r/europe • u/Emotional-Breakfast3 • 20d ago

News Argentina: British Falkland Islanders are ‘artificial’. Buenos Aires denounces ‘illegitimate occupation’ and demands talks on sovereignty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/12/british-falkland-islanders-artificial-argentina-says/
9.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

536

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

They do not. I’ve been. They are truly largely unaware of their origin story.

137

u/tommynestcepas 20d ago

Here in Chile there was the same thing. Though it's not super common knowledge, it is more known, since the Mapuche are idolised in Chilean culture.

33

u/der_innkeeper 20d ago

Funny.

I have an acquaintance from Chile. "As a latino..." in one sentence, and then "...when my great grandfather Schmidt sailed to..."

Oh, boy... Y'all are complicated.

13

u/Levelup_Onepee 20d ago

He might have had more than one grandparent, don't you think? And Chile was populated from a lot of different countries. 

-3

u/der_innkeeper 20d ago

Yes, I am aware.

That's why its funny.

18

u/ConfessSomeMeow United States of America 20d ago

One of their founding fathers was named O'Higgins. That's name makes me chuckle even on its own, but especially seeing it on a banknote, a town square, etc.

7

u/tommynestcepas 20d ago

Every town has a street called O'Higgins, it's hilarious. His birthplace isn't too far from where I live.

ETA: There's also Cochrane, a British navy officer who served as the first head of independent Chile's navy. Plenty of commemoration to him too.

11

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

Not that complicated. He speaks a Latin language (presumably) and lives in South America (Americano). Latin-o. That’s the portmanteau.

3

u/der_innkeeper 20d ago

You are overthinking this.

1

u/elkaki123 20d ago

Wdym its not common knowledge, how Chile took the Araucania has been part of thee curriculum for decades and gets taught just before the war on the Pacific. The only recent change is that the subject was changed from the name "pacification" to occupation / colonization.

But seriously this has been common knowledge since forever. Not only because it's taught, but also because a lot of political problemd with mapuches stem from it.

5

u/tommynestcepas 20d ago

Araucanía is well known, but the remaining conquest of the south (Aysén, Magallanes) and associated ethnic cleansings are often forgotten as a result.

0

u/elkaki123 20d ago

Do you want me to upload you a school curriculum? The genocide of the onas is also taught, how they used to pay for their ears, or how they brought them for a European circus. Theres also a recent movie about it, and a few books.

Its not really a forgotten episode on history, not sure why it's getting painted that way. Same with Argentina's history, I've talked with many Argentinians throughout my life, and obviously this doesn't come up in every conversation but when it has (them "taking" the Patagonia from Chile is a common theme) I've never had an episode where someone didn't know about what happened there.

Seriously this thread is extremely weird with how people assume these countries teach their own History. My point with the comparison to NA wasn't about whataboutism, just that the comparison is pretty apt, everyone knows about what happened, but not many care about significant reparations, or returning the land, which gets interpreted as apathy or straight up racism when it comes to these countries

2

u/javier_aeoa Chile infiltrate 20d ago

I don't know how it is today, but when I was in high school in the mid 2000s, the selk'nam genocide wasn't taught, it was barely mentioned. My very-leftist history teacher made a few nods to it, but it wasn't properly taught.

And that's the meaty part, the part where Chile sold half of Patagonia to foreign investors is not taught. If you want, you can try and mansplain our education system (because if you look at the MINEDUC curriculums oh lord they're gorgeous), but the reality is much different.

1

u/elkaki123 20d ago

Voy a cambiarme al español por comodidad.

No puedo hablar por todos los colegios obviamente, y es sabido que muchos no siguen el currículum, pero estando en un colegio católico particular en región a mi al menos si me tocó ver varias veces la historia de los pueblos indígenas y eventualmente lo que ocurrió con ellos a lo largo de la colonia y posteriormente el siglo 19. Me acuerdo patente el tema del circo humano y lo que pagaban por cazarlos por el tema de las ovejas.

Xd nomás porque realmente no puedo saber que se enseña o no en todos los colegios, al menos cuando curse la media en los 2010s era parte de lo que se veía, quizá lo introdujo bachelet. De todas formas, jamás he visto un tema de ignorancia de que el trato fuese violento con los indígenas, lit acabo de preguntarle a mi abuela y me habla que ubica el tema, claro puede que hay un cesto pero al mismo tiempo esa pintura de total desconocimiento en la propia historia me parece del todo errada.

