Football » English » Open Discussion

British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By naftalichase - 06-11-2012 23:56

Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html#disqus_threadBritain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html#disqus_thread

 

Page 1

 

Reply

Last Message

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By kingjaime - 07-11-2012 00:05

[BVB]

(1) And a lot of good it ultimately did them. (2) "achieved by this country" ...ffs... I hate reference to Britain as a country. (3) A bit fanciful when you see the justification for some (state sanctioned pirate raids for example). (4) Please don't let any of the less intelligent members of the Argentine userbase come by... I couldn't decide how to reply.(1) And a lot of good it ultimately did them.
(2) "achieved by this country" ...ffs... I hate reference to Britain as a country.
(3) A bit fanciful when you see the justification for some (state sanctioned pirate raids for example).
(4) Please don't let any of the less intelligent members of the Argentine userbase come by...

I couldn't decide how to reply.

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By heddo - 07-11-2012 01:45

well what about the romans and the vikings and the spanish,did we invade or were we simply exploring, we havent invaded the moon or mars, but our travels via the seaward passages of the earth were in the same veins of exploration as space exploration , the only problem we had, was that on finding and adding areas to the map, we tended to declare them as property of our own, but were there not empires declared before our own empire. i think we just kicked on after the romans,they gave us the inspiration, i still havent got round to visiting Bath, and walking the full length of Hadrians Wall..well what about the romans and the vikings and the spanish,did we invade or were we simply exploring, we havent invaded the moon or mars, but our travels via the seaward passages of the earth were in the same veins of exploration as space exploration , the only problem we had, was that on finding and adding areas to the map, we tended to declare them as property of our own, but were there not empires declared before our own empire. i think we just kicked on after the romans,they gave us the inspiration, i still havent got round to visiting Bath, and walking the full length of Hadrians Wall..

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By troyh65 - 14-11-2012 10:09

[Juve]

They invaded Australia and killed quite a few tribes of Aborigines.They invaded Australia and killed quite a few tribes of Aborigines.

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By naftalichase - 23-05-2013 19:06

As Usual

troyh65 wrote:

They invaded Australia and killed quite a few tribes of Aborigines.

As Usual

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By frankzappa - 23-05-2013 20:53

[KERNOW]
President

When do we get to invade Mexico?When do we get to invade Mexico?

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By frankzappa - 23-05-2013 20:55

[KERNOW]
President

*Again ;)*Again ;)

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By celticvilla - 23-05-2013 21:52

(1) Yeah, that’s why a whole bunch of them decided they wanted independence; because of all the good that was happening. India was all like "A lot of good has come from this Empire, but hey ho, times are a changing, don't want to be behind the times, I want independence." - Those are in fact the exact words Ghandi used. I mean Africa, all of the countries within that continent did well from the slave trade. Don't get me started on how well they dealt with Ireland, I mean that was a complete success (and still is). - Who even needs native languages anyway? Or locals for that matter. Better off being British (as long as they are of good standard, that is). (2) Quite an irrelevant point, but giving Scotland and Wales its recognition, looking out for Scotland, if you will. I like that... Despite the whole, let’s get the Scots in the front line to fight every battle for the empire, (if we have ran out of the native mercenaries) they're good. - I honestly can't see how anyone can justify British occupation of any country and the Empire. The destruction and the murder. Oh, but its okay, we taught them how to read and write, gave them a good railway system so we could take the resources out of their country. Having the cheek to call it their God given right. No one, can sit there and tell me that the British Empire were in those countries for the benefit of anything other than crown and country. We (I say we, because I am British) went into these 'barbaric' lands not to make them more civil, but to take. We still have the aristocratic thinking today. The [b][i][u]Prime minister[/u][/i][/b] went to [b][i][u]Eaton[/u][/i][/b] - You can't even work as a janitor there without owning estates in Kenya and Chesire. The form to enter the school grounds has to be filled out from the ink of an extinct animal and written with a feather of a dodo bird. Now before I get any stick, I want to make this final point very clear. I am British, I love it here, I don't hate the Queen. I am making these points not to be un-patriotic but to let you know, Jaime, that the Argentine user you attempted to make a fool of had a point. His motives for posting here may have been ambiguous, (who comes on a fantasy football website, onto the English side of which there will be Brits to talk about their Empire...?) It seems odd and I don't agree with it, nor do I agree with the fact that we should have been in those countries. Or that we did them good. Because if there was a country that had nothing, I mean no resources, no goods to sell, nothing but good people in it getting murdered by savages The British Empire (or any other empire for that matter - for they were mostly all the same, apart from the French, they seemed to be the most brutal when it came to conquest) would not have been in that country. I also make the point that I would criticize the Roman Catholic Church (which I a devote member of) of its dealings that time, Borgia’s, inquisitions etc etc, but I am still a Catholic.

kingjaime wrote:

(1) And a lot of good it ultimately did them.
(2) "achieved by this country" ...ffs... I hate reference to Britain as a country.
(3) A bit fanciful when you see the justification for some (state sanctioned pirate raids for example).
(4) Please don't let any of the less intelligent members of the Argentine userbase come by...

I couldn't decide how to reply.

(1) Yeah, that’s why a whole bunch of them decided they wanted independence; because of all the good that was happening. India was all like "A lot of good has come from this Empire, but hey ho, times are a changing, don't want to be behind the times, I want independence." - Those are in fact the exact words Ghandi used. I mean Africa, all of the countries within that continent did well from the slave trade. Don't get me started on how well they dealt with Ireland, I mean that was a complete success (and still is). - Who even needs native languages anyway? Or locals for that matter. Better off being British (as long as they are of good standard, that is).
(2) Quite an irrelevant point, but giving Scotland and Wales its recognition, looking out for Scotland, if you will. I like that... Despite the whole, let’s get the Scots in the front line to fight every battle for the empire, (if we have ran out of the native mercenaries) they're good.

