EPTThe Falklands or las Malvinas? - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
toadyy
United Kingdom179 Posts
| ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:49 KwarK wrote: Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good. I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied. Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world. I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance. I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world." | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:28 raviy wrote: I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied. Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world. I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance. I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world." What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated? So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation? Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it. edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation. | ||
|
bahl sofs tiil
United States233 Posts
| ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:17 xxxxxxb wrote: First off, we have presidential elections this year. That's the reason behind the recent complain. I don't care about who own the islands or who holds the rights on them. There have been countless times in history where some guys walked over others to claim a place. Heck, I'm living in a place that was originally inhabited by indians (not the correct word, but my english is limited) that probably killed another indians to get it and so go on, until spaniards came. If we wanted a diplomatic end to this, our glorious military dictatorial regimen supported by USA blowed up that chance long time ago. And if we talk about a war ... well, sending unprepared youngsters to war is a very useful talent toi have. And we are sensible about this issue because is more recent, therefore you can easily relate. (e.g. my dad was """"recruited"""" by the militaries) Now what piss me off are british negating their imperialistic behavior, people claiming the isles have zero value, politicians from both sides giving a fuck about the people who died fighting their stupid war and particularly in this thread: wikipedia quotes. Really. As a minor aside, love it when people from other countries, who have studied English as a second language, apologise for their poor English then write things using more complex English than we usually use in England or the US :D | ||
|
Mephiztopheles1
1124 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: In conclusion, you spent three paragraphs talking down to everyone and ending up looking not very smart. Žižek is another simplistic reactionary. You tangentially connect his agitprop (and that's all it is, academic agitprop) to the topic as part of another dose of Marxist nonsense containing arbitrary and simplistic (like so much of Marxism) class divisions (the "North" and "South"), more Marxist babble about double standards (also, as if complaining about some fantastical double standard in the scientific community between white scientists and non-whites has anything to do with anything other than your tortuous ideology where everything is somehow connected and relevant) and we will finish off with "You are actually so deeply brainwashed that it is impossible for you to understand how wrong you are. It isn't your fault, but I am highly amused by it." What highly amuses me is Marxists who think that their concepts are anything more than exercises in trying to save the dream of Karl from the nightmares of Josef and Mao, and a heavy, heavy dose of sour grapes for losing the Cold War. Hah, your perspective on Žižek is highly amusing as well, and completely shows the point I was trying to convey, although on a whole different level. I never said neither debater here is brainwashed, but I've had experience dealing with people thinking you're a marxist because you've read Žižek, Althusser and Marcuse, other accusing you of post-modernist spewer of crap 'cause you also read Lyotard, Baudrillard, Lipovetsky and Bayard, others calling you outdated because you still read Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Benjamin and so on and so forth. So please, do read, and I mean as in reading words as I wrote them. Key words: "Cultural beliefs". Those, you know, in social sciences, have a whooooole different signification to "brainwashed." But hey, I like how you twist my words, so please, keep amusing me  (via pm of course, this thread is not the place for this)Also, props for trying to sound smart but really coming off as yet another person who's too shortsighted and biased against certain authors to just go and brand them with certain theories. Next time try to actually go and read Žižek's books. I know, the whole eastern Europe thing frightens you a little bit, but I can assure you, he's far more than just a "simplistic Marxist dualistic reduction of the world". I specially suggest his "Defense of intolerance". But if you just wrote three paragraphs sounding like a Tea Party member who thinks marxism is the root of all evil, then I guess it won't do any good. But just for clarification, I do not think any of the debaters are brainwashed, stupid or something like that. It's simply that you won't get anywhere because just like Kwark can argue that Richard Hawkins set foot on this Island in around 1590, so can the argentines argue that this corsair wasn't the first but rather Alonso de Camargo in around 1540, who called the island Incógnita and continue for the rest of their lives and they probably won't find and amicable solution as to who is the rightful owner of the island, considering all the XVIII century stuff that is quite mysterious to all historians (as to what truly went on and its importance afterwards).But just a quick note, on the 1833 english raid, there WERE argentinians there, it wasn't a peaceful re-occupation of the island. That bit, both parties have, at least in the history department, agreed on. On June 17 2011 12:49 KwarK wrote: Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good. May I ask why? I never said you were brainwashed and if it came off like that I apologize. | ||
