British have invaded nine out of ten countries.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Ahhh yeah, the good old British Empire and don't forgot we also brought the world the concentration camp, we're innovative don't ya know

And also, I'm a fan of Noam Chomsky, in regards to the future, here's some of what he has to say on that:

whatonline.org...

edit on 5-6-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

Your history needs brushing up. The British didn't bring the worlds first concentration camp. That "Honour" goes to the Spanish in Cuba in 1896:-

www.infoplease.com...

I could say the same to you, it's debatable as the British used them during the Boer War

Or you could say they were first during the American Civil War, depending on your own classification of what a concentration camp actually is.

The SECOND Anglo-Boer War began in 1899. That's when the use of concentration camps by the British began. Not in 1886 when the Spanish had began using camps in Cuba.
I won't make any charge for the history lesson.

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

1776 was the year that we in the US fought these occupiers

Native American are you?

There is no such thing as "Native Americans", just tribal's from Siberia that hunted down and eliminated the original Caucasian inhabitants of the "New World".

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Ahhh yeah, the good old British Empire and don't forgot we also brought the world the concentration camp, we're innovative don't ya know

And also, I'm a fan of Noam Chomsky, in regards to the future, here's some of what he has to say on that:

whatonline.org...

edit on 5-6-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

Your history needs brushing up. The British didn't bring the worlds first concentration camp. That "Honour" goes to the Spanish in Cuba in 1896:-

www.infoplease.com...

I could say the same to you, it's debatable as the British used them during the Boer War

Or you could say they were first during the American Civil War, depending on your own classification of what a concentration camp actually is.

The SECOND Anglo-Boer War began in 1899. That's when the use of concentration camps by the British began. Not in 1886 when the Spanish had began using camps in Cuba.
I won't make any charge for the history lesson.

That important to you, huh? I wouldn't have paid you anyway, the lesson didn't teach me anything new

Originally posted by alldaylong


The SECOND Anglo-Boer War began in 1899. That's when the use of concentration camps by the British began. Not in 1886 when the Spanish had began using camps in Cuba.
I won't make any charge for the history lesson.

Aye, the British where he first to use concentration camps on Civilians. The British couldn't beat a people without a standing army so they dedicated themselves to the genocide of the Boers if the Boers didn't surrender.

Originally posted by pikestaff
Thinking about the isles of Britannia, a name given to the UK by the Romans, the first to mount a sword carrying invasion, seems the Brits have had their fair share of invasions, starting with the Romans, then, after the Romans left, as they were suffering invasions of their own, we have the Gauls, Picts, Saxons, Vikings (also known as 'Norsmen') the French on various occasions, and the Hugeanoes who actually stayed, almost forgot the Angles, where the Brits get 'Anglo-Saxon' from, Oh yes, the Danes, had some interest in Britannia too.

this is not all correct.
the gauls were mainland celts, they never set foot in britain. picts were celts who lived in scotland and they never invaded south due to hadrians wall and a desire to be left alone.
vikings are not a people, it's an occupation, it's a norse word for river that developed into the norse term for raiding, to go viking is to go raiding.
it's norseman, not norsman, the anglos and the saxons were both norse or germanic tribes that invaded england at various points around the 5th to 10th centuries.
the french never invaded britain, the normans did, they were a germanic people from normandy who adopted french and passed it on to britian.
what evidence do you have that the danes were interested in britain?

who are the "Hugeanoes"? all i could find was some christian sect from the 16th-17th century.

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by alldaylong


The SECOND Anglo-Boer War began in 1899. That's when the use of concentration camps by the British began. Not in 1886 when the Spanish had began using camps in Cuba.
I won't make any charge for the history lesson.

Aye, the British where he first to use concentration camps on Civilians. The British couldn't beat a people without a standing army so they dedicated themselves to the genocide of the Boers if the Boers didn't surrender.

edit on 5-6-2013 by korathin because: (no reason given)

Someone else who doesn't know history. Read this under the section "Cuba" and learn:-

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by FawnyKate
Think about it, If the War of Independance was won by the British, wouldn't the world be such a nicer place ?

I think it might.

i doubt it, america was the first country to really show that you don't need leaders who get their authority from gods.
it showed that men's birth has no relevance to their abilities, nor does a crown make one a leader.

of course there were bad things that happened, like the french revolution, which had a pretty scary outcome, but the good out weighted the bad.

i think self-determination is good and if america hadn't won, i doubt we would have what we have now.


i still love the UK though! america is a great place to live but i'd love to go back to the UK again, i am a bit jealous, it's hard to find good fish and chips here in the US and they have doctor who.

nov is too far away!

Originally posted by demongoat

Originally posted by pikestaff
Thinking about the isles of Britannia, a name given to the UK by the Romans, the first to mount a sword carrying invasion, seems the Brits have had their fair share of invasions, starting with the Romans, then, after the Romans left, as they were suffering invasions of their own, we have the Gauls, Picts, Saxons, Vikings (also known as 'Norsmen') the French on various occasions, and the Hugeanoes who actually stayed, almost forgot the Angles, where the Brits get 'Anglo-Saxon' from, Oh yes, the Danes, had some interest in Britannia too.

this is not all correct.
the gauls were mainland celts, they never set foot in britain. picts were celts who lived in scotland and they never invaded south due to hadrians wall and a desire to be left alone.
vikings are not a people, it's an occupation, it's a norse word for river that developed into the norse term for raiding, to go viking is to go raiding.
it's norseman, not norsman, the anglos and the saxons were both norse or germanic tribes that invaded england at various points around the 5th to 10th centuries.
the french never invaded britain, the normans did, they were a germanic people from normandy who adopted french and passed it on to britian.
what evidence do you have that the danes were interested in britain?

who are the "Hugeanoes"? all i could find was some christian sect from the 16th-17th century.

edit on 5-6-2013 by demongoat because: (no reason given)

Errm, the bit about Danes having an interest in Britain? Danegeld kind of answers that question does it not?

