Argentina

Mikey_Fitzgerald · June 10, 2014

WA Toffee said:
Couple of sheep and some carrots probably.

As far as I'm aware, the Argentinians colonised it first, then went away, and then the British took it over

So the indiginous population would have been either driven away by Argentina or conquered by them. Not sure how Argentina are taking the moral high ground here

RaleighBlue · June 10, 2014

Mikey_Fitzgerald said:
As far as I'm aware, the Argentinians colonised it first, then went away, and then the British took it over

So the indiginous population would have been either driven away by Argentina or conquered by them. Not sure how Argentina are taking the moral high ground here

Uninhabited until the 1760's.

Indigenous population is a bad argument to go down anyway...anywhere in the New World.

Billy Dean · June 10, 2014

RaleighBlue said:
Uninhabited until the 1760's.

Indigenous population is a bad argument to go down anyway...anywhere in the New World.

why?

FTY · June 10, 2014

I'd swap them for Messi personally.

RaleighBlue · June 10, 2014

Billy Dean said:
why?

Because no where in the new world is run by its indigenous population. Including Argentina. Argentines are descendants of Spanish colonists as much as the native populace (or more so).

It holds true in Europe as well. Have fun running England on the backs of the native Britons. Not the Saxons or Angles, those were invaders.

You see why it gets a bit silly? We have to allow self-determination based on the current populace, otherwise it all gets really messy and untenable.

Edit: Definitely moreso:
Argentina is composed by 79% from different European, mainly Italian and Spanish ethnicity, 18% of different ethnicities Native American, and 4.3% of African ethnic groups, and 63.6% of the tested group had at least one ancestor who was Indian.