KwarK
United States42957 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:43 Mephiztopheles1 wrote: May I ask why? I never said you were brainwashed and if it came off like that I apologize. Never doubting beliefs because of an ideology is tantamount to being brainwashed. One of the reasons I enjoy interacting with other people on the internet is because of the opportunity to discover challenges to my beliefs. However I believe 90% of what you said is generic post modernist bullshit which poses no answers and simply evades questions by denying everything. | ||
|
raviy
Australia207 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote: What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated? So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation? Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it. edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation. It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this. How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited? I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:52 raviy wrote: It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this. How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited? I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force. How does "the white man" conquering a place 300 years ago make self-determination flawed? Honestly, if you don't believe in self-determination you sound like the imperialists of old you criticize so much. A group of people come to a consensus as to which political entity they want to be a part of with their own freedom of choice and that has no moral basis? Why do you believe their choice counts for nothing? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42957 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:52 raviy wrote: It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this. How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited? I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force. I am entirely confident that if there was a group of residents who wished to be independent or even become part of Argentina then the UK would put it to a vote and go with the results. The island is not held by force, it is held by the resolve of the people who live there. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:52 raviy wrote: It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this. How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited? I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force. Even if there was a complete absence of all other factors, the simple fact that the entirety of the people living on the islands wish to become a part of a particular political entity is rightful claim enough. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world. I think England should sue Germany for the Saxon population migration. Also, Italy and Spain and the Balkans have a real beef with the Slavs who have a real beef with the Mongols. Your argument is contradictory and misplaced sour grapes; people move and it usually ends up in war between them and the people already living where they move to. People are brutal to each other, one side loses and they get the shitty end of the stick. The only time in the history of the world a population migration has been held up as inherently wrong and based on the evil nature of the people moving is when some whites left Europe for the Americans and Australia. That speaks something to the validity of your argument about "justification for ethnic cleansing." Hah, your perspective on Žižek is highly amusing as well, and completely shows the point I was trying to convey, although on a whole different level Have you ever met anyone who has not amused you? I never said neither debater here is brainwashed, but I've had experience dealing with people thinking you're a marxist because you've read Žižek, Althusser and Marcuse, other accusing you of post-modernist spewer of crap 'cause you also read Lyotard, Baudrillard, Lipovetsky and Bayard, others calling you outdated because you still read Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Benjamin and so on and so forth. So please, do read, and I mean as in reading words as I wrote them. Key words: "Cultural beliefs". Those, you know, in social sciences, have a whooooole different signification to "brainwashed." But hey, I like how you twist my words, so please, keep amusing me (via pm of course, this thread is not the place for this) But what you are saying is very relevant to this argument. I'm pretty sure appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so I don't think I need to name a dozen philosophers and historians and general academics I've read because that obviously means I am right and you are wrong and it is amusing that you would disagree. "Cultural beliefs" in the way you mean it is a way to declare victory without having to actually win. You're splitting hairs when you say you don't mean "brainwashing." Also, props for trying to sound smart but really coming off as yet another person who's too shortsighted and biased against certain authors to just go and brand them with certain theories. Next time try to actually go and read Žižek's books. I know, the whole eastern Europe thing frightens you a little bit, but I can assure you, he's far more than just a "simplistic Marxist dualistic reduction of the world". I specially suggest his "Defense of intolerance". But if you just wrote three paragraphs sounding like a Tea Party member who thinks marxism is the root of all evil, then I guess it won't do any good. How do you know I haven't? Because I think he's shallow? Well I'm sorry I don't agree with you, this must mean I am