this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
209 points (99.1% liked)
chapotraphouse
13921 readers
637 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There was a struggle sessions last year about it. I think something along the lines of Argentine chauvinism and how the islands were "empty". They kinda forgot that the UK will use these islands to colonize Antarctica.
Well the fact that the Falkland population voted over 99% in favor of being British was also brought up, but keep on trucking.
The referenda are such a strange thing, because London had secretly discussed handing the islands to Argentina in both the 1960s and (antebellum) 1980s, more or less without regard for what the Falklanders themselves wanted. But even without our current knowledge of Britain's past secretive discussions of a potential Malvinas handover — and there's a pretty good chance that we/I don't even know the full history of these discussions now — one of the through-lines of any empire's history is that the metropole always has a wholly transactional relationship to its colonies, without any real respect for "the will of the people".
So basically, by voting to remain British, the Falklanders' self-determination is to have their self-determination violated: that's the only possible outcome of remaining part of an empire that will sell you off as soon as it becomes more convenient for them: that it will inevitably become more convenient for them at some point. So the two referenda gave the Falklanders a choice between becoming Argentine now, or becoming Argentine later: get out of bed, or hit the snooze button.
No guarantee they'd be sold off to Argentina. The sea territory is valuable enough that any major power would happily take them. It would be particularly funny to sell them to Chile or Brazil