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 27th November 2019, 05:31 AM   #41
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Not when you are shipped in with the sole purpose of colonising the damn place!
So, every single peoples arrigving anywhere, ever, then?


Quote:
People had been fighting over the islands for bloody ages before any of these 'indigenous' people had ever even seen or heard of them.
They had? My history is off. Which peoples were on the islands before the French arrived?

My understanding is that there were no people on the island when Europeans first arrived. Which people were living there first?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 27th November 2019, 05:33 AM   #42
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Then I will make it clearer for you.

1. Claiming that the Falkland Islands are British because the people who colonised it want to be British is a nonsense.

2. The people on the islands are in no way 'indigenous' and it's a joke to even try to claim they are.

If you want to dispute these points go ahead but neither of these are in any way dependent on the strength of Argentina's or anyone else's claims to the islands nor on whether the islands were inhabited or not prior.

By that logic the native Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. There was no-one there, they arrive with the express intention of living there (colonising) and are still there now.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 27th November 2019 at 05:34 AM.
3point14 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 27th November 2019, 05:40 AM   #43
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,068
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
How far back do you take that argument? The Brits aren't indigenous to Great Britain either; they arrived by crossing the European land bridge around 800,000 years ago.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 05:42 AM   #44
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: 29,950
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
2. If you really need to determine ownership, then I think 'nearest populated territory' is a pretty good starting point though there may be exceptions made where it makes sense.
By that logic, we should be demanding the return of Iceland to the UK.

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 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 27th November 2019, 05:44 AM   #45
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
How far back do you take that argument? The Brits aren't indigenous to Great Britain either; they arrived by crossing the European land bridge around 800,000 years ago.
I think he's under the misapprehension that there were actually people (South Americans) living on the island before the Europeans arrived.

As I have always understood it, that is not the case, the islands were not at all inhabited before the Europeans arrived.

If he can demonstrate that there were people there first then I will have learned something and he will be right.

If not then he will have learned something and I will be right.


It's a win-win situation!
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 27th November 2019, 05:59 AM   #46
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
So, every single peoples arrigving anywhere, ever, then?
No, not every single people ever. There is a big difference between people naturally moving to or finding new settlements nearby existing ones and countries shipping in people with the express intent of colonising the land.

These British settlers were no more indigenous than the ones who went to America, Australia, New Zealand or umpteen other places.

Quote:

They had? My history is off. Which peoples were on the islands before the French arrived?

My understanding is that there were no people on the island when Europeans first arrived. Which people were living there first?
France, Spain and Britain had all fought over the islands long before the 'modern' British colony was established. As you seem to be well aware of.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:01 AM   #47
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
By that logic the native Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. There was no-one there, they arrive with the express intention of living there (colonising) and are still there now.
Is your argument that the settlers in the Falklands are every bit as indigenous to the Falklands are the Maoris are to New Zealand? Really?

Because that's idiocy.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:02 AM   #48
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
How far back do you take that argument? The Brits aren't indigenous to Great Britain either; they arrived by crossing the European land bridge around 800,000 years ago.
They weren't shipped in by a foreign power with the express intent of claiming the islands as their property were they?

I don't believe you guys seriously think that the people on the Falklands are just as indigenous as all the other actual first peoples and it's a pretty horrible thing to claim actually.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:06 AM   #49
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Is your argument that the settlers in the Falklands are every bit as indigenous to the Falklands are the Maoris are to New Zealand? Really?

Because that's idiocy.

My logic is that the first human beings to arrive somewhere, where there are no human beings already living, and set up their lives there are indigenous.

Your logic seems to have the caveats 'only if they did it without the intention of living there' and 'it must be prehistoric'. I don't understand your logic, sorry.


What's the cut off date for not gaining indigenous status after being the first to live in a place? BC? AD? Prehistory?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 27th November 2019, 06:10 AM   #50
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I think he's under the misapprehension that there were actually people (South Americans) living on the island before the Europeans arrived.

As I have always understood it, that is not the case, the islands were not at all inhabited before the Europeans arrived.

