Imperialism

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, villakram said:

... regarding Kings and Queens trading this and that for honor, riches, sons or daughters and other thoroughly egalitarian principles.

Yup, all above board Guv!

Might as well go back to stone age tribes then. Ridiculous perspective.

 

[KentVillan]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Might as well go back to stone age tribes then. Ridiculous perspective.

 

It’s a fair point, no? Treaties signed centuries ago were aristocratic horse trading. It’s not really until most countries became democracies in the 20th century and institutions like the UN developed that the global political order started to look more like something that people arrived at via rules, rights and so on.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It’s a fair point, no? Treaties signed centuries ago were aristocratic horse trading. It’s not really until most countries became democracies in the 20th century and institutions like the UN developed that the global political order started to look more like something that people arrived at via rules, rights and so on.

I think you and I are reading the post differently. What you've said is perfectly rational and obvious. It's hard to disagree with

I'm reading the post as saying that rulers of land trading land shoud be ignored as they aren't legitimate

[Mandy Lifeboats]

57 minutes ago, villakram said:

... regarding Kings and Queens trading this and that for honor, riches, sons or daughters and other thoroughly egalitarian principles.

Yup, all above board Guv!

Oh.......I see now........

That's a very clear answer to: 

- Why do you think Canada/ Australia isn't independent from the UK?  

- Why do you think that Argentina are the rightful owners of the Falklands. 

[KentVillan]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

I think you and I are reading the post differently. What you've said is perfectly rational and obvious. It's hard to disagree with

I'm reading the post as saying that rulers of land trading land shoud be ignored as they aren't legitimate

My read is basically - if your argument for the legitimacy of (eg) Gibraltar’s status is a series of treaties signed in the 18th century, that’s more flawed than (eg) the territorial agreements made in Europe at the end of WWII (which still involved all kinds of questionable outcomes, but at least were negotiated in a *slightly* more principled way… yes still spoils of war to some extent, but I think higher ideals were at play.)

FWIW, I think the subsequent referendums in Gibraltar in the 20th century carry sufficient legitimacy, so the point is moot, but just as an example linking back to what @Mandy Lifeboatswas saying.

The point is the entire contemporary political order contains a lot of hangovers from times when agreements were not arrived at in a particular fair or reasonable way. Hence we still have these flashpoints like Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, and so on.

That doesn’t mean there’s any sensible prospect of rewinding the clock, and you have to work with things as they are, but it’s worth acknowledging the historic grievances anyway.

I’m in favour of the people who live in Gibraltar, the Falklands, Australia, New Zealand, Ukraine, etc being able to decide their status, but I understand why it divides opinion, and why Argentina, Spain, and even Russia would feel differently.

[fruitvilla]

7 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I’m in favour of the people who live in Gibraltar, the Falklands, Australia, New Zealand, Ukraine, etc being able to decide their status, but I understand why it divides opinion, and why Argentina, Spain, and even Russia would feel differently.

Yeah ... when a country pumps in its people into a colony, and when that colony gains independence, then what? That country has often a large if not majority of occupiers perhaps reminiscing for the good old days of the occupation. In the case of Canada and Australia, at independence had an overwhelming majority of occupiers. Similarly no doubt for Plazas de soberanía should they revert. 

A call for a pragmatic approach makes sense ... I'm not sure what a pragmatic result looks like.

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Yeah ... when a country pumps in its people into a colony, and when that colony gains independence, then what? That country has often a large if not majority of occupiers perhaps reminiscing for the good old days of the occupation. In the case of Canada and Australia, at independence had an overwhelming majority of occupiers. Similarly no doubt for Plazas de soberanía should they revert. 

A call for a pragmatic approach makes sense ... I'm not sure what a pragmatic result looks like.

There’s an interesting exercise to be done on what point in history do you legitimise the new comers.

I don’t think anyone would argue the unionists should be turfed out of Northern Ireland or be denied a vote. But if the French had occupied part of the south coast of england 200 years ago, would that now be legitimately theirs? Would we let French settlers descendants vote on whether they stayed french or became english? Then to go a bit Godwin, would we allow second or third generation Germans have a legitimate claim on Hampshire had that happened? Then there’s Russians in Crimea.

I wonder where the cut off is.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

99.9% of the land acquired for the British Empire was acquired by means that were completely indefensible. 

My main point is simply that the Falklands and Gibraltar are the exception.   We do have very legitimate claims to both. These weren't like Australia where we "found" the land, deemed the inhabitants to be sub-human and ethnically cleansed it.  

My secondary point is that even if Gibraltar and Falklands aren't British, the countries claiming ownership have very flawed claims.  

But compare that position to somewhere like Palestine.  Why the hell were we there and look at the horrendous position we left it in.  But even if we hadn't been involved there's thousands of years of actual history plus thousands of years of religious beliefs to unravel.  

 

 

[fruitvilla]

What were the Brits doing there? They were there for five minutes. We should be asking what were the Romans doing there. They were knocking around for centuries.

