ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd December 2019, 07:05 PM   #161
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,088
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
What exactly do you think the purpose of colonisation was? To teach the natives embroidery???
It really depends on the country, which is why your one size fits all claim is silly.

For instance, many of the first American Pilgrims went to the New World to escape religious persecution.

Here in NZ, our first settlers (not counting the Whalers and Missionaries, who weren't really settlers) came hoping to find a new life in a new Britain.

While it is true that the first attempt to get settlers here was with an eye towards starting a flax and timber trade, the British Government of the time refused to support it, and the venture collapsed. It was later reformed into the New Zealand Company and worked on the principle of buying land cheap from the Maori, and then selling it for higher rates to the Gentry, while sending workers to run the businesses on that land. Even that fell apart in the end because most of the people wanting to get away from Britain and start a new life were commoners and the Company ended up spending more for the travel of those people than they were getting from selling the land. Not that I feel at all sorry for them, they were a bunch of scam artists and conmen who cheated both the Maori and those that bought land and traveled here, often portraying life here as idyllic when there was nothing here, and selling land that they didn't have a right to sell.

None of this was done by the British Government however, but rather by private venture. The British Government only took part when they deemed it necessary, or where asked to help by the Maori of the time. For instance the Treaty of Waitangi was created and signed because the Maori under the banner of the United Tribes of New Zealand who had signed the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand were worried that the French were about to invade and annex New Zealand, and so a bargain was made with the British Government to become a part of their empire as a protection against the French. Other instances were the appointment of a Governor when they learned that there was lawlessness among the first settlers, and with the NSW Governor too far to directly take control of the NZ settlements, they appointed one to New Zealand to make sure that the Settlers were following the established rules.

So yeah, far from your claim, those that settled here from Europe did so for the same reasons that the Maori traveled and settled here 700 years before them. They came because they felt that they had little hope in Britain and hoped for a better life here, a life where they could make themselves better, build things that would give them that better life.

They didn't come here backed by an Empirical power, nor a military. They didn't come to strip the lands of their wealth and send it back to Britain. They came because they hoped that their lives would be better in a new land where there was promise of a better future.

Here's a few links for you to not bother to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 2nd December 2019 at 07:06 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 05:15 AM   #162
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It really depends on the country, which is why your one size fits all claim is silly.

For instance, many of the first American Pilgrims went to the New World to escape religious persecution.

Here in NZ, our first settlers (not counting the Whalers and Missionaries, who weren't really settlers) came hoping to find a new life in a new Britain.

While it is true that the first attempt to get settlers here was with an eye towards starting a flax and timber trade, the British Government of the time refused to support it, and the venture collapsed. It was later reformed into the New Zealand Company and worked on the principle of buying land cheap from the Maori, and then selling it for higher rates to the Gentry, while sending workers to run the businesses on that land. Even that fell apart in the end because most of the people wanting to get away from Britain and start a new life were commoners and the Company ended up spending more for the travel of those people than they were getting from selling the land. Not that I feel at all sorry for them, they were a bunch of scam artists and conmen who cheated both the Maori and those that bought land and traveled here, often portraying life here as idyllic when there was nothing here, and selling land that they didn't have a right to sell.

None of this was done by the British Government however, but rather by private venture. The British Government only took part when they deemed it necessary, or where asked to help by the Maori of the time. For instance the Treaty of Waitangi was created and signed because the Maori under the banner of the United Tribes of New Zealand who had signed the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand were worried that the French were about to invade and annex New Zealand, and so a bargain was made with the British Government to become a part of their empire as a protection against the French. Other instances were the appointment of a Governor when they learned that there was lawlessness among the first settlers, and with the NSW Governor too far to directly take control of the NZ settlements, they appointed one to New Zealand to make sure that the Settlers were following the established rules.

So yeah, far from your claim, those that settled here from Europe did so for the same reasons that the Maori traveled and settled here 700 years before them. They came because they felt that they had little hope in Britain and hoped for a better life here, a life where they could make themselves better, build things that would give them that better life.

They didn't come here backed by an Empirical power, nor a military. They didn't come to strip the lands of their wealth and send it back to Britain. They came because they hoped that their lives would be better in a new land where there was promise of a better future.

Here's a few links for you to not bother to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi
This is nonsense. I am not talking about the people who settled it. Of course commoners were sent to do the actual work. It's always been thus.

I am talking about the systematic pillaging of swathes of the world by imperial powers - otherwise known as colonisation. And no, saying, but it was different sometimes is not an argument because it was all done as part of the same system.

It wasn't backed by the military? How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Cook's voyage was Navy expedition in the first damn place! Who was paying for all this exploration? Commoners seeking better lives???

Who fought the Maori wars? Thousands of British troops were involved.

You can nitpick on details as much as you want but the whole concept of European imperialism and colonialism is a ******** of the highest order and don't start apologising for it.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 05:37 AM   #163
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,076
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Any military person who declares that saving a civilian population from a hostile foreign invasion "wasn't worth the cost" is in the wrong job. Because that is actually the job.
I'm inclined to agree, but I'm very reluctant to judge the people who actually paid the cost. It wasn't me who risked my life and watched my friends die.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:28 AM   #164
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The Brits are not indigenous to the Falklands. FFS. I've seen some nonsense in my time but this post is right up there
There are no indigenous people there. And of course if you go back far enough there are no indigenous people outside of a few small areas in Africa. Clearly we need to all move there.

Everyone out of the British Isles!
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:29 AM   #165
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Indigenous means originating or naturally occurring. British people neither originated nor occurred naturally on the Falkland Islands.
Nor in Britain for that matter.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:41 AM   #166
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I don't know if the 'claims' are different as I haven't examined either set in detail. But the cases are different.

The Chagossians are primarily the descendants of African slaves brought there against their will. They didn't colonise the islands. If they were the descendants of the French or Portuguese there might be better parallels.
So forced colonization is different than consensual colonization? That makes Australia more complex with the prisoners being sent their against their will, that makes them different than other "colonists"
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:44 AM   #167
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You realise that unlike the rest of the "remnants of empire," they don't want to be let go of, and they especially don't want to be handed over to Argentina.
But as an empire you should know that colonies should have no say in such things. They are a trading piece in the games of empires not a real people, and they should be treated as such clearly.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:49 AM   #168
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There are industries that are prepared to go where the energy is. Iceland's aluminium smelting industry, using cheap geothermal power, is a good example.

Dave
Bitcoin mining!
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:53 AM   #169
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,962
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Bitcoin mining!
Yes, on the basis of Iceland's recent experiences the currency market looks like a sure-fire money spinner for everyone.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:55 AM   #170
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
This is nonsense. I am not talking about the people who settled it. Of course commoners were sent to do the actual work. It's always been thus.

I am talking about the systematic pillaging of swathes of the world by imperial powers - otherwise known as colonisation. And no, saying, but it was different sometimes is not an argument because it was all done as part of the same system.

It wasn't backed by the military? How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Cook's voyage was Navy expedition in the first damn place! Who was paying for all this exploration? Commoners seeking better lives???

Who fought the Maori wars? Thousands of British troops were involved.

You can nitpick on details as much as you want but the whole concept of European imperialism and colonialism is a ******** of the highest order and don't start apologising for it.
When did the Maori move from colonizers invading and destroying the local ecosystem to natives? 100 years after they successfully eradicated the Moa?

They only moved in around 1280 so are no more native than icelanders, and shouldn't be thought of as such.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:06 AM   #171
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,638
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
This is nonsense. I am not talking about the people who settled it. Of course commoners were sent to do the actual work. It's always been thus.

I am talking about the systematic pillaging of swathes of the world by imperial powers - otherwise known as colonisation. And no, saying, but it was different sometimes is not an argument because it was all done as part of the same system.

It wasn't backed by the military? How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Cook's voyage was Navy expedition in the first damn place! Who was paying for all this exploration? Commoners seeking better lives???

Who fought the Maori wars? Thousands of British troops were involved.

You can nitpick on details as much as you want but the whole concept of European imperialism and colonialism is a ******** of the highest order and don't start apologising for it.
Archie Gemmill Goal, what's your recommendation for the Falklands?

If I understand you correctly:

- The people currently living there have no legitimate claim to live there.
- The UK does not have a legitimate claim to defend them there.
- On the other hand, Argentina has no legitimate claim to the land either.
- Argentina has no claim to drive off the current inhabitants, nor to repopulate the land with their own folk.

What do you say should be done? Do you actually have any objection to the people who live there continuing to live there? It's not like they're displacing native populations or exploiting land they stole from someone else.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:20 AM   #172
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,498
There is also the fact that the Argentinians are colonizers themselves, I doubt what is left of their actual indigenous population cares about those islands, the conflict was between the Spanish and British empires.

Why would the Spanish claim be more valid if they never actually settled someone there?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:37 AM   #173
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,578
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
There is also the fact that the Argentinians are colonizers themselves, I doubt what is left of their actual indigenous population cares about those islands, the conflict was between the Spanish and British empires.

Why would the Spanish claim be more valid if they never actually settled someone there?
Didn't one of the Pope Alexanders grant the Spanish everything to the left of an imaginary north-south line? Seems legit.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:38 AM   #174
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,857
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Archie Gemmill Goal, what's your recommendation for the Falklands?
I can only think of one solution which might satisfy him.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:45 AM   #175
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, on the basis of Iceland's recent experiences the currency market looks like a sure-fire money spinner for everyone.

Dave
Hey I was thinking what might be useful for cheap electricity. I wouldn't think aluminum processing would make sense unless they have the bauxite locally.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:48 AM   #176
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,295
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
What exactly do you think the purpose of colonisation was? To teach the natives embroidery???
What colony? Different colonies were established with different intents, though generally related to improved income, if that is escaping poverty and having a better life in a new land or taking over a foreign country as a captive market.

