PDA

View Full Version : "Of almost 200 Countries World Wide, Only 22 Have not Been Invaded by the British"



C. Flower
05-11-2012, 08:38 PM
A new book – "All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To" shows that at its height the British Empire ruled over almost a quarter of the world’s population. The vast majority of countries have either been directly invaded, or have been raided or coerced to pay taxes by threat.


Author Stuart Laycock worked his way around the countries on the globe alphabetically to see if British forces had ever strayed into each territory.
However, only a very small proportion of his total list of invaded countries made up formal dominions of the Empire.

The remainder have been included if a military incursion was achieved through force, the threat of force, or by negotiation or payment.
Raids by British pirates, privateers and armed explorers have been included if they were acting on the behalf or approval of the government.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/04/article-2227705-11C7C792000005DC-742_634x496.jpg

An example is Iceland, invaded by the British in 1940 because it refused to join up with "the Allies" and enter the war.

Britain progressively lost its global dominance to the US, throughout the 20th century. A similar study of the US today would be interesting.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227705/The-British-coming-Over-centuries-weve-invaded-staggering-90-worlds-nations.html

Dojo
05-11-2012, 08:40 PM
And to think many see this as a good thing!! :eek:

musashi
05-11-2012, 08:50 PM
colonialism is not exclusively a British trait.
I'm interested to know how many of those countries now call themselves democracies.

C. Flower
05-11-2012, 08:53 PM
colonialism is not exclusively a British trait.
I'm interested to know how many of those countries now call themselves democracies.

Empire is surely not about bringing democracy to the oppressed? It is mainly a way of extracting wealth from reluctant populations.

The US approach has often been to remove democracy when they invade.

Baron von Biffo
05-11-2012, 09:02 PM
The US approach has often been to remove democracy when they invade.

If they supported democracy in the colonies it might give people notions back home.

musashi
05-11-2012, 09:19 PM
Empire is surely not about bringing democracy to the oppressed? It is mainly a way of extracting wealth from reluctant populations.

The US approach has often been to remove democracy when they invade.

Of course, empires have flourished as humans have flourished.

TotalMayhem
05-11-2012, 10:07 PM
The US approach has often been to remove democracy when they invade.

But hey, they'll get Coca-Cola and McDonalds, so it's not too bad then.

C. Flower
05-11-2012, 10:35 PM
colonialism is not exclusively a British trait.
I'm interested to know how many of those countries now call themselves democracies.

Most, it seems. Certainly more than in colonial days when all kinds of tin pot "royalty" were kept in place.

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2012/10/26/debunking-two-myths-about-sub-saharan-africa/

eamo
05-11-2012, 10:42 PM
And to think many see this as a good thing!! :eek:

Not around here they dont:D

Welcome to the forum Dojo. We normally welcome new members, (well the ones that survive the attention of the bouncers after their first post) but you seem to have slipped under the radar:)

musashi
06-11-2012, 12:59 AM
Most, it seems. Certainly more than in colonial days when all kinds of tin pot "royalty" were kept in place.

Interesting that organic democracies form in the wake of decaying empires. Like mushrooms growing on a fallen tree.

Frankie Lee
06-11-2012, 01:29 AM
Can't help but think of what difference it would make to the world if democracy was ever allowed in the likes of the UAE and Qatar.

C. Flower
06-11-2012, 04:10 AM
Can't help but think of what difference it would make to the world if democracy was ever allowed in the likes of the UAE and Qatar.

We're in danger of losing it in Greece, where it more or less started.

C. Flower
06-11-2012, 04:16 AM
Interesting that organic democracies form in the wake of decaying empires. Like mushrooms growing on a fallen tree.

Hard to think of anywhere that got democracy without the people having to first firmly remove an undemocratic regime.

