So Pope Francis is on record as being totally in support of the Argentinian claim on the Falklands and has referred to the UK as'usurpers' in the past.
This is going to be a problem as it will now encourage the madwoman in charge of Argentina to believe she has Papal sanction for her actions over the Islands.
Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.
And of course, as argentinians were ousted and therefore didn't vote, the result is quite surprising. <wink, wink>
99 % of british settlers are pro-UK, really ? Not 100 % ?
Three of the inhabitants voted against, possibly due to contrariness, if the vox pops in the paper were anything to go by. It was hardly a thriving community before the Argentinian military garrison (plus a couple of shepherds) were replaced by a British military garrison (plus etc, etc) - Diego Garcia this ain't.
President Kirchner has had a good few squabbles with the present Pope over same-sex marriage, too, which might prove a stumbling block to very close collaboration...
He's an idiot then. The French and the British both got there first. You don't get to own things just because you live near them.
Hopefully he'll keep quiet about it until everybody's forgotten how Argentina abused the Olympics and a memorial to their victims to re-state their claim.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's an idiot then. The French and the British both got there first. You don't get to own things just because you live near them.
Hopefully he'll keep quiet about it until everybody's forgotten how Argentina abused the Olympics and a memorial to their victims to re-state their claim.
And yet I own 1/7,000,000,000th of the earth being human...yet you tell me I don't own that equal share just because I was born here...so who do you think owns my equal share?
Total land: 57.51 million sq mi
Total Sea: 139.43 million sq mi
with a pop. of 7 billion that is:
5.25 acres of land each and 12.74 acres of ocean.
So Pope Francis is on record as being totally in support of the Argentinian claim on the Falklands and has referred to the UK as'usurpers' in the past.
This is going to be a problem as it will now encourage the madwoman in charge of Argentina to believe she has Papal sanction for her actions over the Islands.
Thus a saga begins, in "Ar. Wars, Episode IV - A New Pope".
So the last one was "Ar. Wars, Episode III - Revenge of the Brits"?
The (British) Empire Strikes Back?
The Pontiff Menace?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm Henry VIII and the Reformation and the subsequent suppression of the Catholic faith... The fact that no Catholic can ever be the Monarch...
The UK has not been pro Papacy for a while....
As for the Falkland islands, They are British, it's people are British, and the UK won a war to keep them that way.
I fondly recall my Britishiznoid comrades' article after the sinking of the Belgrano: Hang Thatcher!
Unfortunately, that one's not on the internet:
30 years after Falklands/Malvinas war--Britain and Argentina: between some rocks and losing face
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Pope Francis is on record as being totally in support of the Argentinian claim on the Falklands and has referred to the UK as'usurpers' in the past.
This is going to be a problem as it will now encourage the madwoman in charge of Argentina to believe she has Papal sanction for her actions over the Islands.
Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.
Keep in mind Mrs. K has a very, very poor relationship with Pope Francis. He was a dedicated opposer of both hers and her husband's government, which he accused of forging poverty stats, inflation numbers, and all sorts of other social and economic data in order to mask the problems riddling Argentina. That, on top of their clashes regarding matters like homosexual marriage, abortion, social security and the treatment of social movements.
The Falklands/Malvinas issue is one that serves Mrs. K keep the focus away from the other internal issues. If she gave into somehow using Papal support for the matter, it would mean she has to get on Pope Francis' good side, which in turn would require acceptance of his critical opinion of her government.
The cons outweight the pros in such a case. In any case, saying the Pope is anti-british feels like an improper stretch here.
He's an idiot then. The French and the British both got there first. You don't get to own things just because you live near them.
Hopefully he'll keep quiet about it until everybody's forgotten how Argentina abused the Olympics and a memorial to their victims to re-state their claim.
Even though I personally think Britain has the current right to own the islands, matters are not as clean cut as you say.
No one really knows who found the islands first (reccords are split between Portugal, Britain, Spain, and the Netherlands), but what is known is that the French settled it first (calling the the Malouines, from where the castillian name Malvinas comes from) and then the Spanish took it, putting it specifically under control of the governorship of Buenos Aires.
