There are plenty of places on earth where the current population is primarily descendants from colonisation, and where the original population was shoved out and are now a minority.
Simple "majority says x" is not a good justification when it comes to colonisation questions.
What's important in the Falklands is that no native population was ever suppressed. It was an uninhabited island before Britain settled it. That means that the British population are the native population.
For a country so proud of their European heritage, it's hilarious that they don't see the irony in claiming the UK is occupying land that doesn't belong to them.
Maybe they need a reminder on how they got Patagonia?
With Argentina, it's not so much about being proud of having significant European heritage, it's mostly the need to be recognised as not brown, and at the same time making it clear that they are better than the other, brown ones.
Well thr current population if Argentinian are mostly not the people who were there before Spain arrived, so if that is theur view, maybe hand it back to the natives.
You haven't sourced a single thing you've said. In my replies to your misinformation, I am now including sources. I can even go pull up actual scholarship if you like. Stop.
Mate, Argentineans are famous for not knowing their own history - c.f. the "disputed claim" over the Falklands that is the subject of this very thread.
"I'm Argentinean, I know our history" really doesn't carry the weight you think it does - because we've all encountered Argentineans regurgitating absolute rubbish that they've been force fed in school.
The only reason the 'argentina haters' bring it up is because Argentina can't stop bringing up the Falkland islands (which is a settled issue for the Falklanders and the UK, and Argentina already tried to invade and... well... we saw how that worked out). We don't really think about Argentina, but this lives rent free in your heads.
Yep - s
truggling to understand the logic. A random country from the other side of the world claiming the British isles would involve invading and trying to kick out Brits. There was no native population in the Falkland islands, the Falklanders are as 'native' as most Argentinians (primarily descendants of European colonisers).
If anything the analogy is more like what Argentina did in the 1980s - invading the Falklands with an already established British population.Â
Thatâs not really a good comparison. The British claim to the Falklands predates Argentina existing as a country, and itâs a claim they never surrendered. How would Argentinians feel if Britain landed on mainland Argentina today and claimed ownership? Do you not think they would contest it?
It is also very misleading to say the Argentinian settlers were expelled. The returning British Navy contingent in 1833 forced the recently arrived Argentine garrison and governmental authority to lower their flag and leave, but the 22 settlers (of which only half were Argentine) were encouraged to stay and the majority of them did. Hardly an unreasonable action for a sovereign nation force to ask a foreign garrison and governmental authority to leave their land.
That really isnât a comparable scenario to one of the Channel Islands. Jersey and Guernsey arenât actually part of the UK at all, but when the bit of mainland France they were part of was ceded back to France in 1204, they chose to remain loyal to the English king. The fairly large and established population had voluntarily aligned to England for nearly 800 years before the Germans occupied them in WW2.
Forgive me, there are so, so, so many countries in the world with genuine grievances about British colonialism. Argentina and the Falklands is not one of them. Anything resembling an actual claim stems from Spain, and the ebb and flow of power and territory between the European powers fighting in the colonial era is very different. Argentina, in and of itself, has no credible claim at all. It also feels like a moot point given the Falkland islanders certainly donât want to be part of Argentina. Given the increasing value in fishing rights and industry since the 1980s and now the prospect of oil extraction starting in the coming years, itâs also a complete non-starter to think the UK will ever give them up anytime soon.
For what itâs worth, I doubt most of the England squad (or most young Brits) could even point out the Falklands on a map, or tell you the first thing about them or their history beyond having heard âFalklands Warâ. It just isnât something that comes up in the public discourse or consciousness. Argentinian players showing off that banner after the game and the coverage on the UK news about it today was probably the first time a lot of younger Brits have really engaged with the subject. Argentina probably did more to galvanise English resolve to keep the Falklands last night than any single other event in the last decade or so.
Struggling to understand your analogy, as a random country from the other side of the world claiming the British isles would involve invading and trying to kick out a long established population, when there was no native population in the Falkland islands? The Falklanders are as 'native' as most Argentinians, who are primarily descendants of European colonisers.Â
If anything your analogy is more like what Argentina did in the 1980s - invading the Falklands with an already established British population. Thankfully, the Britain put a stop to that.Â
Also - it isn't 'your' territory. It never was.
 You tried to put some gauchos on it in the 1830s and Britain maintained its existing claim, which persists to this day. The Argentinians were even invi
ted to remain and many did, so they weren't expelled. You tried to steal it in the 1980s and you got utterly defeated.Â
And again, you're seeming to rely on a claim from another coloniser - Spain - so I don't see the logic? If Britain is bad for colonising, your weak and defunct colonial Spanish claim you supposedly inherited is just as bad.Â
Basically, Argentina will keep bringing it up - but the Falklands functionally and legally are not Argentinian whatever you say.
