The Falkland islands/Malvinas

[Dr Mindbender]

I am probably ignorant of the history and politics surrounding the Falklands/Malvinas but what i cant help wondering is what territorial right does Argentina have over them when there is no indigenous population that actually supports Argentine rule?

It seems very different to Northern Ireland which only came about due to territorial gerrymandering.

If someone can explain Argentinas claim better i would be interested.

[Sasha]

first look at the map,

you see the UK anywhere near there?

and for the rest, well, there isnt an indigenous population at all (except sheep and even they where imported) there are some british living there but before the invasion it where only a very few.

i as an sort of anarchist offcourse also dont recognise the claims of argentine but from an statist perspective they make an hell of a lot more sense than the british.

[Crimson Commissar]

Argentina taking control of the Falklands makes no sense at all. If the people there were Argentinian or at least Spanish-speaking, then it would be fine. But they're not, they're British. I understand that the whole reason that Britain owns the Falklands is because of our imperialist past, but the fact is that the island is British, and unless the island is suddenly repopulated with Argentinians, then it will stay under British control.

[Unis]

Unfortunately as much as we hate imperialism, the British clearly have the real claim here - with the entire population wanting to stay part of Britain. No Argentines are being oppressed (Indeed, next to none live there) there and the Argentines have never owned the land or lived on it - only the British have.

Geography is not an indicator of anything. If Argentina claims sovereignty over those islands, it better hurry up on its Claims for Chile too.

The Falklanders are the indigenous population. They want to stay part of Britain. And so we should respect their position and not let the Argentine politicians use it as a populist weapon to get people to rally behind when their popularity drops.

[Dr Mindbender]

first look at the map,
you see the UK anywhere near there?

No but then geographic contiguity is seldomly a good basis for territorial claim in its own right otherwise France would be expected to give up guiana and america Hawaii.

i as an sort of anarchist offcourse also dont recognise the claims of argentine but from an statist perspective they make an hell of a lot more sense than the british.

what, and the desires of the current occupants (almost all of them) doesn't even come into it? That doesnt make an awful lot of sense to me.

as for the issue of indigenous peoples, the current falklanders are the closest thing, there never were pro argentina residents.

[Sasha]

No but then geographic contiguity is seldomly a good basis for territorial claim in its own right otherwise France would be expected to give up guiana and america Hawaii.

euh, yes dont know for sure about hawai but yeah, since when do we recognize colonial rights?

[Boboulas]

These days argentina only wants it for their oil purposes or to gain some kind of support for bieng hardline against the british state.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

This is the ideology of Nationalisms true nature, a silly mystification of "the home land" wich in this case is the area thats inside some special lines on a map and those lines can be wider so that more territory can be included in "the home land".
About the Falklands war, it was just a way to change focus and a try to strength the postion of and by the ruling classes. First in Argentina the dictatores wanted to change focus frome theire failur of handling the economical crises so they started a truely meningless war to gain some barren islands with no natural reasorces (exept sheep products) and that was great for miss Tacher who now could change focus frome her brutal neoliberization of the brittish public sector and angry striking miners, to say that now we all must unite against the invadors that has violated brittish soil on the other side of the equator. Divide and conquer.

[graymouser]

No but then geographic contiguity is seldomly a good basis for territorial claim in its own right otherwise France would be expected to give up guiana and america Hawaii.

Hawai'i is stolen land. If the native Hawai'ans decide they want independence Marxists should support their claim.

[Dr Mindbender]

euh, yes dont know for sure about hawai

I think so, otherwise by the same merit Russia or Japan could claim Hawaii.

yeah, since when do we recognize colonial rights?

I think in the case of the falklands its different because there is no existing indigenous people that are being oppressed as a result of british rule.

Arguably the same applies to Gibraltar because the vast majority of Gibraltans apparently are happy remaining british.

Hawai'i is stolen land. If the native Hawai'ans decide they want independence Marxists should support their claim.

I agree, but this is exactly what the Philippines chose and i think in hindsight they regret their desicion as they are now a developing nation.

I think Hawai'ans observed the filipino's mistake and arent keen to repeat it.

