Bago

If you are going to use his religion as a way to marginalise him, then I too should indeed complain and moan about my old work places. - People who drink, used to do so during lunch hours, and make work decisions during lunch and omit me from this. - Some other new graduate used to get stoned day in, day out, and no-one ever batted an eyelid, or even sack him, when he did not even turn up for meetings ! ( Well, guess what, he remained in the company, while I was turfed out from my team, cos positions were redundant. Even though it was because I did not work with my boss, and was against some of his decisions. It was pretty obvious.) - If you did not drink during lunch time and mingled with the managers, then you're not part of the team. - If you did not smoke, or drink, then you're out of the "in" loop. Even when other people organises social outings as a team, managers did not used to go, cos it was "not their cup of tea". - Some people should be on support calls, but they don't turn up for the work, and others in the team had to cover for their arse, just to save their jobs. I am currently so glad of my current job in my current company. As they are nowhere like that, and the culture is more fairer and just. There is less towards having to fit in with your own manager, and to fit in with the group, or to deal with cynical employees who just want to climb up the ladder, and forget that they exist in a company, or that they have a team to lead, or responsibility to step up to. It is quite odd that you use the religion as a way to describe this guy's behaviour, whereas even I have not used religion in my description of my bad experiences in my first job.

This really makes me laugh. Should that not be a case of, "I read somewhere about what some muslims wants", and not a case of "I have heard from a muslim directly that this is what he/she want" ? I have also read a lot of racially discrminating things and even argued with people who uses casual racism to my face too. Yet, I have taken this in, and have to tolerate and put up with this? Do I really think that is what they mean literally, or is it that I am able to judge their emotions and their heated words of the moment? There is a lot of BS on the internet, and sure people will say very outrageous things online, and of coruse they do. If others then see and view them with less credibility, then it is the way life is. However, if you see and use other factors too to cross reference what you read, then maybe your idea is not as real as it seems. The fact that there has not been any Sharia Law introduced into the UK yet. Also, the fact that Sharia Law is not applicable to a non-muslim should enable you to know what it is about. Also, the fact that there is a central set of laws which governs people has remained the same for generations, and is not likely to change. The fact also is that there is only a few % of the overall population who are muslims, and will not work as a whole, should allow you to know that is not going to be a fret at all. So why should anybody in their right mind, have to put up with so much BS, and marginalisation of their own religious beliefs, or of their own ethnicity is beyond me! Even though I am not a muslim, I do see a lot of things very wrong in this country actually. The fact that we sexualise kids at a young age. The fact that we have a centralised governmental system who tracks down parents to pay child maintenance fees. The fact that not very mature adults take responsibilities of their own mistakes, or of their own lives. The fact that parents do not even take their own child's education seriously, but behaves like children themselves. The fact that we spend millions upon millions of hard-earn money from the general public, into a black hole of a healthcare system, and they do not come up with the goods, but is just enough to meet targets, which is good enough(?) The fact that people want to be a civil servants are not doing so for the right reason should enable any government to revamp the salary system. As a country with so many vocal voices, with so many ideas, and yet we still do not get it right, compared to so many other countries... well, do you not think that as citizens, we have to take responsibility for this?

That's a very odd thing to say. Maybe there are information with regards to other countries' transportation system on a local level, but I doubt that it would make headline news, unless it was something really big which affects people in a global context. To answer the OP. I think there are still direct trains from Sheffield to St Pancras, but it is just that they seem to be more expensive, and has a different pricing structure than it used to be when they were under Midland Mainline. I actually noticed this, and I cannot find better priced cheap single tickets on the day, when I used to be able to do so, just even within 1 hour of travel. There is a move to standardise all ticket tickets by some kind of transport authority. I have noticed this standardisation, and the consumers do not benefit at all. I also know that Midland Mainline was losing a lot of money, and hence I am not surprised that East Midland Mainline now gets tougher on the pricing to claw back some of the cost of the ownership of this new line.

If you want to inject some credibility into your story, then I think you should acknowledge that what you are asking are very different area of different subjects. Maybe you need to break it down further and answer each question before you build up this whole argument. The father/son information is basic biology. You need to know basic geneology. Then you have to find out the basic DNA testing which the police carries out. On top of it, I think you may find the standard tests used by the policeforce may not actually be that sophisticated at all. Which could throw your whole argument out of the window, or that you need another factor to help you use as an elimination factor in the whole argument. I would upgrade the policeforce bit to CIA, or FBI, or specialist branch of forensic testing. Or you can use the argument that they brought in consultants who specialised in genome testing and have found that he is the one. (This is actually pretty scientifically forefront, right now in the bio-tech industry. It is just not necessarily available in public health straight away.)

Wow, that's a very short gap of less than 50 years for THREE generation! Sadly, my last grandparent passed away just a year and a half ago, but she did live up to her late 80s, and was about to turn 90. I was really proud of her for staying with us for that long. My cousins had kids, so which meant there were 4 generations living at the same time, which I think is a very rare thing indeed. Dunney, I wish your gran good health, and joy.

This sounded like my granma too. I know that I don't see her often enough, which I felt really guilty about. Though, the times that I have seen her, I used to just listen to her moan about her daily life. I am also certain that she was depressed as well, being cooped up in the house, and is not able to get out and about. She also started to be picky as well in her food, and eat more salted food, which we grew up with than what was good for her nutritionally. There was also one time when she was too malnourished that, we had to admit her into hospital. I stayed with her and visited her often. What I have found out is that, she did eat a lot more when in the hospital. She also had company in the hospital too, and there were other old elderly ladies who shared and emphasized with each other about their own illnesses. I think this really boosted their morales. Just in a few days' time, we saw her face slowly gained more fat, and her weight increased, even though she still had severe stomach pains. (We did eventually found out that she had stomach cancer, which was the root cause of her loss of apetite.) The thing which really did amaze me was the camaraderie between the ladies. It was something that I have not really seen in a long time. I think with elderly people, their loss of contact with people on a daily basis do demotivate themselves a lot. Also, even if they do have pains here and there, they won't, and don't necessarily communicate that to you directly. For me, I had to investigate a little bit to find out why my gran was scared of eating vegetables, or why she thought that pork was bad for her. (When she had forgotten one time to clean the knife properly before putting it back into the block, which made her really ill the next time she used it for cooking.) My gran also lived way into her late 80s. I think what is important is the quality of life for the individual in that kind of late age. I would never have thought about that at all until I have seen my own gran go through this. Also, as been suggested already, that she may have to eat softer food, which her body agrees with her a lot more. I had to hide the veg one time I cooked for my gran, just so that she cannot see the vegetable. I just used vegetable stock instead for the vitamins, in a clear rice porridge, which went down easily. If you have kids, you may want to make the kids eat together with her to boost her morale too. I noticed that my gran used to eat so much when my cousins were with her. I don't know whether it is the mothering instinct within her, which made her enjoyed her food more, or what. The more she started pushing my little cousins to eat, the more she ate. I think simple companionship is also important too.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. As much as people hate these extreme protestors, there are equally as hateful extreme racists in this country who also sprout crap like sending people home, when they do not have any remit to say such things. It is these people who will also be hated. Even though under this country's culture, it is classed as "politics", and that it is more acceptable. As much as people threatened to have blood on the streets of London, were there any? It is the same as people threaten to deport others out of the country due to the colour of their skin, and the words which they say which seems to go against their supposed idea of support and loyalty to this country. I do not see these people being hated against the main, but yet they themselves also distant themselves from your average ethnic minority when most just don't get involved in politics as much as they do.

