K. A. Pital wrote:But what are they supposed to vote for, if they're actually not populated by the same people as the locals?
To focus on Gibraltar, they could vote to join Spain, or vote for independence. They chose overwhelmingly instead to remain in the U.K., though this may change after Brexit. I don't see this as being illegitimate merely because they were not the "original inhabitants" (neither are the Spanish; Gibraltar's recorded history starts with the Phoenicians and was known to have been settled even before then, good luck finding any of those people to make a claim).
K. A. Pital wrote:I've had this argument before regarding Northern Ireland, the taking of land from American natives and other historical types of settle-and-replace activity: if you successfully colonize a patch of land, does this give you the right to this?
Which is applicable to practically every civilization on Earth (yes including Native Americans who fought and raided each other over territory just as much as every one else). From that perspective no one really has a legitimate claim to the area that they live in... while there may some truth to that it's pretty impractical.
In the case of Gibraltar, it's been over 300 years... how many Spanish inhabitants do you think are still around who should legitimately be allowed claim it back? Or Moors? Visigoths? Vanadals? Romans? Carthagians? Phoenicians? Should Gibraltar be returned to Spain against the wishes of the people currently living there
simply because over 300 years ago it belonged to someone else? If so, how do you reconcile them? Do you kick them out as historical squatters or something?
Aso, if you are born and raised in a place, should you be allowed to have a say about its governance? Or should you be denied if you / your ancestors are not "original inhabitants"?
[quote=K. A. Pital"]It would actually mean that if you take some land, the only way to keep it in a legitimate manner is to replace the locals - who may at some point see you as the colonizer - with your colonists/settlers, and thereby have a population that is always loyal to the metropole and willing to remain a part of it. [/quote]
"Always loyal" is rather stretching it- just to use the U.K., a pretty big chunk of their colonists/settlers decided to violently split off (aka the USA), and most other places have gradually moved towards full independence.
Just because you / your ancestors came from some place, it doesn't mean that you are automatically 100% loyal to it for all time.
It is not a land of evil, and people inhabiting the remnants are not evil either. Evil was done in the past, when expanding this empire.
Glad to hear that you think so, as some of your posts seem to indicate otherwise.
K. A. Pital wrote:Now that it is contracting, even the tiniest remaining bits come under assault. It is regrettable, but an expected development. Not having splinter territories, against which other nations have territorial claims, is one of the few long term solutions to this problem. The other solution is being in a territorial union with the nations that have such claims, making the matter a non-issue most of the time, but this has flown out of the window with Brexit.
As far as I am concerned, if a population of an area wishes to remain a part of another country / union, they should be allowed to do so. If they want to leave, and/ or join somewhere else, then that's their choice. Forcing a population to do something it is overwhelmingly against would cause more problems than it solves IMO.
Saying that their decision to stay is similar to someone choosing to side with Empire in Star Wars is asinine.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" - the official Troll motto as stated by Adam Savage