1 Attachment(s)
The British invaded almost 90% of the globe?
A strange claim IMHO:
Quote:
A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe. Among this select group of nations are far-off destinations such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well some slightly closer to home, such as Luxembourg. 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 linked article has a list of the countries not invaded and some startling facts. All comes from a new book 'All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To' by Stuart Laycock:http://www.amazon.com/All-Countries-...Stuart+Laycock
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9...uxembourg.html
Personally I cannot recall a British invasion or coercive intervention in Laos or Cambodia, nor Mauritania, former Spanish Sahara and Brazil.
SWC readers will be aware of the figures offered for a US military presence around the globe; is there a similar history for invasion?
The British self-denigrating?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
omarali50
Everyone has a right to their own axe-grinding, and mine is this: what explains the current British fashion (obviously not universal, but fairly widespread) to denigrate their own imperial past? a (fairly traditional) explanation would be that they feel so superior that they feel they can afford to do so (making this its own form of boasting) but while it is true that ordinary Britons enjoy a standard of living today that is higher than that of their ancestors, they are not exactly a world power any more, and their shocking pre-eminence in cultural and scientific fields is also past its prime. So its hard to believe they really feel THAT superior.
So why then?
A different explanation would be that they are actually conscious of decline and like most cultures whose glory days are behind them, they want to boast about their past imperial greatness. But unlike the relatively uncouth Arabs, Mongolians, Turks and so on, they are doing their boasting a bit subtly (how very British of them). You know, indirectly. They are not really ashamed at all, they actually want to make sure you know that their ancestors were great conquerors. The shame, in short, is just a sham. That sort of thing.
Which of these seems to you to be the correct explanation? (I refuse to believe they are genuinely ashamed...that would be just silly).
With a few exceptions throughout the British imperial era there was rarely any mass public interest in what was going on. Yes imperialism and related issues featured in politics and in general elections. Plus of course a number of wars, a good number of which led those at home to ask WTF. Economically before WW1 trade with the colonies was limited, there was extensive investment, but far more was invested in non-imperial territories. The USA, China, Russia and Argentina come to mind.
After WW2 before most colonies were disposed of there was a profound reassessment on the 'Left' of imperialism, in parallel and of more impact was the relative decline of the "mother country" economically. With "fits & starts" the UK underwent a pivot to Western Europe and of course the national character changed with mass immigration. Not to overlook the large scale emigration in the last forty or fifty years, mainly to the 'old' Commonwealth and warmer parts of Europe.
Few people today denigrate the imperial past outside the "chattering classes", who are often literary persons and parts of the 'Left'. It is history and it is a moot point post-WW2 if an exhausted country should have retained its empire. Thankfully this imperial exit did not have anything as divisive as Algeria did for France.
Anyway that is all - off for a glass of wine.:)