Okay. So now, you want to see that cartoon incidence as a mere singular event in history? Despite the fact that 7/7 happened in that same year (2005), and that 9/11 happened a few years earlier in 2001? England may not have played a part in the publication of the actual cartoon, but then we played a part in all the criticisms towards muslims and Islam as a whole after 9/11, and also after 7/7. I am so certain and sure that all you needed to so is scan this website and you will find the numerous threads and the words which were spoken of, at that time. I do not think that people change their minds so soon either, despite the fact that they were ignorant on the religion to begin with. Why can't those protesting muslims say their piece? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons I really do agree with these comments, cos it was SO obvious: Some critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist,[5] and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism. You know what, I have always found such satire sick, and demeaning. There is no way that an individual who demean others of their beliefs have a true heart of humanity. It is at most bullying behaviour to get others to accept and behave like them. Maybe it's dictactorship and not acceptance. Many people may not understand British sarcasm, which I will agree with, but at the same time, many British people have no understanding of other cultures. This is demonstrated in the following comment. On 19 February, Rose explained his intent further In the Washington Post: The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. I think it is BS. You do not integrate others by forcing them to integrate and insult them of their beliefs. If anything, they are forcing others by attacking them on a very personal level. Do you think that will empower others to wish to integrate and accept what was done? If the Danish newspaper accepted muslims in their country, then they would not have gone and done the most stupid of all things to insult a prophet. When muslims are so personal with their beliefs and is something which they hold dearly. Well, if you are going to see that as a mere isolated incidence, then do you also want to know why people like myself is upset? I am not a muslim, and I can see how things have unfolded, and the news at the time of 9/11, and 7/7, along with all the things that were done and said in the past 10 years or so. When exactly will it stop? You know what, I find it suppressing when someone like myself say a fair piece on matters like these, I am labelled and marginalised automatically as a leftie. Even when I am not a very political person at heart. Even when I can see that others actually insult others first, and bystanders wishes to inject with a fairer word. If you do not think that these protestors spoke for all muslims, then why do you continually use words like "they" did, on a public forum? You are talking to someone as if you think that all muslims in this country are the same as those protestors. This is the perception which you are giving too. Because, as much as you say that these muslim protestors publically show their hatred for this countr. How do you think people like myself, view actions done by you? Especially when you give continuous negative comments too with regards to Islam or muslims in general?

Depoix, I answered all the questions posed in your post. I then asked you more questions in a way to make you think about the literal "facts" that you seem to base your presumptions on. It is to make you think outside of the scope of what it is that you are literally saying. Frankly, I do not see how people can base their prejudice and expect others to accept it. Yes, you may fear of what is to come because of what those people said and protested, and I myself also fear of those who sprout racial discrimination crap on the SF, and I have to put up with it. You won't find me befriending them however. Yet, it does not mean I won't out my views forward publically to dispel those myths. If you cannot know how many of those people spoke on behalf of others, then why do you presume that other muslims views are the same as those who protested? I do not have a shadow of a doubt that some muslims see the comments about raping others as sickening, as I do. I know that I myself have generalised ths whole terrorism, Islamaphobia as a whole, but it is done to make you think whether you felt any part of it of what you said was outrageous and not strictly true. There is no doubt that the protest happened, and not anybody has denied that. However, I am certain that a lot of people will say that those particular protestors do not speak for all muslims all over this world. That, I am pretty certain about. I cannot imagine another chinese speaking for me, so why should I expect and generalise and think that a muslim will speak for another muslim and accept all that is said? I have written comments about the stop searches, and the placard's words are because they were said in the heat of the moment, and that is how they feel. Yet, you are absolutely right in the sense that, there is no way why there cannot be acceptance of differences. However, it is because that cartoon was the straw which broke the camel's back, which enabled even your average law abiding muslim to pick up a placard and write such strong feelings on them. That is how I see it. About decandence and capitalism. Not everyone in this country embraces this, and I am sure that even you will accept this point, if I said that your average working class Yorkshireman would not be a spendthrift either. So why would you think that this kind of preference to be humble with your money is strictly isolated in Islamic culture alone? It doesn't. [Added] Humanity within a person, and not humanity as a nation and by the government! People are hardly humane, if they keep on demotivating others by criticising them and insulting them personally, of their beliefs, their lives, and their want in life. Exactly why would any individual need to push anyone else to this kind of extreme? I understand that sarcasm is indeed witty if done in an acceptable tone, but at best, if done wrongly, then you are merely just insulting and demeaning another human being.

