|
The Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego:
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Strategic Shoggoth Reserve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Postage stamp from 1940 portraying Chile's Antractic claims: Most of this territory is contested by Britain and / or Argentina thanks to the Falklands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Kainser posted:The Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego: What's the tiny island way the gently caress off to the right that I thought was my screen being dirty at first?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
That's actually part of a group of islands, I don't know why this map doesn't reflect that though, it's the South Sandwich Islands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
The most politically loaded thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3805435
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
HookShot posted:The most politically loaded thread: Wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Skaggerak and Kattegat should be part of a sea. They're not narrow enough to be a strait or a channel. It's not right! North Sea or Baltic one or the other!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:Well Thatcher was considering to hand back the Falklands 2 years before the invasion. If the people of Gibraltar want independence or to join Spain they can. Although neither of those things will ever happen because the status quo is a much more attractive (and popular) prospect. Well the status quo is changing whether the gibraltarians like it or not. Gibraltarites? Gibraltese? Gibronies
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Gibraltarites?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Skaggerak and Kattegat should be part of a sea. They're not narrow enough to be a strait or a channel. It's not right! North Sea or Baltic one or the other!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Gibronies Candyasses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Well the status quo is changing whether the gibraltarians like it or not. Prudentials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Kattegat is its own sea. Debatable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Titus Sardonicus posted:Candyasses? It's basically just a Rock anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:Well Thatcher was considering to hand back the Falklands 2 years before the invasion. If the people of Gibraltar want independence or to join Spain they can. Although neither of those things will ever happen because the status quo is a much more attractive (and popular) prospect. Hand back to...? France?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Negrostrike posted:Hand back to...? France? Morocco, have you not been reading the thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Negrostrike posted:Hand back to...? France? The Sea
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
It's time for the Monday Maplete Challenge, kiddos! Is this map fictional or real? If you think it is real, what year do you think it depicts? Explain your reasoning. This map is real, depicting Russian controlled-Alaska, also known as Russian America. However, because it includes "Idaho," a totally meaningless made-up word which was invented by an eccentric lobbyist as a name for territory under American control, we know that it must be made after Americans had gained control of the territory in question. Thus, we can conclude that this map is from the future. Specifically, somewhere around 2030. twoday fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
twoday posted:It's time for the Monday Maplete Challenge, kiddos! Well I would say that it depicts current Russian claims because that’s the most amusing possibility, but Mexican California argues against that. If it’s based on a real time period, it has to be between the Oregon Treaty in 1846 and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Speaking of future maps of the US: Futurama, "Bendin' in the Wind". Utah's name is Human Farm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Speaking of future maps of the US: Is that the path the Yellowstone Hotspot traces on the North American Plate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:52
|
|
Platystemon posted:Well I would say that it depicts current Russian claims because that’s the most amusing possibility, but Mexican California argues against that. Didn't the Oregon Treaty give most of Columbia to America? "Canada's southern border should have been across the river from Portland" is a thing Vancouver social studies teachers rammed into my head.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
UnfortunateSexFart posted:Didn't the Oregon Treaty give most of Columbia to America? "Canada's southern border should have been across the river from Portland" is a thing Vancouver social studies teachers rammed into my head. Which Vancouver? The one in WA was the original settlement until large numbers of American settlers came into the Wilamette valley and the brits left for BC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Morocco, have you not been reading the thread? I mean the Falklands. They were never Argentine territory as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