ignorant and shortsighted and biased. I didn't say dualistic, I said arbitrary division. If I did say dualistic anywhere it was a typo. No the Eastern European thing doesn't frighten me at all, the same tired old ideas presented as cutting-edge thinking does though. And then the zinger, the Tea Party! The ultimate charge of being stupid! Speaks for itself really. Marxism is the root of all evil? It is the root of plenty of evils, not all of them though. What it is is an ignorant philosophy that spawns a lot of terrible thinking. But just for clarification, I do not think any of the debaters are brainwashed, stupid or something like that. It's simply that you won't get anywhere because just like Kwark can argue that Richard Hawkins set foot on this Island in around 1590, so can the argentines argue that this corsair wasn't the first but rather Alonso de Camargo in around 1540, who called the island Incógnita and continue for the rest of their lives and they probably won't find and amicable solution as to who is the rightful owner of the island, considering all the XVIII century stuff that is quite mysterious to all historians (as to what truly went on and its importance afterwards).But just a quick note, on the 1833 english raid, there WERE argentinians there, it wasn't a peaceful re-occupation of the island. That bit, both parties have, at least in the history department, agreed on. No, that isn't what you said, that you can't get anywhere from a "who was here first" argument as to who "owns" land, you said this: 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. Which is essentially not an explanation of the concept of "cultural beliefs" as you later portray them to be but instead first an extended attack along Marxist lines using blatantly anti-European and anti-white stereotypes as examples, followed by distillation of the academic world to unconscious servitors of the bad system. As I said, the concept has been around a long time, and it is exactly the same thinking that led socialists to declare again and again that the plutocrats were "mystifying" the proletariat in democracies to vote against their class interest. Except here you are saying it isn't men doing it, it is the culture itself. That we can't help ourselves, in essence. And that these great men have seen past the veil. I don't buy it, you can be amused by it all you want, but your way of looking at the world is too simple to be realistic. And what's amusing about you is that you think that it is too complex to be unrealistic. Also, don't post a reply and say in the middle of it, "we should be talking about this in PM." Then PM it instead of posting it, if you post something in public people should have the opportunity to reply in public, if you think it should be private then initiate that in private and they should reciprocate. That's fair. | ||
|
Mephiztopheles1
1124 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:51 KwarK wrote: Never doubting beliefs because of an ideology is tantamount to being brainwashed. One of the reasons I enjoy interacting with other people on the internet is because of the opportunity to discover challenges to my beliefs. However I believe 90% of what you said is generic post modernist bullshit which poses no answers and simply evades questions by denying everything. I see, well in that case, I'll say I wasn't using ideology in that sense but in broader sense where ideology is a set of beliefs translated into cultural practices and a certain discourse that is beyond the individual self, not simple thoughts and concepts that form a theoretical discourse which individual thought can later make use of in a fully conscious way. That being said, let's see, you accuse me of postmodernist spewer of crap who just denies everything while posing no answers, so let's recapitulate some of your answer thus far. Argentina didn't even exist until 1811, British use of the islands predates that by centuries. The islands are a long way outside Argentinian national waters, being the closest landmass to the islands means nothing if they are populated and they don't wish to be governed by you. Every argument for the Falklands belonging to Argentina can be reversed with just as much validity for Argentina belonging to Britain (by virtue of the Falklands) because it is simply an argument of proximity; history, nationality, self determination, culture and international law are all on the side of Britain. The only reason this is an issue at all is for internal Argentinian political reasons. Well, first, please direct me to a non-contested historical source that isn't Wikipedia for fucks sake (and I'm the post-modernist :D) where it states clearly and concisely that the Malvinas/Falklands were OCCUPIED by the british until 1764 when french settlers arrived to the island (War of the Seven years) and one year later bought by the Spanish Empire and made dependent of the governorate of... Buenos Aires, making the english there, well, intruders. And please, don't even bother with John Davids. Now, according to the Treaty of Tordesillas, the island was under Spanish jurisdiction and according to this little small thing called "right of succession", I know, something the british never concerned themselves with (why would they, they were bound to be the next empire), this piece of land is inherited by that country which later claimed independence and was the closest to the island called Provincias del Río de la Plata, later to be named Argentina. I know this might seem a little odd to you, but this treaty has been the diplomatic basis of all foreign affairs in Ibero-america since well, a lot of time and you'd never guessed it, the british empire trampled all over it like any good empire and just told the argentinians to fuck off. But I know, it's not about imperialism, it's all about self-determination  This without mentioning neither the Munster nor the American treaties, both of which recognized Spanish