Investigators Seek Motive Behind Tennessee Shooting Rampage

[Sarmatian]

The USSR stopped listening to guys in robes and started exterminating them, especially in 1920-1930s. It also can boast of ethnic cleansings (= removing whole nations from their homes) and slaughtering the dissident. So moving away from religion doesn't automatically make a society more tolerant.

Sure, instead of religion we can pervert an ideology. The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with crusades, as Frags says, we can look at Thirty Years War, a nice pan European conflict and in reality a mass slaughter of those following different branch of Christianity.

I don't think Khazakhstan is a good example, because after the collapse of the USSR there were ethnic tensions between the Turkic and the Slavic communities which eventually made thousands of the latter leave the country for Russia and Ukraine.
Now such things are not heard about any more, yet in case Russia (Zhirinovsky already does it on occasion) propels its interest ethnic tensions (possibly with a religious admixture - if ISIS takes a hand) will be awake in no time.

There's bound to be some tensions in a collapsing country with a ruined economy. It's a wonder it haven't been worse and it's kind of a testament to my point.

And yet it was the British who did most in the history of mankind to end the practice of slavery around the world, and a large proportion of the former British empire still retains cultural and in some cases even political links with their former imperial oppressors.

So? Russia subjugated and oppressed all Muslim states in central Asia, and they keep cultural and political links and the mixed population lives generally in peace.

It doesn't really make sense to hold a grudge indefinitely or we'd never get anything done.

And it's notable that workable liberal democracies are more prevalent in areas formerly oppressed by the nasty British.

Well, "workable" isn't really easily definable, but the proper democracies built on western models today are those countries that were pretty much empty when British appeared, like Australia, Canada or USA.

In all other places, where there's been a big population, British track record isn't that great. Even in India there are massive human right abuses, from child labour to mutilation, religious violence and so. Burma isn't any better. Do I need to mention Pakistan or Afghanistan? In Singapore they chop your head of if you have a joint. Sub Saharan Africa is filled with dictatorships... British loved to rekindle old rivalries and encouraged conflict between natives when it suited their interest.

So, no, regardless of what Brits like to think, Britain hasn't been a more just overlord than France or Netherlands.

How many functional liberal democracies are there in the former Ottoman empire? Probably only Turkey, and that because of some fervently Europhilic bloke back in the mists of time.

Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, Jordan...