Should Argentina be given back to its original owners?

Reading through the internet I have discovered that the current Argentinians are living in a country that isn’t really their own.

The North Western area of their country was, and still is, occupied by the Mapuche.

Since the Spanish conquest indigenous peoples have been used as laborers, poorly paid and lacking political representation; these conditions of semiservitude are changing slowly.

Sadly, the indigenous peoples of South America continue to be assimilated into white-dominated national cultures as their traditional ways of life and homelands are being destroyed by over-population growth and industrial development.

From http://www.surdelsur.com/somos/pob121ing.html

(Listed by geographical area.)

The Cuyo Area
The culture of Huarpes occupied the present provinces of San Juan, San Luis and Mendoza. They farmed, grew corn and hunted guanacos and nandus. They worked ceramics and believed in a supreme being.

Pampa and Patagonia Region
In Pampa and Patagonia there was a large amount of communities such as the Querandís and the Araucanians coming from Chile, apart from the Tehuelches and the Onas in the south and the Pampas in the center. They had common characteristics. They hunted hares, foxes, nandus and also fished. They lived in groups led by one cacique.

The Neuquén Area
The Pehuenche culture was settled down in Neuquén, living by hunting and gathering and they were grouped in bands made up by families and they believed in a supreme being who dwelt beyond the sea.

Araucanians

The Chaco Area
In Chaco there were the Tobas, Mocovíes and Abipones. They basically hunted and gathered. They were integrated into a system of bands led by one cacique. The families were monogamous but polygamy was allowed to chiefs.

The Littoral and Mesopotamian Region
The Guarani culture prevailed in this area. They were sedentary and farming people, who lived in large houses accommodating several families. They believed in a lost paradise where they would return some day.

More here

http://www.endepa.madryn.com/

From http://www.geographia.com/argentina/histroy.htm

It was perhaps a legacy of this successful resistance that enabled the native peoples of Argentina to carry on a prolonged campaign against colonization and rule by the Spanish. The first Spaniard to land in Argentina, Juan de Solis, was killed in 1516, and several attempts to found Buenos Aires were stymied by the local inhabitants. Inland cities were more successful, and it wasn’t until the late 16th century that Buenos Aires was securely established.

Despite its military success, indigenous resistance was inexorably weakened by the introduction of diseases from Europe.

Argentina’s culture has been greatly affected by its immigrant population, mostly European. Their influence contributed to the demise of pre-Columbian cultures, resulting in the lack of a dominant indigenous population. The European immigrant groups each adopted different roles. The Basque and Irish controlled sheep rearing, the Germans and Italians established farms, and the British invested in developing the country’s infra- structure.

More than one-third of the country’s 32 million people live in Buenos Aires, the capital, which along with other urban areas accounts for almost 90% of the total population. The principal indigenous peoples are the Quechua of the northwest and the Mapuche in Patagonia. Other marginal groups include the Matacos and Tobas in the Chaco and other northeastern cities. There are strong Jewish and Anglo-Argentine communities throughout the country; small communities of Japanese, Chileans and Bolivians; and enclaves of Paraguayan and Uraguayan residents.

The universal language of Argentina is Spanish, but many natives and immigrants keep their mother tongues as a matter of pride.

I say throw out all of the none natives and return the country to it’s rightful owners.

After all if the rights of a few “illegal” (in argie opinions) settlers dating to 1833 should be cast aside, what about the rights of the illegal settlers of a country going back to the 1500s?

When the British settled the Falklands in 1833 it did so peacably, barring minor scuffles. The damage had already been done by the Argies and Yanks in various scuffles and mutinees.

But the Argentines took control using pestalance and war.

Kick 'em all out is what I say. Send 'em back home.

Or ring fence them in to BA where 33
% of them live anyway. Argentina could be like a city state.

On me, and to the UN for a resolution on this matter.

Why stop there?

Give Spain back to the Moors or, to avoid making Mr bin Laden happy, give it back to the Romans. :slight_smile:

Which means the Argentinians will become Italians on returning to Spain.

Soccer will never be the same again. :slight_smile:

Why stop there?

Give Spain back to the Moors or, to avoid making Mr bin Laden happy, give it back to the Romans. :slight_smile:

Which means the Argentinians will become Italians on returning to Spain.

Soccer will never be the same again. :slight_smile:

Well I dont think giving the US back to the Former European Countries would be a good idea…Mostly the UK, France and Spain. Good god imagine the arguements. However im all for giving Texas back to Mexico. :wink:

I think it would be beneath the French to accept Louisiana, or any part of the uncultured mass known as America. :smiley:

The problem with giving things back is amply illustrated by Britain.

The Normans would get big bits of it for a while. The British taxation office, and the prettier British sheilas, would have to move to Denmark for the interim. Then the Romans would have a lot of Britain while the wily Scots would get lots of stuff up the top. As the Italians aren’t the true descendants of the Romans, there’s then a problem of who gets Britain now. Apart from the native British people, however we determine their identity.

Which, more seriously, brings us back to 1000ydstare’s original post, which is that the native peoples have the clearest and best claims to the lands occupied in the New World since the 15/16th centuries European expansion.

Which creates serious problems for those of us in all English, French, Belgian, Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries outside Europe.

Be that as it may, if Argentina wants to go back into history to establish its claim to the Falklands it can’t, as 1000ydstare’s OP outlines, logically or morally choose an arbitrary point in time that suits its purposes while ignoring equally good arguments from its indigenous people for their right to control Argentina.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. :wink:

I would never have imagined you as being of the horticultural type? :smiley:

I’m not.

Horticultural is into smelling the roses. Horticulturalists care for and love individual plants.

I’m agricultural. Deeply into ploughing deep furrows deeply, and turning sods in fertile fields (or fallow ones, if that’s all that’s available - it all feels the same :smiley: ), with raging tractors.

If you can pull tractors, you can pull anything. :smiley: Check out the photos on the link about half way down the left for a good pull. :smiley: http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~jobbo/

Nice tractors RS. Although I can’t see them being used on many farms!!!

Yes, the point of my thread was to point out that Argentinas claim on the Falklands is flawed and can be turned on them as easy as an easy thing.

After all, we ALL come from some where. There are very few peoples that are still in control of their own countries from years back.

WRT to America, it wouldn’t be Britian, France, Spain or even Germany inheriting the land… but the Natives ie the CHinooks, Comanche, Apache etc. (no not the helicoptors :smiley: )

This is one of those topic that you may spect coming to Rising Sun, not from you.

Normally your Topics 1000yds are more serious ones.:smiley:

In any case I think this maquavelic logic affected also Australia and USA since those countries had and have native people in there.

But PzK, do you see from the posts how the sovereignty claim by Argentina is fundamentally flawed ?

My bad, wrt the Chinnooks etc, that was the USA. And yes, Austrailia and New Zealand would return to their native owners.

This isn’t aimed just at Argentina and the Falklands. It is pointing out that all countries and territories were owned by others, if you go far enough back in time.

And all those territories should be given to the natives according to your view? (that native word meaning indigenous american backgrounds because in any case I am native too, I born here)

Well just to the record the native population in Argentine is below 0,5 % :rolleyes:.

A figure may to help you to understand, in 1914 the 41 % of the inhabitants were foreigners, the 90% of those were Europeans.

So using this, why should the Falkland Islanders, also natives of the Island by virtue of being born there, be pushed off in order to allow Argentina to own the Island?

Why should Britain as their sovereign head hand their land to anyone on some dodgey historical pretext?

Or has the arguement for the Falklands suddenly become too personnal when turned on those who would use it on others?

Am intrigued by what your answers and reasoning will be.

WRT to the giving back of the land to the natives, it will never happen. However, I often sense that the Argentines don’t fully understand what they are asking. Even at government level.

I would also point out that you are not native to the land, you may be native to Argentina but the land has only recently being called Argentina. The aborigine peoples, listed in my first post, are the true owners of the land as they were there first.

Eagle, for example, (we wont go in to the lunatic ramblings of Erwin, Irish Duck and Arkantos) was of the opinion that the current crop of Falklanders should be shipped off. As they were illegal immigrants, yet using your (and his at the time) logic they are natives too.

Let’s just say, the Argentine arguement for regaining the Falklands is amusing at best, when turned back around on them. After all many countries populations have migrated in from somewhere at some time.

