The English Defence League has a reputation as a “racist” organization. It matters not a whit to the media oligarchs that Islam is not a race. It makes no difference that the EDL has numerous non-white members who cherish English culture. In the MSM and among the chattering classes, the meme is set, and cannot be changed.
The Danish journalist Sigurd Ericson visited England to find out first-hand the truth about the EDL’s “racism”. His report has been published at Europe News, and is reproduced here with permission.
Not a Trace of Racism: An Outsider’s Look at the EDL
by Sigurd Ericson
(LONDON, October 25, 2010) The English Defence League is racist, fascist and violent — in brief, something the cat dragged in and which must be crushed by any means necessary if England is to remain free and democratic. This is what the British media have been telling the public ever since the EDL first made its appearance in the town of Luton 18 months ago, and armed with this knowledge I went to England to see for myself.
I was in for a big surprise for I could find no evidence that would support any of these accusations.
Quite the contrary: The leaders and rank and file that I met in London, Wolverhampton, Luton and Bolton (a fair cross-section of the national membership, one should think) are multi-ethnic. They are black and white, English, Irish (interestingly, both Catholic and Protestant), Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jewish and probably a few other denominations and nationalities. Homosexuals are welcome and have even formed their own “division” in London — as have the Jews.
Rabbi Shifren supports the English Defence League
These special divisions may not have a lot of members but they exist and the EDL leadership would clearly like to see them grow.
The most important national leader, Tommy Robinson, who told this reporter that the Sikhs are the “most English of the English”, demonstrated this absence of racism.
When the media and the political and cultural elites accuse the EDL of racism, they must thinking of something else, namely that the organisation is adamantly opposed to the growing Islamisation of England. But Islam is an ideology and a political practice, not a race, as several members were keen to point out.
A working-class movement
The EDL is entirely working-class in outlook and demeanour and proudly so. Their sole political objective appears to be the defence of English — sometimes referred to as Christian — culture against Islamic encroachment. They despise the current British left but mainly because it is being subservient to Islamic interests. They have no trust in the official political leaders, who they consider to be sell-outs.
One is reminded of George Orwell’s observation:
If there is any hope at all, it has to come from the proles.
Nobody this reporter spoke to — leaders as well as rank and file — has any sympathy with English Nazis or with The British National Party, which they consider racist in the traditional sense of the term. Adherents of totalitarian or racialist ideologies are unceremoniously evicted.
It is very difficult to judge the size of the national following. I heard various figures — 30,000 was mentioned — but as far as I can tell, no records are kept.
Perhaps there is a tendency to exaggerate. The leader of the East London division said that the EDL has only 180 activists in the capital. The organisation’s main strength appears to be in the Midlands and the North of the country.
Leaders by example
The EDL leadership can most fairly be described as charismatic. The leaders are those who can think and speak and have proved their mettle in concrete action.
That is undoubtedly the only form of organisation possible at this stage. The EDL is utterly vulnerable to infiltration by police agents and others who would like nothing better than to derail it and make it engage in self-destructive, violent and illegal activities that can then be used as a pretext for a clamp down.
It is already eminently clear that the authorities are using and will use any trick in the book to squash the EDL including police harassment and attempts by the Inland Revenue Service to financially ruin its leaders.
Tommy Robinson is currently under investigation for violent assault and money laundering — charges that he says are trumped up.
“We are a bit rough”, Robinson recently admitted to a gathering of his followers in London. But as far as this reporter could tell, nowhere near as rough as the so-called “antifascists” that try to foment violence every time the EDL stages a demonstration — and certainly not compared to the Muslim thugs that have long ruled by violence in so many English cities.
Strengths
The EDL can best be described as a working-class “band of brothers” determined to preserve their way of life. They are not intellectuals and may know little about the details of English history but they have a deep sense of what that history is about. Any outsider with ill motives trying to impose himself will stand out like a sore thumb.
The EDL leadership and rank and file clearly know all they need to know about Islam. This reporter was particularly impressed by their ability to connect a general analysis of Islamic ideology and modus operandi with street wisdom — or expressed differently: to see the deep implications of any deference to Islamic cultural demands — such as the building of mega-mosques or the introduction of “medieval toilets” for Muslims in supermarkets.
They also have a keen sense that Muslim street crime should be seen as part of a wider strategy to undermine English society.
