EPTyou wanna include ireland, scotland, wales, i dont care
Falklands referendum. - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
you wanna include ireland, scotland, wales, i dont care | ||
|
Painmaker
Uruguay230 Posts
On April 13 2013 18:45 Bill Murray wrote: Puru? Aztecs? Both conquered by Spain... Pizaro, and Cortez But then the other european powers had their hand in the game and tried to have a piece of the cake... each one of them ignoring what had to be done in the first place to bring said cake to the game (ignoring is an understatement) | ||
|
kukarachaa
United States284 Posts
| ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
How does it affect the daily life of any argentinan in the slightest ? Do they have economic disadvantages because of it or what the heck do they even care ? This argentinain power play is kust to dumb down people and redirect their anger from the political mess inside to the outside, just like North Korea or Iran does. I mean I could understand if falkland islands where huge with 100ks of population and oil and what not that they quarrel about it, but this is just .... | ||
|
Sjokola
Netherlands800 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
 On April 13 2013 18:40 Painmaker wrote: Then again the only reason your argument works is because there isn't enough indian power to fight over the land... if that were the case, you wouldn't be replying to this thread Stop shitting up the thread with your stupid comments and multiple posts. Atrocities committed in the past do not justify present day atrocities, you can't say "you were fine with displacing native peoples a few hundred years ago so you can't disagree with it now" and call everyone fucking hypocrites... that's insanely stupid. | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
On April 13 2013 19:03 Sjokola wrote: Two wrongs don't make a right. Because European colonists did terrible things to the locals in South America and took their land doesn't give Argentina the right to take land from the inhabitants of an Island where they've lived for generations. No one denies what the Spaniards, Dutch, French, Belgians, British and Portuguese have done around the world but it's weird to say that everybody else gets a turn now. They can try, but at least they should have the military power to back it up if they claim them by force, otherwise it just politcial charade. | ||
|
Painmaker
Uruguay230 Posts
On April 13 2013 19:09 Holy_AT wrote: They can try, but at least they should have the military power to back it up if they claim them by force, otherwise it just politcial charade. This, and if they do, you can say it's wrong for some reason... but that reason it's not universal, it's not the truth... just as it wasn't when the Spaniards, Dutch, Belgians, British and Portuguese did it. My point being, they can't do it... we know it, they don't have the power to do it. But don't try to hide it under flase moral and "sanity" when all the powerful countries in the world just try to extend it's dominion over the rest... there's no moral ground... just power. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On April 13 2013 19:23 Painmaker wrote: This, and if they do, you can say it's wrong for some reason... but that reason it's not universal, it's not the truth... just as it wasn't when the Spaniards, Dutch, Belgians, British and Portuguese did it. My point being, they can't do it... we know it, they don't have the power to do it. But don't try to hide it under flase moral and "sanity" when all the powerful countries in the world just try to extend it's dominion over the rest... there's no moral ground... just power. Are you communicating with us from like two centuries ago or do you just refuse to acknowledge the change this world and people have undergone in that time? The only justifiable military activities in the present day are self-defence and liberation. In case you didn't notice we gave the Falklands the chance to decide for themselves, which already is a clear case of morality triumphing over power. | ||
|
Painmaker
Uruguay230 Posts
On April 13 2013 18:20 HauntYou wrote: Painmaker, let's not start slinging mud in what's been a relatively civil discussion? Hyperbole and caps lock really don't help make your point. You might want to step back, take a breath and wonder if you're a bit too personally invested. The undeniable fact that the U.K., like many countries, has had a blatant disregard for the process of self-determination whenever it suits them doesn't mean their defense of self-determination is invalid. It makes it ironic, not wrong. Last post for now. But yes we need mud, this whole thing is covered with it, pretending that this is just fair talks is an illusion. It's so easy to throw shit aroud and then realize everything is covered with it. But if you tell the the very people you threw shit at that shit throwing should stop, they will have doubts about it...to say the least | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On April 13 2013 18:21 Painmaker wrote: Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico. Self determinsm worked just fine there right? self determination is a sociological concept only really developed in the last 100 years. by your logic since we once kept slaves we should always keep slaves, or since world powers strived to have empires we should just invade each other all the time. your logic seems to forget about that thing called time. | ||
|
Eyx
England165 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Are you communicating with us from like two centuries ago or do you just refuse to acknowledge the change this world and people have undergone in that time? Atrocities committed in the past do not justify present day atrocities When Tenochtitlan finally fell in 1521, Cortes had been waging a two-year war against the Aztec confederacy. For the Spanish and their Indian allies, it was a war of extermination, where not death, but capture was the worst fate which awaited the warrior. It was also a war of human sacrifice, cannibalism, and human harvesting, as per Aztec tradition. Not only did the Spaniards not perform a 'tit for tat' on their enemies, they also, at great risk to their own safety, prohibited their allies from performing such rites as were regular within their warrior cultures, but which were offensive to Christian, human dignity. Upon capturing Tenochtitlan, which the Aztecs defended almost literally to the last man, the Indian allies would have exterminated the Aztecs were it not for Spanish restraint. They treated their defeated enemy chivalrously, if harshly, far better than the treatment they themselves had received. Is there something we know today that the rude and scruffy Spanish adventurers, facing perpetual extermination from a merciless enemy, but with songs in their hearts and crosses on their breasts did not know 5 centuries ago? | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