But the exact goals and motives are very different and the situations are all unique.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:04 PM   #177
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,578
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I can only think of one solution which might satisfy him.
They could always abandon the islands to the sheep, as a nature preserve. We could come back in five hundred years to see if island gigantism or island dwarfism happened. A lot of wool or really cute pets, a win either way.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:19 PM   #178
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,778
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
They could always abandon the islands to the sheep, as a nature preserve. We could come back in five hundred years to see if island gigantism or island dwarfism happened. A lot of wool or really cute pets, a win either way.
But don't forget that the sheep are colonists too. I say eat the sheep and give the island back to the penguins.

Hey, what am I, chopped liver?

what are you looking at.jpg
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 03:17 PM   #179
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,284
The pengiuns only seem to want the bits that are next to the sea.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 03:33 PM   #180
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,563
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Archie Gemmill Goal, what's your recommendation for the Falklands?

If I understand you correctly:

- The people currently living there have no legitimate claim to live there.
- The UK does not have a legitimate claim to defend them there.
- On the other hand, Argentina has no legitimate claim to the land either.
- Argentina has no claim to drive off the current inhabitants, nor to repopulate the land with their own folk.

What do you say should be done? Do you actually have any objection to the people who live there continuing to live there? It's not like they're displacing native populations or exploiting land they stole from someone else.
That's quite good question. I wonder if it will get a straight answer?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 03:36 PM   #181
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,088
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
This is nonsense.
I'm so glad you think that the history of my country is nonsense. I'll let the Prime Minister know at once.

Quote:
I am not talking about the people who settled it.
So the people that settled here weren't colonists?

Quote:
Of course commoners were sent to do the actual work. It's always been thus.
The commoners weren't "sent here" about the only ones that where ever "sent" anywhere were those that were sent to the penal colony in Australia, and although we like to joke about Aussies all being descended from criminals, the truth is that a lot of the early Australia settlers went there for the same reason that the first New Zealand Settlers and the first American settlers went there, because they wanted a better life in a place they could build, rather than being forced to live in poverty in polluted and over crowded cities. How is this any different to the first Maori Settlers, or those of the first Nations in the Americas as they expanded out into new places looking for a better life?

Quote:
I am talking about the systematic pillaging of swathes of the world by imperial powers - otherwise known as colonisation. And no, saying, but it was different sometimes is not an argument because it was all done as part of the same system.
Yes, and you're not listening. Not all parts of the world that were colonised were done so because of imperial powers who wanted to systematically pillage swathes of the world. I'll point out again because you seem to refuse to listen. The British Government was against the idea of colonising New Zealand, they rejected the New Zealand Association's plans, and made laws that ended up shutting down the New Zealand Company. They only took action because people were already coming here to get away from Britain, and because the Maori wanted protection from the French. You seem to be treating all Colonisation with the same brush as what was done by the Spanish in South America.

Quote:
It wasn't backed by the military? How the hell did you come to that conclusion?
No, it wasn't. And I come to that conclusion by actually looking at the history instead of ignoring it for my own personal biases.

Quote:
Cook's voyage was Navy expedition in the first damn place!
Actually no, it wasn't. While it had Navy support, it was a mission of exploration sponsored by the The Royal Society (of London for Improving Natural Knowledge) one of the premiere scientific organisation of the time. It's two primary goals were 1) To observe the transit of Venus which would be visible in Tahiti, and 2) To determine of the existence of Terra Australis Incognita could be confirmed. Cook's voyage was not a military one, it was a scientific one. Likewise his second Voyage was also undertaken for The Royal Society it try and confirm or deny the existence of any major southern lands, while his third, and final voyage, was to return a man home to his islands, and also search for the Northwest Passage. History, it's your friend, try learning it.

Quote:
Who was paying for all this exploration? Commoners seeking better lives???
The first was a joint venture between The Royal Society and the Admiralty, created after the Society petitioned the King for the trip. The Royal Society paid for the second, and the Admiralty paid for the third.

Quote:
Who fought the Maori wars? Thousands of British troops were involved.
Which Maori Wars? If you mean the Musket Wars, then a) it was before Colonialism, and b) no British Troops were involved.

If you mean the Land Wars, then again you probably don't know enough about its history to realise why you are wrong.

Prior to the outbreak of the 1860 wars, there had been a number of minor engagements over the rights to various parcels of land to which the New Zealand Company had claimed were theirs and sold to settlers, who then arrived and discovered that the locals hadn't either sold the land, or claimed that they hadn't. These issues lead to battles in Wairau, Hutt Valley and Wanganui where settlers tried to evict Maori off land that settlers believed they had purchased from the NZ Company (This is while I call them a bunch of con artists and scammers, because they sold land that they didn't actually own.) However up until 1860, most settlements had been done with the approval and support of the local Maori, and were done peacefully.