EDL members on a run-down estate in Luton characterised Muslim drug dealing as a “chemical jihad”. After gangs of Muslims have started pushing their wares on white youngsters, every bloke on the estate has a friend who is hooked on heroin.
A female pub owner from the neighbourhood agrees. “They come here most every night right across the street and sell their heroin. The police know all about it but don’t lift a finger.”
The organisation can undoubtedly use a few intellectuals as analysts, experts, legal advisors, office personnel and the like but if it gives up its working-class leadership and permits well-meaning intellectuals to call the shots, it will become a vastly different type of organisation.
Weaknesses
One must seriously doubt whether the EDL can survive in its present form. Leaders and activists are wearing themselves out with all the work they are trying to accomplish and one gets the impression that their missuses are not happy. On top of that they have to earn a living in their civilian trades. Unless the EDL gets sufficiently organised to pay its officers a living salary and hires some office personnel to help them out, the end will be in sight.
Given the size of the ground-level support the EDL is undoubtedly enjoying, it should not be impossible to generate funds for a more professional organisation. One of the London leaders told this reporter that many of his mates at work agree with him but dare not cross the line to openly commit themselves. But they could certainly pay a few quid a week to support the cause. That has been done before in numerous battles around the world.
Outlook
Historically 99 out of 100 peoples’ movements have come to naught — with their leaders in jail and their supporters dispirited.
There is no doubt that everything will be done to crush the EDL because the British government must be aware that if the EDL survives, it will force the authorities to openly choose sides: Islam or England.
If, however, the EDL can survive, stay the course and maintain its strength for just a few years, the battle will have been won.
See also:
49 comments:
I must say as sick and tired as I am of the powers that be accusing the Tea Party, EDL and various other organizations as racists I am just as sick and tired of constant stories, photo ops and cries of "We are not racists". I understand why they feel the need to defend themselves but ultimately they are falling into the liberal trap. Showing photos with Rabbi's or blacks isnt going to convince liberals or sway independents who cant rub together two brain cells.
I remember seeing a photo from a recent Tea Party event where two white guys were posing with a black guy in the middle. Each white guy had a T-shirt on that said something to the effect of "Are we racists" with an arrow on the shirts pointing to the black guy. It was pathetic! I wish these groups would stop playing this stupid liberal game. This unending white guilt is one of the last rotten appendages of liberalism that most Conservatives just cant seem to get rid of?
The system could absorb the EDL.
I must say as a member of the BNP how come you believe those that are calling the EDL NAZI, FACIST and RACIST are lying about the EDL ?
The same people who are demonizing the EDL are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who call the BNP RACIST, NAZI and FACIST.
Why do you beleive them about the BNP and not about the EDL ?
We have EXACTLY the same enemies.
Only idiots would still believe them about what they say about the BNP.
Silly Kuffar --
Where did anyone here describe the BNP as "Nazi", "racist", or "fascist"?
This post does not even mention the BNP!
Please point to the exact place where I or any other Gates of Vienna contributors (not the commenters; they are not my responsibility) have ever described the BNP as "Nazi", "racist", or "fascist".
If you cannot do that, then I insist that you withdraw your insulting and ill-founded accusations. Take your unpleasantness elsewhere.
"Silly" is exactly the appropriate adjective for you and your avatar.
Paragraph 9:
Nobody this reporter spoke to — leaders as well as rank and file — has any sympathy with English Nazis or with The British National Party, which they consider racist in the traditional sense of the term.
The BNP's racialist constitution, which makes ‘ethnic origin’ a test of membership, is why they are considered "racist in the traditional sense of the term".
One is reminded of George Orwell’s observation:
If there is any hope at all, it has to come from the proles.
In was "Winston Smith", a fictional character in Orwell's novel, who said that. Since the totalitarian state in 1984 triumphed at the end of the novel I'd imagine Orwell's own feelings were decidedly more ambivalent.
The EDL seems to be following the paralyzing "no friends to the right" rule in the false hope it will buy them a little respectability. Those who can't embrace "racism", the fact that the races are different and thus have different interests, or "fascism", the hard rule for the benefit of the productive middle rather than the decadent top and bottom, are cut off from the herd and slaughtered.
The BNP changed their constitution last February:
BNP changes all-white constitution and ejects Times reporter from meeting
However since they changed it under threat of prosecution their sincerity is perhaps in doubt.