The Brits also settled the island, without knowing the French had it before, so later on when the Spanish took control of the French territory, there was a nebulous status regarding who owned what, but in the end the Spanish had the rightful claim according to the notions of the time, as they had taken the French claim, which in turn was the earliest and thus the valid one.
To complicate matters even further, the British left the island in the late 1700's, leaving nothing but a sign saying it was their, while the Spanish still kept a governor appointed. He eventually also left and also left a sign, and the island became completely deserted in the early 1800's.
Thing is, the island was empty and then the now independent Argentinians claimed and settled the island. Not only that, but the guy who did so actually had British support to do so in the name of La Plata (I suppose because they were enemies of Spain and the guys were revolting against the Spanish).
Meanwhile, the US decided to bomb the island over some fishing rights and unilaterally called the island as being outside any national jurisdiction (even though Argentinians still lived there). Later on the British came back and forced the remaining Argentinians to leave.
So that's where the source of the conflict lies: The matter of who owns the settlement is a historical mess, but it does lend validity to, first, the French claim, then the Spanish claim and latter on the Argentinian claim. Eventually the British took over by force, which was an acceptable method for claims at the time, so in my understanding the British own the island since the 1830's.
Oh look..Kirchner calls for Papal Intervention over Falklands..I don't want to say I told you so but...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The Pope, how many divisions ?" (out of context citation)
Keep cool, the brits will keep the Falklands for the time being (until someone stronger take them, the same way they became part of the british empire in the first place).
Seriously, have you nothing else to worry about ?
At the time of the Falklands War it was largely about restoring Maggie's popularity. Nothing like a nice little war to get the patriotism flowing.
And Galtieri's. And, after he lost the war, he was overthrown. Vive le Galt!
EDIT: Added interesting bio page.
Workers have no fatherland!
Turn the guns the other way!
No war but the class war!
Vive le Galt!
The Falklands War = 'Two bald men fighting over a comb', according to Jorge Luis Borges. The comb may turn out to be solid platinum and studded with twinkly diamonds if there actually is oil, of course.
And Thatchron stood a good chance of losing the 1983 election were it not for the war, so they owe us big time. Oh, yes they do.
I vote they're handed over to Senegal.
The new Pope is a Jesuit. I'm laughing at this fact.
I knew they were in hiding after raping South America for all they were worth.
But right on the proverbial front lawn?
Are the Argentinians that gullible to believe the Church again.
I don't believe in conspiracies. If it true from what I studies in Latin American sociology, the USA of head towards rough roads in the future.
"There is no need for conspiracy when a simple policy is implemented right under your nose."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new Pope is a Jesuit. I'm laughing at this fact.
I knew they were in hiding after raping South America for all they were worth.
But right on the proverbial front lawn?
Are the Argentinians that gullible to believe the Church again.
Raping Latin America?
Sure there were some controversies, but the Jesuits have been fundamental for us Latin Americans in more ways I can explain. Some key aspects:
-They created our entire educational infrastructure. Universities, libraries, schools, you name it. They built it all.
-They fought a perpetual battle against the crowns of Europe for the protection of natives. When the Spanish and Portuguese sought to basically enslave them, the Jesuits protected them, kept their languages, cultures, and knowledge. Many Jesuits died fighting agains slave raids. One of the main reasons they were expelled from America was because they represented such a danger to the European crowns (also because they wanted their fabulous wealth), which sought to supress the natives, while the Jesuits kept educating them (they even formed native militias to help them fight-off slave traders).
-They were essential to the independentist movements that culminated with all our countries breaking off in the early 1800's. Even after they got kicked out of the continent, they kept supporting the would-be nations through all manners of secret networks and influences.
-Even though they were stripped of everything they had made in America, when they were allowed to come back they started all over and once again rose to the top. They built a whole new wave of schools and universities, newspapers, even comic books (the first Chilean cartoonist, for instance, was a Jesuit priest).
-Their work with the poor of the continent is unmatched. I've had the honour of working on missions with them several times, and the work they do is frankly amazing. One great example is the Roof Foundation, which started in Chile under the tutelage of the Society of Jesus and now extends all over Latin America and the Caribbean, with over 500,000 volunteers participating and over 90,000 families having been assisted with new houses, improvements, reconstructions, and whathaveyou. Not to mention other Jesuit organizations like the House of Christ, which takes care of tens of thousands of kids and elders in extreme poverty.
There is a reason Pope Francis is so insistent on the matter of poverty; Jesuits have always been working elbow-to-elbow with the poorest of the poor, and their work has helped millions. Latin America in particular owes them tremendously, on humanitarian, intellectual, political, and social levels.
-They were essential to the independentist movements that culminated with all our countries breaking off in the early 1800's. Even after they got kicked out of the continent, they kept supporting the would-be nations through all manners of secret networks and influences.
That's interesting. Do you have any suggestions for further reading on that subject, please?
Thanks - I was aware of the Jesuit's support for liberation theology movements in a very general sense, but I'll certainly look into that.
It was their support for the independence movement against Spain I particularly wanted to know more about, though, so any pointers re: that topic would also be appreciated :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read up on the El Salvador and Nicaraguan conflicts. Jesuits and other Catholic ministries have been frequent targets of death squads because they've contested with oppressive dictatorships. the Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero was assasinated with what is generally accepted to have been a death squad sent by the U.S. backed right wing junta. Less known is that his assasination was preceded by the killing of an activist Jesuit Priest who was a personal friend.
Thanks - I was aware of the Jesuit's support for liberation theology movements in a very general sense, but I'll certainly look into that.
I was referring particularly to their support for the independence movement against Spain in my original post, though.
Hm, all the sources I know of are in Castillian and in print, so I can't give you something concrete right now. But some key subjects that might turn out information are:
-Fray Juan Jose Godoy del Pozo, Chilean Jesuit priest who, after being expelled from America, went to England (under the interesting name of Fray Anger) and presented a thorough plan for the emancipation of Chile, Peru, Tucuman (modern nort-west Argentina), and Patagonia (modern southern Chile and Argentina). His work eventually resulted in the Maitland Plan, which was latter carried out by Lord Cochrane (a very important figure in the independence of the Southern Cone). He later traveled to the US, where he managed to stirr quite a bit of support relating to assistance in Latin American independences, which made him earn a capture warrant from the Spanish Crown. He was finally captured after the Viceroy-Archbishop of Nueva Granada lured him into a fake revolt.
-Fray Juan Pablo de Vizcardo y Guzman, Peruvian Jesuit priest who went to Italy after being expelled from America, and then to France, where he wrote what is considered one of the most important Latin American independentist documents, the "Letter to the American Spaniards", which was later received by the Venezuelan politician and one of the great precursors of regional independence Francisco de Miranda, who got it printed in secret in the US and then distributed all over the continent. It is widely agreed this letter served to coalesce the shared sense of "latinamericanness" that finally drove the various local movements to work together in a global effort to reach independence (remember that a big part of the original Latin American plans for independence consisted in creating a single, unified country occupying the whole continent. Didn't work out in the end, though).
-The book "Diccionario Historico de la Compañia de Jesus" ("Historical Dictionary of the Company of Jesus"), by Charles Edwards O'Neill and Joaquín María Domínguez, a great source of information regarding pretty much everything about the Jesuits. I'm not sure if there is an English version, though.
-The introduction of the printing press in Latin America happened almost exclussively by Jesuit hands (as Jesuits have traditionally given a lot of importance to books, science, and research). This eventually led to Jesuits printing the first emancipation pamphlets and proclamations. Spain and Portugal kept shutting down and confiscating their prints, but the Jesuits continously managed to get new ones under operation. It was common for them to hide these documents (which spoke against stuff like excessive taxation, monopolies on trade that strangled the colonies, the mistreatment of natives, the lack of regard of the King for his american subjects, and so on) on bibles, which allowed them to distribute them to pretty much every corner of Latin America (because, as the saying goes, "Wherever a Latin American sits for a while, he builds a church". And a lot of these churches were built by Jesuits).
|
|
Well, if you took an island by force and populated it with your own people that voting result is natural.
Off course the fact that 99% of the Falklands population just voted to stay British will be ignored..after all that was a democratic process.