If he can demonstrate that there were people there first then I will have learned something and he will be right.

If not then he will have learned something and I will be right.


It's a win-win situation!
You have misunderstood. The UK colony was established in the mid 19th century. These are the people you are claiming to be indigenous to the islands. But you are well aware there had been British, Spanish and French disputes over the territory well before that.

And NONE of these people are indigenous. None. Not one.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:16 AM   #51
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
You have misunderstood. The UK colony was established in the mid 19th century. These are the people you are claiming to be indigenous to the islands. But you are well aware there had been British, Spanish and French disputes over the territory well before that.
Which is why I asked you if you thought the French were indigenous. They were the first humans ever to live there.

Quote:
And NONE of these people are indigenous. None. Not one.
Can I see your definition of indigenous?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 27th November 2019, 06:18 AM   #52
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
My logic is that the first human beings to arrive somewhere, where there are no human beings already living, and set up their lives there are indigenous.
So your logic is that you make up the meaning of a word?

Indigenous peoples are not shipped in to a location to colonise it. Indigenous peoples are the opposite of colonisers.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:18 AM   #53
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
They weren't shipped in by a foreign power with the express intent of claiming the islands as their property were they?

I don't believe you guys seriously think that the people on the Falklands are just as indigenous as all the other actual first peoples and it's a pretty horrible thing to claim actually.
At what point do the colonial people become indigenous then?

The Maori were in New Zealand for maybe 500 years before European settlers began arriving, if you want to use that as a guide.
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 27th November 2019, 06:23 AM   #54
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
So your logic is that you make up the meaning of a word?
No, I looked it up.

Quote:
Indigenous peoples are not shipped in to a location to colonise it. Indigenous peoples are the opposite of colonisers.

Ho hum.

Have a nice day.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 27th November 2019, 06:24 AM   #55
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Which is why I asked you if you thought the French were indigenous. They were the first humans ever to live there.

Can I see your definition of indigenous?
I thought I already gave you it:

adjective
originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
"the indigenous peoples of Siberia"

If a handful of people wander across from Place X to Place Y and set up a settlement then I think we can say that was naturally occurring.

Colonisation is deliberate and the very opposite of what indigenous describes.

And let's be honest, had their been indigenous peoples on the islands that wouldn't have stopped the British claiming it anyway.

So can we agree that the British were neither the first people on the land (that was the French) nor indigenous. What they are is the first permanent colony, established about 150 years ago.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:36 AM   #56
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
At what point do the colonial people become indigenous then?
Never. Colonising a place and being indigenous are incompatible.

Quote:
The Maori were in New Zealand for maybe 500 years before European settlers began arriving, if you want to use that as a guide.
Maori didn't colonise New Zealand though. Settled it, perhaps.

Can we agree on the difference in the terms?
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:37 AM   #57
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
No, I looked it up..
Can you point me to your definition then? I have never seen any definition of indigenous which is compatible with colonisation.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:40 AM   #58
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Here is the UN definition of indigenous people:

'Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems."

Pre-colonial being a key word there I think. I don't think the people of the Falklands are anywhere near to satisfying this definition.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 06:50 AM   #59
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: 29,950
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Colonisation is deliberate and the very opposite of what indigenous describes.
The problem I have with this is not whether the Falkland Islanders may be considered indigenous, but rather with the definition of colonisation being used. The Falklands were not colonised, in the same sense as the majority of the British Empire, by the subjugation of an indigenous population, but rather populated through settlement of land that was previously uninhabited. They aren't therefore a colony in the same sense of the world as, for example, Australia. So I'd like to understand how Argentina's claim on the Falklands is stronger than, for example, the UK's claim on Iceland, as the nearest occupied territory to a land that was unoccupied before its occupation by inhabitants of another country.

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 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 27th November 2019, 07:04 AM   #60
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Here is the UN definition of indigenous people:

<snip>

Pre-colonial being a key word there I think. I don't think the people of the Falklands are anywhere near to satisfying this definition.
That definition (being that it specifically targets those peoples who were living in areas later colonised by Europeans etc) precludes most of us from being classed as indigenous.

