Lady Elle

Carolina Reaper is back again

jorge messi, a working class man who changed the course of football history

Era literal nuestra Mulan argentina. Al principio el trolazo de Belgrano no la quería dejar luchar y al final la terminó nombrando capitana porque, no solo se metió a atender a los soldados heridos mientras luchaban (cosa que le habían prohibido), también demostró ser imparable con su fusil y lanza.

En la guerra en Perú perdió a su esposo y 2 hijos (uno biológico y otro adoptivo). Cuando dejó la vida militar tenía 6 heridas de bala y estaba llena de cicatrices porque cuando la agarraron los españoles le dieron latigazos públicamente. Y aún así la mina sobrevivió, es increíble, le decían madre de la patria porque capitana y procer le quedaban chicos.

Ojalá la próxima vez no sean tan susceptibles a la propaganda yankee. Latinoamérica dividida es estrategia colonial y, como dije antes, solo los beneficia a ellos.

La supremacía blanca avasalla y contamina la cultura de tal forma que hay personas que hoy por hoy definen su identidad como algo que no son.

El “poc” (person of color) engloba a asiáticos, “Latinos”, negros, indios, mulatos, indígenas, mestizos… porque para estos bolas de aca: es la gente blanca vs los demás.

Lo mismo sucede con el término “Latino”. Es una palabra que ellos usan para generalizar a toooodaaaas las personas (descendientes o nacidos) de Latinoamérica. ¿Por qué lo hacen? Bueno porque son supremacistas y crean categorías para minimizar tu sentido de pertenencia a un lugar, o simplemente para designarte bajo una categoría dentro de su mundo. De la misma manera que siguen usando el término “African-American” para discriminar ciudadanos americanos (que nacieron en EEUU y jamás pisaron África!!).

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 canoeros 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.