possession of the island in the XVII century. Brits were on the island long before that Argentine mission. They were on the island long before Argentina existed. When they found the island nobody lived there. I never wanted to answer this because it's just so much crap, but who exactly was living there at the moment? Unless you count the inscriptions of the Port Egmont soldiers as "people" living there "long before that Argentine mission. I'll not get into Jewett and the uti possidetis principle because we'll get nowhere if we dwell too much into that (y'know, just like Argentina and England dwelling on this for so long calling each other's conception of the international law system flawed) although it has to be said that England did not protest this at the time, it only came to do so in 1920, hundred years later, but that's alright. History has it that Pablo Aregueti was named governor of the Malvinas/Falklands in 1823 and in 1825 a friendship, navigation and trading treaty was signed by Argentina and England, where the latter not only recognized the former's independence but also makes ZERO claims to the Malvinas/Falklands. Then along comes Vernet and the whole seal affair which leads to the present day. So, no, british were not Occupying the island nor was british personnel there long before "that Argentine mission." The clever thing was that in 1832, Pinedo and the rest of the administrative staff are forced to leave the island at the hands of Goebel and a letter from your majesty where it claimed sovereignty of the island, which is, in british eyes, a more than sufficient case for their right of the island, it has nothing to do with imperialism. It was merely a letter telling the argentines to fuck off, have a nice day, go back to your mainland, we'll be having tiffin' now. But let's review the whole thing. France comes first, Spain buys off the thing from France. In 1770 England tries to say it is their own but four years later, it is agreed by both kingdoms it is Spanish territory and it continues to be so until 1811 where according to an american historian it passes to be res nullis until 1820 when another american claims it for Argentina and it continues to be like that until 1832 where it is posteriorly declared again res nullis by none other than the british empire and goes into british hands effectively in 1833. Edit: ^^^^ I said PM me, not derail the thread further -_- | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
Any claim from Argentina has to take them into account, they can't just be ignored. As others have said if the situation changes and the islands vote to join Argentina, then fair enough. But they have chosen time and again to remain British. | ||
|
Mephiztopheles1
1124 Posts
On June 17 2011 15:44 Sanctimonius wrote: That is a very detailed post with lots of historical details in it. Still doesn't do anything to deal with the situation of today - the islands are populated by people who have been there for nearly two centuries, who speak English and consider themselves British. Any claim from Argentina has to take them into account, they can't just be ignored. As others have said if the situation changes and the islands vote to join Argentina, then fair enough. But they have chosen time and again to remain British. Quick, because I'm answering the guy above me :D I never argued about the current situation with the current inhabitants as I do agree any decision has to take all these people living there right now into account, but the fight between these two is fought greatly in the field of history. But it does have to do with the diplomatic feud between the two countries as this is pretty much what both countries say it's true and the other says it's false and why one is the "rightful" owner and the other is not. If you will, Argentina, recognizes that for anyone going there right now, it'll be a british colony, but for them it was and has always been argentinian territory, as in, they don't care who the people living there are, the land they live on "is" argentinian. And british argue that well, it's been "theirs" since 1833 and "more" and that people living there are british, not argentinian and that removing them from the land would be a shock too great. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On June 17 2011 11:34 Carras wrote: i repeat,stealing sth and holding it 200 years doesnt make it yours for more information about how it was "stolen" twice just read the rest of my posts. Of course it does, nearly every country was in other hands at one time or another. | ||
|
betaV1.25
425 Posts
On June 17 2011 17:05 Maenander wrote: Of course it does, nearly every country was in other hands at one time or another. I Agree. Its rather clear that you cannot force entire groups op population that have been in a place for a couple of hunderd years to accept a new nationality. If you dont agree with this then you should allso claim that every spanish decendant in Argentina should be moved and the natives restored in power. Or perhaps US should give California back to mexico? | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
On June 17 2011 17:30 betaV1.25 wrote: I Agree. Its rather clear that you cannot force entire groups op population that have been in a place for a couple of hunderd years to accept a new nationality. If you dont agree with this then you should allso claim that every spanish decendant in Argentina should be moved and the natives restored in power. Or perhaps US should give California back to mexico? And that everyone in the US and Canada need to go back to Europe. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4338 Posts
This is like China claiming all of the South China Sea down to Malaysia | ||
|
eNbee
Belgium487 Posts
On June 17 2011 17:44 tokicheese wrote: And that everyone in the US and Canada need to go back to Europe. Only the pretty ones! OT: interesting discussion, I'll remain on the sidelines though | ||
| ||