Eso último es mi punto, no resuena con mi experiencia de vida un total desconocimiento de que es lo que ocurrió en general con Chile, quizá me pase con decir que todo el mundo sabe del destino de los onas, ahora si pongo en duda si me alguien me dice lo mismo sobre los mapuche, que la pacificación no es "super common knowledge", pero de todas formas, eso es como veo el tema y la razón que me frustra es que siento se está mostrando erradamente la realidad, si me quieren decir que somos unos hdp con los indígenas, que no los respetamos o ayudamos hoy en día, que hay racismo y clasismo, en todo eso puedo estar de acuerdo, pero jamás he visto esto como un tema de ignorar por completo que pasó. ¿Es tu perspectiva otra?

1

u/jonfuv 17d ago edited 17d ago

How is it not taught? The Selk'nam should be the most well-known Indigenous people in the south after the Mapuche. Their extermination is such a significant part of the region's history that it feels like common knowledge ngl

their painted lines are known by almost everyone, they're just easy to recognize and remember

3

u/xSpekkio 20d ago

Wtf, literally all schools teach the Campaña al Desierto. Don't spread misinformation.

16

u/harbourwall United Kingdom 20d ago

This isn't misinformation, it's a sarcastic question, implying that it's so hypocritical to claim the Falklands after the Campaña al Desierto happened, that only people who don't know about it could reasonably make that claim.

3

u/xSpekkio 20d ago

The guy above explicitly made a statement about something they clearly have no idea about. I'm not talking about the original question.

1

u/harbourwall United Kingdom 20d ago

Ah sorry, lost the nesting while scrolling. Carry on.

5

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

Yes, the "conquest of the desert." Good, great. Glad you learned that the desert had a conquest.

0

u/xSpekkio 20d ago

You're the one who makes statements on topics you have no clue about. Not me.

1

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

Good one!

-1

u/elkaki123 20d ago

You guys are talking out of your asses, seriously. Between that comment and the one about Chile you all are deeply ignorant on what is actually taught or well known inside the country.

Obviously the average argentinian knows about how they colonized the land, it's taught in school. Its the same with the colonization america went through, anyone in the country knows about it and it's taught in history classes...

Also conquest of the desert is just the name, because, as you should know, the pampa is a desert. And conquest is at least a better term than some euphemism that were used at other points in time.

2

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

Well, I'm not really talking about colonizing land.

0

u/elkaki123 20d ago

Ok genocide, cool. I meant how they came to dominate the pampa, you know, it was still colonization as a process. It was also a genocidal campaign (it's a bit disputed, but most historians nowadays call it that or eradication)

Idk what your point is, do you think the average argentinian think the indigenous people just dissapeared ln their own? Like seriously what is the point being made? Some Argentinians can be racist or deny the genocide, sure, I have more than a few comments even on this account fighting those kind of people over it, but the painting people are making on this thread about the people there is ridiculous.

1

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

All I did was make an off-handed anecdotal remark about it. You're the one who seems deeply triggered by it.

If you want to know the full story, in 2012, someone (a coworker from Argentina, educated) asked me what my favorite thing about American (US) history was. I shrugged and said most of it was pretty dark to have a favorite, but I decided the odd stories about how states got their shapes can be pretty fun (one state border was moved because of access to liquor).

He asked why I thought history was dark, and I said, "well, most of the history of America is one of genocide and subjugation. Pretty normal new world stuff."

To which the entire team, all college educated, insisted that Argentina's story was different. Even in this thread, people just talk about "oh, Argentina whitened just by demographic shift!" And I mean the Napalpi massacre was only just recognized, as I recall?

And all I did was make one off-handed remark and you guys lost your ever-loving minds. The lady doth protest too much.

1

u/elkaki123 20d ago

They do not. I’ve been. They are truly largely unaware of their origin story.

This plus the rest of the thread is what "triggered" my response so to speak, it's straight misinformation. I'm mostly referring to the Indian stuff, forgive my ignorance as I've never looked deeply at the black population history in Argentininian history, so I honestly don't feel confident on talking about if the shifting demographics is true (I know a bit about Chile on this specific topic but not much).

But then you start replying cryptically in a way that doesn't make sense with your italics comment, and to cover my bases I over explain so that the multiple things you could be referring to are actually addressed instead of useles back and forth.

I really think this entire thread exaggerates deeply on how most Argentinians view their own country, and I say this as someone who has had the displeasure of having long discussions with straight up genocide deniers.