UnfortunateSexFart posted:Didn't the Oregon Treaty give most of Columbia to America? "Canada's southern border should have been across the river from Portland" is a thing Vancouver social studies teachers rammed into my head. I was going by the existence of the forty‐ninth parallel border. The map depicts Russian territory as extending to the Golden Gate†, but they sold Fort Ross in 1842  .†Though not yet called that. “Golden Gate” was coined by John C. Frémont in 1846. quote:Russian historians assert the sum was never paid; therefore, legal title of the settlement was never transferred to Sutter and still belongs to the Russian people. Wikipedia has a citation, but I’m not going to look too hard for a 2004 article in a Russian revisionist history journal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Negrostrike posted:I mean the Falklands. They were never Argentine territory as far as I know. Argentina's claim is based on the short time Spain controlled the islands, after the French and before the British. Since their claim on the rest of their territory is based on what Spain controlled in the past, it's not that crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:19
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Which Vancouver? The one in WA was the original settlement until large numbers of American settlers came into the Wilamette valley and the brits left for BC. I'm aware... The American influx/British exodus happened after the Oregon Treaty, and is the only reason why there are two Vancouvers. Fort Vancouver was a Hudson's Bay Company outpost, like most Canadian cities. And asking which Vancouver is like saying "Paris, Texas?" btw.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:59
|
|
Platystemon posted:I was going by the existence of the forty‐ninth parallel border. The 49th parallel border shown on the map was agreed upon in 1818. Columbia on the west coast was exempted until 1846. UnfortunateSexFart fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
UnfortunateSexFart posted:The 49th parallel border shown on the map was agreed upon in 1818. Columbia on the west coast was exempted until 1846. Oh right. I had repressed memories of the Mitchell Map.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Argentina's claim is based on the short time Spain controlled the islands, after the French and before the British. Since their claim on the rest of their territory is based on what Spain controlled in the past, it's not that crazy. Spain never had control or even claimed SGSSI or the South Orkneys, though. That said, sovereignty is a weird thing. According to the UN, there is one part of Europe that should be "decolonised", because Britain never did the whole "totally an integral part of the country" thing to the scale that France and Spain did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
TinTower posted:According to the UN, there is one part of Europe that should be "decolonised", because Britain never did the whole "totally an integral part of the country" thing to the scale that France and Spain did.  Topically, it's Gibraltar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Spain actually did a pretty poor job of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Spain actually did a pretty poor job of that. Well, imagine that you sleep in the metro, in a long travel, and when you awake theres a hobo claiming your foot is now his property. I have mostly to applaud UK love for subrealism to take that part of spain for themselves. Bravo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
UnfortunateSexFart posted:I'm aware... The American influx/British exodus happened after the Oregon Treaty, and is the only reason why there are two Vancouvers. Fort Vancouver was a Hudson's Bay Company outpost, like most Canadian cities. To be fair in the Pacific Northwest it is a 100% reasonable statement. Also again Transriver Portland was founded and incorporated first so the difference between Vancouver and Vancouver isn't one aping the bigger city. twoday posted:It's time for the Monday Maplete Challenge, kiddos! Columbia has more people than everything else on that map combined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
 Interactive Time-Lapse Map Shows How the U.S. Took More Than 1.5 Billion Acres From Native Americans
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
and then the ones that were left all started voting Republican
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 23:25
|
|
Jack2142 posted:To be fair in the Pacific Northwest it is a 100% reasonable statement. Also again Transriver Portland was founded and incorporated first so the difference between Vancouver and Vancouver isn't one aping the bigger city. Vancouver WA was a British/Canadian Hudson's Bay Company fort. Hudson's Bay Company was THE government for Canada at the time, with its own army and laws etc like the East India Company, so you can't think of it as just as a Canadian business either. It was as much part of Canada as anything. Vancouver BC exists as a major city only because of the Oregon Treaty. If our British overlords gave a poo poo about the PNW, the Columbia River was the obvious border choice and Vancouver WA would have been the jewel of western Canada with 2+ million people, especially considering that Vancouver BC is sadly the only place in Canada for people who don't want to freeze to death for six months per year. Vancouver BC in this alternate reality would still exist due to the importance of the Fraser River, probably as a smaller city with a different name. Seattle would also be significantly smaller/less important. And of course George Vancouver was a post-American revolution British explorer, probably not something Americans would call a settlement while simultaneously also erasing anything named after the British royalty. Edit: if you wanna see the west coast Canadian view of history in more detail, check out Kumtuks on YouTube. Very different from the American or even east coast Canadian view, arguably saying Columbia would have been better off as a separate, more liberal/progressive country. Although I guess a lot of Americans would say the same about their west coast these days. UnfortunateSexFart fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 03:50
|
|
