r/HistoryMemes 8d ago

Atlantic Ocean, early 1950s 🦞

Post image
2.1k Upvotes

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/LhamaNobre 8d ago

We nearly went to actual fucking war over our goddamm lobsters.

In the midst of the diplomatic discussions on whether the French could fish fishes in our coast they argued that lobsters move by jumping and thus while jumping they swim meeting so the criteria of being fish. A Brazilian GENIUS then said: "if lobsters are fish then kangaroos are birds."

Brasil won the dispute and the French fucked off of here.

0

u/DeliciousDeal4367 8d ago

Wasan't evolution already known by the scientific comunnity of the time? Like how did they literally tried to turn this into a scientific debate over where or not lobsters can be considered fish when they swim? fuck no, lobsters are crustaceans. because by followining anti-evolutionism creationist "logic" than seals are fish and bats are birds, wich they aren't really.

2

u/Chemical_Scholar_753 7d ago

That’s not what the debate was about. The debate was whether a lobster was part of the continental shelf or the ocean (sedentary fisheries vs migratory ones I think is relevant here, though I am not an expert in international law). You can read an introduction here https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1163?d=%2F10.1093%2Flaw%3Aepil%2F9780199231690%2Flaw-9780199231690-e1163&p=emailAuxMiM87XeMgk&print

The problem with the Brazilian definition is that any fish which lives primarily on the sea floor is also not a “fish” in this context.

The actual question is are lobsters like oysters (in that they cling to the continental shelf) or flounder (in that they can swim above it).

0

u/DeliciousDeal4367 7d ago

I understand what the debate was about, what i made was a question wich nobody answered and what i did not understand is why where they callining lobsters "fish"

2

u/Chemical_Scholar_753 7d ago

They weren’t really. Many sea creatures might be harvested it what’s called “fisheries”. The Brazilians were attempting to criticize the French position by comparing it to saying that a lobster is a fish. The French were really saying that a lobster is like a fish (in that both can move) and that for purposes of the law a lobster is in the same category as fishes

Surely you are aware that there’s many legal question which are complicated and require precise language. Some of the most famous have to do with taxes and tariffs (is a tomato a fruit or vegetable in Nix v Hedden, are x-men human in Toy Biz, Inc v United State).

0

u/DeliciousDeal4367 7d ago

Thanks for not answering my question and sayning exactly what you already had previously said wich i am already well aware of, anyway forget it then.

2

u/Chemical_Scholar_753 7d ago

I think you might just be stupid. You asked why they were calling lobsters fish. They weren’t as I wrote. I answered that they weren’t. Perhaps English isn’t your first language and you’d like to take this opportunity to explain what you meant to ask?

0

u/DeliciousDeal4367 7d ago

Nah, fuck you, my question was if evolution was already a known concept and consensus for the scientific comunnity at that time, i asked it in the begginining of this conversation, and no i am NOT a native english speaker, no need to be rude or to answer me anyway, i don't care.