- I honestly can't see how anyone can justify British occupation of any country and the Empire. The destruction and the murder. Oh, but its okay, we taught them how to read and write, gave them a good railway system so we could take the resources out of their country. Having the cheek to call it their God given right.

No one, can sit there and tell me that the British Empire were in those countries for the benefit of anything other than crown and country. We (I say we, because I am British) went into these 'barbaric' lands not to make them more civil, but to take. We still have the aristocratic thinking today. The Prime minister went to Eaton - You can't even work as a janitor there without owning estates in Kenya and Chesire. The form to enter the school grounds has to be filled out from the ink of an extinct animal and written with a feather of a dodo bird.

Now before I get any stick, I want to make this final point very clear.
I am British, I love it here, I don't hate the Queen. I am making these points not to be un-patriotic but to let you know, Jaime, that the Argentine user you attempted to make a fool of had a point. His motives for posting here may have been ambiguous, (who comes on a fantasy football website, onto the English side of which there will be Brits to talk about their Empire...?) It seems odd and I don't agree with it, nor do I agree with the fact that we should have been in those countries. Or that we did them good. Because if there was a country that had nothing, I mean no resources, no goods to sell, nothing but good people in it getting murdered by savages The British Empire (or any other empire for that matter - for they were mostly all the same, apart from the French, they seemed to be the most brutal when it came to conquest) would not have been in that country.

I also make the point that I would criticize the Roman Catholic Church (which I a devote member of) of its dealings that time, Borgia’s, inquisitions etc etc, but I am still a Catholic.

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By kingjaime - 23-05-2013 23:00

[BVB]

I know not how much of your reply is directed at what I said, just the numbered points or the whole lot, but in any case I think you misunderstand. You've read (1) as meaning some sort of jingoistic "We brought civilization to them!" type hyperbole. No. Rather I mean for the vast majority "Independence" meant either that they were left to descend into civil war and ongoing conflict or "domestic abuse" (one of their own as corrupt/brutal ruler) thanks to the power vacuum or, especially with those that had valuable natural resources, their country might technically have become freed from obvious foreign government, but that in truth most were still subject to significant influence and control through sanctions, contracts, aid-reliance and because industry related to natural resources would largely be privately owned and controlled by businesses in league with those foreign governments. Specifically, the African slave trade wasn't as simplistic as Africans kidnapped and stolen by the West, not exclusively. Tribal chiefs were also involved in trading their own people for whatever goods or services took their fancy. They treated their own as a resource and as callously as the Western slavers. Ireland's a different matter entirely, with a different and much more lengthy history. No idea what point you're making with (2), I made a passing reference to my dislike for reference to Britain as a country, because that happens a lot and it isn't. Not that I think it's the gist of what I was saying, and indeed your non-numbered writing might not be directed to me, but what you'd have to try to read up on to understand why some people do not see British occupation as entirely bad, is what the situations were in some of those countries prior to it and, if less so, what it became afterwards. Let's consider one of the most simplistic: More than one country was subject to ongoing murder and destruction through civil conflict involving rival factions prior to the arrival of the British. The British suppressed those domestic factions and established stability. In some cases, when the British left, these factions were no longer in conflict, and so the British did some good. In others, once the British left, those factions (or new ones) emerged again, so some might say, because of that loss of stability and relative security, it wasn't the best thing for the people to see the British leave. Whatever the motivation in being there, if the effect is stability and security, isn't that what the average person will value? Let's imagine in cases of natural resources exploitation/theft, the natives had been left alone. Who do you think would benefit from them? Would they have developed into socialist or communist paradises where all the locals share in the wealth? Or would whatever local tribal leader or warlord proved most ruthless, come to power and exploit them for gain diverted exclusively to themselves and those they favoured? I don't see these factors make much odds to the average person. If England had huge deposits of diamonds and gold, what odds does it make to me if a foreign government exploits them or a corrupt local warlord, or a private business? I'm not seeing any of it any which way. Stability and security however would be a concern to all. I'm playing Devil's Advocate somewhat, but regardless I do believe you can't simplify it to "universally and always negative" any more than "universally and always positive". Ah, now I read far enough I see it is all directed to me. You incorrectly also think I intend to make a fool of an Argentine. I had no intention of making the opening author look a fool, I replied to the article, nothing directed at him personally. And he's a Mexican btw, judging by his flag, not an Argentine. I have no great love for Britain, nor our politics then or now, nor our foreign policy then or now. Nor the queen. Nor this or most of the previous prime ministers. Nor the opposition leaders. And finally, the roman catholic church. Yes, a few spots of blood on their hands for all that distant past hey, a couple of skeletons here and there, luckily nothing much to answer for or take responsibility for in more modern times. If you're devout, presumably that means you properly believe in a single god as an all-powerful and loving figure, and so have some rationalization why he'd have permitted all this empire building to have happened if it was all so negative and evil. Perhaps if the victims of it had preemptively or very quickly converted and been particularly pious they'd have been spared. We can only wonder.I know not how much of your reply is directed at what I said, just the numbered points or the whole lot, but in any case I think you misunderstand. You've read (1) as meaning some sort of jingoistic "We brought civilization to them!" type hyperbole. No. Rather I mean for the vast majority "Independence" meant either that they were left to descend into civil war and ongoing conflict or "domestic abuse" (one of their own as corrupt/brutal ruler) thanks to the power vacuum or, especially with those that had valuable natural resources, their country might technically have become freed from obvious foreign government, but that in truth most were still subject to significant influence and control through sanctions, contracts, aid-reliance and because industry related to natural resources would largely be privately owned and controlled by businesses in league with those foreign governments. Specifically, the African slave trade wasn't as simplistic as Africans kidnapped and stolen by the West, not exclusively. Tribal chiefs were also involved in trading their own people for whatever goods or services took their fancy. They treated their own as a resource and as callously as the Western slavers. Ireland's a different matter entirely, with a different and much more lengthy history. No idea what point you're making with (2), I made a passing reference to my dislike for reference to Britain as a country, because that happens a lot and it isn't.

