Cristina Kirchner Agrees to Give Back Argentina to Indigenous People

I'm taking the hat off now..

BUENOS AIRES – Argentina – Former Argentine leader, Cristina Kirchner has agreed to hand over the South American country back to the natives who had their land taken from them in 1580.

An emotional Cristina Kirchner agreed to the handover two weeks ago: “Four hundred and thirty three years ago on this same date, January 3rd, in a blatant exercise of 16th century colonialism, the indigenous people were forcibly stripped of their land by the Spanish conquistadors, who travelled 14,000 km (8,700 miles) from Spain.

“The native South American Indians were expelled or systematically killed by the Spanish and Spain subsequently began a population implantation process similar to that applied to other territories under colonial rule.

“Since then, Spain, the colonial power, has up until now refused to return the territories to the original inhabitants of this land, thus preventing it from restoring its territorial integrity.

“The question of the native people is also a cause embraced by Latin America and by vast majority of peoples and governments around the world that reject colonialism.

“In 1960, the United Nations proclaimed the necessity of ‘bringing to an end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations’.

“This is why, I am ashamed to be part of the colonial legacy of Spain, and I will now hand back the land that we stole from the native South Americans in the 1500s to the true holders of this land.”

Mrs Kirchner will hand over the former country of Argentina in a ceremony that will last three days, then she and the remaining remnants of the former colonial Spanish state will return back to Spain in a months time.

The remaining people of Mestizo and Amerindian heritage were said to be delighted at the news.

“Now that old rubber face is going with all the Spanish colonists, we can get back to having a great time and we must not forget being friendly with our neighbours from the Falkland Islands,” Ah Ahaual, a tribal leader said yesterday.

  • Raúl Dubrois

    Craig Plafrey:
    You can read another message that i had wrote here for more details. But now i must say that all that you are saying is wrong.
    The presence in Malvinas could never qualified as a real settlement. The french were there with Bougainville, he arrives when the islands were uninhabited but Spain claim to the french king that the islands belong to them so the king of France order to Bougainville to left Port Louis (the city that he founded) After that france recognize that the islands were part of the spanish kingdom. Later Spain send some people to live there to make it clear to other nations that they own the islands. They found some british and they expel them out. Finally the solve the conflict with england in the Nutka agreements (google that) and the UK RECOGNIZE THAT THE ISLANDS WERE FROM SPAIN.
    Many years after that Argentina born as an independent nation (1816) and in 1820 Argentina took possession of Malvinas sending some families to live there under the administration of Luis Vernet as the argentinian government representative. UK didn t saynothing in 1820, and neither in 1826 when they recognize Argentina as an independent nation with all the territories that Argentina claim as part of its territory. Argentina draw its frontiers using the uti possidetis iure right, and i must said about this that is a curious thing that this right in the international rights was initiated by the british, and thats why the argentinians were in Malvinas when finally the british came in 1833 (with out any advice) and took the island with violence in an act of war.
    You must read something about a social science called history because what you said in your message has nothing of knowledge about what really happened.
    Also when you speak about the II world war you seem to ignore that when Germany invaded Poland from the west, Stalin (your loved allie) did the same from the east. Do you know that?
    If you know, tell me why England did not declare the war to Stalin too?

    Do your best in your next comment, I am going to give you some homework. google something about the Kutyn massacre and something about Władysław Sikorski and how he died.

    I remember what happened in 1882 we sunk a lot of british ships that supposed to be the top of naval warfare. If you are laughing about us think it twice because you are paying taxes to support a military forces that are not what you are supposed to pay for them. Watch out where is your money going, and watch out what for are young british guys dying in the middle east as they did in Malvinas. Are you fighting for England or for the BP?

    Please google the letter that David Tinker wrote to his family before he died.
    I send my truly respect to his memory, tragically that is the kind of invaluable people that a war took out from us.

