BlueberryMuffin

That brings us to the gauchos. Argentina's revisionist history turning Antonio Rivero from a murderer into a patriot is as transparent as an attempt to assert their territorial claims as it is pathetic. No, historians agree that these were men upset about their working conditions under Vernet whose response was cold blooded murder. IF this was a patriotic act of rebellion against British presence (it wasn't), it was an even more spectacular failure than the later war would be, as it caused Britian in 1834 to respond by having a permanent resident on the island and establishment of a permanent colony in 1841. FAIL.

Fast forward to the 1980s and post-WWII Britain has a lot of other concerns, and Argentina gets it in its head that a military invasion and occupation of the islands would go unopposed. Perhaps they thought everyone on the island would fuck off back to Britain if they just showed up and started bossing everyone around? So they did it, treated the islanders like shit because of course the islanders see themselves as British, and the British responded with overwhelming military force. At the time Margret Thatcher was in her first term with a very low approval rating, but the war was so politically popular at home that her approval rating actually became positive afterwards. There's a very real possibility that without the Falklands war she never would have been re-elected, SO THANKS FOR THAT ASSHOLES.

Since Argentina had failed spectacularly at holding the islands, they responded by basically making up a bunch of shit into a legend and then weaving this story that the islands actually belong to them into multiple facets of life in Argentina that way over the generations Argentinians would roundly be raised to believe this is the case. So here we are today.

Possession is 9/10th of the law and Britain has had it since ATLEAST the mid 1830s. Everyone there today is ethnically British and if you ask them 98% of them want to remain British rather than have independence; they certainly have no interest in joining Argentina.

The Falkland Islands have never had any native inhabitants and no indigenous people have ever been displaced, instead the Islands were entirely unoccupied until 1765, when they were first claimed by the British who established a garrison at Port Egmont. Over the years, the British, French and Spanish periodically had garrisons within the Islands until 1811 when all were withdrawn. On 6 October 1832, an Argentine military garrison arrived in an attempt to establish sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, disregarding the British claim of 67 years prior. Less than three months later, on 2 January 1833, the Royal Navy evicted the military base with no loss of life. The civilian population, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. A year later, a small, permanent British administration was established and in 1845 Stanley become the capital. We enjoyed a peaceful existence until 1 April 1982, when an Argentine military force invaded our home. For 74 days we lived under foreign occupation, until our liberation by British forces on 14 June 1982. Nearly 1,000 Falkland Islands, British and Argentine lives were lost as a result of the war. Since 1982, our lives have been transformed, we have become financially self-sufficient and almost entirely self-governing, we determine our own future and way of life. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from over 60 nations having made the Islands their home. At our heart are those Falkland Islanders whose families have been in the Islands for nine generations. In 2009 our new Constitution was established which provides enhanced local democracy, internal self-government and enshrines the right of self-determination. Four years later in 2013, we held a referendum which was overseen by international observers, where 99.8% of the electorate voted to remain a British Overseas Territory.

This is an article from the government of the faulklands. It's a pretty good overview of the history. If it misses anything/downplays anything on account of it being a british-positive source please make me aware!

If you have other information to argue against the idea that the faulkland islanders view themselves as british and want to remain a territory, please enlighten me. (I'm being genuine here!!)

The French settled there first, not the brits, and even then Magallanes had already explored the land in 1520. There are even stories of gauchos Caroneros from Tierra del Fuego being there before the French found them, but since there's no concrete proof I won't count that as a fact. The point is, the brits didn't discover shit, contrary to what they'd have you believe.

When they got there in the 1700s the Spanish from el Virreinato del Río de la Plata (as in: Argentina) had already been to the islands and considered them a part of the Virreinato, because they were literally a part of the territory that would go on to become Argentina. In 1767, France recognized this (on paper) and left willingly while the English initially refused, until they were forced to leave due to economic issues in 1774 (leaving that stupid plaque behind). For the next 50 years or so, the Malvinas Islands would belong to Spain and go through over 20 different governors, all of them from the Virreinato, all of them governed from Buenos Aires.

In 1816, Argentina gained its independence, therefore every territory from the colony became argentinian. You may have heard about uti possidetis iuris... that applies here too. Then, in 1820, the argentine flag was raised for the first time on the islands and this was news all around the world. It wasn't a secret, it was official.

You're also wrong about Vernet not taking sides. Luis Vernet, Jorge Pacheco and Pablo Areguatí were some of the most prominent military officers in charge of the islands during the 1820s and they all had argentine nationality. Areguatí was the mayor in a town in Entre Ríos and he became the first Argentine-Guaraní commander of the islands with the help of Vernet and Pacheco. Together they brought the gauchos to Malvinas, they started farming, they all built their lives there as argentinians. Vernet's daughter was the first child to ever be born there and, guess what? Her name wasn't Falklands Vernet, it was Malvina and she. was. ARGENTINIAN.

