Provocative but wrong

There’s much to cheer with Tebbit but this is still incorrect:

EU migrants should be asked if their forefathers fought the Nazis, Lord Tebbit has said.

The former Tory party chairman said the equivalent of his famous and controversial “cricket test” for EU countries today, would be to ask: “Who did they fight for in the Second World War?”

In an interview with BBC Newsnight, Lord Tebbit said: “Well one test I would use is to ask them on which side their fathers or grandfathers or whatever fought in the Second World War. And so you’ll find that the Poles and the Czechs and the Slovaks were all on the right side. And so that’s a pretty good test isn’t it? Perhaps we’ll even manage to teach them to play cricket over the years.”

Here in the Sudetenland the idea that all the Czechs (and more especially the Slovaks, under Tiso) were on the right side is, umm, complex, shall we say. And of course this test puts Stalin and his murderers on the “right” side as well.

Much fun as a piece of provocation but not a terribly useful real world test.

81 thoughts on “Provocative but wrong”

  1. So Much for Subtlety

    And of course this test puts Stalin and his murderers on the “right” side as well.

    And so where do you put the people Britain actually went to war to defend – the Poles? The non-Communist Poles fought the Nazis and the Soviets in 1939. They fought the Nazis for most of the war with the Polish Communists. And then the Soviets again. Against people like Zygmunt Bauman who was serving in the Red Army and then the Polish KGB and so helping in the mass murder his own fellow countrymen.

    Where do you put the Balts who, probably correctly in their case, chose the Nzais as the lesser evil?

    Besides, I think we can say the Germans have put the Nazis behind them. Unlike the Russians, who look back on Stalinism with pride, there is no secret desire to re-invade Poland in any German heart I know of.

  2. Never really understood what was wrong with the cricket test. If you’re here intending to go home to say India or Australia, obviously you are going to support India or Australia.

    But if England is now your home, doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest you might demonstrate some allegiance by supporting our cricket team (football team/tiddlywinks team).

    It’s precisely those sorts of decisions which help you psychologically accept your Englishness.

    By the same token, the flag, Agincourt, Trafalgar and so on now belong to you as well.

  3. So Much for Subtlety

    Interested – “By the same token, the flag, Agincourt, Trafalgar and so on now belong to you as well.”

    I find it hard to believe that someone like Gladstone will ever have the same meaning for a person of Afro-Caribbean origin as he does for someone of a more indigenous background. South Asians are expected to celebrate Plassey?

    How does that work then?

  4. I think all immigrants, residents, citizens and especially politicians should be asked to subscribe to the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and equality before the law as our best defence against creeping fascism. We could at least tell the first two categories to fuck off and censure the latter two should they disagree.

  5. “It’s precisely those sorts of decisions which help you psychologically accept your Englishness.”

    Presumably the reason why the left hated it so much then.

  6. What if their ‘forefather’ fought the Nazis but their great grandmother was a fanatical supporter of Hitler? Tricky.

  7. This whole debate is depressing. Last week we had a story in Bagehot about IT graduates who are students at India’s top management school not being allowed to study here because they might overstay. What do politicians, the Daily Mail and the rest think they’re going to do, run away and start a high tech business? “Those dammed foreigners, coming here and starting our companies, employing our people, paying in to our welfare state, who do they they they are?”

    As for Cameron reducing it to a straight numbers game, what a disingenuous shit. Its about quality, we should be flinging the doors open and welcoming people with MIST post grad degrees. If we must have a simple Daily Mail satisfying test test how about what are you going to contribute?

    And the cricket test is nonsense too. As a Yorkshireman living North Dorset having previously lived in High Wycome and then a series of military bases I’ve always followed Yorkshire cricket, Dewsbury RL and, for my sins, Leeds Utd. If first generation immigrants want to support their home country at tiddlywinks, good luck to them, as long as its good natured it just adds to the fun. My son, born in TPMH Cyprus, has no allegiance to Yorkshire. Testing 2nd and subsequent generations might be interesting but if they’re born here its meaningless at best and divisive at worst.

