Okay but these days when someone says colonialism, they typically mean the colonisation of already inhabited lands and the subjugation of natives. It’s a pretty loaded word these days.
The original commenter has slightly missed the point that there were no previous inhabitants, in my opinion.
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
You guys can take Justin Bieber and Pierre Polivre. We don’t want them. I’m sure we can find some remote shed to lock Palin away in while you look after those two.
geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one
I’m pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Even if your bullshit wasn’t bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn’t a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that’s not the point I’m trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by “first rights”, and not “might makes right”, is what I’m speaking towards.
The guy might be a nutjob but I don’t think he’s talking about getting them back through war, Argentina has next to no military.
Having colonies in the year 2023 is ridiculous though, I don’t know why so many comments act like Britain is in the right here in any way whatsoever.
Since when were the Falklands an example of colonialism? Nobody lived there until the Europeans showed up.
deleted by creator
That’s why I was careful to choose the word “colonialism” (which is what the comment I replied to was implying) instead of just “colony.”
My point was the original commenter never said it was an example of colonialism.
The original commenter wrote:
If you can’t see how that heavily implies colonialism, I don’t know what more to tell you.
Okay but these days when someone says colonialism, they typically mean the colonisation of already inhabited lands and the subjugation of natives. It’s a pretty loaded word these days.
The original commenter has slightly missed the point that there were no previous inhabitants, in my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
Wait, can we give Sarah Palin to Canada? Seems like a fair trade to me.
You guys can take Justin Bieber and Pierre Polivre. We don’t want them. I’m sure we can find some remote shed to lock Palin away in while you look after those two.
I’m pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute .
Even if your bullshit wasn’t bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn’t a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that’s not the point I’m trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by “first rights”, and not “might makes right”, is what I’m speaking towards.
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
No. Think Argentina has the strongest claim based on previous ownership from Spain, and being the nearest nation to the islands.
But the first settlement there was french, so you’re wrong.
They left though, and then Spain was there.
Agreed about owning colonies. But that’s not what this is.
Because the population of the Falklands (that we installed there) want to remain part of Britain for whatever stupid reason.
No one else was there. Why would they want to be part of anything else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute