 |
| Author | Topic: Malvinas, the cleansed |
| Javier |
posted 3/27/04 2:44 PM
Dear Friends,I wrote some days ago a reply to Ernie but as I cannot find it in the forum, it seems to me that I forgot something in the process (I'm becoming ga-ga!...). So, here it goes:----------------------------------------March 24th, 2004Malvinas: the cleansed.Dear Ernie and all,Sorry for my absence, I’m full of work and I’m compelled to travel out of dear home, so –unlike ussual works- I don’t have a rutine nor saturdays and sundays.Ernie, I’ve forwarded ample, very ample historical information, reducing to pieces the invoked “Discovery Rights” of Britain and forwarding different treaties where HMG accepted the islands didn’t belonged to them, the more notorious (and important) being the Nootka Sound (please note that the prohibition for trade with our southern ports established in that treaty was kept in force after 1810). Yes, you asked me in the past for the names of the people who was expulsed and my reply was (and still is) the same: to know or not to know the names don’t change anything and would take me a terrible amount of time, which I don’t have. Anyway, consider this:1) I cannot forward the names of the Acadians which HMG cleansed from Canada. But it happenned.2) I cannot forward the names of the Diegogarcians which HMG cleansed from their island. But it happenned.3) I cannot forward the names of the Boers and ‘coloured’ which died in HMG South African concentration camps during the Boer War. But it happenned.4) I cannot forward the names of the (about) TWO MILLION Bengalies which HMG let to die of hunger in 1942-3. But it happenned.5) Etc.Anyway, I will forward you SOME names with the following disclaimer: it is SURELY incomplete and I CANNOT ASSURE IT IS FREE OF MISTAKE, as it has not been the fruit of a meticulous study about the subject from the point of view of the ethnic cleansing. IT IS JUST THE ‘STARTING POINT’ FOR A RESEARCH WORK.1) Mateo González.2) Pedro Salinas.3) Joaquín Acuña.4) Mariano López.5) Santiago López.6) José Baez7) Antonio Rivero.8) Manuel Ruiz.9) José María Luna.10) Pascual Díaz11) Manuel Martínez.12) Manuel Coronel.13) Pedro Fermín.14) Dionisio Credia.15) Jacinto Correa.16) Dionisio Valleja.17) Juan Brasido.18) Luciano Flores.19) Manuel Godoy.20) Felipe Salazar.21) M. Latorre.22) Francisco Machado.23) Rubio.24) Latorre.25) Antonina Roxas.26) Gregoria Madrid.27) Carmelita and her two children. Number 12 (Manuel Coronel) was allowed to remain in the islands. There is the possibility that some of these people has departed with Pinedo or the merchant vessel that took part on the evacuation, so it wouls be neccessary to find the ‘crew list’ of them to compare. Ernie, do you understand the difficulties, do you? To know the names doesn’t change anything.Best - Javier-----------PS: Marina Vernet, the FIRST HUMAN TO BE BORN IN THE ISLANDS was never allowed to return to her land, neither were her belongings returned. Piracy works that way... |
|
Noelia (Moderator) |
posted 3/27/04 6:41 PM
asegurate de escribir el codico correctamente sino no te "postea" el mensaje. Este sistema de foro es re trucho, lento y todo, pero es organizado, igual si quieren lo cambiamos,. Saludos http://espanglishfriends.tripod.com http://www.geocities.com/nxz1978 |
| Ernie Spencer |
posted 3/27/04 7:43 PM
Javier,Your original post is under the 'Misconceptions'heading to which I replied as folows:-Javier,Yes of course history is not an exact science and we do rely on such records and accounts as actually exist.Contemporary accounts agree that there remained 14 Gauchos and 18 Europeans on the Islands in 1833 after the British re-took the Islands. The names of these people are known. Indeed you seem to agree with me. This must mean then that there was no 'ethnic cleansing' otherwise there would have been nobody left.In fact Vernet's business continued to be operated by his employees on his behalf and indeed they continued to use his paper money to pay the Gauchos. The fact that Vernet's own storekeeper was reluctant to accept this 'money' in payment for goods but wanted to be paid in gold seems to have been the cause of Gaucho Rivero's bloody rampage.Pinedos schooner Sarandi was a very small vessel and no match for HMS Cleo so his tactical surrender was understandable. Certainly his military crew and the the balance of the Mestivier garrison along with Manuel Saenz Valiente and his fellow mutineers, subsequently executed in Buenos Aires, were expelled on that vessel and I understand all the names involved there are known.I would be interested to know the name of any other merchant vessel involved.There was of course the French frigate Jean Jacques which had assisted Vernet's foreman Juan Simon to capture Valiente and his rebels prior to Pinedo's arrival at the end of December 1832.The truth seems to be that the Americans in the Lexington were the ones destroyed the Port Louis setlement (Vernet's name for Soledad) in 1831 and burnt most of the dwellings and effectively brought to an end any pretence to Argentine sovereignty. The Falklands was then left without authority for in total a full year during which time it seems most of the population drifted away. The Argentine Government in that time did nothing to retore their authority nor did Vernet make any attempt to return to attend to his affairs in person. Effectively the Islands were abandoned apart from the spluttering attempt to install Mestivier as governor which failed dismally in December 1832. The Islands then had been without effective government since 28 December 1831 and had no internationally recognised government since 1810. The British effectivey re took the islands in December 1832 and Port Louis in January 1833 which was by then not subject to any effective authority or governmental control.Best wishes,Ernie |
| Ernie Spencer |
posted 3/27/04 7:58 PM
Javier,With regard to Vernet's daughter. Well her father did nothing for a full year to retrieve his business personally nor did he attempt to retrieve his personal belongings and one assumes those of his daughter.He did however send his manager Matthew Brisbane back to the Islands to look after his interests but he was murdered by Rivero, one of his own employees.Vernet did negotiate with the British for compensation for his losses and at one time offered to recognise the legitimacy of the British position in return for certain favours. You will know of this of course.Whatever he or his family lost is inextricably tied up with his own failure to return and pursue his interests in the Islands. I am not aware that he was refused permission to to this. In fact you will recall that it was Vernets own manager, Brisbane, who was put in charge by the British.Have you any information of any British refusal to allow Vernet to return? I would be interested to hear of it. As you know I am interested in the truth as a matter of historical fact, particularly as you know I do not accept that whatever the truth it does not have any bearing or influence on British sovereignty. British sovereignty to me of course means self determination for Islanders along with the equal right they have to this under the UN Charter and subsequent Resolutions.Regards,ErnieP.S. I am sure you are not going Ga Ga it is just the way this forum operates technically that is the problem. |
| Javier |
posted 3/31/04 11:33 PM
Dear Ernie,Your quote: “Contemporary accounts agree that there remained 14 Gauchos and 18 Europeans on the Islands in 1833 after the British re-took the Islands.”Retook the island? When had the British been on the island before? When in Puerto Soledad? HMG didn’t “retook” anything, they just “took”The gauchos were not immediately expelled because your countrymen NEEDED them to handle the cows (about 12000 heads). It also happened that along much of 1833 the islands remained without an effective government. Clio departed on 14th january 1833, without waiting for ‘Tyne’, a smaller vessel which arrived on 16th, sailig just a few days later. Captain Onslow left a former Vernet man (and a Scottish) William Dickson in charge of raising the Union Jack each and every sunday or whenever any vessel arrived, while Pinedo had left the frenchman Juan Simón in charge, a man faithfull to Vernet. It is interesting to note the impression caused by the settlement to captain Fitz Roy of HMS Beagle in March 1833: “En lugar de la alegre aldehuela que esperaba encontrar solo halló unas casuchas semiarruinadas, uno que otro aislado rancho de turba; dos o tres botes despanzurrados... y uno que otro ser humano de aspecto miserable.” Those who rebelled (at least, those whom I Know) were Rivero, Brassido, Luna