Not that I think it's the gist of what I was saying, and indeed your non-numbered writing might not be directed to me, but what you'd have to try to read up on to understand why some people do not see British occupation as entirely bad, is what the situations were in some of those countries prior to it and, if less so, what it became afterwards. Let's consider one of the most simplistic: More than one country was subject to ongoing murder and destruction through civil conflict involving rival factions prior to the arrival of the British. The British suppressed those domestic factions and established stability. In some cases, when the British left, these factions were no longer in conflict, and so the British did some good. In others, once the British left, those factions (or new ones) emerged again, so some might say, because of that loss of stability and relative security, it wasn't the best thing for the people to see the British leave. Whatever the motivation in being there, if the effect is stability and security, isn't that what the average person will value? Let's imagine in cases of natural resources exploitation/theft, the natives had been left alone. Who do you think would benefit from them? Would they have developed into socialist or communist paradises where all the locals share in the wealth? Or would whatever local tribal leader or warlord proved most ruthless, come to power and exploit them for gain diverted exclusively to themselves and those they favoured? I don't see these factors make much odds to the average person. If England had huge deposits of diamonds and gold, what odds does it make to me if a foreign government exploits them or a corrupt local warlord, or a private business? I'm not seeing any of it any which way. Stability and security however would be a concern to all. I'm playing Devil's Advocate somewhat, but regardless I do believe you can't simplify it to "universally and always negative" any more than "universally and always positive".

Ah, now I read far enough I see it is all directed to me. You incorrectly also think I intend to make a fool of an Argentine. I had no intention of making the opening author look a fool, I replied to the article, nothing directed at him personally. And he's a Mexican btw, judging by his flag, not an Argentine.

I have no great love for Britain, nor our politics then or now, nor our foreign policy then or now. Nor the queen. Nor this or most of the previous prime ministers. Nor the opposition leaders. And finally, the roman catholic church. Yes, a few spots of blood on their hands for all that distant past hey, a couple of skeletons here and there, luckily nothing much to answer for or take responsibility for in more modern times. If you're devout, presumably that means you properly believe in a single god as an all-powerful and loving figure, and so have some rationalization why he'd have permitted all this empire building to have happened if it was all so negative and evil. Perhaps if the victims of it had preemptively or very quickly converted and been particularly pious they'd have been spared. We can only wonder.

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By celticvilla - 24-05-2013 00:17

