Nope, they won a game of sports ball
Dumbass Gauchos failed history. The facts are written below. Are there resources or precious metals on and around the Falklands? Go Spain! I hope they smash the Argentinians, because of Milei.
And FIFA won’t do anything about it, as usual.
Interestingly, Argentina have recently expanded their claim to the South Sandwich Islands and the UK’s theoretical claim of Antarctica. They don’t have any justification for it, they simply think they can get away with it as long as they claim victimhood if they don’t get it.
It’s pronounced Falklands.
Shall we talk about Argentine genocide of their black population now?
… Shall we? I’m on your side here, but Britain of all fucking places is not going to come out looking better afterwards
Let’s start with Jallianwala Bagh to give them a head start.
That is not a conversation the brits can win on
might be worth noting that a government having done this does not mean the people there actually support it
oh also this happened under a dictatorship backed by the US sooo
yeah lets hear the british opinion on this, it’s sure to be very valuable 
Remember the shit that the officials threw at team captains who wanted to wear a rainbow-colored team captains band? That was two or four years ago. IIRC they threatened to ban the player or team for political messages on the field.
If this banner is not a ban-worthy offence, I don’t know it.
Oh shit, some people who kick a ball around for money have unfurled a banner.
Its over.
Fr. Caesar don’t GAF about the gladiators’ political views.
But daddy Infantino said this is just about sports and not politics?!? /s
Argentina then belongs to Spain. Do your thing Lamine.
Not sure how I feel about this.
From my understanding the island wishes to stay part of the UK, but I don’t know if historically that’s because they colonized the fuck out of it.
Argentina is also kind of an asshole country, so is the UK. Both in their own way.
Argentina also played like absolute assholes. The UK is notorious for being assholes about football.
I guess I’ll just say oof.
A simple rule of thumb in geopolitical disputes is to see who England is supporting, and support the other side.
Corollary: a simple rule of thumb when trying to figure out why some historical tragedy occured is to ask what England was doing at that time.
There was no colonization.
The issue with the malvinas/Falklands is that there are no “historically rightful owners”, since no one lived there when they were discovered by the British.
But it’s also not as easy as “the British discovered, so it’s theirs”, because they just discovered and left. They didn’t leave no settlement.
The islands have a complicated history, both sides have strong arguments in favor of themselves, there’s no clear cut “rightful owner”.
Well the islands are settled now and they’re settled by people who think they’re British so I can’t really see how you can functionally come to the conclusion that there is any mystery.
Argentina’s claim to the islands seems to be their they are sort of close to Argentina, although far enough out to be an international waters and there was once a Spanish settlement there back before Argentina existed as a country. By the time Argentina became its own country the Spanish settlement was no longer in existence.
So from most of human history the islands were uninhabited or only sporadically inhabited and we’re talking the level of driftwood huts here, no permanent structures. If anyone had any legitimate claim to the island it would be Spain they were the first to build proper buildings on the islands, at least they had a settlement there until they abandoned it, but then they quite happily sold the rights to the land to the British.
The British didn’t discover the islands - the French (and then the Spanish) did. But they won them after that, so your points are still good - just wanted to point this part out
The French discovered Thema in 1764 , the britisch claimed Thema in 1765, the spanisch came only in 1770 with a force oft about one and a half thousand nen forcing the british off of the Islands
To clarify, Britain didn’t “win” them. The previous occupants had abandoned it totally as it wasn’t worth much to them. When Britain arrived, it was desolate and abandoned with no prior claim. This was, by the way, some time before Argentina existed.
I agree with this take. The claims are plausible from both sides but England obviously won the battle. The inhabitants being established are a result of the military positioning, so their votes will obviously be skewed. Not sure their votes are comparable to those of say native populations of other disputed territories (since there were none).
So I can understand why the Argentines feel aggrieved.
The Argentine claim is implausible. The Falklands were British before Argentina was created. Their reasoning is that it had been used by the Spanish, and so had now-Argentina, therefore dibs.
Argentina gained independence from Spain on 25 May 1810
In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony and Scottish settlers subsequently established an official pastoral community.
But they were claimed by the britisch in 1765
British and Spanish.
The British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774
Now, is independence from Spain also independence from all it’s territories? I would argue yes.
Crown colony is just a title, the UK had settled the island decades prior
Actually no - they were driven off by the spanisch in 1770 but never gave up their claim - however Ehen the british resettled the Islands in 1830 they were in fact abandonded
Right but the claim predates Argentina’s existence.
