5 ms·

Falklands is much closer to Argentina though - they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

by Huffers2 5y ago

Neil44 5y ago
Do you have any more info on this right of proximity? It’s nearer to me so it’s mine is that about it?
- forinti 5y ago
  Would that work recursively?
  - Neil44 5y ago
    Maybe we should observe China for the next 100 years to find out!
- Huffers2 5y ago
  Sorry, I was trying to satirise the argument for why it should be Argentinian, where the fundamental (but generally unsaid) reason is "because it's close to us".
Keysh 5y ago
And screw the people who actually live there, right? A better way to think about this is to consider the case of Saint Pierre et Miquelon, which are two islands off the coast of Canada -- literally 19 km away, and so much closer than the Falklands are to Argentina. They are French territory, inhabited by French citizens. And (aside from occasional disagreements about who gets to explore for undersea resources in the vicinity of the islands) Canada really doesn't seem to have a problem with this, because (in this area, at least) Canada is a more mature nation than Argentina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
Nursie 5y ago
There is no such right.
00deadbeef 5y ago
France is closer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina (35km vs almost 500km). Should France belong to the UK?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hef19898 5y ago
  Both countries fought a lengthy war over that very question. I guess we can agree that question is settled for quite a while now so.
- perilunar 5y ago
  It's not even clear that all of the UK should belong to the UK
bruce511 5y ago
I feel like the current residents of the Channel Islands might have an issue with your definition of "right of proximity". And where does it end? New Zealand belongs to Australia? Hawaii belongs to Mexico? In short "proximity" is not how island ownership works.
Ensorceled 5y ago
> they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity. How does that work? Is it some kind of algorithm? Does the USA have the right to own Canada?
BoxOfRain 5y ago
There's no such right and even if there was, it would lead to perverse situations such as Britain getting to claim Calais which is closer to London than Paris (94 miles versus 147!).
- hef19898 5y ago
  A British claim to Calais even has some historical precedent, doesn't it?
  - acjohnson55 5y ago
    It was the last British territory in France, holding out until 1558. https://tudorhistory.org/glossaries/c/calais.html https://tudorhistory.org/glossaries/c/calais.html
    - Gupie 5y ago
      There are the Channel Islands, but perhaps you could claim that the Channel Islands were the ones to occupy England and not vice versa since they were part of Normandy!
Macha 5y ago
And as we all know, national borders are decided by plotting capitals on a map and running a mathematical process to minimise distance from capital, right?
- hef19898 5y ago
  Would be interesting to see such a map based on current capitals.
  - valarauko 5y ago
    Here ya go: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/coxtsv/countries_if_borders_were_made_based_on_closest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/coxtsv/countries_i... Of course, there's some hand waving here - micronations are dropped, Mercator projection, etc
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
acallaghan 5y ago
Couldn't you say the same about Alaska being closer to Canada or Russia even? Shouldn't they have control of Alaska?

Falklands is much closer to Argentina though - they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity.

Neil44 5y ago

Do you have any more info on this right of proximity? It’s nearer to me so it’s mine is that about it?

forinti 5y ago
Would that work recursively?
- Neil44 5y ago
  Maybe we should observe China for the next 100 years to find out!
Huffers2 5y ago
Sorry, I was trying to satirise the argument for why it should be Argentinian, where the fundamental (but generally unsaid) reason is "because it's close to us".

Keysh 5y ago

And screw the people who actually live there, right? A better way to think about this is to consider the case of Saint Pierre et Miquelon, which are two islands off the coast of Canada -- literally 19 km away, and so much closer than the Falklands are to Argentina. They are French territory, inhabited by French citizens. And (aside from occasional disagreements about who gets to explore for undersea resources in the vicinity of the islands) Canada really doesn't seem to have a problem with this, because (in this area, at least) Canada is a more mature nation than Argentina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon

Nursie 5y ago

There is no such right.

00deadbeef 5y ago

France is closer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina (35km vs almost 500km). Should France belong to the UK?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hef19898 5y ago
Both countries fought a lengthy war over that very question. I guess we can agree that question is settled for quite a while now so.
perilunar 5y ago
It's not even clear that all of the UK should belong to the UK

bruce511 5y ago

I feel like the current residents of the Channel Islands might have an issue with your definition of "right of proximity". And where does it end? New Zealand belongs to Australia? Hawaii belongs to Mexico? In short "proximity" is not how island ownership works.

Ensorceled 5y ago

> they should belong to Argentina by right of proximity. How does that work? Is it some kind of algorithm? Does the USA have the right to own Canada?

BoxOfRain 5y ago

There's no such right and even if there was, it would lead to perverse situations such as Britain getting to claim Calais which is closer to London than Paris (94 miles versus 147!).

hef19898 5y ago
A British claim to Calais even has some historical precedent, doesn't it?
- acjohnson55 5y ago
  It was the last British territory in France, holding out until 1558. https://tudorhistory.org/glossaries/c/calais.html https://tudorhistory.org/glossaries/c/calais.html
  - Gupie 5y ago
    There are the Channel Islands, but perhaps you could claim that the Channel Islands were the ones to occupy England and not vice versa since they were part of Normandy!

Macha 5y ago

And as we all know, national borders are decided by plotting capitals on a map and running a mathematical process to minimise distance from capital, right?

hef19898 5y ago
Would be interesting to see such a map based on current capitals.
- valarauko 5y ago
  Here ya go: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/coxtsv/countries_if_borders_were_made_based_on_closest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/coxtsv/countries_i... Of course, there's some hand waving here - micronations are dropped, Mercator projection, etc

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

acallaghan 5y ago

Couldn't you say the same about Alaska being closer to Canada or Russia even? Shouldn't they have control of Alaska?