British have invaded nine out of ten countries.

Originally posted by gladtobehere

British have invaded nine out of ten countries - so look out Luxembourg.

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe. The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.

"The empire on which the sun never sets". Ahhh, so glorious, so proud.

Which is probably how its portrayed in their history books as opposed to a government and by extension a people who thought they were entitled to invade, attack, occupy and subjugate the rest of the globe.

1776 was the year that we in the US fought these occupiers and finally won our independence from a government who sought to over tax, over regulate and control us (sounds oddly familiar...).

Others werent as fortunate. It was just 1947 when the Indians gained their independence.

But thats the past. Lets be positive and look to the future. Wait, never-mind...

US, UK and France attack Libya.

Seems a bit ironic if you ask me. Here is a nation which (at one time or another) thought nothing of invading, attacking and occupying the entire globe yet they're really upset by foreigners who have entered their nation legally...

Karma anyone?

To be honest, you Brits should be thankful. IMHO, youre gettin' off easy.

edit on 4-6-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

I can get a gin and tonic and crispy chips anywhere in the world thanks to the British Empire.

Read up on the pirates of Tripoli before you shed tears.

reply to post by expatwhite


as a fellow Brit I have to agree,

we did rule the world at some point, then so did the Romans and countless empires throughout the ages.

if the OP looked through their own ancestry it is very probable you are European, after all the America's were settled by Europeans,Spanish, British, french etc. who then raped pillaged and murdered the true natives of the lands.

I also seem to struggle with the original quote, ` a new study has found` NEW?? its history, its not like we have only just realised.

you only have to look to the handover of Hong Kong back to china to gauge the impact the British there had, the people in HK didnt want it, most people of India hold the English in high regard also, especially the royal family. a positive impact was left, I hardly think the Vietnamese or Iraqis will hold the American governments in such high regard.

we aren't entirely innocent either, there are bad sides also, the OP in my mind has only confirmed that some people on here that are American seem to have an elitism view of the world

Originally posted by pigsy2400
the OP in my mind has only confirmed that some people on here that are American seem to have an elitism view of the world

Its called American exceptionlism.


And its a complete joke.


When the USA has survived longer than Britain as the world superpower then we can talk exceptionlism. In the meantime your just another bog standard superpower and the world has seen many come and go.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by expatwhite

 

Not at all.

I actually think that no nation has a right to attack another.

I'm also opposed to the US foreign empire.

But its interesting to note how no one (yet) seems to acknowledge how truly disgusting and barbaric of a policy this was and is...

Very telling, how groups will defend their own kind (right or wrong), simply because they are a part of that particular group.

edit on 4-6-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

Look up the definition of "empire." The US is not an empire. We'd have a lot more stuff if we were a true empire.

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.
I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world. [Applause.]

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

Colin Powell

what pigsy2400 and crazyewok said

I love you 2 right now!

reply to post by christafinias


i do think that England as it is now, does have inherent issues, we do have patriotic elements, some of which are racist and a lot that aren't.

reminds me of a quote from ``the football factory`` ``we are an island race`` we do not have borders in the traditional sense.

immigration is a hotly debated subject in the UK, but we also celebrate our multi culturism and diversity

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Other than a spectacularly poor trolling attempt, what is the point of your OP?

Over the course of history many nations have had empires. It just so happens that Britain is one of them.

Whats next? Are you going to try and troll Romans? "Pax Romana, its bad Karma"

edit on 4/6/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)

The purpose is to educate ATS members on genocides, crimes against humanity, and destruction of old growth forests spread world-wide by your pathetic Crown rulers and all subjects...including YOU...

Originally posted by Granite

The purpose is to educate ATS members on genocides, crimes against humanity, and destruction of old growth forests spread world-wide by your pathetic Crown rulers and all subjects...including YOU...

ooo some ones abit of a anglophobe.


