet business is an example of an Argentine community, but its highly dubious, had failed and its remnants run by British Matthew Brisbane and William Dickson by 1832 ,
As I have said previously nobody was fulfilling the requirements of sovereignty between 1811 and 1828. The Vernet business between 1828-31 is dubious and debatable. No community again 1831-32.
So, as you have been unable to prove any eviction (and I have answered all your questions) the current inhabitants win...and you lose.
darragh: No Darragh is just the opposite, the former empire does not want to withdraw from Argentina, from the South Atlantic, a place to which they do not belong.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are all paying the price for British imperialism today, even though it happened 200 years ago.
INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT MALVINAS ISLANDS (Illegally renamed as Falkland) PART 8
Aug 08th, 2023 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Terence Hill:
Given the gravity of your accusations, and the travesty of the injustice you defend as valid, I am left with no other option but to refer to some facts that are pertinent to the Utrecht Treaty of peace of 1713. The British history is plagued with some centuries of no so honourable conduct and actions such as piracy, human trafficking & slaving, and contraband.
The TU aim was to obtain exclusivity of navigation & commerce in the Spanish colonies of both North & South America in detriment of the French.
This shameful ‘commerce’ is demanded by Britain as ONE of the conditions FOR the Utrecht Treaty. In both art. 8 (that refers to West Indies, and Queen Anne’s commits to respect & defend the Spanish King Americans dominions) & as well as in art. 12. The latter refers this commerce as ‘La Compañia de el Assiento’ (human beings slaves company) in the River of the Plata, and that sir, is the river in South America that divides Uruguay from Argentina.
As you can see, the Utrecht Treaty refers to the dominions of the Spanish King in both Americas. It is WRITTEN in the treaty and you can read it yourself. I cite original sources, authoritative ones.
To Roger Lorton: please refer to the above response to TH.
Also, let me remind you that the principle of ‘utis possidetis juri’ was upheld by the International Court of Justice in sovereignty rulings that maintained the concept of the rights of the former colonies to keep the integrity & sovereignty that was present at the time of the colonial era.
Finally, the geographical aspect is not of less importance and weight: the Archipelago sits in Argentina’s continental shelf.
To all the hateful messages, I know we have substantive proofs. The British citizens have rights to live as they wish, of course. But Argentina never relinquished its Malvinas Islands, & never will.
The Falklands are no more a remnant of the British Empire than Argentina is a remnant of the Spanish Empire.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The islanders belong more in the South Atlantic than you do.
Malvi, seriously British imperialism ?, have a day off will you, and just what price are you paying ?, the answer is nothing,
Aug 08th, 2023 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The British history is plagued with some centuries of no so honourable conduct and actions such as piracy, human trafficking & slaving, and contraband.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The only pirates in the area were from.
“There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description” John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820. David Jewett, and Louis Vernet
While slavery was abolished in GB and territories in 1807.
People in glass-houses shouldn't throw stones.
“At the end of the colonial period, Blacks constituted approximately a third of the urban population. According to the census of 1887 and the opinions of contemporary observers, the urban Black population declined numerically to roughly half its colonial size and fell to an inconsequential 2 percent of total population by the end of the century. How did the Black population of Buenos Aires disappear?
It is widely reported that president of Argentina from 1868 to 1874, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, undertook a ‘covert genocide’ that wiped out the Afro-Argentinean population to the point that by 1875, there were so little Black people left in Argentina that the government didn’t even bother registering African-descendants in the national census.
https ://afropunk.com/2018/07/argentinas-black-population-has-been-systematically-erased-removed-in-whitewashing-effort/
”This shameful ‘commerce’ is demanded by Britain as ONE of the conditions FOR the Utrecht Treaty.“
The other was barring any claims from Argentina.
