Talk:Falkland Islanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My 2c worth, I wouldn't merge the two articles. I can see them developing further, for instance the origins article currently misses certain waves of immigration. Justin talk 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to have long articles on each ethnic group, and the origins article includes stuff which should be in the main article. As for me, I am sceptical as to whether the Falklanders constitute an ethnic group or not. For a start, they consider themselves "British" above all else (English maybe as well - not sure about that), with the Falkland aspect being more regional than ethnic. A huge proportion of the islands' residents are not native born, and that increases when you go back one or two generations. Couple this with high OUTmigration, and you end up with a tiny permanent population. --MacRusgail 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. A substantial proportion of the population is of recent immigration but this reflects the booming economy of the islands. With full employment, immigration has been necessary to sustain economic growth. The proportion of recent immigrants reflects the recent history not the lack of a permanent population. Justin talk 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. They consider themselves British most definitely not English. Justin talk 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In some parts of the world, the two are near synonyms. However there does seem to be some political docility, as far as I can tell, due to the low population, and quasi-feudal social structure (similar to some parts of Scotland!). --MacRusgail 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree, the assumption of British = English is generally laziness. Some English do it and that annoys the Welsh and Scots. Justin talk 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, Scots, and Welsh, are increasingly realising that contemporary "Britishness" has essentially been an expansion of Englishness. Good riddance too. It's good to see them grow out of it, but the position of England itself is a confused one.

By the way, can we really say there was no consensus to merge/not to, when there's only two of us discussing it? The tag should have been left up for longer, as they normally are. --MacRusgail 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You put a merge discussion on a page that was less than a week old, it was up for three weeks and if you read my comments I'd suggested allowing the article to develop first. Pardon me but Britishness is not simply an extension of Englishness, never has been, never will be. The fact that foreigners can't tell the difference is neither here nor there. BTW I am actually Scottish, I also have Welsh, Irish, English and French blood in me, but I am also most definitely British. Justin talk 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a Scotsman, I can assure you that it nearly always is - that is why the Queen is always referred to by her English title, and numeral, why the only language the Brits use everywhere is English, and why the capital is the English capital. I am Scottish not British, and have no wish to be. The main aim of Britishness was to assure the Scots that they would have an equal role in the English empire when they were annexed. The Welsh took to it too, because they conflated the ancient meaning of "British" with the modern one. I too am a mix of various different peoples... but that's by the by, I'm not French, English, Irish or Norwegian (although my Norwegian ancestry would be probably a thousand years back). Britishness is going the way of all the other bogus identities like Sovietness (expansionist Russian-ness) etc. Good riddance. It's never been an ethnicity. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)