Okay, so background to the main event(s) (technically they were a number of sort of separate conflicts, but they all have their roots in the same one.)

Before the Treaty was signed the settlers in New Zealand had very little law, so a Governor was sent, and with him a small amount of troops to keep the law and the peace. By 1855 this was about 1,300 troops in two companies, and they were supposed to leave by the end of 1855. However one company stayed because of what was happening in Taranaki, being housed literal just down the road from where I am typing this.

So what was happening? Maori culture has a structure to their society. While all Taranaki Maori are one clan, within that they have seven separate Iwi or tribes, and then it's broken down further into hapus and beyond, but we don't need to go that far. These Taranaki iwi were broken into the Northern and Southern Tribes. These tribes were almost constantly at war with the Northern Waikato tribes and many, especially in the northern parts of the area were captured as slaves.

On the arrival of Europeans, they settled the area near the Ngamotu hapu. This was done with the agreement of the Ngamotu tribe, and the NZ Company was initially able to "purchase" land that sat between the Te Henui River and the Huatoki River for the city, and a large amount of land to the north and inland, though it is debated as to how well this was understand by the locals. It took time to set up this land for on sale though, and settlers were housed at a pa on Mount Eliot for some time. Conditions were pretty crap at the time. However with the town finally planned out, and more settlers coming they started to settle the areas they believed that they had paid for to the north.

So this is where things started to go really wrong. First the New Zealand Company was selling plots that they hadn't included in the deal. Secondly, much of the area they had "bought" was under the care of Maori who were currently in slavery in the Waikato. Thirdly, it is believed that the person that translated the deal to the local Ngamotu, did a really bad job of explaining what was in the deal.

So as you can see, this was a scenario for bad things happening.

More Maori culture... Pre-European Maori didn't believe in ownership of the land, but rather that they were stewards of the lands. This meant that the land belonged to all of the Taranaki Maori, not just the local Iwi or Hapu. Thus when the few Ngamotu Maori dealt with the New Zealand Company, they should have gained permission from all of the other Iwi, and they didn't. This caused a lot of friction between the Taranaki tribes, and the northern tribes were told to stop selling land to the settlers.

Skipping forward a few years, the northern Maori had become quite Europeanised, while the Southern Tribes were isolated and remained very traditional. At the same time more settlers were arriving, and more land outside of the township was being settled. This lead to a war between the Southern Taranaki Tribes and the Northern ones over the land being sold.

This was the reason for the company of troops (about 400 men) being held back in 1855 so as to protect New Plymouth from the escalating violence between the two groups of Maori.

Okay, so now the stage is set.

During this time the Waitara Block come into play. Settlers were wanting to expand out, an this area was supposedly bought and paid for, except that the Southern Tribes opposed it and stopped the surveying of it. During this time a lot of those that had settled the lands north of the Waitara River were forced back into New Plymouth and in 1844 with an acknowledgement that the land had been improperly sold, Governor Robert FitzRoy, who had been brought in by the Land Claims Commissioner William Spain, who had been looking into the NZ Company claims, decided against military intervention, and instead organised a purchase/land swap deal/political accommodation for the Fitzroy Block between the Te Henui River and the Waiwakaiho River, and settlers were brought back from the north and into that area of the town. A pole was even erected to establish the furthest north settlements could go (and is still there, well a replacement is still there.)

This was supposed to seal peace, but with more settlers arriving more room was needed, and the Governer after FitzRoy, Governer Grey tried to buy land from the Te Atiawa Iwi, and when told no more would be sold, he started to do deals with Individual Maori to get land. This caused more issues and fighting between Maori.

As the tensions increased over the Waitara Block and internal Maori fighting, Grey's successor, Governor Thomas Gore Browne, declared Martial Law in Taranaki, and one of the local cheiftain's Wiremu Kīngi build a pa across the access between New Plymouth and the Waitara Block. This lead to the decision to remove the pa, and Browne ordered an assault on the Pa, which started the European involvement in what became the Taranaki Land Wars.

Right to cut it short now, basically Waikato Maori helped out the anti-land sale tribes, while the pro-sale ones helped the NZ Government along with about 3,500 troops brought in from Australia. Long story short, the anti-sale Maori sort of won, but then lost as the Government did wholesale land confiscations as a punitive measure, and then invaded the Waikato. This action and the confiscations, which even affected Maori who had supported and fought for the Government, then lead to a second round of fighting in Taranaki, on the East Coat and elsewhere, followed by more punishing confiscations and resentments.

These wars weren't because of some Imperial effort to steal the resources of the country, it was because of an argument between tribes of Maori who had different ideas on how to work with the settlers, and the corruption of the scam artists that were the New Zealand Company, and more so the Governors who were willing to get more land for the incoming settlers at any cost, not caring about what was going on within the local Maori, and then when the infighting got out of hand, instead of keeping out of it, the Government got itself involved in the fighting and make it all worse.

