Will Britannia lose the Falklands ?

The sticking point in the definition of colonies, as it applies here, is that the international representation of the colony is done by the metropole, as is the top-level administration of the colony's government. Which I believe to be the case in the Falklands.

And, yes, this also makes places like Guam and Puerto Rico colonies.

There are people who seriously argue that Hawaii is an American colony. I'm not one of them, but I wouldn't cite that example as unequivocable.

So were the original American colonies, prior to independence. But they were still colonies. It's political status, not novelty, that distinguishes a colony.

That doesn't have anything in particular to do with the question of colony status.

Also you should say "distance from the British Isles" or somesuch; in the political sense, the Falklands are part of Britain, so the distance is zero.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Distance is not an issue. Hawaii is further from Washington. Alaska almost as far. Neither are "colonies" in the current sense. They are integral parts of the home nation. The Falklands distance from London are neither here nor there.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I completely agree, with addenda. I make a logically supportable distinction by way of representation. Once a land and people are represented fully in the "home" nation and chose to remain a part of that "home" nation, the status of colony becomes specious at best.

This is especially true with Guam as I don't think they have been given a choice to go their own way. In the case of P.R., they've been given the option and have repeatedly chosen to remain a US territory. Though, again, I still think they would fall under the description of "colony" based on my first paragraph of this post.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to Apple Dictionary.

IMHO the Falklands fit the bill. Not that its an issue. :m:

 

These Islands, including the 776 smaller ones, form an archipelago, which would fit neatly into the definition of "area" in "a country or area" in the Dictionary extract.

Not thats its an issue. :m:

 

That's why I corrected myself!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~String

 

All Chavez is succeeding in doing is winning future votes from a certain percentage of the Argentine people. He has no hope whatsoever of uprooting the British inhabitants of the Falklands....unless there is a HUGE political shift, something like every nation in South America commiting their armed forces to take control of the Falklands.

I wonder what Obama would have to say if that happened?

 

The Falklands place the USA in a precarious position between our commitment to the Monroe Doctrine and our unparalleled friendship and alliance with Britain.

Since the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine isn't really threatened (Britain isn't really expanding its empire into mainland Americas, and isn't colonizing a land with oppressed people), I think the US will support Britain in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event that such an attack were to happen.

~String

 

My first choice to spruce up your Avatar, but sadly, inappropriate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's the face of the world's best batsman.
He doesn't need rejigging.
He's not some nightclub Gigolo.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ponty, my Hero.
He looks dumb, but he ain't

 

Rumour has it this is the better batperson?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nah.
Can't stand women's cricket.

 

Well that is typical Chavez rhetoric and Silva's of Brazil gave a similar rant but the truth is that there were not any people living on the island to 'colonize'. The british populated the island and the people of the falklands have chosen to remain british, when Argentina tried to take the island by force they were the ones who were trying to 'colonize it.

It may seem strange to you that the british decided to protect their domain but it has turned out in their interest since they are drilling for oil. Hence Argentina's renewed interest. Argentina can balk about it all they want but its really a matter of sour grapes, they literally have no claim to the island save that it is close to their domain.

 

Yeah, when I saw this thread it got me curious about what sort of aircraft Argentina has in its inventory these days. After a quick google, I was surprised to see that the bulk of their airforce is still A-4s. The same aircraft that almost won them the Falklands war...almost 30 years ago. I was amazed to see that anyone was still operating them.

 

Note, I have not stated a position on the "ownership" of the islands. However, historically speaking it was always a toss up between France, Spain and Britain. Britain`s claim to the Falklands historically and strategically speaking seem reasonable and logical enough given its oil and entry into Antarctic claims.

What is interesting is the British obsession with this little smudge which is perhaps a hangover from Colonialism. Quaint.

Regarding the Chavez comments, I have no position other than knowing this mans distaste for Colonialism and its shameful legacy.

Regarding De Kirchner, its all political games for local consumption, and no I don`t believe Argentina has legal recourse. :m:

 

Which, coming from Chavez [a man who is of--at least part--European lineage, has a European surname, speaks a European language and who presides over a nation of mostly European descendants], is both hypocritical and patently idiotic. His very existence is the result of eons upon eons of colonialism. Venezuela was colonized by invaders from the north who came from Asia; later on it was invaded--undoubtedly--by other conquering native Americans. Eons later, the Spanish arrived. They, themselves, were the descendants of Celtic, Basque, Latin, North African, Muslim, Visigoth and even Norse invaders.

To regret colonialism is to regret one's own existence. Sad, though it may be.

~String

 

Do you similarly think that Russia should return northern Hokkaido islands (Sakhalin) back to the Japanese? And perhaps compensate the aboriginal Ainu who were forced to relocated to the main islands of Japan?

 

No because Japanese seceded the islands to the Russians. It is Russian territory now. As for their claims currently, they should go back and re-read their signed document which clearly says its Russian territory.

Falklands meanwhile are a different story they were uninhabited to begin with and some alien country from gazillion miles away comes and occupies it when a huge nation just few miles away from it is there.

 

if Japanese need a scapegoat for their loss of control over Sakhalin island they should do that over Yoshida Shigeru.

 

That's wasn't my question. Are you going to apply YOUR own rational against England, against Russia? I mean, at least in the case of Japan, tens of thousands of Japanese and Japanese Ainu lived there.