Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
The island has been a traffic stop for seafaring people since prehistoric times. The Europeans ethically cleansed the natives, then spent three centuries contesting their control.
How do you know if it’s pre-historic…?
Who were these pre historic natives, and how did they manage to get there without boats?
Did you graduate from any form of schooling?
Are you mistaking penguins for humans
I would consult an anthropologist on that one.
Evidence of prehistoric human activity in the Falkland Islands
I’m not mistaking them for the French, if that’s what you’re asking.
That 2021 Hamley paper is total guesswork, and the scientific community essentially laughed it out of the room…
Actual archaeologists and ecologists heavily criticised the study because it lacks the absolute bare minimum required to prove human settlement:
If you want to see how badly peer researchers dismantled this paper, you can read the formal scientific rebuttals here:
There is even a reply on the same webpage that calls this article out on its assumptions, did you even read the article you provided?
It’s an incredibly weak paper trying to turn a few pieces of circumstantial ecological data into a political origin story. There is zero proof of a pre-European human footprint.
Nice try tho - Even if it was true, they clearly left well before the Europeans arrived so who fucking cares.
Copied text from your article, and the link I have submitted here
Edit: Well that shut them up.
It can’t be both a traffic stop and a home.
The dispute is over whether it should be a military base of a foreign power
No, it was about the Argentinian claim being the anti-colonialism one somehow, and this was supposed to be some kind of justification for that claim.
“The British didn’t colonize The Falklands, it was an empty island, but also the Argentinians are the real colonists because they wanted sovereignty over a neighboring island which was the rightful possession of a country on the far end of another hemisphere” is a level of mental gymnastics Olympic Athletes would marvel at.
It’s soccer hooligans holding up posterboard covered in sharpie and y’all act like you just survived Verdun.
Yes, it is. But I didn’t ask for your floor routine. I pointed out what was explicitly said above to start this comment thread since you seem to have lost the thread of thought.
I see no evidence that rockSlayer is a soccer hooligan or wrote his comment down on a posterboard. I just see what he posted here, in a comment.
Careful. As in other debates concerning Latin America, magically people outside the region see all the good of colonialism. “Stop crying. ‘America’ is now the name of a country, even if stolen from your territory”. “Mexico lost half the country just as every other country lost territory in the past”. “The Falkand Islands belong to Europeans because they claimed them: simple as that”. “Well, if you didn’t want to lose sovereignty, maybe you should have been stronger against illegal tactics from the CIA and others”. Just precious.