The British themselves got their democracy after decapitating a king and fighting a civil war. Likewise the French. But Post WW2 Britain couldn't afford to keep most of their empire up, and a lot of places made themselves as least as "ungovernable" as Ireland was in the 1920s. As much as possible, the US moved in to their territory after the War and has the bases and "boots on ground" all over the world. US economic policy is introduced by the World Bank and IMF as much as by direct military intervention.

fluffybiscuits
06-11-2012, 03:28 PM
Empire is surely not about bringing democracy to the oppressed? It is mainly a way of extracting wealth from reluctant populations.

The US approach has often been to remove democracy when they invade.

To add further to that it is also about dividing the locals up as divided they are the quicker they will fall. The Balfour Declaration did it, NI, India especially (the caste system was used by them to reinforce divisions) and then go and plunder the riches of the local area. Thanks to their invasions they had a fingers in a lot of pies and exported spices, tea and other goods over the years all made off the back of locals who were duped and kept apart by class divisions. Their is an illusion of democracy under British imperialism but more often than not this was just to placate the locals so as they didnt cause an uprising. All smoke and mirrors...

Ogiol
06-11-2012, 03:38 PM
To add further to that it is also about dividing the locals up as divided they are the quicker they will fall. The Balfour Declaration did it, NI, India especially (the caste system was used by them to reinforce divisions) and then go and plunder the riches of the local area. Thanks to their invasions they had a fingers in a lot of pies and exported spices, tea and other goods over the years all made off the back of locals who were duped and kept apart by class divisions. Their is an illusion of democracy under British imperialism but more often than not this was just to placate the locals so as they didnt cause an uprising. All smoke and mirrors...

Another important strategy used by the British empire was that of ethnic clensing and/or depopulation.

Here, its euphamistically called plantation in english, and it also took place in Scotland with the ever so euphamistic term 'Highland Clearances'.

Other examples of British (english) ethnic clensing are welcome...

C. Flower
06-11-2012, 03:43 PM
Another important strategy used by the British empire was that of ethnic clensing and/or depopulation.

Here, its euphamistically called plantation in english, and it also took place in Scotland with the ever so euphamistic term 'Highland Clearances'.

Other examples of British (english) ethnic clensing are welcome...

Australia would be one of many that would come to mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/22/comment.mainsection

Setting a minority of the population over the majority was a classic strategy and has left deep problems to today, in former colonial countries. As has the nature of the boundaries of carved up territories, particularly across Africa, that ignored the character of the region and its people.

fluffybiscuits
06-11-2012, 04:22 PM
Australia would be one of many that would come to mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/22/comment.mainsection

Setting a minority of the population over the majority was a classic strategy and has left deep problems to today, in former colonial countries. As has the nature of the boundaries of carved up territories, particularly across Africa, that ignored the character of the region and its people.

Is that the case in Syria at the moment? Bashar Al Assad is a member of a minority? It was the case in Iraq as well if I remember as Saddam was nota member of one of the main sects of Islam.

Fraxinus
11-11-2012, 02:38 AM
Australia would be one of many that would come to mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/22/comment.mainsection

Setting a minority of the population over the majority was a classic strategy and has left deep problems to today, in former colonial countries. As has the nature of the boundaries of carved up territories, particularly across Africa, that ignored the character of the region and its people.

Crotty also makes the point that the level of "develoment" a society had reached on colonisation affected its survival within the new colony. Like hunter gatherer societies such as the Aboriginies of Australia and the natives of America were of no economic value to the new colonialists so they were exterminated or driven to the edge of territories. While an agricultural society like the Gaelic Irish could generally be left in place to be squeezed for the benefit of the colonialists.

C. Flower
11-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Crotty also makes the point that the level of "develoment" a society had reached on colonisation affected its survival within the new colony. Like hunter gatherer societies such as the Aboriginies of Australia and the natives of America were of no economic value to the new colonialists so they were exterminated or driven to the edge of territories. While an agricultural society like the Gaelic Irish could generally be left in place to be squeezed for the benefit of the colonialists.

Or shipped off to work in slave colonies, in some cases.

Agricultural populations, when it came to industrialisation, and enclosure, were dispensed with to a considerable extent - emigration to cities or other countries or death by starvation. Cattle replaced people in rural Ireland, sheep in large parts of England and Scotland.