  • Raúl Dubrois

    I know more than you what the worst government of our history is doing here.
    All that the juglar Cristina does, trying to invert her bad image, has nothing to do with the fact that Malvinas were stolen by the british in 1833 when Argentina were there since 1820 and after the the british government of those days recognize in 1826 the independence of our country without telling anything about Malvinas (neither in 1820 or in 1826). You must learn that in the british history is very common to find that in the name of the king the troops of his majesty use to conquer other territories with their powerful navy. Malvinas was part of this practice, because there were strategic in those days were the ships must took the Magallanes strait to go to the pacific ocean. They also were useful for the royal navy in the world war I were the royal fleet could catch the Admiral Spee fleet; the british ships were awaiting Spee fleet in Malvinas. And also they were useful in the II world war when the HMS Ajax and HMS Aquilles came there to have some repairs after fighting against the german Graf Spee battleship. Nowadays the islands are not useful in those terms, now they are coveted by the british petroleum company because now the price of the petrol barrel is as high as it is needed to take out petrol from there with the correct profit. It is just a geopolitics thing , no one is thinking in the luky of the kelpers, Argentina do more for them in the seventies (giving them fuel, an airport and an air bridge) than the british did in their all history.

  • Raúl Dubrois

    Paul Bale:

    First of i want to thank you the fact that you wrote under you real name.

    I ´m sorry but you don't understand what i said (maybe my english is not as good as i supposed to be) I know very well who are the welsh people, I am living in a city that started as a welsh colony (under argentinian flag they were immigrants), they were the founders of this city (puerto Madryn) and also Trelew, Gaiman and another ones in the west like Trevelin and Esquel. What I wanted to say was that the english people feel that they are better than irish, scottish and welsh. I think that you know the history of your own people, and what the english did to them in the middle of the XIX century when they treat them as slaves in the coal mines. Thats why a lot of families came here in the ship mimosa. Of course that nowadays there aren´t whelsh slaves in GB but the english still thinking that the uk belongs to them in first term.

    If you are a Malvinas vet please tell to this ignorant people that is a lie that our troops had a bad behavior with the kelpers, the only civil victims of the war were killed by british fire (naval fire), any house was stolen and even if a kelper said that one of his sheep were lost, he received money for it.

    If you want you can send me an e mail at

  • Richard

    I believe the Mayans, Aztecs, Inca, and numerous other native Central and South American peoples who were slaughtered by the Spanish would indeed disagree that the "Spanish didn't kill indigenous people."

  • scott

    Funny that everything they said is crap didnt the spanish sluaghter the population o yeh they did funny that every other country but yours has that in there history books

    and as for us beening evil all you do is run your mouth try to start a war reaptly try to threaten other countrys but UK wont take your shit and now u come unstuck cuase people wont there money back so shut the hell up to your acutaly stop changing history to suit ur stupid storys funny no other country backs your version of advents even the french have told you its wrong

  • Gilbz

    I am liking the few Argentines on here are bad mouthing the UK… at least I can buy a loaf of bread without taking out a loan. And no that is not the UK's fault, might wanna look at your own government as to whose fault it is…

  • John Purchase

    Spanish colonists give back south America to the Indigenous peoples and go back to Europe. There's alot of Argentines that don't even know their own history.

  • Otto

    Ah, always the british allies excuse eh ?

    Belgium in WW1 (only that England would not have hesitated to invade it itself, along with France – only Germany was faster)

    And Poland in WW2 ? Who did invade Poland ? You are right with Germany, and who came from the other side ? Why didn't England declare war to Russia then ?
    What about Finnland ? Lots of english and US pilots fighting in Finnland with Germany, against Russia.
    Read something else than the usual propaganda sh!t.

  • Niall

    I think you'll find we declared war on Germany after they invaded our allies, Poland, in line with our international defence agreements. Russia wasn't involved then – it had signed a non-agression pact with the Third Reich, and no-one thought Hitler would have been insane enough to open a second front by backstabbing Stalin's forces.