I know that this doesn't match the narrative you want to push of nasty evil Imperial Governments crushing the natives to steal their stuff, but reality and history doesn't actually always align with your desired beliefs.

Quote:
You can nitpick on details as much as you want
Talking about the actual histories isn't "nit-picking the details." There is plenty to criticize about the coloniation of places like New Zealand and Australia without making crap up though.

Quote:
the whole concept of European imperialism and colonialism is a ******** of the highest order
And I never stated otherwise. My issue with you isn't that colonization cause a lot of bad stuff to happen where there were natives, and often lands were stripped of their resource, though generally not by the colonists themselves, but rather military forces such as the Conquistadors. My issue is that you want to lump it all in the same barrel and label it based on your bias, when the truth and history is a lot more nuanced. I have no issues with colonialism being called out, but I do have an issue when it's called out for the wrong over generalised reasons and poor thinking instead of based on what really happened.

Quote:
and don't start apologising for it.
Demanding you get your history right is not apologising for anything.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 3rd December 2019 at 03:48 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 05:06 PM   #182
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,284
Wow, thank you. Every day is a school day. (Do you have any idea why the Falklands Islands and the New Zealand accents are so alike? Or were my ears simply deceiving me?)
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 05:49 PM   #183
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,088
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Wow, thank you. Every day is a school day. (Do you have any idea why the Falklands Islands and the New Zealand accents are so alike? Or were my ears simply deceiving me?)
no idea, though I do know that a lot of Americans (I know you are Scottish) have an issue telling the difference between NZ, Australian, and South African accents. It's possible it has something to do with it being a British commoner accent that has then developed over time in isolation.

I'd also note that what I wrote was mostly a summary of what happened, there is a lot more to it, for instance one of the main reasons that martial law was declared is that warring Maori parties were attacking settlers who were outside of the New Plymouth Township, and there was a lot of political wrangling going on all over the place between the Governors and the New Zealand Company and the British and NSW Governments. But this is the thing, it was a complicated situation and trying to boil it down to "Imperialism Bad" really misses the mark of what happened. And honestly that to me is a bad thing, because unless you can understand what our history is and why it happened, and what effects it had on the world we are in today, then we're doomed to keep on making the same mistakes again. So understanding the nuances and realising that it's not all just a case "Evil Imperial Colonialism murdering and stealing" actually allows for grievances to be laid to rest and progress forward to be made.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 05:51 PM   #184
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,163
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
There is also the fact that the Argentinians are colonizers themselves, I doubt what is left of their actual indigenous population cares about those islands, the conflict was between the Spanish and British empires.

Why would the Spanish claim be more valid if they never actually settled someone there?
There was no permanent human population in the Falklands before it was discovered by the Europeans. A few Pategoninans might have landed there, but there are no sings of human occupation until the Europeans occupied it.
Only indigenous population were the penguins....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 05:55 PM   #185
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,163
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Well, I'm bound to say that it's been a fascinating 5-page discussion about the history of The Falklands and the meanings of indigenous and colonise
Particulary since there is no evidence of permanent human population before the Europeans showed up.....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:40 PM   #186
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,284
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I do know that a lot of Americans (I know you are Scottish) have an issue telling the difference between NZ, Australian, and South African accents. It's possible it has something to do with it being a British commoner accent that has then developed over time in isolation.

I do have the same difficulty, although I can catch South African better now than formerly. That's why I speculated that my ears might be deceiving me!
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 02:28 AM   #187
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,962
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Hey I was thinking what might be useful for cheap electricity. I wouldn't think aluminum processing would make sense unless they have the bauxite locally.
I think the energy cost is so high that it's much cheaper to ship the bauxite to where the energy is than vice versa, in the same way that a lot of Industrial Revolution steelworks tended to be where the coal was rather than where the iron ore was. I'm pretty sure Iceland has little or no bauxite mining, in fact I believe a lot of the bauxite is shipped in from Australia.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 02:43 AM   #188
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,088
Same for the Tiwai Point Smelter here in New Zealand, all the Bauxite is brought in from Aussie.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 04:19 AM   #189
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,284
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think the energy cost is so high that it's much cheaper to ship the bauxite to where the energy is than vice versa, in the same way that a lot of Industrial Revolution steelworks tended to be where the coal was rather than where the iron ore was. I'm pretty sure Iceland has little or no bauxite mining, in fact I believe a lot of the bauxite is shipped in from Australia.

