Right to sovereignty, military force etc etc...

So just after reading about the Falklands and all that. Just something that has puzzled me for a while.

How many people here watch the schoolyard bully beat up someone and take their lunch money or force them to do something and think, "well he is obviously physically superior to him so he has the right to do that". Not very many of you im sure if yo answer honestly ask yourselves.

Well then on the same line of logic, how in hell can you claim the Falklands or any other land as your own. It is x number of thousands of miles away and just because at one point in time your military was quite strong does that mean you are right to take it as your own away from the militarily weaker inhabitants? The same with Australia, deafeating Zulu tribes in Africa and any number of areas.

How can you justify having the right to conquer and occupy the lands people had existed on for millenia and kill most of them in the process simply because of a greater military strength and then to this day continue to claim it as rightfully yours?

not trying to start an arguement just have never been able to figure out how you manage to convince yourselves you are in the right and your justification for it.

EDIT: this debate isnt to be centered around the Falklands, that just got me thinking about it. Colonialism in general, including other European colonial powers e.g. Portugese, Dutch etc etc

 

Is argentina not made up of spanish who conquered the country around the same time we colonised north america? what gives them the right to it?

 

Oh yes a certain thing called planting inhabitants, where have I seen that before. Im not talking about what the unindegionous people want, im talking about their right to claim the place in the first place. Not just centered on the Falklands also.

 

Indeed, this could be a european wide colonial debate. Again the falklands dabate got me thinking about it, concentrate more on the likes of Africa, Australia, America, India etc...

 

Didn't you lot originally arrive on the island you occupy in boats? What gives you the right to live there? It belongs to Her Majesty The Queen.

 

BTW, the Falkland Islands were uninhabited before Europeans arrived.

 

ok, maybe we could make a bit of headway with colonianism first before we get to the Celts

 

**** sake! The falklands debate got me thinking about it, this debate isnt meant to be centred around the Falklands its about colonianism in general

 

Edited the post nice big and bright so we stop talking about the ****ing Falklands which I never intended to do as I know **** all about the wasteland

 

Good point I hope this helps
The British empire exerted its muscle during these times to invade smaller/less well developed countries because of their or percieved wealth and to also make the empire bigger and stronger.
To an extent this did work very well for them and for many years the British empire flourished.
But the indeginous population of these countries eventualy through violence or passive means managed to break the strangle hold of the empire and return themselves to self governance/identity.
Britain still maintains colonised states for purely tactical and logistical purposes eg Falklands,Ireland for example.
Those years of colonising countries has now severely back fired on the U K as many people from other countries can now lay claim to British Passports and all the benefits that this brings.

 

You sure about that? Seems they are a continuing source of bitter divide and warfare the world over. Also does your percieved "result" of colonialism jusify the means, the countless deaths, famines, slavery that was born out of colonialism.

 

British people complaining about immigration, while I realise their concern, really stinks of wanting their cake and eating it. The very fact the nation is a prosperous one is directly as a result of the exploitation of colonies.

 

To be fair, they were armed only with guava fruit.

 

1 word - Gun

I never said physically superior. I said militarily superior. You are getting confused with my analogy. The bully's physical superiority over the schoolyard weakling is representative of a colonial nations's military superiority

 

So would you be saying this if the glove was on the other hand and you were on the recieving end of the means?

 

Please tell me you're taking the piss?

 

No I honestly cant. Define "better"? Better in whose eyes?

Im going to go into my management degree here and start into the 3 pillars of sustainable development.

Economically better? - for the most part

Socially better? - Not really, big worldwide sectarian divides, wars continuing. In some places maybe (Australia, America) although there were some barbaric acts committed upon the indigenous people and there is still repression of these people and social inequality.

Environmentally better? - almost certainly not

 

Okay then, tell me you're just being belligerent for the sake of it?