”...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
@ Monkeymagic A. A widely recognised rule: uti possidetis iuris or the succession of States to territory. Uti possidetis iuris of 1810 is a rule relating to the succession of States to territory followed by the States of Spanish South America. The relevant date for South America does not match the dates of proclamation of independence in the various South American countries for the reason that, from 1810 onwards, these ceased to recognise the colonial authorities – although formal proclamations of independence would only come later. The new states inherited the territory belonging to the Spanish Crown, on the basis of the administrative divisions existing in 1810. Uti possidetis is a general rule of customary law applicable to the territories of new States. This was set out by the International Court of Justice in the case of the Frontier Dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali in the following manner:“it should be noted that the principle of uti possidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in Spanish America. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs.” The principle also reaffirmed that no terrae nullius existed in Latin America as a consequence of the process of independence. In other words, the scope of territorial sovereignty recognised to Spain and Portugal had to be equally recognised to the new Latin American States. The main political objective of the principle was to out a stop to any neocolonialist ambitions of other nations of the time.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Credits: Kohen-Rodriguez
Marv - after 1771, we never left.
Aug 08th, 2023 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1GeoFray - since when was Argentina a continent?
In any case, the Islands have their own shelf -
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/falkland-islands-continental-shelf-proclamation-1991.pdf
Monkeymagic: The main political objective of the principle was to out a stop to any neocolonialist ambitions of other nations of the time. The Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case (El Salvador/Honduras, Nicaragua intervening) also applied uti possidetis iuris, with the date of independence of the States of Central America being 1821. It clearly states:
Aug 08th, 2023 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Chamber has no doubt that the starting-point for the determination of sovereignty over the islands must be the uti possidetis juris of 1821. The islands of the Gulf of Fonseca were discovered in 1522 by Spain, and remained under the sovereignty of the Spanish Crown for three centuries. When the Central American States became independent in 1821, none of the islands were terra nullius; sovereignty over the islands could not therefore be acquired by occupation of territory”
The same analysis perfectly fits the case of the Falklands/Malvinas, with the difference that Spanish title to the islands was not only based on discovery, but also the effective occupation of the archipelago until 1811 and recognition by other powers.
Credits: Kohen-Rodriguez.
“Uti possidetis is a general rule of customary law applicable to the territories of new States”
Aug 08th, 2023 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -1But is singly inapplicable to the Falklands as a result of Peace of Utrecht, which bars any claim from Argentina.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
As title of the Islands was contested only by Spain and England, and was recognised by others.
“As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Marv
Aug 09th, 2023 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Credits: Kohen-Rodriguez.?
Kohen?
Is that the same Kohen who is so certain of his facts and the legal (?) principle of UPJ that he advised the Argentine government NOT to go to the ICJ.
That Kohen?
Malvi
Aug 09th, 2023 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Love it.
Your evicted population lie had been proven, so you now do the Malvinista trick of moving to the inherited from Spain lie. We can move onto the geographic shelf lie too if you want
I will summarise for you:
1) No civilian population was evicted
2) Nobody other than the murdering raping militia who arrived 10 weeks earlier was evicted
3) Spain left the islands voluntarily in 1811, they remained empty for more than a decade, no inheritance
4) Argentina had not invaded and expanded its empire into Patagonia in 1833,continental shelf argument is nonsense.
Every argument you make is nonsense and has been disproved 100 times. Argentina has never had sovereignty of the islands, never inherited the islands, never had a population evicted from the islands,
The Falkland islanders families have lived in South Atlantic longer than most Argentine families. They need the British to protect them from unpleasant liars like you. Britain doesn't want sovereignty, we voluntarily gave up the largest empire in history, you cant even give up a few islands that were never yours.
Sorry Malvi, you are a liar and an imperialist, and what's worse....you know it.
lordton. If they were not withdrawn after 1774:
Aug 09th, 2023 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0-Mention the name of the British people.
Mention the name of a British settler from that British village.
Mention the name of the British Governor.
Mention the year in which the islands were incorporated into the British crown.
Kohen? Yes, it is the same Kohen who was in the Malvinas Islands to debate. Do you know something lordton? I didn't see you there.
@ Hermosa Teslyn Barkman las Malvinas son argentinas y tú lo sabes.
Malvinense : John MacBride was the leader of the British camp in 1774.
Aug 09th, 2023 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately, Malvinense you have been unable to provide any historic record to support any of your claims to the islands, just lies.
