Am I missing the point of Colonialism or something?
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
January 18, 2012, 8:18 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Arfgentina falklands, argentinian colonialism, argies, buenos aeres, colonialism, david cameron, falkland islands, falklands, Falklands fishing embargo, Malvinas, prick, temerity, The Falklands
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Arfgentina falklands, argentinian colonialism, argies, buenos aeres, colonialism, david cameron, falkland islands, falklands, Falklands fishing embargo, Malvinas, prick, temerity, The Falklands
London is 7,903 miles North East of the Falkland Islands.
Buenos Aeres is 946 miles South West of The Falklands.
Approximately one eighth of the distance.
But today David Fucking Cameron had the temerity to accuse Argentina of attempting Colonialism towards The Falklands (Malvinas).
Colonialism, for the record, is definesd as…The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.
What the Fuck is he talking about?
We colonised the Falklands many years ago and the Argies have always claimed it is in their territory. Well a factor of 8 says they are more entitled to colonise the place than we are.
I’d say.
What a fucking prick.
Advertisement
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Good old Dave.
At least they’ve got Michael Gove to come up with some sensible ideas.
“partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically” – wait a minute, that practice sounds familiar
Comment by james January 18, 2012 @ 8:35 pmA free movie for you to watch on youtube.
It’s an interesting collection of talking heads, facts, theories, myths and myth-busting.
The utopian solution is a stretch but if you can spare two hours and forty minutes, it’s a free view worth investing your time in.
I watched it in three parts (finished tonight) but was invariably hooked on their chatter. Amazing that it was released to the internet exactly one year ago. The Arab Spring began in February and dominoes fell until Wall Street and London City were “occupied”.
The fella has done two previous Zeitgeists. He’s seems to be doing a Michael Mooore (film director) but with less thrush.
I was asked at Christmas what I liked to read. “Rarely fiction – that’s what movies are for. Zeitgeist non-fiction is my preferred choice. Futurology in particular.” Then I saw this movie.
David Camel-Face is such a tool. I love him for being such a tool – so sincere is he in his role as the incumbent tool. I wish they’d just put him, Foghorn-Clegghorn, Ed Moribund, and the Leaping Salmond in the same room and film it. Soon. Everything else is grim, dull and boring. Stick Cabinet Michaels Gove and Moore on too. This independence lark is a hoot. More Whisky Galore than Braveheart.
The big news today of course is wikipedia’s stance against the Yank-led internet bullshit. You do get the feeling that the Marxist proletariat is coming to fuck Camel-Face and his ilk up with his hammer and sickle….. if he could just switch off his internet device, crawl out from under his Che Guevara duvet and step outside his bedroom.
Comment by james January 19, 2012 @ 12:01 amJames: absolutey love your post…will watch the film (tho perhaps not today) cos I have seen the previous Zeitgeists and thought them well worth a couple of hours of my time.
Mark: while the words pot/kettle black do spring to mind in regard to Cameron and his comments about the Falkland Islands – but this issue for me is not about the land itself (which was uninhabited when Europeans first sighted/landed/settled there in 1600s and sovereignty over which, ever since, has been the subject of debate between the Portuguese, Spanish and British, Dutch and French) but about the community that has been established there for a couple of centuries. I would argue that they have the right to determine which state they want to have sovereignty over them rather than being overlooked like pawns in a power-game between nations.
Comment by patricia January 19, 2012 @ 12:56 pmI don’t disagree Pat. I wasn’t saying that. I merely said Cameron was being a wank for overlooking the history of the Islands and accusing Argentina of Colonisation when that’s exactly what we did. Ownership may be nine tenths of the law but that doesn’t make his ridiculous statement any more right.
Vive le self determination just don’t call it what it isn’t.
Comment by markgorman January 19, 2012 @ 1:08 pmI’ve still to watch the first two, Patricia; I had no idea of their existence until this third one. I saw some of the second one which mocked how ridiculous the concept of inflation is. I shall digest some this evening.
BTW, bloggers, and the efforts they go to articulate their thoughts, merit comment generation, not facebook so much. Facebook is a book of congratulations, condolences, pictures etc. And too often Facebrag.