The Huguenots relocated to Britain (and many other countries including America), but invasion is hardly the correct word, they fled to escape persecution.

reply to post by korathin

There is no such thing as "Native Americans", just tribal's from Siberia that hunted down and eliminated the original Caucasian inhabitants of the "New World".

Yeah well, you'd be wrong eh?

Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct Native American tribes and ethnic groups, many of which survive as intact political communities

Native American - encyclopedia britannica

Native American, also called American Indian, Amerindian, Amerind, Indian, aboriginal American, or First Nation person, member of any of the aboriginal peoples of the Western Hemisphere, although the term often connotes only those groups whose original territories were in present-day Canada and the United States.

Native American - Oxford English Dictionary

Definition of Native American, noun:

a member of any of the indigenous peoples of North and South America and the Caribbean Islands.

Native Americans - National Geographic

Native Americans This collection contains a selection of content from NG Education about Native Americans

Native Americans - BBC World Service Documentary

National Museum of the American Indian - Smithsonian



I hope this goes some way to show you just how wrong you are.

Personally, my pride is based on the positive outcomes. Let's not blind ourselves with the polarized arguments that often reflect lack of thought or a projection of ego. What do I mean by positive outcomes? Intelligent people, advances in science, Art and so on, those are things I am proud off in regards to being British. On the other hand war, slavery and other parts of our history I find appalling. In the case of this thread we have two sides who chose not to accept the entirety which as always leads to no enlightening conclusion.

To summarize, the British have done good, they have also done bad, I know this conclusion seems simple but it is hard to digest for some it seems. I will only judge a nation by the current living(adult) generation, this seems like the most logical approach to me. I don't think any of us should feel guilty or responsible for anything that happened beyond our own lifetime.

This is more of a response to posters comments and biased arguments rather than the OP's facts.

Since we're re-digressing and re-visiting the past, why stop with Britain? Why not the Greeks, Romans, Turks, Persians, Mongols, Vikings, Portugese, French, Spaniards etc etc Every dynasty/kingdom/empire had screwed other countries or in many cases each other (ME is a perfect example) at one point in time. Hell nobody knows the accurate history past few thousands years What we do know that is written (hopefully verbatim and not twisted, distorted, misinterpreted etc etc) is very recent in terms of the human experience

Originally posted by demongoat

i doubt it, america was the first country to really show that you don't need leaders who get their authority from gods.
it showed that men's birth has no relevance to their abilities, nor does a crown make one a leader.

Really? A lot of Americans Also seem to believe this, having swallowed their own nationalistic propaganda stories, but it takes no account of the English Civil War of well over a century earlier.

Regarding the OP, I think it can be fairly said that the Britain's positive contributions to the world in terms of learning, the rule of law (the US constitution is derived from English Common Law remember) science and the arts goes a long way towards mitigating the negative aspects you highlighted. Further mitigation also comes from the fact that Britain was the first nation in history to willingly withdraw from empire and to attempt (not always successfully) to do this in an orderly and methodical manner. There is also the rather important fact of Britain taking the hard decision to continue the war against Hitler in 1940 when a rather agreeable (in terms of self interest) alternative was on a plate.

It is puerile to try and castigate a nation for its wrongdoings (over several millennia when it was far from one way!). History and national identity are far more complex than that.

Yes we freaking rule!!!!! please..... You would think we never got invaded ourselves.The OP comes off as if England is where humans spread out to populate not just conquer the world from day one!
Whilst you have to ask yourself how we wielded so much power and influence across the globe for the size of MY country, it was a pretty impressive feat BUT times change and we could not do this again.Oh wait er we are still doing it! Well i guess we just can't help ourselves.

we still bully other nations and fight these futile wars/invasions. But it's not like we go on and on about how great we were in the past It's just no big deal to the average Brit.
Take the USA they go on about the battle for independence all the time they even celebrate independence day! jesus if we celebrated every invasion with a holiday we would never be at work LOL

Lighten up, The USA and UK are allies and as such I/we(Brit's) class them as friends.
It's not a pissing contest.

reply to post by gladtobehere


dude you're funny. how do you know you would even be typing on that computer on this internet if the Brits didnt occupy most of the planet. you can thank them for the english you're speaking.

you can actually thank all the empires.. if they didn't spread technology and people around we would all be living in stick houses still. america is doing it today , leads the way , china hacks it.

Originally posted by stealthyaroura
jesus if we celebrated every invasion with a holiday we would never be at work LOL

This is news to me. The Brits work?

My impression of the Brits is that they are celebrating all those victorious invasions every single day. They even have a special place for the daily celebrations.

It's called the "pub".

All Roads Lead to Rome !

reply to post by gladtobehere


I'm not usually one to take a stance for starting conflicts in the name of greed but look on the bright side - British imperialism made the world much smaller.

Given Hollywood usually portrays the British guy as the baddie (a stereotype that doesn't offend, btw) I'm going to say - yes, we had an Empire. And it was huge. And we'd do it again, ten times over!