The Flaklands belong to Uruguay!

by Splash 94 Replies latest social current

  • Las Malvinas son Argentinas
    Las Malvinas son Argentinas

    By saying that there were only penguins to greet the British settlers there is stretching the truth, but then I realised that you are speaking about the Port Egmont settlement of 1765/66. It was actually a garrison of troops rather than settlers, but there were both settlers and troops with the duly constituted settlement of Port Louis/Puerto Soledad. The British and Spanish exchanged unpleasant words until the Spanish expelled the British a few years later, and then the British were allowed to return to Gran Malvina (West Falkland). The British then abandoned their garrison there in 1774. The British then ceded their claims to any islands adjacent to South America in the Nootka Sound Conventions in the 1790s in exchange for ceded Spanish claims for what was then known as Oregon Country. Britain had earlier declared her eternal right to 'Falkland's Ysland' in the singular, meaning West Falkland. This the British Foreign Office found out about in the 20th century, and they rightfully concluded that if Britain had any legal claim, it was to West Falkland alone (For more information, read "The War in the Falklands : The Full Story" by The Sunday Times of London). The British were never established on Isla Soledad (East Falkland) until the usurption of 1833. It had been a solely French, Spanish, and most recently, an Argentine settlement. The American warship the USS Lexington then sacked the settlement and deported most (but not all of the settlement). It was into this vacuum the British stumbled into in 1833, yet there were still some gauchos, settlers, and Argentine troops in Puerto Soledad. If there were only penguins there to greet the British, why was Captain Don Pinedo ordered to leave with his troops and the remaining settlers?

    So in reality, the British did indeed find 'penguins' at Port Egmont in 1766, only to abandon it permanently less than a decade later. They found Argentines at Puerto Soledad in 1833, and that is from where this dispute eminates.

  • cedars
    cedars

    Emilie

    By saying that there were only penguins to greet the British settlers there is stretching the truth

    And comparing the situation with the Falklands with the Northern Ireland troubles ISN'T "stretching the truth"?!

    Cedars

  • Diest
    Diest

    Well Cedars the issues in Ireland always seemed to be more the just sectarian...Seems like the Irish had their own language and culture that the English worked very hard to destroy. You always tend to take the Royal English line of thinking so I understand why you would want to paint it that way.

  • cedars
    cedars

    Diest

    Well Cedars the issues in Ireland always seemed to be more the just sectarian...Seems like the Irish had their own language and culture that the English worked very hard to destroy.

    Actually sectarianism is a major part of it. Strip away the religious aspect and all you have is a quible over which country's name is on your passport. In terms of quality of living, especially during these economically turbulent times with Ireland still paying off a huge debt, I know which country I would rather be in.

    And try though they may, thankfully the English didn't succeed in denuding Ireland of its culture. I'm not interested in glossing over the dark points in my country's history, but I'm not overly keen on people demonizing it either. Yes, we were oppressive colonialists during a period in history when Europe was mostly comprised of nations that were oppressive colonialists. We were just better at it than others (Spain included). At least we stopped by the time the 20th Century rolled around, and started to play a role on the world stage alongside America in promoting democracy. That we can be very proud of.

    Cedars

  • Las Malvinas son Argentinas
    Las Malvinas son Argentinas

    Yet if you were Irish, you'd know quite a different story regarding the 'Troubles'. A sectarian conflict to be sure, but one which was directly instigated by the English Crown in 1606. The untold suffering which resulted was caused by the feudal landowning system put in place by the British, placing a wealthy few in charge of so much land. The plots of land got smaller as the Irish population grew, leading to the great Irish famines of the 19th Century. By the early 20th century, the Irish had had it with foreign domination, and tried to shake the yoke of the Crown off their fragile shoulders. Instead of letting a straight up/down 'self-determination' vote happen in Ireland (or even in Ulster), the British knew better and gerrymandered for themselves an Irish rump state. 'Self-Determination' vote quickly and swiftly followed!

    No one is making a direct correlation between the Malvinas and Ulster. Rather, I choose the make a point about the mentality of people being conditioned to explain their imperial adventures away without abandon. If one can chalk up the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland to a simple Catholic/Protestant conflict (which conveniently finds a way for the Crown to disavow involvement) and ignore completely the history behind the conflict and how it got there, you can easily deduce why some insist that the British had only been greeted by penguins in 1833. It's history being selectively written and remembered by people who have every conceivable reason to rewrite it.

  • cedars
    cedars

    Emilie

    No one is making a direct correlation between the Malvinas and Ulster.

    Actually, you did before. Is this your way of apologizing?

    It's history being selectively written and remembered by people who have every conceivable reason to rewrite it.

    And you have no "conceivable reason" to re-write history I assume? Despite you being Argentinian and having a family connection with the 80s conflict?

    Cedars

  • Las Malvinas son Argentinas
    Las Malvinas son Argentinas

    Note the word 'direct'. The opposite of direct would be 'indirect'.

    And 'apologizing' is spelt 'apologising'. You using an American spell checker?

    I don't need to rewrite history. My sources are the Sunday Times of London, Sir Simon Jenkins, and British Foreign Office correspondence. What are yours?

  • Chariklo
    Chariklo

    I don't think England did actually try to suppress the Irish language and culture, actually. That's not historically correct. The Irish language began to decline due to the depopulating of rural parts of Ireland due to the massive starvation caused by the potato famine in the nineteenth century. Irish emigration took place on a massive scale, to America, Australia and most of all to Britain itself.

    Most English people have Scottish, Welsh and Irish in their blood, as well as English, and I am an example of that...no Scottish in me, but pretty well equal parts of the other three countries.

    Irish resentment of England goes back to the savage treatment they received under Oliver Cromwell in the seventeenth century. That wasn't colonialism, just one of the many highly regrettable things the Roundheads did.

  • cedars
    cedars

    Emilie

    And 'apologizing' is spelt 'apologising'. You using an American spell checker?

    I interchange with my US and UK spelling. It's a habit I've picked up from writing my articles for a predominantly US audience. Do you want me to apologiZe to you?!

    I don't need to rewrite history.

    You're honestly suggesting you don't put your own spin on history, based on your national and family ties to the Falklands dispute? Fair enough.

    For what it's worth, I think your above posts demonstrate superbly how you use argumentation against others that you won't readily apply to yourself. Just my opinion.

    A little apology over the ridiculous Northern Ireland analogy wouldn't go amiss, but if you'd rather not I really don't mind.

    Cedars

  • Chariklo
    Chariklo

    Apologising and apologizing are actually optional, though you are correct in assuming the s to be more generally used this side of the Atlantic.Have you checked a good Oxford English dictionary?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit