In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> Concerning all those who keep citing the Mapuche question as somehow justifying Britain's refusal to negotiate with Argentina over this dispute, looking it up a bit this seems, as I suspected, just slavish repetition of tory/imperialist spin.
this is a really interesting admission you make there Bruce, that you have finally got round to looking up the issue of the Mapuche. Now, i'm aware that i've provided links for you to follow to find out more about the treatment of the indigenous peoples of patagonia for years, and 2 minutes of searching the forum confirmed this.
by - no_more_scotch_eggs on - 26 Aug 2011
some more information, on "The Conquest of the Desert"- a pivotal episode in Argentina's history, and a source of shame for many Argentinians now (so much so that there are arguments to remove Julio Roca, similar in stature to Wellington or Nelson in an Argentinian context, and the Minister of War responsible) from Argentinian banknotes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert
so it would appear that, despite your voluminous postings, you neither know very much about the subject, nor can you google very effectively, or even follow links provided as much as 18 months ago! especially ironic given your complaints that others dont read the links you cite...
Look, i'll even save you the trouble of clicking the link, as that has proved to demanding for you in the past:
"The Conquest of the Desert (Spanish: Conquista del desierto) was a military campaign directed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s with the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. Under General Roca, the so-called Conquest of the Desert extended Argentine power into Patagonia and ended the possibility of Chilean expansion there. European settlers turned the conquered lands into a breadbasket which made Argentina an agricultural superpower in the early 20th century.[1] The Conquest is commemorated on the 100 peso bill in Argentina.[2]"
Some more background: The Mapuche is a term applied to a broad group of indigenous peoples who live across patagonia, and not one specific "tribe". The majority are in present day chile, and their current poor treatment is not restricted to argentina, and is very much an issue in chile too. That does not alter the facts: that argentina is composed of land forcibly stolen by european colonists, and that the descendants of these colonists continue to oppress the indigenous peoples of the lands. You say this is being dealt with; my link suggests not, so some evidence to support your claim would be interesting.
And britain's history of colonial shame is not relevant here, and is anyway entirely accepted by me. That britain, empowered by the industrial revolution, was able to engage in appalling acts on a global scale does not diminish the more local injustices that argentina is based on. that is playground debate stuff- as you acknowledge anyway in your post, which makes your lengthy citing of british wrongs rather redundant.
yes, it should be judged on its own merits; and yes, it is entirely relevant, as argentina's claim is based on decolonisation. a nation of white european colonists on occupied indigenous land, continuing to suppress the aspirations of their indigenous people, is in no position to lecture anyone about decolonisation. more so when, as we have shown, the argentinian claim derives from the family dealings of european royalty, and the authority of a 500 year old pope...
it diminishes you to resort to smears of those that merely hold a different opinion to you Bruce, as you have done so often on this thread. the xenophobia one is the latest; as i have said, repeatedly, i have a deep affection for argentina, and have travelled widely there. i am no more anti-argentinian than you are an antisemite, and your resorting to insults rather than trusting to the strength of your arguments is clearly visible to all following this thread.
not to worry, its good you are, albeit belatedly, starting to check out some of the background to this area, even if your research has been flawed. my links above, as noted, should help fill you in on it.
and can i direct you again to the question i posed earlier, and which i am waiting for a reply to- about why a french settlement confers a territorial claim to argentina...?
oh, and i *know* the proximate answer- its the implications of this im really looking for you to address, and oddly, you dont seem too keen too...
cheers
gregor