Another Falklands war? - Page 10

03-03-10, 11:32 PM

Haplo,

interesting history, I haven't read up much on the history of the islands. I would say that the Argentinians have a +50% claim to the islands. First through the 'inheritance' of the French-Spanish claim. It stays valid no matter what you say. If not then it's still France's or Spain's.

The Vernet-thing is trickier. I'd say that there was economic dealings to and from meaning that UK as well sold them. When Vernet came into the picture the islands were 50-50 French-Spanish - UK. So how could Vernet be anything but for a pro-Argentinian claim? That's the way I see it.

Also, you think the UK's motives for holding on to the islands is any more noble then that of the Argentinians? Aren't they the ones who are actively trying to empty the entire continental shelf out of oil as we speak.

So today UK'ers, US'ers and possibly other English language natives think the islands belong to the UK, the Argentinians and others who have Spanish as their native language think it belongs to the Argentinians. So it's a kind of a anglo-spanish head bashing bonanza. Personally I'd like there to be some kind of nature refuge, maybe governed by the UN or something.

Or to begin to think about nations for the native people of the Americas and their rights for the natural resources near them. For a European nation to go half way across the globe to rob natural resources from 'no man's land' is more of the ol' imperialistic mentality that at least to me doesn't seem just anymore.

Marcantilan · 03-04-10, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

...especially since Argentina gave the Falklands to Venet and he sold them.

I must agree with a lot of CaptainHaplo points, but I must disagree with the above mentioned.

Argentina gave the land to Vernet (in fact I attended University with one of the grand-grand-grand children of Mr. Louis and he had those documents), but not the sovereingty.

Is not the same, for sure...

CaptainHaplo · 03-04-10, 06:12 PM

Marcantilan - first off thank you for not just flaming me outright and instead giving a fair hearing to the data. That is to your credit!

You bring up a very interesting point - the land was given - but not the soveriegnty. I see where your coming from - as the US did land grants during its times of expansion. It very likely is a valid point. So let me ask a few questions that will help me make up my own mind.

Naming Venet governor of land already granted to him to own - when in that time period a colonial governor was the proverbial "local king" - would one consider that like a feudal heirarchy where a knight owed loyalty to a Duke, a Duke to a King, or would it be considered a full transfer of soveriegnty? Taxation bears on this question - and history says that Argentina stated to Venet that if a colony could be established within 3 years, it would no be taxed by the UP. Now - this arguement goes 2 ways - as it shows the UP claiming the RIGHT to tax the region - but also can be viewed by the UP as saying "if you get it going in three years - we have no claim on you". I honestly don't know enough to know for sure - so perhaps you can shed some light on which one it would be?

Also - Argentina (United Provinces of the River Plate) was formed out of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. The Viceroyalty as established owed allegience to the monarchy of Spain. Argentina cast off the yoke of feudalism and pursued self-determination. What is the difference between that and the Falklands having the same right to self-determination?

My biggest problem with seeing the Argentinian side is that I don't know what other claims (other than Nootka and the fact they are "closest) Argentina may legitimately have. If there are some - please point me to some places where I can learn about them. Thanks again!

03-04-10, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Argentina gave the land to Vernet (in fact I attended University with one of the grand-grand-grand children of Mr. Louis and he had those documents), but not the sovereingty.

Is not the same, for sure...

So it was a business charter, just the same as the Falkland island company.

Marcantilan · 03-04-10, 09:28 PM

Captain, I think your post described perfectly the chaos (Argentina not being Argentina, Spain and its alliances, the treatys, the Pope, et al), claims and counter claims that happened until 1833 and beyond.

About Argentina "official" position, is here (in English):

http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/sere...s/homeing.html

Regarding your questions, Argentina abolished slavery and "titles" (King, Earl, so on) on 1813 (have ni mind that 1789 "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was in vogue at the time), so is clear that Vernet was appointed as governor and paid in advance with land (lot of). Same thing happened with most places in the Patagonia.

I think the tax exemption was a carrot in front of Vernet.

The self determination thing is very interesting. The United Provinces at the time of independence (1816) covered not only Argentina but Uruguay, Paraguay, parts of Bolivia, etc. Not so much years later, those places asked for independence and Buenos Aires sent military expeditions to suffocate the revolution...

But I think is not the same in the Islands. The former population was evacuated by force and a new population was implanted by the UK. Of course the new ones wants to stay loyal to the King (or Queen). But, why if you ask the descendents of the 1833 emigrees?

I should say that I understand the islanders. If I belong to a prosper colony of a world major power, why on earth I would ask to be a citizen of a third world country governed by peronists!