You claim the islands were Argentina as an Argentine population was expelled, but the records of Pinedo and the logs of the Sarandi and Rapid list all those people who left the islands in Jan 1833, there is not a single Argentine who didn't arrive in October 1832. Therefore your first argument of usurpation is proven a LIE by your own historic record. You wonder why the Argentine government perpetuate this lie?
The second argument around inheritance from Spain, it is true that the islands had Spanish sovereignty as did Jamaica, Trinidad, Dominica, Cuba and many islands in the Atlantic. The ONLY way that Argentina could have inherited the islands is if (at the time of independence) the population of the islands joined Argentina. However, at that time there was no population of the islands, and the Spanish settlers had returned to Spain...not Argentina. Again, another Iie easily verifiable.
The third lie about continental shelf is just a nonsense.
So....all three Argentine myths exploded.
British sovereignty is based on necessity to defend the islanders from you. They could have independence tomorrow. As we have proven that they did not steal the islands from anyone, their rights are paramount.
See you on another thread where you will repeat the same tiresome lies :-)
@ Monkey. You are wrong.
Aug 09th, 2023 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse -1John Macbride? 1774? 1775,1776,1777? Are you sure?
The attitude of His Britannic Majesty’s government shows that uti possidetis was opposable to Britain, since the Falkland/Malvinas Islands were subject to Spanish sovereignty. European powers did not react to the assertion that no terrae nullius existed in Latin America. The analysis of international practice and jurisprudence in cases of territorial disputes between a Latin American State and an extra-continental power leads to the conclusion that uti possidetis was applicable to the extra-continental States.
In the Isla de Aves case, which opposed Venezuela and the Netherlands in the 19th century, the arbitral award issued by Isabel II, Queen of Spain, found in favour of the South American state. The main basis of the decision is that the island in dispute belonged to the Audiencia of Caracas during the colonial period and that upon becoming an independent nation, Venezuela was constituted on the territory of the Captaincy-General of the same name by which it could consider the Isla de Aves to be part of the Spanish province of Venezuela [...] the Venezuelan government was the first to establish its armed forces and to carry out acts of sovereignty, thus confirming the dominion it had acquired by general title it derived from Spain.
Acts of sovereignty are therefore considered to confirm a pre-existing title of succession. An identical analysis can be made in regard to Argentina’s takeover of the Falklands/Malvinas in 1820.
Malvi
Aug 09th, 2023 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you try answering the questions I asked you...
“Why don't you leave the Falkland Islands etc out of your Argentine South Atlantic Empire and leave them to live the life they wish”.?
“Why is that such a problem for you or is it just down to Argentine envy that you can't
stand the thought that they have a better standard of living than you do”?
Instead of blathering on about the past why don't you try acting like it is the here and now and not 1800 and frozen to death?.
@ darragh:
Aug 09th, 2023 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1-Because it is not an Argentine empire, the islands are part of Argentina.
It is the former empire that occupied foreign lands. They only have a few occupied territories left and soon they will return to where they belong to their North Atlantic islands.
- Wouldn't it seem like such a big problem to have your country occupied by a foreign power?
-The problems between Argentina and the United Kingdom are the consequence of a bad action by the United Kingdom in the past and it has consequences at the moment.
-To be able to advance in the here and now, dialogue is necessary and try small agreements as I have said many times.
Malvi
Aug 09th, 2023 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And again you are not answering my questions
“Why don't you leave the Falkland Islands etc out of your Argentine South Atlantic Empire and leave them to live the life they wish”.?
“Why is that such a problem for you or is it just down to Argentine envy that you can't
stand the thought that they have a better standard of living than you do”?
Instead of blathering on about the past why don't you try acting like it is the here and now and not 1800 and frozen to death?.
The fact that you refuse to answer them tells me that either you do not have an answer or you don't have the courage of your convictions so as the Americans would say “put up or shut up”.
@Darragh I have already answered your questions.
Aug 09th, 2023 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you do not understand what I express.
You may not listen.
Or maybe you want me to answer what you want to hear and that's not how things work.
Regards.
