Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ... 14  Next

I think this is a real tricky question. British culture, and Canadian and US, arose out of Christianity. But it evolved to the point of secularism, or say the Deism of the American founders. I think that's something to be proud of and maintain, including its Christian roots. That's different than having a state religion or the govt preferring one religion over another. Tricky line to walk, especially set against the fundamentalism of the immigrants. It's like trying to discuss the rainbow with someone who only sees black and white. So Cameron should be talking about recognizing Britain's Christian heritage, rather than centrality of Christianity to British life - I doubt that's really true.

   

UK can implement whatever strategy they want. In my opinion it will not help them any.

They cannot pass a law that every white British girl should marry a Muslim man and that Muslims should change their names, religion and style of life; and that is what sits on the bottom of it.

A parallel Muslim society can survive and grow for hundreds of years in a country, preserving its language and religion (maybe indefinitely).

   

You have a fine grasp of this subject eh? Woof.

   

You're kidding, right???

   

It is a matter of two things:

1.Personal identity - where a person sees himself/herself in a culture. Does he/she feel as being equal to others and sharing their values and ideas

2. Acceptance - how the society treats a person.

In simplistic terms you cannot make wine out of water, a dog out of a cat or anything of that nature.

As to the longevity of isolated Muslim communities in a country, my words come from experience. I come from a place where Muslims were a minority and we had no new Muslims immigrating into the country for over 200 years. Yet, on one occasion I ended up on a bus one day where everyone around me was speaking a language I could not understand. It was not the country's official language!

   

Pluggy is absolutely right.

But I'll also note some sympathy to your sentiments as I doubt the colonial powers intended to have an overall positive effect on those they ruled.

In India the British put an end to the practice of the Suttee. Up until the Brits came along when a man died in India he'd be cremated and his widow would be burned alive with him.

The Brits also ended the Thuggee cult and I doubt anyone in India today mourns the loss.

British influence in Hong Kong has left it still the most prosperous city in China. British influence in Honduras led to the Constitutional removal of President Zelaya when he tried to make himself a dictator.

The Dutch left Indonesia as the most progressive Muslim-majority nation in the world.

The French vastly improved the culinary skills of Vietnam to the point that a fair number of five-star chefs in the USA today are of Vietnamese descent.

It is true that many colonial enterprises (Belgian Congo) were little more than government-sponsored atrocities but it's not hard to argue that many of the rising powers of the 2nd world can attribute their successes to the cultural impacts their one-time colonial masters had upon them.

That's not a short list. South Korea's industrial might is directly derived from the heavy industries that Japan built in the country. Brazil owes much to Portugal. Argentina and Mexico owe much to Spain. China is the industrial power it is today due to Westerners forcing them away from the stagnation of Confucianism. India owes a lot to the Dutch, Portuguese, and Brits.

And etc.

Frankly, even Islamic colonization of parts of Europe has left impacts in architecture, literacy, and military prowess.

   

Its a common symptom of colonialism...stating that the European powers have made the lives of their global acquisitions better. 99 times out of a hundred it is the white Europeans making those claims. No one bothers to ask the colonized their thoughts, it is just assumed that being invaded, occupied and looted by Europeans was a good thing for everyone.

Why not ask the Native Americans, or the slaves, or the millions of others that were wiped out by the Spanish, Dutch, French, English....

I'd guess that rather than being poor second or third class citizens in an occupied industrial country most would prefer to be first class citizens in an unindustrialized country that never saw one European person ever.

If you call millions of working poor with no property or wealth and no prospects for gaining wealth a "success", then ya, colonialism has been a huge success.

   

Well, part of my family is Irish and absent British influence on Ireland they'd still be living in filth and ignorance. That does not diminish the fact that the British also sat idly by while millions of Irish starved to death. But I'd be just as ignorant as those I condemn if I did not acknowledge the positives that came with the negatives.

   

Absolutely incredible revisionism. Centuries of slavery, segregation and exploitation justified by trivial things like "raising culinary skills"? Really?Marginal benefits such as extinguishing a particular band of thieves pales in comparisson to what the locals endured under the yoke of colonialism.

The ongoing confilct in the Middle East and Africa is a direct result of Colonialism. The Colonial powers divided up lands amongst themselves, creating countries without regard to the inhabaitants of thos nations. Iraq and Afghanistan for example, are countries that the Brits created despite the fact that those lands contain many different people who don't want to live together. The Rwandan Genocide was likewise a war between two tribes who were forced to live together, with the Belgians pitting the tribes against each other, giving one privelaged status over the other based on an invented racialism.

Contrary to what the White House would have you think, Zelay did not "try to make himself dictator". He proposed a referendum on constitutional reform, something that democracies do from time to time. He was ousted because despite being a conservative, he starte to become friendly to labour movements and the sweatshop owners and their US clientelle don't like that.

I'm not sure one can realy say Indonesia is the most progressive Muslim nation. Egypt may be. I'm also not sure what role Colonialism played in any of that, vs natural resources and the desire to attract and retain western businesses (the 2 are not unrelated).

S. Korea's industry is the result of post-war investment by the US. China is a communist country, not sure where you think western influence played a role, except that westerners are so cheap we will outsource our jobs there and I don't see where China has been "purged" of it.

Mexico and Latin America are a bit of a funny case because the majority of the inhabitants are actually at least partially descended from the colonizers and the people who live well in those countries are mostly still pure-bred European stock. The Indians in those countries are still largely dirt-poort peasants. As you know, those countries don't have much of a history of democracy or human rights and most were run by puppet dictatorships controlled by their colonial masters.

   

Yep, Africa is doing a great job 50 years after the Brits et al left. You ever been out of your basement? I spent three years of my life in various bits of Africa. They replaced white dictators with black ones.

   

Zelaya proposed ending term limits for himself so he could become President-for-life. The Honduran Constitution reserves the right to rewrite the Constitution to the Honduran Congress and Zelaya was trying to do this by Presidential edict. In accordance with Honduran law he was removed from office.

Honduras strictly followed their own laws in this circumstance and they should be praised for doing so because no one died in this crisis. They have a body of law and the law prevailed.

   

Wrong!

   

   

   

I know. You're just confused.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ... 14  Next