[Demogorgon]

States and borders are artificial. The notion that Argentina or Britain has some kind of "right" to rule the Falklands is absurd. What matters is the people that live there. The people of the Falklands are close to unanimous in wishing to be a British territory and there is no displaced indigenous population wishing otherwise. Argentina has no claim at all.

[Demogorgon]

I agree, but this is exactly what the Philippines chose and i think in hindsight they regret their desicion as they are now a developing nation.

I think Hawai'ans observed the filipino's mistake and arent keen to repeat it.

The Phillipines never had or were close to attaining statehood, there is a clear difference there and to my knowledge there is no particular desire to return to America.

As for Hawaii, yes if they want independence, Marxists have to support that, but likewise while there is no desire for that, it is not our job to start acting as if nationalist ideas of states are correct.

[Dr Mindbender]

The Phillipines never had or were close to attaining statehood, there is a clear difference there and to my knowledge there is no particular desire to return to America.

Speaking as someone whos been to the philippines i can state confidently there is a certain regret among the younger generation of Filipinos that were denied the privilege of a developed lifestyle thanks to the stubborn nationalism of their forefathers.

[Demogorgon]

Speaking as someone whos been to the philippines i can state confidently there is a certain regret among the younger generation of Filipinos that were denied the privilege of a developed lifestyle thanks to the stubborn nationalism of their forefathers.

Well maybe, but at any rate the Philippines were not being offered statehood and the notion that they could have gained American levels of prosperity is overly optimistic. The US's other dependent territories stand testimony to that.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Speaking as someone whos been to the philippines i can state confidently there is a certain regret among the younger generation of Filipinos that were denied the privilege of a developed lifestyle thanks to the stubborn nationalism of their forefathers.

Because colonial Philippines would have been so much more advanced?

Like that other colony of the United States... Puerto Rico...

Since when do we support imperialist arguments of "bringing prosperity to savages" by colonising them anyway? And people regretting some warped unrealistic dreams about a reality that never would have been much different from current-reality is irrelevant; they obviously desire things to be better but stop at making up a nonsensical fantasy about how being a total U.S. colony instead of just a vassal would have been so much better.

[graymouser]

I agree, but this is exactly what the Philippines chose and i think in hindsight they regret their desicion as they are now a developing nation.

I think Hawai'ans observed the filipino's mistake and arent keen to repeat it.

Despite the vulgarization of Lenin's position on the right of nations to self-determination, Marxists don't advocate the independence of subjugated nations. If the Hawai'ians actually want to stay in the USA (now I mean the natives, not the US and Japanese settlers), that's their right. And if they want to be independent, that's their right too.

The reality is that the status quo has been much better for US and Japanese settlers than for native Hawai'ans, which I think is an important fact to look at in analyzing the differences between Hawai'i and the Philippines.

[Blake's Baby]

The thing about the Falklands/Malvinas is, if the Argentinians did take over (either militarily or through a diplomatic deal) it would behove those who believe in 'anti-Imperialism' to support the islanders' rights - and return them to Britain.

The Malouines (I'm going to use the earliest known spelling) were named by French sailors (from S Malo in Brittany), but not settled. The British settled them under the name 'the Falkland Islands'. Subsequently Argentina gained its independence from Spain adn claimed the Malouines. It never owned the Malouines, nor indeed as far as I can recall did Spain ever own them, and the 'native' or 'original' population is of British and Irish descent. And, overwhelmingly, wants to remain part of Britain.

So, make of that what you will. Nasty colonial Argentina seeking to conquer the native British. Or a European planted colony denying a southern emergent economy territorial integrity. Either/or; maybe both. But I think it's undeniable that Argentina has never 'owned' the Malouines (so any claim is based on logic, and proximity) and the population wants to be British (so claims based on popular mandate and indigenous rights).

[Red Saxon]

Since there was no native population on the Falkland Islands, the first group to settle there should legally and morally be considered the native population. Since the native population (i.e. those of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic descent) wants overwhelmingly to remain a subject of the British Isles then I don't see how the Argentinians have any claim over the area other than a geographic one.

Fuck Imperial Argentina.

[People's War]

Argentina taking over the Falklands would essentially be colonialism - the people want to be British, not Argentine. I don't see how any anti-imperialist can support giving the Falklands to Argentina.

[Sam_b]

but the fact is that the island is British

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?