Sorry, I stand corrected. It used to cover Sikhs, and Jews, and not Muslims or Christians, but now the table has turned. Rightly so. About time. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/racial-religious-hatred-bill?version=2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3873323.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6573005.stm Under the agreement, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin must be punishable by at least a year in jail. [Added] But dissemination of "tracts, pictures or other material" is punishable if it is designed to incite violence or hatred. Basically, the type of cartoon which demean and degrade a religious figure in a way to tout for a response can never appear again. That's my understanding...

You have eyes, read it. If you don't want to try, then don't response, thank you!

The Racism Law in this country covers 2 religion. Islam and Judaism. Yes, you may argue that it is not about race, but because people go on about it so often, and are prejudicial towards other religious people, this is the result of the racial law covering these kind of religions. What they were fighting was their own dignity, and their right to believe in something which they hold strongly. It is like me insulting someone of their believe in their football team, when they see it and view it as part of their heritage. I would not be so stupid and mean to do that, as I don't wish to degrade something which someone holds so dearly. So exactly why do you think that others will and should accept this kind of public insults? They did not make demands, they just shouted. Just as people shouts and rant here, or unless you are telling me that all those Islamaphobic comments were actually demand by the individuals in how they want society to be, disregarding other people's feelings anyway? I once mentioned that drugs should be banned, and someone quickly jumped up and said "no", that I should not put forward a law which will suppress them. Yet, what about me? If I was suppressed and marginalised, who stands up and speak for me? Whether people took that seriously, or if they felt scared, I know that at the basis of it all, are indeed drummed up ill-feelings, which had been bottled for a long time, and if that action released it, then why not? It has already happened. What happens next is what people should focus on. I think that the incitement laws were indeed to curb materials such as those cartoons as much as those protesting muslims who said some outrageous things. Especially the one about raping women. I find that really quite sick. Then again, I have seen just as sick comments of a similar nature on this very forum, and nobody curbed it! In fact, others encouraged them too. Hey, how about that? Lack of strict policing? They shouted a lot of things, which I think are a mishmah of cultural differences. Just as much as non-muslims do not understand, and nor respect the significance of making fun of a prophet in a cartoon, there were similar threats such as the rape one thrown too from a few of those muslim men, which were despicable. Freedom of speech was blackened when someone can use cartoons (and clever smart ways) to say the same thing with words, when you really know that that the hatred within their hearts remains. Let's admit that. What exactly does other people expect? Yet, the same outrageous thing were said about raping women was just as sick a comment to make! I am not saying that it never happened. However, I can see the cause and effect of everything. Are you telling me that there were no prejudice shown to muslimsin this country? That Islamaphobia did not exist? That, people did try to really understand the religion and culture in its basic context from an Eastern mind and not with a Western logic mindset? i.e. "If else, then...." When I talk of subjectiveness, I meant in the context of topics. Not of situations. There is always two sides to a coin, and I am sure that you know how much muslims were prejudiced against, and how many stop and searches happened for them, especially when 7/11 happened. It is also in a recent situation whereby a guy who went on a protest also lost his job at the airport. I find that outrageous too. Why do you see it as making demands, and not just shouting out their feelings? Just like many other protestors in the US during the Vietnam War? Can you say that the law in the UK changed because of that protest? Can you say to me that you were affected in any way, and that what they "demanded" were indeed done? Could you say to me that, were there further "demands" and protests done by any other muslim groups after that particular event? What I like to know is: - How many muslims marched in London in that particular unfortunate protest. - Out of this number of muslims, how many are speaking on behalf of ALL muslims in the UK? - How many muslims accept what was said in that march to echos with their own feelings? - How many non-muslims understand Islam, or the Sharia Law? - Out of how many of these people who is fighting these supposed muslim radical, are they and do they understand the root and the crux of the basis of the protestor's injust feelings in relation to the religion itself? - How many people actually listened to what was said and read what was written on those cardboard placards? (It mentioned a "decadent" lifestyle. It mentioned lack of humanity.) - Also, how many people accept that there are different muslims in this big world, and that there is no centralised structure to all believers? Just like there isn't a main focus for all Christians, since there are so many denomination and application of the religion itself. To be honest, even though I do not agree with some of the comments made in that protest by those protestors, I know that some other comments are similar to what some people here say day in day out. That they hate a capitalistic society, and that there lacks a sense of humanity, and community. Which is what people like Starsparkle had been saying all along, ironically. So are these protestors really that outrageous in what they are saying too?

