Debate: should Britian apologise for having invaded 90% of the world's countries?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Palindrome wrote:
I doubt that it will always be such. Right by conquest is something that is slowly dying away and as the world becomes ever more interconnected it is unlikely to make a return.

(Looks around at the number of wars going on)
So...what planet are you from again?

**dæl**

Grey Templar wrote:
Its not a strawman.

Basic human rights are impossable to define because there isn't anywhere they are spelled out. And we certaintly can't have a human organization arbitrarily defining them.

The only rights that really can ever be defined are those given to citizens by a country's constitution, because the authority to give out rights and enforce them is present. Aside from that, any concept of basic human rights is far to abstract to spell out.

So unless God comes down and gives us a stone tablet that defined basic human rights we don't have any way of telling what basic human rights are.

Sorry what!?

Basic Human Rights have been defined perfectly well for the last 50 years without the aid of God, we looked at the inhuman activities of some evil people and thought "lets not do any of that stuff, lets in fact treat people as people." Using some mental gymnastics and legal definitions to justify immoral behaviour doesn't make it less immoral, and yes detaining and torturing people who may have not done anything wrong is immoral by anyone's standards.

This thread is about the British Empire, and yes we did some seriously atrocious things, from genocide to concentration camps, but we don't anymore. I'm not proud of some of my countries past but it is just that, the past, and even if it was still going on I wouldn't be trying to justify it, I'd be ashamed.

**Albatross**

I don't really think we should apologise at all, actually. The only people we should have apologised to, the Irish, we as a nation have already apologised to - or rather, our representative HM Queen Elizabeth II has. Our economic policies caused the deaths of many thousands of Irish people, and it is rightly a source of shame for us. Particularly those of us (like myself) who have joint heritage.

I for one am glad that HM took the time to express our collective regret regarding this matter, as it is a stain on our national character. But as for everyone else? Nah.

**whembly**

Why should a group a people "apologize" for something that happened before their lifetime?

**Kilkrazy**

I think it might be worth apologising to India and Bangladesh for the famine during WW2. That certainly happened in living memory, which is one of the important considerations, as Whembly says.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it might be worth apologising to India and Bangladesh for the famine during WW2. That certainly happened in living memory, which is one of the important considerations, as Whembly says.

Uh... whembly goes to do some research on this...

My vague recollection was that was overhyped, but I can be wrong.

**Kilkrazy**

The most recent books (Max Hastings and Anthony Beevor) both put the famine casualties in the millions.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The most recent books (Max Hastings and Anthony Beevor) both put the famine casualties in the millions.

woah... I'll check it out.

So... um... did the Spaniards and other Europeans apologies to the American natives for bringing famine & disease?

**Albatross**

whembly wrote:
Why should a group a people "apologize" for something that happened before their lifetime?

Well, as far as our relations with the Irish people are concerned, I think it's important to start breaking down those big historical barriers, to create a joint narrative we both share, as opposed to our nations defining ourselves by 'oppressed' and 'oppressor'. We need to move forward together as equals, which thankfully we are doing, but that can only happen once we begin to lay old ghosts to rest. They are our nearest and dearest neighbours, and so we should try our best to heal those wounds. If apologising for the Famine can do that (and some have commented that it has helped), then I'm all for it.

**Kilkrazy**

whembly wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The most recent books (Max Hastings and Anthony Beevor) both put the famine casualties in the millions.

woah... I'll check it out.

So... um... did the Spaniards and other Europeans apologies to the American natives for bringing famine & disease?

I don't know, however the germ theory of disease was unknown in the 16th century, so I do not think they could be blamed for it.

**whembly**

Albatross wrote:
whembly wrote:
Why should a group a people "apologize" for something that happened before their lifetime?

