Imperialism

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, robby b said:

I don't dispute that the Falklands were uninhabited when the British Navy first saw them as perhaps that's true. Can you be sure about that though? Could the British Navy be sure about that at the time? Did they search the islands thoroughly or just sail past them?

What you don't mention though is some 'Argentinian' people (from the mainland that is now Argentina) being on the islands when some British people eventually started to settle them. A small number of 'Argentinians' admittedly but still. There is a version of history about them being chased off the islands by some Brits.

It's hard or impossible to know sometimes which version of history is the correct one, or the least incorrect.

OK.....there's a few points there. 

The earliest evidence of humans on the Falklands dates back 600 or 700 years.  But it takes the form of animals that were hunted and killed there.  There is no evidence of inhabitation.   

The Royal Navy produced the first definitive historical record of the Falklands.  They found it uninhabited.  This was not an age when the British would deny the existence of indigenous populations.  They would simply tell them that they were now British subjects and slaughter them if they objected.  

The French occupied the island.  They also found it uninhabited but they did notice the British Military Prescence.  They too were not known for worrying about trivialities like indigenous populations.  

There were clearly humans visiting the Falklands before the British (see above)  but they were not Argentinian because there was no such country.  They could have been from anywhere.  The British did chase off numerous visitors to the islands. But they did not eject settlers.  We did that in many places and recorded it in great detail.  But not 8n the Falklands.  

Argentina's claim on the Falkllands is simply that they are the nearest country to them. I can't dispute that.  But the Falklands is an anomaly in the building of the British Empire.  We didn't invade.  We didn't slaughter the indigenous population.  No-one noticed. No-one cared.  It wasn't hugely important.  It didn’t have lots of natural resources.  It was a handy place for ships to replenish stores and avoid bad weather.  We even abandoned it leaving just a plaque to remind people that it was ours.  

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I think it was the philosopher Izzard who said that a flag was essential when making territorial claims!

Do you hev a fleyg! 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Argentina's claim on the Falkllands is simply that they are the nearest country to them.

Just to add to this point, the Falklands may be closest to Argentina but they are also much further than the 200 nautical mile limit that is the internationally recognised convention for an exclusive economic zone.

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

I thought it was the Dutch, in 1600 who first found them. Nothing there but birds. 

A great post @blandy.  A really good potted history.  

The section above is the only bit that is a matter of debate. 

A British ship saw an island in that area.   It cannot be confirmed that it was the Falklands.  But there aren't many other possibilities.  It's highly likely that it was. 

A few years later a Dutch ship saw an island in that area that we know was the Falklands.  

A few years lated a British ship and crew actually landed on the Falklands. 

 

[Risso]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

I thought it was the Dutch, in 1600 who first found them. Nothing there but birds. Then 90 odd years later, the Brits found them, again, and named them, or named the water 'Falkland sound", then another 70 years and the French found them and actually colonised the uninhabited rocks. But they got cold and wet and sold the Islands to the Spanish. Then Spain and Britain had a fight, and then settled their differences ( the Brits having lost), but we were allowed back to live there under a treaty. But then the Brits left, because of a fight with America, you may have heard of, but "we" left behind a plaque asserting our ownership, like a sign on shop door saying "back in 10" . Then the Spanish also left, cold and wet, also leaving a plaque asserting their ownership. In 1820 an American pirate settled there, and claimed the islands for the Union of South America (which later became Argentina). Then later still, a German arrived there, asked both Britain and [Argentina] if he could settle there, what with it being deserted n'all. [Argentina] gave him permission to kill the seals for food and fur, but Britain didn't like that, because we wanted the seal fur. So the German guy calmed us down by asking us to protect him and the islands. Next the Pirate man and his crew raided some American ships and looted them etc. The Americans got cross about that and attacked and destroyed his colony and carted off the pirates to the US for some light punishment beating.

Next again, Argentina went there to set up a settlement, but a squabble amongst themselves saw the leader killed and the intended penal colony wasn't set up. At this point Britain got cross again, and gave the remaining Argentines on the islands a letter informing them that the King wished to exercise his sovereignty over the islands and requesting they leave. So in 1833 some of them left, not wanting a fight, what with there being hardly any of them there, and some of those that were, were mercenaries not from Argentina anyway. Some of them decided to stay. A mix of various nationals from all over. 22 people in total.

Next, after another year, Charles Darwin went there and found a decrepit, ruined little settlement with a handful of rogues and ne'redowells living there. On reporting this, the Brits sent a naval ship and a commander to look after the place and restore order. Which is how it remained until the Argentines invaded  in the 1980s, as a distraction from uprisings and protests in their country. Britain turned up and repelled the Argentines.

The people there in free and fair votes, have said they want to remain "British". And they do.

Tell Argentina to get back to us when they give the area back to the indingenous population and stop speaking Spanish!

[Mandy Lifeboats]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Just to add to this point, the Falklands may be closest to Argentina but they are also much further than the 200 nautical mile limit that is the internationally recognised convention for an exclusive economic zone.

 

Even that standpoint is subject to debate.  

The closest part of Argentina to the Falklands is " Isla de Los Estados".  That's an area where the indigenous population regard themselves as being part of the country we now know as Chile. 

 

 

 

[KentVillan]

The Falklands is a massive distraction in the whole colonialism debate. It’s not as if Argentina is ruled by the indigenous people who lived their pre-colonialism.

People tend to wrap it in with Gibraltar and Hong Kong, but it’s a completely different situation.

What is true is that the Falklands wouldn’t be a viable nation state without Britain’s economic and military support from thousands of miles away, so it is an oddity, and we only provide that support so we can exploit the oil resources and so on in the territory.