To be honest, I've had my fair share of frustration and antagonism in these kind of call centres, but there would be no way I would insult them personally! Maybe I feel sorry for them because I know how it works on helpdesks, and how their jobs are structured. It is not like a person who work on the first rung of that company structure is likely to be able to call any shots to cater for the customers' needs.

Did your mother never taught you any manners? Oh, it shows.

Let's just say that her natural hair colour is black, and if you deviate so strangly into a lighter colour, it looks both unnatural and does draw attention to you. If you did this in HK, then you'd be named as a triad, and no decent companies will indeed employ you. Whereas, I think she thought that it was liberating in Taiwan, as a lot of young people had that at the time. Yet, this was one of the Big Six accounting firm. I do not think that they would allow their employees to look so strangely in a suit. Maybe your opinions will differ to mine in this respect. If you cannot even take yourself seriously by wearing a decent suit and have a natural hair colour and have the basics covered, it does send a certain message to the interviewer. Yes, I think that any decent interviewer would at least test you for your ability and skills, but most of all, your overall suitability to the company. If you think that wearing an outrageous colour is suitable to a large firm, then maybe a lot of recruiters have been wrong in using this kind of basic test to test interviewees? I do apologise for getting this so wrong.

I do not know about you, and maybe your working experiences were different to mine. I already learnt from my first job that there is a company handbook, and in some company handbook, it states how you are supposed to behave, and how you should dress to represent your company. Whether your team leader or boss pulls you up on it, and discipline you because of this is another matter. Most bosses would just overlook it. Or some will actually try and persuade you and have a quiet word about ettiquettes and expected manners at work. Why would you not take responsibility for your own look, and try and land someone into a difficult position as to whether to discipline you or not? Plus, dyed hair was not that common once upon a time, and it is only in recent years do you see a lot of people going for colours which differs to their own natural colour, or at least they dye the whole head the same colour, and not different colours and streak. Just because your experience hadbeen different did not mean that other people's experiences are not valid. I can say that someone in my office in my first job had a quiet word from their boss about the type of shoes which they wore during the summer. When it is stated clearly in the handbook not to wear open-toed sandals.

I'm sure I have posted another post before it got removed. I would appreciate it if mods do give feedback as to why they were removed!

Depoix, I do not want to come across as too rude when I am about to say this, but those kind of materials are pretty much BS. I can also dig out a lot of contents and racial contents which exists in this supposed democratic country of ours. I can also pick out comments and materials which shows skin heads fighting others, and drunks fighting each other during football time to know that I can still be safe to a certain extent. So, you are telling me that instead of mingling and talking to your neighbour, you would actually read articles of a snapshot in time which gathers people's feelings and sentiment in a very heated argument or debate to judge them of their whole persona? Well! If that is the case, then should I continue to think and label many racists that has come out of the woodwork on this forum? Even though the owners here have endorsed their actions and comments for an awful long time because they do not undestand what racism really means? Or even the fact that they don't know when that line has been overstepped. Cos what they have written and their closet feelings are pretty despicable from where I am sitting. I have said this for years on this forum, I do not know think others seem to know what the Sharia Law is about. Especially when they have not even had the exposure to it. I sense that there had always been a missing link. I find it funny. Ironic that a lot of people will try to explain an Eastern concept with a Western mentality. I know that in the back of my mind is a clash of culture, but at the same time, I do see commonalities between people, and between culture. I can also now clearly see that there are a hell of a lot of pushy people out there, and I have been naive in my sentiment and feeling that we are similar. I am so incredibly naive. Let's just say that, a lot of people have actually gone out their way to get what they wanted and sprout their version of poo without subjectiveness for a very long time.