Consequently it's a pretty pointless definition, and the Maori would not have been classed as indigenous until Europeans arrived.
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 27th November 2019, 07:18 AM   #61
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The problem I have with this is not whether the Falkland Islanders may be considered indigenous, but rather with the definition of colonisation being used. The Falklands were not colonised, in the same sense as the majority of the British Empire, by the subjugation of an indigenous population, but rather populated through settlement of land that was previously uninhabited. They aren't therefore a colony in the same sense of the world as, for example, Australia. So I'd like to understand how Argentina's claim on the Falklands is stronger than, for example, the UK's claim on Iceland, as the nearest occupied territory to a land that was unoccupied before its occupation by inhabitants of another country.

Dave
Hang on... where have I said anything about Argentina's claim on the Falklands being stronger than anything at all? The only mention I made of Argentina was to demonstrate the problem with saying 'our people are there so it's ours'

Yes, the Falklands was not colonised by subjugating an indigenous people. Luckily there weren't any or it would have been. But that doesn't make it any less a colony or any less colonisation. It makes it slightly less bad, but I disagree with the entire idea of going round the world finding bits of land and claiming them as yours because you have the wealth and military might to make it so.

The indigenous people thing is a side discussion but it's actually a little sick-making to think that some people actually think the Falklanders are on a par with Maoris or Native Americans or other actual indigenous populations. My only saving grace in that one is that I don't actually believe that they do. They just want to win an argument.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 07:20 AM   #62
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
That definition (being that it specifically targets those peoples who were living in areas later colonised by Europeans etc) precludes most of us from being classed as indigenous.

Consequently it's a pretty pointless definition, and the Maori would not have been classed as indigenous until Europeans arrived.
It's the UN definition. If you have a better one I am all ears.

I can't see any definition or possible definition in which European colonisers are indigenous
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 07:21 AM   #63
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
For the falklands, the pre-colonial era of peaceful settlement of unoccupied land was 1840. And the colonial era of invasion was 1982.
No the pre-colonial era was 356BC and the colonial era was when it was invaded by the South Sudanese in 1432.

See... I can talk crap and make **** up too.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 07:26 AM   #64
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,901
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Hang on... where have I said anything about Argentina's claim on the Falklands being stronger than anything at all? The only mention I made of Argentina was to demonstrate the problem with saying 'our people are there so it's ours'
Or it could be considered self-determination by the Falkland Islanders. Self-determination has plenty of problems of its own, of course, but if they want to be considered British, doesn't Britain have a duty to them, especially when no other country has a greater claim? If the same people get invaded, doesn't Britain have a duty to defend them?

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Yes, the Falklands was not colonised by subjugating an indigenous people. Luckily there weren't any or it would have been. But that doesn't make it any less a colony or any less colonisation. It makes it slightly less bad, but I disagree with the entire idea of going round the world finding bits of land and claiming them as yours because you have the wealth and military might to make it so.

The indigenous people thing is a side discussion but it's actually a little sick-making to think that some people actually think the Falklanders are on a par with Maoris or Native Americans or other actual indigenous populations. My only saving grace in that one is that I don't actually believe that they do. They just want to win an argument.
I think it is irrelevant whether you call them "indigenous" or not. Frankly, does "indigenous" actually accord anyone a greater right than a non-indigenous person?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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 27th November 2019, 07:33 AM   #65
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: 29,950
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Hang on... where have I said anything about Argentina's claim on the Falklands being stronger than anything at all?
You seem to be claiming that it's stronger than the UK's claim on the Falklands, for a start.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Yes, the Falklands was not colonised by subjugating an indigenous people. Luckily there weren't any or it would have been.
I'm sure you're right on that point; but, in fact, there weren't any, and so...

