The Falkland islands/Malvinas

[Boboulas]

Says who

The people that actualy live there.

[Crimson Commissar]

Says who, the current nation-state rulers or internationalists?

Is this the same slant you were getting on when talking about the 'British unity' in that nonsense pan-celtic thread?

Oh, come on. The PEOPLE THEMSELVES want to be British, and they consider themselves British. Just because some ridiculous Argentinian nationalists want to claim the islands as their own doesn't mean the people should be forced to accept it. Get over it, Britain is no longer some evil imperialist power who wants to "oppress the non-english peoples of the world", the British Empire is long dead, but that doesn't mean that a region such as the Falklands which is inhabited by BRITISH people should be handed over to Argentine nationalists.

[Unis]

Says who, the current nation-state rulers or internationalists?

Is this the same slant you were getting on when talking about the 'British unity' in that nonsense pan-celtic thread?

So say the inhabitants, the indigenous inhabitants - who want to escape from Argentinian imperialism.

[Sam_b]

Aah yes, the BRITISH people, the people of BRITAIN. I haven't asked the people of the Falklands lately, have you? Asides this takes nothing away from the notion of a boundryless, classless society with no nation state, which should be a basic communist position.

Britain is no longer some evil imperialist power who wants to "oppress the non-english peoples of the world"

Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Of course before that there's Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia.....do you know what imperialism is?

You're just chock-full of nationalist rhetoric! Up the BRITISH

[gorillafuck]

The Falklands shouldn't belong to either of them. Recognizing either states "right" to controlling the Falklands is really stupid, neither country has any sort of "right" to controlling the Falklands.

[meow]

fuck all countries and stuff.

[Crimson Commissar]

Aah yes, the BRITISH people, the people of BRITAIN. I haven't asked the people of the Falklands lately, have you? Asides this takes nothing away from the notion of a boundryless, classless society with no nation state, which should be a basic communist position.



Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Of course before that there's Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia.....do you know what imperialism is?

You're just chock-full of nationalist rhetoric! Up the BRITISH

The people of the Falklands ARE British. I doubt they want to become part of a country which:
1. They share no cultural or linguistic similarities with
2. Tried to forcefully invade them just 30 years ago

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well, are you gonna go off on a rant against every country that is currently fighting in Afghanistan? Do you absolutely HAVE to oppose EVERYTHING that Britain does?

[¿Que?]

I think this thread is seriously missing some Argie perspective. In the absence of this, I'll have to do my best.

First off, Argentinians were duped into giving a shit about the islands in the first place. Nobody cared until I believe it was Galtieri decided to reclaim them. This made everyone happy.

But guess what? Nobody in Britain cared either. It was only until Thatcher duped the British working class into giving two shits, that this even gained any significance in the British consciousness.

So both sides (working class) were duped...one by Fascism, the other by British conservatism. So let's get some perspective.

257 British dead and 647 Argentinians. Why? Because some fascist nutcase invaded a tiny island nobody cared about, or because some conservative nutcase decided she wasn't going to let it slide?

The question of who actually has the right to the Malvinas, is in my opinion irrelevant. I would much rather go back to the good old days when nobody cares. However, there is a kink in this dream.

Recently, the conflict resurfaced as British ships were detected in the area, speculating for oil. These were ships were owned by private oil companies, but had been assisted and encouraged by the British government. To the Argentinians, this was like reopening an old wound. Only this time, there was actually something at stake...natural resources.

So...My understanding from the general consensus on this thread is that the British (as state and as corporation), since they have every right to the Malvinas, also have every right to the sea around the Malvinas, and every right to the natural resources they find there.

And this is perfectly ok with all the "Anarchists," "Marxists", "Communists" etc that have contributed such meaningful analysis of the situation on this thread?

Analysis that would have us hold to the idea of a third world, developing, impoverished (whatever you want to call it) nation as "imperialist" and "colonial".

Take that rhetoric where it belongs...stormfront!

[Crimson Commissar]

It is possible for a third world nation to be imperialistic, in the right circumstances. Argentina is in nowhere near the amount of shit some other countries are. I'm not saying here that Britain has the right to own the island, I'm saying that the British PEOPLE have the right to own the island, you know, the ones LIVING THERE? If they wish to remain part of Britain, then so be it.

[¿Que?]

It is possible for a third world nation to be imperialistic, in the right circumstances.

Well go ahead and dust off the books. I'll believe it when I read it.

[Crimson Commissar]

Well go ahead and dust off the books. I'll believe it when I read it.

So, invading a country that you have nothing to do with, merely based on it's geographical location isn't imperialistic? You wouldn't be saying the same thing if it was Britain doing the invading and not Argentina.

[¿Que?]

So, invading a country that you have nothing to do with, merely based on it's geographical location isn't imperialistic? You wouldn't be saying the same thing if it was Britain doing the invading and not Argentina.

You simply cannot make this analogy and retain any kind of credibility as a leftist in my book. You're shouting "reverse racism" which we understand cannot exist when the distribution of power remains so unequal. Imperial Argentina for me can only exist in relation to indigenous people. So you were somewhat right, but for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: In any case, I was asking for some evidence like a credible source.