I will number my points so that you may counter them 1- African kleptocracy is a product of the British Empire. Mugabe and Amin ( I use these are they are the most famous) were educated by the British and were the army of the British. But the question is, did the British Empire do good for them. You have enough common sense to know that the natural resources before the British Empire came in were in more abundance than that of when they left. Essentially, every empire came into Africa, the pot of Gold, and sucked it out of it, then skedaddled. You said Jaime that they came in and settled disputes? Like they did with Catholics and Protestants in Ireland? That point is baffling me. Perhaps if you gave an example in which a settlement was made between rival factions in which was the justification of British Occupation over a nation (even if not justifications, just an example in which a settlement was created in which there were three benefactors, (1) the general public, (2+3) the two tribes) EVEN STILL. Those people had their disputes settles at the expense of what? A loss of language, gold and culture? 2- I think you will find many thousands of tribal leaders were killed in lack of co-operation with slave traders. To think that the British were handed slaves by the natives own kind is naive, if there was resistance they were slaughtered, so there is hardly any blame on those few who did decide to cooperate for the greater good. The South African locals signed a legal document to the whites giving them land, could they speak Dutch? No? The leaders of those tribes didn't understand the implications of their actions, that doesn't give justification to say they were lawless people that needed to be taken over. 3- Again I make this point, war lords and kleptocracy is a product of colonization. It was the French that taught the Sioux scalping! Your argument that if resources remained in that country that warlords would take over to splendor would be more likely than socialism doesn't make sense... The UAE, a relatively anonymous country at its formation 20 odd years ago, led by tribal leaders, living in relative harmony. Oil is then mass sold and what happened? A stable government? Peace? Extremely rich locals? You don't say. Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, UAE and Bahrain? All living in relative harmony despite having resources! Its peoples living luxurious lives and hardly any economic inequality! Well slap my ass on a sunday. Your argument is essentially what you said it wasn't... "some sort of jingoistic "We brought civilization to them!" type hyperbole". Stability was essentially lost because Empires sucked everything out. There was stability amongst tribes, an understanding of what goes where. Everything would evolve but Britain forced it and then left. I don't understand how you can sit there and argue for Imperialism since no one has done since the abolishment of ivory sales. 4- I immediately face palmed when I noticed that the author was Mexican, not Argentinian. I thought you were being patronizing to the Argentine community, which I'm not quite sure you are or are not, but will ask that me saying that as a point be stricken from the record. 5- Oh yes, the dig at the Religious. I do believe in God. I answer to God, not for God. I do not have answers nor rationalizations to why the British were allowed to do what they did other than I have allowed it to happen. Devine intervention in the scale in which you are talking about hasn’t happened since Sodom… 6- The point on Ireland... you said "Ireland's a different matter entirely, with a different and much more lengthy history". How so?I will number my points so that you may counter them
1- African kleptocracy is a product of the British Empire. Mugabe and Amin ( I use these are they are the most famous) were educated by the British and were the army of the British. But the question is, did the British Empire do good for them. You have enough common sense to know that the natural resources before the British Empire came in were in more abundance than that of when they left. Essentially, every empire came into Africa, the pot of Gold, and sucked it out of it, then skedaddled. You said Jaime that they came in and settled disputes? Like they did with Catholics and Protestants in Ireland? That point is baffling me. Perhaps if you gave an example in which a settlement was made between rival factions in which was the justification of British Occupation over a nation (even if not justifications, just an example in which a settlement was created in which there were three benefactors, (1) the general public, (2+3) the two tribes) EVEN STILL. Those people had their disputes settles at the expense of what? A loss of language, gold and culture?
2- I think you will find many thousands of tribal leaders were killed in lack of co-operation with slave traders. To think that the British were handed slaves by the natives own kind is naive, if there was resistance they were slaughtered, so there is hardly any blame on those few who did decide to cooperate for the greater good. The South African locals signed a legal document to the whites giving them land, could they speak Dutch? No? The leaders of those tribes didn't understand the implications of their actions, that doesn't give justification to say they were lawless people that needed to be taken over.
3- Again I make this point, war lords and kleptocracy is a product of colonization. It was the French that taught the Sioux scalping! Your argument that if resources remained in that country that warlords would take over to splendor would be more likely than socialism doesn't make sense... The UAE, a relatively anonymous country at its formation 20 odd years ago, led by tribal leaders, living in relative harmony. Oil is then mass sold and what happened? A stable government? Peace? Extremely rich locals? You don't say. Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, UAE and Bahrain? All living in relative harmony despite having resources! Its peoples living luxurious lives and hardly any economic inequality! Well slap my ass on a sunday. Your argument is essentially what you said it wasn't... "some sort of jingoistic "We brought civilization to them!" type hyperbole". Stability was essentially lost because Empires sucked everything out. There was stability amongst tribes, an understanding of what goes where. Everything would evolve but Britain forced it and then left. I don't understand how you can sit there and argue for Imperialism since no one has done since the abolishment of ivory sales.
4- I immediately face palmed when I noticed that the author was Mexican, not Argentinian. I thought you were being patronizing to the Argentine community, which I'm not quite sure you are or are not, but will ask that me saying that as a point be stricken from the record.
5- Oh yes, the dig at the Religious. I do believe in God. I answer to God, not for God. I do not have answers nor rationalizations to why the British were allowed to do what they did other than I have allowed it to happen. Devine intervention in the scale in which you are talking about hasn’t happened since Sodom…
6- The point on Ireland... you said "Ireland's a different matter entirely, with a different and much more lengthy history". How so?

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By kingjaime - 24-05-2013 03:45

[BVB]