Anyway, is not a simple matter. A pleasure to chat pacifically about it.

Regards!

Hakahura · 03-10-10, 12:35 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7055925.ece

03-03-10, 11:32 PM	#136
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Haplo, interesting history, I haven't read up much on the history of the islands. I would say that the Argentinians have a +50% claim to the islands. First through the 'inheritance' of the French-Spanish claim. It stays valid no matter what you say. If not then it's still France's or Spain's. The Vernet-thing is trickier. I'd say that there was economic dealings to and from meaning that UK as well sold them. When Vernet came into the picture the islands were 50-50 French-Spanish - UK. So how could Vernet be anything but for a pro-Argentinian claim? That's the way I see it. Also, you think the UK's motives for holding on to the islands is any more noble then that of the Argentinians? Aren't they the ones who are actively trying to empty the entire continental shelf out of oil as we speak. So today UK'ers, US'ers and possibly other English language natives think the islands belong to the UK, the Argentinians and others who have Spanish as their native language think it belongs to the Argentinians. So it's a kind of a anglo-spanish head bashing bonanza. Personally I'd like there to be some kind of nature refuge, maybe governed by the UN or something. Or to begin to think about nations for the native people of the Americas and their rights for the natural resources near them. For a European nation to go half way across the globe to rob natural resources from 'no man's land' is more of the ol' imperialistic mentality that at least to me doesn't seem just anymore. Last edited by OneToughHerring; 03-03-10 at 11:50 PM.

03-04-10, 06:12 PM	#138
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Marcantilan - first off thank you for not just flaming me outright and instead giving a fair hearing to the data. That is to your credit! You bring up a very interesting point - the land was given - but not the soveriegnty. I see where your coming from - as the US did land grants during its times of expansion. It very likely is a valid point. So let me ask a few questions that will help me make up my own mind. Naming Venet governor of land already granted to him to own - when in that time period a colonial governor was the proverbial "local king" - would one consider that like a feudal heirarchy where a knight owed loyalty to a Duke, a Duke to a King, or would it be considered a full transfer of soveriegnty? Taxation bears on this question - and history says that Argentina stated to Venet that if a colony could be established within 3 years, it would no be taxed by the UP. Now - this arguement goes 2 ways - as it shows the UP claiming the RIGHT to tax the region - but also can be viewed by the UP as saying "if you get it going in three years - we have no claim on you". I honestly don't know enough to know for sure - so perhaps you can shed some light on which one it would be? Also - Argentina (United Provinces of the River Plate) was formed out of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. The Viceroyalty as established owed allegience to the monarchy of Spain. Argentina cast off the yoke of feudalism and pursued self-determination. What is the difference between that and the Falklands having the same right to self-determination? My biggest problem with seeing the Argentinian side is that I don't know what other claims (other than Nootka and the fact they are "closest) Argentina may legitimately have. If there are some - please point me to some places where I can learn about them. Thanks again! __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-04-10, 09:28 PM	#140
Marcantilan Weps Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 374 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Captain, I think your post described perfectly the chaos (Argentina not being Argentina, Spain and its alliances, the treatys, the Pope, et al), claims and counter claims that happened until 1833 and beyond. About Argentina "official" position, is here (in English): http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/sere...s/homeing.html Regarding your questions, Argentina abolished slavery and "titles" (King, Earl, so on) on 1813 (have ni mind that 1789 "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was in vogue at the time), so is clear that Vernet was appointed as governor and paid in advance with land (lot of). Same thing happened with most places in the Patagonia. I think the tax exemption was a carrot in front of Vernet. The self determination thing is very interesting. The United Provinces at the time of independence (1816) covered not only Argentina but Uruguay, Paraguay, parts of Bolivia, etc. Not so much years later, those places asked for independence and Buenos Aires sent military expeditions to suffocate the revolution... But I think is not the same in the Islands. The former population was evacuated by force and a new population was implanted by the UK. Of course the new ones wants to stay loyal to the King (or Queen). But, why if you ask the descendents of the 1833 emigrees? I should say that I understand the islanders. If I belong to a prosper colony of a world major power, why on earth I would ask to be a citizen of a third world country governed by peronists! Anyway, is not a simple matter. A pleasure to chat pacifically about it. Regards! __________________ Ultima Ratio Regis

03-10-10, 12:35 PM	#141
Hakahura Grey Wolf Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Posts: 785 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7055925.ece __________________ Sir Humphey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO and MA. Britain's Greatest Orator, well bar that Churchill fellow.