The only way Argentina has legitimate claim to the island would be if Spain still maintained the claim to the island at the time Argentina became independent and even then they would have to have to cead the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Which of course never happened.
Hm that’s tough. I always like to think boundaries set by countries are bullshit anyway, but it is located closer to Argentina. Another comment says they both want it because the island comes with vast amount of fishing so economic reasons. And the UK probably put money forth to develop some sort of living situation on there.
Proximity matters but only up to a point. The Islands aren’t that close to Argentina, I can’t remember what the exact limit is but under international law islands along to the country whose coastline is closest to them up to a distance of 10 nautical miles as long as there is no claim already in place. Of course that’s an international treaty which historically didn’t necessarily count, which is why you’ve got things like American Samoa and Hawaii.
The US is closer to Greenland than Denmark is.
But with that thought Canada is closer.
Greenland could become part of Canada some day. Though proximity is just a minor part of it.
The UK is the only one’s who have ever invested on infrastructure. And it is all mostly to support the fishing industry. This is about money for the UK. The people who live there are descendants from people of all sort of places, because they were fishermen for a British fishing company. No wonder when asked, they prefer to be considered British. All Argentina has ever done on the island is bombing them.
The UK has never profited from the islands. It has been a sinkhole of money.
Argentina also confined the townsfolk in makeshift prisons and blew up bridges.
To clarify, the ENGLISH are assholes about SPORT, not the UK, there are other cultures in there that are vastly different in their attitudes, it will be import to remember that when it comes to election time as well since you will find different parts of the UK will be voting in very different ways.
Also this:
Argentina invaded the island killed 3 Falklanders and then got their ass whooped. And to this day Argentines think they are the victims.
The victims of this conflict are the casualties of a completely pointless war, on either side. Neither side fought for legitimate reasons and both used it to drum up nationalism.
How is defending against an invasion not legitimate?
It’s only legitimate out of context. The two countries were trying to negotiate a transfer before the war broke out. Argentina was ruled by a military Junta and used the invasion to bolster its internal politics. Thatcher did the same thing by using overwhelming force over a territory that Britain was trying to get rid of. An Argentine cruiser was sunk outside of the exclusion zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano
Afterwards Britain fortified the island to feed its military industrial complex and drum up more support for its decaying empire. Everything about this war was totally pointless except from a domestic political standpoint.
So what should have been the right move then when Argentina invaded the islands? Should Thatcher just have abandoned the people on the Falklands and let them fend for themselves?
No, those 907 people absolutely had to die so that Britain could keep its frozen rock halfway around the world.
It’s legitimate in context. I’m not addressing all your points, but the exclusion zone was never “this is the only place we’ll be fighting”
Helpful, but is there more context here?
Such as who are there people currently living there and therefore voting in this referendum?
People who has always live there?
The Maldives has never had Spanish/Argentinian population.
Argentina only claims it based on physical proximity, not on the will of its population.
Malvinas not Maldives (they’re half a world apart), and there have been briefly Spanish/Argentinian populations on the islands between 1774 and 1820 but none since then. The majority of whom were one of a) a military garrison b) convicts c) guards of convicts. Very small numbers of non military settlers during that period
So broadly yes, everyone who has been there since the early 1800s is aligned with the UK
Thanks, this was helpful and also prompted me to look more into it.
The descendants of the only people to live on the islands since pre-history. Literally the only people whose opinions count, including the uk population and government. It doesn’t matter what the Argentinians or the British think really, same as Greenland - the people who live there want to be a part of the uk
The modern population of the island are the natives, kinda like how Icelands population is completely native to the island. Not to say people didn’t fuck around on the island occasionally but there’s basically no evidence of prehistoric settlement of the Falklands.
Sure, I entirely agree on principle. But that’s my question, who are these people? According to Wikipedia, there are no such people:
Although Fuegians from Patagonia may have visited the Falkland Islands in prehistoric times, the islands were uninhabited when Europeans first explored them.
So I suppose I have my answer overall. The people living there are broadly the descendents of the French, Spanich and English who settled there in the late 18th century. The French ceded the settlement to Spain a year after they started, so even just scratching the surface of the situation it looks like it’s been a mess for 250 years.
But in any case, the people living there, now, clearly want to remain a UK territory.
The French and Spanish occupants had long abandoned the islands before the English arrived.
Greenland wants to be part of the UK 🤔
Nah, I meant that the population of Greenland want to remain under the administration that they’re currently under
I thought the whole Falkland Islands war in the 80s was mainly as an outlet for Thatcher to rally people behind and justify austerity, which was wanted by the neoliberal admin to distract from the privatization making things more expensive.
