• @kilinrax
    link
    English
    20
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Actually the first colonists were French. The claim was transferred to Spain via a pact between the Bourbon kings of both countries. The Spanish name for The Falklands derives from the French, Îles Malouines, named after Saint-Malo/Sant-Maloù.

    The Argentinians only ever occupied the islands for six months, for a penal colony - which ended via mutiny, not military expulsion. They’ve otherwise been under continuous British occupation since 1833, barring the 1982 war.

    I’m English, and by no means pro-English colonialism, but the Argentine claim is spurious nonsense.

    • @AngryCommieKender
      link
      English
      107 months ago

      According to Wikipedia, The French and English colonized two separate islands within months of each other, though the French are credited with being there first. Historians apparently disagree on whether or not the two settlements knew the other was there for the first year.

      The English have the longest claim that was never relinquished, since the French gave their settlement to Spain years after the French and English set up the original two colonies.

      • @kilinrax
        link
        English
        37 months ago

        Why do you keep posting this link? It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim, it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it, and it doesn’t back up a number statements you’ve made (“The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.” for instance).

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          English
          -37 months ago

          Why do you keep posting this link?

          Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.

          It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim

          If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.

          it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it

          Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.

          • @kilinrax
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.

            But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.

            If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.

            Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.

            Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.

            You’ve also got facts wrong, as mentioned above.

            • Cosmic Cleric
              link
              English
              -17 months ago

              But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.

              It’s not presumptuous because the point is they’re uneducated on the subject, and they should read the link to understand what they’re saying before they say it.

              That they’re stating facts that are not in evidence, but if they read the article that the link points to then they would be better educated and can revise their comments if they want to.

              Why should my point, which is contain in the article, be repeated when the article can just be read?

              It’s like if somebody says they know how to fly a plane, and to describe it like driving a tractor trailer, you tell them that’s wrong and you hand them a manual on how to fly a plane, instead of starting to instruct them on how to fly a plane.

              In other words, the point was not a minimal one, and would take much verbage on my part to reply to here on Lemmy, versus just giving them a knowledge base for them to read, from that makes the point for me.

              • @kilinrax
                link
                English
                0
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                You could have learned something here, but congratulations on making it far too much effort to get to you for me to bother continuing I guess.

                Ironic that you expect people to put the effort in to learn from your pithy comments, when you’re so resistant to it yourself.

                You have a weird definition of “making your point”.

                make a point

                1. To state or demonstrate something of particular importance.
                2. To consciously and deliberately make an effort to do something.

                Emphasis mine.