Isn't that considerably to the north? And not where Chile is the only country in that series of parallels?
Edit: Indeed
Altered Maps XIV: Cartographical Consistency
- Thread starter Civ'ed
- Start date
Isn't that considerably to the north? And not where Chile is the only country in that series of parallels?
Edit: Indeed
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
How Germany used "altered maps", showing areas in which (some) people spoke German language, to pursue its territorial claims:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13623240&postcount=40
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13623240&postcount=40
No maps in your link. Bad Domen.
But anyway, Chile insisted on everything south of Buenos Aires province being illegally occupied territory on some excuse or another (as the successor state to the General Captaincy they wouldn't even have their southern third) and kept showing their children maps in which it was all a series of Chilean provinces -even if Argentina's ownership of the place had been acknowledged internationally and Argentina had schools, roads, hospitals, mines, farms, etc. all over the place.
Eventually there were a few bouts of arbitration over Tierra del Fuego and the place was split. The coastline's weird shape means that there is a very tiny slive of Chilean coast facing east and from that place you could navigate at the same latitude all the way around the Earth and only meet more Chilean coast when you eventually come around.
The southern half of both Chile and Argentina was in the hands of several aboriginal tribes. Eventually the Mapuches exterminated almost all the other tribes and set up a robber state in what is now Patagonia; they stole cattle and women in Argentina and sold them in Chile for profit. Eventually the Argentinians lost patience and around 1880 they drove the Mapuches into submission or back over the mountains. Somehow, the Mapuches, who raped, pillaged and burned unless they managed to get enough tribute, are the victims in all of this.
But anyway, Chile insisted on everything south of Buenos Aires province being illegally occupied territory on some excuse or another (as the successor state to the General Captaincy they wouldn't even have their southern third) and kept showing their children maps in which it was all a series of Chilean provinces -even if Argentina's ownership of the place had been acknowledged internationally and Argentina had schools, roads, hospitals, mines, farms, etc. all over the place.
Eventually there were a few bouts of arbitration over Tierra del Fuego and the place was split. The coastline's weird shape means that there is a very tiny slive of Chilean coast facing east and from that place you could navigate at the same latitude all the way around the Earth and only meet more Chilean coast when you eventually come around.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
From what I remember there are a bunch of places in southern Patagonia where the borders are still disputed to this day. Some of them run over icefields and glaciers I think, but I also seem to remember some disputed islands south of Tierra del Fuego.
Tierra del Fuego and the rest of Patagonia are beautiful btw.. It's such an interesting part of the world. And a consequence of the fact that there isn't any other land at those latitudes are strong winds - you will in many places see trees growing sideways.
I think they call those winds the roaring 50s or something like that. In New Zealand they have the roaring 40s. I think I messed those names up, but it's something like that - all due to the limited amount of land at those latitutdes, and in the case of Patagonia an absence of it.
Tierra del Fuego and the rest of Patagonia are beautiful btw.. It's such an interesting part of the world. And a consequence of the fact that there isn't any other land at those latitudes are strong winds - you will in many places see trees growing sideways.
I think they call those winds the roaring 50s or something like that. In New Zealand they have the roaring 40s. I think I messed those names up, but it's something like that - all due to the limited amount of land at those latitutdes, and in the case of Patagonia an absence of it.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
warpus said:
Unfortunately it also has a dark past, due to people like Julius Popper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Popper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selknam_Genocide
Takhisis said:
Julius Popper was not a Mapuche guy, he was Jewish from Bucharest.
@Domen: I will not answer any of your misguided posts until you include the names of the persons whom you are answering to in the tags. I know you can do it.
Those are demarcation issues, not the whole 'all your south are belong to us' mania the Chileans had. Argentina's getting operatives in anyway, even the Chilean national football team's last three coaches have been Argentines.
You can actually lean on the wind, if it's strong enough it can keep you standing up. (I still advise you not to try it, anyway)warpus said:
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Until proven otherwise, I'll assume it's populated with fire dragons that sink any ship; the only way Magellan crossed the strait through by using the power of religion!
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Takhisis,
Done. By the way - what are the sources for your claims about Mapuche crimes ???
We are talking about Tierra del Fuego. Mapuche did not even have influence there. Fuegians were decimated by Whites.
Done. By the way - what are the sources for your claims about Mapuche crimes ???
We are talking about Tierra del Fuego. Mapuche did not even have influence there. Fuegians were decimated by Whites.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Takhisis said:
"A robber state" ??? They just wanted to survive, and they were not giving pardon to White foreigners who had invaded their lands.
The Mapuches resisted White colonization since 1536 until 1884, and preserved their independence for almost 350 years since first Spanish invasions against them. You have serious accusations against the Mapuche. Stealing cattle and women - yes, but this refers to White people and their cattle. Whites were doing the same to them.
Today there are close to 2 million ethnic Mapuches only because they were merciless and unrelentless in resisting White expansion.
Tribes which were less cruel, did not survive - got exterminated. Or are much less numerous today. The Mapuches were fighting for survival. The last surviving tribe of Caribs on the island of Dominica is also the one which killed every White who entered their lands. Those who surrendered and welcomed foreigners, are now extinct.
Since the battle of Tucapel in 1553, where Mapuche chief Lautar0 defeated the Spanish army and killed Pedro de Valdivia, no pardon was given on both sides.
madviking
north american scum
@Domen:
- you are misattributing quotes to me and not bothering to answer to what I have said.
- The mapuches only crossed the Andes into Patagonia in the mid-nineteenth century, well after the Spanish colonies had achieved independence. They exterminated every tribe they found and it wasn't 'for their survival'.
As for their being a robber state, the old trail where they used to take stolen cattle to Chile still exists. They could have been pastoralists like the previous owners of the pampa were. Until the mapuches arrived, nobody even bothered to try and conquer Patagonia. Read. - Nowhere on this thread have I denied what was done to the onas. But for some reason you insist on acting as if I had. You are being disingenuous by this point.
The name comes from the fires the aborigines used to lit, which Spanish sailors saw.So 'Tierra del Fuego' is a euphemism? (like Cape of good hope, where ships usually were sunk into the rugged coast rocks).
If electric guitars had existed, he would have used the power of rock.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Takhisis said:
And maybe you should explain why did they migrate in that direction ???
Who or what forced them to abandon their previous homeland? Or was it a voluntary endeavour?
Takhisis said:
Wikipedia says about assimilation of tribes, not extermination of tribes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araucanization_of_Patagonia
So what - extermination or assimilation ??? The difference is huge.
I asked you to quote evidence that it was an extermination rather than an absorption of foreigners.
Takhisis said:
It could actually be as early as 1550, but for some reason (bias?) you decided to choose the most recent possible time:
"Historians disagree over the time period during which the expansion took place, but estimate it occurred roughly between 1550 and 1850."
Takhisis said:
Achieving independence from Spain doesn't make them legitimate owners of the land, which was not legally Spanish in the first place.
They did not have any permission from indigenous inhabitants of the land to establish their independent states in that region.
Therefore the Mapuches had every right to resist expansionist Argentinians and Chileans of European and African origin.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
As per expected, Alaska is America's prisoner colony, right next to Florida.
Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
What about Nevada? Nevada is the penal colony to outlast all penal colonies apparently...
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Yes, but it has Las Vegas, and you don't mess with Vegas, be it Las or New.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Greater Ukraine - 765,000 square km:
what language is Vaduz?
Similar threads
- Locked