  8. Inty>

    “if England is now your home, doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest you might demonstrate some allegiance by supporting our cricket team (football team/tiddlywinks team).”

    No, that’s not right – especially because all the other cricket playing countries are former dominions. Tebbit got it wrong. The test isn’t who someone supports when their country of origin plays England, but who they support when everyone else does.

    This time it’s clear Tebbit’s really starting to dodder. No-one in their right mind has a problem with present-day Germans because of the Nazis, because they’ve done so much to distance themselves from the mistakes of their ancestors.

    The French, on the other hand, remain French.

  9. So Much for Subtlety

    Bloke with a Boat – “Testing 2nd and subsequent generations might be interesting but if they’re born here its meaningless at best and divisive at worst.”

    No, it is not divisive. There is nothing wrong with finding out how much our new communities have integrated. If they have not done so, it is not meaningless or divisive to know.

    The divisiveness comes from the degree that they consider themselves British. If they have rejected us, that is what causes division. Not from telling the rest of us. Otherwise we only know when someone with a South London accent is in Iraq, promising to sell our daughters.

  10. bloke (not) in spain

    Never thought Norman Tebbit was one for talking bollocks, but he’s certainly managed to this time.
    Immigrants are people, not representatives of their governments. You’d be lucky to find more than a couple of the WW2 combatant nations who’s people had any say whatsoever in which side they were on. Even the Brits didn’t. UK gov supported Poland & that was that.

  11. bloke (not) in spain

    There’s the usual reference to the French, above. When the German occupying army marched into Royan, on France’s Atlantic coast, the Royanais were reputed to have lined the streets cheering. You’d need to know the history of the Vendee to understand why. Even today, most French don’t regard the government in Paris represents much more than the city & suburbs. If them. Much the same applies to Bruxelles (spelling intentional) & Belgium let alone Rome & Italy or Athens & Greece..

  12. Firstly who your grandparents we’re says fuck all about you. Secondly where does that leave the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians who found themselves occupied and being shipped off to labour camps before the Nazis showed up. Little wonder they threw their lot in with the Germans, at least initially. How relevant is this to a modern-day immigrant from Vilnius? Not at all.

  13. Where does that leave us neutrals, those from what was the Free State of Ireland at the time or the Swiss Confederation?

    Do we get points awarded or deducted for our neutrality?

  14. JG>

    Personally, I’ve always had the Irish down as little better than collaborators, when it comes to that period. It took an appallingly long time for them to realise that your enemy’s enemy is not always a friend worth having, and certainly large sections of the Irish population fully agreed with the antisemitism of the Nazis. Of course, nothing is ever as simple as that, and like other Catholic countries, there was a wide range of attitudes – both among the clergy and the laity – resulting in behaviour that varied from assistance to the persecuted right through to joining in with the persecution.

    The IRA really should have been stamped out post-war as part of the deNazification of Europe, but sadly that chance was missed.

  15. Do our frequent commenters Bloke In Spain, Bloke in France, Bloke in Costa Rica, etc, support their local teams? No, I thought not. Even the Irish, Scots, and Welsh living in England all support their home teams. Who would you support if you emigrated? (And does it depend on the country you move to?)

  16. All these objections aside, the proposal seems somewhat impractical.

    Q: “Who did your grandfather fight for in the second world war?”

    A1: “My grandfather, Prime Minister Jozef Tiso, was hanged after the war for collaborating with Nazi Germany”

    A2: “My grandfather, Monsignor Tiso, was a holy man honoured by the Pope and a patriot who did everything he could to keep Slovakia independent from Germany”

    A3: My grandfather, Jan Tiso, fought and died in the Slovak National Uprising against the Nazis.

    Which answer do you think you’d get?

  17. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “Personally, I’ve always had the Irish down as little better than collaborators, when it comes to that period.”

    That is certainly true of the government – which went on after the war to discriminate against any Irishman who fought for the Crown. And expressed condolences to the German government on the occasion of Hitler’s death. But is it fair for all Irish people? Reasonable numbers did cross over and volunteer to fight for Britain. Bravely too. The Irish have won Victoria Crosses at a very high rate. The first one awarded in WW2 went to an Irishman. The first for the Fleet Air Arm went to one (more or less – British born but educated, in part, in Ireland).

