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)


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)