I'll second the opinions of Spackle and Thrasymachus.
The EDL are doomed if they do nothing but react to their lefty enemies and the press. They'll always be trying to pander to those who wish them ill, to prove a irrelevent point about what their enemies believe them to be. Of course armchair generals always have it easy and I'm thousands of miles away from that conflict.
The BNP have every rite to be ethnicaly or racially orientated just as native Americans, Tibetans,
native Australians and other natives are when it comes to defending their geographic and cultural homelands. I think we'd all agree that the Israelies are justified in their efforts to guard their ancestral homeland which is politically represented, so the BNP have nothing to be defamed for.
The BNP screwed up by immediatly disowning not only the EDL but anyone who supported the EDL, calling the movement a "honey trap". It was a poor political calculation that fragments the drive to a renewed English England.
Baron Bodissey, in his upbraid of "Silly Kuffar", wrote:
"This post does not even mention the BNP!"
In fact, as "Sean O'Brian" pointed out, the BNP are mentioned in the report, and the mention implicitly impugns the BNP (by contrasting them unfavorably with the EDL specifically in terms of alleged racism and ostensibly lumping them together with "English Nazis") and thus implicitly accepts the mainstream demonization of the BNP. Had "Silly Kuffar" taken the trouble to reproduce the quote and directly advert to its words, perhaps Baron Bodissey would not have taken such precipitous, and ill-advised, umbrage.
Sean --
Thank you; I was wrong.
I missed that reference, because I was looking for the acronym "BNP".
I can agree that the BNP is "racist" in the sense that until recently it restricted its membership to white people. That's like the Congressional Black Caucus -- no white people allowed! But nobody minds, because as usual, only white people can be called "racist".
There's nothing wrong with limiting membership to a particular ethnic group, as far as I'm concerned. It may be a hindrance politically, but it some circumstances it might be an advantage.
According to the UN itself, there is such a thing as the "rights of indigenous peoples". Thus the EDL is following orthodox UN doctrine.
But not the BNP. This is where the EDL are right: they are championing the indigenous English. There is no such thing as an indigenous British people -- unless you want to trace the ethne all the way back to Boudicca and the ancient Brythonic people, before the arrival of the Romans.
And that means you would have to kick out all the English and the Scots, and hand the entire island over to the Welsh and the Cornish.
Concerning the attempt to prove that one is not "racist": FEH! I spit on such futility!
As far as I'm concerned, it's a mug's game. You can never prove yourself non-racist, except by adopting the entire leftist-progressive program, every finicky jot and tittle of it.
If you don't do that, you're a WAYCIST! And always will be. It doesn't how many negroes or Red Indians you have your picture taken with or appoint to important offices. You're still a nasty, bigoted, WAYCIST.
The only way out is to cut the Gordian knot and refuse any discussion on the topic. No anxiety, no defensiveness, no rancor. Just: "Sorry, I have no interest in talking about such foolishness." Or ignore it completely.
Because you can't win.
Not ever.
It's intellectually frustrating to have people 'poison the well' of discourse, and ignore what you actually are trying to say. Maybe one strategy would be to ask the person who utters the 'r' word to explain themselves. As in: define your terms and make your argument. And watch as they fail to do so.
Then one can do as the Baron advises and ignore them, for they will have said nothing at all.
As I've just argued on the EDL forum, maybe we need to spend time actually reminding people what freedom of speech is, and why it's a good thing (both for the individual and for society in general).
Then we can lay our message upon them.
The argument is clear:
The "missuses" are unhappy"
If they can just keep it going ...
This article is nothing but the milk of comfort for the multicultural elite.
And that means you would have to kick out all the English and the Scots, and hand the entire island over to the Welsh and the Cornish.
Hmmmm is it time to start the Welsh and Cornish Defence League and begin the reconquista? I have an acquaintance (a Communist) who refers to Wales non-jokingly as "Occupied Wales".
I've read that in some English border towns there are still laws on the books that permit you to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow if you catch him out after midnight.
'There is no such thing as an indigenous British people -- unless you want to trace the ethne all the way back to Boudicca and the ancient Brythonic people, before the arrival of the Romans.' - Baron.
And why wouldn't you?