(1a) "African kleptocracy is a product of the British Empire." No, that's absurd. Throughout history the leaders of countries have exploited their power to line their own pockets and those of their favoured family and friends. Especially in even less enlightened times than now, it was usually the whole reason they would seek power in the first place. Also, nowhere did I say the settling of a dispute/rivalry was a motivation in occupation. It was essentially an effect of occupation on some occasions. I also did not say they settled all disputes. It's easy to pick plenty of examples where the conflicting sides were simply kept in check in the manner two small guys who want to fight might be held apart by one bigger guy, so as soon as that guy leaves, the fight ignites. But other times the diplomacy which Britain was undeniably skilled at lead to peace between them. (1b) A loss of language, gold and culture? What language are we speaking (writing) now? Is it an original language traceable back to the earliest days of man? Hardly, it's a mish-mash of older and concurrent languages, adapted over the centuries by immigration, invasion and whatever other foreign contact. Gold? Who had the gold? When the Spanish looted the Incan lands, who did they steal that gold from? The civilians? No, the rich minority. How had those people obtained gold? By friendly request? Let's consider what it actually means when a Colonial power, either government or favoured businesses, stole natural resources. It's also worth bearing in mind that in some cases, negotiation and appeasement of whatever local ruler secured the resources. They were not always "stolen", as-in simply taken. Culture? That's a laugh coming from someone surely well versed in catholic history. How many world cultures have been allowed to survive untouched once they came into contact with christians? (2) "To think that the British were handed slaves by the natives own kind is naive" ...Sigh. Didn't say that. Traded sir, traded. Serfdom of one form or another has occurred in just about every country. England/Britain certain has plenty of history where the peasants were treated as nothing. Naivety is in thinking that tribal leaders in Africa and wherever else didn't (a) have their own slaves and (b) didn't at times exploit the trade value of those slaves. You really seem to have some sort of idea that the British (and I suppose whoever else) invaded various Edens, where the people lived in some sort of communist socialist paradise. (3) "Again I make this point, war lords and kleptocracy is a product of colonization." Absolute garbage. Now you blame war lords on colonization?! Good lord. Ah, wait. "I don't understand how you can sit there and argue for Imperialism" Well that should be my cue to give up. If you think that's what I'm doing, you clearly operate on an incompatible wavelength. (4) Stricken. (5) Oh sorry, not deserved? We should slaughter those who subjucated peoples and damaged cultures in the pursuit of wealth, but just skip the effects the spread of Christianity, in particular of all religions, has had on them. And continues to have. It is probably also advisable to skip the motivating factor it played in colonialism, the belief it often instilled that "the will of God" was being served in subjugation and murder of "infidels", that encouraged dehumanization of them based on their native beliefs. (6) Oh just read about it, google or whatever your favourite search engine is. I'm not going to be your history teacher. The path towards British rule, the experience during British rule, the effects of British rule, the modern situation. It's all distinctly different from those same factors relating to India, Africa and wherever else.(1a) "African kleptocracy is a product of the British Empire." No, that's absurd. Throughout history the leaders of countries have exploited their power to line their own pockets and those of their favoured family and friends. Especially in even less enlightened times than now, it was usually the whole reason they would seek power in the first place. Also, nowhere did I say the settling of a dispute/rivalry was a motivation in occupation. It was essentially an effect of occupation on some occasions. I also did not say they settled all disputes. It's easy to pick plenty of examples where the conflicting sides were simply kept in check in the manner two small guys who want to fight might be held apart by one bigger guy, so as soon as that guy leaves, the fight ignites. But other times the diplomacy which Britain was undeniably skilled at lead to peace between them.
(1b) A loss of language, gold and culture? What language are we speaking (writing) now? Is it an original language traceable back to the earliest days of man? Hardly, it's a mish-mash of older and concurrent languages, adapted over the centuries by immigration, invasion and whatever other foreign contact. Gold? Who had the gold? When the Spanish looted the Incan lands, who did they steal that gold from? The civilians? No, the rich minority. How had those people obtained gold? By friendly request? Let's consider what it actually means when a Colonial power, either government or favoured businesses, stole natural resources. It's also worth bearing in mind that in some cases, negotiation and appeasement of whatever local ruler secured the resources. They were not always "stolen", as-in simply taken. Culture? That's a laugh coming from someone surely well versed in catholic history. How many world cultures have been allowed to survive untouched once they came into contact with christians?
(2) "To think that the British were handed slaves by the natives own kind is naive" ...Sigh. Didn't say that. Traded sir, traded. Serfdom of one form or another has occurred in just about every country. England/Britain certain has plenty of history where the peasants were treated as nothing. Naivety is in thinking that tribal leaders in Africa and wherever else didn't (a) have their own slaves and (b) didn't at times exploit the trade value of those slaves. You really seem to have some sort of idea that the British (and I suppose whoever else) invaded various Edens, where the people lived in some sort of communist socialist paradise.
(3) "Again I make this point, war lords and kleptocracy is a product of colonization." Absolute garbage. Now you blame war lords on colonization?! Good lord.

Ah, wait.

"I don't understand how you can sit there and argue for Imperialism"

Well that should be my cue to give up. If you think that's what I'm doing, you clearly operate on an incompatible wavelength.

(4) Stricken.
(5) Oh sorry, not deserved? We should slaughter those who subjucated peoples and damaged cultures in the pursuit of wealth, but just skip the effects the spread of Christianity, in particular of all religions, has had on them. And continues to have. It is probably also advisable to skip the motivating factor it played in colonialism, the belief it often instilled that "the will of God" was being served in subjugation and murder of "infidels", that encouraged dehumanization of them based on their native beliefs.
(6) Oh just read about it, google or whatever your favourite search engine is. I'm not going to be your history teacher. The path towards British rule, the experience during British rule, the effects of British rule, the modern situation. It's all distinctly different from those same factors relating to India, Africa and wherever else.

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By rivercampion - 24-05-2013 05:59

[MZUSA]

I must admit kj , unnecesary, uncalled for, low blow ... tbh I'm surprised coming from you. and given your 'immediate, knee-jerk, hyper-reaction and after flying by some of your comments (as usual too long :)...I don't believe the following statement of yours for a second .."I have no great love for Britain, nor our politics then or now, nor our foreign policy then or now.".... Really?

kingjaime wrote:

(4) Please don't let any of the less intelligent members of the Argentine userbase come by...

I must admit kj , unnecesary, uncalled for, low blow ...

tbh I'm surprised coming from you.

and given your 'immediate, knee-jerk, hyper-reaction and after flying by some of your comments (as usual too long :)...I don't believe the following statement of yours for a second .."I have no great love for Britain, nor our politics then or now, nor our foreign policy then or now.".... Really?

Ant: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By kevinskyy - 24-05-2013 07:48

Since when is "conquering the world" & "invading other countries" & "bullying the authenthic tribes" considered something wrong?Since when is "conquering the world" & "invading other countries" & "bullying the authenthic tribes" considered something wrong?

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By windows780 - 24-05-2013 11:10

On the good side.Britain invented football and a lot of other sports,so we are not all bad :)On the good side.Britain invented football and a lot of other sports,so we are not all bad :)

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By bestplaymaker2134 - 24-05-2013 12:54

[AUSNZ]

Actually I think the Chinese were the first to have played "foot" "ball."

windows780 wrote:

On the good side.Britain invented football and a lot of other sports,so we are not all bad :)

Actually I think the Chinese were the first to have played "foot" "ball."