Yeah ok me and all my countrymen will go and kill ourselfs

reply to post by Granite


Not subjects at all we are citizens....
May as well add yourself to the list eh? Trying to blame our ancestors for everything that is bad with the world is just silly.
I could list the great things the British empire did for the world but you already know them.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Look up the definition of "empire." The US is not an empire. We'd have a lot more stuff if we were a true empire.

Id invite you to do the same and learn the error of your ways.

Definition of Empire

noun

1an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state: [in names]:the Roman Empire
[mass noun] supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority:he encouraged the Greeks in their dream of empire in Asia Minor

2an extensive sphere of activity controlled by one person or group:the kitchen had once been the school dinner ladies' empire
a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group:her business empire grew

adjective
(Empire) [attributive]

1denoting a style of furniture, decoration, or dress fashionable chiefly during the First Empire in France. The decorative style was neoclassical but marked by an interest in Egyptian and other ancient motifs.

2British dated denoting produce from the Commonwealth.

Origin:

Middle English: via Old French from Latin imperium, related to imperare 'to command' (see emperor)

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Look up the definition of "empire." The US is not an empire. We'd have a lot more stuff if we were a true empire.

Id invite you to do the same and learn the error of your ways.

Definition of Empire

noun

1an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state: [in names]:the Roman Empire
[mass noun] supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority:he encouraged the Greeks in their dream of empire in Asia Minor

2an extensive sphere of activity controlled by one person or group:the kitchen had once been the school dinner ladies' empire
a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group:her business empire grew

adjective
(Empire) [attributive]

1denoting a style of furniture, decoration, or dress fashionable chiefly during the First Empire in France. The decorative style was neoclassical but marked by an interest in Egyptian and other ancient motifs.

2British dated denoting produce from the Commonwealth.

Origin:

Middle English: via Old French from Latin imperium, related to imperare 'to command' (see emperor)

Speaking of education, none of the above apply to the US. Influence, opinion, poke our noses in-/all granted. Rule, not so much.

I personally liked the British Invasion.



To each their own, however - everyone's a critic these days.

reply to post by gladtobehere


"A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe. The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British. "

you wish... !

such a pointless statement...
I know at least one other country in Europa where it is not the case, so this whole pink painted map is just a joke.

Don't you have other fears in you life you can focus on rather than making panic !?
It's not truth, so skip it...

($*^(%@^#%(!(_

think first before you post such nonsense !

Originally posted by KrzYma
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

"A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe. The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British. "

you wish... !

such a pointless statement...
I know at least one other country in Europa where it is not the case, so this whole pink painted map is just a joke.

Don't you have other fears in you life you can focus on rather than making panic !?
It's not truth, so skip it...

($*^(%@^#%(!(_

think first before you post such nonsense !

Shrug. Compare the social and technogical advantages of those taken over by the Brits compared to those who have not. Like the Ronans, the Brits tended to take education and civilization with them.0

reply to post by Freeborn

A kinder Empire?
You seem to be un-aware of proof of biological warfare perpatrated by British officers against Pontiac...small pox on blankets, etc., etc., etc..
Karma will really suck all right...

reply to post by Granite


So karma is going to get all us pesky Brits because some Brit did something bad long ago?


I could turn this around so easy....but hopefully you will see the error in your thinking and just retract that statement.

reply to post by gladtobehere



As someone else in the threads first page eluded to, define 'invaded'...

For my own country it was never invaded. Settlers were basically dumped on small sandy coastline beaches with their belongings and a hostile, dense and wild native bush sitting 30 feet away. Im sure the brochure didnt mention they'd have to hack a small area out for themselves and build a makeshift hut to live in (and there where alot of brochures used to get people to colonize my country).

Now you could call that an Invasion of a sort. It wasnt until a few decades latter that the settler governors began to be asses (it was mostly the ones that didnt identify themselves as being a new people in a new country) and treat the natives pretty badly that the natives more radical and galvanizing underbelly began to show up, in the end it culminated in the New Zealand land wars (yeah we had a war/s, who'd of thunk it). Thing is, in the end everyone fought everyone into a stale mate more or less, the crown couldnt be bothered sending more troops to the back end of the empire and many of the maori chiefs got fed up with their own firebrands and basically told them to quite making trouble and get on with trying to get along... hence our national treaty (that was all very paraphrased and it was alot more complex than that, but really both sides where at fault)... but look at us now.