As for declaring that 'indigenous English' people exist for the EDL to champion, wouldn't this involve finding out first if there are gene pools existing in England which can prove that their families are 'pure' because their ancestors lived in England prior to the Danes hitting the North East Coast, or the Normans coming over, etc etc. Btw think about how the English language formed. Anglo-Saxon. The English are German. (Which makes it even funnier when they lost on penalties to Germany & start crying about it.) Indigenous English? Not that straightforward. You think that America's a 'melting pot' - so is England.
Don't you think that 'indigenous British' could be understood simply as people from throughout the entity now known as Britain - including Scotland & Wales, who another poster referred to, whose ancestors lived on the same piece of land at the same time as the ancestors of the 'indigenous English' you refer to?
Btw I think that someone outside the EDL claiming that the goal of the EDL is to 'champion the 'indigenous English' is a little bit off. After all there are Scots, Hindus, Jews, you name it, who currently live in the United Kingsom, who are aligned with the EDL. The EDL's aim is to peacefully bring all these people together to protest against militant Islam.
Nick --
Have trouble detecting irony, eh?
We're all mongrels. That's my point.
'There's nothing wrong with limiting membership to a particular ethnic group, as far as I'm concerned. It may be a hindrance politically, but it some circumstances it might be an advantage.
According to the UN itself, there is such a thing as the "rights of indigenous peoples". Thus the EDL is following orthodox UN doctrine.
But not the BNP. This is where the EDL are right: they are championing the indigenous English. There is no such thing as an indigenous British people -- unless you want to trace the ethne all the way back to Boudicca and the ancient Brythonic people, before the arrival of the Romans.' - Baron.
Gee silly me thinking that the above passage saying the EDL are championing the indigenous English are 'right' to do so and are in fact following orthodox UN doctrine, actually meant just that, eh.
& Baron Bodissey
"Leaders as well as rank and file — has any sympathy with English Nazis or with The British National Party,"
It was in the article.
And no-doubt people will associate that as the BNP are Nazis, Fascists etc.
Like I said why mention the BNP ?
So wanting the best for the INDIGENOUS population is Racist ?
Check out Black and Asian non-British groups or causes that we as WHITE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE are NOT allowed to join bcause of our ETHNICITY.
It's different for Non-Ethnic Brits to have them but we can't.
Like I said why mention the BNP ?
Because it has a bad reputation, and EDL has been likened to it. EDL is clean. It's up to BNP to improve their public perception - through actionl
From what I can tell, the BNP has never committed itself to the preservation of Western Civilization specifically.
The EDL has. As long as the issue is the manner of civilization, and protection for the coherency and history of the West by way of education and confrontation with the aggressive Islamist elements, EDL will last.
Unfortunately for the BNP, they have a sordid past, and they have traditionally been hostile to Christianity. Tommy Robinson even admits he isnt religious, but understands that he is defending Christian Civilization, just like the Jews with an ounce of sense.
EDL, FTW!
Silly Kuffar --
I don't believe in worrying about whether others perceive me as "racist". I simply decline an obsession with race.
Therefore I don't particularly care if others decide to group together according to their ethnicity. It's natural for human beings to do so; they always have. Seeing that sort of behavior as inherently evil is a very recent, modern peculiarity.
That's why I don't freak out like so many people when I see the letters "BNP". I know that the BNP has excluded non-whites in the past, and I don't care -- let them define their group that way if they want. I object much more to the BNP's socialist ideology than any racial ideology they might adhere to.
As far as "racism" is concerned, evil only enters the picture when one group decides to enslave or exterminate another based on race. But that is no more evil than enslaving or exterminating people based upon their social class, or their political preference, or any other way in which human beings can be categorized.
Racism -- whether its practice, or an obsession with it -- is a relatively modern invention. There were no racial ideologies as we understand them until after Darwin.
"Racism" as such has no empirical existence, and can be shrugged off like any other acquired ideology -- including Socialism and Islam.
Nick --
Gee silly me thinking that the above passage saying the EDL are championing the indigenous English are 'right' to do so and are in fact following orthodox UN doctrine, actually meant just that, eh.
OK, I realize that the ironic nature of all this was not apparent, so I will attempt to explain more fully.
The UN has passed a resolution about the rights of indigenous peoples. It is a malignant and malicious resolution, because it is intended to apply only to "brown" people. Hutus, Hmong, Kurds, Ainu, Navajo -- all these have rights as "indigenous peoples". But not white Europeans and their descendants.
