See other Resistance Articles
Title: Nick Griffin defends BNP leaflet that says black and Asian Britons 'do not exist'
Source:
Daily Mail
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... black-Asian-Britons-exist.html
Published: Apr 23, 2009
Author: Daily Mail Reporter
Post Date: 2009-04-24 00:32:46 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 1080
Comments: 88
British National Party chairman Nick Griffin spoke today of a 'bloodless genocide' as he defended a party leaflet which says that black Britons and Asian Britons 'do not exist'. The BNP leader was referring to the party's Language And Concepts Discipline Manual, which says the term used should be 'racial foreigners'. Mr Griffin said to call such people British was a sort of 'bloodless genocide' because it denied indigenous people their own identity. The leaflet was leaked to an anti-fascist group. Commenting on the leaflet's content, Mr Griffin told The Report on Radio 4 that although 'in civic terms they are British, British also has a meaning as an ethnic description'. 'These people are 'black residents' of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese,' he said. 'Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as 'racial foreigners', a non-pejorative term... The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult.' The manual describes the BNP's 'ultimate aim' as the 'lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners of the UK'. 'We don't subscribe to the politically correct fiction that just because they happen to be born in Britain, a Pakistani is a Briton. They're not. They remain of Pakistani stock,' he added. 'You can't say that especially large numbers of people can come from the rest of the world and assume an English identity without denying the English their own identity, and I would say that's wrong. 'In a very subtle way, it's a sort of bloodless genocide.' The Archbishop of York has branded Mr Griffin's comments as being 'beyond belief'. Dr John Sentamu, who was born in Uganda and is a vocal supporter of making today - St George's Day - a public holiday to promote English unity, said it was not up to the BNP to define Englishness. He said: 'You don't have to be a member of the BNP to be clearly English, and it is quite a mistake to suggest that everybody who wants to affirm Englishness affirms that narrow thinking. 'This "bloodless genocide"? I think that is just language which is beyond belief.' Mr Griffin is standing in the European Parliament elections in June as a candidate for the North West.
Poster Comment: "A Pakistani that moves to England is no more an Englishman than an Englishman who moves to Hong Kong is Chinese. This is a fact. But, of course, liberals are often shocked, surprised, and angered by the facts." "You can be sure that nearly all 1.3 billion Chinese consider Britons living in Hong Kong to be foreigners."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-4) not displayed.
.
.
.
#5. To: X-15 (#0)
The BNP are infamous for marginalizing themselves. Fortunately not many take their crap seriously.
How can white, native British people marginalize themselves by advocating for themselves as a group and a race?? Besides, aren't you an advocate for native identity?? Or do you exclude white people from self-affirmation?? Every time there's an election, they gain more seats on local town/city councils and in parliament, sounds like a grass-roots movement to me.
_________________________________________________________________________ You were addressing a self-loathing libturd white guilter PC moran WEASEL - what should you expect ?
Translated, that means that the politically correct dislike them.
Color or ethnic background do not disqualify anyone from being a good citizen in Britian. Besides, bigotry of others is never pride, it is weakness and ignorance. That is the point I make. Your spin is your concern, not mine.
But they're racially not "Britons," on that we can agree, right?
He is talking to a man who does not practice bigotry. You follow me around with an energy expenditure that is equal to showing deep love. Which is why one should be so impassioned with their desire to control others and to live in deep hatred. I am flattered you feel an in love level of energy spent toward consternation and rants, but frankly Tara dear girl, you are simply not my type.
Nope. If they are born there, they are Britons. Just as Afrikaners born in South African are Africans and deserve citizenry there. I also strongly take exception to Robert Mugabe's seizing of white African farmland in Zimbabwe. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories. Indigenous people in this hemisphere were denied sovereignty and rights you would not stand to see done to northern European ethnic people. I have no love nor sympathy with the fascist BNP. They only seek to divide to try to and conquer.
Do you accept the concept of an indigenous Briton? I'm talking about people whose ancestors were Britons, rather than those who just happen to find themselves citizens of the British empire. I think we may be using the word differently here.
Yep, I do. Just as whites, Indians and blacks formed composite tribes like the Seminole and Lumbee Indians using the willingness of historically indigenous people to accept others of other ethnic background and race into the fold, I accept the notion that all who are born in Great Briton are Britons. We as colonists and Americans should have done much the same with Indians and those who's ancestors came from Africa. Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Discovery were an abomination. People who are dedicated to being good citizens and who care about their country's future should never be stigmatized for their race or ethnic background. It is fine to have pride for one's background, but the simple truth is, despite who was where historically, time and the world marches on.
Manifest Destiny as you put it, interfered with the fate of certain native tribes here. I trust that you recognize their rights to exist, and lament the pains that the westward march of our empire brought them.