  • Andy

    Raul Argentinians need to come to terms with there own COLONIAL HISTORY for some reason Argentina comes across as a bitter and twisted nation always looking to blame anyone except themselves for there own misfortunes we have a saying


    Perhaps when you get rid of your dear lady leader SS Kirchner and her obese son Maximo who are bleeding your country dry you might be able to elect a government that is nor corrupt.
    According to Argentines you have never been able to elect a government that is not corrupt ever since The Great British helped you get rid of The Military Junta in 1982 but I warn you Kirchner will not go quietly in fact she is looking to SWINDLE you all in a 3rd term so be careful because you know what they say about a desperate dog that is cornered she might start The Death Flights again.

  • Craig Plafrey

    Dubrois – your grasp of history leaves a lot to be desired….Argentina has never owned the Falkland islands. In the 16th century Europeans claimed the islands – of course the British won! in the 18th century the British and the French colonized the un-populated islands. Eventually the islands were abandoned by both parties – but they still claimed the islands, The Spanish also had a claim. In the 1840's the British returned and re-colonized the islands – no-one contended this. Oil has been discovered in the area and your country (being poor and broke) want the islands (with no viable claim whatsoever) so you can get to the oil!
    also, ww2 – we went to war with Germany because they A) attacked our Polish allies and B) were the biggest threat to the British empire – the Soviet union was very insular during the 30's and only posed a threat to the Japanese in the far east. Stalin didn't kill 50 million people – the official figure is 20 million and even that is based on an estimate made by an American historian who had never been to Russia!
    But ww2 aside – Argentina doesn't have a leg to stand on – they're poor, they want the oil and they're trying to steal territory off another nation with ridiculous claims – the whole world is laughing at Argentina!!!!
    Remember what happened in 1982!

  • Pete Stubbs

    Yep, and the peaceful islanders had a look at your "Liberators". They kicked the islanders out of their homes. Slept in the islanders beds with their muddy boots on. Defecated everywhere except in the toilets. Stole attractive items and slaughtered for fun, family pets. Bullied the islanders into driving on the right. Put RED CROSSES on buildings where ammunition and military personnel were stored. Sited 155mm arty next to a school and other islander occupied accommodation.

  • paul bale

    some of your points are quite interesting , until you get to the part where you think the british people including the welsh and others think they are better than others , what a load of bullshit , i am welsh , and fought in the falklands war in 82 with the welsh guards , however thats not my point , my point is how can you say we , the british , think were better or think were better than other nations , a totally pathetic statement , we are a small proud nation and no more than that , so try to keep your stupid personal comments to yourself.

  • Charlie Unicorn November Tango

    Uniform Unicorn who cares mate you're still an argie cunt.

    And we didn't choose our enemy in WW2 they chose us…

  • R Dubrois

    You are a big ignorant, yes we have the worst government that you can imagine, but Cameron isn't Charles De Gaulle, the big banks rules your nation and also the british petroleum that took young people to fight for them in the middle east. Even a little kid knows that they are not fighting for “freedom” as the media told you.
    Even in the WWII you nation didn't fought for democracy, you fought with the communist (the 50 millions russian souls killer Stalin) for the Rothschild fortune preservation. Rothschild had Stalin and his communist regime as client too but not Hitler, thats why Germany was the enemy in those days.
    Winston Churchill said in his memories that he made a really mistake choosing his enemy.

    And the U letter is uniform and not unicorn.

  • Raúl Dubrois

    You and others make a big mistake. You can compare the independence of America with the colonialism in Malvinas, were a british navy ship took a territory using the military force.

    Argentina occupied Malvinas because they put in practice the uti possidetis iure, (read something about it) GB left Malvinas in 1774 and in the Nutka agreements they recognize that those islands belong to Spain as Bougainville did it before he tried to took possession of them, Bouganville also sent his apologies to the Spanish kingdom (that is for the other guy that said that France was the real nation that discover the islands.
    GB recognizes the value of that right called uti possidetis iure and if you didn't know The UK was one of the most interested nation in the independence of america from spain. And they help in the consolidation of that right to make the frontiers of the new nations.

