FuzzyLobster wrote:

Sentynel wrote:Can I therefore nab myself a nice formerly-Canadian island of my very own, as long as I declare independence and identify myself as a citizen of the nation of <random island>? Can I, for that matter, do the same to a habited region, as long as I outnumber the existing residents?

Then it's settled. We need to claim an island for "The Glorious Republic of Bartiforums."

I'd vote Gladstone for Prime Minister, Sent for Secretary of State, Didier for official opposition, and Captain Internets for Minister for the Status of Women.

(Yes, let's mix up Parliament and President Cabinent)

Sentynel wrote:The residents of the Falklands identify as Islanders, they just choose to remain part of the UK too. (Fun fact: popular support for independence, as opposed to remaining part of Britain, dropped off rather after Argentina invaded.)

Can I therefore nab myself a nice formerly-Canadian island of my very own, as long as I declare independence and identify myself as a citizen of the nation of <random island>? Can I, for that matter, do the same to a habited region, as long as I outnumber the existing residents? This is exactly what you were complaining about re self-determinism earlier, but it's somehow okay as long as it's not happening on behalf of some other nation?

And this still doesn't address the question of what's so special about the Falklands, as opposed to any of the other overseas territories held by any number of nations, many of which are closer to some other sovereign nation than their administrator.

No

Like I said earlier, I don't think non-native people should self determine the status of the land they occupy.
If you moved to some random place and several generations later, the population had developed it's own distinct cultural identity tied to land they live in, then yes they have the right to self-determination.
I'm sure the Falklands have their own culture. But while they still think that a couple islands off South America should belong to a European country in a different hemisphere, I'm not convinced Falklanders are really that separate from Britian.

Also, the Falklands aren't really that special. I've just not brought up any other overseas territories.

Nero wrote:I'd vote Gladstone for Prime Minister, Sent for Secretary of State, Didier for official opposition, and Captain Internets for Minister for the Status of Women.

(Yes, let's mix up Parliament and President Cabinent)

Lol. Yay I'm official opposition.

In all seriousness though, I think the Minister for the status of Women should be a woman.
Also, in Canada, the minister of Indian affairs should be the chief of the Assembly of First Nations

Didier wrote:In all seriousness though, I think the Minister for the status of Women should be a woman.

I think that may have been the joke ಠ_ಠ

Mhm?

(hence the 'lol' followed by 'in all seriousness')

I see what's going on ;)

Nero wrote: Captain Internets for Minister for the Status of Women.

(Yes, let's mix up Parliament and President Cabinent)

This seems like a very scary prospect. :P

Definitely mix up several different government systems though. The world won't know what hit them. Also, Gladdy for Governor General. Technically in charge, but doesn't seem to use the power much.


Calling Minister for the Environment. Let's see how long it will take before y'all get fed up and assassinate me. (at the same time, I'd be willing to bet I do a better job than the current Canadian government)

FuzzyLobster wrote:Calling Minister for the Environment. Let's see how long it will take before y'all get fed up and assassinate me. (at the same time, I'd be willing to bet I do a better job than the current Canadian government)

Nope, sorry, I just decreed women aren't allowed to be in government

*runs*

Footstool then. Couple night police games ago I gave her a sex change. :o

Captain Internets wrote:

Didier wrote:In all seriousness though, I think the Minister for the status of Women should be a woman.

I think that may have been the joke ಠ_ಠ

Nah man I was being completely serious. So serious. Joker serious. Yo.

---

Didier wrote:Also, in Canada, the minister of Indian affairs should be the chief of the Assembly of First Nations

Haven't you heard? The Indians are under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government!

Captain Internets wrote:

FuzzyLobster wrote:Calling Minister for the Environment. Let's see how long it will take before y'all get fed up and assassinate me. (at the same time, I'd be willing to bet I do a better job than the current Canadian government)

Nope, sorry, I just decreed women aren't allowed to be in government

*runs*

That is assuming you can actually run faster than I can. :P (Well, right now probably, I'm limping this week. But usually)

Didier wrote:No

Like I said earlier, I don't think non-native people should self determine the status of the land they occupy.
If you moved to some random place and several generations later, the population had developed it's own distinct cultural identity tied to land they live in, then yes they have the right to self-determination.
I'm sure the Falklands have their own culture. But while they still think that a couple islands off South America should belong to a European country in a different hemisphere, I'm not convinced Falklanders are really that separate from Britian.