Marv, the western islands were British from 1765. Incorporated (strange use of the word) by Byron. Spain acknowledged the Brits there in 1771. We never again left. As a result, Spain only claimed one Island in 1811 - Soledad. The presence of governors is of no importance, nor the names of those that passed through. Britain established its sovereignty and maintained effective possession. Our sealers and traders used Port Egmont from 1774 to 1853. Quite sufficient to prevent Spain spreading its claim to the western islands - as Spain also knew. Spain maintained its claim to the Island of Soledad until 1863, despite the UK effectively usurping that claim in 1833. Argentina is not Spain. Argentina was never in the game. If Argentina believes otherwise then it has only one way forward - the ICJ.
Aug 09th, 2023 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Kohen & Rodriguez tell lies.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/falklands-facts-fantasies-setting-the-record-straight-g.-pascoe-2021.pdf
INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT MALVINAS ISLANDS (Falkland) PART 9
Aug 10th, 2023 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse -1TH: yes, the only pirates in the South Atlantic were the ones that invaded the Malvinas Islands. I agree that you shouldn’t be throwing stones: they could get back to you, as in this case.
These are reasons why there aren’t many black people in the Rio de la Plata, & later Argentina:
1. The # of slaves, cited as 35-40% in colonial Buenos Ayres’ population, were later distributed through the Viceroyalty territory, so that number is misleading.
2. Religious orders bought many to set them free.
3. Reasons why there are not PURE black people in Argentina:
a. Their participation in the Independence & the Paraguay wars, they either died or deserted,
b. The yellow fever,
c. & specially, the mestisaje or mixed race.
d. As early as 1813 my ancestors promulgated the ‘Law of the womb’ declaring free the children born from black mothers. The Spanish colonies always recognised black people as human beings, & they got mixed with white people later by marriage.
e. In 1860 slavery was forbidden, producing the result of more mixed-race people in the country, therefore, by 1875 the number of pure black people descended exponentially.
f. it’s considered that the afro-descendants in Argentina is now between 4-6% of the population.
4. The idea that our illustrious Domingo F. Sarmiento produced a black genocide is self-destructing for the reasons explained above.
5. President Domingo F Sarmiento was born in 1811 in a poor neighbourhood of San Juan (Argentina). He learnt to read at 4 years old, & was so passionate about education that he founded his first school at 15yo, after obtaining his teaching degree. Sarmiento had a distinguished career as a teacher, Lt, writer, journalist, sociologist, Senator, Minister, Director of Schools, Diplomat, and later, President of Argentina. He ensured free education for all Argentina’s citizens, & is immortalized as one of the ‘fathers of our homeland, & the schools’.
Already answerered,so once again.
Aug 10th, 2023 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse +1“There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description” John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820. David Jewett, and Louis Vernet
While slavery was abolished in GB and territories in 1807.
“At the end of the colonial period, Blacks constituted approximately a third of the urban population. According to the census of 1887 and the opinions of contemporary observers, the urban Black population declined numerically to roughly half its colonial size and fell to an inconsequential 2 percent of total population by the end of the century. How did the Black population of Buenos Aires disappear?
It is widely reported that president of Argentina from 1868 to 1874, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, undertook a ‘covert genocide’ that wiped out the Afro-Argentinean population to the point that by 1875, there were so little Black people left in Argentina that the government didn’t even bother registering African-descendants in the national census.
https ://afropunk.com/2018/07/argentinas-black-population-has-been-systematically-erased-removed-in-whitewashing-effort/
Malvi
Aug 10th, 2023 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1Exactly where have you answered my questions?...
I repeat so that maybe just maybe you will understand
“Why don't you leave the Falkland Islands etc out of your Argentine South Atlantic Empire and leave them to live the life they wish”.?
“Why is that such a problem for you or is it just down to Argentine envy that you can't
stand the thought that they have a better standard of living than you do”?
So where are your answers?
Put up or shut up
Also, Argentina is the creation of imperialism (Spanish) and Patagonia and TdF etc. are only part of Argentina because of Argentine imperialism and now you want to add the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and large swaths of Antarctica to your Argentine South Atlantic Empire so stop pretending that Argentina is righteous in these matters it isn't.