    “and certainly large sections of the Irish population fully agreed with the antisemitism of the Nazis.”

    Maybe. But in fairness they did not know where that hatred was going. No one did really.

    “resulting in behaviour that varied from assistance to the persecuted right through to joining in with the persecution.”

    Which Irish people took part in the persecution of Germany’s Jews?

    “The IRA really should have been stamped out post-war as part of the deNazification of Europe, but sadly that chance was missed.”

    Damn straight.

    Andrew M – “Do our frequent commenters Bloke In Spain, Bloke in France, Bloke in Costa Rica, etc, support their local teams? No, I thought not.”

    Are they immigrants or temporary residents?

  18. Nationalism, tradition, culture in the new politically correct world all of the aforementioned – are taboo words.

    War, if we exclude such conflicts like the American civil war. Wars….. used to be mainly about protecting borders and nations states. Presently more and more, recent conflicts and wars mean more to do about ideology – land as well but borders are no longer recognized, ref; Boko Haram, Isis.

    It is a paradox is it not, that, the anguished cries of making somebody “stateless” greatly animate the left but in the same moment all the left seek to do, is to fashion and model a world which will make us all stateless.

    So many things one could say and it is a vast subject and very subjective at that.
    I found that no matter where I have lived, there’s only one place that I could truly call home and that is in the town where I was born and raised, land of my fathers all around me but only one where i feel it’s mine.

    In contrast and in Britain, there are now third generation immigrant sons who feel far less fealty to the land of their births than do their grandfathers.

    The international Socialists, the social engineers don’t want you having ties to anywhere, and tenants all.

    As do, the multinationals and corporates who want free movement and a world where only consumer ‘units’ can be properly moved around, controlled and ‘guided’ – the EU [China too where there are millions moved off the land and around to factories in the Cities] is their perfect paradigm, with power in the hands of the elite and cemented therein.

    Ummah, or one world government – it’s all the same, homogenized and micromanaged. Tebbit’s test an irrelevancy – the old ways are gone or, going.

  19. So Much for Subtlety

    Edward. – “Nationalism, tradition, culture in the new politically correct world all of the aforementioned – are taboo words.”

    Edward, I totally agree with you. But for one small thing. Those things are not taboo words for everyone. Only White people. Any form of Third World Nationalism is progressive. The Left will defend any Third World tradition – even Female Genital Mutilation.

    White (non-Jewish) males are the unique evil and must be shamed at every opportunity – the cancer of the world as Susan Sontag once said. Others may incite hatred against them with impunity, but they must not respond.

  20. Ah yes, the things that make Britain great: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience…and telling other people which cricket team to support.

  21. SMFS>

    “That is certainly true of the government […] But is it fair for all Irish people?”

    I was trying to say that it’s complicated – even as regards the government. There wasn’t one unchanging position throughout the war, or even unanimity amongst members of the government. Some refused to see what was in front of them even in 1944-5, whereas others had opened their eyes by 1941 or so.

    “But in fairness they did not know where that hatred was going. No one did really.”

    I’m afraid that as much as we may not like to admit it, that’s thoroughly untrue. The British knew, the US knew, and smaller countries knew too. The Polish made damned sure of that.

    “Which Irish people took part in the persecution of Germany’s Jews?”

    Bear in mind that assisting in persecution covers everything from merely campaigning to turn away Jewish refugees, all the way up to the IRA’s own mini-Kristallnacht in Dublin – now very nearly expunged from history. At one end of that spectrum, half the priests in Ireland were guilty of preaching that the Nazis were doing god’s work by wiping out the Jews. At the other end, you have the likes of Seamus O’Donovan reputedly proving himself to the Nazis by joining in with the torture of Jews whilst in Germany, and the Irishmen who joined the SS. Then there’s the IRA providing a list of Jews in Ireland to the Nazis – which wasn’t ever used, because of course the Nazi takeover of Ireland never happened, but would have been of signal assistance in persecution had it taken place.

