Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65
As others have said, where does one draw the line? No country in North or South America could be said to still possess an 'uncontaminated' indigenous population. Most were completely dispossessed and until recently (in a few countries eg Bolivia had no power or control at all) - So the descendants of colonisers of Argentina have a dispute withthe descendents of the colonisers of the Falklands...1
|
well I suppose it's down to how legit the claims of each side are. It is historically proved that the British settlers forcibly instated themselves on the Falkland islands, expelling the Argentinian settlers instead of living on the island together.
Quote:
|
Somewhat similar situation in Northern Ireland, roughly 2/3 see themselves as British, 1/3 Irish. Not sure how you get an 'unbiased' opinion from anyone living in this part of the world. In fact isn't just about any national allegiance a matter of 'bias' being fed into children by family and society as they grow up?
|
That's the whole argument around secular state.
On one side what the British settlers did is not fair, on the other, they've been there for quite some time more or less undisturbed and they feel entitled to it because of the time spent there.. that's why I don't think it would be fair to give the Falklands/Malvinas either to Argentina or the UK, but turning them into an independent state.
What I would like to say to my "native" British friends here and in real life is that we don't have any personal beef with you about this issue, it's that to the non-British public opinion, especially the one of countries with no big colonial heritage, the British claims on the Falkland islands are far-fetched and anachronistic, and if anything they just seem to be a cover for other economic interests, I hope you can understand that.