Also, to whoever it was that said Britain has a poor track record in respecting native wishes, please look up India, Hong Kong, Canada, Australia and near everywhere else we used to own. Yes, in many instances we invaded and took land from indigenous peoples. Yes, we gave it up peacefully when the time came. We have always respected, in modern times, the wishes of people living there. That's why we're giving Scotland the chance to decide for itself whether it wants to be a separate country, and it's why we gave the same chance to the Falklands. It's saddens me, and it's more than a little ironic, that we get labelled as a colonising power in Argentina. We're not the ones who outright ignored the referendum, and said the wishes of the islanders do not matter. That was that Argentine woman, someone else who has a tenuous grasp on actual history. | ||
|
Keldrath
United States449 Posts
on one side we've got the british claim of self determination, which is a great claim, the people there want to remain british. but on the other, we've got a case of forcibly taken land that was given to them by spain upon becomming independant from it in 1816. land which the UK began illegally occupying in 1833. I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling. pretty messy situation if you ask me, but also it seems like it hurts less people for it to remain british. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote: I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling. so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
I would suggest they knew far more how much their 'crusade' was motivated by greed and gold. Cortes, Pizarro, hell, Columbus weren't coming to the New World looking for evangelical opportunities. Yes the Aztecs were cruel, and in many ways so were the other native Amerindians, but try not to hold the conquistadors or the New World colonists up as holy pilgrims, please. I would also wonder what, exactly, this has to do with uninhabited islands settled continuously by Britain for centuries, but what they hey. No human action is ever dominated by a single motive. It was not Cortes' job to evangelise the Indians, that job was left to the Bishop de la Casas, who turned out to be a great political asset, since he was a great deal more tactful in dealing with the Indians than the 'fighting' Conquistadors, including his insistence that conversions under duress were useless. When back in Spain, his great contribution was arguing in favour of Indigenous Indian rights in the debate of Valladoid, a debate which he triumphed in securing Royal decree of regulations concerning the treatment of New World autochthons, decrees which were mostly ignored by the settlers. In the case of Cortes, one prominent reason was that in Cuba, he went back on his amourous advances with the daughter of a prominent family, a family well connected with the governor, Velasquez, with whom he constantly clashed, and who had Cortes imprisoned. Cortes was 'pulled' towards Mexico by the promise of adventure and gain, but more immediately, he was pushed unto new triumphs because he could not remain where he was. Whether Cortes was personally possessed of greater cupidity than his men is debatable, but each man who went on his expedition, undoubtedly had a similarly tangled story to tell. Pizarro was similarly an adventurer and man of chivalrous ambition, but he had the precedence of Pizarro already when he set off for Panama. Pizarro was an illegitimate and illiterate man, perhaps endowed with fewer natural abilities and instincts than Cortes, but he also had a prudential adviser in the person of Hernando de Luque, who similarly protected the Indians from the worst of Spanish cupidity and temptation. Looking back on their history, yes, the Conquistadors risked their lives against almost hopeless odds for the promise of reward, but on other instances, they also put their lives at considerable risk for religious or chivalrous reasons, when it would have been much easier to be a profiteer without scruples. The record of their actions in Mexico and Peru shows the injustice of claiming that they were devoid of them. The overarching point remains: when I read of the history of the Spanish in Mexico and Peru, what impressed me was not how, stranded on a continent where the dominant political language was human sacrifice, cannibalism and massacre, the Spaniards failed to live up to the example of Mother Theresa. What impressed me was how much of their own values and religious conviction they maintained under such circumstances, rather than allow the nature of the continent to assimilate them to its sanguinary ways. The Lord of the Flies thesis of humanity is best refuted by their example, and I decry the awful assumption, that their values, if not in exactly accord with our own, have to suffer five centuries of progress before they stood up to the altruism of our keyboard warriors. | ||
|
Keldrath
United States449 Posts
On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote: so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
On April 13 2013 18:30 Painmaker wrote: this doesnt even make sende. You could go on... there were no chinese before china was a thing... | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
Cortes isn't an example to hold up, for me. He set off in search of wealth, and because he had burned his bridges back home. It was succeed or die - I guess his bravery and perseverance cannot be questioned. But he didn't care about the natives, not one jot. He came to exploit the local politics to his advantage, set off a chain of events that caused the deaths of many natives and caused the collapse of more than one complex societies. Pizarro had a similar affect on the Incas, cheerfully ignoring promises and treaties agreed when it suited him, ransoming and using Atahualpa until he was no longer useful, then killing him and marching on the capital. Not exactly the actions of a decent man. I agree they were products of their times, and can hardly be faulted for that. Both were money grubbing adventure-whores seeking to further their own legends at the cost of human lives, and both effectively lucked out in being able to exploit situations that paved the way for their conquests with such tiny forces. They had incredible lives, and entertaining exploits, I won't deny it, but I failed to see much in their actions that inspired me, personally. | ||
| ||