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
But that doesn't make it any less a colony or any less colonisation.
...is the point I disagree with you on, however subtly. It makes it a very different entity to, say, Australia, which was colonised against the wishes and to the great detriment of an indigenous people. It's in some ways more like the Norse colonisation of Iceland or the Maori colonisation of New Zealand, both settlements of previously uninhabited lands by people from other countries in historic times, and neither of which is commonly referred to as colonisation. There should, perhaps, be a different term by which to refer to such settlements. And if the right of the Falkland Islanders to retain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands can be called into question, I'd like to know whether the right of the Icelanders to retain sovereignty over Iceland should similarly be called into question; and if not, is the difference actually any more than that Iceland was settled a longer time ago?

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 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 27th November 2019, 07:41 AM   #66
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
It's the UN definition. If you have a better one I am all ears.

I can't see any definition or possible definition in which European colonisers are indigenous
Because the UN were defining something about people's who had been colonised. They didn't care about people's who had not.

Under that definition you are not an indigenous Scot.
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 27th November 2019, 07:49 AM   #67
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,273
The question of motivation for the colonisation of the Falklands may have been relevant in 1840, but this is 2019.

The actual situation is that there is a population of about 30,000 people on the Falklands Islands, who farm and fish and make an honest living. They are born there and they live there and they die there. They own their land and they plough their profits back into improving it and the infrastructure, and they are developing new industries. They've been there for four or five generations and the present population know no other home.

Nobody else has a better claim to the land than they have. They evicted no previous inhabitants, and they appropriated nobody else's territory.

Are they British? I never asked anyone. They sound like Kiwis. Their economy is self-sufficient and other than defence they don't rely on any handouts from the "mother country". Many of them have never been to Britain. It's on the other side of the world! They use the pound, but loads of places use other countries' currencies. My impression from the people I spoke to is that they'd like to be a fully independent island nation like Cape Verde or Iceland, but they can't even contemplate that because of the threat from Argentina. So they remain a British protectorate. (I imagine if Senegal was determined to annexe Cape Verde they'd have begged to stay a Portuguese protectorate too.)

People spoke of being "grateful" to Britain for their defence, and wishing the economy was strong enough to be able to pay for the assistance. Not of any feeling of entitlement because they actually were British. They're certainly a lot less British than the Channel Islanders or the Manx, for example. They don't send MPs to Westminster and Westminster doesn't make their laws. They didn't get a vote in the EU referendum. (They're not in the EU, although French colonies on mainland South America are, as are the Azores, another Atlantic island population with some aspirations to independence.)

At the moment Britain is benefiting in precisely no way at all from protecting the Falkland Islanders. They may not be doing this for altruistic motives. They may be thinking about oil, or rights to the Antarctic. But that doesn't change the fact that the Falkland Islanders are an island community in a place where nobody else has a better right to be there. They should not be sold down the river because people want to play political territory games, and that applies just as much to other countries playing political terrirory games as it does to Britain.
__________________
"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; 27th November 2019 at 07:51 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 27th November 2019, 08:22 AM   #68
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Or it could be considered self-determination by the Falkland Islanders. Self-determination has plenty of problems of its own, of course, but if they want to be considered British, doesn't Britain have a duty to them, especially when no other country has a greater claim? If the same people get invaded, doesn't Britain have a duty to defend them?
It could be called self-determination but I don't really agree with the rest of your commentary here because it seems a little backwards.

While the UK claims the territory then of course it has a duty to protect the people there but that doesn't mean the claim is legitimate and I don't think the people considering themselves British (if they do, last I saw most considered themselves Falkland Islanders) means much.

Quote:
I think it is irrelevant whether you call them "indigenous" or not. Frankly, does "indigenous" actually accord anyone a greater right than a non-indigenous person?
I think it does accord you a greater right. But in this case it IS irrelevant because there are no indigenous peoples. I was just objecting to the classification of those colonisers as indigenous people. It's quite a nasty little idea actually.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 08:40 AM   #69
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post


I think it does accord you a greater right. But in this case it IS irrelevant because there are no indigenous peoples. I was just objecting to the classification of those colonisers as indigenous people. It's quite a nasty little idea actually.
Archie, the rest of the world uses "indigenous people" to refer to "the first people to settle and form a community somewhere". Why do you think it matters whether they walked or sailed to the new land?
Giz 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 27th November 2019, 08:42 AM   #70
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You seem to be claiming that it's stronger than the UK's claim on the Falklands, for a start.
Can you quote where I said that? Because I am not.

