Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 233 posts

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#221

Post by emmanueloga_ »

chronolitus wrote: post #89
emmanueloga_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

907 were killed, 1,188 Argentine and 777 British injured or wounded ... but if it wasn't for the war, you could have seen the Parliament. Such misfortune.

In real life, would you also respond to a trivial personal anecdote with moral chastising? Does the discussion have to take a form of geopolitical virtue signalling anytimes it grazes a big 'bad' event like a war? Is it ok to talk about mundane things, even in the shadow of the colossal international storms that surround us, without having to make a performance of fighting their shadows at all times?

> In real life, would you also respond to a trivial personal anecdote with moral chastising?

I may have, to be honest.

> Does the discussion have to take a form of geopolitical virtue signalling [...]

It may be virtue signaling for you, but if you were from Argentina you would know that war is still an open wound, that it happened during a de-facto government and that it was one of many atrocities that happened during that period.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#222

Post by Hallucinaut »

barry-cotter wrote: post #93
wodenokoto wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s called Jus Soli and while not the most common thing, it isn’t exactly special to the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

The only other country with such liberal application of jus soli is New Zealand. In no other country I'm aware of can you show up, give birth and they will definitely give the child a passport unless the mother or father is a diplomat.

According to that Wikipedia link (and my own NZ knowledge) that is quite incorrect on NZ being either the only other country or even as liberal. Essentially the same as Australia and less permissive than dozens of other major, larger nations.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#223

Post by asdff »

sbacic wrote: post #220
asdff wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My cousins who were college educated in Zagreb or Split are finding work in Germany. The brain drain is real. I can't help but think that balkanization seriously killed the economy there and nipped in the bud any hope of strong private industries investing and establishing themselves in such a tiny place. More Croatians live in Germany than Croatia today, because Germany did the opposite and unified, and brought on e…

Balkanization had nothing to do with it - the problem was that communism valued loyalty over ability and promoted people according to that principle. After Yugoslavia fell apart, the new political parties, both ruling and opposition, simply changed colors while maintaining the same patterns of behavior.

I don't know, balkanization today is widely seen as a mistake that economically weakened the region. Consider how that would look for the U.S. California has the 5th largest GDP in the world if it were its own country. Louisiana on the other hand would quickly turn into a backwater, as it is a net recipient of federal support and California is a net provider. When you look at the states of the former Yugoslavia, you see the exact same effect, because these states drawn along old historical lines did not have equivalent economic outputs, and areas that generated more resources for the state subsidized other areas. Today, Slovenia is doing well, Bosnia is falling behind. They aren't even all in the EU.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#224

Post by AlbertCory »

dang wrote: post #66
emmanueloga_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

907 were killed, 1,188 Argentine and 777 British injured or wounded ... but if it wasn't for the war, you could have seen the Parliament. Such misfortune.

Please don't be a jerk on HN. Note this guideline: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html With a comment like the GP, it's actually the upvotes that cause the greater problem (unintentionally), because being at the top of a thread puts a spotlight on a post which…

Thank you, dang. It was, indeed, a trivial personal anecdote, brought on the word "Falklands." People are more than welcome to downvote it if they don't want to see it.

At the time I sent it, there was only one other comment on this post, and I didn't expect to see many more.

And no, no apologies will be forthcoming.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#225

Post by [deleted] »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #204
xjlin0 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought US presidents need to be born on US?

No, they just have to be US citizens at birth: either born on American soil or to U.S. parents abroad. This is why Ted Cruz and George Romney could run for president despite being born outside the U.S.

[deleted]

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#226

Post by lizknope »

yardie wrote: post #95
barry-cotter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only other country with such liberal application of jus soli is New Zealand. In no other country I'm aware of can you show up, give birth and they will definitely give the child a passport unless the mother or father is a diplomat.

It is widely practiced in the Western Hemisphere. Which is why you can be Mexican or Panamanian and run for president of the US.