Don’t get a complex about it, I am just using YOUR arguement in a different context.

After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ha… I see that you finally brought the Malvinas issue to this topic.:rolleyes:

The kelpers are different because all are descendant from a foreigner since there was no indigenous population in the islands.

WRT to the giving back of the land to the natives, it will never happen. However, I often sense that the Argentines don’t fully understand what they are asking. Even at government level.

I would also point out that you are not native to the land, you may be native to Argentina but the land has only recently being called Argentina. The WRT to the giving back of the land to the natives, it will never happen. However, I often sense that the Argentines don’t fully understand what they are asking. Even at government level.

I would also point out that you are not native to the land, you may be native to Argentina but the land has only recently being called Argentina. The aborigine peoples, listed in my first post, are the true owners of the land as they were there first, listed in my first post, are the true owners of the land as they were there first

The aboginige in Argentina actually owns thiers land, that land is not big since the population of this people being so low.

Argentina is a multiracial country (with the exception of black africans) but no a multicultural one.

Just to note, the name Argentine was first used in a poetry by a spanish priest in 1658, the name come after the big amount of silver discovered.

Eagle, for example, (we wont go in to the lunatic ramblings of Erwin, Irish Duck and Arkantos) was of the opinion that the current crop of Falklanders should be shipped off. As they were illegal immigrants, yet using your (and his at the time) logic they are natives too.

If that is what actually Eagle wrote I completely disagree, the Argentine contitution invited to live “every people of good will in the world” , the Kelpers seems to have good will from my point of view.

Let’s just say, the Argentine arguement for regaining the Falklands is amusing at best, when turned back around on them. After all many countries populations have migrated in from somewhere at some time.

Don’t get a complex about it, I am just using YOUR arguement in a different context.

After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander

Yes I undestand but your argument is a little flawed in here since all the original inhabitants of the islands were europeans and /or europeans descendats as the Argentine settlers wich were expeled in 1833. There is no real “native” people in there.

The Kelpers were always part of the topic, just in case you didn’t see that one coming.

WRT to the native of the Falklands, you are just choosing to believe they are not natives because it suits YOUR arguement, in the same way you decided that you were a native of argentina earlier.

My arguement is as flawed (and it is) as is the arguements the Argentinians are using to usurp the kelpers.

Your country owned the Islands for what? 15 years, from the birth of your country to 1832. When they left. The British have owned the Islands prior to this point and since 1833, some 174 years.

Who owns them? Who has the rights?

WRT to the native of the Falklands, you are just choosing to believe they are not natives because it suits YOUR arguement, in the same way you decided that you were a native of argentina earlier.

You are choosing to believe that I am not native for the same reasons :rolleyes:

Your country owned the Islands for what? 15 years, from the birth of your country to 1832. When they left. The British have owned the Islands prior to this point and since 1833, some 174 years.

You mean “when they were forced to left”…And what your worry about? the Islands are in british hands after all.

And I tough that we going to talk about the original people of Argentina ( as the title said) but you derail the topic towards the Malvinas issue, this is no surprize… you always do :roll: .

I don’t think you quite understood his last post.

My bold.

No derailing there Otto, (in fact that very comment smacks of disingenuity,) the subject of the Falklands/Malvinas is precisely the point of the thread. This would have been more obvious to the casual readers here if it had remained in the Falklands/Malvinas forum where it had originally been posted. But overnight it mysteriously migrated elsewhere. Hmmm…

First of all neither my name or my nick is Otto so dont call me in that way.

And there is no mistery , I moved the topic from F/M section and PM 1000yds about. I honestly was believing that 1000yds want to talk about the native/aborigine/indian reclamations about the South America territories, is not the first time I heard this.

Panzerknacker, in this instance, I may not have made the topic as clear as it should have been. I had no dramas with where it was put.

I was using a standing issue, about your country, and the same arguements your country uses, in a different context.

You are quite right to point out the flaws in all of my posts wrt your nationality/nativeness. As all my flaws are the same flaws in Argentinas claim on the Falklands.

By default.

THis thread hasn’t been moved towards the Kelpers and the Falklands, they were always part of it, hence the original posting in the Falklands forum.