    Argentina took possession of Malvinas in 1820 and GB recognized Argentine as a nation in 1826, and in that action it recognize all the argentinian territory including Malvinas.

    But in 1833 they took the islands using the military force, they put them some scottish there and that is how they stole them.

    In the sixties the Decolonization Committee of the UN said that Malvinas islands are a british Colony. The UN said that GB must sit down with argentina to solve the problem.
    No way its a colony in the XIX century, what the British petroleum with Cameron try to say is a lie.

    And please stop saying such things that america is from the indians, there weren't indians any more we are all a nation living together there weren't pure indians, we are all mixed.
    Saying those things is like saying that GB belongs to Rome and in fact all english must returned to the german coast where they belong.

  • Raúl Dubrois

    First of all there weren't Italian colonialist people in South America (specifically in Argentina) there were just italian immigrants that came to Argentina in that last part of the XIX century and to the middle of the XX. Colonialism is another thing very different.
    Then i must said that you can't compare what spanish did in south america with what the british did in the conquer of Canada, the caribbean (read something about Toussaint Louverture) and of course in Africa. Also nowadays big companies as BP maintain dictatorship governments on Africa just for say an example.
    Historically, the british (with the Portuguese too) were the biggest african slave traders and also they divided Africa continent as a piece of cheese, a lot of modern wars between different etnias in Africa is a consequence of that divisions were UK (and other europeans countries) draw frontiers putting in the same bag different etnias.
    I didn't said that spanish hadn't got slaves or even haven't kill native american people, i just said that you can't compare what they did with what british do.

    The Germ warfare was unknown in those days, even the germs were unknown, Spanish didn't know that they were carrying germs with them basically because they didin t know what were the germs. In those days maybe they thought that the natives were dying because god were punish them. The knowledge about what the germs did in the spanish conquer of south america is part of actual studies.

    You talked about the UN and the kelpers, but you didn't know what had the UN said about them, you must read the resolutions of the Decolonization Committee of the UN that said that Malvinas islands are a british Colony. The UN said that GB must sit down with argentina to solve the problem. But they never did it really, that was why in 1982 we send a military force there, that was a big mistake of us because we transformed the colonialist in victims.

    Argentina occupied Malvinas in 1820 GB didn´t say nothing about and in 1826 GB also recognize Argentina as an independent nation with all the territory that Argentina claim to be part of it. In 1833 finally GB stole Malvinas using its military power."

    The british presence in Malvinas were very little, clandestine and short in time, the british left the islands in 1774 until they returned in 1833 when Argentina were occupying them as part of its territory. Argentina took possession of the islands claiming its right of uti possidetis iure and when when we did it the notice arrives to London, and even there were british citizens in the ceremony (whale hunters) where the argentinian authority rise our national flag in Port louis. UK didn ´t say nothing about it and neither when they recognize the independence of Argentina with all the territory that Argentina claim to have.
    So all the inconsistent arguments about the british presence in Malvinas before Argentina exist has no value for the international right.
    UK also recognized the rights of the spanish kingdom in the Nutka agreements with Spain, and of course they recognize that there is an international right called uti possidetis iure that was applied in other parts of the world like in Asia, Africa, and nowadays in Yugoslavia and in the new countries that were created after the fall of the URSS.
    There is another right too called usucapion, read about that.

    I can bring to you a detailed article that was written by me but it is in spanish.

    wiki isn't a serious source.

    I must say something more, including something about the english feel that they are superior than other people (including welsh, scottish and irish)
    The name Kelper to those scottish people that live in Malvinas was given by the british , until the war the british treat them as bullshit. Argentina gave them fuel to live, an airport, and also medical care. In the seventies we have an air bridge and many kelpers came to Argentina to treat their diseases and also they came here to have some education in the british schools that were built by british immigrants, and also in they studied in our public universities.