@ redhoyt
Aug 10th, 2023 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -2If the activities of fishermen and hunters should be considered sovereign acts, the United States and France must also be considered to have performed sovereign acts over the Falklands/Malvinas, which is absurd, especially when the Spanish government carried out enforcement actions over these activities in the entirety of the archipelago.
Great Britain itself did not consider the activities of fishing vessels under the authority of His Majesty to be official acts. In response to the protest of the Spanish ambassador in London regarding the presence of British vessels on the islands, the British minister guaranteed the abandonment of the islands and expressed his suspicions that the ships belonged to the American colonies. Madrid informed Buenos Aires about this fact in February 1776,72 pointing out that in case Englishmen were found in Port Egmont, they should be warned to leave. A Royal Order dated August 9th of the same year related, in the same vein of the order issued in 1774, that the Court of London had already verified Britain´s withdrawal, and accordingly, it was to be ensured that the English did not return to Port Egmont.
Even more distrust existed after new hostilities broke out between Spain and Great Britain in 1796. The Governor of the Malvinas, in an order dated August 1798, is instructed how to act in case American or British ships are found at Port Egmont or the surrounding areas. The instructions establish that in case any ship of those nations is found at anchor in the port “preparation for combat will immediately be made” and “licenses and logs will be registered” and if they are proven to be American, Your Excellency will prudently and civilly order them to retire from the port belonging to His Catholic Majesty within 24 hours [...] If any British fishing vessel were anchored [...] you shall request their surrender and if they do not abide by the His Majesty´s order, you will position yourself suitably [...] [and] you will open fire.
While slavery was abolished in the territories in 1807. GB never countenanced it domestically. A Russian slave in the Elizabeathan period had to be freed, as slavery was illegal in GB.
Aug 10th, 2023 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marv- read more. The British were very concerned that the USA would stake a claim to New Island. One of the reasons that sealing regulations were not enforced for decades.
Aug 10th, 2023 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The presence of the whalers and sealers were sufficient to limit Spain's claim to the Island of Soledad. Spain knew this, which is why Spain only claimed Soledad in 1811 - a fact you keep trying to ignore.
Go read about British concerns regarding a US claim after 1853.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2023/06/1853-to-1899.pdf
1798? During the Anglo-Spanish War 1796-1802? Wartime orders? Another Kohen & Rodriguez interpretation? Surely orders to attack enemy ships can hardly be unusual during a war?
INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT MALVINAS ISLANDS (Falkland) PART 10
Aug 11th, 2023 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse -1Mr Lorton, the uti possidetis iuri has been applied to Hispanic-American countries before.
The principle of UDI acknowledges the rights of newly emancipated colonies to preserve the sovereignty & integrity of the land formerly occupied by the colonizer, eg, the Spanish dominions in South America & the Atlantic South Archipelago. Deas, 1982, omits the fact that Argentina’s territory sits (with other former Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) within the former Spanish dominions. Boundaries were defined BETWEEN FORMER PROVINCES, as they declared their independence from Spain. Therefore, the definition of these boundaries is still part of the Independence process, & the UPI principle still apply to them.
See Cornell School of Law for further explanation on this international law principle.
The Spanish had discovery (1520), and possession of the Malvinas Islands after they removed the British by force in 1770s, and from 1774 to 1811 Malvinas Governors were designated; the Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (later Argentina) took over its sovereignty & custody: they had a military garrison and criollos civilians living in them when the British again invaded them & removed them in an illegal forceful act.
I’ve read the Utrecht Treaty article VIII, & I suggest you read as well article XII:
1.The British Empire agreed to respect the Spanish dominions in both North & South America (art XII refers to Spanish government in the Rio de la Plata)
2. TH says that art VIII bans future Argentina sovereignty claims on Malvinas Islands!! my country didn’t exist then. Also the right of the colonies to emancipate, & preserve their land & sovereignty is stipulated in the UPI principle, & these rights are recognized by the IC of J ruling precedents.
