I think they count places where British forces were deployed at one time or another... not necessarily conquered and ruled.
British have invaded nine out of ten countries
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
Oh heck yes. Britain was invaded by the Romans, the Saxons, and the Danes (Vikings). I believe that the area of Welsh is probably the area that was least touched by invaders and for many years carried unmixed Briton blood lines.
They counted even more than that. Pirates acting with the approval of the British government were counted too. For example, Sir Francis Drake's private activities against the Spanish in the Caribbean were counted as British invasions of those territories, when realistically they were nothing of the sort, they were guerrilla raids by an outfit something like the contemporary Blackwater.
BRILLIANT!!! lol
Yep, on occassion the Brits behaved abysmally...........and yep, they did bring western civilization, English Common Law, and parliamentary democracy to much of the world.
Do you so hate those things???
(Hint: It is aTrick question.)
As for Goreobsessed, who seems to know nothing about everything, exactly what society on earth freed their slaves first??? And one of the only ones EVER to do so??
The British Empire.......because of the influence of Christianity.
I know, go write some insulting blather, be as condescending and arrogant as you can manage, do your foaming-at-the-mouth worst.........it changes the facts not a whit.
You characters are hilarious!!
Lettuce prey, oh great white lord of dung in westminister please
deliver us from the emptiness of the head called Colpy he who believes there are no slaves of the city of London anymore on earth. Yes of course the trick was to rename slavery full time work whichith isith fourfold cheaper than housing and feeding them on thines own plantations. AMUCK That's good smoke I will pray that mine physician has more.
Lettuce not forget the divinely mandated invasion by other means such as economic, or privateers or pestulence or poison or opium or wemens of looseyness.
Have to disagree with you on that one. There's no statement anywhere in Christian scripture that there's anything wrong with slavery, though as usual it's possible to cherry pick scripture to support whatever position anyone wants to take on it. It's really a later modification to official attitudes that came from outside Christianity, from the more humanist ideals of The Enlightenment.
Read Amazing Grace, by Eric Metaxas.
The story of William Wilberforce, who brought slavery to its knees in the British Empire, aided by a disorganized bunch of misfits with only one thing in common........the vast majority of them not only lived in a Christian society, but passionately lived their Christianity..
Scripture may not address the issue directly.
But Christians did.
That's kind of the point. It wasn't Christianity as such that brought down slavery, it was a band of misfits with a somewhat different view than the official line. That they happened to be Christian is incidental, it wasn't Christianity that the idea came from.
Maybe so, I'll take your word on that, but the origin of the British abolitionist movement does not lie within Christianity, it seems more to have come from the awareness of some sensitive people, notably one James Ramsay, a ship's surgeon with the British Navy, observing and reporting on the conditions in slave ships and among slaves in the West Indies.
The Americas is a particularly ugly story due to the utter devastation of the aboriginal population through the spread of European diseases. However, if you are keeping score in that brutal contest it is worth noting that most of the deaths of aboriginals occured in territories invaded by Spain, not Britain. In fact the only civilzations that came close to matching those of Europe in their technical advancement were those destroyed by Spain.
... to have been a colonizer and not colonized?
English is spoken by an estimated 10% of the world's population, including native speakers. Most fail to learn it well, not to mention the dominance of English gives English-speaking countries a distinct advantage over poorer countries.
I won't argue that. I only know that Wilberforce led his campaign from the pages of the bible.
I'm sure he did, and I'm equally sure that like most people who use the Bible to underpin whatever cause they're advancing, he was cherry picking. The Bible overall takes a favourable, or at least simply complacent, view of slavery, it's perfectly clear in both the Old and New Testaments that people were expected to have slaves and slavery was a widespread and accepted institution.
This is an exaggeration. A lot of the places in the British Empire were not invaded by the British. For example, the British didn't invade Australia and New Zealand. They were merely amongst the people, other than the natives of Australia and New Zealand, to have DISCOVERED those places, claimed thm for Britiain and then settled them.
I also can never recall Britain having invaded places such as Mexico and Mongolia.
I also can never recall Britain having invaded places such as Mexico and Mongolia.
Every where they went and set up government was an invasion. They just didn't visit and set up trade, they controlled the trade from the ground up. By definition, going to a place that already has people there, like the natives you cite, is invading their land including Australia and New Kiwi.
Admirable troll Mr. Leaf.
Admirable troll Mr. Leaf.