    The british government gave them nothing and before the war they were a second kind of british citizens without the same range of british people that lives on GB or even in other territories. All changes when the oil prices grow up and that is the real thing because Thatcher, Blair and Cameron think about the kelpers. The BP is hungry, all the other histories are part of the daily sun sensationalism.

    The fact that UK has Nuke bombs does´t mean that they have more rights, that is a barbarian concept.

    For more you can write to me here:

    I don't hate british people in many cases I admire some parts of the british history (i am trying to speak your language) but what the british government do is another thing.

  • Andy

    They were welcomed by the Spanish colonial government or its successor that had arbitrarily laid claim to a swathe of south america and given it the name Argentina. The country did not exist prior to Spanish colonialism and no natives welcomed your ancestors and their millions of friends.You are a localized descendant of a transplanted colonial populous and according to your own foreign minister you therefore have no right to self-determination and as such should surrender your sovereignty to the native peoples that remain, if there are any left.

  • Charlie Unicorn November Tango

    Well the Argentinians predict they will have the Falklands back in 20 years…

    …which is funny because i saw a Rockhopper Petroleum report saying they'd get the oil out in 19

  • Agent00Soul

    This article made my day! Perfect!

  • Big Balls McGraw

    Lol! this woman runs up debts and won't pay them! And calls others a thief :/

    Feel bad for Argentines why do they always end up with such wacko leaders? This will end in war, defeat for Argentina, and the goverment overthrown just like last time.

    Maybe Britain should push on and invade Argentina, to liberate it for the natives lmfao!

    Here are some facts…
    Most Wars in History Won = Britain
    Saved Western World From Facism = Britain

    All this from a wee tiny tiny island, get the message we are built different you get into a war and your going down.

  • Storm Bringer

    "They weren´t as racist that the british was, who is hypocrite here?"

    From everything that you just described then it is clearly the Spanish / Italian colonialists in South America (specifically Argentina) who were clearly more Racist in the way that they treated the indigenous population and, therefore, the biggest hypocrites of all.

    "The big decrese of the indigeneous popultion in those days were for illnes and not for war. The spanish brought with them a lot of diseases unknown in america, and natives weren´t immunologically prepared for that. "

    And that makes it all OK? In other words, you unintentionally used Germ warfare to commit genocide as well as use conventional arms – as I said, you're incredible hypocrites and pretty feeble-minded ones at that.

    "and the kelper are also british citizens nowadays so they can´t claim for self-determination."

    Under the UN charter – they can. After all, far smaller populations have done exactly that.

    "Argentina occuped Malvinas in 1820 GB didn´t say nothing about and in 1826 GB also recognize Argentina as an independent nation with all the territory that Argentina claim to be part of it. In 1833 finally GB stole Malvinas using its military power."

    Actually, there has been a British presence on the Islands since 1690 when sailors first landed, with the first British settlement in 1765, and its inhabitants are overwhelmingly of British descent – you can find an exact time line right here:

    You will note that at no point in its short history has Argentina had sovereignty over the Falklands – quite naturally as the Islands are over 400 miles away from Argentina and Argentina didn't even have a constitution until 1853. In other words, Argentina didn't even exist to claim anything as "part of their sovereign territory" least of all a remote island where they never had a presence in the first place.

    As for the UN – Britain has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (being a Nuclear Power is good for something after all) so can simply Veto any resolution that even attempts to make us do anything not wanted by the Falkland Islanders.

    China, Russia and the US have all used their Veto for far less whereas we will have the moral justification of recognising the Falkland Islander's right to self-determination as specified by the UN's charter under international law.

    Considering Argentina has no army then this should just be regarded as the pathetic wishful fantasising of the Spanish / Italian colonialists living in South America and will, therefore, amount to absolutely nothing whatsoever.

    In other words, this statement from Argentina is just the empty noise of impotent rage and should be ignored by absolutely everybody.

    Anyway, you shouldn't be too miserable – with their new found oil wealth the Falkland Islanders will be able to buy Argentina so they could run your country instead.

  • rugbyguy

    Britain had settlers on the Falklands before Argentina even existed. Read your history sometime.