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was a US territory when he was born but was part of Panama by the time he ran for president.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#227

Post by lmm »

nradov wrote: post #172
lmm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's different is the will of the people. If Shanghai, or San Francisco, or anywhere, developed a cultural consensus that it wanted to leave its parent country, it would be evil to prevent them.

Several US states south of the Mason-Dixon line developed a cultural consensus that they wanted to leave their parent country. Was it evil to prevent them?

Declaring after the war that the secession had never happened and was impossible was an evil move in my book. (Though whether there was any desired to maintain the Confederacy without slavery I don't know).

Going to war with the seceding states over their endemic human rights abuses is more arguable. Personally I despise the holier-than-thou attitude of so many northern states, who had tolerated those same human rights abuses for centuries and then suddenly decided that they were utterly unconscionable, coincidentally just after the northern economy became able to manage without them. But maybe that's ultimately how moral progress gets made.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#228

Post by dang »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #221
chronolitus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In real life, would you also respond to a trivial personal anecdote with moral chastising? Does the discussion have to take a form of geopolitical virtue signalling anytimes it grazes a big 'bad' event like a war? Is it ok to talk about mundane things, even in the shadow of the colossal international storms that surround us, without having to make a performance of fighting their shadows at all times?

> In real life, would you also respond to a trivial personal anecdote with moral chastising? I may have, to be honest. > Does the discussion have to take a form of geopolitical virtue signalling [...] It may be virtue signaling for you, but if you were from Argentina you would know that war is still an open wound, that it happened during a de-facto government and that it was one of many atrocities that happened durin…

It's clear that you have good reason to feel the way you do, but I'm sure you wouldn't jump straight to attacking another person in real life, just because they come from a different background and don't know anything about your experience.

You'd probably explain that the war looked very different from the other side, and give them information that helped them understand your point of view. You wouldn't overinterpret someone's simple comment about a trip they'd made as if it were some sort of political provocation. AlbertCory wasn't comparing his vacation anecdote with war deaths in any way.

If you had included the context you gave here ("if you were from Argentina you would know that war is still an open wound, that it happened during a de-facto government and that it was one of many atrocities that happened during that period") in your original reply, that already would have been enough to bridge the gap and create understanding. I think everyone here would benefit from learning more about the Argentinian experience.

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#229

Post by [deleted] »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #166
b112 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should council your friend to keep as much data, write everything down (keep a log book), keep backups of emails etc. Don't let time, let scum win.

I did, but as a tall white middle-class male counseling a short young inner-city woman of color it's a little difficult without being patronizing. Her response was "This is not even the worst thing that's been done to me; I have to let some of it go."

[deleted]

Re: Why do so many people move to the Falkland Islands? (2009)

#230

Post by conductr »

elliekelly wrote: post #207
conductr wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My American in laws did expat life in UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, others in the region. They, and many other western expats, employed Filipino house keepers. They have to assume a lot of responsibility for their actions while in the country as well. The expats are there under-highly conditional work visas and employeeing low-wage expats to come into the country was like another level of liability they took on personally and…

This reminds me of the article “My Family’s Slave”[1] which is both a powerful story and an interesting look at the cognitive dissonance of people who benefit from modern exploitative labor. Just because someone isn’t constantly and overtly cruel to their “imported labor” does not mean they aren’t exploitative. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/lolas-s...

> Just because someone isn’t constantly and overtly cruel to their “imported labor” does not mean they aren’t exploitative.

While true. What’s also interesting is “exploitative” is often through the modern western lens. It’s also a sliding scale where it is quite often seen as a good deal from labor’s perspective. In my previous example, the Filipino’s generally loved the arrangement. They got to travel and send a good deal of money home. It was a highly sought after position from their perspective. My experience is limited to about 10 days in the region and what I heard from American expats, but the hard labor forces also generally liked the arrangement. It offered opportunities that did not exist wherever they immigrated from. It was not without risks as no/low worker safety or OSHA concepts are in effect. Also just what we would consider fair labor practices, just didn’t exist. I’m sure slavery does exist as well because the opportunity is very present.

Post reply on HN