Well, as far as our relations with the Irish people are concerned, I think it's important to start breaking down those big historical barriers, to create a joint narrative we both share, as opposed to our nations defining ourselves by 'oppressed' and 'oppressor'. We need to move forward together as equals, which thankfully we are doing, but that can only happen once we begin to lay old ghosts to rest. They are our nearest and dearest neighbours, and so we should try our best to heal those wounds. If apologising for the Famine can do that (and some have commented that it has helped), then I'm all for it.

I get that with the Irish (and I'd likely support to be honest)... but once you go down that direction... it's the proverbial slippery slope.

There's some elements of the African Americans who'd still want reparations...

We becoming much more civilized in this global world of ours... but, during the colonial age (or other age for that matter)... it was a brutal world. We all need to learn to accept that.

**Da Boss**

If you're not going to apologise to everyone, then you shouldn't bother apologising to anyone, I reckon.

**Frazzled**

dæl wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Its not a strawman.

Basic human rights are impossable to define because there isn't anywhere they are spelled out. And we certaintly can't have a human organization arbitrarily defining them.

The only rights that really can ever be defined are those given to citizens by a country's constitution, because the authority to give out rights and enforce them is present. Aside from that, any concept of basic human rights is far to abstract to spell out.

So unless God comes down and gives us a stone tablet that defined basic human rights we don't have any way of telling what basic human rights are.

Sorry what!?

Basic Human Rights have been defined perfectly well for the last 50 years without the aid of God, we looked at the inhuman activities of some evil people and thought "lets not do any of that stuff, lets in fact treat people as people." Using some mental gymnastics and legal definitions to justify immoral behaviour doesn't make it less immoral, and yes detaining and torturing people who may have not done anything wrong is immoral by anyone's standards.

This thread is about the British Empire, and yes we did some seriously atrocious things, from genocide to concentration camps, but we don't anymore. I'm not proud of some of my countries past but it is just that, the past, and even if it was still going on I wouldn't be trying to justify it, I'd be ashamed.

Wait you mentioned atrocious things but leave out blood sausage / black pudding? Come on now.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
dæl wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Its not a strawman.

Basic human rights are impossable to define because there isn't anywhere they are spelled out. And we certaintly can't have a human organization arbitrarily defining them.

The only rights that really can ever be defined are those given to citizens by a country's constitution, because the authority to give out rights and enforce them is present. Aside from that, any concept of basic human rights is far to abstract to spell out.

So unless God comes down and gives us a stone tablet that defined basic human rights we don't have any way of telling what basic human rights are.

Sorry what!?

Basic Human Rights have been defined perfectly well for the last 50 years without the aid of God, we looked at the inhuman activities of some evil people and thought "lets not do any of that stuff, lets in fact treat people as people." Using some mental gymnastics and legal definitions to justify immoral behaviour doesn't make it less immoral, and yes detaining and torturing people who may have not done anything wrong is immoral by anyone's standards.

This thread is about the British Empire, and yes we did some seriously atrocious things, from genocide to concentration camps, but we don't anymore. I'm not proud of some of my countries past but it is just that, the past, and even if it was still going on I wouldn't be trying to justify it, I'd be ashamed.

Wait you mentioned atrocious things but leave out blood sausage / black pudding? Come on now.

Dude! What's wrong with blood sausage?? Those things are awesome!

**Ouze**

I think the metrics really have to be "Unusually wrong" - I don't count a simple invasion to be so; and "living lifetime", as KK said.

**dæl**

Frazzled wrote:

Wait you mentioned atrocious things but leave out blood sausage / black pudding? Come on now.

Black pudding is lovely, if you aren't keen on blood then there is always White pudding.

**Frazzled**

Blood sausage is made from blood. If you're a vampire thats cool, otherwise its kind of icky.

**Albatross**

whembly wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The most recent books (Max Hastings and Anthony Beevor) both put the famine casualties in the millions.

woah... I'll check it out.

So... um... did the Spaniards and other Europeans apologies to the American natives for bringing famine & disease?

