Thanks rowan - that's a unique perspective and you make some trenchant observations. I think you're on to something with your idea that it may be a distraction tactic.
Cedars
Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?
by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
-
-
moshe
Suppose , Britain would be willing to sell the Falklands to Argentina-- would the nation be willing to pay for a big tax increase to buy that sheep herder's paradise? I doubt it. Would you be willing to move to the Falklands and colonize it for the next 30 years?- no shopping mall, no disco, no fancy restaurants--
-
rowan
Not to mention the kelpers are dead against it. I don't blame them.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I most certainly did NOT insinuate that the islanders jump into the sea and get out of there. That is a gross misinterpretation of my position. Here are my relevant quotes from this discussion:
1. Our position now is that the islanders do have a right to stay where they are and settle there. No one wants to see Argentine troops landing there and start evicting peaceful civilians
2. The residents now are British and we can’t change that and shouldn’t.
3. So in answer to your question, we should not enforce our will on a population of 3000.
4. I don’t seek to expel the islanders or destroy their unique culture, and most Argentines agree.
5. As always, we desire a discussion of the matter. We realise that this is impossible without the islanders’ consent.
6. The presence of the Malvineros (OK, Kelpers or Falklanders if you insist) on the islands is not something we take lightly down here either
Now please tell me that you don’t in all honesty think that I believe the islanders should be expelled. Two wrongs don’t make a right. What still hasn’t happened is someone explaining to me how the British coming in 1833 and taking over the colony and expelling the governor is something completely different than Argentina doing the same thing in 1982. Imagine for a second that Argentina expelled the inhabitants in 1982 and installed a colony of 3000 Argentines in their place, and then took a vote. We’d be taking quite opposite positions then, wouldn’t we?
Regardless of whether or not the settlers were ousted (the facts are ambiguous), the 1833 invasion is virtually the same as the 1982 one.
1833 – The UK arrives in a Malvinas settlement they did not found and never had control over and expelled the Argentine governor and his administration, taking control over the entire territory.
1982 – Argentina arrives in a Malvinas settlement they did not found and never had control over and expelled the UK governor and his administration, and took control of the territorial government. No islanders were expelled. No British soldiers were killed during the operation, though 3 Argentines were. Three civilians later died, but by British shelling.
I realise that my position is unpopular here. In the first posting, you asked for an Argentine perspective and I gave you one. What frustrates me is that I am being called a victim of a propaganda machine and that I still have not gotten an answer as to the justifications of the 1833 British invasion. What did Argentina do to warrant this invasion? What was so important that the UK thought they had to invade a territory they abandoned 59 years earlier? How did the British claims to Port Egmont transfer to the entire archipelago? I would like answers to those questions. As Argentina was constituted in 1810, the Malvinas were part of our fledgling country. Now they are not. Why?
-
Qcmbr
We wanted it more than you.
-
moshe
The USA fought a long war in Vietnam that cost us over 50,000 dead and over 300,000 wounded- and still in the end the Communists of North Vietnam prevailed. Sometimes wars are fought that can't be won and are a mistake from the beginning. Argentina needs to get over that war- they lost- so move on with your life. All this crying and wringing of Argentine hands, tells me a lot about the psyche of the Argentinian people.
-
rowan
Mosche, couldn't agree more. There is a very interesting study of the argentinian psyche as a society by Marcos Aguinis, journalist. It's called "The Atrocious Charm of Being Argentinean".
In it, he divides the society in 3: "the shrewd", who profit from our self destructing idiosincracy and make our forever recycling political class, "the fools", who obey the law and find comfort in endless complaining, and "the clever", who get the F***k out of there, and make up for the massive brain fuge from the country. The last group is always reviled by the first 2 ones for "not being patriotic enough".
The Cambalache of demagogery will go on...
-
moshe
That makes good sense rowan-
-
Chariklo
What still hasn’t happened is someone explaining to me how the British coming in 1833 and taking over the colony and expelling the governor is something completely different than Argentina doing the same thing in 1982.
*sigh* Oh dear. One more time.
The British did not invade in 1833. Britain had sovereignty over the islands.
Here is a fuller version of the events Emilie is describing as an "invasion" and "expulsion" of settlers.
In 1831, Vernet arrested 3 American boats Harriet, Superior and Breakwater for illegal sealing and confiscated their cargo of skins. In Vernet's absence and in retaliation for the arrest of the American sealers, Captain Silas Duncan of the American warship Lexington, on the instructions of the American consul in Buenos Aires, sacked Port Louis and declared the Islands free from all government. (NB: an American: America had no jurisdiction there. His declaration was meaningless.)
Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, was arrested by the Americans (who had no jurisdiction) and was taken to Montevideo, while a storekeeper, William Dickson, took charge of the colony.
1832 The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata appointed Don Juan Esteban Mestivier governor of Islas Malvinas, but he was murdered by mutineers shortly after his arrival. Don Jose Maria Pinedo of the United Provinces warship Sarandi took charge of the colony. (He had no authority to do so.)
The British warships HMS Clio, under the command of Captain James Onslow, and HMS Tyne visited the Islands, and reiterated the British claim to sovereignty.
1833 The British warships forced the departure of Don Pinedo and the warship Sarandi, and then departed, leaving William Dickson in charge until Matthew Brisbane's return. Meanwhile, the penal settlement at San Carlos, operated by the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, closed.
A gaucho gang, led by Antonio Rivero and armed by American sealers, (remember them?) subsequently murdered Brisbane, Dickson and four other colonists; the British sealer Hopeful, under Lt Rea, rescued the survivors. (They were not expelled; most chose to stay.)
In 1834 the British warships HMS Challenger and HMS Hopeful arrived at Port Louis. Lt Henry Smith, supported by a boat crew, was left in charge as British military administrator. Antonio Rivero and his gaucho gang were arrested and taken to England for trial, and the colony at Port Louis wasre-established and re-named Anson's Harbour.
As Argentina was constituted in 1810, the Malvinas were part of our fledgling country.
No. They weren't. The British claim long predates that. (see above.) One country cannot just decide that another piece of land belongs to it. In context, the declaration you refer to was part of the Argentinian War of Independence from Spain.
Basically, it was a nice try for Argentina to decide that the Falkland Islands were part of their territory, but it already belonged to someone else, and the fact that you say somewhere belongs to you just does not make it so.
-
wha happened?
Tango contest? Winner takes all?