  • Ale

    I consider myself a descendant from spanish INMIGRANTS, i respect the law of the country that welcomed us in its territory (Argentina) and i'm thankful for that. Colonialism is a different thing.

  • Rob

    @ Matias, so the indigenous fought against the Spanish to become Argentina?
    And then how did the state repay them?

    Oh yes the Argentineans slaughtered them in Patagonia.

    Its so funny how disillusioned Argentineans can be.

  • AJK

    Raul, surely you must see that your post is riddled with contradictions and half truths that make no sense whatsoever. I mean you begin by saying that the 'Spanish didn´t kill indigenous people as the british do all over the world', before then listing of a whole host of examples where the Spanish did precisely that! The Spanish killed people left, right and centre in order to gain control over the population of the New World, mainly through divide and rule' tactics, as you rightly pointed out. Yes the British may have done exactly the same, and yes it may even have been to a greater extent elsewhere in the world, but that doesn't excuse Spanish actions in any way, shape or form if you are trying to feasibly occupy the moral high-ground in the name of anti-imperialism.

    And yes, Britain did put a British population in the Falklands. In the exact same manner that the Spanish put a Spanish population in Argentina. Both are examples of colonization. And yet Argentinians would, quite rightly, reject a resettlement of all decendents of Spanish colonizers on the grounds that they have lived there now for centuries and they have just as much right to live there, in their home, as anyone else. It's the same for the decendents of British settlers on the Falklands. I don't understand how Argentinians can't see the obviousness of their hypocrisy.

    As for accusations of 'stealing' the Falklands, welcome to the wonderful world of imperialism. The French established the first colony on the Falklands before the Spanish sauntered along to take it off them. You can't go around being stealing stuff and then cry about it when others do the same to you.

    Finally self-determination is recognized as a key principle in international law. The Falkland Islanders want to govern themselves and object to being part of Argentina. If you were to force your will on them and subject them, essentially, to foreign rule; now that would be imperialistic.

  • Raúl Dubrois

    Spanish didn´t kill indigenous people as the british do all over the world, Spanish also get married with indigenous women and they teach them in how to work the land to those groups that were hunters and didn ´t know nothing about (read something about the Jesuitas). Is true that they fought against big empires like the Astecas (México) and Incas in (Peru) and in the second case they use a lot of people as slaves in the mines, like the silver one in Potosí. But we must consider that they did they war against astecas and Incas allied with another natives that were suffering under those empires. They weren´t as racist that the british was, who is hypocrite here? The big decrese of the indigeneous popultion in those days were for illnes and not for war. The spanish brought with them a lot of diseases unknown in america, and natives weren´t immunologically prepared for that.

    Great Britain still remains a colonialist country they put a british population in Malvinas, and the kelper are also british citizens nowadays so they can´t claim for self-determination. The same thing would be is a group of argentinians went to a scotish island and make a village there, they grow kids and then one day they decided to claim the territory as an independent country. Argentina occuped Malvinas in 1820 GB didn´t say nothing about and in 1826 GB also recognize Argentina as an independent nation with all the territory that Argentina claim to be part of it. In 1833 finally GB stole Malvinas using its military power.

    In the case of that clown woman that play as our president, I must say that in Argentina there are very few people that has truly indigenous origins all the people is mestiza (I can´t translate this word) One of that few peoples are in the north part of the country and the corrupt goberment is getting them out of thier lands to grow soya there. Kristina Kirchner is a lier is wors than Cameron, Putin, Zapatero and the worst leader than you can imagine.

  • Martin

    Matias we're not ignorant at all. In fact we're very aware of the double standards and hypocrisy of the people of European origin in Argentina who are crying 'colonialism' when they themselves are effectively a colony of the Spanish Empire, which displaced and killed millions of indigenous south Americans from the 16th century onwards.

  • Matias

    How many ignorance in the UK….They seem not to know that the indigenous people also fight against spain in the argentine independence…

  • Colin Rankin

    Love it.