So it’s related to the imperialist economic mindset, but the idea Argentina has any more right to it than anywhere else is bollocks. It’s like saying Canada should have Greenland instead of Denmark.

One of the weird things about the debate about imperialism is so often the “anti-imperialists” express right-wing nationalist acquisitive arguments themselves. They aren’t trying to create a utopia, they just want their country to own land and resources that another country owns, with all the hierarchies and unfairness and minority repression of their own culture.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

The British Empire had a terrible history.  We were as bad as it gets. 

We should pay attention to history whether it's good or bad.  

We had absolutely no legitimate claim on 99% of the British Empire.  

Gibraltar and the Falklands are the other 1%. 

[rjw63]

5 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I love a good flag

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

What is true is that the Falklands wouldn’t be a viable nation state without Britain’s economic and military support from thousands of miles away, so it is an oddity, and we only provide that support so we can exploit the oil resources and so on in the territory.

to date how much oil have we exploited from the Falkland's ? 

 

 

[Xela]

35 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

The British Empire had a terrible history.  We were as bad as it gets. 

We should pay attention to history whether it's good or bad.  

Or as good as it gets? No-one empired better

[KentVillan]

23 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

to date how much oil have we exploited from the Falkland's ? 

Bugger all - but a huge amount was invested in oil exploration over a long period of time. It was a big factor in the Falklands’ importance to the UK.

[Rds1983]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

The British Empire had a terrible history.  We were as bad as it gets. 

We should pay attention to history whether it's good or bad.  

We had absolutely no legitimate claim on 99% of the British Empire.  

Gibraltar and the Falklands are the other 1%. 

Spain did cede Gibraltar to us but didn't we initially capture it when they were busy fighting the war of succession?

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

The British Empire had a terrible history.  We were as bad as it gets. 

We should pay attention to history whether it's good or bad.  

We had absolutely no legitimate claim on 99% of the British Empire.  

Gibraltar and the Falklands are the other 1%. 

What makes the claim to Gibraltar more legitimate than say Hong Kong or Northern Ireland? Genuine question, only have a superficial knowledge of the history.

[fruitvilla]

3 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

What makes the claim to Gibraltar more legitimate than say Hong Kong or Northern Ireland? Genuine question, only have a superficial knowledge of the history.

What makes any claim legitimate?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

14 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Spain did cede Gibraltar to us but didn't we initially capture it when they were busy fighting the war of succession?

We captured Gibraltar (along with the Dutch) on behalf of one of the parties claiming the Spanish throne.  It was then given to us by treaty. 

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

25 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

What makes the claim to Gibraltar more legitimate than say Hong Kong or Northern Ireland? Genuine question, only have a superficial knowledge of the history.

It's only my opinion.  I am sure others take the view that Northern Ireland is legitimate whilst Gibraltar isn't.  

But in my opinion .....we got Gibraltar in a settlement that suited all parties. The agreement was reviewed and renewed over a sustained period.  

Treaty of Utrecht 1713 ceded it to to Britain.

This was replaced by the Treaty of Paris in 1763. 

This was replaced by the Treaty of Versailles 1783. 

Spain would like Gibraltar back. But its a claim that doesn't have anywhere near the strength of feeling associated with other land disputes.  Its not even remotely like Palestine or Crimea where people are willing to die.  

 

 

[KentVillan]

50 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

What makes any claim legitimate?

Well this is a heavily debated topic in political philosophy, and there are no right answers, but for example most people would say eg the citizens of France have a stronger claim as a people on the mainland territory of France than, say, the authoritarian regime of Russia has on Ukraine.

It’s a jumble of history, power, democracy, diplomacy, etc., with lots of grey areas and subjectivity, and impossible to agree exactly but most people can agree on the extreme cases at either end of the spectrum.

I just wondered what it was about Gibraltar - treaties signed after wars of conquest tend to be biased towards the victors or at least the more powerful military force.

[Rolta]

21 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

It's only my opinion.  I am sure others take the view that Northern Ireland is legitimate whilst Gibraltar isn't.  

But in my opinion .....we got Gibraltar in a settlement that suited all parties. The agreement was reviewed and renewed over a sustained period.  

Treaty of Utrecht 1713 ceded it to to Britain.

This was replaced by the Treaty of Paris in 1763. 

This was replaced by the Treaty of Versailles 1783. 

Spain would like Gibraltar back. But its a claim that doesn't have anywhere near the strength of feeling associated with other land disputes.  Its not even remotely like Palestine or Crimea where people are willing to die.  

 

 

I live in Madrid and I've had some students go on about Gibraltar. I couldn't care less personally, but if you then say, 'What about Ceuta and Melilla, or even the Canary Islands' the one or two people I've had this conversation with do a really weird expression like their brains just short-circuited. True story. 

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Rolta

[fruitvilla]

4 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Well this is a heavily debated topic in political philosophy, and there are no right answers

Well ... here I think you have it exactly right.

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

most people would say eg the citizens of France have a stronger claim as a people on the mainland territory of France than ...

While true, an argument from popularity might not be a valid claim so to speak ... philosophically. But it sort of boils down to I've got it at the moment so it's mine.

8 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It’s a jumble of history, power, democracy, diplomacy, etc., with lots of grey areas and subjectivity, and impossible to agree exactly but most people can agree on the extreme cases at either end of the spectrum.

I currently live in British Columbia, most people here would argue most of the Crown land belongs to the government of Canada. Though there are treaties from a hundred years ago or so that have not been enacted that cede the land to indigenous peoples. So does a treaty (a piece of paper with signatures), whether here or say Utrecht have any weight with respect to a "claim"?

I just can't help thinking, deep down, there is something weird about the concept of ownership and rights in general.