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By windows780 - 24-05-2013 14:17

In 1863,at Cambridge University, a group of Englishmen formed the Football Association and invented the modern game of soccer. The Chinese played a game called cuju,which originally involved kicking a leather ball through a small hole in a piece of silk cloth which was fixed on bamboo canes and hung about 9 m above ground..does sound like football to you ?In 1863,at Cambridge University, a group of Englishmen formed the Football Association and invented the modern game of soccer.
The Chinese played a game called cuju,which originally involved kicking a leather ball through a small hole in a piece of silk cloth which was fixed on bamboo canes and hung about 9 m above ground..does sound like football to you ?

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By celticvilla - 24-05-2013 15:50

1) I still very much believe that African Kleptocracy was a product of Empire occupation. Every civilization started tribally, a hierarchy from kings to slaves. Every settlement had different languages. Through time those cultures evolved and often become democratic after hundreds of years. Essentially the British, The Dutch, The Spanish, what have you, invaded those countries who were in the process of evolution and forced their governing on them, “unified” them under one language, one country, one culture (wrongfully forcing Christianity on them) and eradicating what was left, to near extinction. Killing all those who opposed and taking slaves (with or without consent from ruling leaders).Accelerating and propelling the evolution of Social order and democracy so quickly that the process that takes hundreds of years was finished before they could say “electorate” and then halted it and left, taking with them tons of natural resources over the years. So what was left was some pseudo culture mix, with Africans going round wearing suits and speaking a hybrid of English and their mother tongue (which studies have shown is easier to learn than foreign languages). But what was the most omnipotent structure that the British left? The barracks. Their ranks trained by the best of British officers. How did all these Empires take force? Through the barracks. When African dictators took over they used the exact same tactics as the British did throughout the centuries, so as far as I am concerned, yes, the moving of goods for the benefit of the military was exactly what the British taught them. Now how is that a force for good? How is that ultimately good? The British flag is tainted with the blood of hundreds of thousands of civilians. That’s not good. The extinction of languages forced by the British, that’s not good. Loss of natural resources, that’s not good. Oh but we stopped the natural order of evolution where a local tribe will have disputes over other local tribes by ultimately allowing those disputes to build up to explode once they’ve left. I still very much fail to see how any good came from the British Empires. (b) Appeasement? There would have very few cases in which appeasement would have occurred. I find it hard to believe that British generals would need to appease; that would have been seen as weak. Here we go another dig at my Religion… Sigh… “That's a laugh coming from someone surely well versed in catholic history. How many world cultures have been allowed to survive untouched once they came into contact with christians?” – I am well aware of the force of evil the Catholic church has done in the past, I am aware that the reason there are 1 billion Christians in the world is because of the Empires. It was wrong to force that… But I am really disappointed in you. That has next to nothing about the discussion of what we were having. Having a niggle at the Catholic Church for its part to play and only mentioning it because I am a Catholic. Empires would have still thrived without Religion, but it was just made a lot easier by it. And you have zero comprehension skills if you couldn’t understand that I introduced my Religion into the topic to show that I still have love for something that happened in the past, it was not a portal or an invitation to introduce Religion into the topic. I’ll remind you that it was the British that were notoriously anti- Catholic in its teachings. Again, look no further than Ireland for that. 2) When I stated “handed”, traded was implied. Something like 11 million slaves were taken from Africa from European slave traders. How many tribal rulers had jurisdiction over that amount of people? Of course there were slaves of the leaders at the time, but 11 million slaves, how many villages of people was that ? Thousands? Hardly consensus about the matter. Its not like the British would have been, “oh he didn’t sign the slave agreement, we are off to someone who will”… I did not even imply that there weren’t slaves, I didn’t imply that these societies were some sort of template of the greatest community in the world or that they were a utopia, I am saying that the natural order should have been allowed to occur, which it didn’t. The village mentality shouldn’t have been beaten out of them like it was. It appears you have ignored my UAE point. That is the epitome of my argument. I was well immersed in the history of the UAE having lived there for 18 years of my life. Small villages, a monarchy that was allowed to rule, its own laws and jurisdiction faired well. Oil found and everyone became millionaires. I mean everyone, its difficult to find cases in which an Emerati was poor. When examined even closer you find that The UAE is the most communal society about, every Emerati is equally filthy rich. They maintained their culture and Religion. They still aren’t democratic, but changes are being implemented. Which proves: given time to evolve countries with resources would have become stable, eventually. 3) Your opening statement was, “ And a lot of good it ultimately did them”. Having British rule over those people did them more good was your opening statement. You are saying that without British rule those people would have been worse off. In turn you are saying “The British occupation was a good thing for a country” equaling “Imperialisation was a good thing”, no? 4) Thanks 5) Yes, uncalled for. I used it as an example to talk about how I can love something that has made mistakes and moved on from the however the forums rules are not to talk about Religion, so I shall not mention it from now on, but you may at your will. 6) Ha. My name is Francis Patrick Mark Roch Mc-----, I am well aware of Irish history as well as British history. I have read several books on Irish occupations and wrote several essays on it. And quite frankly I am glad you won’t be teaching me history because you are inaccurate, at best. I think this is cute, “The path towards British rule, the experience during British rule, the effects of British rule, the modern situation.” Nope, nope, nope, nope and nope. They are all similar to Asia and Africa. I guess you may say that they were more brutal towards the Irish, but you’d be wrong, there were several notable massacres in India and Africa that are on par with the murdering that has happened over Ireland. As any invader has done, they take over using brute force, maintain the power by force. Ireland was Britain’s first colony and