If they were apologising for stuff I'd start with Columbus and the sexual slavery of children, rape, murder and torture amongst native populations in places like Haiti, where the Spanish committed intentional genocide.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Blood sausage is made from blood. If you're a vampire thats cool, otherwise its kind of icky.

If you think that's bad, meat is made of flesh. DEAD FLESH!!!

**Grey Templar**

Well if we apologise for that then the Natives have to apologise for Syphilis and all the Settlers they scalped.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Blood sausage is made from blood. If you're a vampire thats cool, otherwise its kind of icky.

Blood and cornmeal is what I'd have.

Yeah... it's icky... but awesome. Just like mexican food...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The most recent books (Max Hastings and Anthony Beevor) both put the famine casualties in the millions.

woah... I'll check it out.

So... um... did the Spaniards and other Europeans apologies to the American natives for bringing famine & disease?

If they were apologising for stuff I'd start with Columbus and the sexual slavery of children, rape, murder and torture amongst native populations in places like Haiti, where the Spanish committed intentional genocide.

That was my point... where does it end?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Blood sausage is made from blood. If you're a vampire thats cool, otherwise its kind of icky.

If you think that's bad, meat is made of flesh. DEAD FLESH!!!

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well if we apologise for that then the Natives have to apologise for Syphilis and all the Settlers they scalped.

I personally wish to apologize to all curbs my wife has run over.

**Boc**

Well if we want to get REALLY down to the nitty gritty with apologies to Native Americans... might as well just apologize to Russia/Siberia instead. As I recall, all Native Americans crossed over the Beiring Strait during one of the ice ages chasing food, so in essence, they're all Russians. Or Siberians. Whichever.

**Grey Templar**

Nah, the Russians and Asians should apologise for forging the native american ancestors out of Asian and into North America.

Secondly, I demand an apology from native americans for exterminating Megatherium. I want a Giant Grond Sloth pet dammit!

**Boc**

Regardless, I feel we all can agree that Britain should apologize for the Spice Girls. We'll apologize for Madonna, the Canadians for Bieber, and we're all square?

**Grey Templar**

Nah, we'll let britain off the hook. We are allowing Snooki to reproduce after all.

**Frazzled**

Boc wrote:
Regardless, I feel we all can agree that Britain should apologize for the Spice Girls. We'll apologize for Madonna, the Canadians for Bieber, and we're all square?

Word. The Great Wiener Dog Hath Agreed.

**Boc**

Grey Templar wrote:
Nah, we'll let britain off the hook. We are allowing Snooki to reproduce after all.

Oh gak... I forgot about that one... yeah our bad...

**Palindrome**

Frazzled wrote:

(Looks around at the number of wars going on)
So...what planet are you from again?

This is possibly the most peaceful period in history.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
Well if we apologise for that then the Natives have to apologise for Syphilis and all the Settlers they scalped.

Seriously? Aside from anything else where do you think that the spyhilis came from?

**Boc**

Palindrome wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

(Looks around at the number of wars going on)
So...what planet are you from again?

This is possibly the most peaceful period in history.

...challenge accepted...

**BolingbrokeIV**

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

shows that Britian once took tourism to a new level. This has sparked a storm in the UK with left-wing newspapers decrying the evils of imperialism, whilst right wing newspapers lauding the empire for building the modern world. What do dakka members think? Given that we have had Roman, Greek, Aztec, Inca, Mongolian, German, Japanese, Byzantine empires etc etc, should the British led the way in apologising, or is this unnecessary guilt?

Anyway, here is a list of countries never invaded by Britian:

Andorra
Belarus
Bolivia
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo
Guatemala
Ivory Coast
Krygyzstan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mali
Marshall Islands
Monaco
Mongolia (who would dare
Paraguay
Sao Tome
Sweden (well the UK loves Abba and IKEA)
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vatican City

Does every British person need to apologise? Or, in the same sense that the Daily Mail article you linked to speaks for the nation by littering the word 'we' amongst it's bs, can someone else do it for me? If so I imagine you and your nationalist newspaper will decide for me.