  22. bloke (not) in spain

    “Do our frequent commenters Bloke In Spain, Bloke in France, Bloke in Costa Rica, etc, support their local teams?”
    Are we talking the World Cup here?
    As far as this particular ex-pat’s concerned, if I can be bothered, I always make a point of cheering for whichever team England’s playing. And revel in their losing. Which is…mostly. And delight in the disillusionment of Brit sports commentators when they’re sent home early. Great entertainment.
    Other sports? Who cares?

  23. A forefather in the Red Army would be a tricky one – on June 21st 1941 in a pact with the Nazis , the next day an implacable enemy of them.

  24. Dave:

    Do you really think that Britain wanted Irland to join in WW2 given that it would have provided Germany with a prime piece of land to use in surrounding mainland Britain with hostile bases?

  25. Andrew M,

    The issue is not over which teams immigrants support, but their children and grandchildren. And as has been pointed out already, it’s not about supporting your “ancestral” team but actively supporting anyone playing your home nation. We had 3rd generation Indians booing Moeen Ali FFS.

  26. The “cricket test” was a reasonable proxy for sense of national identity. For what it’s worth, if I were a Spaniard I wouldn’t think much of British expats for the same reason, particularly since most of them appear to have been criminals escaping British justice, and their noxious molls like Barbara Windsor.

    But who your grandfather fought for is just plain silly. None of mine fought anyway. My dad was just too young, his father was too old. My maternal grandfather was too ill, but he did help design the PLUTO line for D Day (the ships’ winding gear, apparently) at Stewarts And Lloyds where he was an engineer. Don’t know if that counts, but the family are quite proud of it.

  27. And many Indian cricket team supporters are the descendants of men who fought bravely for the Allies, so honestly what the fuck is he on about?

  28. Kevin>

    I’m not sure what you’re asking. Of course the British would have preferred Ireland to join the war – on the Allied side.

    Ian>

    Yes, it’s remarkably stupid. Both my grandfathers fought for the British in the Second World War; one won an MC, the other was originally interned, before eventually becoming one of the first dozen or so British troops to cross into Germany. My great-grandfathers, on the other hand, were Great War veterans (one particularly highly decorated and moderately famous for it) – on the German side.

  29. Since the father of Milibanana and Milibacon presumably supported the Nazi side until Hitler attacked the USSR, does that mean we should remove their citizenship?

    It’s hard to think of any other reason to support Mr Tebbit’s daft idea. Except that what I suspect he means, but would rather not say, is something like “Let’s admit people such as Poles and Czechs, whose peoples were part of Western European civilisation for so long, but keep out Bulgarians and whatnot who were not”.

    Anyway, I did enjoy ” Gladstone will ever have the same meaning for a person of Afro-Caribbean origin as he does for someone of a more indigenous background”. Just as long as you are aware of Gladstone’s boast/joke that he had not a drop of English blood in his veins.

  30. BwaB,

    “If first generation immigrants want to support their home country at tiddlywinks, good luck to them, as long as its good natured it just adds to the fun.”

    Quite. Who gives a crap? My mate’s dad supports India. He runs a cash and carry business. He’s a nice guy, productive, pays his taxes, hurts no-one. And he’s just like Tebbit’s “on your bike” guy. I’d argue that the Indians I’ve met are generally far more like Thatcher’s vision of society than most white British people.

  31. bloke (not) in spain

    Just thought. The Tebbit raises a problem for my Dago mates. Nominally Spain was neutral but you can’t get round the fascist Franco. But half of them had just lost a war against the other half in ’39. Colour them what?

  32. And the cricket test might have more value if our sports teams wasn’t themselves stuffed full of foreigners who qualify because their grandmother once ate some pontefract cakes.

  33. NT has lost it. Do we hear people complaining about being swamped by German engineers, Japanese sushi chefs or Italian fashion designers? Do we hear people complaining about Polish plumbers and fruit pickers, and Russian oligarchs and their prostitutes?