The thing is, what would have happened had the British not 'invaded'?.. heck the french almost beat us to it, the dutch also could have claimed the country for their own at the start (look how that ended up for many an African, not insulting any Dutch mind you, just pointing out an unsavory possibility).

Britain settled countries, lots of em, often in a rather 'we take this land from you in the name of the queen/king' type way, thing is they where never really what you'd call tyrannical and in some cases they were pretty even handed about it, and eventually all of those countries where given back without any real issues and not to mention also allowed to stay in the commonwealth if they wanted.

Yeah its hardly a rosy history and yeah im an anglophile (hey im half british myself with a pining for my ancestral homeland) but I look at it this way...

How many times was Britain invaded during her history and had her people repressed by outsiders, you could say 9/10 countries once invaded Britain... im sure you can see where it might have all started from with that in mind. Was it right, guess not, but the British learned from it and became a better and far more tolerant people because of it (The things we took back or learned from these 'invaded' countries still exist as part of British culture today as do many absorbed and tailored parts of British culture exist in those 'invaded' countries) and it made them better, and even with its negatives that period of history made the world better as well. (tell an Indian that cricket should be thrown out because its a repressive sign of their colonial past with Britain, they'd laugh at you, and then tell a British person they cant eat curry as its not theirs, you'd get the same reaction and im sure both would look at you and laugh some more)

To my mind, had the British empire never existed, the world would now be a darker place (and by dark im not talking skin color, im sure someone might the wrong end of that stick) than it ever was during that period of history.

So yeah define 'invaded' and revise... and the laugh im sure has already been brought up, had the British empire never existed... America as we know it today wouldnt have either, imagine had it been French, guess we can dream cant we... on second thought, given British/French relations at that time, maybe that wouldnt be all that good either

Then again, cant change history... so why get uppity about it? try and at least learn from it and make a better future.

Meh should have read the thread entirely first, just said what everyone else has already done so. At least its good to see so many of us all share the same logical view about it.

edit2:- Whoops I replied to the wrong poster sorry NavyDoc

reply to post by NavyDoc


in this case China rules the world
check anything you've got where it's made... 99% China or PRC

anyway... I've meant "countries, British has taken by force"

An interesting thread.

Post-colonial debate is always lively with so many views.

I'm not quite sure of the methodology, or how they came to those countries or what they mean by "invasion".

I was surprised that Liberia and Ethiopia are not on the list, since neither were colonized by any European country.

An irony is that in some broad regions of the globe a lot of the "invaded" countries wouldn't even exist as countries if it wasn't for the British and their arrangements with other European powers.
In Africa that was fixed at the Berlin Conference of 1885, until World War I, when Germany lost colonies to Britain.

Some African dictators (like Robert Mugabe) don't like to be reminded that their countries (or as he once put it,"my Zimbabwe") and borders only exist because of the British.

South Africa wasn't a country when the British first invaded.
Sure, the British stole the mines from the Boer republics and defeated the Zulus, but they also created two independent African states within the borders of SA, i.e. Lesotho and Swaziland, which remain independent until this day.
Did they invade them or create them?
They did not exist in pre-colonial Africa as states.
South West Africa was German and Angola and Mozambique were Portuguese (not sure why the last two are red on the map, since they remained thus from the earliest explorers until independence in 1975).

Other areas only became British when the territories were taken from other colonial powers due to World Wars.
And many other peoples thought it was a good idea to support the pro-British powers in those wars.

It just seems a bit strange in the sense that one can invade continents and even territories, but how can one be accused of invading countries one has created and partitioned?

reply to post by BigfootNZ


Very well said...we shaped the world and I agree it was for the better.