GO ARGENTINA!! President Kirchner says "sovereign claim to" Falklands Islands "is inalienable" ....

[bgreed 0]

An amazing thing is that the world was a much more peaceful place and the people in the countries that were under colonial rule much more prosperous than now. Now they are all about tribal rule and killing eachother or who is going to be dictator for life. Oh yes colonialism was a terrible thing

[Mags 112]

I'm sorry for them, they have the worst deal on this...but really, it makes no sense that they want to be british while living on the opposite side of the world to England...maybe the transition could be done gradually...give generous incentives to the people that move too...

For the majority who live there it is all they've ever known, life on the Falklands. People who have put their heart and soul into the islands, who have worked there, given birth there and buried their families there. To move to the UK would be a whole different way of life and many, I feel, wouldn't be able to adjust at all. What about the elderly, who have lived there for 60, 70 or 80+ years? To be uprooted from the home they have lived in for decades, sent to live in an alien country. It'd kill them.

To ask them to leave, or give them cash incentives, is offensive, imo.

Edit: I also think that the average Falkland Islander doesn't consider themselves British anyway. They consider themselves Falklanders (or another name that I can't remember).

Edited April 5, 2008 by Mags

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point on this issue, is: Is colonialism wrong? Is it wrong that the kelpers are in Argentine soil? are "the falklands" argentine soil?

My opinion is: yes

I think its contentious to call it colonialism - seeing as the British (re)claimed the territory after the Argentine colony was abandoned and essentially vacant (following its destruction by the US Navy in retaliation for pirate raids originating from the islands). Certainly not the kind of colonialism that was imposed on India, China or Africa.

[Alex & Rachel 78]

The point on this issue, is: Is colonialism wrong? Is it wrong that the kelpers are in Argentine soil? are "the falklands" argentine soil?

My opinion is: yes

I think its contentious to call it colonialism - seeing as the British (re)claimed the territory after the Argentine colony was abandoned and essentially vacant (following its destruction by the US Navy in retaliation for pirate raids originating from the islands). Certainly not the kind of colonialism that was imposed on India, China or Africa.

Exactly...I'm all for decolonisation but...there were no Falkland Island natives who were raped and pillaged by the British immigrants; the islands were empty. There existed a British presence on the island before Argentina was even an independent country.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Alex & Rachel

[panamania79 2]

The point on this issue, is: Is colonialism wrong? Is it wrong that the kelpers are in Argentine soil? are "the falklands" argentine soil?

My opinion is: yes

I think its contentious to call it colonialism - seeing as the British (re)claimed the territory after the Argentine colony was abandoned and essentially vacant (following its destruction by the US Navy in retaliation for pirate raids originating from the islands). Certainly not the kind of colonialism that was imposed on India, China or Africa.

Exactly...I'm all for decolonisation but...there were no Falkland Island natives who were raped and pillaged by the British immigrants; the islands were empty. There existed a British presence on the island before Argentina was even an independent country.

I heard from my Argentino friends that the sheep population outnumber the people in the Malvinas.

[Alex & Rachel 78]

The sheep population on New Zealand outnumbers New Zealanders, too.

And outnumbers Welsh people on Wales, too.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here...

[mawilson 2,133]

Exactly...I'm all for decolonisation but...there were no Falkland Island natives who were raped and pillaged by the British immigrants; the islands were empty. There existed a British presence on the island before Argentina was even an independent country.

I heard from my Argentino friends that the sheep population outnumber the people in the Malvinas.

The sheep population on New Zealand outnumbers New Zealanders, too.

And outnumbers Welsh people on Wales, too.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here...

Maybe she's trying to say that the British immigrants raped a lot of sheep?

[Yoink 7]

THe place is safe, productive, healthy, happy and their future looks bright with increase in tourism... new infrastuture and economic gain....

The place is 70% British and the highest South American population is Chilean not even Argentinian...

A change of power will create refugees, power grabs, in-security, tension, corruption...

The welfare of 3000 people is at stake... not the land.

No one there wants change, the sovereign power controling there doesn't want change... in fact the enitire world doesn't want change expect for All of South America expect Chile, and Spain in Europe. That is only because of solidarity and the fact that Spain competed with Britain colonially, and all of south america was a colony and objects to continued colonizations.....

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm sorry for them, they have the worst deal on this...but really, it makes no sense that they want to be british while living on the opposite side of the world to England...maybe the transition could be done gradually...give generous incentives to the people that move too...

For the majority who live there it is all they've ever known, life on the Falklands. People who have put their heart and soul into the islands, who have worked there, given birth there and buried their families there. To move to the UK would be a whole different way of life and many, I feel, wouldn't be able to adjust at all. What about the elderly, who have lived there for 60, 70 or 80+ years? To be uprooted from the home they have lived in for decades, sent to live in an alien country. It'd kill them.

To ask them to leave, or give them cash incentives, is offensive, imo.

Edit: I also think that the average Falkland Islander doesn't consider themselves British anyway. They consider themselves Falklanders (or another name that I can't remember).

Interesting... could we think of other ways that sovereignty could be shared between Britain and Argentina?

This would fly in the face of political common sense, but it could be possible.

As for the particularities of colonialism... like I've hinted at before- if the Brits had invaded a present Argentine-populated territory, baned the use of Spanish on the islands, negated the expression of local Argentine culture, and created an atmosphere of criminalization towards anything non-British, then we'd have a clear-cut case of colonialism that the UN Committee on Decolonization could address. That is sadly for Malvinas, not the case.

The fact here is that its not about people but natural resources. Hence addressing this as a shared sovereignty issue may not be that illogical an outcome.

[Mags 112]

Exactly. The people are happy, no one "invaded" the Falklands, no one was uprooted. However, to give the Falklands back to the Argentinians would, ironically, result in just that happening (more than likely).

Edited April 5, 2008 by Mags

[Ban Hammer 14,585]

Exactly...I'm all for decolonisation but...there were no Falkland Island natives who were raped and pillaged by the British immigrants; the islands were empty. There existed a British presence on the island before Argentina was even an independent country.

well there was sheep

[Mags 112]

Exactly...I'm all for decolonisation but...there were no Falkland Island natives who were raped and pillaged by the British immigrants; the islands were empty. There existed a British presence on the island before Argentina was even an independent country.

well there was sheep

My bad. I forgot about them.

[panamania79 2]

Exactly...I'm all for decolonisation but...there were no Falkland Island natives who were raped and pillaged by the British immigrants; the islands were empty. There existed a British presence on the island before Argentina was even an independent country.

I heard from my Argentino friends that the sheep population outnumber the people in the Malvinas.

The sheep population on New Zealand outnumbers New Zealanders, too.

And outnumbers Welsh people on Wales, too.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here...

Maybe she's trying to say that the British immigrants raped a lot of sheep?

That may be why they're so interested in the Malvinas,THAT'S what I'm saying.What they do with the sheep is their business.

[truffles 2]

My understanding is that it is quite costly to the government of the UK to sustain a presence in some "colonies".

As someone who lived in Gibraltar for several years I can tell you the Gibraltarians certainly had no acceptance of the notion of being governed by Spain.....they would have rather pack up and leave! Those sentiments are echoes in every referendum they hold for this issue.

It is very expensive to live in Gib compared to the UK and though is a beautiful tourist attraction it doesnt actually "produce" anything - however the local wish to be a colony of the UK then so be it.

Falkland Islands have the same principles - the majority of the people wish to be part of the UK - then so be it - I am sure if the feelings were different then the British Government would certainly negotiate.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Scapegoat theory is dangerous when you have political leaders applying it.

So what is really going on in Argentina then?