Quote:
I'm sure you're right on that point; but, in fact, there weren't any, and so...
So there really isn't a moral high ground from the fact that they were lucky there wasn't anyone there.

Quote:
...is the point I disagree with you on, however subtly. It makes it a very different entity to, say, Australia, which was colonised against the wishes and to the great detriment of an indigenous people. It's in some ways more like the Norse colonisation of Iceland or the Maori colonisation of New Zealand, both settlements of previously uninhabited lands by people from other countries in historic times, and neither of which is commonly referred to as colonisation. There should, perhaps, be a different term by which to refer to such settlements. And if the right of the Falkland Islanders to retain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands can be called into question, I'd like to know whether the right of the Icelanders to retain sovereignty over Iceland should similarly be called into question; and if not, is the difference actually any more than that Iceland was settled a longer time ago?
I will try to explain why I see it as different then.

When you talk about the European colonisation of 'the new world' you are talking about a planned and deliberate program of rich military powers setting out a program of sending people off to find new territories to claim as their own and strip of any resources that they may encounter.

It wasn't an accident. These people didn't just end up on the Falklands because they set out on boats and ended up there. They weren't little independent groups of people striking out on their own to discover new fertile lands to grow crops.

They were a planned importation of people to take over the land for the economic benefit of the 'mother country'.

This is quite different from the Maoris who appear to have genuinely been setting out to explore new lands. And quite different from the Norse settlement of iceland - where I believe this was basically groups escaping from persecution back home.

I appreciate that this is complicated and it gets messy and there are other even messier areas - are Chagossians indigenous peoples? I believe they are actually the descendants of imported African slaves but I think we can safely say at least that they aren't colonisers.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 08:50 AM   #71
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Because the UN were defining something about people's who had been colonised. They didn't care about people's who had not.

Under that definition you are not an indigenous Scot.
The UN were seeking to define indigenous peoples. As I said, do you have a better definition?

I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with me not being considered an indigenous Scot. I think that is very very very likely to be the case though I have never really investigated my heritage.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 08:54 AM   #72
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Archie, the rest of the world uses "indigenous people" to refer to "the first people to settle and form a community somewhere".
Evidence? This is not what indigenous people means. I have shown you the definitions. You are working with a weird and wonderful definition unique to you.

Colonisers are not, by definition, indigenous people.

The annoying thing is I actually took the time to check before I responded to you initially that I wasn't wrong. Because I could well have been the one who was mistaken. And had I been, I wouldn't have doubled-down that everyone else is wrong and I am right, or claim without evidence that the rest of the world agrees with me.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 08:56 AM   #73
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,273
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I was just objecting to the classification of those colonisers as indigenous people. It's quite a nasty little idea actually.

Why is it nasty? It seems it's only about time. All islands became inhabited because some people, who already had a homeland somwhere else, got in a boat and went there, intending to stay. Is there some motivation for doing this that makes their community illegitimate, even four generations down the line?
__________________
"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; 27th November 2019 at 08:57 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 27th November 2019, 08:56 AM   #74
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Can you quote where I said that? Because I am not.



So there really isn't a moral high ground from the fact that they were lucky there wasn't anyone there.



I will try to explain why I see it as different then.

When you talk about the European colonisation of 'the new world' you are talking about a planned and deliberate program of rich military powers setting out a program of sending people off to find new territories to claim as their own and strip of any resources that they may encounter.

It wasn't an accident. These people didn't just end up on the Falklands because they set out on boats and ended up there. They weren't little independent groups of people striking out on their own to discover new fertile lands to grow crops.

They were a planned importation of people to take over the land for the economic benefit of the 'mother country'.