Nor do Jews. According to the UN, the Palestinians have a right of "return", which allows them to flood Israel and destroy the Jewish character of the state. Thus the Palestinians have rights as indigenes, but the Jews don't.
In my brief account above, I took the UN decision, and pretended that it could be applied logically and consistently. Under that analysis, a "British" indigenous people would have no rights, because a British ethnicity does not exist -- there are only Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, and English. And some historians would also throw in a Cumbrian Celtic ethnicity.
But, as you point out, the English ethnicity is also non-existent. There are Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Danes, Norse, and Norman French all mixed up in the gene pool. And now, of course, we have to recognize Punjabis, Baluchs, Bengalis, Pashtuns, Parsees, Igbo, Bantu, and God knows how many other groups that are three or four generations into being English.
In other words, the whole argument about race and "indigenous people" is stupid and pointless. Once you are drawn into it, you can chase historical grievances down a hall of mirrors that extends centuries or even millenia into the past.
Nothing good can come of such a preoccupation. An obsession with race has no upside.
This is what I meant. I should know better than to be ironic -- it's hard to detect irony on the printed page, without tone of voice, facial expressions, or gestures to give one's interlocutor the necessary clues.
I keep promising to give it up, but a fool always returns to his folly.
Baron Bodissey:
“There is no such thing as an indigenous British people”
I think this is an important issue, so maybe you will please excuse the long and multiple posts?
Well I think one thing needs to be cleared up straight away. Nick Griffin’s pronouncements on QT regarding indigenousness should not be taken literally. The truth of the matter is that he was poorly briefed and ended up floundering around, making injudicious claims. It incorrect to claim to claim that the re-population of the British Isles commenced 17 kya and it is also incorrect to state to claim that most Britons can claim descent from the autochthonous hunter-gatherers who emerged from the Ice Age refugia and spread over much of Western Europe in the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Now that Griffin’s claims have been dismissed, let’s look at the actual situation as revealed by contemporary population genetics and forensic archaeology.
The first evidence for the post-LGM (re-)inhabitation of Britain is now generally held to be the so-called Cresswellian culture, named after Cresswell Crags in Derbyshire, and dated to around 12.5 kya. It is most probable these hunter-gatherer settlers were descended from people who left the Franco-Cantabrian refugium after the ice age. Although not yet proven scientifically, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that they were also the descendants of the Cro-magnon people who populated much of Europe prior to the last ice age. So if we choose to interpret indigenous as meaning ‘first on the scene’, then the UP Creswellians and their descendants are probably the real indigenous Britons, just as negritos are the real indigenous Indians.
So the question then arises, who are the descendants of the Cresswellians amongst the present native British population? The short answer is that we don’t really know, but it is close to a racing certainty that the Cro-Magnons and the post-glacial western and northern European hunter-gatherers as well as the people who constructed the Mesolithic and early Neolithic megaliths found throughout the region, were all members of the same partilineal lineage, represented by Y-hg I and, in particular sub-group I1a. The rationale for this claim is that I is the only haplogroup still present in western Europe which is known to pre-date the LGM, and is also probably the only Y-haplogroup that originates in Europe itself. About 14% of British males are members of I1, and a further 2-3% are members of the closely related I2b group. Thus, on the basis of first in = indigenous, some 16-17% of British males could make that claim...
... The next wave, or really successive waves, of incomers from the continent took place in the early-to-mid Neolithic, continuing into the bronze and iron ages, and it is this influx which has left the greatest genetic imprint on the British population. Around 70-85% of the male population (depending on the country; less in England, more in Ireland) have the patrilineal ancestry defined by the Y-hg R1b. This influx, which we call today the ‘Celts’ continued on and off for over two thousand years, although Celt is something of a misnomer since many of the so-called ‘Anglo-Saxons’ who migrated from NW Europe between 500BC and 500AD were also R1b. A better term to describe this group as a whole might be Celto-Germanic, since that emphasises their common genetic origin in the Pontic steppe area but delineates their evolved cultures and linguistic differentiation within the greater Indo-European category.