I have borne witness in recent years to Mark as an evolution enzyme; a change catalyst; a things happening maker….
….whose dick I will now remove myself from….
except to say – keep up the blog, generate the content, change some shit, and to show that i’m not totally biased, in the words of the greatest tory of them all – “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” – keep it going, big man!
Comment by james January 19, 2012 @ 9:28 pmDavid Cameron always seems to bring out the worst in you.
You ask ‘what the fuck is he talking about?’ Why don’t you go and read about the subjects you rant about …the history of the Falklands (Las Malvinas is named after the French, St Malo), Argentina, and the colonisation of South America and you might come back with a more considered viewpoint.
But it seems this is just your excuse for abuse?
Comment by Iain Hawk January 19, 2012 @ 9:49 amFrom Wikipedia (the same one you seem to have drawn from Iain)
In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands.
Ermmm. I think that sounds like Colonialism.
Or how about this…
The history of the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) goes back at least five hundred years, with active exploration and colonisation only taking place in the 18th century. Nonetheless, the islands have been a matter of controversy, as they have been claimed by the French, Spaniards, British and Argentines at various points.
Poo bottom Cameron seems to have overlooked Britian’s Colonisation in his argument. That’s because he’s a wank.
Sorry Iain, I should have referenced all my research before chastising your hero.
You will also no doubt have noticed my intro seeks clarification before making assumptions. Seems my assumptions were reasonable
Comment by markgorman January 19, 2012 @ 1:05 pmHackles up? Not at all, Mark. A plea for a bit of reason, a bit of insight possibly.
Cameron hasn’t overlooked Britain’s ‘colonisation’. How could he? As you have now pointed out, Britain’s part in the Falkland’s goes back a lot further than Argentina’s.
The Argentinian’s had a part to play only after their independence in 1816. Before that they were Spanish and had been for 300 years.
But it seems to me that you might just be missing point. Cameron isn’t talking about the past, he’s talking about the present and future. His rhetoric sends a strong message to a) Argentina, that UK will support the Falkland Islanders and b) signals to all real and potential investors that the UK will protect its interests and resources (read oil).
And so to your question, ‘ Am I missing the point of colonialism or something’ – my answer would appear to be, yes.
Comment by Iain Hawk January 19, 2012 @ 4:02 pmNah. Not buying it Iain.
I don’t think I’m missing the point. Just because Britain colonised the Falklands a long time ago doesn’t mean they didn’t colonise them.
They (we) did. End of.
As did the French, Dutch, Spanish…
Cameron lives on Britain’s past reputation as a Superpower feigning indignity that someone else would dare “Colonise” British territory when it wasn’t Britain’s in the fist place.
it’s a fucking nonsense. Nobody in Britain gives a flying fuck about The Falklands.
Sorry, I take that back.
Thatcher does – saved her presidency.
Families of the British Colonials do.
The British Colonials living there do.
Oh, yes, and The Oil companies do now.
And Findus.
And in saying all that I am not defending Argentina’s aggressive “invasionesque” rumblings.
All I am saying and I stand by it is that Cameron is being a fucking hypocritical tosspot. I’d have said the same about Blair and Salmond.
It’s just that Cameron makes me bring my lunch up even more readily than Blair.
(Salmon gets away with it.)
Clear?
mark
Comment by markgorman January 19, 2012 @ 6:22 pmFair enough on point b, Iain. That is the Tory raison d’etre after all and the colonialisation comment is Camel-Face’s modus operandi.
As for point a – we’re all grown adults in this virtual room – I think it’s safe to say that David Camel-Face couldn’t give two fucks about 3,000 Falkland Islanders.
I’d pay him more respect for transparency – and by that I mean the truth. Beauty is truth, and if he and the peddlers of the Franco-Brit-Am axis just came out more often and said “Look folks, these are strategic military outposts which allow us to have the capitalist-sceptic world surrounded, so, stand down and as you were”, I swear it’d make me more comfortable.
I realise also that much of this forum is the sharing of opinion but it shouldn’t be discouraged. I wish there were younger folks engaging in this shit.
Comment by james January 19, 2012 @ 9:06 pm