And the reason these sanctions came about was because there was an obvious moral argument, capable of motivating countries to impose sanctions, that stemmed from the wishes of the majority populations of Rhodesia and South Africa. How are you incapable of grasping the difference between what motivated the actions that brought about change and the actions themselves?
I forgot about anwsering this part.
So the motivation from outside countries was what brought about the change. The people always wanted fair and equal treatment but no change was brought around until outside forces made it happen.The wish for equal treatment was always there but what brought about the change was sanctions and war. Is that simple enough for you?
dookus wrote:
An ad hominem argument is a pretty good sign that you're losing.
One example of colonialism would be the Spanish marching onto a new continent and murdering so many of the natives that the present country consists of 97% European-descended people - like your beloved Argentina.
Fat Git wrote:Nooooooo - I think you will find that was the Spanish who did that.
Yes. That's what I said. [/quote]
So if it is the Spanish who did that - how does it make Argentina a 'Colonialist nation'?
Fat Git wrote:Argentina was formed after they kicked the Spanish out in 1812. Britain did exactly the same all over the world by the way just in case you are wondering.
We certainly did. Essentially, this is a question of one bunch of colonists crying that another bunch of colonists won't hand over their loot. What relevance does this have to the question of whether forcing the wishes of a group of outsiders onto a group of people is an act of colonialism?
Not quite, the islands were inhabited by Gaucho's and even had an Argentine governor called Luis Vernet. Who, like the treacherous twat that he was, tried to broker a deal with the British before he and the gauchos who lived on there were kicked off. One thing I probably agree with you is that the march of time passes and the people who live there have the right to stay there but what they don't have the right to do is call themselves British when the reality is that they are no such thing. They are no more British than someone from the Southland of New Zealand.
Fat Git wrote:They have no colonies so how are they a 'colonialist nation'?
The country is descended from a colony; perhaps 'colonial country' would be a better nomenclature. It makes little difference in the end to the natives whether the original country retains any political power; the country is 97% European-descended and speaks a European language.
A country that was descended from a colony would be a less clumsy way of saying it, you're welcome - well, that is most of the world, Kenya was a 'colonial country' El Salvador was a 'colonial country' - as for the country having 97% European descendants - those figures are more than skewed, there isn't that many white people there but what did happen to Argentina is that they had one of the greatest migration waves from Europe to the Americas between 1880-1970, probably only second to the United States and that is why most Argentines are not of Spanish descent but Italian and of course there are lots of white people but the figure is nowhere near 97% if you are actually walking around Buenos Aires.
In your eagerness to be patronising by quoting a dictionary entry, you have not addressed my actual point - that imposing the will of outsiders on a group of people is itself related to colonialism. This is strange, because definitions 1a and 2 point to that very thing - being 'subject to' or 'politically controlled' by an outside entity. Forcing self-determination onto a group of people that don't want it implies either that they're subject to the will of those that demand they do just that (under 1a) or that they must be controlled into doing so by outsiders (under 2).
It has nothing to do with colonialism! I am glad to read that you now agree that the British government are 'outsiders' to the people of the Falklands, the same government who gave the people of those islands NO rights until 1983. The facts are, we can't keep holding on to bits of land thousands of miles away, the practicalities of this situation are gone, we don't have a regional Royal Naval fleets like in the good old days to protect colonies. The Falklands are mineral rich but cut off from South America which is not really practical and b) Their wish to remain British is not paramount to keeping those islands British - in fact, that relationship is tenuous at best, actually, it means nothing as it happens, if they want to be British then go back to the UK where they will be welcome. If they want to stay there then they should be allowed to run their own affairs like the good people of Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago etc.
Which part of my argument does this relate to? I don't recall claiming at any point that the Falklands are not a colony. Perhaps you can direct me to the relevant quote.
They are colony, I don't know if you have read the UN charter in regards colonies but if you notice we don't have many friends in regards the Falklands and the longer the place remains a colony the bigger the threat from Argentina, now we have been told by our own military chiefs that if the Argentines had another go then the chances are of us winning the next war are slim.
So, if you cared about the people on there, wouldn't it be best if you gave them independence, kept a British garrison on there if need be, made them a commonwealth country and they could run their own affairs and immigration, join MERCOSUR and open up to South America, what is wrong with that - and if the Argentines did invade then the they would be condemned worldwide. An independent Falklands could even have a defence treaty with the UK and Chile in regards being attacked.
Please tell me the actual difference between granting a referendum to a group of people granting them the choice as to whether they would like to be ruled by their present rulers and this 'self-determination' you speak of.
The whole point of being able to rule yourself is that you HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
As colonists, they don't have that right. 'We want this place to remain British for ever and ever' like a spolit child wanting its cake and eating it. A) The practicalities are making this less possible by the decade B) The new powers of the world - the Chinese, the Russians and the Brazilians - support Argentinas claim and the next time they attack they will make sure they do it right. Now - you can preempt this by giving the Falklanders inpedendence and the Argentinians would not dare to attempt to invade an independent soverign nation which is a member of the UN.
This includes exercising the choice to have someone else in charge of your defence policy. The issue is who gets to make that choice; if you don't get to make the choice, you cannot be said to be 'ruling' anything. It is nonsensical to suggest that outsiders imposing 'self-determination' is giving the people subject to that imposition a choice, and if they do not have a choice as to what they would like to do they cannot be said to be ruling themselves according to any logical interpretation of the words 'rule' or 'choice'. The reason I "can't work it out" is because your distinction makes no practical or logical sense.
[/quote]
See, this is where you enter the world of gobblygook - either the British government are outsiders or they are not - it is all part of Britain or they are their own entity, you can't have it both ways which is my point all along. The people of the Falklands would have a choice, if they want to be British - go back to the UK where they will be made more than welcome, if they want to be Falkland Islanders then stay right there and rule themselves. No-one - well not me anyway - is saying they should become Argentines. Ruling themselves would work, there is no moral reason why those islands should stay British and the longer it does, the bigger the threat from Argentina.
No, the people wanting to stay British and to continue colonising a land is not a moral reason. It is about time those apron strings were cut.