  34. re the soccer. I’m not quite totally indifferent but in general I like it when England lose.
    No I don’t support any French team bigger than my village at any sport.
    re Ireland. Lord Haw Haw was Irish.
    And like Gladstone, I probably don’t have a drop of English blood in my veins. So the rugby team I do support is testing my patience a bit. Against SA they were clueless. Not quite as bad as France against Argentina, mind.

  35. bloke (not) in spain

    Ian
    Don’t mock “escaping British justice”. Way British justice is progressing, you all may feel the need soon.

  36. I think what Norman is trying to get at is whether their culture today is of the sort that would have fought the Nazis. He’s making an implicit (and obviously invalid) assumption that the national cultures haven’t changed, so you can judge the culture today by the culture their grandparents had 75 years ago.

    His point is that a lot of Europeans at the time surrendered to the Nazis or joined in, while others fought and resisted. He’s suggesting that a lot of Europeans of today haven’t changed that much in their essential attitudes. He’s saying we want the latter sort of European, not the Vichy collaborator “cheese-eating surrender monkey” sort.

    Although given that many more of the native British seem to have shifted in that direction too, it’s not just about immigrants. To pick an example at random, if we had to fight WWII again today and didn’t have the hindsight of knowing the subsequent history, whose side do you think someone like George Galloway would be on?

    But that’s the trouble with tolerance and free speech – it means you have to tolerate the Nazi sympathizers as well. Which is the real “Britishness”? Tolerating them or fighting them?

  37. The Danish in Afghanistan were really quite interesting. Apart from the film “Armadillo” – which is well worth watching – my recollection is that they had the best PX, and were desperate to be allowed to take their tanks out and play.

    When one of their infantry companies was brought back in to Bastion, one of the sergeants used to wander around with a double bladed battle axe strapped to his day sack. I believe he had patrolled in the ulu like that.

  38. For a brief moment I thought Tebbit had a point with the cricket test, until I remembered that I was supporting Anyone-But-England in the tests at the time. (The reason being their general lack of effort and apparent sense of entitlement).

    Asking our West Indian contingent to support our dull under-achievers against Clive Lloyd’s team was surely too much to ask? Besides, Lloyd and most of his team were based in the UK much of the time.

  39. NiV,

    But that’s also massively simplistic. If the Poles had been offered negotiation, I expect they’d have taken it. But it wasn’t offered as the Nazis weren’t interested in defeating Poles – they wanted to repopulate the land with Germans.

    And remember, without Churchill swaying the cabinet, we’d have probably been collaborators. Can we boot the ancestors of Lord Halifax out of the country because he was a stilton eating surrender monkey?

  40. bloke (not) in spain

    “I think what Norman is trying to get at is whether their culture today is of the sort that would have fought the Nazis.”

    What Norman should be asking himself is, given their subsequent culture, whether the English would have fought the Nazi’s? On current showing, they’d probably been queuing on the beaches meekly awaiting their orders. Although, no doubt, a phalanx of parking attendants would have ticketed the German tanks, once they’d reached the promenade.

  41. “Interesting. What about the Danes?”

    The sort of Danes who publish unpopular cartoons, yes. That’s exactly the sort of thing.

    “If the Poles had been offered negotiation, I expect they’d have taken it. But it wasn’t offered as the Nazis weren’t interested in defeating Poles – they wanted to repopulate the land with Germans.”

    If the terms of the negotiation were similar to those offered the Vichy government, I don’t expect that would have stopped the Germans moving in.

    “And remember, without Churchill swaying the cabinet, we’d have probably been collaborators. Can we boot the ancestors of Lord Halifax out of the country because he was a stilton eating surrender monkey?”

    I imagine Lord Tebbit is thinking of the popular legend of the war, not the actuality. But yes, that’s what that principle would lead to. Which is ironic, because wanting to get people he didn’t like booted out of the country was what Hitler was criticised for.

    “What Norman should be asking himself is, given their subsequent culture, whether the English would have fought the Nazi’s?”

    Well, the Iraqi/Syrian Ba’ath Party were originally set up by the Nazis, and their descendent governments shared a lot of their original principles and methods. So I think the answer would be “eventually, if provoked, and with a lot of grumbling”. But there’d be decades of diplomacy first.

