websters gue Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Looking back I envy the Argentinians, they got rid of their dictatorship and we kept ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Indeed, how dare the British talk about colonialism to the proud Argentinian people who boast a healthy 1.6% indigenous population and definately aren't just mainly the descendants of Spanish colonialists who nicked an entire continent and killed off most of the natives. Rule Brittania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Rule Brittania. Maybe the French could take ownership of England like they did 1000 years ago? The French (or the Dutch, or the Scots, or the Danes, or the Italians even) certainly have more claim to Sheffield than Argentina does to the Falklands. Parlez vous Francais? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Indeed, how dare the British talk about colonialism to the proud Argentinian people who boast a healthy 1.6% indigenous population and definately aren't just mainly the descendants of Spanish colonialists who nicked an entire continent and killed off most of the natives. How many of the indegenous people of these islands live here? I would say about none. Even before the Roman Occupation, they had been driven to extinction by immigrants, coming here to steal their caves and hand axes. And dont mention those Vikings, in their boats, getting all the best seaside towns and beaches. And as for the bladdy Normans, well, frog eaters, swanning about as if they own the place. It never ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 How many of the indegenous people of these islands live here? I would say about none. You'd be right, but nobody knows whether they were exterminated by the Celts, or driven out by the Celts, or vanished for some other arcane reason. Celts still live on the British Isles, as do descendants of every other group to have invaded in the 3,500 or so years since they arrived. On the other hand, the Falklands never had an indigenous population. It was settled by the British, and has remained in their hands ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Maybe the French could take ownership of England like they did 1000 years ago? The French (or the Dutch, or the Scots, or the Danes, or the Italians even) certainly have more claim to Sheffield than Argentina does to the Falklands. Parlez vous Francais? Expliquer s'il vous plaît. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Maybe the French could take ownership of England like they did 1000 years ago? The French (or the Dutch, or the Scots, or the Danes, or the Italians even) certainly have more claim to Sheffield than Argentina does to the Falklands. Parlez vous Francais? The Normans were invaders of France also, and spoke Latin. They were sworn enemies of the French Kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Rule Brittania. I'm not being jingoistic I'm just pointing out a fact. The vast majority of "Argentinians" are descendants of Spanish colonists. The Falklands were settled by us, but they were uninhabitted. The mainland of south america was settled by the Spanish and was not unihabitted, though the spanish did their best to get rid of the existing inhabitants. So who has the best moral claim to their piece of land - the British descended Falklander whose lump of rock was not inhabited before they settled it or the Spanish "Argentinian" who nicked someone elses country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You'd be right, but nobody knows whether they were exterminated by the Celts, or driven out by the Celts, or vanished for some other arcane reason. Celts still live on the British Isles, as do descendants of every other group to have invaded in the 3,500 or so years since they arrived. On the other hand, the Falklands never had an indigenous population. It was settled by the British, and has remained in their hands ever since. But since the building of the Panama Canal what use have they been? We no longer need them as a coaling station do we? Thatcher had big ideas about destroying Antartica to exploit the oil under that continent, and using the Falklands as a southern sort of Sullom Voe terminal. I would say those islanders were better of as Argentinians, at least they would have some where to go to get away from that dreadful place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The vast majority of "Argentinians" are descendants of Spanish colonists. QUOTE] And the vast majority of English people are descendants of Scandinavians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.