I do not think that I am mistaken, because if you read any anthropology book, then civilisation defines as an established group of people who wish to live under the same rules. With regards to the British Empire and the colonisation of other civilisation, this is not always wanted, and you should at least acknowledge it this much. Even if you changed the question to, the quoted one above, they did not necessarily improved the standard of living, because there already had a living civilisation model, and it works for them. Maybe the question should have been, "Was it right to colonise a civilisation into the British model?" Cos the colonies were different to Britain then any way. You cannot say whether it did improve their standard of living when new ways of living were introduced which was alien to the local population at that time. Even though it may seem "tribal", and I am sure that this is defined in English dictionary to what it means. Yet, if you view this thread from the anthropology's viewpoint, then you know that many civilisations existed, and work in their own ways without interference from others. Examples are, Egyptian, Mayan, the current Native Americans, the Inuits and the First Nations... Amazonian tribes...Malaysian Hill Tribes... Aborigines. Articles of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples There are conflicts and points of the imbalance of power whenever one civilisation attacks and try to take and rule over another. I do not see how many others can just see and think that the British Empire was purely a good thing, without any unfairness at all to the actual indigenous people. There are hundreds and thousands of tribes out there, and it is only now do governments recognises that they should be respected, and protected. I'm sure that many were already robbed of their own sources, and do not have any form of payback.

I find your personal insults unnecessary. I do not see the relevancy for you to criticise my English on a discussion about civilisation. That is truly laughable. I am a person with a technical and scientific mind, where I can obviously see that you are not. For me, I am finding any words to describe in a universal way without biase on the note about civilisation, society, and anthropology. At least I attempt this without insults. Whereas you already think and prejudge me on my thoughts. Where the heck do you get off doing that? You then continue to throw racial insults at me, and marginalise me? lol. That really is something(!) It is no wonder that the OP had to add a clause to say to omit racially discrminating elements. You just lapped it right up and cannot even hold yourself without being a racist in this kind of thread. Surprise, surprise. What is that supposed to mean? Are you threatening me? Who the heck are you to say that to my face? I abide by the laws in this country, if you don't like it, get stuff. I think you are a closet racist, is what I truly think. If you cannot even know and understand this kind of thread without you throwing a wobbly and think that you are acting in an egotistic way, which is what the OP is suggesting and why this is seen as so. You cannot even detach yourself from your personal views with that of a subjective one for science and discussion sake. I find that appalling.... What is indeed enlightening to me from exposure on forums like this, are the attitude and people's closet feelings towards others. I am gobsmacked to find that others "tolerate" others, which means to me that they are suppressing their own feelings. If you cannot tolerate others, then don't. Nobody holds a gun to your head to live in this country. Yet, nobody is owned by you, so I do not know where the hell you get off saying that others take you for granted. Get a life. Seriously.

I do not think that is how some people see it. After all, the owners promote this site as for the "community", and you already know that some people know each other in real life, and there would be no way which they will overstep that line of friendships, or to put themselves out to say something so publically. To answer the first post, yes. I think it is inevitable that people will indeed hold grudges, and no, you cannot start new threads when you already know that you overstepped that line into a personal area, and pretend that it did not happen and continue to remain subjective on a topic for debate sake. Also, you can always tell who is out for a formal debate and is subjective to the topic, and then you can always see who is using their own personal experiences to put their arguments forward just because that is all they ever know. People are just the same, if you push them too much, then they will crack and fight back, and there are plenty of differences there. I still remember where or what I have written with regards to the different topics, and who took a great bite out of those. You just do. To not acknowledge it in another thread and think that there is nothing wrong is like not owning up to your own responsibility of having to riled someone up, is like sweeping something under the carpet and patronising expect others to accept you and your written words willing-nilly. I somehow do not think that is how it works. Cos I can see it so often everywhere, and some people just assume that you should get over it, even when they themselves have stepped over the line. Oh, how I learnt the social forum rules!

