Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

Manuel · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 139 Location: Argentina

I know that this is not a subject that will concern most of people in this forum, but is has a special significance to the Argentines, the British, and any people who cares about international issues.

Malvinas, or Falklands, represent a strategic point in the South-Atlantic ocean as regards to the Antartic Continent.

Originally, the islands belonged to Spain, and after Argentina�s independance, this country took the islands as own, as a Spanish inheritance (and due to many other geographical issues).
Argentina had a permanent presence until 1833, the year when the islands were stolen by British.

I would like to know what is your opinion about who the islands belong to, and why.
It is not my intention to start a controversy or agressive Argentina-England online fight, as in many other sites.

flying_pig319 · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 369

I don't know enough to decide...
Could you provide more details on how they were "stolen" by the British?
That seems to be the key point, right?

Manuel · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 139 Location: Argentina

Actually, it is.
The islands were taken by the English as they were doing all around the world following the Imperial orders, foundating colonies to provide materials to the industrial development of England.
If you study the subject, you will see that Argentina had had an uninterrupted goverment on the islands.
Later, after the islands were taken, in the year 1982, and under a terrible dictatorship, Argentina commit the ridiculous attempt to take the islands by force from one of the most powerful countries in the world. It was the last resouce that the current dictator of that moment had to gain popularity.
The attack didn�t work and Argentina lost its dialogue with England.
In this latest years, Argentina keeps demanding its rights over the islands, and has effectuated many demands to th UN, wich are supported by the decolonizating organism of the UN. England says that Argentina has to respect the will of the actual natives of the islands, but England forgets that this so-called "natives" are originally British living on a territory wich doesn�t belong tho them from the beggining.

flying_pig319 · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 369

That's very interesting!
Especially the part about the "natives".
I guess I would say that it wasn't nice for England to take the land from Argentina,
since Argentina seemed to be minding it's own business etc. etc.,
BUT
England won the land fair and square (or however fair and square stealing land can be. There must've been a battle of some sort, right? I mean, that's how land is taken...)
All in all, it was mean of England, and their current reasoning/justification for taking the land isn't fair, but they did take the land fair and square (from what I can gather from what you've told me Razz

)

flying_pig319 · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 369

But yeah--
that part about the natives is ridiculous.
And frankly, they're England.
They're doing VERY well in the world, I don't see why they can't let the smaller countries just be.

Manuel · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 139 Location: Argentina

If you call fair and square stealing territories by the use of force (as they tried to do with Buenos Aires some decades before 1833) and at the same time keep colonies in our time situated more than 11.000 kilometers overseas (when all other colonies like India or Hong Kong have reached emancipation), then you haven�t got very clear concepts in your mind.

flying_pig319 · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 369

Well, that's how all land is taken: by force. I mean, it definitely sucks for the Argentines, and the English definitely didn't have many scruples to do a thing like that (since Argentina was minding it's own business and all), but they didn't break any "rules" in taking it, right?

I mean, you didn't give me much information.

What makes it "stealing", as opposed to just taking the land? The fact that they did it by force?
What exactly does that MEAN?
Sorry to be ignorant, I'm just trying to understand this better.
By force, do you mean that they literally came in and killed whatever government was there, and formed their own?
Obviously, that wouldn't be very nice.

But there's a difference between "nice" and "fair". It wasn't very nice of them, but if that's how land is taken, then it WAS perfectly fair...
Do you see what I'm saying?

I really don't mean to offend your people, I'm sorry if I am. I'm just learning about this now- I had never heard of the Malvinas or Falklands until you made this board.

I don't think the fact that they were situated far away has anything to do with it at all though (except for the fact that it must've been a lot more difficult for the English to control land that was so far away).

ltp-008 · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 258

I don't know much about Argentine history,but I do know that there was a war in the 1980s between British and Argentina.British won the war which probably lasted about half year.

You said that the British stole the land of Falklands in 1833,that means British occupied the land by force.Through the history,many countries used force to steal lands for themselves ,this is fact.

British once was called the country which the Sun would never fall that means they had a lot of colonies which located in all over the world.For instance,they once colonized North America,Australia,New zealand,India ,Hongkong ,and so forth.But the United States launched an independent revolutionary 230 years ago,they became sovereignty country,Australia and New Zealand also became sovereignty countries although they didn't wage a war against the British.Now many former British colonies remain Commonwealth of Nations,at this point the head of these former British colonies is still the queen of Great british.

I don't dare to judge which country the Falklands belongs to,but I have a suggestion:there should be a referendum in the Island which decide the Island 's fate,are there a lot of residents in the Island?

Is the Island very important for British?It locates near Artarctica which is far from British.I think it would be hard for the British to defend it.

worldclass · Joined: 22 Jun 2006 Posts: 36

I agree with you Manuel. Land taken by aggression should be given back and there are only a few thousand Falklanders to be relocated back to the UK.

But with rich fishing resources and offshore oil concessions you won't see the queen handing the Falklands back any time soon.

Steve
_________________
www.LanguageSchoolSecrets.com - How to find the best schools and save money on your booking.

asterix · Joined: 26 Jan 2003 Posts: 1654

Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.

The people who live there want Britain to govern them.

If you are going to assert that land taken by aggression should be given back, then Argentina itself should be given back to its original inhabitants.

ieltsinsider · Joined: 16 May 2006 Posts: 170

I think that some people need to think about the whole concept of 'stealing' land here. How far back in history are we going to go? Can you give us a fair date here? The Falklands were claimed by Britain and Spain originally. There was a fight and the Brits won (back in the 19th century - or earlier?). The Argentines took over Spain's claim and tried to take the islands in 1982. The fact is that the Falkland Islanders have been there for hundreds of years and want to be British. That's far clearer than the situation in Tibet, for example, where the people have been subject to Chinese rule for 50 years and hate it.

flying_pig319 · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 369

Yeah...
Yeah, I guess it is stealing.
I don't know, though.
No one is giving information about how the land was actually TAKEN, so obviously I don't know whether to count it as stealing or not...
But yeah.
It should be given back to the Argentines.

ieltsinsider · Joined: 16 May 2006 Posts: 170

"It should be given back to the Argentines."
1. The Argentines have never had the Falklands - you can't give back something that a person has never had.
2. Why?

Manuel · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 139 Location: Argentina

I think that you didn�t notice that we said that Argentina had the islands under its goverment until 1833.

Why should we get the islands?

1. As an inheritance from Spain
2. Proximity to Argentina
3. Geografically near from Patagonia coast.
4. Located on the same continental platform, wich, since G�neve Convention is considered as a part of the coasting State (Argentina).
5. Uninterrupted prescence on the island until 1833.

There are too many things to say about this, but it would be too long to post on this forum.
Then you say that Kelpers want to be considered British. Well, they are British because they are a colony. And its more convenient to them to belong to a current rich nation than to a poorer one. But that�s all what attachs them to England.
If the land returned to Argentina, they would be respected.

flying_pig319 · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 369

Gosh, you didn't read the thing at ALL, insider!
The Argentines had the islands for quite a while, actually... Rolling Eyes