MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
The Falkland Islands have become surprisingly diverse, reports The Spectator
By Robert Taylor - What springs to mind when you think of the Falklands? You might imagine the wild, windswept landscape, sparsely populated by the sheep-farming communities that have made the Islands their home for nearly 200 years. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules'Desire the right'
Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2Yes we are very much a multicultural society. That is not as new as some might think. Back in 1833 our start to permanent habitation of these islands, we started with a group of people from many cultures and ready to integrate with British, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. Even by the mid 1800's our local community was made up of multi nationals from several parts of the world including south America. We have always leaned towards Britain as our parental home and as a result encouraged a lot of the United kingdom folks to take up the challenges of living remotely. The Falklands grew in this way as did much if south America. I am a fifth generation islander of Scottish English decent. Just like hundreds of others that live here. Our forefathers came for the adventure, not by implantation as suggested by Argentina. Folk who wanted a challange in life who settled and raised families. That today still happens. We have had many still coming for that life of adventure from many parts of the world. They come here fully prepared to accept a British way of life. In fact we are likely the only place in the world that has maintained a strong British lifestyle. Some have even said we are more British than the British. Long may that continue.
Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3When the writer talks about the multinational children going to school he is seeing also another culture in that many of those children are first generation islanders to one of the parents. Many of those who have come to live here have families and those children marry into the local population just as has always been the case since 1833.
There are those that say we are inbred, that could not be further from the truth we are more accurately pure bred because if our integration with different cultures.
We desire the right to remain British and to live the lives of our own choosing. That is what stands us out among the rest of the world.
Aim for 10.000 by the end of the decade. long live the Falklands, wait for that indoctrinated muppet to pop up in the next few hours,
Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2The Argentine view is that the Falkland Islanders are not a people entitled to claim self-determination. Is that correct?
Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2People self-determination https://www.academia.edu/41941566/People_the_Falklands_and_Self-Determination
Steve Potts
Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2Yes sadley that is true. Given the very fact Argentina was created by self determination to become independent from Spain.
It is human greed that is involved here Argentina don't recognise us, just what we have around us. We are surrounded by an enormous wealth of oil, fish, kelp and Tourism. If all are exploited it could bring billions of pounds of revenue to the Argentines and they know as we Islanders expand those same resources will be fully exploited by us eventually.
We may even become one of the richest countries in the world. That is what upsets Argentina.
The fact that there embargo on us has not worked either.. That Chile now wants to restart trade with us is fueling that Argentine hatred towards us. Also they hate everything British
You where almost right Jack, he popped up on the other thread posting his stupid delusional nonsense, islanders have no right to self determination blah blah blah, land was usurped blah blah blah, Argentinians where evicted blah blah blah, he most certainly needs professional help,
Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1Malvi has claimed on a now closed thread, that the United Provinces of Rio Plata had no idea of the British claim to the islands when they appointed Luis Vernet “honorary civil and military commandant in June 1829 or indeed attempted to seize the islands in November 1832. No idea whatsoever, and that Britain usurped the islands without warning on Jan 6th 1833.
Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0However, the Woodbine Parish papers in the National Archive in Kew suggest a different version to the one Malvi tells us.
Parish arrived in Buenos Aires in 1824 as HM Consul general, the first European power to send one to the newly independent state. By February 1825 he signed the Treaty of Amity, Navigation and Commerce which formerly recognised the United Provinces.
The papers held at Kew, tell us Parish met with Vernet in March 1829 and agreed that Vernet would be very happy for Britain to reestablish sovereignty, and asked parish to personally invest in his business venture.
This prompted the UP to give Vernet a title, not as Malvi suggested they did in isolation, and Vernet only accepted the title to stop the UP sending someone else.
Parish formally wrote to the Lavalle government of BA on in November 1829 advising them of Britains claim, and the receipt of his letter was acknowledged. This again seems at odds with Malvis claims...how strange.
Parish then left BA in 1832 recognised and honoured by the BA government, he brought with him maps and reports that Vernet had given him and indeed saw Vernet in Montevideo on the Lexington with most of his colonists.
These all seem at odds with the ”Malvi” version of events.
So, the UP were well aware of Britains claim before giving Vernet a title, Vernet is on record of saying he supported British sovereignty, the UP received a formal declaration of the British claim in 1829, and were fully aware of the British threat to remove any colonising force that did not have British permission (Vernet did),
Sorry Malvi....
1833 makes it up as goes along, like 90% of the propaganda he reads then posts on here. he constantly quotes Kohen- Rodriguez as though its gospel when anyone with half a brain cell knows their writings are not remotely factual,
Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0He probably also thinks that the Invincible was sunk 6 times and only 1 Argentinian was killed in the illegal invasion, and that it was a ceasefire not a surrender, he needs help.
Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment. Login with Facebook