Which country was never a colony or under foreign rule in its entire history?

[Kyriakos]

They are part of a country if said country has core shields there

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

They are part of a country if said country has core shields there

But do they have to be state cores?

 

[Lohrenswald]

Why do countries like Iceland and Australia have such peaceful societies despite being settled by unsavory cross-sections of the population?

Somebody hasn't read Egil's saga

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think that Australia is peaceful (eg next to euro countries). Then again they have to be united against the non-humans there (ants, spiders, eels, other)

 

[Traitorfish]

Plus there that was whole genocide thing.

 

[JohannaK]

What White Australia? What Stolen Generations?

 

[W|M]

Remote prison camps in the Pacific for refugees, too

 

[inthesomeday]

Uncontacted peoples, of course!

The Sentinelese come to mind in particular. Completely indigenous, never conquered or governed by anyone but themselves.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Uncontacted peoples, of course!

Those aren't really countries

 

[inthesomeday]

We know many undocumented peoples to have distinct sovereign communities, unique cultural traditions and often their own languages.

If it's an issue of population I'd definitely argue that there's sufficient population in the densely forested regions of the Amazon to consider them a "country". Just because they don't necessarily have a UNIFIED government doesn't make them not a country, and the Brazilians/Portuguese never came anywhere near to taming the Amazon.

Otherwise, I'd say Tonga is the right answer, if we look at all the many considerations stipulated. The British doubtfully exercised any legitimate political control.

 

[W|M]

Brazilians do often go into Amerindian lands and horrifically kill Amerindians and steal their land to this day, if that satisfies your definition of ''taming''

 

[sophie]

If there's no state and no state apparatus, is that a country?

I suppose it comes down to how you're defining "country".

 

[inthesomeday]

Brazilians do often go into Amerindian lands and horrifically kill Amerindians and steal their land to this day, if that satisfies your definition of ''taming''

This is true, and is one of the great atrocities of today. However there's still a substantial remaining uncontacted (and insofar not yet exploited horrifically by a western government) population in the Amazon, and as humans living in a community they're certain to have developed political systems.
If we were to generalize the "native amazonians" as one group of people and one country/culture, then sure, there's been massive amounts of invasion and horrific genocide acted against them. But there are certainly distinct cultures within the Amazon that resist this classification and therefore, in my opinion, warrant their own consideration as fiercely independent and unconquered to this day.

If there's no state and no state apparatus, is that a country?

I suppose it comes down to how you're defining "country".

I'd say that the term country implies some sort of organized culture/community. It's pretty vague, either you can specifically apply it to modern nation-states (in which case there's scores of proper answers to this question) or you have to broaden that definition.
For example, take Australia. We consider it as having been invaded or having "lost its capital" because it was originally a colony and had been built by the genocide of a people already inhabiting the land. However, if we analyze this as a classified invasion, then we must accept that the Aboriginals were the group we're calling conquered, as the colonists were what I would consider conquerors. Though there were minor and isolated attempts at independence through revolution the modern nation state was essentially adapted out of the colonial government and then allowed sovereignty, meaning that unless we consider Australia as occupied today (which some, including myself, may do) then it wasn't occupied as a colony under its imperial masters but rather as a land conquered by foreign (European) invaders.

 

[JohannaK]

No, Australia is not even considered because it was a colony, and the OP explicitly looks for countries which have not been colonies. The question of conquest is irrelevant to it.