In 1831, the US - because of course they were involved - sent a warship to Malvinas and destroyed all their defenses. 2 years later, the british came back in a warship, drove the argentinian authorities out, and took over.

El Gaucho Rivero was not a violent murderer. He was a man who rebelled against his oppressors along with the Charrúa people to save their fellow argentinians who were being exploited in the islands. They even succeeded for a while and raised the argentinian flag once again until English reinforcements arrived 5 months later and captured Rivero. If he was in the wrong, how do you explain British authorities setting him free arguing that they couldn't prosecute him because the Malvinas were OUTSIDE OF BRITISH JURISDICTION?!

I mean, seriously? You guys were taught that the gauchos and indigenous people were the aggressors and you never once stopped to think about how racist that is??? Not even now as you were typing it? Brown people = stupid savages. Wow, groundbreaking history lessons from the british.

"But the islanders view themselves as british" yeah no shit Sherlock. It's almost like you got rid of every Argentinian who lived there. Even the wokest, most leftist of you are still imperialists at heart.

I don't know what's worse, the brits in the tags saying we should thank them for the war or @pathologicallypedantic blaming us for Thatcher's reelection. I hope you get that audacity slapped out of you and this is me being kind.

My main thoughts about the mutant metaphor is that the thing that it was designed in a way that simply isn't necessary anymore, because comics are a lot more free with what they are allowed to be about; in the 60s, it was very rare to tell stories about non-Christian religion, and indeed for a long time Izzy Cohen was Marvel's only explicitly Jewish character. So the X-Men, when they were introduced, were largely a metaphor for the white middle-class Jewish experience, because that's what Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were. The version one of the X-Men is "We technically don't look outright different from other people, but there is something about us that unites us together that also would make a lot of people really angry if they found out, and we attend a special school to learn more about this thing that we have in common." and anyone who tells you 60s X-Men was a Civil Rights metaphor was lying.

The mutant metaphor under Claremont expanded, and now it was being queer, being Black, being Zionist (yes that is part of Claremont's mutant metaphor), and less intentionally I think, being disabled. The mutant metaphor has continued to be a lot of different things under a lot of different writers, but as we have entered the 21st century, my main feeling is that it simply is not necessary anymore, because you no longer are encouraged to tell stories under 50 layers of metaphor.

You can just tell stories about Black people now, and hire Black creatives to tell them. You can tell stories about queer people now. You can be explicit about characters being Jewish, and indeed one of the only issues of Brian Michael Bendis X-Men that I think was good is the one where Kitty speaks, not about mutant racism, but about antisemitism, because that is the more grounded approach to her character.

It is not necessary to have Kitty Pryde face fictional racism so she can use the n word in an allegedly justified way, you can just have her actually face regular every day antisemitism without being offensive and using a white face for a story where you really shouldn't.

Anyway. Personally, I don't know how this could easily be fixed, because it is now so load-bearing for the franchise and a lot of people are very attached to seeing Jean Grey or whoever go through Superpowered Racism, but there's a few ways to go about it;

Honestly, I think Krakoa, had it been allowed to be the story it was meant to be and with a more anti-colonial writer, could have been a good way to make the concept of mutants being more than just Insert Minority Here Metaphor. Tying them explicitly to minority neo-colonialism would have been a really interesting way to make them something unique while also dealing with the baggage of Claremont's Zionist influences. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and it would have made a lot of people mad, but there was one way to actually tell an interesting story that wouldn't have been better if it was about different characters.

This is something they luckily have already done with Dr Ewing, but hire more Black and other diverse writers to handle the X-Men. I'm sorry, I think you might genuinely be stupid if you think Gerry Duggan writing about fantasy racism or fantasy homophobia or fantasy antisemitism that killed our Great And Beautiful Ethnostate, and I think if you're going to tie the X-Men so much to minority politics you need to have minority authors, especially Black authors at the helm of this, especially considering how anti-Black the X-Men historically have been.

