Neo-Cons and the Falklands

If some supreme being could give British leftists of my generation the power to go back and stop one historical event, I have no doubt that we would rewind the tape and wipe out the Falklands war. Before General Galtieri’s fascistic junta invaded the islands Margaret Thatcher had no “-ism” after her name. She seemed a doomed prime minister surrounded by enemies, whose party was third in the polls behind the SDP, a political force I suspect many young readers have never heard of. After Britain’s victory, nothing could stop her and by the time she had finished, British socialism was dead, and the prospects for British social democracy did not seem much healthier.

To the revolted minority who watched her brag that she had made Britain great again, the war was a bloody PR exercise that allowed her to surf a wave of jingoism. Victory in the South Atlantic bought off voters, who should have been worrying about mass unemployment and mass factory closures, with homecoming parades and tales of gallantry under fire. The Falklands were not worth dying for, we insisted. Britain and Argentina were “two bald men fighting over a comb”, snapped Gabriel García Márquez. “Falklanders who wish to remain inviolate and British citizens are on a hiding to nowhere. They are too few. They are too far away,” declared the Marxist historian EP Thompson in the Times, which in the hysterical atmosphere of 1982 provoked Tories to denounce him and the editor of the Times as virtual traitors.

As it turned out, anti-war protesters were on “a hiding to nowhere”.
Read the whole thing

3 thoughts on “Neo-Cons and the Falklands

  1. Well, a degree of circumspection. The Falklands dispute is essentially one group of colonizers arguing with another group of colonizers. The Falklands, if it went to the polls would vote to remain British, because its inhabitants are BRITISH (well, most of them). I’m sure if you polled the Israelis in the occupied territories, they would vote to maintain their settlements. (And perhaps the same for Germans in the Czech sudetenland in the 1930s?). And they are paid by the British government to live there (with great care taken to keep Argentines out). In effect, it is a civilian garrison at a colonial outpost, maintained from the centre.
    Nevertheless, Argentina is a conquistador nation that still to this day is appropriating land from the few native americans who live there, ruled by a quasi-feudal kleptocracy. And that woman of theirs is an opportunist. It adds a great deal of hypocrisy to any arguments dishonestly based on provenance and justice.
    Despite this, the long term solution would be to hand the islands over, perhaps hopefully Argentina can move forward and begin a process of social development and equality (which that woman and her like will no doubt inveigh against).

    PS Have you noticed that their poorest footballers (like Maradona and Tevez) have black hair, and their affluent ones (like Redondo) have brown hair? Hmmm…
    (the colour thing is even more marked with Brazilian footballers)

  2. Nationalism is the only policy left to the incompetent politician and Argentinian’s nationalism really is a smoke screen to cover up its huge economic and social problems. That’s right, the great irony of this woman imitating the Thatcher.

  3. And now a Clinton turns up to help a fellow bent pol and try to sell out the Islanders! Hope, Change – my arse!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s