The issue with the malvinas/Falklands is that there are no "historically rightful owners", since no one lived there when they were discovered by the British.

But it's also not as easy as "the British discovered, so it's theirs", because they just discovered and left. They didn't leave no settlement.

The islands have a complicated history, both sides have strong arguments in favor of themselves, there's no clear cut "rightful owner".

[–] adj16@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The British didn’t discover the islands - the French (and then the Spanish) did. But they won them after that, so your points are still good - just wanted to point this part out

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

To clarify, Britain didn’t “win” them. The previous occupants had abandoned it totally as it wasn’t worth much to them. When Britain arrived, it was desolate and abandoned with no prior claim. This was, by the way, some time before Argentina existed.

[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with this take. The claims are plausible from both sides but England obviously won the battle. The inhabitants being established are a result of the military positioning, so their votes will obviously be skewed. Not sure their votes are comparable to those of say native populations of other disputed territories (since there were none).

So I can understand why the Argentines feel aggrieved.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

The Argentine claim is implausible. The Falklands were British before Argentina was created. Their reasoning is that it had been used by the Spanish, and so had now-Argentina, therefore dibs.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Argentina gained independence from Spain on 25 May 1810

In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony and Scottish settlers subsequently established an official pastoral community.

[–] Stamau123@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Crown colony is just a title, the UK had settled the island decades prior

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Hm that's tough. I always like to think boundaries set by countries are bullshit anyway, but it is located closer to Argentina. Another comment says they both want it because the island comes with vast amount of fishing so economic reasons. And the UK probably put money forth to develop some sort of living situation on there.

[–] stark@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The US is closer to Greenland than Denmark is.

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

But with that thought Canada is closer.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Greenland could become part of Canada some day. Though proximity is just a minor part of it.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

The UK is the only one's who have ever invested on infrastructure. And it is all mostly to support the fishing industry. This is about money for the UK. The people who live there are descendants from people of all sort of places, because they were fishermen for a British fishing company. No wonder when asked, they prefer to be considered British. All Argentina has ever done on the island is bombing them.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 points 3 hours ago

The UK has never profited from the islands. It has been a sinkhole of money.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago

Argentina also confined the townsfolk in makeshift prisons and blew up bridges.