One of the things I find amusing about the Argentinian claim is how the British are "colonialists" when in fact the claim by Argentina on the Falklands is not due to "Argentinians" being forced off the islands (assuming they were forced, which is dubious) but because Spanish colonisers were usurped by the British (Argentina at that time didn't exist, being a colony of Spain). Plus no one was actually harmed by the British take-over of the islands - no massacres or nasty diseases - which is more than can be said for the Spanish conquest of South America.
But it is true that the legal basis is questionable on both sides, which is why neither side has been very keen to take the matter to UN arbitration. In the end Kirchner is a populist who is running out of options, so she is busy trying to distract the populace with this stuff. And the Pope is entitled to his views, which are probably not remarkable given he's Argentinian - it won't make any difference to UK policy either way.
|
|
Well, that too. Both leaders were wanting distraction.At the time of the Falklands War it was largely about restoring Maggie's popularity. Nothing like a nice little war to get the patriotism flowing.Actually it was started by the Argentinian leadership trying to divert attention from Argentina's failing economy.
Well, if you are suggesting that somehow Thatcher wanted and encouraged a war, I thinks that's misguided. The Argentine invasion was a big surprise to the UK government. Plus there was a principle at stake - the right of British subjects to not be invaded by hostile powers - which probably had something to do with it as well. That she took advantage of it for electoral purposes - of course she did, that's what politicians do.
Greenpeace members will be thrilled to learn that, apparently, the conflict between the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic over the Falkland Islands stems from rights on killing baby seals.
"In 1823, the Argentines granted land on East Falkland to the merchant Luis Vernet, who first travelled to the islands the following year. That first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and a second attempt, in 1826, sanctioned by the British (but delayed until winter by a Brazilian blockade), also failed after arrival in the islands. In 1828, the Argentine government granted Vernet all of East Falkland, including all its resources, with exemption from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. He took settlers, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane, and before leaving once again sought permission first from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. The British asked for a report on the islands for the British government, and Vernet asked for British protection should they return.[21]
On Vernet's return to the Falklands, Puerto Soledad was renamed Puerto Luis. The Argentine government appointed Vernet governor in 1829, to which the British objected as an Argentine attempt to foster political and economic ties to the islands. One of Vernet's first acts was to curb seal hunting on the Islands to conserve the dwindling seal population. In response, the British consul at Buenos Aires protested the move and restated the claim of his government. Islanders were born during this period (including Malvina María Vernet y Saez, Vernet's daughter).[21]
Vernet later seized three American ships, the Harriet, Superior and Breakwater for breaking his restrictions on seal hunting. The Breakwater escaped to raise the alarm and the Superior was allowed to continue its work for Vernet's benefit. Property on board the Harriet was seized and Vernet returned with it to Buenos Aires for the Captain to stand trial. The American Consul in Argentina protested Vernet's actions and stated that the United States did not recognise Argentine sovereignty in the Falklands. The consul dispatched a warship, the USS Lexington, to Puerto Luis to retake the confiscated property."
Stakes are higher now... .Greenpeace members will be thrilled to learn that, apparently, the conflict between the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic over the Falkland Islands stems from rights on killing baby seals.
Not if you're a baby seal!
I will say one thing just about the Jesuits. They were instrumental in keeping control of South America out of the hands of Marxism and the Communist Party. Even though their beliefs often put them in the cross-hairs numerous times.
I will say one thing just about the Jesuits. They were instrumental in keeping control of South America out of the hands of Marxism and the Communist Party. Even though their beliefs often put them in the cross-hairs numerous times.
Which instances?
Jesuits have always stood on the left side of the political spectrum. There is a reason they are sometimes called "Red Priests" around these parts.
Keep in mind the Company is very, very close to the Liberation Theology. I don't think they were ever friends of some of the more extreme leftist movements of Latin America, but they were far from being staunch opposers.
Moderate leftist reforms are probably the best way to avoid an actual communist revolution. So in that sense, he may be right about then helping keep control of South America out of the hands of Marxism and the Communist Party. :)
More generally, is this why people are freaking out about a Jesuit pope? Because Jesuits are scary lefties?
I don't think anyone within the Church is freaking out. Much on the contrary. The outpour of joy for the new Pope has been quite patent.
As with anything Catholic, however, the Church is so big that there may be groups not happy with it. But I really think the general consensus is that we got us one great pontifex.