British have invaded nine out of ten countries

Technically speaking the French (Normans) invaded, occupied and Normanised Ango-Saxon England in 1066. There was an historical enjoining of English and French interests for many hundreds of years after that. They started getting at each other's throats when fighting over English-owned parts of France. Battles and wars were won and lost by both sides but the end result was that the only parts of French territory still in the hands of the (by now) British were the Channel Islands. And don't forget, France still has St Pierre et Miquelon just off the coast of Newfoundland.

Anyway since the Entente Cordiale it's all been good.

Except in football.

 

Nothing on the main land though eh? Not since they got their asses handed to them by the British army.

 

Which natives?

 

Given the agreement in 1904 stopped the bickering I'd say with the Channel Islands and St Pierre et Miquelon, it's a draw.

 

How about 10-20 million dead Indians whose rice they took to export in time of famine. I always liked the making Chinese people opium addicts by forcing China thru war to take Indian opium off the British in return for tea. All those Africans that they robbed land from and murdered, tortured and imprisoned. Think that will do for starters.

 

I am pretty sure it was not a draw in Canada. Pretty sure the French lost that one.

 

Erm, since the Entente Cordiale and the relative peace between UK and France, we've had two World Wars

 

OK, Canada. You did beat the French.

 

and we beat France to the Olympics as well.

 

Good. What else have you got in your hat? Can you say alas? K.

 

Two rabbits and a dove, some flowers..that's about it.

 

Good enough. Try not to pee in it, peanut.

 

Indeed they did. Just another stage in the old enmity.

 

Yes but France and Britain fought on the same side Paris, that was my point. And they won both times

 

But New France left behind poutine.....hardening arteries since 1763!

 

Much Wenlock? Lovely place, just beautiful.

 

you mean "the white man's burden"?

 

At the time of colonisation it was about resources - I think that "well it was for their own good" idea came later when the imperialists realised that they were out of step with the mood at home. I can see the point you're making and it's fair enough. I only have to look at the distance between the reaction to the Sepoy Rebellion and the independence process in 1947 in India to see how far it eventually came. However, while India moved away from absolute monarchy to democracy as a result of British imperialism it wasn't the reason for colonisation. And anyway I think the Brits were pretty slow in the realisation that it was always going to end with independence for its former colonies.

 

Actually there was always an imperialist ideology that independence was actually the goal. Idealistic but patronizing people believed that once the natives were civilized Britain's mission would be served and independence could follow. To many there was no defeat in giving independence. There were many versions of imperialist, from trader to orientalist to missionary to idealist. There was never one version alone. That is why the legacy of the British Empire is so complex - good and bad, loved and hated, resented and admired.

 

Balls in France's case then...

Oh who cares/cared? They were tired of knocking 10 bells out of European countries to gain 10 feet and lose it again with no profit to anyone.. and someone (all right, a PM) came up with the idea of going farther afield. Thus grew "the empire". It was for profit. We're still profiting, who needs to run all these difficult countries...far too time consuming and low profit when you consider the logistics and outlay. I mean, consider what Afghanistan is costing. Withdraw...withdraw....

 

Brains in yours then.....

 

Yeah, who cares indeed? A worthless post of simplistic tat! Do you think a "stream of consciousness" style is appropriate for political commentary?

"It was for profit, we're still profiting" followed by "consider what Afghanistan is costing". Can't you see what muddled drivel this is?

 

Beyond you and drivel are different.

Did you have any point to make?

 

Is that Scots? It isn't English.

I made it. I pointed out how you contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentences.

 

Beyond you again.

Now that might genuinely be what you think you wrote, but to the rest of the world you just hurled disrespectful abuse and didn't make any point.

If you want to point out how I contradicted myself now, by all means go ahead.

I'll go off and consider whether it's worth being abused further.