3.For these reasons, Argentina IS the rightful owner of the South Atlantic Archipelago, as it was formerly part of the Spanish Empire.
T Hill: re read my black people in Argentina!
Geofray -
Aug 11th, 2023 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse +11) If UPJ was anything more than a legal theory, Argentina would have gone to the World Court in 1920. Or the ICJ in 1946. It's not me you have to convince. It's a Court of Law and the only one, is the ICJ.
2) Spain has never claimed discovery of the archipelago. Not in 1766 during the negotiations with France. Not in 1770 during the negotiations with England. Not today.
3) In 1811, Spain only claimed the Island of Soledad. A claim it maintained until 1863. Argentina is not Spain. There was no inheritance - much as you would like to believe otherwise.
4) Effective possesion neds to be just that. Getting thrown off by the Yanks in 1832 and the British in 1833 is in no way 'effective'.
5) The Anglo-Spanish Treaty signed at Utrecht was too vague to achieve anything. During the 1766 negotiation, France refused to supporrt Spain's claims that Utrecht gave them the Islands. The French argument was that Utrecht required actual possession as in occupation. On this question, the French agreed unusually with the British.
“A single objection to Count d'Aranda, his exclusive interpretation of Article VIII of the Treaty of Utrecht. The English could, indeed, interpret it in their own way and contrast it with Spain: (which) did not occupy the Malouines in the time of Charles II., and has never occupied them since; on the other hand, the negotiators of the treaty aimed at navigation in the South Sea and not that in the South Atlantic ...” [Grimaldi Sept 16 1766 quoted in Martin-Allanic 1964]
“Read article 8, dear companion, with attention, and if you were neutral and obliged to judge this question, I think you would not be in a hurry to apply it to Falkland Islands unless you are presented with property titles of the time of Carlos II.” [Choiseul Oct 2 1766 quoted in Munilla 1948]
Malvi
Aug 11th, 2023 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse +1Still waiting for you to answer my questions
So I assume that you cannot think of any reasonable excuses for your and Argentina's arrogance.
So just to repeat, “put up or shut up”.
It is irrelevant wether your country existed or not, the wording is absolute.
Aug 11th, 2023 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
“Reasons why there are not PURE black people in Argentina”
Obviously, they were euthanased as their rapid dissapearance matches that of the Jews under Nazi Germany et al.
”Sarmiento was one of the most influential .. was to prove the racial theories of the genetic inferiority of the indigenous and Africans that he posited in Facundo, one of the most read Argentine books. Much of Sarmiento’s writing includes overt racism in the form of justifying colonial violence and supporting ethnic cleansing. …convinced him of the existence of two types of people, civilized and barbaric. .. Anything else, criollo, indigenous, and Afrodescendant was by default archaic and barbaric (Katra 1994). …it is also important to note the underlying exclusion of non-Euro-descended peoples. For example in De la educación popular, … indigenous groups were excluded for their “ineducability.” Afro- Argentines, still slaves at the time the work was written, had even less of a place in Sarmiento’s ...vision for progress and modernization (Katra 1996). .... It is clear that as the mediator and founder of modern Argentina Sarmiento did not envision gauchos and Afro- Argentines as part of the new society. Thus, it is not surprising that the Generation of 1880 sought systematic ways to eliminate Afro-Argentines who were seen as less than the gauchos and caudillos that, “at least could be educated.”
https//scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5978&context=etd
G&H
Aug 12th, 2023 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘removed the British by force in 1770s’.
Yes and then had to give the settlement back in 1771 when the British threatened war.
https://www.fiassociation.com/shopimages/pdfs/1.%201771%20Agreement%20between%20the%20British%20and%20Spanish%20Governments.pdf
And no secret articles to hand it back later you will note.
Then in 1832 the UP invaded and were subsequently expelled by the British when the diplomatic protests were ignored, no civilian population was expelled they had permission from the British to be there.
The evidence does not support your version of events, it contradicts it.
British claims are very old and Argentinian claims are very new, a fact of history that cannot be ‘explained away’ by Captain Photocopy and the Boy Blither.
But you keep trying, and very trying it is.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!