At one point the Icelandic government's solution to the country's economy was going to be aluminium smelting. There were a few successful plants and the country had cold running water and cheap geothermal energy and it seemed like a good match. However the government thought this could be developed without limit. They produced a plan for a number of smelters that would have harnessed every single river in the country, and even some more that didn't exist. It would have been environmental (and tourism) suicide. It took a very sustiained campaign by grass-roots pressure groups to get them to back off, but fortunately it didn't go ahead.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 4th December 2019 at 04:20 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2019, 11:33 AM   #190
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
There was no permanent human population in the Falklands before it was discovered by the Europeans. A few Pategoninans might have landed there, but there are no sings of human occupation until the Europeans occupied it.
Only indigenous population were the penguins....
Speaking of Patagonian's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selk%27nam_genocide

Argentina were themselves no better than European colonizers. They should be allowed to force out the first permanent settlement on the Falklands because... what the islands are sorta kinda close? Should the USA get Bermuda?
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 11:31 PM   #191
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,498
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
There was no permanent human population in the Falklands before it was discovered by the Europeans. A few Pategoninans might have landed there, but there are no sings of human occupation until the Europeans occupied it.
Only indigenous population were the penguins....
I know, I was talking about what is left of the indigenous population of Argentina.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 01:17 AM   #192
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post

And I never stated otherwise. My issue with you isn't that colonization cause a lot of bad stuff to happen where there were natives, and often lands were stripped of their resource, though generally not by the colonists themselves, but rather military forces such as the Conquistadors. My issue is that you want to lump it all in the same barrel and label it based on your bias, when the truth and history is a lot more nuanced. I have no issues with colonialism being called out, but I do have an issue when it's called out for the wrong over generalised reasons and poor thinking instead of based on what really happened.
And this is the crux of the matter. You want to separate out each part and say 'this colonisation wasn't as bad as this one' but you refuse to see its all part of the same system.

And it was ALL backed by the miltary because the only reason you can do these things in the first place is because you have the military (and economic) might to back them up. Do you think its a coincidence that colonisation is ONLY done by rich countries with big armies? Or that the modern day equivalents are being done by the current superpowers?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 01:28 AM   #193
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,898
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Do you think its a coincidence that colonisation is ONLY done by rich countries with big armies?
The UK/England has never had a big army (WW1 and 2 aside).

And, eg Jamestown, a lot of the colonisation was not done at gunpoint, which is what PhantomWolf is trying to point out.

The islands in question being a prime case-in-point as there was no one there to point the guns at in any case.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 01:39 AM   #194
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Archie Gemmill Goal, what's your recommendation for the Falklands?

If I understand you correctly:

- The people currently living there have no legitimate claim to live there.
- The UK does not have a legitimate claim to defend them there.
- On the other hand, Argentina has no legitimate claim to the land either.
- Argentina has no claim to drive off the current inhabitants, nor to repopulate the land with their own folk.

What do you say should be done? Do you actually have any objection to the people who live there continuing to live there? It's not like they're displacing native populations or exploiting land they stole from someone else.
Then you do not understand me correctly. Which on this forum is becoming a regular occurrence.

Let's take your points in order:

- The people living there have no legitimate claim to ownership of the land. But they do live there. So the eggs are broken. It's certainly not British land.
- This is oddly worded. By defend a claim do you mean 'they have a right to defend their land' or do you mean 'they have a responsibility to defend the people there'? I believe they do have the latter, as would the rest of the world and as would the UK if Laos attempted to annex Cambodia. But I don't agree that 'it's our land so we have a right to defend it' at best i get to 'if you claim its your land then you damn well better protect the people here'. Protection doesn't have to mean waging a war mind you.
- The Argentinian claim seems better in mere terms of proximity but not particularly convincing either
- Argentina has no claim to drive off the current inhabitants but it would seem to me they have as much right to populate the Falklands with Argentinians as the UK has to populate it with British people.

You want solutions - that really depends on what all interested parties would be willing to accept as a compromise.

One option would seem to be that the Falklands becomes fully independent and not the property of either Argentina or the UK. As standalone UN member it would have the same rights as any other country to protection from outside invasion.

Another option would be to ship all the Falklanders back to the UK and set them up with homes here and leave the Falklands to the puffins or penguins or whatever it is lives there. Bit of a dump on the residents but hell, sins of the fathers. The Falklands would become the property of no-one. Argentina would agree to this or be warned that if they attempted to take control they would be kicked out. Option 2B might be the same or similar thing but make it some kind of UN protectorate and put a base of UN peacekeepers there. I guess you could also add that to Option 1 too.

A further option would be to agree with Argentina for shared custody. This would seem to resolve the issue somewhat as only 2 parties seem to care what happens to the place. Give them joint ownership, agree that Falklanders are Argentinian and UK nationals by default and allow Argentina to establish whatever presence on the island they see fit on the proviso that the existing inhabitants are not to be damaged or harmed by it.

So there's 3 suggestions to explore off the top of my head. I'm sure there are another 101 flavours of these. Certainly more than the moronic idea that it's either British and we have to bomb everyone who disagrees, or we give it to Argentina and let them cook and eat the existing residents for fun.

You would also have to consider what the nature of the claims are from Argentina. Perhaps they only really want a claim on any future resources found there rather than actually owning the land?

