Talk:Falkland Islands
|
This Imperialism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
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
- Yeah, I feel like the situation with the Falklands is a bit more complex than this article lets on. There's the fact that the Falklands allow Britain to claim a large EEZ near Argentina that is rich in oil and fish and many Argentinians understandably feel that this is disproportionate to the islands' population, not to mention that Britain has been expanding its EEZ claim over the years. Plus, there's the fact that the Falklands have historically been used to project British power over the region; Britain has invaded Argentina and its predecessors multiple times from the Falklands. While Argentinian nationalist bullshit deserves to be called out as well as Argentina's own more than checkered past with things like the conquest of the Patagonia, it's important to realize that the UK isn't innocent here either, and the situation isn't as simple as "the islanders want to be British so that should be the end of it". Plutocow (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- The islanders were also brought there in the first place to legitimize the British claim to the region. We should probably be a little more skeptical of the claims of both governments here, especially given that the UK would probably still claim the islands regardless of majority opinion there. Self-determination is ultimately about power, if a region wants to secede, has majority opinion, or significant backing of a significant portion of the population, but doesn't have the power, then their ruling polity is under no obligation to actually listen to them. You can see this with Puerto Rico, where as of the most recent referendum a majority voted for statehood, but because PR lacks power they're still suck in limbo as an American territory. As for the Falklands, the fact that there's significant oil deposits to be found there is just icing on the cake for why the UK would want to retain the territory. Carthage (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- The UK has no place to harp on about self-determination at the same time it's stomping on Scotland's ability to form its own laws, in my view. (When's the next UK-approved Scottish independence referendum? Why, never, of course.) Still, assuming they never actually displaced any civilian population in the Falklands, the claim at least looks more legitimate than Russia's over Crimea. Bearing in mind that I say this without much caring for Argentina's uti possidetis juris argument, since it seems based more in "international convention" than local sovereignty and popular support (and so, personally I'm not inclined to be sympathetic). Chillpilled (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't particularly care for either the Argentine or the British positions, but the British EEZ around the Falklands is obscene for a population of only three thousand, which denies access to Argentina, which has a population of almost 46 million people over a much larger area of territory. Self-determination of the Falkland Islanders is just a convenient excuse for Britain to hang onto the Islands, which possess waters rich in oil and fish.
Carthage (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't particularly care for either the Argentine or the British positions, but the British EEZ around the Falklands is obscene for a population of only three thousand, which denies access to Argentina, which has a population of almost 46 million people over a much larger area of territory. Self-determination of the Falkland Islanders is just a convenient excuse for Britain to hang onto the Islands, which possess waters rich in oil and fish.
- The UK has no place to harp on about self-determination at the same time it's stomping on Scotland's ability to form its own laws, in my view. (When's the next UK-approved Scottish independence referendum? Why, never, of course.) Still, assuming they never actually displaced any civilian population in the Falklands, the claim at least looks more legitimate than Russia's over Crimea. Bearing in mind that I say this without much caring for Argentina's uti possidetis juris argument, since it seems based more in "international convention" than local sovereignty and popular support (and so, personally I'm not inclined to be sympathetic). Chillpilled (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- The islanders were also brought there in the first place to legitimize the British claim to the region. We should probably be a little more skeptical of the claims of both governments here, especially given that the UK would probably still claim the islands regardless of majority opinion there. Self-determination is ultimately about power, if a region wants to secede, has majority opinion, or significant backing of a significant portion of the population, but doesn't have the power, then their ruling polity is under no obligation to actually listen to them. You can see this with Puerto Rico, where as of the most recent referendum a majority voted for statehood, but because PR lacks power they're still suck in limbo as an American territory. As for the Falklands, the fact that there's significant oil deposits to be found there is just icing on the cake for why the UK would want to retain the territory. Carthage (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)