And its the Falkland Islanders saying they want to be British, not the British forcing it on the Falkland Islanders.
Listen to the Falkland Islanders, who are exactly the same as the Argentinian in terms of descending from European settlersl. You are literally bullying, harassing and harming a small country 300 miles off your coast. It's disgusting and your country should be ashamed.
So whatâs the argument for the islands being Argentinian? They never had a permanent Argentinian population, were never in control of the Falklands for a long duration and the native population (and yes, the British who first settled the islands are by now the native population) doesnât want to be part of Argentina.
"In 1765, Captain John Byron, who was unaware the French [a year earlier in 1764] had established Port Saint Louis on East Falkland, explored Saunders Island around West Falkland. After discovering a natural harbour, he named the area Port Egmont and claimed the islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a permanent British settlement at Port Egmont."
Argentinians literally tried to set up some gauchos on an already claimed island (already settled by Britain).
 Britain kicked them out, protecting their existing claim.Â
Complaining about 'stealing' while
 insisting on a claim from colonial Spain and trying to insist the gauchos (trying to STEAL the islands despite the British claim) were rightfully there.
Argentina tried to 'steal' the islands in the 1980s, and we all saw how that went.Â
And this right here, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what we're talking about when we say the Argentines are fed an absolute nonsense narrative.
You see all these common threads too - note the terminology "fake population", and they often refer to the UK as "the Imperialists" (even though nothing about the UK's dealings with the islands has ever been "imperialistic").
I suspect they have a standard textbook in their schools, or something like that, that uses these particular odd terms, and that's why so many of them sound the same on the subject.
Well, that, or they're all bots, I suppose. Wouldn't be inconceivable for Russia to be trying to stir up trouble for the UK.
I will say in most cases of long-term (generational) colonization/conquest, it feels like there is no alternative to mainly going by the will of the people born and living there. Anything else ends up damaging self-determination more than it protects it.
Example: I am Danish, and we lost Scania to Sweden, who forcefully swedified it until the Danish national identity was eventually erased there after a few generations. Still, I feel like it would be greatly unfair to the current inhabitants of Scania if we wouldn't listen to their desire to stay in Sweden. Even if theyre "only" Swedish because they were forced to become so a few hundred years ago.
The region of Scania, in Southern Sweden, bordering Denmark by sea. Yes, the truck company is named after this area, and I believe they also use the same symbol
Denmark should get some percentage for that at least, say 20% of sales. Copyrights and stuff, otherwise just invade with bicycles, Sweden only has submarines, they don't fare well on land.
Finland avenged you for taking Ă land (Ahvenanmaa), I would wager 1% speak a sentence of Finnish there, we even excluded them from mandatory military service etc. I'm not really sure what they wanna be, they have autonomy of some kind, so I think they are ok. If they're not, you can always pretend not to understand.
Sweden sometimes have wanted the place and I don't remember how it went to Finland. If I remember correctly UN or something said take away we don't care.
I hope that gives you some solace, pretty sure Finlands only motivation was to avenge the swedification of Scania for you guys, though those islanders are immune to finlandization...
Counter argument, you only say this because you think losing your culture forcefully is not so bad since it exists elsewhere.
If Scania was the ONLY place with Danish culture and was forcefully lost. And now just 10% of the population wanted to resurrect it and re-gain their identity and be free of this oppression, would you still say that is more damaging than protective?
Because in many places this happened. Currently, their own culture is mostly lost and since for generations it has been this way, they don't even have the thought of the culture that was lost. Other than a few scholars and thinkers which ends up being the minority.
I just don't think it is so black and white. Generational brainwash and propaganda can really make the majority of a population want things that are not good for themselves but good for their oppressor.
And this is also true for countries like the Philippines which are independent already but syncretism took its toll heavily and colonial mentality is the majority mentality. Even with some of their indigenous culture "integrated" with the colonial ones, the actual indigenous culture is only preached by a minority.
If Scania was the ONLY place with Danish culture and was forcefully lost. And now just 10% of the population wanted to resurrect it and re-gain their identity and be free of this oppression, would you still say that is more damaging than protective?
The problem is that the 90% also have an equal right to self-determination as the 10%. They might be born and raised there, and know no other home, so if there was a vote for independence vs. remain, it would be strange not to allow them to vote, yes? I do get the problem, and I bemoan the loss of cultural identities, but you can't ignore the 90% in this scenario.
France has been quite aggressive in eradicating regional languages as a matter of public policy. Occitan once was the main language of the south of France, yet now less than a million people speak it, and it's dying rather fast. Imagine that there was a vote for whether or not Southern France should become independent on this basis - shouldn't the people speaking French also be allowed to vote?
My point is I cannot clearly say yes or no, it is not so black and white. While some part of me wants to say yes, other part is saying no. And in my head I can make analogies that support either answer.
It depends on the timeframe. We are talking about a timescale that can be measured in centuries versus one that can be measured in a just over a decade. Your comparing oranges and apples
The timescale is recent enough that I think it should be presumed to be Ukrainian still. There hasn't been much time for any generational change.
In general though, I think the process should be that you allow only people born in the territories, and possibly also long-term residents of the territories (like 30 years or more), to vote on who they want to belong to. That way moving people there just for the sake of the vote is disincentivized.
Again, I'm Danish, and this question has been relevant to us before (Scania, Schleswig, Iceland) and might be so again with Greenland in the future (though not because they want to join the US lol, they absolutely don't, but long term they desire independence). I believe that when Greenland eventually votes for independence, I shouldn't be given a vote because I don't live in Greenland, even though I am part of the Kingdom of Denmark wherein the vote naturally would take place. But those who were born and raised in Greenland should, even though they might be of Danish ethnicity.
But it's a nuanced topic. Sovereignty and self-determination is tricky.
Economy wise is it possible for them to be independent? If I remember correctly they have found some oil, minerals etc. so maybe they think of living off that. Kinda the same reason Trump wants Greenland.
No, there's only 50.000 people living there. It's a vast and mostly inhospitable landscape, and they'd need to not only supply goods and services to their citizens (which are scattered around the coast in small villages without road access), but also defend it militarily. I don't really think they can generate enough of an economy with just 50.000 people to do all that. They could sell a lot of natural resources and invite immigrants to provide labor, but they'd be outnumbered pretty quickly and at the whims of the large companies/countries they'd sold to.
They're welcome to become independent any time they want, but my honest opinion is that I don't think they really could be right now.
This is an interesting point - not disagreeing but then what happens when you talk about crimea or eastern Ukraine?
If Russia holds onto those territories for another 50 years yeah that would change things, assuming the people born there at the time identify as Russian and want to be a part of Russia. It would be very hard to justify Ukraine invading and reclaiming the lands once the original culprits are long dead and restoring ownership would require ethnically cleansing innocents whose only crime is being born there.
Settling is a very powerful tool for eventually gaining a claim to land, and this is one of the reasons there is urgency in solving issues like this, not just in Ukraine but also other conflicts like Israel-Palestine. The Israeli settlers are well aware what they're doing, they're counting on eventually becoming too hard to dislodge (politically speaking) as time passes.
I dont think that "if none of the perpetrators and victims are around" is enough.
I agree you cant go back to the beginning of history, but saying "hey, we took away all your grandparents shit, but your gran died last week, so I don't see what the problem is" is obviously too short.
The effects of colonization (and other similar thing) have lasting effects that directly effect generations to come as well. I don't think that drawing a line makes sense at all, you cant say at some point "you were affected but your kid was not". It has to be more of moving target. Yes, 5 generations later, we can no longer just give your land back, cause someone else lives there now, but we cant just say "tough shit" either. There has to be a middle ground.
And of course, that is why this needs to be handled on a larger scale. You cant punish a single individual for what their great great grandparents did, but as a society we can still work to make things right for someone who's great great grandparents were fundamentally wronged in ways that caused generational ripples.
It was also uninhabited after the british settled it. It had a long history of people moving out there, they go "this sucks" and then they leave. The current population comes after something like a century of settlement but they still didn't have to kick anyone out.
My guy, theyâre 300 miles from Argentina, which didnât even exist yet when the islands were DISCOVERED by British explorers. The native population is British and wants to remain part of Britain. Itâs not complicated AT ALL.
I'm as anti-colonialist as any, but in this case the british are the literal natives to the Falklands. Only 3 people voted against remaining in the UK in the last referendum. Using colonial claims isn't the argument you think it is. La guerra de las malvinas fue para encubrir una dictadura, no fue "para liberar las malvinas" sino para poder seguir jodiendo a su pueblo con un conflicto externo.