Along with the R1b Anglo-Saxons also came a significant influx of ‘pre-celto-germanics’, members of Y-hg I2b. These people, like the I1a population of Britain were descendants of the hunter-gatherers who emerged from the Franco-Cantabrian refugium in the late UP. About 4-5% of British males are members of Y-hg I2b
The next (and last) sizeable (ie measurable) wave of migration occurred in the 8th and 9th century, namely the Viking incursions from Scandinavia principally from what is now Denmark and southern Norway. They brought the northern European patrilineal Y-Hg R1a which, like its central European counterpart R1b, originated in what is now southern Ukraine.
At this point we can draw a line, since by the time of the creation of England as a unitary nation-state in the early 10th century its genetic profile was established, and would remain essentially unaltered for over a thousand years until the Afro-Asian influx of the last two generations. But what about the Normans, I hear you say. Well, in the first instance, they were very few of them, and they were an admixture of R1a and R1b. Flemish weavers? R1b. Huguenots? R1b. Dutch fen-drainers? R1b.
So there we have it. Some 95% of British males have a patrilineage which dates back over a thousand years. On the matrilineal side the picture is also one of long term stability following the LGM. Mt-haplogroups present in Britain are also of great antiquity, and some 85% of the population share one of three main haplo-metagroups: HV, UK and TJ. Some of these (H and V) probably derive from the post-LGM re-population by UP hunter-gathers, others such as U5a are of Mesolithic origin, while U3-4/K and JT are of Indo-European origin and appear first during the Neolithic. But whatever the original source, each of these has been present in British Isles for many miillenia.
Based on the foregoing it is then reasonable to for anyone who is member of Y-Hg I1a, I2b, R1a or Rib and/or Mt-Hg HV, U3-5/K or JT to claim indigenous status. A simple and inexpensive DNA test will easily answer the question either way.
If all this is too coldly scientific than it should be possible to enlist the good old standbys, the Mk I eyeball and lughole which would I should have thought deliver the correct answer with a 95% confidence level. If something in-between is felt to be more appropriate then the ‘1948 test’ could be applied or, slightly more rigorous, resort could be made to the national registers of birth, marriages and deaths which go back to 1837.
More than one way to skin a cat, obviously.
And to return full-circle to the starting point, it’s instructive to note that in its new constitution the BNP has jettisoned all the ice age nonsense and now defines Indigenous Briton as follows:
“Indigenous British” means together that group of nations and or communities historically indigenous to our British Homeland, being the first and aboriginal peoples of our British Homeland, and which group consists of the English, the Irish, the Ulster Scots, the Scots, and the Welsh racial groups and any sub sects of the same; and which racial groups it is believed by many are referred to as the British and Irish ethnic groups in the ethnic group categories used for the purposes of the 2001 Census for England and Wales;
…
For the purpose of our Constitution the phrase “historically indigenous” means those racial groups whose collective, common or shared ancestors are continuously traceable or are bona fide believed by members of such racial groups to be continuously traceable back in the case of:-
3.1 the Indigenous British, in our British Homeland before the commencement of the time of legal memory
Can some one square this?
> Adherents of totalitarian or racialist ideologies are unceremoniously evicted.
> EDL Launch Jewish Division: "The EDL has established a Jewish Division for ‘Jewish supporters of the English Defence League, and supporters of Jewish people everywhere’..."
It seems that some races can care for their own interests without been "racialists". Not the pathetic whitey, as the current dicussion shows.
Can we care for our own interests and laugh at the finger pointing and name calling of our enemies?
Yes we can! (But we do not really want).
Ok, guys, then, please do not complain.
@ Baron Bodissey (1:14 pm)—The UN has passed a resolution about the rights of indigenous peoples. It is a malignant and malicious resolution, because it is intended to apply only to "brown" people … But not white Europeans and their descendants.
Is the resolution you mention the International Labour Organisation’s Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples? That convention has not been ratified by the United Kingdom, on the grounds that there are no indigenous British (see this Early Day Motion submitted to the House of Commons), but it has been ratified by Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain.
I certainly stand to be corrected but I presume those four countries do recognize that they have indigenous populations.
Johnny --
Yes, that could be the one. It sounds like it.
In any case, you can bet your lutefisk that indigenous Norwegians have no rights under the resolution. The "indigenous people" in Norway protected by the resolution are the Somalis, etc.
@ Baron,
I certainly agree that discussions about 'race' or 'indigenous' people is not what should be discussed. It's quite irrelevant at the end of the day - a big red herring!