claimed right over it from power invested in them by God. I just asked why you thought it was different and you listed with diet in them, hardly any sustenance. Britain appeared to settle many imaginary disputes between people, but failed to settle the troubles which it caused in Ireland. Failing to resolve issues right next to them.1) I still very much believe that African Kleptocracy was a product of Empire occupation. Every civilization started tribally, a hierarchy from kings to slaves. Every settlement had different languages. Through time those cultures evolved and often become democratic after hundreds of years. Essentially the British, The Dutch, The Spanish, what have you, invaded those countries who were in the process of evolution and forced their governing on them, “unified” them under one language, one country, one culture (wrongfully forcing Christianity on them) and eradicating what was left, to near extinction. Killing all those who opposed and taking slaves (with or without consent from ruling leaders).Accelerating and propelling the evolution of Social order and democracy so quickly that the process that takes hundreds of years was finished before they could say “electorate” and then halted it and left, taking with them tons of natural resources over the years. So what was left was some pseudo culture mix, with Africans going round wearing suits and speaking a hybrid of English and their mother tongue (which studies have shown is easier to learn than foreign languages). But what was the most omnipotent structure that the British left? The barracks. Their ranks trained by the best of British officers. How did all these Empires take force? Through the barracks. When African dictators took over they used the exact same tactics as the British did throughout the centuries, so as far as I am concerned, yes, the moving of goods for the benefit of the military was exactly what the British taught them. Now how is that a force for good? How is that ultimately good? The British flag is tainted with the blood of hundreds of thousands of civilians. That’s not good. The extinction of languages forced by the British, that’s not good. Loss of natural resources, that’s not good. Oh but we stopped the natural order of evolution where a local tribe will have disputes over other local tribes by ultimately allowing those disputes to build up to explode once they’ve left. I still very much fail to see how any good came from the British Empires.
(b) Appeasement? There would have very few cases in which appeasement would have occurred. I find it hard to believe that British generals would need to appease; that would have been seen as weak. Here we go another dig at my Religion… Sigh… “That's a laugh coming from someone surely well versed in catholic history. How many world cultures have been allowed to survive untouched once they came into contact with christians?” – I am well aware of the force of evil the Catholic church has done in the past, I am aware that the reason there are 1 billion Christians in the world is because of the Empires. It was wrong to force that… But I am really disappointed in you. That has next to nothing about the discussion of what we were having. Having a niggle at the Catholic Church for its part to play and only mentioning it because I am a Catholic. Empires would have still thrived without Religion, but it was just made a lot easier by it. And you have zero comprehension skills if you couldn’t understand that I introduced my Religion into the topic to show that I still have love for something that happened in the past, it was not a portal or an invitation to introduce Religion into the topic. I’ll remind you that it was the British that were notoriously anti- Catholic in its teachings. Again, look no further than Ireland for that.
2) When I stated “handed”, traded was implied. Something like 11 million slaves were taken from Africa from European slave traders. How many tribal rulers had jurisdiction over that amount of people? Of course there were slaves of the leaders at the time, but 11 million slaves, how many villages of people was that ? Thousands? Hardly consensus about the matter. Its not like the British would have been, “oh he didn’t sign the slave agreement, we are off to someone who will”… I did not even imply that there weren’t slaves, I didn’t imply that these societies were some sort of template of the greatest community in the world or that they were a utopia, I am saying that the natural order should have been allowed to occur, which it didn’t. The village mentality shouldn’t have been beaten out of them like it was. It appears you have ignored my UAE point. That is the epitome of my argument. I was well immersed in the history of the UAE having lived there for 18 years of my life. Small villages, a monarchy that was allowed to rule, its own laws and jurisdiction faired well. Oil found and everyone became millionaires. I mean everyone, its difficult to find cases in which an Emerati was poor. When examined even closer you find that The UAE is the most communal society about, every Emerati is equally filthy rich. They maintained their culture and Religion. They still aren’t democratic, but changes are being implemented. Which proves: given time to evolve countries with resources would have become stable, eventually.
3) Your opening statement was, “ And a lot of good it ultimately did them”. Having British rule over those people did them more good was your opening statement. You are saying that without British rule those people would have been worse off. In turn you are saying “The British occupation was a good thing for a country” equaling “Imperialisation was a good thing”, no?
4) Thanks
5) Yes, uncalled for. I used it as an example to talk about how I can love something that has made mistakes and moved on from the however the forums rules are not to talk about Religion, so I shall not mention it from now on, but you may at your will.
6) Ha. My name is Francis Patrick Mark Roch Mc-----, I am well aware of Irish history as well as British history. I have read several books on Irish occupations and wrote several essays on it. And quite frankly I am glad you won’t be teaching me history because you are inaccurate, at best. I think this is cute, “The path towards British rule, the experience during British rule, the effects of British rule, the modern situation.” Nope, nope, nope, nope and nope. They are all similar to Asia and Africa. I guess you may say that they were more brutal towards the Irish, but you’d be wrong, there were several notable massacres in India and Africa that are on par with the murdering that has happened over Ireland. As any invader has done, they take over using brute force, maintain the power by force. Ireland was Britain’s first colony and claimed right over it from power invested in them by God. I just asked why you thought it was different and you listed with diet in them, hardly any sustenance. Britain appeared to settle many imaginary disputes between people, but failed to settle the troubles which it caused in Ireland. Failing to resolve issues right next to them.

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By frankzappa - 24-05-2013 19:39

[KERNOW]
President

^^^That is now officially the longest post I never read.^^^That is now officially the longest post I never read.

