7 ms·
From a purely geographical point of view, it is so absurd that there is even a debate about to which land mass Gibraltar "belongs" to. As a colonialist, I would
by unkeen 2mo ago
From a purely geographical point of view, it is so absurd that there is even a debate about to which land mass Gibraltar "belongs" to. As a colonialist, I would find it very difficult to justify my own behaviour nowadays.
- kdheiwns 2mo agoGibraltar has been part of the UK for over 300 years and the people are all UK citizens. Forcing those people out or seizing the land from them would be the definition of colonialism, yes. And exclaves exist all around the world. Geography has never really meant anything in national terms. Spain has a piece of land on Africa and I don't think they plan on giving that up.
- unkeen 2mo agoI was not talking about any of the points you mention, I was refering to the geographical facts alone. Wouldn't you agree that in general it is kind of silly to claim ownership of a piece of land that is far, far away from your own country?
- kdheiwns 2mo agoI was born in a country that has islands and I live in a different country that consists exclusively of islands. The islands spread out thousands of miles in various directions. Land being far apart is just a reality of how countries work. The distance from London to Gibraltar is closer than the distance from London to Bermuda, but nobody finds that weird. France has French Polynesia on the opposite side of the world. Russia has Kaliningrad. Norway has Svalbard. South Africa has another country, Lesotho, right in the middle of it. India wraps around Bangladesh like a tentacle. Azerbaijan has a random piece of land and makes a sandwich out of Armenia. Spain has islands directly west of Morocco. France has land on South America. The whole world has freaky borders. The only clean borders are places like Wyoming and Colorado.
- rmunn 2mo agoI would add natural navigation barriers such as rivers and lakes (and some, but not all, mountain ranges) to the list of "clean" borders. They're not straight lines, but they're a natural place to site a border.
- rmunn 2mo agoThere are many, MANY islands scattered around Earth's oceans. Not all of them have the resources to be self-sufficient, so any inhabitants have to import goods from somewhere. There are two options: either each island is its own country, or some islands belong to some other country. Given how easy it is to navigate to most islands (some of them are in harder-to-navigate straits), it doesn't make much practical difference whether the owning country is close or far away. So no, as a general rule I can't agree. I can certainly agree that there are some rather silly cases, but it's just not practical for all islands to be self-governing, so I can't agree with the general rule you propose.
- unkeen 2mo agoThat may all be true, but you’re talking about voluntary affiliations here. Colonies are rarely ceded voluntarily, but are usually the result of an invasion or a lost conflict. The fact that this is no longer the case with Gibraltar today, because its inhabitants value the benefits of belonging to Britain, is simply a consequence of the time that has passed since then. It does not automatically undo the imperialist actions of the past.
- Pragmata 2mo ago>Gibraltar has been part of the UK for over 300 years and the people are all UK citizens. Is this your standard for whether or not something is colonialism? Do you apply it consistently throughout, even when its inconvenient for you?
- inglor_cz 2mo ago"Colonialism" is a weird Western guilt fetish that some others successfully milk. After 10 generations, the people are every bit as local as the previous population was. 300 years is such an abyss of time that most of us would fail to name a single of our ancestors by name. Kladsko was a Czech city from approx. 1000 to 1742. The old town still looks a bit like very small Prague [0]. Was lost in a war (to the Prussians no less), it is gone, not our anymore. Tough luck. Others live there now, it is theirs. [0] https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kladsko_(město)#/media/Soubor:2014_Most_gotycki_i_kościół_MBR_w_Kłodzku.jpg https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kladsko_(město)#/media/Soubor:...
- AlecSchueler 2mo ago> "Colonialism" is a weird Western guilt fetish that some others successfully milk Colonialism is the historical basis of almost all of global society today. It's not at all weird to be concerned with it when it still drives so much of the relative power dynamics between states and between people(s) today. The example you're giving of Czechia and Prussia simply isn't an example of a colonial action.
- inglor_cz 2mo agoThat requires buying into the very concept that "colonialism" is a specific sin different (and worse) from ye olde "I am stronger than you and will occupy your territory and take your wealth". I have even met people who claim that Russian expansion into Siberia was not colonialism, because it wasn't done using ships. I don't really buy it. It feels to me as unnatural as if somebody decided that theft of, say, a smartphone, was a separate and much graver offence than theft of anything else. It only makes sense to me if there is an underlying ideology, or maybe very practical demands for reparations which shouldn't be hindered by other demands for reparations, and thus the others need to be downgraded pre-emptively. It may also come handy for distraction from domestic governance failures, such as bad security situation, rolling blackouts, subpar maintenance of infrastructure and endemic corruption. "Hey, don't look into this, you know how bad the colonialists were?" (Fairly similar to the way the contemporary Russian propaganda tries to pin the failure of their current war of aggression on anyone and anything but their own stupid decision to go all in.)
- Buxato 2mo agoThere is one main difference, that makes UN recognizes Gibraltar as a colony and not Ceuta and Melilla: days before Gibraltar was conquered 100% of the people that lived there was moved out. This is why Gibraltar is a colony and Ceuta and Melilla not. So I don't have clear opinion if people in Gibraltar should have auto-determination or not.
- manarth 2mo agoWhilst I don't disagree, Spain has similar questions to answer about Ceuta and Melilla.
- darkwater 2mo agoAnd, to a lesser extent, Canary Islands.
- unkeen 2mo agoI didn't debate that.
- hermitcrab 2mo ago"Ah, but that's different!" I was told when I asked some Spanish people about the apparent hypocrisy of Spanish enclaves.
- Buxato 2mo agoNo, Ceuta and Melilla are not recognized as colonies by UN (see my previous comment about it, and you could add other historic reasons.
- amunozo 2mo ago(I am Spanish, so I might be biased) I think the twp main problems are not who Gibraltar belongs to, but 1. Gibraltar is that it is kind of a tax haven next to one of th areas of Spain with more poverty and unemployment, which is also one of the main drug entrances of the country. This combibation is explosive and really problematic for the people in the Campo de Gibraltar, especially the youth. 2. The people of Gibraltar must also be sovereign and don't want to belong to Spain, so I think we should respect that. I think this kind of agreement make a compromise, integrating better Gibraltar with the area, making it possible for the people around to benefit from the Gibraltar's economy, bridging Gibraltar and Spain closer, while respecting the sovereignity of the people of Gibraltar. However, I must say, a similar agreement could be done with Gibraltat belonging to Spain, which I would consider fairer, but still not the most important point.
- iso1631 2mo agoI assume you're also in favour of Ceuta and Melilla being given to Morocco over the wishes of the people whos ancestors have lived there for centuries?
- yoavm 2mo agoFrom my quick search, it doesn't at all seem like the majority of the people living in Ceuta and Melilla wish to be part of Morocco.
- martin8412 2mo agoThe difference of course being that Gibraltar used to be Spanish, while Ceuta and Melilla never have been parts of Morocco. Portugal has more claim to those two enclaves than Morocco ever did.
- amunozo 2mo agoCeuta and Melilla are part of Spain since the fifteenth century, same as Granada and way older than the Moroccan state. I am telling that Gibraltar people should decide which country they want to belong to, same thing with Ceuta and Melilla.
- pjc50 2mo agoWe should just overturn the Treaty of Utrecht, that will go well. Why not return the Netherlands to Spain while we're at it?
- ChocolateGod 2mo agoSpain ceded Gibraltar under the Treaty of Utrecht.