[Demogorgon]

Incidentally, the notion that somehow Argentina has a "right" due to geographical location barely qualifies by its own logic. After all the shape at the border at Cape Horn would give Chile a claim too, not to mention that there is a reasonable Chilean population on the Islands but no Argentinean one. That being said though while there is no desire to be part of either Chile or Argentina, where is the justification for forcing it under foreign rule.

I find it quite shameful that some leftists have bought into the rhetoric of Argentinean expansionism, most forcibly pushed by a right wing military dictatorship trying to shore up support with war (which ironically ended up shoring up support for another undesirable government...). For goodness sake, drop the double standards.

[Sam_b]

The people of the Falklands ARE British. I doubt they want to become part of a country which:
1. They share no cultural or linguistic similarities with
2. Tried to forcefully invade them just 30 years ago

This is fail. Why are you so quick to define workers by nationality?

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well, are you gonna go off on a rant against every country that is currently fighting in Afghanistan? Do you absolutely HAVE to oppose EVERYTHING that Britain does?

Why do all your posts reek of British nationalism?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Didn't the British put the settlers on the Island to get another foreign territory under their flag anyway? How is that not imperialism?

[Crimson Commissar]

This is fail. Why are you so quick to define workers by nationality?

I'm not. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the people WANT to be part of Britain. Going against that would be completely un-Socialist. And before you try to say that I am going against what the people want by saying Ireland should be British, that is only what I would want to happen, but if no one is in support of that then obviously I wouldn't try to force it upon the Irish people.

Why do all your posts reek of British nationalism?

And why do your's reek of Anti-Angloism?

Didn't the British put the settlers on the Island to get another foreign territory under their flag anyway? How is that not imperialism?

Yeah, true, but going by that logic you could also say that all North Americans should be deported back to Europe and their land given back to the Native Americans.

[Sam_b]

I'm not. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the people WANT to be part of Britain. Going against that would be completely un-Socialist. And before you try to say that I am going against what the people want by saying Ireland should be British, that is only what I would want to happen, but if no one is in support of that then obviously I wouldn't try to force it upon the Irish people.

This is not what i'm getting at at all. The woring class movement is an internationalist movement, the stuggle for liberation is an international one, and all genuine revolutionaries believe that internationalism is an integral key to the movement. So why are you so quick to start labelling by nationality?

And why do your's reek of Anti-Angloism?

Source me some evidence to support this.

Indeed, you could even start by deining 'Angloism'.

[Raúl Duke]

I find it quite shameful that some leftists have bought into the rhetoric of Argentinean expansionism, most forcibly pushed by a right wing military dictatorship trying to shore up support with war (which ironically ended up shoring up support for another undesirable government...). For goodness sake, drop the double standards.

QFT

Let's get straight to the point via questions:

1-Do the population in Falklands consider themselves Argentinian, British, or nether?

From my understanding, the don't consider themselves Argentinian and do not share a common culture with Argentina. Thus, why would Argentina's claim on them be legitimate in any sense?

I heard that the population considers themselves British. From a nationalist standpoint, they should than stay with the UK if they identify with that nation.

2-Does the population, or at least a substantial segment consider themselves oppressed by the UK?

I don't know really, but I doubt it. If they did than from a national-liberation standpoint the best route would be for the independence of the Malvinas

3-Should the left even bother supporting either nations' claims? We obviously shouldn't care who are the "rightful national owners" or the Falklands.

Again, why should we bother ourselves with purely nationalist shenanigans? Unless the people of the Falklands are being and feel oppressed/subjugated to a significant degree more than the rest of the UK, why should the left care about nationalist territorial claims?

Didn't the British put the settlers on the Island to get another foreign territory under their flag anyway? How is that not imperialism?

Supposedly, the island was un-inhabited/un-settled prior to the arrival of the British.

[Crimson Commissar]

This is not what i'm getting at at all. The woring class movement is an internationalist movement, the stuggle for liberation is an international one, and all genuine revolutionaries believe that internationalism is an integral key to the movement. So why are you so quick to start labelling by nationality?

Again, I'm not. Why do I have to support the Argentine nationalist claims to the Falklands to be an internationalist? I'm not judging anyone be nationality, I'm just supporting the decision made by the people of the Falklands.

Source me some evidence to support this.

Indeed, you could even start by deining 'Angloism'.

By "Anti-Angloism" I mean being Anti-English. Most of your posts that I've seen have been denouncing Britain as being some kind of imperialistic world power that is "dominated by the English" and "oppresses the non-English peoples of the world"

[Sam_b]

Why do I have to support the Argentine nationalist claims to the Falklands to be an internationalist?

Did I say you did?

By "Anti-Angloism" I mean being Anti-English. Most of your posts that I've seen have been denouncing Britain as being some kind of imperialistic world power that is "dominated by the English" and "oppresses the non-English peoples of the world"

Prove it. Find me quotes where I have said that Britain is 'dominated by the English' and 'oppresses the non-English peoples of the world'. I believe you said the second quote, and I happened to respond that we can see imperialism at work in Iraq and Afghanistan.