That is an unnecessary comment. Have you ever had ethnic minority say to your face that is what they want to do? If not, then please do not presume to post your fears and put words into other people's mouths and then think that you are being prejudiced against, and forced to follow a certain way. Thank you. Why should in a country of supposed "democracy" allowed others to sprout unconstructive comments without good reasons to back them up? If that is how you think, then after reading comments on this forum alone, I welcome stricter policing and sentencing. Also, I welcome any laws to raise ideas which sexualise kids, and bring back decent hard-working people who do not sponge off others, and have the focus to contribute to their country rather than sprout crap daily and demotivate themselves into a depression, and therefore be less useful member of society.

If that is your answer, then it raises the question in MY mind... "Why does this person need to raise that point that a country did better than others from historical colonisation?" If people is indeed wanting to discuss this subject in a very clinical and critical way, then there is no way that anybody would need to take sides. You have to ask, "can anyone with roots linked to something in this country really not take it personally and partake in such a subjective topic?" Presuming that is what the OP started this thread to find out.

I think the British Empire is a very big subject. Where do you start? Did repressions and hang-up passed on? Depends on where you are standing, the view of how things happened surely is very different depending on what knowledge and want or views you hold? I'm sure that many people thought that they would have a better life because someone was in control. Yet, others would think and fight for their own rights and live despite someone new in charge, as they retain and maintain their own sense of culture and identity. Were the conquered peoples civilised in their own rights before they were "civilised" by Britain? - I find the above comment pretty insulting, because it is based on a singular viewpoint and basis that anything in the West is "civilised". What is civilisation if a person has all that they need, and can survive in this world? You may argue based on Western literature what the word "civilisation" means in its truest extent, and that anyone who deviate from clothes, or modern technology is primative. Yet, if a group of people can survive in the wild and is part of the ecosystem, then do you think that it is right to push that imbalance? What if there were structure and rules even within whatever civilisation structure is in place in that country? I don't want to go down the road of being argumentative on words said with biase. What I do think is that, on a subjective level, many people and countries would want to better their own lifestyle in a way which they find acceptable. Just because in a set period of time, many smaller countries took the defensive decision of conquering other countries to find what is out there, for curiosity sake, or for personal gain is all plausible, does not mean that the countries (or its people) that were conquered did not have the same idea or mindset at the time. The world could have turned out very differently. Who will really know how it would have been? I came across an interview once which Bill Clinton gave to a BBC reporter, and I thought that was the most sensible answer I have heard ever. He mentioned that after the World War, most countries were on a scramble to get themselves through the industrial phase, and to dominate the business world. To get their own country to be sufficient to recooperate from the cost of wars. Now, you have globalised companies and every company will try and enforce their HQ's country of culture onto others. So really... why does anyone think that just because the history happened the way it did that, others may not have done the same too?

It was supposed to be a philsophical question, but then people took it literally and started to invite others to do the same, and even when taken the context as literal, the OP started to get embarrassed and then fought in return when others took it literal. So then everyone took it literally and said that is what they did, and if that is the case, then there are a lot of very sad individuals indeed, cos they wound others up just because of what they wrote and do privately. Then you literally have a few people who suggested rape! Or orgies! "Literally". How outrageous can it get? What I do see is that sad adults behavingly badly, and think that others do the same as they do privately, is what it boiled down to. I don't give a darn how this country used to be, and how Christianity used to be. I do think that many people know the time and place for privacy and when to discuss this, and if individuals think that there is no offensiveness in time and places, and that private individual line, which you do not cross, are more and far more stupid than I thought. What is right for one person do not and is not right for another. I have no hell of an idea, how others can stereotype me, when I am not even a Christian. It does say a lot about their values, and what their own demons within themselves, cos that is all that they can quantify with my views with.