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By celticvilla - 24-05-2013 20:08

But I broke it down and numbered them ):But I broke it down and numbered them ):

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By kingjaime - 24-05-2013 23:42

[BVB]

Likewise frank, can't be bothered going on. Here is perhaps an interesting twist though: It was so long ago I wrote that first reply to the topic, I wasn't even sure what I'd meant when I glanced back over it after celtic's post, and I sort of went along with what he seemed to take it as, with (1), that maybe I was saying independence didn't do countries much good, or similar to that. No. I was wrong. I re-read the opening post, and think how I would reply, and it's pretty obvious to me, confirmed by jogging of memory, by "them" I meant "the British". Look at all our financial and social problems and conflicts and I don't see any great legacy for us from it. Oh anyway, that might be it's own long debate and I can't be bothered, but I just thought I'd clarify that. Finally, @river, I hope you didn't read as if I meant Argentines in general less intelligent or something. It was my way of referring to the trouble-makers who seize any opportunity to launch into tirades over the Falklands/Malvinas. I believed a topic about Britain invading countries might be like a shaken rag to a bull. I hoped none of them would come by and it turn into that sort of ugly, and boring, exchange. You'll have to take my word on what I said about my regard for Britain and whatever institutions. I have nothing to gain by lying about it. Historical politics saw us involved in wars we shouldn't have got involved in, particularly WW1 and WW2, modern policy saw us part of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which should not have happened, and complicity of sorts in the activity against Libya, I seriously disdain our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, pronouncements against the Syrian regime and at times regarding Iran and North Korea... Political choices through the 60s, 70s and into the 80s condemned our manufacturing industry to practically nothing. I don't have any great love for "Britain" because it constantly blurs the distinction of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as their own countries, with their own people and cultural and historical distinctions. (And Cornwall, in case frank's reading...) So yes, what I said, really ;)Likewise frank, can't be bothered going on. Here is perhaps an interesting twist though:
It was so long ago I wrote that first reply to the topic, I wasn't even sure what I'd meant when I glanced back over it after celtic's post, and I sort of went along with what he seemed to take it as, with (1), that maybe I was saying independence didn't do countries much good, or similar to that. No. I was wrong. I re-read the opening post, and think how I would reply, and it's pretty obvious to me, confirmed by jogging of memory, by "them" I meant "the British". Look at all our financial and social problems and conflicts and I don't see any great legacy for us from it. Oh anyway, that might be it's own long debate and I can't be bothered, but I just thought I'd clarify that.

Finally, @river, I hope you didn't read as if I meant Argentines in general less intelligent or something. It was my way of referring to the trouble-makers who seize any opportunity to launch into tirades over the Falklands/Malvinas. I believed a topic about Britain invading countries might be like a shaken rag to a bull. I hoped none of them would come by and it turn into that sort of ugly, and boring, exchange.
You'll have to take my word on what I said about my regard for Britain and whatever institutions. I have nothing to gain by lying about it. Historical politics saw us involved in wars we shouldn't have got involved in, particularly WW1 and WW2, modern policy saw us part of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which should not have happened, and complicity of sorts in the activity against Libya, I seriously disdain our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, pronouncements against the Syrian regime and at times regarding Iran and North Korea... Political choices through the 60s, 70s and into the 80s condemned our manufacturing industry to practically nothing. I don't have any great love for "Britain" because it constantly blurs the distinction of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as their own countries, with their own people and cultural and historical distinctions. (And Cornwall, in case frank's reading...) So yes, what I said, really ;)

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By geoclphredux - 24-05-2013 23:53

[MZ UKI]

I don't know why... but this is what was immediately going through my head when I saw this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYLq0zUMN0AI don't know why... but this is what was immediately going through my head when I saw this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYLq0zUMN0A

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By celticvilla - 25-05-2013 00:16

Sigh... What is my life?Sigh... What is my life?

Re: British have invaded nine out of ten countries

By kingjaime - 25-05-2013 16:25

[BVB]

Come to think of it, if I had been more inclined to be an agitator, and try to make a fool of the thread's author, I reckon I would've queried his own ancestry, with the assumption, based on the odds, that it's probably Spanish, rather than truly indigenous to the lands that came to be named "Mexico". Even if he isn't, most of his countrymen are, so perhaps he'd better have a think about that, and the effect on the existing culture when the Spaniards arrived. Perhaps he could seek out some descendents of Aztecs or Mayans, for example, and ask their thoughts on colonialism. There are few developed countries or people anywhere in the world with any right to criticize the practice of colonialism, because it's in all their history. In a sense the British only draw the level of criticism because they were basically better at it than most others, and most recent. But even then, look what the Romans managed in their time, look what Ghengis Khan managed, Alexander The Great, the Ottomans... Compared to some, who had an approach of genocide, pillage and burn, the British were a lot more civilized about it.Come to think of it, if I had been more inclined to be an agitator, and try to make a fool of the thread's author, I reckon I would've queried his own ancestry, with the assumption, based on the odds, that it's probably Spanish, rather than truly indigenous to the lands that came to be named "Mexico". Even if he isn't, most of his countrymen are, so perhaps he'd better have a think about that, and the effect on the existing culture when the Spaniards arrived. Perhaps he could seek out some descendents of Aztecs or Mayans, for example, and ask their thoughts on colonialism. There are few developed countries or people anywhere in the world with any right to criticize the practice of colonialism, because it's in all their history. In a sense the British only draw the level of criticism because they were basically better at it than most others, and most recent. But even then, look what the Romans managed in their time, look what Ghengis Khan managed, Alexander The Great, the Ottomans... Compared to some, who had an approach of genocide, pillage and burn, the British were a lot more civilized about it.

 

Page 1