415
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Zaelaa@lemmy.zip to c/pics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rockSlayer 20 points 2 weeks ago

Opposing colonialism is being a sore loser now?

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 80 points 2 weeks ago

Please explain to me how this is opposing colonialism? They want to colonise the Falklands themselves.

[-] VoteNixon2016 9 points 1 week ago

They sure as fuck don't belong to England

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 week ago

They've belonged to them for over 200 years, I don't see why they don't.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Let's recap islands history:

Deserted, no permanent population.

French set up a settlement.

English makes another, fight the French.

Spain buys French port, fights British.

Britain leaves.

Spain leaves.

Deserted, no permanent population.

Argentina sets up a settlement.

England comes back, fight them off.

Conclusion: "rightfully British"? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that's accurate.

However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina's claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BillCheddar@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Because "sail around the world and claim what you want" is fucking great if you're playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But if the islands were empty before? Like there's islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there's also those who just doesn't. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something?

[-] pipi1234@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

There weren't empty at the time of the British invasion.

There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians.

Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Eh, nobody else was using them for anything.

[-] VoteNixon2016 8 points 1 week ago

Thatcher's dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn't going to get her to sleep with you

[-] starlinguk@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

You've still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt.

[-] VoteNixon2016 3 points 1 week ago

No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] spock@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Does Argentina belong to the Spanish? Why do you think Argentina should take them? Who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came? Who lived in the Falkland islands, nobody.

[-] VoteNixon2016 9 points 1 week ago

It doesn't matter who lived there first, because I'll swear on the King's life that the Brits weren't first

Also, "who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?" Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores?

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago

Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up?

[-] moriquende@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for "indigenous people of Argentina" delivers ample evidence that there were.

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago

We're talking about the Falkland islands, Argentina wasn't colonised by the British.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

It does if the argument is about colonialism.

[-] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

They sure are fuck belong to whoever the majority of inhabitants want it to belong to.

Just like Greenland.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

The islands are on the continental shelf.

[-] rockSlayer 3 points 2 weeks ago

There's evidence of pre-Columbian Argentine peoples using the island.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 55 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Ah, yes, the fact that prehistoric Fuegians may have visited the Falklands surely means they're the birthright of Argentina. Airtight anti-colonialist explanation.

[-] rockSlayer 11 points 1 week ago

It certainly doesn't belong to the British.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Literally no one was there when France landed there, so you can either a) ask France and Spain for their thoughts, b) resurrect the Fuegians who visited and let them have it, forcibly deporting the people who've lived there for centuries, or c) disregard pragmatism and say they aren't part of any country – either way, you can stop obnoxiously trying to defend Argentina's baseless colonialist claim under the guise of "anticolonialism".

To the extent it belongs to anyone, it obviously belongs to the UK far more than it does to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to assert sovereignty over it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

They belong to me.

I have as good as a claim on the Islands as Argentina.

[-] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

Funny how quick the anti-colonialism argument got abandoned when facts entered the picture.

[-] guy@piefed.social 31 points 2 weeks ago

So pre-Argentine as well?

[-] knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 2 weeks ago

Isn't that promoting colonialism?

Opposing would be free Malvinas or something like that.

[-] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 21 points 1 week ago

Opposing would be free Malvinas or something like that.

The native population of the Falklands is arguably the British people living there. Who have clearly stated their preference to remain part of Britain. While Argentina's plan to displace and deport them, and replace them with Argentinians, is literally genocide and colonialism.

Respecting the native inhabitants' wishes is anti-colonialism.

[-] spock@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Wait, who colonized Argentina? And wait who was first to the Falkland Islands? I genuinely don't understand why you think Argentina wanting the Falkland Islands has anything to do with opposition to colonialism.

[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

Argentina supports Israel and has an ancap president. They aren't anti colonial.

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

Australian New Car Assessment Program? What do they have to do with this?

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 11 points 1 week ago

Anarcho-capitalist. The end state of muh free marketz morons.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Millei is not ancap. He hasn't legalised jack shit, and is anti abortion. He's just a conservative.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

Opposing colonialism is being a sore loser now?

Please recount to me the tales of how the Falklands war ended up going in the 1980s. I'm fascinated by your take.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's not real colonialism. It's Sparkling Regime Change.

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago

What regime did the English change when they showed up to an uninhabited island a few hundred years ago?

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 week ago
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

The British came to the island for resupply and left again, much like prior native peoples who had been visiting the island for centuries. And the British, along with French and Spanish peers, decimated the nearby locals to make the islands exclusive

Later, British explicitly removed the island from Argentinian territorial control, back in 1833. But the islands have been changing colonial hands since the 1700s they've had visitors from the mainland going back to prehistoric times.

Claiming it's uninhabitable after Europeans spent decades ethnically cleansing the mainland is cynical af.

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
415 points (100.0% liked)

pics

29280 readers
293 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS