innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
Also, Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination". I don't see how that applies to the Falklands.
Well, there is a reason why the UK never got rid of those tiny islands around the world, when it got rid of its larger colonies. And it isn't just that no guerillas are sustainable there.
No, the dismembering of empires happens when territories not really controllable by the elites in the capital start demanding a proportional share of power there. Threatened with displacement from their position of power those elites almost always choose to cut out those imperial territories. The whole history of the dissolution of the British Empire was like that, starting with the rebellious americans, then the Dominions of South Africa, Australia and Canada which would not get representation at Westminster, and finally India and all the other African and Asian Colonies. It almost came to civil war over Ireland. And the Americans who went for gradual imperial expansion with incorporation of new territories and sharing of power did came to civil war over that sharing of power. Oh, wait, it was supposedly just about slavery, I forget...
Anyway, my point is that the reason the Falklands remained is that those islands can even easily be granted "representation": they're so small that their weight at the capital is negligible. Likewise for the former French, Dutch, etc Empires (I'm not sure about the dutch, but the french did organize their overseas territories as one more departmént).
And in this sense they remain imperial territories, even with representation: they're absolutely dominated from afar, because of their smallness. And they would remain imperial territories whether it the the UK or Argentina that controls them.