March of our empire, I am amused. That is not how I discribe that. But, you knew that, yes?
How do you describe the necessary conditions for the genocide we committed against the American Indians if not as the westward march of our empire?
I don't see how you mean the word "necessary." I see nothing "necessary" about how things went down. Certainly if Christianity had indeed been a merciful and benevolent entity, nothing like what happened would of happened.
This is a perfect example of why there are no multicultural societies, never have been, and never will be. Different tribes cannot share the same land without expelling each other or committing genocide on each other. The only people who don't understand this are leftists, are of whom are deluded, and don't just misunderstand human nature; they don't understand it at all.
In order to displace and reduce the native populations, the American empire had to be present. But I haven't been able to engage your response on the main question I'm asking here: do you accept that there is a native, indigenous Briton population living in the British isles that has a right to its territory and racial identity? From what you've posted, I see that you ought to have great sympathy for non-white native populations who have faced displacement, and invading populations from other races and cultures. The plight of the native Briton is due to the actions of the British empire, which has chosen to displace its native peoples and import foreigners who out breed and compete with them for resources. There is little difference between the British empire's behavior toward its own indigenous populations and how it treated the Eskimo and Inuit peoples in Canada. The last thing you would want for the Eskimo people would be to have their racial identity stolen from them. I just can't imagine you calling French and British immigrants to Canada "honorific Eskimos" because they took Commonwealth of Canada citizenship.
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...rtNum=99569&Disp=110#C110 On the other hand, Mike refuses to clarify his refusal to consider the native rights of the indigenous Britons. Are they a people? Can they not define who they are without interference from outsiders? It seems to me that a people who are deprived the right to define themselves have been deprived of all ethnic rights. Where is the ADL when it comes to the plight of the native Briton?
Poor Mikey. He can't get beyond his ADL training.
I would join an American version of the BNP in a heartbeat.
He tries, but it's clear that non-whites have ethnic/racial rights while whites, apparently due to their history of oppressing non-whites have none. They're recognized as a unique ethnic group, but individual subgroupings are disallowed from claiming the right to define themselves. For the Mikes of the world, Britons are all members of the British empire, never mind the fact that the "British empire" subjugated the real historic Britons under the the sword.
Ask the ADL, not me. As for who are native peoples in the Americas, all born here are. Learning about how native cultures are distroyed and decimated does not deal with the truth that all living in the Americas deserve rights and freedoms. As for trying to compare England which has an intact and vibrant culture that has never been destroyed and say that of the Iroquois Confederation, or any other group destroyed by the invasion of Europeans, that is just so much apples and oranges. You do not have a point.
So you admit that you think native Britons have no ethnic right to their own identity?
Incorrect. Either all people are 'allowed' to form political groups based on genetics or none are. End of story.
Israel is an Apartheid regime that does not promote nor respect human rights, we should cut them off, for starters. End of the story of the point to your baitfest.
More than that, it's inhumane to bar people from wanting to protect their cultural and racial identities. Most of the time, Mike is arguing on behalf of respect for disadvantaged ethnic groups. I find this inconsistency curious and instructive. Nick Griffin's critics would be the first to stand up for any other ethnic groups besides those found in the British isles.
This discussion is about the rights of the Britons, not the Israelis.
And like us, Britons came in all colors, ethnic origin, shapes, sizes, aqges and conditions. So? You confuse discussions concerning historical mistreatment of peoples, not about anything topical. The Scottish people are moving toward independence politically, the Welsh and others conquered and controlled by the English will never be so lucky as they or the Irish. So it goes. One of the important lessons of the history of oppression is not to use race or ethnic origin to make wedge issues with. Your point emanates from the sort of racism and intolerance that destroyed so many other cultures, nothing more. The culture of England is just fine, and people of color do not endanger it, and never will. People of color who have assimilated into English culture are English. You still do not have a noteworthy point.
I'd say yours does. Although I admit that ethnicities are always in a state of flux, I recognize that they exist. You seem to think that because they change over long periods of time that at any moment they have no intrinsic value. That's a hollow argument. The only uniform "culture of England" is the empire's. In my view, you're arguing on behalf of the right of empires to trample individual groups. You seem to be saying that universalism trumps identity. Don't you see the tyranny lurking in such a position?
I am Irish ethnic and have no love of the Empire and historic British hegemony, I see your position as one trampling individual rights, that is entirely what point I make in regards to yours'.
You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously claim to be defending individual rights while dismissing the individual's right to define his own ethnic identity. And I don't know what "no love of the Empire" means in this context. You just indicated a universalist view of "English culture," irrespective of the individual ethnic groups that have been assimilated by force into the shapeless "British" nationality. Your views would be welcome in Northern Ireland or London, but would be rejected by nationalists in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
Except I have never dismissed the value of ethnic identity. I reject the mindset of the fascist BNP, a party that rejects assimilated, functioning citizens as being English based on color or ethnic origin.
