I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.
I mean the original US states were also British colonies with
ethnically British people having fairly British culture. They just revolted over unfair taxes and the culture diverged with immigration of other Europeans.
The main difference between the pre revolution colonies and the Falklands is that there weren’t any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first, and the Falklands are much smaller and less important.
It was discovered and settled by Britain, France, and Spain (in that order). But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
Pinedo entertained plans for resisting, but finally desisted because of his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew (approximately 80% of his forces were British mercenaries who refused to fight their countrymen).[citation needed] The British forces disembarked on 3 January and switched the flags, delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on 5 January.[3]
Recognising Vernet’s settlement had British permission, Onslow set about ensuring the continuation of that settlement for the replenishment of passing ships. The gauchos had not been paid since Vernet’s departure and were anxious to return to the mainland. Onslow persuaded them to stay by paying them in silver for provisions and promising that in the absence of Vernet’s authority they could earn their living from the feral cattle on the islands.
The modern nation of Argentina didn’t exist in 1833. They were the “United Provinces of the Río de la Plata”. If you think they have a claim, then Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay have an equal claim. Do you believe that?
France was the first country to establish a permanent settlement in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port-Saint-Louis on East Falkland by French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764.[2] The French colony consisted of a small fort and some settlements with a population of around 250.
A pop of 250 is not “some gauchos and soldiers”. They were not even “(many of whom were British)”.
I mean, we can go down the rabbit hole and start a population census conversation based on year-to-year, but that seems excessive for the conversation being had, and something that is really not needed.
Its fair to say that the French had a presence there, they gave that presence to Spain, and Argentina inherited that presence from Spain (going around the long way, as the Doctor would say).
A colony of 240 people are not a few people, and are not all comprised of just gauchos or British mercenaries, they were French there as well.
I’m going to “bow out” of further replies. I’ve been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their “pound of flesh”, and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina’s objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
That’s not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.
Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.
I don’t know what you’re reading, but the actual history of the island reads as follows:
“The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans. France established a colony on the islands in 1764. In 1765, a British captain claimed the islands for Britain. In early 1770 a Spanish commander arrived from Buenos Aires with five ships and 1,400 soldiers forcing the British to leave Port Egmont. Britain and Spain almost went to war over the islands, but the British government decided that it should withdraw its presence from many overseas settlements in 1774.”
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you’re still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn’t they technically belong to France by your logic?
I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.
I think the people living there are technically indigenous.
I mean the original US states were also British colonies with ethnically British people having fairly British culture. They just revolted over unfair taxes and the culture diverged with immigration of other Europeans.
The main difference between the pre revolution colonies and the Falklands is that there weren’t any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first, and the Falklands are much smaller and less important.
Actually I believe there were a few Argentinians there they were removed forcefully, in 1833.
It was discovered and settled by Britain, France, and Spain (in that order). But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)
The modern nation of Argentina didn’t exist in 1833. They were the “United Provinces of the Río de la Plata”. If you think they have a claim, then Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay have an equal claim. Do you believe that?
I mean, that’s blatantly not true.
From the wiki article …
A pop of 250 is not “some gauchos and soldiers”. They were not even “(many of whom were British)”.
I mean, we can go down the rabbit hole and start a population census conversation based on year-to-year, but that seems excessive for the conversation being had, and something that is really not needed.
Its fair to say that the French had a presence there, they gave that presence to Spain, and Argentina inherited that presence from Spain (going around the long way, as the Doctor would say).
The gauchos are the settlers you mentioned. The soldiers were mostly British mercenaries. Did you read the article?
A colony of 240 people are not a few people, and are not all comprised of just gauchos or British mercenaries, they were French there as well.
I’m going to “bow out” of further replies. I’ve been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their “pound of flesh”, and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
What in tarnation
Dang nabbit!
They’re not Aboriginal though.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina’s objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.
That’s not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.
Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.
I don’t know what you’re reading, but the actual history of the island reads as follows:
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you’re still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn’t they technically belong to France by your logic?