this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 0 points 2 years ago (11 children)

Just a reminder: that there was no one living in the Falklands prior to the UK and France showing up. My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby. While it's weird that the UK has a colony all the way down at the tip of South America, there's no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership due to the population being mostly British and French.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

beginning of human habitation

They're not Aboriginal though.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.

In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.

Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina's objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.

In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.

That's not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.

Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.

[–] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you're still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn't they technically belong to France by your logic?

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you’re still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn’t they technically belong to France by your logic?

Depends on when who vacated the island and who took it over after that, and if vacating even means giving up on ownership or not (IANAL).

The link I've been posting goes over the history, and nations have come and gone and come and gone and come and kicked out others, on that island. Its a mess.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)