But you have. You claim that the Briton may not claim his own identity as sacrosanct. You blur the identities of British with the Briton, which is emblematic of ethnic cleansing. Because most people have been trained to dislike the BNP, you expect others to accept your arguments using guilt by association. But in this debate, you can't win with these techniques. You either accept the ethnic right of the Briton to exclude non-whites from their self-identified ethnic group, or you don't. You don't, and therefore you side with the British empire over its conquests. After all, non-white British citizens are products of empire.
You are wrong. Any group forming an association to celebrate and enjoy their ethnic heritage should indeed be left alone. My point is is that this should not be extended to exclude those not of that heritage from citizenship in the same country as they do. I do not agree that any group in any country should have more rights of citizenship than another.
You're deflecting. My argument, even if it's not exactly what Griffin has been saying, is that the Briton has an ethnic identity, even if the British do not.
Actually, you are wrong. I've lived in Europe, I know the mindset. The one that asks say someone whose grandparents are from Pakistan where they are from and ignores them when they say they are from England. And then says, "Oh, you are from Pakistan" when hearing where their ancestors are from. And I am also aware of the argument that kept say people from Hong Kong from immigrating to England instead of say Vancouver, B.C. Canada when the lease on that city expired. And I know what Paki-bashing is, and what the opinions of the people who do that sort of thing are. I do not like racism and bigotry based on ethnic origin. That is something that will never change. As for the game of leveraging citizen status as was and is done by the residual British Empire, I just found that plain dumb and without merit.
I understand your perspective. But I continue to find it contradictory. You just can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be an anti-racist while saying that people who want to preserve the British isles for their own native peoples are bad. You're an anti-Briton bigot.
You want to put the tooth paste back in the tube. Great Britain is for her people, regardless of color or ethnic origin.
So damn those Britons, eh? They're crushed under the wheels of empire.
Britons come in all colours and ethnic origin. So, who said 'damn them?' Not me.
You object to Britons claiming their own identity. That's a condemnation if I've ever heard one. You object to Britons making territorial claims to their own traditional homelands. That will lead to erosion and eventual eradication of them as an ethnic group, again a form of condemnation. You want to be racially blind, but in doing so, you've become an anti-Briton racist.
Racism enslaves those who most actively promote it. By opposing it, I support the rights of both the primary culprits every bit as much as that of the target of it. As for race mixing, I support it and have actually done it. With *GASP* a black woman. In fact for that matter, I am of Irish and Puerto Rican ethnic background in any event. This is no big thing, and it does not kill ethnic identity. Resort to meaningless name calling if you wish, I just do not care.
Comments (46 - 88) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
(Edited)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#7. To: X-15 (#6)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#8. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
The BNP are infamous for marginalizing themselves.
#9. To: X-15 (#6)
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
#11. To: Rotara (#7)
#12. To: Deasy (#10)
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
(Edited)
#14. To: Deasy (#13)
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
It is fine to have pride for one's background, but the simple truth is, despite who was where historically, time and the world marches on.
#16. To: Deasy (#15)
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
(Edited)
#18. To: Deasy (#17)
#19. To: X-15 (#0)
Dancing Turtles and Bouncing Boobs
...that's Turtle Island.
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#18)
I don't see how you mean the word "necessary." I see nothing "necessary" about how things went down.
#21. To: Ferret Mike, bluegrass, robnoel (#20)
As far as I am concerned, you engender no dialog or desire to converse in using this tired vehicle to try to bait.
#22. To: Deasy, Ferret Mike (#21)
Mike refuses to clarify his refusal to consider the native rights of the indigenous Britons. Are they a people? Can they not define who they are without interference from outsiders?
#23. To: X-15 (#0)
#24. To: bluegrass (#22)
#25. To: Deasy (#21)
#26. To: Ferret Mike (#25)
#27. To: Ferret Mike, Deasy (#25)
You do not have a point.
#28. To: bluegrass (#27)
#29. To: bluegrass (#27)
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#28)
#31. To: Deasy (#30)
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
Your point emanates from the sort of racism and intolerance that destroyed so many other cultures, nothing more.
#33. To: Deasy (#32)
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#33)
#35. To: Deasy (#34)
#36. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
Except I have never dismissed the value of ethnic identity.
#37. To: Deasy (#36)
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#37)
(Edited)
#39. To: Deasy (#38)
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#39)
#41. To: Deasy (#40)
#42. To: Ferret Mike (#41)
#43. To: Deasy (#42)
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#43)
#45. To: Deasy (#44)
.
.
.