The fact is that Islam is an ideology, a set of teachings which anyone of any 'race' in any country in the world can access & subscribe to. So I would tend to take this UN nonsense about 'indigenous' people as something of a trojan horse - if you take it inside your organisation/website then before you know it, your cause is lost.
You end up having discussions about what language the people in England spoke at different points in history, and what exactly, does any of that have to do with what's happening right here, right now?
Not a lot, eh?
Nick,
You end up having discussions about what language the people in England spoke at different points in history, and what exactly, does any of that have to do with what's happening right here, right now?
Not a lot, eh?
Actually, it does. Pay attention to how ethnicity is defined, depending on the circumstances. "Whites" are, generally speaking, anyone descended from Europeans, no matter what language they speak. But in other circumstances, language may play a role, defining the difference between two ethnic groups.
An example would be the Croats and the Serbs. They are considered different ethnic groups, yet are genetically almost identical. They have different languages, but even those are almost the same, with the main difference being orthography (Latin versus Cyrillic letters).
They are really distinguished by religion, with Croats being Catholic, and Serbs Orthodox. Their respective histories branched with the Ottoman conquest, with the Croats mostly remaining under Austrian rule, and the Serbs forced to live as dhimmis under the Turks.
"But Baron," you say, "they're not really different ethnic groups! They're simply closely-related Slavs following different branches of Christianity."
And indeed they are. BUT... consider the Bosnians.
Bosnians are genetically the same as Serbs, and their language (Bosniak) is a slight dialectical variant. Their distinguishing characteristic is that they are Muslims, descendants of Serbs who were forcibly converted by the Turks, or who took up Islam out of expedience.
Now: Are Bosnians ethnically distinct from the Serbs?
You bet your bippy they are! At least according to the UN, because Serbian actions against the Bosnians were labeled genocide. Genocide is only possible when committed by one ethnic group against another.
If Yorkshiremen were to slaughter Northumbrians, I doubt the UN would call that "genocide". But Serbs vs. Bosnians is another matter.
This proves that what constitutes an "ethhic group" is very plastic, and the definition is politically devised, according to which groups are in favor.
The Sami are bound to be protected, but the Swedes? Don't count on it. They're just "white".
The Baron wrote,
"I simply decline an obsession with race.
Therefore I don't particularly care if others decide to group together according to their ethnicity."
Do you mean by this that anyone who does care about the existence of ethnic associations is "obsessed with race"? If so, do you think that anyone who cares about the existence of familial associations is "obsessed with family"? What about those who care about the existence of marital associations? Are they "obsessed with marriage"?
Isn't it a typically leftist argument to say that a man who cares about a tradition/institution the Left wants to destroy is "obsessed" with it? Isn't the only way to avoid being "obsessed" simply to quit talking about the issue altogether? Isn't it only when conservatives quit talking/fighting that the leftists win? Isn't your argument, then, an excellent way to ease the leftist advance on the question of race or even ethnicity? Hasn't your position resulted in exactly that throughout mainstream American institutions?
Also, I have no idea what you mean when you say that ethnicity is "plastic" simply because the Serbs and the Croats are genetically similar but ethnically distinct.
Race is a function of genetics.
Ethnicity is a function of genetics plus culture.
As far as I can see, culture itself is partly a product of race and partly a product of religion/divine revelation or what Fjordman calls "ideas". I wonder if anyone else has a clearer argument on that question.
By the way, I recall Lawrence Auster making an argument vaguely similar to the "obsession" argument I have made above. Hat tip to him, if I'm right.
Bartholomew --
Do you mean by this that anyone who does care about the existence of ethnic associations is "obsessed with race"?
No.
If so, do you think that anyone who cares about the existence of familial associations is "obsessed with family"?
No.
What about those who care about the existence of marital associations? Are they "obsessed with marriage"?
No.
Isn't it a typically leftist argument to say that a man who cares about a tradition/institution the Left wants to destroy is "obsessed" with it?
No.
Isn't the only way to avoid being "obsessed" simply to quit talking about the issue altogether?
No.
Isn't it only when conservatives quit talking/fighting that the leftists win?
No.
Isn't your argument, then, an excellent way to ease the leftist advance on the question of race or even ethnicity?
No.
Hasn't your position resulted in exactly that throughout mainstream American institutions?