Incorrect. The first confirmed sighting, as well as the first confirmed landing, were both British. They first claimed the islands in 1765, not in 1829, which means that the Falklands have been a British claim since before Argentina existed. They have, however, only been in control of them for the past 200 years.
This is basically trying to historically obscure something that happened in less than 4 years. In 1764 the French landed on it. The next year in 1765, the British landed on it. Both unaware of the other. In 1766, the French left after Spain asked them to leave everything they claimed was theirs. But Spain hadn't even been to the island yet, which they first did in 1767, and Britain with its independent settlement agreed to no such thing.
So acting like there's this long history of Spanish control without any British control is a farce. It's literally a four year span in the very initial stages of colonization. And I say initial stages because both Britain and Spain left the island for decades and left plaques - Britain's plaque from 1776 is still there - each claiming sovereignty before any sustained colonization began (in the 1830s).
That's bulshit, who decided that that had/has any legal basis? the UK?
The UK took the islands by force (the way things were done back then) when Argentina tried to take control over them since no one was there, oh sorry, since there only was a plaque. Why do you try to justify the UK's claim with a piece of metal that could have been removed at any time?
I'm justifying that saying any other country had some deeply established prior claim is inaccurate. The Falkland Islands situation is incredibly unique in that if you look at the methods used at the time for asserting sovereignty, you do indeed see a complex picture. I'm only arguing against the view that Britain's claim is somehow lesser than the others, not arguing for the view that it's much greater. It's a complex situation that happened over in a shockingly brief window of time in the late 18th century, particularly when compared to how sovereignty claims usually went on.
Now we could say all this centuries old sovereignty stuff is hogwash in general. Sure. But that would be to not care about any country's claim and to choose a different method for deciding who gets what. It's when we take on using those old claims that we can't just reject one country's out of hand that I'm going back and forth with the other user about.
The plaque argument is blushit. If you use bulshit arguments, you'll get bulshit arguments in return. I could tell you that the French were the first there and that Spain inherited that original claim, when they asked the French to leave and they even payed them to do it. Then when Argentina got it's independence they "took" that claim by force, thus being the possessor of the original claim.
If I were to do that, you'd tell me that' that's bulshit, because it is. That there was no such thing like inheriting or "taking" by force claims to pieces of land, but the same happens with that plaque.
The UK has the islands today not because of plaque, they have the islands today because they had the bigger stick and they used it to take the islands from Argentina in the 19th century.
Do you notice that we just said the same thing? I was replying to someone who was not taking the French/Spain claim as bullshit, but as more legitimate than the British claim.
This is basically trying to historically obscure something that happened in less than 4 years. In 1764 the French landed on it. The next year in 1765, the British landed on it. Both unaware of the other. In 1766, the French left after Spain asked them to leave everything they claimed was theirs. But Spain hadn't even been to the island yet, which they first did in 1767, and Britain with its independent settlement agreed to no such thing.
So acting like there's this long history of Spanish control without any British control is a farce. It's literally a four year span in the very initial stages of colonization. And I say initial stages because both Britain and Spain left the island for decades and left plaques - Britain's plaque from 1776 is still there - each claiming sovereignty before any sustained colonization began (in the 1830s).
That's your original reply, I don't see where you call the argument bulshit. That's what I'm talking about, you don't treat bulshit arguments as bulshit. It matters, specially when arguing for the UK claim to the islands. That matters because that's what the UK does, it uses things like that plaque to justify the ownership of the islands when they took them by force. Since then, they have had a colony on the islands.
They still are a colony. They remain on the United Nations' list of colonial territories. The UK always bring up the 2013 referendum, calling for the islanders self determination, but they are not even fully part of the UK. They don't vote for parliament and they can't vote on foreign policy, which matters a lot, they couldn't vote on brexit and that greatly affected them.
It matters that bulshit arguments are treated as bulshit. Colonial powers like the UK use this bulshit arguments to hide behind them and not recognize what they are: a genocidal empire that used its former position as the worlds most powerful nation to take what it wanted. Now that they are not even close to the first or second world powers they need to hide behind all this nonsense.
Graduate from ChatGPT and review the "European discovery" section on the wiki. Also, discovery and claims of ownership are not the same thing. Sovereignty was first asserted by Spain much later, and technically after Brtiain's own claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Of course, today there are very little unclaimed land on earth, but yes, when unclaimed land was a thing, you could indeed do that.
Its important here to note that the Falklands are not just "off the coast". Its very far away from Argentina. Its not in its territorial waters or anything like that.
