Notable beauties.

*tree

3

Para ser declarado culpable de asesino debería haber sido juzgado y condenado por un juez. Lamentablemente nunca vamos a poder saber si era un asesino o no porque fue asesinado y su cuerpo desaparecido.

Yes it’s has been proof , is in documents that been published on books , like the ones of J B Jofre .

​@@JBGLXah, mirá que bueno. "Lo leí en un libro que tal es culpable ..." Falleció el estado de derecho.

@@lucianospaccesi7900 … documents published on books ! No such a thing “ estado de derecho “ is present in a military goverment . Clearly you admire Walsh , so why dont you do yourself a favor , and fly to La Havana , from Walsh wanted to “ import” to Argentina their way of running a country … comunism . And check by yourself how people lives there . Sorry , this was my las comment .

​@@JBGLX si como decís "no existe el estado de derecho en un gobierno militar" entonces estás reconociendo que un grupo de delincuentes se hizo con las atribuciones del estado y que por consiguiente los supuestos delitos de un particular son cosa muy menor al lado de los crímenes de estado de la junta militar. Mi país es Argentina y todavía no nació el Inglés o yanki que me venga a decir donde tengo que vivir.

There are people of Irish extraction in all levels of society. I'm living here the past two years and have met Irish-Argentine farmers, academics, veterinarians, priests, business people, landowners and more. The Irish wave of immigration was on the decline by the 1890's, its an old wave of immigration and most have integrated long ago and become criollo. They have a name for money now and many do have a lot of land/money, but many are regular folk too & those that integrated (and became mixed) are in all levels of society. I think the rich stereotype comes from the fact that those that do have land/money have a louder voice in the country and are very integral, and in fact seminal, parts of their respective towns and regions. Those left as a community often tend to be involved in agriculture, places like General Las Heras, San Antonio del Areco, Capilla del Señor. I even met a black taxi driver in Buenos Aires whose name was Coleman, he called me brother and "compatriota" (once I told him I was Irish), he said he was the only black Irish in the city jajaja

@@CharlieOBrienTF Many thanks for that. Very interesting.

They tried hard to keep their identity, and heritage, a little known fact here in Buenos Aires is that the football club Ferrocarril Oeste was founded by the Irish workers of the western-bound Argentine railway, and that they "battled" with thier bosses until they finally managed to have the club use green in thier shirts as homage to Ireland, (unknow by the English as Ireland was undergoing a "civil war" trying to gain independence from the British). To this day, the club's main entrance has 4 statues representing Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.

@@efudoishido7480 You say, "They tried hard to keep their identity, and heritage". So they were resistant to integration into wider Argentine society?

@@markaxworthy2508 Nope, what he meant (I'm an Argie) means simply that, like all the other immigrant communities, they took pride in having their own social institutions and marrying within the community. But intermixing with Spaniards and Italians and what not was unavoidable, because of law of sheer numbers. On the other hand, when Irish people in Argentina went to work (or were brought to work for English companies it was mainly because of the common English language and shared English/British ways of doing things (nothing to do with siesta/mid-afternoon naps as we do in Spain and Italy, being punctual, and so on). It doesn't mean that the Irish "submitted" in some way or another to the English. Keep in mind, although proud of their Irish identity, these irish folks had NOT suffered the famine and that, althoug surely resentful of English dominance over Ireland, did not hate the English per se, they probably regarded themselves as Irish British, which was the norm in Ireland herself despite the struggle for independence, in the sense that British way of thinking and doing things was already effectively ingrained in the Irish mentality. No "true Irish Celt" mentality was left in any of Ireland by the 1800s, adn presumably even before then. Ireland have been Anglicised enough, not completely, but enough.

No empire is good?.

