▲ 409 ▼ After beating England, Argentine football players waved a banner which said: "The Malvinas Islands (Falkland) belong to Argentina" (lemmy.zip) submitted 3 weeks ago* by Zaelaa@lemmy.zip to c/pics@lemmy.world 255 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -48 points 3 weeks ago (3 children) They sure as fuck don't belong to England permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 weeks ago (3 children) They've belonged to them for over 200 years, I don't see why they don't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) Let's recap islands history: Deserted, no permanent population. French set up a settlement. English makes another, fight the French. Spain buys French port, fights British. Britain leaves. Spain leaves. Deserted, no permanent population. Argentina sets up a settlement. England comes back, fight them off. Conclusion: "rightfully British"? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that's accurate. However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina's claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Argentina didnt exist yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Yes it did. Argentina's "Venticinco de Mayo" revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically "the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata", that's being nitpicky). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Deserted, no permanent population. Argentina sets up a settlement. England comes back, fight them off. 🤔 Why did England come back? Are you saying Argentina won the war in the 1980s? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago What no, I'm talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in. They came back because the Argentinians occupied it. I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain's claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain. My post was mostly going for humour, but if we're looking at it a bit seriously, England's claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands. permalink fedilink source parent [+] BillCheddar@lemmy.world -13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Because "sail around the world and claim what you want" is fucking great if you're playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 28 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) But if the islands were empty before? Like there's islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there's also those who just doesn't. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] pipi1234@lemmy.world -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't empty at the time of the British invasion. There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago* The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians. Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago No garrison. Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't "people" in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago You have to be one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with on this platform, and that's genuinely saying something. You're completely unable to make a coherent case for your beliefs, and all your arguments basically amount to "it just is" Good luck with life, I guess. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago OK so now YOU'RE equating humans to literally just birds and plants permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago Eh, nobody else was using them for anything. permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -37 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Thatcher's dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn't going to get her to sleep with you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) You've still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you're not going for bullshit like "god gave our King that holy right". permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -18 points 3 weeks ago No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America permalink fedilink source parent [–] spock@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Does Argentina belong to the Spanish? Why do you think Argentina should take them? Who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came? Who lived in the Falkland islands, nobody. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (3 children) It doesn't matter who lived there first, because I'll swear on the King's life that the Brits weren't first Also, "who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?" Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago This doesn't show the Falkland islands were populated? permalink fedilink source parent [+] moriquende@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) We're talking about the Falkland islands, Argentina wasn't colonised by the British. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* The post you replied to explicitly says Argentina when mentioning the indigenous population, not the Falkland Islands. Btw there is proof that while the islands were not populated at the time the British came, they were used as camping and hunting grounds by indigenous people in the past. permalink fedilink source parent [+] tmijail@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago Not for lack of trying permalink fedilink source parent [–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago It does if the argument is about colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 point 3 weeks ago No one lived there before Europeans arrived. permalink fedilink source parent [–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago They sure are fuck belong to whoever the majority of inhabitants want it to belong to. Just like Greenland. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 weeks ago (3 children) They've belonged to them for over 200 years, I don't see why they don't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) Let's recap islands history: Deserted, no permanent population. French set up a settlement. English makes another, fight the French. Spain buys French port, fights British. Britain leaves. Spain leaves. Deserted, no permanent population. Argentina sets up a settlement. England comes back, fight them off. Conclusion: "rightfully British"? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that's accurate. However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina's claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Argentina didnt exist yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Yes it did. Argentina's "Venticinco de Mayo" revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically "the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata", that's being nitpicky). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Deserted, no permanent population. Argentina sets up a settlement. England comes back, fight them off. 🤔 Why did England come back? Are you saying Argentina won the war in the 1980s? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago What no, I'm talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in. They came back because the Argentinians occupied it. I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain's claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain. My post was mostly going for humour, but if we're looking at it a bit seriously, England's claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands. permalink fedilink source parent [+] BillCheddar@lemmy.world -13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Because "sail around the world and claim what you want" is fucking great if you're playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 28 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) But if the islands were empty before? Like there's islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there's also those who just doesn't. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] pipi1234@lemmy.world -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't empty at the time of the British invasion. There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago* The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians. Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago No garrison. Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't "people" in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago You have to be one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with on this platform, and that's genuinely saying something. You're completely unable to make a coherent case for your beliefs, and all your arguments basically amount to "it just is" Good luck with life, I guess. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago OK so now YOU'RE equating humans to literally just birds and plants permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago Eh, nobody else was using them for anything. permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -37 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Thatcher's dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn't going to get her to sleep with you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) You've still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you're not going for bullshit like "god gave our King that holy right". permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -18 points 3 weeks ago No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) Let's recap islands history: Deserted, no permanent population. French set up a settlement. English makes another, fight the French. Spain buys French port, fights British. Britain leaves. Spain leaves. Deserted, no permanent population. Argentina sets up a settlement. England comes back, fight them off. Conclusion: "rightfully British"? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that's accurate. However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina's claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Argentina didnt exist yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Yes it did. Argentina's "Venticinco de Mayo" revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically "the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata", that's being nitpicky). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Deserted, no permanent population. Argentina sets up a settlement. England comes back, fight them off. 🤔 Why did England come back? Are you saying Argentina won the war in the 1980s? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago What no, I'm talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in. They came back because the Argentinians occupied it. I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain's claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain. My post was mostly going for humour, but if we're looking at it a bit seriously, England's claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Argentina didnt exist yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Yes it did. Argentina's "Venticinco de Mayo" revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically "the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata", that's being nitpicky). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Yes it did. Argentina's "Venticinco de Mayo" revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically "the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata", that's being nitpicky). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child) Deserted, no permanent population. Argentina sets up a settlement. England comes back, fight them off. 🤔 Why did England come back? Are you saying Argentina won the war in the 1980s? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago What no, I'm talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in. They came back because the Argentinians occupied it. I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain's claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain. My post was mostly going for humour, but if we're looking at it a bit seriously, England's claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago What no, I'm talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in. They came back because the Argentinians occupied it. I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain's claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain. My post was mostly going for humour, but if we're looking at it a bit seriously, England's claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] BillCheddar@lemmy.world -13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Because "sail around the world and claim what you want" is fucking great if you're playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 28 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) But if the islands were empty before? Like there's islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there's also those who just doesn't. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] pipi1234@lemmy.world -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't empty at the time of the British invasion. There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago* The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians. Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago No garrison. Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't "people" in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago You have to be one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with on this platform, and that's genuinely saying something. You're completely unable to make a coherent case for your beliefs, and all your arguments basically amount to "it just is" Good luck with life, I guess. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago OK so now YOU'RE equating humans to literally just birds and plants permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago Eh, nobody else was using them for anything. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 28 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) But if the islands were empty before? Like there's islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there's also those who just doesn't. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] pipi1234@lemmy.world -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't empty at the time of the British invasion. There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago* The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians. Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago No garrison. Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't "people" in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago You have to be one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with on this platform, and that's genuinely saying something. You're completely unable to make a coherent case for your beliefs, and all your arguments basically amount to "it just is" Good luck with life, I guess. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago OK so now YOU'RE equating humans to literally just birds and plants permalink fedilink source parent
[+] pipi1234@lemmy.world -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't empty at the time of the British invasion. There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago* The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians. Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago No garrison. Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago* The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians. Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago No garrison. Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month permalink fedilink source parent