Stop making anti-mutant bigotry a unique force in the Marvel Universe. I am one of the only people in the world who seemingly has read both X-Men and Avengers comics and I can tell you that they have plenty of stories about superhero racism in those comics too. Same with the Fantastic Four. And they suffer from much the same issue as the X-Men do, don't get me wrong, but something I find bizarre about modern X-Men is that they want me to pretend that the FF and the Avengers have always been beloved and have never faced any pushback or have never been at the center of morality crises in the Marvel Universe and that simply isn't true. There's a comic where The Vision gets targeted by suicide bombers for marrying Wanda. There are so many issues of FF where they are made social pariahs. Or Hulk. It requires so much cognitive dissonance if you read multiple comics to pretend the X-Men are facing a unique evil that doesn't affect the rest of the Marvel Universe and this is only made worse when some of these characters are like, cartoonishly out of character in certain X-Men events. If we're doing superpowered bigotry, that is something that demonstrably does not only impact the X-Men, and while I don't need non X-Men characters to be in X-Men books, I do think undoing the strange tribalism that has effected the X-Men and X-Men community for the last 10 years would be nice.

And for the love of god, stop acting like being a mutant is the worst thing you can be in the Marvel Universe. I understand telling stories where people are outcasts from society are interesting but we have to stop having repeated cartoonishly horrible things happen to mutants because now it's created this bizarre feeling where being a mutant makes you more oppressed than anyone else, which is deeply not the vibe when you have actual queer and Black and disabled characters. I appreciate these are superhero comics and they're always going to trend towards the melodramatic, that subtly is not always the most interesting story, but equally we have got to stop giving opportunities for Scott Summers to give a badass speech about how awful oppression is, because in the narrative of the Marvel Universe, that white cishet man has experienced more oppression than almost anyone else, which I find distasteful and honestly offensive. We need more things like Charles doing disability activism.

I love Vanth so much because the Etruscans bravely dared to ask ‘what if there was a Fury who was nice?’

“Why was the Professor trying to make little girls in the first place? 😏”

“OMG!!!! Mojo is the girls’ FATHER!!?!?!?!!!! 😮”

“The PPG and the RRB are actually related?!?! They both have two dads?????? Those stupid fans who ship them together don’t even realize it! 😂”

The girls have had episodes when they acted really destructive and disobedient, and broke things, or endangered the entire town. He didn't kick them out.

And he forgot Jojo even existed. If you take the movie as canon, Jojo just left, and the Professor is not concerned once about his lab assistant, or the neighbours that this escaped, destructive chimp child might maul.

The Whale Sanctuary Project’s Lori Marino is throwing a tantrum about not being able to get orcas for her sea pen that doesn’t exist.

“Trafficked” okay Lori, I know you love the emotive and unscientific language but this is ridiculous.

“We are getting there” - Lori, their tank is falling apart. They can’t wait for you to “get there” - which you’ve been saying for the last 10 years.

No one is “preventing” your sea pen but you. The industry hasn’t done anything to interfere - they just need your sea pen to actually exist and for you to prove basic competence before giving you whales.

Things when bad: kids and children are involved!

I think the movie equivalent is "highbrow cinema". If you don't want to just be recommended arthouse films, there's also the term "middlebrow" which I've seen used to refer to works of directors like Wes Anderson. This is a way to describe movies that is removed from any implication of age. There are children who enjoy reading litfic, and movies for children that might be considered "middlebrow".

I think useful terms would also be "cerebral film", "auteur film", "cult film", "cult classic", "transgressive film", "indie film", "underground film", "midnight movies".

Hey, I'll keep this short. I'm a cancer survivor and sole income of my household. I caregive for my two disabled transfem partners of color who cannot work.

One of my partners just lost services, and we're struggling financially because of it.

My health is getting worse and I'm showing some pretty bad signs that may require further surgeries and treatment.

If you can spare anything it would help immensley.

https://ko-fi.com/razortouched

like. how did you get the impression that you're supposed to kill anything that gets in your way. did we play the same game

i'm so so glad they're just completely removing the player's ability to damage and kill creatures in subnautica 2 in favor of more interesting nonviolent methods (outside of the previously mentioned things) but i fear people who completely miss the point and view the game as something it most definitely is not will be very annoying about it

Meanwhile the game is basically whacking you over the head over and over with its themes of how it’s not about domination over nature, it’s about adaptation. You are literally becoming genetic relatives of the creatures on this planet through the Angel Combs.

I think it’s also being very clear that just because you have built a base and used the planet’s resources does not mean you own it. You are always at the mercy of the planet because you don’t belong there. It’s a very colonist mindset to kill the local ecosystem just because it’s inconvenient.

And I just can’t understand that mindset because even though it’s annoying to get attacked while you’re trying to collect resources, the world would be so much more boring and empty without all the life inhabiting it.

My favourite thing has been setting up bases where I can observe the behaviour of the creatures when I’m not around. So you’ll see the giant coral crabs digging and foraging or the Hammerheads challenging and fighting each other. And the Nibbler Mangos will hunt the fish too, it’s really cool!

It really feels like the devs have tried to create creatures/aliens that aren’t Enemies but are just.. other living beings that behave like any other animal you might see.