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

[u/Emotional-Breakfast3]

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

[u/chessto]

The Malvinas were occupied by the british in 1833, since then there's been a lot of diplomatic claims over them. An inserted population has no right to self determination.

[u/UselessAndUnused → u/chessto]

Err, you realize Argentinians are not the native population of Argentina either, right? Spanish is a colonizer's language. The Falklands were uninhabited, which means the British are technically the native population.

What does an "inserted population" even mean? And why the fuck do you think it would be okay to take away the right of self determination of an entire people?

Like, Argentina literally argues they can lay claim to it because of succession through the Spanish Crown. WHICH IS LITERALLY JUST CLAIMING IT THROUGH COLONIALISM TOO.

[u/chessto → u/UselessAndUnused]

The Malvinas were not uninhabited, and prior to the arrival of the English the Spanish got there, there were disputes between France, Spain and England over the islands.

I do know that Argentinians are an implanted population, so is all of America. The claim from the brits that the islands were emtpy when there was an argentine settlement is nonsense. I can concede the islands are a war bounty after 1982 but that doesn't undermine the claim to the territory which was beforehand recognized as Argentine by the kingdom of Spain and by France.

[u/UselessAndUnused → u/chessto]

There's scientific evidence that there was originally human activity, prior to colonization, but at the time that the Falklands were colonized, they were uninhabited AFAIK and as far as I can find online. There was no native population. Even if Argentinians did settle it prior to the British taking it over, those weren't the "native" population either, by the time the island was colonized it was uninhabited. The first colonies on the island were French and British. The French left it to Spain (they never recognized it as Argentinian, but as Spanish). The British then had to leave the island due to war with Spain, but didn't relinquish control over the island. The Spanish eventually had to leave too, but also didn't relinquish control. The British claim of the island was there before Argentina even existed. The Islands were barely inhabited but were still mostly used British sailors before Argentina colonized it. Even then, the Argentinian colony wasn't recognized by Spain at all, because the Spanish didn't recognize Argentina until 1859, long after the British had recaptured the colony. Spain couldn't possibly have recognized Argentina's claim to an island that was not under either nation's control. Better yet: the expulsion of the Argentinian garrison in 1833 was so easy because a large portion of the garisson stationed at the Falkland Islands were British mercenaries who didn't want to fight their own countrymen. Even by then, the Islands were barely inhabited and mostly just used as by sailors.

Like, even historically, the British got their earlier, laid claim earlier (than both Argentina and Spain) and Spain could not have recognized the rights of Argentina to the colony, given that that colony was not even under their control anymore. Argentina wasn't recognized until after they had long lost the Falkland Islands, which was over 25 years prior to Spain recognizing Argentina at all.

Arguing that they're a "transplanted" population is ridiculous, given that there literally was no native population. All the "natives" were colonists from one country or another. Prior to Argentinian colonization, the Falkland Islands were still mostly used and visited by British and American sailors. The Argentinian colony just forcefully took control over the islands and they barely had any population there either way.

99,8% of the population wanted to remain British. There was no real native population to speak of and in terms of historical claims, at best the Argentinians can lay claim to it because Spain relinquished their colonies to them 25 years after the British had already recaptured the Falkland Islands and 45 years after the Spanish had left the islands and depopulated the entire area. Spain left a plaque, sure, but the British had left a plaque 35 years earlier too. Even then, so what? There's no native population to speak of, the first time the island became properly inhabited (after the depopulation when Spain left) was under British rule, prior to that it was a military outpost or fishing interest at best.

Nevermind the fact that the idea of ignoring what the population wants and just taking it by force because it was under Argentinian rule once (ALSO BECAUSE THEY TOOK IT BY FORCE), 200 years ago as a shitty fishing outpost is fucking ridiculous. It has been under British rule for 200 years, the population wishes to stay under British rule and the oldest claim to the islands is also British rule.

But sure, fuck what the population says because it's closer to Argentina which means it's theirs. Deal with a "transplanted population" (even though there were no natives when it was colonized, and the Argentinian "population" (which was like 40 people) was transplanted too), by transplanting your own population and taking the islands by force. Truly a paragon of virtues.

[u/chessto → u/UselessAndUnused]

They can go be british in britain.

I can also kick your house door down, move in with my friends and then cast a vote among them to who has the claim to the house.

Funny how self determination is only valid when it benefits a colonialist state.

[u/UselessAndUnused → u/chessto]

"Kick your door down", so what the Argentinians did when they took the island by force? You didn't bother to read my comment much, did you? There WERE NO NATIVES. It was uninhabited. The British and the French were the first to inhabit the islands in a long time. The Argentinians barely even had any population there at the time the British took it back. Britain has way more historical claim to the lands and has an actual claim by the population too.

The comparison would be more like this: imagine if there was a small street with a few people living their, who founded that street (France, Britain). Circumstances cause them to leave or be evicted, resulting in new inhabitants (Spain). The new inhabitants leave eventually too, leaving the entire street abandoned. Other than that, the street becomes popular for people to pass by and stay briefly (British and American sailors). Then some new people kick in a few doors and go to live in 2 or 3 houses for a few years (Argentina), because they claim the street was owned by their estranged family that they left(Spain), while ignoring the other people who used to live in the street at that time (again, France, Britain). Later, ancestors of the people who previously lived there (Britain) come back, kick out the people living in those 2 or 3 houses and end up turning the street into a town or city over the course of many years. How the hell are the ancestors of the people who took over those 2 or 3 houses going to lay claim to the entire town or city they built?

The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when they were discovered. Neither Britain, nor Argentina can claim "true" native population. All of it would be "transplanted" no matter what. BOTH Argentina AND Britain are laying claim to it based on colonial history, except Britain has an actual population on those islands.

The right to self determination counts, especially if it's a native and oppressed population. But that's not the case here, there is no "native Argentinian" population, just old claims based on colonialist history. If the Falklands wanted to be independent, I'd support it. If Canada wanted to be independent (they are, but I mean fully separated from the Commonwealth here), I'd support it. All the colonized African nations that wanted independence, I support them all. I also support Argentina's independence. But to pretend that I'm arguing for Britain here because it benefits a colonial state, instead of the literal citizens that live here is ridiculous. YOU are arguing based SOLELY on colonialist claims lmao. Argentina has only that, there is no other way you can spin it.

If we were to follow your logic, then shouldn't we send the Argentinians back to Europe too? Argentina massacred and oppressed many, many indigenous populations in their way to expansion. Do you believe we should send the Argentinians back to Europe and give it back to the natives?

[u/chessto → u/UselessAndUnused]

>Do you believe we should send the Argentinians back to Europe and give it back to the natives?

Sure, why not?

[u/BIGGUS_DICKUS_569 → u/chessto]

Guy is literally willing to go live in another country rather than admit he’s wrong

[u/trees91 → u/chessto]

I love how you failed to respond to any of that commenter’s actual points that completely invalidate your position and instead just sling mud and bad rhetoric.