​@@williamwallace4924go háirithe i nÉirinn mo chara!🇮🇪👍🏻💚☘

Overall, yes, Brutish empire bad, Spanish empire good. 1) The Brutish exterminated the natives and abhorred the very idea of mixing up with other races; the Spaniards didn't (disease spread was totally unintentional, but more immportantly, the Spanish mixed with the natives, giving the Latin American mestizos, and even today countries like Guatemala, Chile and Mexico boast 60% of natives; while the USA, Canada, Australia only 0.7% natives survive today). 2) The Brutish made it a very strict policy from the very begginning to close access to hospitals, schools, etc. to anybody not White; the Spaniards from the very begginning saw it just normal everyday stuff to open up hospitals, schools, etc. to natives and Blacks. 3) The Brutish made it a very strict policy from the very begginning to close access to civil and military positions to anybody not White; the Spaniards from the very begginning saw it just normal everyday stuff that natives and Blacks could access them too (there were a few natives Viceroys in Peru, for instance; never would any British ever conceived that). 4) The Brutish imposed the Transatlantic Slave Trade even on the Spanish empire, who were forced to buy Africans directly fromt he Brutish (Asiento de Negros rights everywhere in Spanish Americas following the Treaty of Utrecht). 5) The Brutish were extremely brutal in their treatment of natives and Blacks; the Spaniards took a much more gentle approach once the natives were submitted.

@@x2y3a1j5 What about the Spanish Inquisition, was that good. It was the British who stopped the slave trade. What about the roman empire, what did the romans ever do for us indigenous Celtic Britons.

@@williamwallace4924 For your information, seeing that you're full of Anglo-centric prejudices: 1) Contrary to Anglo-centric prejudices, the Spanish Inquisition NEVER had any jurisdiction whatsoever on them poor Jews and Moors, who could never be judged by the Inquisition. The inquisition was only authorized to judge on CONVERTS, suspected of holding on to their former religions. You circumcised sod, the moment you cross yourself, I'll havenews for ya! Now, move on and go argue your case at the baron's and good luck with that! 2) Contrary to Anglo-centric prejudices, considering the extreme brutality and everyday use of torture in feudal jurisdictions (all over Europe, England included) which was the custom at the time, the Inquisition brought a very modern invention, very welcomed by its victims: the appointment of LAWYERS who defended the accused (these lawyers being themselves priests of course, for it was a religious tribunal). This was specifically written in all the Bullies issued by the Popes and enforced by the kings. Moreover, the Bullies themselves specified that the use of torture had to be limited to 15 minutes/day and specified instructions on how to torture victimes "humanly", so to speak, and in the presence of one or several doctors. This was such an improvement over the traditional, secular justice, that victimes PREFERRED to be "questioned" by the Inquisition than being handed over to the much more brutal secular justice. 3) Contrary to Anglo-centric prejudices, the sheer volume of processes started by the Inquisition gave a consistent 97% rate of plain rejection to even start a procedure, seeing that the mass of accusations were merely bitter neighbour complains trying to rob other neighbours from their properties. Only the true "relapsed" Christians (that is, accused of practicing Jewish and Muslim religions in their homes) were ever tried, or those accused of witchcraft/sorcellery. 4) Concerning witchcfraft/sorcellery accusations, the sheer volume of trials made by the Inquisition and other Catholic jurisdictions show that the prosecution of such cases was significantly lower than in Protestant countries (for example, Scotland, then an ultracalvinist country, burned alive 7% of its total population, NEVER any such figure or anything apporaching it happened anywhere in Catholic territories). 5) During the approx. 300 years when the Spanish Inquisition was being effectively used, the total number of victims that were murdered/legally executed is around 3,000, a mere 10 executions/year. Contrast that number against the hundreds of thousands of "witches" burnt in Protestant Germany, Protest England, Protestant Netherlands in only a few years, or extend that to include the same 300 years; I guarantee you'll change your mind completely. Most of the "executions" consisted simply in burning effigies or portraits of the accused, specifically of their "former" Jew or Muslim selves, seeing that by the time a sentence was ready to be passed, the accused had already bought his way out of death via repentance + fine + contrition. So, many autodafés were made just to make peasants believe the Church was really fighting "heretics" while permitting those heretics to save their souls by conversion (again) to Catholicism. 6) Much more interesting, the Spanish Inquisition provided that a "repentant" person accused of relapsing into their old religion could pay a fine and skip both torture and execution, being merely disterred or banned form that particular town for 10 years. Not have money? No problem, say 100 Hail Marys, 100 Holy Father, 100 Credos, and do some pennance in the form of mandatory pilgrimage to 3 or 7 or 10 or 12 churches designated by the Tribunal, and you're good to go. Of course some scoundrel priests used the fine system to enrich themselves, but not the whole Inquisition as a system, who enriched itself via simply royal contributions just to protect the Crown and their favorites from the possibility us the peasants may eventually ask the Inquisition to bother them nobles too. 7) Not only the corresponding Wikipedia pages are a trove of information, much more interestingly the Vatican Archives have been opened to scholars from all over the world for the past 20 years or so iirc. So anybody can double- and triple-check each and every case, do their own math, and check against other scholars' maths. There's hardly ever a strong difference. 8) The Brutish Empire did not "stop" slavery. It only realized that techological improvements of their time (Watts' steam engines, etc.) and the very recent modern capitalism organization of exploiting workers for wages were far more efficient & profitable and thus slavery had turned into an economic burden rather than an advantage. Therefore, it made perfect sense to, in the one hand, jealously protect Brutish technological advance by preventing other rival powers from copying them while, on the other hand, simultaneously, economically hurting as much as possible same others under the pretence that, now, slavery was not right and had to be stopped. It wasn't an act of charity or of sudden moral awakening to the atrocities of slavery, it was only a war on the economies of rival powers disguised under a moral pretext, much like the Yankees today yell "freedom and democracy!" and dutifully bring it about via massive carpet bombings and invasions whenever a poor guy in some s#!thole country discovers oil somewhere. 8) Celt Bruttons were provided BATH complexes and sanitation by the Romans, and that's all you need to know. Nevermind an alphabet, laws, etc. Judging by the state of NHS and the general dental health of current-day Bruttons, the SELF-GERMANIZED "Celtic" Bruttons -who for 1,600 years have consistently slaughtered their Celtic neighbours in Wales, Scotland and Ireland- and the utter histerical nonsense of Brexit, one must concede that Romans should have never wasted their time and efforts in England in the first place and leave it to its own demise, and should have chose to civilise Wales, Ireland and Scotland instead. Scottish weather being what it is, plus Pict & Caledonian general hostility to whatever reeks of soap & water, the Romans were absolutely right in building that wall to let them enjoy their filth, err, "culture". The Welsh were hiding in their hobbit holes, and the Irish were merely ignored.

