Talk:Falkland Islands

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Pretty one-sided[edit]

While I agree that the Argentines were in the wrong, the idea of happy little islanders being invaded by a foreign power doesn't completely stand up. They were woefully underdeveloped, and being stripped of citizenship rights, before the war... also, more importantly from the Argentine POV, many of the islanders a) aren't born there, and b) the British gave their marching orders to anyone who didn't support them way back in the 19th century. Islanders' residence goes back only several generations. I've heard of sixth generation islanders, but they're extremely rare.

The islands nowadays suffer from an oligarchy and rampant overfishing, and some pollution. But they now have a supermarket, so it can't all be bad. Since Chile cut off its flight connection, they are extremely difficult to get to, apart from by cruise ship.

From the British POV, if it wasn't for the war, almost no one except bird watchers and empire loyalists would have heard of them. They're sliding back into obscurity as we speak. That said... isolated trade monopoly vs Fascist Junta... I think I'd choose the former.--Albannach (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There are ninth generation islanders [1]. Far more than a lot of Argentines including their foreign minister can claim. The so called Argentine settlement was led by a man born in what is now Germany and who asked GB's permission, and most of his settlers were British. IIRC, He was evicted for attacking American ships. Bevo74 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
How many ninth generation islanders are there? Are they even plural in number? Apart from the fact that the islands have massive population transfer (i.e. just about all young people out permanently, and people from the UK and Saint Helena shipped in), at least half the population are military or British government personnel.
Yes, I am well aware of USS Lexington. Vernet asked BOTH the British and the Argentines for permission, by the way. He obviously wanted both off his back. A clever tactical move. The French were the first in, anyway. Any supporters of the Argentine claim in the mid to late 19th century would have either been imprisoned or exported anyway.--Albannach (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Even more one sided[edit]

The new edits should go due to:

  • being even more tendentious.
  • being riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.
  • overusing the word "fucking".

The new paragraphs are pretty appalling even if one rejects the Argentine claim completely.-Albannach (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mission?[edit]

And this is 'on mission' because.... Jack Hughes (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's on mission because it demonstrates both Argentine and British lunacy.Albannach (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Nationalism, imperialism and war all come under our mission, and the Dartmoor-on-Sea Islands are all about that. SophieWilder 11:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Dartmoor on Sea! Thanks that's the funniest thing I've heard today. Shetland without the amenities.Albannach (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Obama and the Maldives[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that Obama referred to the islands as "the Maldives" and that the US was taking a neutral view on the subject, although appearing to tilt towards Argentina.

If not, at least it can be humorously noted that Obama referred to them as the Maldives. Kentuckyball (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Did an islander write this?[edit]

I am argentinian, and i want to present my POV. First of all, we regret the war. But it wasn't our fault as people. It was the fault of a killer, human rights abuser regime that dissapeared 30 thousand people and decided to send teens in a nonsense war just to mantain itself a little bit more. BUT, we have to recognize that the Malvinas/ Falkland islands are a tiny remnant of the british empire. The fact that the UK has not only the falklands, but the other islands around it's plain colonialism. I know islanders want @[[:User:|]]to keep living in british territory, and that's where both countries have to reach an agreement. But we have to recognise that colonialism is an old system that has to be discarted.Also, brits played a little bit dirty during the war. 323 people died in the sinking of the ARA Belgrano, half of all argentinian deaths. This ship was far away from the war limits, but Thatcher decided to sink it, making this event almost a war crime.In resume, i don't believe in nationalistic bullshit, but the article is too biased for british side.— Unsigned, by: Ep0605 / talk / contribs

You are more than welcome to edit the article. We are generally anti-colonial here, but we are also anti-authoritarian, but I'm sure a balance can be struck. Please be sure to use references!--Hastur! (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The article is curiously lacking on stuff about the actual war. The Belgrano should have a section: as well as being arguably a war crime it has long been the province of a certain type of crank in the UK (most famously the late Tam Dalyell). But if you're arguing the Falklands are a relic of the British empire, then Argentina's a relic of the Spanish empire. So probably we should give South America back to the Natives and the Falklands to the penguins. --Annanoon (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hastur! Thank you for your answer.I think that a new article about the topic should still has a rationalwiki style but being this a hot debate, it should be neutral, pointing what is true and false about both countries claims. — Unsigned, by: Ep0605 / talk / contribs