I mean … She did not Start the war Without the argentines attacking there is no falklands war
Right, I’m not saying she somehow was working behind the scenes to provoke an attack, just that at a time when she was being pressured by people like Milton Friedman to privatize-max, she couldn’t just make British taxpayers buckle down for austerity for seemingly no reason. The war then became a “good” reason to justify people contributing to the war effort. At least that’s my understanding from Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.”
Under the 25-year rule most govt docs are released at the National Archive and, counterintuitively, turns out Thatcher went above and beyond to prevent war, even offering to negotiate the future status of the islands. In their dictatorial vigour the Argentines declined to talk. It was only the coming of Southern winter and the prospect of an entire season where the Argentines could fortify that convinced her to send the fleet.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents?intcmp=122http
Above and beyond to prevent war is a misleading simplification…
counterintuitively, turns out Thatcher went above and beyond to prevent war, even offering to negotiate the future status of the islands. In their dictatorial vigour the Argentines declined to talk.
It’s incredible that if the dictatorship did nothing, they’d have the fucking islands by now. Same as china and Hong Kong, they didn’t have to start installing puppets and be an asshole just yet, they could just have waited a bit more and the island would be 100% theirs with 0 controversy.
.ml account
“I thought… something wildly misinformed, because capitalism!”
I’m utterly flabbergasted. FLABBERGASTED I SAY!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents?intcmp=122http
You do know the only reason Lemmy exists for you to freely speak on, is because of explicitly anticapitalist devs toiling to combat the gross shit for-profit digital platforms are doing? Just making sure.
It was also so the dictator of Argentina could rally people behind him because he was losing popularity.
Oh yes, 100%. Just another case of regular people being used as pawns for the interests of the elite ig
I thought the whole Iran war in the 2020s was mainly as an outlet for Trump to rally people behind and justify unchecked cost of living increases, which was wanted by the billionaire class to distract from the privatization making things more expensive, and also the Epstein Files.
I thought the whole Iraq war in the 2000s was mainly as an outlet for Bush to rally people behind and justify unchecked sprawling surveillance, which was wanted by the neocons and their rich donors to solidify their social control from / and the privatisation.
Nah it was also about Cheney’s thirst for oil and blood.
^^
Its good to have an opinion. And it’s great to be able to show and talk about things. Political or otherwise.
Just don’t get mad or surprised when some people show you the door and ask you to leave.
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer I’ve ever seen. Grabbing the English goalie’s arms during a corner kick, regularly shoving opposing players in the back and grabbing their jerseys when they got the ball during a fast break. The referee only handed out a single yellow card, and let everything else pass.
Messi wasn’t doing it so overtly, but everyone else especially Simeone, were just blatant. Have no dog in this race, but that was just gross.
Simeone should have been sent off, but more than anything I’m shocked that one Argentine backbencher didn’t get booked for excessive celebration lol
The second half was fantastic football though. Unfortunately England earned the loss
And Norway got their goal annulled because some little push.
FIFA corrupt
but everyone else especially Simeone
His dad was one of the dirtiest players to ever wear a football kit. I guess he must be proud.
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer I’ve ever seen.
You have to watch the France - Paraguay game. Absolutely crazy. Paraguayan players literally punching, elbowing, karate chopping French players, no fouls called.
4 yellow cards, 1 for England, 3 for Argentina. Martinez, Romero, and De Paul all got carded, as did Anderson
Personally, I think the ref should have started handing them out right from the start to set the tone, but then I hate dirty football. I personally think you should beat the other team by playing better football
That’s just CONMEBOL and CONCACAF football tbh. It’s kind of funny watching Europeans being all smug about Americans only watching football every 4 years, when it’s equally amusing seeing Europeans who aren’t aware that the American game tends to be more physical and chippy.
The English league is notoriously more physical than the other big leagues in Europe.
Argentina was no more physical than England that game. They were both trading fouls in the first half
They’ve always been like that. They poisoned a player once. FIFA did nothing.
Agreed, watching the match was painful. Spain vs France was a much, much better game.
The refereeing in that game was arguably worse than the Argentina-England game. And this is coming from an England supporter.
Throughout this tournament, I’m legitimately baffled at some of the things that aren’t even considered fouls, according to the announcers. Like defenders literally tackling players to the ground. The announcer; that’s good clean play, no foul there, that’s great defense, good “no call” by the ref. Might as well start wearing helmets and pads and calling this football now…
Rule of thumb. If they touch the ball then it’s not a foul.
