1982 Falklands (Malvinas) War: a view from across the pond

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's a question that bears no meaning. two thirds of the islanders are British or of British descent, and these people are there because of the illegal actions taken by their ancestors 200 years before, right? Well it's unfortunate, but in my view that doesn't make them natives, and I think there's a bit of confusion about this point.

I haven't said that, you are saying it. It's a big of a generalisation me thinks. What point are you exactly trying to make?
I think we're confusing the concept of "native" with "indigenous". British "Falklanders" are not indigenous, hence the "right of self determination" doesn't apply, technically they're still squatting on a contested piece of land.

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 (for a few countries eg Bolivia) had no power or control at all - So the descendants of colonisers of Argentina have a dispute with the descendents of the colonisers of the Falklands...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The whole point is that I don't think people who live there are in the position of taking an unbiased decision because of their interests. This is a matter above generational opinions, it's something that needs to be determined by the two contending countries and possibly the UN, the voice of the people living there should bear little or no weight to the decision, because it can be perceived as biased and be linked to personal interests.

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?