González, Flores, Godoy, Zalazar and Latorre. Santiago López didn’t took part of the rebellion. Luna became a traitor (11th january 1834). Henry Shannon SEEMS to have collaborated with the rebellion and he was sent to Britain on board Beagle, as was Rivero. The others were sent on board “Conway” and were kept on board a navy ship in Sheerness (eat of London). One of the prissioners (I don’t know which one) ‘died’ while on board at Rio de Janeiro.NONE OF THEM WAS PROCLAIMED GUILTY OF MURDER (that was the accusation) and so, considering that a man is innocent till a court proves him guilty, ALL OF THEM WERE INNOCENT OF THAT CHARGE. That means they were not murderers but rebels. Please note that as long as the rebellion lasted, the Union jack was not raised in the mast. So, it was not just a problem of ‘payment’, though I cannot deniy that could had added motivation for the uprising. Yes, you can argue that the Argentinian flag was NOT raised during the time, BUT THERE WAS NONE on the island, the last has been carried out by Pinedo!The ‘real’ british government beguins in 1842, when puerto Argentino is founded under the name of Port Stanley, though Tennent Smith tried to do his best. He quit in 1838 and Tennent Robert Locway assumed (he arrived from rio on board “Arrow”, under Tennent Sullivan’s command). Under his rule, there were 6 English couples, 2 gauchos (one of them Coronel) and several seamen: 21 men, 6 married women, one single woman,13 kids (total 41 persons). From our people, only two were left (from at least 14... 86% cleansed; not bad, don't you think?).I agree that Lexington’s piracy act was vital for your take over of 1833, as the colony was left in a terrible state (I include my old posting about it). It seems thet HMG and Uncle Sam have been in the habit of bombing other counties for a long time...(having problems with their logbooks, too).Vernet claimed for 20 years for his belongings (17596 Pounds, which were of more value than today). I admit that the son of Tennent Smith was a honest man and he tried to administer Vernet’s property, but HMG didn’t allow him. Vernet couldn’t return to the islands, as he was dispossessed of all his belongings there: he had no place to live, no means of living, nothing! I can imagine what would be the islander’s opinion had US confiscated their personnal belongings!!!Please note that we had been in peacefull and uncontested possession of the islands: Americans attacked the colony, you took it.Best - Javier |
| Ernie Spencer |
posted 4/1/04 9:19 AM
Javier,A couple of items I find confusing.If you 'inherited' the islands from Spain why was it necessary for Jewitt to be sent to 'take possession' of the islands in 1820 and claim them for Argentina? This seems to me to express some sort of doubt or at least admission that you did not previously own the islands.The other matter is that if Jewitt really was sent to claim the islands on behalf of Argentina and this was the object of his mission, why did it take him eight monhs to get there from Buenos Aires?Surely a more likely scenario is that he was on a privateering mission for the Buenos Aires Government in the North Atlantic, against Spanish and Portugues vessels which had proved an abject failure, with little success and the loss of many of his crew (out of about 200 only 70 were left alive when he arrived at Port Louis) to poor management through scurvey and indiscipline. He went to the Falklands to allow his remaining crew to recuperate and saw an opportunity, like little Tom Thumb to pull out a plum and at least retrieve something from his voyage.On his return to Buenos Aires rather than being the hero he is now depicted as he was under accusation and finally abandoned Buenos Aires and sold his favours to Brazil.These are serious questions that require expanation.I will come back on the question of 'cleansing' and I am glad to see that you have now modified your stance in the light of the facts.Regards,Ernie |
| gerardo |
posted 4/3/04 6:45 PM
Estimado Javier: Que alegria verte en este foro. El otro con los nauseabundos del gus y compan~ia no vale la pena.Un abrazo por el dos de Abril!!Viva la patria!!!Malvinas Argentinas!!! |
| Javier |
posted 4/4/04 8:05 PM
Gerardo,Thank you very much! Hope you to write in this forum, no censorship here, thanks to Noelia.Un abrazo - Javier |
|
|