[+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) There weren't "people" in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago You have to be one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with on this platform, and that's genuinely saying something. You're completely unable to make a coherent case for your beliefs, and all your arguments basically amount to "it just is" Good luck with life, I guess. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago OK so now YOU'RE equating humans to literally just birds and plants permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago You have to be one of the dumbest people I've ever interacted with on this platform, and that's genuinely saying something. You're completely unable to make a coherent case for your beliefs, and all your arguments basically amount to "it just is" Good luck with life, I guess. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago OK so now YOU'RE equating humans to literally just birds and plants permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago Eh, nobody else was using them for anything. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -37 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Thatcher's dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn't going to get her to sleep with you permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) You've still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you're not going for bullshit like "god gave our King that holy right". permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -18 points 3 weeks ago No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America permalink fedilink source parent
[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) You've still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you're not going for bullshit like "god gave our King that holy right". permalink fedilink source parent [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -18 points 3 weeks ago No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you're not going for bullshit like "god gave our King that holy right". permalink fedilink source parent
[+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -18 points 3 weeks ago No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spock@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Does Argentina belong to the Spanish? Why do you think Argentina should take them? Who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came? Who lived in the Falkland islands, nobody. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (3 children) It doesn't matter who lived there first, because I'll swear on the King's life that the Brits weren't first Also, "who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?" Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago This doesn't show the Falkland islands were populated? permalink fedilink source parent [+] moriquende@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) We're talking about the Falkland islands, Argentina wasn't colonised by the British. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* The post you replied to explicitly says Argentina when mentioning the indigenous population, not the Falkland Islands. Btw there is proof that while the islands were not populated at the time the British came, they were used as camping and hunting grounds by indigenous people in the past. permalink fedilink source parent [+] tmijail@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago Not for lack of trying permalink fedilink source parent [–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago It does if the argument is about colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 point 3 weeks ago No one lived there before Europeans arrived. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -24 points 3 weeks ago (3 children) It doesn't matter who lived there first, because I'll swear on the King's life that the Brits weren't first Also, "who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?" Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago This doesn't show the Falkland islands were populated? permalink fedilink source parent [+] moriquende@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) We're talking about the Falkland islands, Argentina wasn't colonised by the British. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* The post you replied to explicitly says Argentina when mentioning the indigenous population, not the Falkland Islands. Btw there is proof that while the islands were not populated at the time the British came, they were used as camping and hunting grounds by indigenous people in the past. permalink fedilink source parent [+] tmijail@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago Not for lack of trying permalink fedilink source parent [–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago It does if the argument is about colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 point 3 weeks ago No one lived there before Europeans arrived. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago This doesn't show the Falkland islands were populated? permalink fedilink source parent [+] moriquende@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) We're talking about the Falkland islands, Argentina wasn't colonised by the British. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* The post you replied to explicitly says Argentina when mentioning the indigenous population, not the Falkland Islands. Btw there is proof that while the islands were not populated at the time the British came, they were used as camping and hunting grounds by indigenous people in the past. permalink fedilink source parent [+] tmijail@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago Not for lack of trying permalink fedilink source parent
[+] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone -10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago This doesn't show the Falkland islands were populated? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago This doesn't show the Falkland islands were populated? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] moriquende@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) We're talking about the Falkland islands, Argentina wasn't colonised by the British. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* The post you replied to explicitly says Argentina when mentioning the indigenous population, not the Falkland Islands. Btw there is proof that while the islands were not populated at the time the British came, they were used as camping and hunting grounds by indigenous people in the past. permalink fedilink source parent [+] tmijail@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago Not for lack of trying permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children) We're talking about the Falkland islands, Argentina wasn't colonised by the British. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* The post you replied to explicitly says Argentina when mentioning the indigenous population, not the Falkland Islands. Btw there is proof that while the islands were not populated at the time the British came, they were used as camping and hunting grounds by indigenous people in the past. permalink fedilink source parent [+] tmijail@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago Not for lack of trying permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* The post you replied to explicitly says Argentina when mentioning the indigenous population, not the Falkland Islands. Btw there is proof that while the islands were not populated at the time the British came, they were used as camping and hunting grounds by indigenous people in the past. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] tmijail@lemmy.world -12 points 3 weeks ago Not for lack of trying permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago It does if the argument is about colonialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 point 3 weeks ago No one lived there before Europeans arrived. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago They sure are fuck belong to whoever the majority of inhabitants want it to belong to. Just like Greenland. permalink fedilink source parent