No.
I hope I have answered all your questions.
Bartholomew --
Also, I have no idea what you mean when you say that ethnicity is "plastic" simply because the Serbs and the Croats are genetically similar but ethnically distinct.
I mean that the officially-sanctioned definition of “ethnicity” is plastic, and varies according to the political circumstances. By “officially”, I mean as determined by the United Nations, the European Union, other trans-national organizations, and some national governments.
The protean official definitions of ethnic groups are political weapons, mostly designed to be used against white people. Thus all Western Europeans are part of the same ethnic group (except for the Basques, perhaps), while Cubans are considered distinct from Mexicans or Puerto Ricans. It’s perverse.
As I said, discussing race/ethnic groups/indigenous groups is a waste of time. It's utterly irrelevant - a big old red herring - although some might enjoy blowing hot air around to try and show how clever they are. One might as well discuss the colour of Jose Mourniho's underpants. That'd be just as relevent to what we're all supposed to be doing here, and I'll tell you what, it'd be far more interesting.
In any case, you can bet your lutefisk that indigenous Norwegians have no rights under the resolution. The "indigenous people" in Norway protected by the resolution are the Somalis, etc. --- Baron
Actually, the Lapplanders.
Nick wrote,
"It's utterly irrelevant - a big old red herring - although some might enjoy blowing hot air around to try and show how clever they are."
Rather than accuse of others of "blowing hot air", why don't you yourself make a substantive point?
I have been reading this particular section of the blog with some interest.I think I agree with Baron. Once you get into a discussion about race with the left they can claim moral ascendancy as they recognise that because they are white they are racist. If you tell them that you are not racist but want to protect and cherish your own British way of life, traditions, culture, law & democracy they can quite happily have you over a barrel on any number of issues and you will not win. Personally, when someone calls me a racist I just agree with them and carry on the conversation. This usually throws a major ideological spanner in the works as they have no other ephitets to throw at one. Baron is right to point out that the whole thing is a hall of mirrors designed to distract, frustrate and intimidate the unwary.
By the way, I am a member of the BNP.
@Imnokuffar
So you will have read the latest Email from our Chairman?
It states the EHRC now accept that the British, English Welsh etc are a DISTINCT RACE.
So don't back down when people call you a racist when the racists are thos atticking the English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh etc or the British as being a mongrel race.
WE ARE NOT - WE ARE A DISTINCT RACE AND ETHNIC GROUP INDIGENOUS TO THESE ISLES.
spackle, I agree. It's ironical that so-called conservatives or whatever they prefer to call themselves like care so much about a concept invented by Trotsky - racism.
Baron, I'd like to point out that anybody who supports Israel without a right to return for Palestinians, some of them actually evicted after WW2, but he is in favour of a right for return for people who never even stepped in that region in their lives, but are Jewish, does the same rationale that Nick Griffin does. If there are no real English people, then there are no Jews and there is no point in keeping the Palestinians out. The argument that there are no English people is farcical(just as farcical as civic citizenship).
An ethnic group is an extended family. If the UK does away with immigration and all the people in it will intermarry, they will be an ethnic group. So the argument about how far you should go is a fallacy.
Oh, and some ruling others isn't evil. That's a normative statement. I think it's good and I'd like you to prove me false(if you can :P).
imnokuffar, that's funny. I do the same thing. I say that racism is a concept invented by Trotsky, who was a genocidal shill and as such I don't find it evil to be whatever they consider as being racist. Or I ask them to define the term and they'll be unable to do so.
Anyway, to sum it up, an ethnic group is collective proper name for a group of people with a common ancestry, shared historical memories, common culture and language and that have a specific homeland. The English fulfill all of these.
RV --
Oh, and some ruling others isn't evil. That's a normative statement. I think it's good and I'd like you to prove me false(if you can :P).
I'm confused -- when did I say that "some ruling others" was evil?
However, I'll stick by "enslaving or exterminating" being evil. And, yes, that's a "normative" statement.
If you don't consider those activities evil, then your moral/ethical system is quite different from mine.
Nick:
“… although some might enjoy blowing hot air around to try and show how clever they are …”
I second bartholomewscross.
Its all very easy affecting an air of superior smugness when you don’t actually have anything of substance to say.
I quite clearly sketched the realities.
What can you do to back up your point?
Post a Comment