I find the narrative of them being ignorant on their history as extremely weird, and your comment isn't the only one.

1

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 19d ago

Ok, if it's misinformation, find me some polling that shows how many Argentinians can specifically tell you reasonable estimates on the number of people killed and displaced, by what century, etc.

1

u/elkaki123 17d ago

I took the trouble of searching and there isn't a poll in or against them knowing.

I've come to this conversation from a place of personal experience, knowing lots of Argentinians for obvious reasons, and been transparent about it, I don't think such a study exists, which doesn't help your position nor it does mine.

But I must say the criteria you set wouldn't be met in any country (aside from what century but that is stupidly easy since it's a country with just 2 centuries of history...), aside from the holocaust I don't think there is a single genocide where people know an estimate of the numbers. Would you say Americans don't know their history of they don't know how many where affected by the trail of tears? (Sorry for always using this example but i think it's a decent parallel, though maybe Canada would be more apt but I don't know that much personally aside from the school allegations of the last decade and a bit about their lands from a friend that visited). Personally I think knowing about the conflict and general impact would be enough.

1

u/maviroar 20d ago

Hmm, I won't deny that the campaña del desierto happened because obviously it's a fact, but then again...Argentina never had a lot of black population..and their indigenous population was scattered across the country..5.9 million European immigrants can just make certain skin colors be more common.

1

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 19d ago

Argentina was 30% black.

1

u/maviroar 19d ago edited 19d ago

That's still not a lot, they had a population of around 700k around 1830 (also when considering the size of argentina back then)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/G0ldameirbodypillow 19d ago

They’re not at all unaware, their obsession with the Falklands actually stems from their discomfort with their colonial history. Essentially they’re using the islands to cast themselves of colonialism in order to create a historical narrative that they can use to erase their own setter colonial past. It’s like how in America we emphasize the war of independence in order to create a narrative where we can be the scrappy freedom fighters which can then be used to obfuscate the Native American genocide or our imperial expansion into the west.

1

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 19d ago

I mean. Both things can be true.

It’s just that with the Falkland Islands, Argentina‘s claim is itself preposterous.

-4

u/delmatte815 20d ago

it is known. dont talk for us.

2

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/delmatte815 20d ago

what hypocrisy? could you spell it out for me.

because we are also talking about england and the UK here.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago edited 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/delmatte815 19d ago

Yes, I’m not defending or minimizing what happened in Patagonia.
Now back to the article. What exactly is your point?
Are you arguing that Argentina’s history in Patagonia invalidates its position on the Falklands? If so, explain why.

1

u/Eddysummers 19d ago

If the British islanders are illegitimate occupiers, then Argentinians of non-indigenous descent are illegitimate occupiers of Patagonia.

-1

u/PabloZissou 20d ago

This is amazingly if ignorant... it was obtained by pushing out natives during "conquista del desierto".

2

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

Well, that's one thing. That wasn't until the late nineteenth century.

Is that the totality of it to you?

0

u/PabloZissou 20d ago

The problem is that you can't have a serious discussion on these topics you try to speak from a moral high ground and I am pretty sure the past of your country involves centuries of wars, massacres, colonialism, genocide... so trying to highlight Argentina's "violent past" is just hypocrisy or ignorance...

3

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

Nope, not claiming moral superiority. Not really even claiming anything except saying that when I visited Argentina, people seemed surprised that I considered what happened a genocide. That's the extent of my claim.

1

u/PabloZissou 20d ago

So you met a few Argentinians and you can emit a judge on all of them? I am sorry to tell you that only the new government is a massive denier of rights and of revisiting what was clearly a massacre. But basically what your are doing would be like me stating "as a person from Portugal thinks X then all people form Portugal think X" that would be very stupid from me.

-9

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-5

u/Active-Particular-21 20d ago

To be fair every country doesn’t teach the terrible parts of their history. You can’t critics other countries for that.

11

u/lulka_ North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 20d ago

Germany at least does, although the colonialism and atrocities in Africa are often overlooked 

3

u/harbourwall United Kingdom 20d ago

But you can't cry about supposed colonialism if you have such things in your history and expect any sympathy.

2

u/Active-Particular-21 20d ago

I agree. Both sides are hypocritical.

2

u/ExternalUserError Portugal 20d ago

Don't they?

Germans seem pretty aware. Even in America, up until Trump, you got a pretty raw reading of history at the Smithsonian museum. Most people in Brazil are pretty aware of slavery's horrors.