The Falklands or las Malvinas? - Page 5

On June 17 2011 12:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Problem solved. Now we can all argue about the Antarctica.

On June 17 2011 12:23 Geolich wrote:
good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english)

welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore.

On June 17 2011 12:23 Geolich wrote:
good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english)

welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore.

On June 17 2011 12:32 InvalidID wrote:

I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement.

I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment.

While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France.

On June 17 2011 12:21 Elegy wrote:


Ah, but what of the the right of the Argentinians to determine for themselves what lands they wish to arbitrarily appropriate?

On June 17 2011 12:32 InvalidID wrote:

I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement.

I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment.

While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France.

On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology

I thought the building of the two carriers was put on hold and the updating/modernizing of the other was put on hold due to the economic austerity measures?

On June 17 2011 12:47 Aristodemus wrote:
Hmm, this last point is open to debate. I would say when we defeated the major superpower of its day in 1588 we became a superpower. If not though, definitely after the Bank of England was created. After the battle of Quiberon Bay we became the only superpower too, Napoleon's revolution changed this temporarily, until the two wars with Germany crippled the empire.

On June 17 2011 12:51 InvalidID wrote:


The general definition of a superpower, includes the ability to direct force on a global scale. The whole debate is really a matter of semantics, but by the traditional definition of the word it would be when Britain gained a global empire.

On June 17 2011 12:54 Aristodemus wrote:


So... US isnt a superpower today as they have no empire? My definition is when you have a force that is extremely unlikely to be defeated.

It doesn't count. Žižek brilliantly put it as the eurocentric cultural determination of values. In other words, when empires or countries of the "North" say something, it's valid and everyone agrees to that (Killing puppies and eating them is baaaaad!, killing cows and eating them is not, blah blah blah) but when someone from the "South" says something, it has to go under a continuous scrutiny of whatever fields of knowledge are involved (X scientist discovers something, but he's from Peru/Philippines/Nigeria/etc, so his discovery will only count the moment it is written in english and when the Harvard association conducts their own research, do the associated intellectual property errands and claim it as their own, then the prior study can go somewhere in a footnote or a thank you cake). The academic world is full of that and the Malvinas/Falklands is a very well documented problem of this. In this case, english historians make british people believe it was the british who populated the Malvinas first and they have every right and viceversa.
So, in other words, not counting the audacity of having anyone believe that Wikipedia is an actual valid resource for a historical debate, Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology (again, borrowing Žižek's use of this concept), regarding anybody who tries to counter-argue it merely someone who is "not very well informed."
In conclusion, if very well informed historians from both sides have not been able to reach a decisive conclusion regarding this piece of land (other than nobody knows who set foot on it first), I highly doubt we'll find the answer here at the hands of forum-goers. It is a highly amusing debate nonetheless.

On June 17 2011 09:13 Sanctimonius wrote:I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think on this issue, especially people from Argentina, because I've never been and I've never spoken to anyone from Argentina. What I've written is obviously biased, as any view on such a contentious issue would be - I'm British, of course I would want them to remain British. But I am honestly trying to see things from the other point of view, and most things written from an Argentine perspective centre on us being thieves and leaving it at that. Why should the islands be Argentinian now? And what should happen to the islanders if it did become Argentinian, keeping in mind that all except one has rejected Argentinian citizenship?

On June 17 2011 13:11 ChicoLopez wrote:
Well, at least Obama wants the two parties to talk about it. That's out president; praise our allies, support their enemies.

ah, link

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/