Argentina and Great Britain Diplomatic Spat

orwellian

Registered
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,070
Likes
87
jp said:
Wikipedia not the worst in the world. Follow the referenced links for more info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
http://www.falklands.info/history/history2.html


What boring and uninteresting history about some unimportant islands. I couldn't find anything stating that Argentina acknowledged the British claim. But neither could I find much information that Britain had done the same to Argentina.

Whoever is stupid enough to live on those crappy islands should be allowed to stay. And any natural resources that exist there should belong to Argentina. That would be the ideal way to settle this matter IMO.

fedecc said:
Actually most of argentines are from indigenous descent, you just cant "see it" as evidently as in other places. And having european and indigenous origins are not mutually exclusive.

Interesting.
 

brandwach

Registered
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
27
Likes
4
My take on the situation, is that national claims are bogus and that people who actually own individual plots of land own such land. the idea of national territory is basically an afront to individual private property. So, the answer to who owns argentina or the faulkland islands are the actual people who acquiered whatever land they may possess through non-aggressive means (purchase, inherritance, or homesteading (original appropriation)), not either of the criminal organizations previously mentioned (Arg, or Brit Gov). thus the problems is sloved and it doesn't matter if you speak Castellano Rioplatense or British English, you can own property.
 

Matt84

Registered
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
1,478
Likes
682
brandwach said:
My take on the situation, is that national claims are bogus and that people who actually own individual plots of land own such land. the idea of national territory is basically an afront to individual private property. So, the answer to who owns argentina or the faulkland islands are the actual people who acquiered whatever land they may possess through non-aggressive means (purchase, inherritance, or homesteading* (original appropriation)), not either of the criminal organizations previously mentioned (Arg, or Brit Gov). thus the problems is sloved and it doesn't matter if you speak Castellano Rioplatense or British English, you can own property.

Amen!

Free Markets, Free People,

Trade is the only alternative to war

*The only interesting thing about the islands is that they were the biggest uninhabited landmass (outside the Arctics) during Euro Colonization, so it's a pure or rather non conflictive, example of homesteading.
 

HenryNisental

Registered
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
1,079
Likes
614
A lot of interesting legal questions arise on this issue. First:
The legal name of the Islands, according to the UN ,is FALKLAND-MALVINAS.
Regarding self-determination of oppressed peoples, it was first mentioned by Amercan president Woodrow Wilson in the aftermath of WWI. It was used to dismember the Prussian, Austrian and Ottoman (Turkish) Empires. So Poland, Checks, Slovaks, Ethiopians,Yugoslavians,etc; were freed to create their own countries.
However, this priciple was not applied to other peoples like the Hindus, Pakistanis, Vietnamise, Arabs, Algerians, Koreans, Palestinians, Jews, Kurds, and others; since this would destroy the British and French Empires (winners of the war).
They would have to wait until after WWII or more for that. (Hipocresy, eh)
 

sergio

Registered
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
3,459
Likes
1,854
Fedec is right that many Argentines have some indigenous blood. Just look at the faces of many of the working class or poor people of BA. The people of Recoleta and Barrio Norte are NOT representative of the nation.

Fedec is wrong when he suggests that indigenous people are Argentine and that the country IS theirs. The indigenous people, especially those in the north who look more aboriginal and who are among the poorest and most neglected people in the nation, continue to be oppressed and marginalized. Few enjoy the benefits that European colonization brought. Many of their ancestors were wiped out in what was genocide. It's ridiculous to suggest that the surviving indigenous people are Argentine, so everything is just fine. Their land was taken by Europeans, their culture destroyed and their people abused or killed. As I said, if the Falklands belong to Argentina, Argentina belongs to the indigenous people, in particular those of the north, so they should be the ones governing and controlling the wealth.
 
Top