• Taringano@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree it’s more British than Argentinian. But “Argentina never one of the rulers” isn’t quite right. There were several stints of Argentinan (or Spanish but back when that was the same thing) occupation long before the war.

    • theinspectorst@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, Spanish. That’s the point. There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian. There were never civilians there.

      The only civilians who have lived there are the Falkland Islanders, who identify as British. Argentina’s claim is based on the Spanish once having a very limited military presence there, on which basis they want to assert some sort of imperialist sovereignty over a bunch of civilians whose ancestors have been there for hundreds of years and who have only ever considered themselves British.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That would give Spain a claim on them then, not the country that exists because it said it was not Spain.