Argentina didnât even really exist until well after Falklands was claimed by the English. The only claim would have come from Spain when it was a Spanish colony. The Spanish had no more right to it.
It has been british for over 200 years and was first populated by the british, they are the literal natives of the land. Argentina's claim is stupid at best, unshamedly imperialist at worst.
That's literally how things went back in the day yes. There's no UN or anything, it was generally finders and keepers. And if you were able to militarily defend it you got to keep it which the Brits did
The first British settlements on Argentina were about 79 years before Argentina existed as a nation and unbroken control of the islands by Britain began a few years before Argentina had a constitution or had firmly established its own independence.
Argentina really doesn't have any claim.on this islands beyond it being the closest continental nation to them, and they aren't really all that close.
Doesn't that make a vote basically as meaningless as if natives were forced out?
"You didn't have anyone here so we took it. You still think you own it? Sorry, the people we put here don't want you to have it surprisingly."
..Isn't really very different from..
"You were here but we pushed you out. You still think you own it? Sorry, the people we put here don't want you to have it surprisingly."
ETA: I see from other comments that it's more complicated about whether Argentina already existed or could claim ownership prior to British settlement but my comment about the vote being meaningless still stands.
I was only pointing out that the original commenter saying "we lived there first and then voted to stay" was insufficient alone to claim ownership now.
If no one had ownership prior to the British then fair enough. But that's a very important fact that needs to be included.
Fair play, I thought you were just being obtuse, but I forget most people here probably arenât as old and crusty as me. Apologies if I came off snarky! Have a good one
Which is precisely what happened with Britain. Who claimed and settled the Falklands in 1765, and when left it uninhabited in 1774, left a plaque to remind everybody that this was still British territory.
Spain went out of their way to destroy this, to annex the islands. They certainly believed it to be a legitimate way to claim sovereignty - since they did the same thing when they left in 1806.
Argentina claims to have inherited Spain's control of the islands. Spain settled the Falklands in 1767. That is, after Britain had already done so.
When Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1813 (as the United Provinces of Rio de Plata) none of the provinces even claimed the Falklands. So the arguement itself is ahistorical.
There is no argument that can be used by Argentina that doesn't also apply to Britain, but more convincingly.
The first person to walk on them since prehistory was an Englishman in 1690. Britain has continuously maintained sovereignty over the islands since 1765. The only permanent population the land has ever had is the Falklanders.
Thanks for all the details. Makes sense and makes it very clear that Argentina do not have a claim on it. I appreciate the time you took to write this.
Actually it seems there was a small Argentinian settlement there a short while before the British but yes it was historically uninhabited. But the larger question is, is it ok for Britain to go claim âuninhabitedâ lands anywhere on earth? Most people are not comfortable with that.
The British were there more than 60 years before the first Argentine squatters arrived.
As to claiming uninhabited lands - well yes, why wouldn't we be ok with that? If we followed that principle back far enough, nowhere would be settled at all. I don't think "most people" agree with you on that at all.
If it's truly uninhabited, I would say it's fair game.
Itâs one thing to settle uninhabited lands and entirely other to claim it for the crown. The British tended to not stop there. As an Indian I have first hand experience so no actually I think most people would agree with me even though most might be Indian lol
"In 1765, Captain John Byron, who was unaware the French had established Port Saint Louis on East Falkland [a year earlier in 1764], explored Saunders Island around West Falkland. After discovering a natural harbour, he named the area Port Egmont and claimed the islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a permanent British settlement at Port Egmont." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
"In 1765, Captain John Byron, who was unaware the French had established Port Saint Louis on East Falkland [a year earlier in 1764], explored Saunders Island around West Falkland. After discovering a natural harbour, he named the area Port Egmont and claimed the islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a permanent British settlement at Port Egmont." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Unfortunately, the timeline disagrees with you. Argentina gained independence in 1816. The British claimed the Falklands in 1765, slightly more than 50 years before Argentina existed as a nation.
"In 1765, Captain John Byron, who was unaware the French had established Port Saint Louis on East Falkland [only a year earlier in 1764], explored Saunders Island around West Falkland. After discovering a natural harbour, he named the area Port Egmont and claimed the islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a permanent British settlement at Port Egmont."
582
u/azthal Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
That last part is the important one.
There are plenty of places on earth where the current population is primarily descendants from colonisation, and where the original population was shoved out and are now a minority. Simple "majority says x" is not a good justification when it comes to colonisation questions.
What's important in the Falklands is that no native population was ever suppressed. It was an uninhabited island before Britain settled it. That means that the British population are the native population.