A question to ponder...if the Falklands were to be discovered tomorrow rather than centuries ago what would become of it? I'm not au fait with the details of international law on disputed territories either.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 01:49 AM   #195
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
The UK/England has never had a big army (WW1 and 2 aside).
I was using army to mean military so maybe I mispoke and that's the nature of your corection. But for a long long time the UK had the greatest navy on the planet and that's why we have such a history of sailing round the world claiming bits of the world as ours.

There's a reason why you don't see many small, poor, militarily weak nations with colonies.

Quote:
And, eg Jamestown, a lot of the colonisation was not done at gunpoint, which is what PhantomWolf is trying to point out.
Again I think you are not seeing the bigger picture. If you have the power to wipe people out then you don't need to point a gun at them every time. Some people have sufficient sense of self-preservation to not start a fight they know they will lose.

If you don't have the military backing you up you can't colonise anything. Because 1. You don't get there in the first place and 2. If you do, someone with a bigger stick comes along and kicks you off it.

None of this seems controversial. I think it just seems to be a disturbing narrative for some people and so they disagree with it. Like challenging the idea that the US Army are liberators and defenders of freedom. It's probably actually a hangover from the colonial mindset in the first place.

Quote:
The islands in question being a prime case-in-point as there was no one there to point the guns at in any case.
And yet they still managed to have wars over it. Amazing! Seriously, think beyond the obvious. Put things in context. There are apparently 22 countries on the face of the Earth that Britain hasn't invaded. You don't get that kind of record sailing round the world to watch the stars and plant trees.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 01:58 AM   #196
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So understanding the nuances and realising that it's not all just a case "Evil Imperial Colonialism murdering and stealing" actually allows for grievances to be laid to rest and progress forward to be made.
How...convenient.

Yeah I know I came into your house smashed up all your stuff took a dump on the carpet slept with your wife and drowned your dog in the bath but at least I didn't kill you so you have to move on so we can let grievances be laid to rest and move forward from here.

So I will just stay here for the time being and you can start paying me rent. I've even moved your stuff into the shed for you.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 02:21 AM   #197
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
How...convenient.

Yeah I know I came into your house smashed up all your stuff took a dump on the carpet slept with your wife and drowned your dog in the bath but at least I didn't kill you so you have to move on so we can let grievances be laid to rest and move forward from here.

So I will just stay here for the time being and you can start paying me rent. I've even moved your stuff into the shed for you.
Your analogy depends on it being someone else's house. Not the case for the Falklands.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 03:10 AM   #198
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,898
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I was using army to mean military so maybe I mispoke and that's the nature of your corection. But for a long long time the UK had the greatest navy on the planet and that's why we have such a history of sailing round the world claiming bits of the world as ours.

There's a reason why you don't see many small, poor, militarily weak nations with colonies.
Well, it is expensive to maintain them. By "maintain" I mean "stop other states trying to take them". Which was quite frequent in the 16th+ centuries.


Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Again I think you are not seeing the bigger picture. If you have the power to wipe people out then you don't need to point a gun at them every time. Some people have sufficient sense of self-preservation to not start a fight they know they will lose.
Well, the colonists at Jamestown didn't.
The locals helped them out.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
If you don't have the military backing you up you can't colonise anything. Because 1. You don't get there in the first place and 2. If you do, someone with a bigger stick comes along and kicks you off it.

None of this seems controversial. I think it just seems to be a disturbing narrative for some people and so they disagree with it. Like challenging the idea that the US Army are liberators and defenders of freedom. It's probably actually a hangover from the colonial mindset in the first place.
But this statement holds for any nation, not just colonies.
Without either a stick or friends with sticks someone in the past 1000 years will come along and take you over.

That's not a terribly major insight.

The problem is, in these hopefully more enlightened times, whether we are going to allow that to continue.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
And yet they still managed to have wars over it. Amazing! Seriously, think beyond the obvious. Put things in context. There are apparently 22 countries on the face of the Earth that Britain hasn't invaded. You don't get that kind of record sailing round the world to watch the stars and plant trees.
And?
There are families there who have been there for generations. That's as legitimate a claim as anyone else. Why should they not be protected from some other country taking them over? Why should this other country, who have no claim to the place other than vague proximity, be allowed to take it over?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 03:22 AM   #199
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,857
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
- The people living there have no legitimate claim to ownership of the land.
Unless you're arguing that nobody has legitimate claim to ownership of any land, then they have legitimate claim to ownership of the land.

Quote:
It's certainly not British land.
Of course it's British land.

Quote:
- The Argentinian claim seems better in mere terms of proximity but not particularly convincing either
Proximity pales in comparison to other reasons. The fact that there aren't any Argentinians living there is a pretty big strike against them.

Quote:
- Argentina has no claim to drive off the current inhabitants but it would seem to me they have as much right to populate the Falklands with Argentinians as the UK has to populate it with British people.
Only if you don't believe in the concept of national sovereignty. And I know some people don't. But international law as it currently stands is premised on national sovereignty.