- thih9 2mo agoThere are many more places like this, e.g. Point Roberts[1]. > Questions about ceding the territory to the United Kingdom and later to Canada have been raised since its creation; however, its status has remained unchanged. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington
- iso1631 2mo agoIt belongs to the people who live there. While you may think places like Point Roberts should be forcibly moved to Canada, or Ceuta should be forcibly moved to Morocco, I'm of the opinion of self determination, as is the global view based on the United Nations, who recognizes self-determination as the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development That's the same, whether it's Gibraltar, Scotland, Cornwall, the Canary Islands, Ceuta, Taiwan, Falklands, Cyprus, Texas, Point Roberts, Crimea, Canada, Greenland, etc etc. We can argue about the thresholds needed, the length of time of residence ("squatters rights" etc), the minimum size of a given area, but the principal remains.
- unkeen 2mo agoIf it belongs to the people who live there, why does Britain have any say in their matters?
- rmunn 2mo agoWhy does Britain have any say in the people who live in, say, Liverpool? Because that's historically been British territory. So what's the difference? Only real difference I can see is length of history (a few hundred years vs. nearly a thousand years). But as far as I'm concerned, a few hundred years vs. nearly a thousand years doesn't make much difference. I'd argue that any territory that has belonged to country X for longer than all of its inhabitants have been alive has a pretty fair claim to be historical territory of country X, and should continue being part of country X unless there's a very good reason otherwise. (Such as a valid treaty, a clear referendum, and so on). It gets all complicated and messy when war is involved, of course. I'm talking about peaceful transfers of ownership here.
- unkeen 2mo agoSo you’re suggesting amnesia and ignoring the fact that Gibraltar wasn’t a blank spot on the map before it was annexed by the British. I think that’s a very one-sided view.
- PaulRobinson 2mo agoThe British government have a strong, well-established (since ~1950), and arguably inflexible attitude towards "right to self-determination". Meaning: the people who live in a place get to decide who governs them and their society. People in Gibraltar, The Falklands, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland all have different wants, needs and asks of the UK, and the UK honours all of them. There are other overseas territories with different relationships, plus the Commonwealth too. If that ask changes (and in Northern Ireland it likely will in our lifetimes, the others less so), the governance will change. Sometimes there is an ask for a closer relationship through the British Commonwealth (such as South Africa). Sometimes there is an ask for the UK to go away, thanks but no thanks (such as Malta). Each relationship is handled individually, but through a lens of self-determination. That's the priority in the FCO, in Parliament, in UK media. If a tiny nation wants to be British, the UK will go to war over it despite it making little sense (Falklands). If a tiny nation wants independence despite tactical advantage for UK to keep it, independence will be fought for (Malta happened, Diego Garcia is a WIP - watch this space). Where there is division (Northern Ireland), the majority view is observed, but with democratic and cultural structures created to try and make sure minority views have a voice in that governance. That said, there is a caveat: observance of treaties tend to over-ride local preference in some cases, so if there is a legal argument to ignore the wishes of the locals, those wishes may be ignored: Hong Kong is the most prominent example of this in recent times (locals seemed to want to stay British, China said the 100-year agreement was up and there'd be no renewal, end of, so China it became). Diego Garcia is another example, which has got messy because of the Whitehouse not understanding the UK's perverse inclination towards local democracy and the right to self-determination (see also non-UK entities the Whitehouse has not understood well: Greenland, absurd noises about Canada, and so on). When able, the UK has consistently been committed to restoring governance to a local population's preferred model peacefully since ~1950 (India being the last real mess), and if the people of Gibraltar want to be governed by the Spanish, they'd be governed by the Spanish within ~2-3 years. The idea that local people should have no say in this because "it's obvious" who "they belong to", is the colonialist notion here. A land isn't about geography. It's about people. It took a long time for the UK to understand this. Eventually they did. Most European colonial powers did. Others are still trying to catch up, it seems.
- 2mo ago
- tim333 2mo agoGeography is not generally the most important factor. There are legal ownership precedents and then the will of the people who live there first. You can't just say Greenland or Canada are United States because the happen to be close. Or at least you shouldn't.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]