[maqroll]

5 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

99.9% of the land acquired for the British Empire was acquired by means that were completely indefensible. 

My main point is simply that the Falklands and Gibraltar are the exception.   We do have very legitimate claims to both. These weren't like Australia where we "found" the land, deemed the inhabitants to be sub-human and ethnically cleansed it.  

My secondary point is that even if Gibraltar and Falklands aren't British, the countries claiming ownership have very flawed claims.  

But compare that position to somewhere like Palestine.  Why the hell were we there and look at the horrendous position we left it in.  But even if we hadn't been involved there's thousands of years of actual history plus thousands of years of religious beliefs to unravel.  

 

 

You can probably add Bermuda to that list. Uninhabited before Euros. 

[villakram]

7 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Oh.......I see now........

That's a very clear answer to: 

- Why do you think Canada/ Australia isn't independent from the UK?  

- Why do you think that Argentina are the rightful owners of the Falklands. 

King Charles is the head of state for Canada and Australia.

They make more sense than an Island thousands of miles away.

But, you know democracy and freedom. What do the Falklands, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Hong Kong and Diego Garcia have in common. Yay, the royal navy, freedom for all.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

5 hours ago, villakram said:

King Charles is the head of state for Canada and Australia.

They make more sense than an Island thousands of miles away.

But, you know democracy and freedom. What do the Falklands, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Hong Kong and Diego Garcia have in common. Yay, the royal navy, freedom for all.

Having Charles as head of state does not make you part of the British Empire.

I love your idea that Argentina should own the Falklands because it’s closest. 

When will the US be giving Alaska to Canada?  They are much closer. There are hundreds of examples like that.  Just from memory  - UK, Spain, Denmark, Russia, Portugal, Turkey and France all own land that’s closer to another country. 

  
 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling

[chrisp65]

5 hours ago, villakram said:

King Charles is the head of state for Canada and Australia.

They make more sense than an Island thousands of miles away.

But, you know democracy and freedom. What do the Falklands, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Hong Kong and Diego Garcia have in common. Yay, the royal navy, freedom for all.

Diego Garcia is by far your strongest suit here, I’d push that one. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Diego Garcia is by far your strongest suit here, I’d push that one. 

Discovered uninhabited by a Portuguese Captain in the employment of Spain.  
First settled by the French.  Handed to the UK partially by treaty and partially by purchase. 

Not sure of the Royal Navy’s role in this one.  
 

[villakram]

8 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Discovered uninhabited by a Portuguese Captain in the employment of Spain.  
First settled by the French.  Handed to the UK partially by treaty and partially by purchase. 

Not sure of the Royal Navy’s role in this one.  
 

They gave (leaseed or fully, unsure) it to the US when the Brit empire was running out of steam.

[villakram]

8 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Having Charles as head of state does not make you part of the British Empire.

I love your idea that Argentina should own the Falklands because it’s closest. 

When will the US be giving Alaska to Canada?  They are much closer. There are hundreds of examples like that.  Just from memory  - UK, Spain, Denmark, Russia, Portugal, Turkey and France all own land that’s closer to another country. 

  
 

 

 

I hope you take a day off to take in the coronation pageantry.

Empires acting empire like all through history, you don't say. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

8 minutes ago, villakram said:

They gave (leaseed or fully, unsure) it to the US when the Brit empire was running out of steam.

It was leased in 1966.  But it wasn't the Royal Navy it was the British Government. 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

It was leased in 1966.  But it wasn't the Royal Navy it was the British Government. 

Isn't Diego Garcia/Chagos islands one of those where the UN has said the UK needs to give it back to Mauritius, but the US and UK have a massive base there and loads of strategic interest in not doing so, so we've just ignored the UN? I'm pretty sure we treated the people living there absolutely appallingly - basically forcefully evicted them from their homes. I think we've very badly polluted the place too. All this in living memory for some, so it's not like the old historical ones like the Falklands which goes back centuries. I might be a bit muddled, on this, mind, but I'm sure I'm at least partially right.

[chrisp65]

Blandy references living memory. 

In a cruel twist, we actually have people here that want to be sent home.

As far as saying the Island was unoccupied when we arrived, I’m not sure that region was working from the same rule book. I’d suggest there was a mobile sea faring populace that was quite fluid and might have just not been there when we happened across it.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Isn't Diego Garcia/Chagos islands one of those where the UN has said the UK needs to give it back to Mauritius, but the US and UK have a massive base there and loads of strategic interest in not doing so, so we've just ignored the UN? I'm pretty sure we treated the people living there absolutely appallingly - basically forcefully evicted them from their homes. I think we've very badly polluted the place too. All this in living memory for some, so it's not like the old historical ones like the Falklands which goes back centuries. I might be a bit muddled, on this, mind, but I'm sure I'm at least partially right.

That's the one.  The UK behaved appalling.

But @villakramseems to think it was an island discovered by the Royal Navy (It wasn't) and conquered by the Royal Navy (it wasn't).  

There are enough instances of the UK acting badly throughout history.  There is no need to make up history.