I don't usually comment on these threads, but both men in the conversation have PhDs in Irish history. It isn't a case of 'nordie nationalists' discussing Irish history as you so put it.

@@historynownvtv4519 They can have all the garlands in the world but there has been a particular slant on Irish history (particularly but not exclusively) by nordie nationalists, that only a UI can resolve in their view. That only contributes to the still sectarian NI unfortunately. It is well about time for a bit of revisionism.

​@@peterincork3121given that the topic of discussion is on Argentina, I can only conclude that you haven't watched the video. All the best.

@@historynownvtv4519 Yes I have watched it, thanks very much.

We are Northern Irish,not Nordies.Our capital is Dublin just like you.Our countrymen divided our beautiful land. People like you.Eire will always be 32 counties.The Gaa loves the North we pack the stadium.

Southern Cross in Victoria Australia flag. Victoria has a good Irish history.

I think you're mixing up different things. The Argentine-Irish, while overall more "conservative" than Argentine-Italians or Argentine-Spaniards (because of the British-infused mentality), are notwithstanding a divided community like the rest, meaning the younger generations are more progressive and in favour of wealth redistribution, and the older generation being against. This is universal, no matter the place and the lineage, because it's a generational thing, nothing to do with ancestry. Re his 3-months stay in Dublin, it didn't change anything for him, as we was attending formal theology training, not helping with any poor-oriented parish. He developed his lefty views slowly over time, and there's no way 3 months somewhere could have changed his mind. I remember very well explaining to my ultra-conservative, Opus Dei leaning relatives in Italy that Pope Francis was a conservative at heart (he wasn't known before his election to Pontificy as a vocal supporter of anything lefty) with a superficial modern veneer. I was wrong and I'm the more happy about that. Pope Francis is quite happy with any priest feeling the fire of vocation, he doesn't care much whether the priest or nun is a conservative or a communist. His main point is that you can be all the conservative you want, but in order to be a true Catholic, then you'd better stick to Christ's example itself -specifically, compassion and humility- rather than with traditional Catholic teachings, which go boradly against the teachings of Christ.

The catholic church bred fascists, was in bed with fascists, would not give Jewish children refuge here but facilitated the escape and sanctuary of Nazi soldiers escaping punishment out of Europe. Pulpit politics was their game and defending Franco was their sermon. If it looks like a duck.

Honest criticism is healthy. If you cannot accept honest criticism, you need to look at your values.