This is quite different from the Maoris who appear to have genuinely been setting out to explore new lands. And quite different from the Norse settlement of iceland - where I believe this was basically groups escaping from persecution back home.

I appreciate that this is complicated and it gets messy and there are other even messier areas - are Chagossians indigenous peoples? I believe they are actually the descendants of imported African slaves but I think we can safely say at least that they aren't colonisers.
You keep going on about this 'original sin' of being a planned migration rather than an accidental one. This seems:

1) Not something that is important to the standard definition

2) Demeaning to indigenous people (as you define them). Do you think that the descendants of current day native americans crossed the Bering straights land bridge by random Brownian motion, or that they deliberately looked for new hunting grounds? They were thinking people who made choices, not randomly moving particles that happened to come to rest somewhere.
Giz 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 27th November 2019, 08:58 AM   #75
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,273
*straits
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 09:02 AM   #76
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: 29,950
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
And quite different from the Norse settlement of iceland - where I believe this was basically groups escaping from persecution back home.
That's one explanation, but not the only one - the inhabitants of Iceland were there to get land and wealth, and there seem to have been regular trips back to the mainland, typically to pick up supplies (wood was and is pretty scarce) and to go raiding now and then on Viking trips. Previous inhabitants were Scottish and Irish monks; does the UK, via Scotland and Northern Ireland, have a prior claim?

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 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 27th November 2019, 09:04 AM   #77
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
You keep going on about this 'original sin' of being a planned migration rather than an accidental one. This seems:

1) Not something that is important to the standard definition

2) Demeaning to indigenous people (as you define them). Do you think that the descendants of current day native americans crossed the Bering straights land bridge by random Brownian motion, or that they deliberately looked for new hunting grounds? They were thinking people who made choices, not randomly moving particles that happened to come to rest somewhere.
Jeesus. You can't see a difference between a planned takeover of a territory on the other side of the world for economic benefit and the natural expansion of people's from one area to another?
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 09:12 AM   #78
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Why is it nasty? It seems it's only about time. All islands became inhabited because some people, who already had a homeland somwhere else, got in a boat and went there, intending to stay. Is there some motivation for doing this that makes their community illegitimate, even four generations down the line?
It's nasty because it basically compares a bunch of colonisers to actual indigenous peoples. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of indigenous peoples and belittles the genuine plight of actual indigenous peoples across the world.

Is there some motivation for this that makes it illegitimate? Yes of course there is. There are a number that would make it illegitimate and no, if you accept that there are illegitimate motivations then you should also accept that you don't suddenly gain legitimacy because your illegitimate colony stuck it out for 4, 10 or 40 generations.

I don't know how many times that the systematic colonisation of the other side of the world for the purposes of economic development and empire building are NOT the same as some people setting out on a boat and settling on a patch of land with nobody on it. And trying to draw this equivalency is not justified.
__________________
"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 27th November 2019, 09:15 AM   #79
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Jeesus. You can't see a difference between a planned takeover of a territory on the other side of the world for economic benefit and the natural expansion of people's from one area to another?
They were both planned. Just that one society had limited knowledge and mobility. Seriously, stop implying that early human settlers had no agency. It's demeaning and infantilizing to them.

Now, can you state why you think there is a moral difference between claiming unoccupied land after travelling on foot versus claiming unoccupied land after travelling by boat?
Giz 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 27th November 2019, 09:21 AM   #80
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's one explanation, but not the only one - the inhabitants of Iceland were there to get land and wealth, and there seem to have been regular trips back to the mainland, typically to pick up supplies (wood was and is pretty scarce) and to go raiding now and then on Viking trips. Previous inhabitants were Scottish and Irish monks; does the UK, via Scotland and Northern Ireland, have a prior claim?

Dave
Probably as much as Norway has - i.e. none. I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove.

Do you honestly think there is no difference between what happened and the King of Norway sending out a military expedition to claim the land and then settling it with Norwegians and claiming it as part of Norway?

That's a genuine question, because it seems to be a fairly obvious and stark difference to me.
__________________
"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
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 05:51 PM.
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.