So, your criteria for acceptable colonisation are as follows:

1) Indigenous populations don't matter as long as you subjugate them thoroughly.
2) You need to renounce ties with wherever you originally came from.
3) You need to have your own cultural identity.
4) You need to hang onto it for several generations (during which time, presumably, your colonisation is not acceptable, but after long enough everyone gives up complaining).

The Falklands, then, fail on #2, and should be handed over to Argentina (despite them only having met a single criterion from that list, #1, when they invaded, so I guess that means an alternative criterion for acceptability is "they're relatively nearby").


I'm a little baffled, then, by the idea that one can invade somewhere, boot out the natives from the nice bits of land, declare independence from wherever one came from, and then hang onto the place for a couple of hundred years, and this is just fine and dandy, but if you colonise somewhere deserted and skip the "declare independence" step, this is morally unacceptable and you lose your right to self-determination.

You dismiss the right to self-determination due to fears over the eviction of indigenous populations, but then you come up with arbitrary reasons to define the inhabitants of the Falklands, who've been there for hundreds of years, as non-indigenous (despite there being no other population), and then hand-wave genuine cases of abuse of indigenous populations (as practised by your own country, mine in places other than the Falklands, and plenty of others, including Argentina) away.

I think you're drastically over-simplifying and putting words in my mouth (or posts)

Ok, let me try and bring my argument into a few nice neat concise points for you

1) Colonialism in the 21st century is unacceptable.
- Past colonialism shouldn't be excused either, but there are other considerations there that I will get into shortly.

2) Immigrants are not colonists
-The key difference is: immigrants don't consider their new land a part of their old land. You don't see Chinatown asking to be part of China, do you?

3) Just because a land was uninhabited, doesn't mean it can't qualify as a colony.
-Britain owning territory in South America? Face it, the Falklands are not British Isles

4) White Canadians are immigrants
-Didn't use to be. They use to be colonists, but that has changed. When did this happen? Took a few generations, but eventually, the children of colonists began to identify with the land they grew up in, and not the mother country thousand of miles away that they'd never visited.

5) Falklanders are colonists
-Because overwhelmingly, they support remaining part of the mother county despite being there for generations. Time isn't absolute to my argument. Generations passing usually turn colonists to immigrants, but this isn't a fact, it's just a trend.

6) Immigrants get to call themselves indigenous.
-Even if they have uber mega issues with the other indigenous people (like in Canada). I'm not dismissing those issues. But non first nations Canadians can't just be called colonists. Falklanders can be. They're British people, living on an island on the other end of the world.

7) Colonists don't get to decide the status of the land they occupy
-I've said this twice already, but I'll say it again. Ignoring the colonists on the Falklands, the islands are Argentine, by plain geographic logic. Furthermore, Argentina/the Spanish who preceded them have had their own history of claiming the islands.

I think the only thing we disagree on is whether the Falklanders are colonists or not. I've explained how, by my opinionated definition, they are, and how they differ from white Canadians. Hence, I side with Argentina.

Class dismissed

I hinted at this earlier, but more clearly: You know what would have happened if the Falklands had declared independence from the UK around the time many of our other overseas territories were going that way, thus meeting your criteria? They'd have been invaded by Argentina. There are practical as well as cultural reasons for retaining ties to a much more powerful, militarily and economically, parent nation. And sure, the world would have wrung their hands and complained about this, but this wouldn't have done the islanders any good.

Re Chinatown - I also don't see them evicting all the current inhabitants and declaring themselves rulers. Immigration is fine. This is not what I'm referring to.


Fundamentally, my position is that it's not fair or practical to deprive a population of their right to self-determination based on a weak complaint about the actions of people hundreds of years ago. Yes, lots of pretty morally questionable things happened back then. (As such things go, colonisation of the Falklands was pretty damn minor.) We do the best we can now for people's current situations, because we can't undo any harms done back then and restore the Native Americans their continent or what have you. There's no moral basis for declaring that some particular situations as unacceptable and in need of that magic undo button, especially when said particular situations' total harm done are vastly lower than other situations we've come to accept.

I don't imagine continuing this discussion any further will get anyone any further, however.

Independent Falklands could still have been defended by Britain as an ally. But this is alternate history speculation which is rather weak.

Otherwise, I agree with most of the rest of what your saying. Except, of course, the Falklanders having a right to self-determination.

And yes, the practicality of certain situations is just too great of an obstacle for even my arguments, including the practicality of integrating the Malvinas into Argentina, given the Falklanders who have a big western power behind them.

