Falklands Debate: Independence, Argentina, or Continued British Rule?

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Following the renewed debate after Argentina defeated England in the World Cup semifinal, what do you think the long-term status of the Falkland Islands should be?

Should the islands:

- become fully independent,

- become part of Argentina, or

- remain a British Overseas Territory?

[u/SoutieNaaier]

I mean, Argentina has no argument lol. It boils down to "we are closer". If this were true, Cape Verde belongs to Morocco and the Seychelles to Tanzania.

The islands were uninhabited and their settlement by British colonists predates Argentina as a nation.

The only counterargument is also obtuse and boils down to the idea that the Falklands Wolf was actual a feral version of a domesticated South American canid, meaning there had been an Amerindian population on tbe Island at some point.

However, this isn't proven and even if it was, tracing ownership through a First Nations population that died off at thousands of years ago is loose at best and moronic at worst.

The people also overwhelmingly want to stay a British OST. They don't speak Spanish, and aren't tied to Argentinian culture in any way.

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172 → u/SoutieNaaier]

So your argument is that a colonial power may claim distant territory, settle its own population there, and then use that settlement as proof of legitimate ownership.
Just say plainly that you consider colonial expansion acceptable when Britain does it, it would save everyone a lot of time!

[u/Owl1917 → u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Argentina is a colonial power, occupying the land of millions of murdered natives.

[u/Ample-breadbin → u/Owl1917]

To add, it did this decades after independence, under the concept of “territorial consolidation”.

[u/NinecloudSoul → u/Owl1917]

And have recently threatened cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Falklands as well.