Talk:Origins of Falkland Islanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Origins of Falkland Islanders appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 October 2007.

This is an interesting article, and subtly written to avoid POV indictments, but one can't help feeling at the end of it that it ought to be entitled "Argentinian origins of Falkland Islanders". Can we have more about the British heritage as well, please? Deipnosophista 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It does feel as if the article cuts out very abruptly halfway through the nineteenth century. Are we to believe that the modern Falkland Islands population is wholly or largely descended from the 200 people recorded in 1849? I'm guessing that there have been other, more recent waves of immigration, which get no mention here at all. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] various comments

The corral map is not very "easy on the eye". In particular the sea should be tinted blue.

I think that this article should be incorporated into Falkland Islanders, as is standard practice. The article also doesn't reflect the high turnover of the Falklands population, not only can we find a high percentage of people born off the archipelago living there now, but the Falklands have been bleeding off their population for at least a century... women in particular have tended to leave, and anyone who wants a decent population or job tends to go, and these people often don't come back. Although there are islanders who can trace their ancestry back to the nineteenth century (hardly a long time ago - my grand dad was born then!), the impression given is not of a stable population. In addition, the Shackleton Report quoted someone saying that there "is no glue" in the Falkland Islands. The one thing that seems to be forcing together any kind of community would be the claims of Argentina IMHO. --MacRusgail 11:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with a number of your comments. The glue holding the islanders together is the dynamics that you see in many small communities, for example the Shetland Islands. Without the claims of Argentina that would still be there. I also disagree with the statement that the people leaving the islands don't tend to return, the information in Graham Bound's book tends to contradict it. The main reason for emmigration in the 1970s/1980s was the economic decline that was largely the result of British neglect, the islands were economically viable but were prevented from exploiting resources because the British Government wanted to avoid upsetting Argentina.

The Falklands have only seen a stable population since the British occupation of 1833, that islanders can trace their origins back that far is indicative of a stable population. Sorry but 6-7 generations is a substantial time period here and thats what you're talking about; it certainly is a much longer time period than many Argentinians can claim. I'd agree there has been a major influx over the last 25 years but that reflects the booming economy. The islands have full employment and need immigration to sustain the economy. The fact a substantial proportion of the population is of recent immigration reflects the history of the place not the lack of a stable population. Justin talk 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Shetland Islands have some similar problems. For example, British rule has not been that advantageous to them, especially when compared to the Faroes whose population has grown and prospered, and whose language still survives. (If the Faroes had had the kind of oil Shetland had, they'd be independent now). In the Shetlands, though, they have a long established culture, national literature, connections with the neighbouring Nordic countries, and a basic distrust of Scotland. Two of the complaints that I've heard about both places is that the demographic is heavily biased towards the male, and you must live the archipelago to become properly educated. In addition, both locations have a substantial English population, which perceives the islands slightly differently to the locally born. Is there any evidence that the Falklanders see themselves as a nation or ethnic group? As opposed to "British". I gather that economic development is still uneven, and a handful of the usual suspects are grabbing the fishing revenues. The immigration, I'd suggest reflects a high turnover of population i.e. bored youngsters out, and cheap St Helenan labour in. --MacRusgail 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a certain duality in most British identities, e.g. Welsh, Scottish, English first but British second. From what I've seen its Falkland Islander first and British second. You're also wrong about the fishing revenues, the wealth generated has been invested in the islands. You're also wrong about emigration, whilst youngsters may go abroad to the UK to study, in most cases they return. The immigration reflects economic growth. Justin talk 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Falklanders consider themselves a distinct nation (not just ethnic group) with a distinct country of their own; Councillor Summers says that much, 'a people'. Apcbg 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, Scots, and Welsh, are increasingly seeing contemporary "Britishness" for what it is, an expansion of Englishness, which has helped destroy their culture and languages, and involved them in dubious enterprises overseas. Good riddance too. It's good to see them grow out of it, but the position of England itself within the melee is a confused one.

By the way, can we really say there was no consensus to merge/not to, when there's only two of us discussing it? The tag should have been left up for longer, as they normally are. --MacRusgail 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. I don't think that "British" can be called an ethnicity anymore than Yugoslav, Austro-Hungarian or Soviet could be.

Being British is most definitely an ethnicity. Justin talk 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The contemporary stuff in this article cannot be construed to constitute anything to do with the Falklanders' "origins", and should be on the other page. --MacRusgail 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the theme of this article is sufficiently unique for it to be deserving of its own page. The text and content of course is still developing and hopefully more people with extensive knowledge will continue to add to the origins theme. To merge it with another page at this stage would defeat the objective of gathering past and contemporary information on origins together to make it a more complete stand alone record. There is plenty of scope still for additional information to be added. Interestingly the article has been edited to state that Scots mainly came to the Falklands from the Orkneys and Shetlands though I know for a fact that my own Scottish ancestors in the Falklands came from Inverness and Aberdeen though other collateral lines came from South Africa and England. Malvinero 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have read in some places that quite a few came from the Northern Isles. However, if you look at other articles on ethnic groups e.g. Scottish people, Faroese people, Czech people, you'll find a lot of that stuff is in the main article. --MacRusgail 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acadians

I understood that some Acadians (francophones from maritime Canada) were sent to the Falkland Islands during the Acadian Expulsion. However, I don't know if they stayed in the Falklands, and, if they did, would be counted as 'French' or 'British'. Does anyone know of this group and their history?K.d.stauffer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

They were evacuated after France yielded to Spanish pressure and sold their settlement to Spain. Justin talk 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)