Here's an idea: Argentina should just flood a bunch of it's own people onto the Falklands, outnumber the local Falklanders, and swing the referendum vote in support of integration with Argentina. Tada! Self-determination at work.

On another note, some artist really screwed up the portrait for the Duchess of Cambridge.

Let's start with some definitions. Both of these are taken from The Dictionary of Human Geography - Johnston et al (yes, I have dusted off my old Uni books).

Colonialism
"The establishment and maintenance of rule, for an extended period of time, by a sovereign power over a subordinate and alien people that is separate from the ruling power."

Immigration
"A form of migration that occurs when people move from one nation-state to another."

Migration
"Permanent or semi-permanent change of residence by an individual or group of people."

I would argue that the first people to arrive in the Falklands were migrants. All people born there are Falkland Islanders.

wrote:3) Just because a land was uninhabited, doesn't mean it can't qualify as a colony.
-Britain owning territory in South America? Face it, the Falklands are not British Isles

See definition above.

wrote:4) White Canadians are immigrants

The first generation were migrants/colonists.
The second generation are neither because they were born there, they did not migrant to the region from some other place. They are Canadians.

The first generation to arrive in the Falklands were migrants.
All further generations are Falkland Islanders.

wrote: 5) Falklanders are colonists
-Because overwhelmingly, they support remaining part of the mother county despite being there for generations. Time isn't absolute to my argument. Generations passing usually turn colonists to immigrants, but this isn't a fact, it's just a trend.

See definition above. Also, the Falklands are not *part* of the UK. They fall under the UK's jurisdiction. The Islanders want to maintain this relationship for the massive amount of benefits they get from the UK. I don't believe it is anything amount spreading UK influence.

wrote: 6) Immigrants get to call themselves indigenous.
-Even if they have uber mega issues with the other indigenous people (like in Canada). I'm not dismissing those issues. But non first nations Canadians can't just be called colonists. Falklanders can be. They're British people, living on an island on the other end of the world.

It depends, some may be "British Overseas Citizens", it's way too complex for me to go into here, but they are not British Citizens and cannot settle in the UK with impunity.

wrote:7) Colonists don't get to decide the status of the land they occupy
-I've said this twice already, but I'll say it again. Ignoring the colonists on the Falklands, the islands are Argentine, by plain geographic logic. Furthermore, Argentina/the Spanish who preceded them have had their own history of claiming the islands.

..political borders rarely follow any sort of logic, they're completely arbitrary.

Most of them were born there, they are not colonists. UN Charter time:

"All people have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they may freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic social and cultural development."

Yes, that also means if a bunch of people turn up legally in your country, they get a say on how it gets run. How do you think Obama became POTUS? It certainly wasn't by relying on the vote of people who family arrived in the US multiple generations ago.

wrote:I think the only thing we disagree on is whether the Falklanders are colonists or not. I've explained how, by my opinionated definition, they are, and how they differ from white Canadians. Hence, I side with Argentina.

Geography disagrees with you.

LAWYERED

Sentynel wrote:LAWYERED

I'm still caught up on the fact that Gladstone has pretty much gone on a posting spree of two posts today.

Sentynel wrote:LAWYERED

Finally his geography degree comes in useful for something :D

Gladstone joined the argument: Sh!t just got real

Oh dear...

If anyone thought I was making an argument backed by the UN and making use of the proper textbook definitions of words like "colonists" etc. etc,....yeah, no I wasn't. I was just presenting an opinion.
Please don't sue me for using incorrect vocabulary :$

Anyway, sure, borders are drawn arbitrarily and I've heard the "All people have the right to self-determination...." part of the UN charter. However, I disagree with the perfection of these concepts. I don't think borders should be drawn arbitrarily. (Causes a hell of a lot of problems. Look at Africa) I think self-determination is a worthy concept, but in reality, this can be taken advantage of for less than ethical reasons.

I'll admit to being a little mean to Falklanders by saying their ancestors migrating/colonizing or whatever you want to call it to the islands should strip them of their capacity to decide the status of their own home.

Still, I sympathize with Argentina. They could just get a bunch of their own people to immigrate to the Falklands and self-determine their way back to Argentina. Alternatively, they could offer the islands a better deal than what Britain can, being so far away and all, and convince the islanders to join their country. (which would take an AGE to work, but is still possible)

And next time, somebody else has to take an edgy stance on something! This is making me look like some pompous self-absorbed Quebecker with a grudge against the English :(