pics

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago (20 children)

There was no colonization.

The issue with the malvinas/Falklands is that there are no "historically rightful owners", since no one lived there when they were discovered by the British.

But it's also not as easy as "the British discovered, so it's theirs", because they just discovered and left. They didn't leave no settlement.

The islands have a complicated history, both sides have strong arguments in favor of themselves, there's no clear cut "rightful owner".

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] adj16@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The British didn’t discover the islands - the French (and then the Spanish) did. But they won them after that, so your points are still good - just wanted to point this part out

parent

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 12 points 2 months ago*

To clarify, Britain didn’t “win” them. The previous occupants had abandoned it totally as it wasn’t worth much to them. When Britain arrived, it was desolate and abandoned with no prior claim. This was, by the way, some time before Argentina existed.

parent

[–] Caves_of_steel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The French discovered Thema in 1764 , the britisch claimed Thema in 1765, the spanisch came only in 1770 with a force oft about one and a half thousand nen forcing the british off of the Islands

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 9 points 1 month ago

Well the islands are settled now and they're settled by people who think they're British so I can't really see how you can functionally come to the conclusion that there is any mystery.

Argentina's claim to the islands seems to be their they are sort of close to Argentina, although far enough out to be an international waters and there was once a Spanish settlement there back before Argentina existed as a country. By the time Argentina became its own country the Spanish settlement was no longer in existence.

So from most of human history the islands were uninhabited or only sporadically inhabited and we're talking the level of driftwood huts here, no permanent structures. If anyone had any legitimate claim to the island it would be Spain they were the first to build proper buildings on the islands, at least they had a settlement there until they abandoned it, but then they quite happily sold the rights to the land to the British.

parent

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I agree with this take. The claims are plausible from both sides but England obviously won the battle. The inhabitants being established are a result of the military positioning, so their votes will obviously be skewed. Not sure their votes are comparable to those of say native populations of other disputed territories (since there were none).

So I can understand why the Argentines feel aggrieved.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 12 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

The Argentine claim is implausible. The Falklands were British before Argentina was created. Their reasoning is that it had been used by the Spanish, and so had now-Argentina, therefore dibs.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

Argentina gained independence from Spain on 25 May 1810

In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony and Scottish settlers subsequently established an official pastoral community.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Stamau123@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Crown colony is just a title, the UK had settled the island decades prior

parent

[–] Caves_of_steel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Actually no - they were driven off by the spanisch in 1770 but never gave up their claim - however Ehen the british resettled the Islands in 1830 they were in fact abandonded

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 1 month ago

Right but the claim predates Argentina's existence.

The only way Argentina has legitimate claim to the island would be if Spain still maintained the claim to the island at the time Argentina became independent and even then they would have to have to cead the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Which of course never happened.

parent

[–] Caves_of_steel@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

But they were claimed by the britisch in 1765

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago

British and Spanish.

The British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774

Now, is independence from Spain also independence from all it's territories? I would argue yes.

parent

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Hm that's tough. I always like to think boundaries set by countries are bullshit anyway, but it is located closer to Argentina. Another comment says they both want it because the island comes with vast amount of fishing so economic reasons. And the UK probably put money forth to develop some sort of living situation on there.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

The UK is the only one's who have ever invested on infrastructure. And it is all mostly to support the fishing industry. This is about money for the UK. The people who live there are descendants from people of all sort of places, because they were fishermen for a British fishing company. No wonder when asked, they prefer to be considered British. All Argentina has ever done on the island is bombing them.

parent

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

Argentina also confined the townsfolk in makeshift prisons and blew up bridges.

parent

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago

The UK has never profited from the islands. It has been a sinkhole of money.

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago

Proximity matters but only up to a point. The Islands aren't that close to Argentina, I can't remember what the exact limit is but under international law islands along to the country whose coastline is closest to them up to a distance of 10 nautical miles as long as there is no claim already in place. Of course that's an international treaty which historically didn't necessarily count, which is why you've got things like American Samoa and Hawaii.

parent

[–] stark@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The US is closer to Greenland than Denmark is.

parent

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

But with that thought Canada is closer.

parent

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 months ago

Greenland could become part of Canada some day. Though proximity is just a minor part of it.

parent

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

A simple rule of thumb in geopolitical disputes is to see who England is supporting, and support the other side.

Corollary: a simple rule of thumb when trying to figure out why some historical tragedy occured is to ask what England was doing at that time.

parent

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

Maybe for some things that works but the island is deep in international waters and Argentina never had any cultural ties to the place. It's purely economic.

And while I don't really care for the British. There's really nothing Argentina has a right to I think.

The claim for Argentina is about as strong as America's claim to Greenland

parent

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 month ago

I don't want to comment on Argentina's claim since I know nothing about it. But England should never be allowed to own any other piece of land, and definitely not one in another continent.

parent

[–] Tingle@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

To clarify, the ENGLISH are assholes about SPORT, not the UK, there are other cultures in there that are vastly different in their attitudes, it will be import to remember that when it comes to election time as well since you will find different parts of the UK will be voting in very different ways.