Quote:
One option would seem to be that the Falklands becomes fully independent and not the property of either Argentina or the UK. As standalone UN member it would have the same rights as any other country to protection from outside invasion.
This is meaningless. You might think that, say, China has an obligation to help defend the Falklands against an Argentinian invasion. But China won't agree. The "right" to be defended by other countries is a fantasy. Other countries won't actually come to their defense unless they have some specific interest in doing so.

Quote:
Another option would be to ship all the Falklanders back to the UK and set them up with homes here and leave the Falklands to the puffins or penguins or whatever it is lives there. Bit of a dump on the residents but hell, sins of the fathers.
What sin would that be? Bothering penguins?

Quote:
A further option would be to agree with Argentina for shared custody. This would seem to resolve the issue somewhat as only 2 parties seem to care what happens to the place. Give them joint ownership, agree that Falklanders are Argentinian and UK nationals by default and allow Argentina to establish whatever presence on the island they see fit on the proviso that the existing inhabitants are not to be damaged or harmed by it.
That wouldn't be nearly as workable as you imagine. Suppose for example Argentina wants to do something but the locals complain that it will harm them. Who judges whether or not they're harmed? Hell, what counts as harm?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 03:43 AM   #200
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Then you do not understand me correctly. Which on this forum is becoming a regular occurrence.
I usually assume if people misunderstand me then I'm not being clear. Seems to work for me.
Quote:

Let's take your points in order:

- The people living there have no legitimate claim to ownership of the land. But they do live there. So the eggs are broken. It's certainly not British land.
So how would they establish ownership? How does anyone lay claim to land? And the argument (again) is it's not British, it's Falklanders' land and they asked for British protection.
Quote:
- This is oddly worded. By defend a claim do you mean 'they have a right to defend their land' or do you mean 'they have a responsibility to defend the people there'? I believe they do have the latter, as would the rest of the world and as would the UK if Laos attempted to annex Cambodia. But I don't agree that 'it's our land so we have a right to defend it' at best i get to 'if you claim its your land then you damn well better protect the people here'. Protection doesn't have to mean waging a war mind you.
Remind me which side waged war?
Quote:
- The Argentinian claim seems better in mere terms of proximity but not particularly convincing either
Possibly but not that proximate.
Quote:


- Argentina has no claim to drive off the current inhabitants but it would seem to me they have as much right to populate the Falklands with Argentinians as the UK has to populate it with British people.
Was sending in commandos the right way to do that? And again are the Falklanders British?
Quote:


You want solutions - that really depends on what all interested parties would be willing to accept as a compromise.
Which was discussed several times. In fact the UK was preparing to hand the Falklands to Argentina but for some reason the locals were against being handed over to a military junta. Weirdos.
Quote:

One option would seem to be that the Falklands becomes fully independent and not the property of either Argentina or the UK. As standalone UN member it would have the same rights as any other country to protection from outside invasion.
Protection by whom? We have seen a number of countries recently quite happy to ignore international anger and just move in.
Quote:


Another option would be to ship all the Falklanders back to the UK and set them up with homes here and leave the Falklands to the puffins or penguins or whatever it is lives there. Bit of a dump on the residents but hell, sins of the fathers.
What sins?
Quote:
The Falklands would become the property of no-one. Argentina would agree to this or be warned that if they attempted to take control they would be kicked out.
Kicked out by whom?
Quote:
Option 2B might be the same or similar thing but make it some kind of UN protectorate and put a base of UN peacekeepers there. I guess you could also add that to Option 1 too.
That makes sense.
Quote:

A further option would be to agree with Argentina for shared custody. This would seem to resolve the issue somewhat as only 2 parties seem to care what happens to the place.
The locals aren't entitled to a say ? They regard themselves as a 3rd party and were the ones who objected to the UK handing them over to a military junta. I sometimes wonder if Argentina hadn't gone the miltary route would it finally have been handed over?
Quote:

Give them joint ownership, agree that Falklanders are Argentinian and UK nationals by default and allow Argentina to establish whatever presence on the island they see fit on the proviso that the existing inhabitants are not to be damaged or harmed by it.
And who would resolve disputes?
Quote:


So there's 3 suggestions to explore off the top of my head. I'm sure there are another 101 flavours of these. Certainly more than the moronic idea that it's either British and we have to bomb everyone who disagrees, or we give it to Argentina and let them cook and eat the existing residents for fun.
I have not seen anyone arguing that. Most people are arguing that the locals are Falklanders not British, any more than Canadians are British, and the locals have consistently been against becoming Argentinians.
Quote:


You would also have to consider what the nature of the claims are from Argentina. Perhaps they only really want a claim on any future resources found there rather than actually owning the land?
The reasons have changed over the years - fishing was/is one and now possibly oil is another.
Quote:


A question to ponder...if the Falklands were to be discovered tomorrow rather than centuries ago what would become of it? I'm not au fait with the details of international law on disputed territories either.
There's an article that discusses this but IANAL. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...and-180954592/
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.