    “Although, no doubt, a phalanx of parking attendants would have ticketed the German tanks, once they’d reached the promenade.”

    Mmm. Do occupying forces count as “residents” for the purposes of “residents only parking”? I can feel a letter to the newspapers coming on…

  42. @ The Stigler
    Churchill was only *in* the Cabinet because they had already decided against collaboration. Most of them hated Churchill. He was not in the “political wilderness” from choice.
    Chamberlain has got an unfairly bad press because the press wanted to shift their share of the blame onto someone else and they either supported Labour or Baldwin. Chamberlain started rearmament after he became PM which Ramsay MacDonald and Baldwin should have done in the early 1930s but didn’t because they were worried about the political capital that the pacifist Lansbury would make out of it (the National government *only* won 386 seats out of the 615 available in the 1935 election, but Labour did increase their vote to 38% against the National government’s 47.8% because they capitalised on the economic distress, which was partly due to the 1929-31 Labour government, partly to the failure to employ people in a rearmament programme, but largely to the worldwide slump).

  43. This is all strange self delusionary chatter. You will get what you get -as you got what you got.
    Pretending that people should obey certain principles implies that you all are in charge. You are not.
    Look out the window and see how many indigenous white are there now.
    In all probability you are being phased out.

  44. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Stupid racist crap from a stupid racist”

    I never got this. What is your objection to the phrase “indigenous” as applied to the original inhabitants of these isles? What is your objection to the word “White”?

    You do know that despite the Anglo-Saxon invasions, there was essentially no change in the DNA of the population of Britain from the Stone Age down to World War Two?

    If you don’t like that term, and we obviously need one, what is the politically correct Guardian-approved term you would have us use?

  45. “what is the politically correct Guardian-approved term”

    The evil oppressor is never allowed to be named as an interest group, even when its interests are being systematically sh*t upon. This is only for oppressed minorities in Guardian land.

  46. So Much for Subtlety

    By the way, I assume TW is very busy on his slag heaps – which is excellent news in its own way – because he is letting us down in the number of postings these days.

    To make up for it, I have two suggestions of my own:

    In the Some People Need Hangin’ category:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853633/How-social-workers-battled-prevent-loving-couple-giving-grandson-home-Three-workers-named-shamed-furious-judge.html

    Neil Swaby, Rachel Olley and Peter Nelson were named and shamed by a furious judge for bias against the grandparents who wanted to give the two-year-old a home.

    The evidence they gave to a court as they tried to prevent the couple from raising the child was described as ‘visibly biased’, ‘begrudging’ and ‘grossly overstated’.

    The couple, known only as Mr and Mrs G, said one of the North East Lincolnshire Council social workers, Neil Swaby, had refused to explain why he was not backing their bid for adoption.

    Mr G told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme that he had asked Mr Swaby: ‘Who do you think you are, God?’ and Mr Swaby had allegedly replied: ‘In this situation, yes. Get used to it, your grandson will go for adoption.’

    Time to end reporting restrictions on Family cases.

    And in the other category of TW Being Wise Ahead of His Time:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2853700/The-real-culprits-fly-tip-one-mile-long-s-green-fanatics-meddling-EU-going-dump-expensive-nightmare-us.html

    The main culprit, you could argue — at least as bad as any crime lord — was Labour’s former Environment Secretary David Miliband. It was he who negotiated and implemented in Britain the 2008 EU Waste Framework Directive, with its stringent rules demanding more recycling, more incineration and a dramatic reduction in the use of landfill.

    Community disposal sites where small businesses could conveniently and cheaply dump their rubbish were closed. A plethora of new bin collection days and recycling bags of different colours were introduced, too. This was when fly-tipping really took off in Britain.

    But the Conservatives must bear their share of blame, too, notably Tory peer and green activist Lord Deben. Eighteen years ago, Secretary of State for the Environment John Gummer (as he then was) set the ball rolling by introducing Britain’s first eco tax: the 1996 Landfill Tax, which brought us into line with an earlier, less rigorous EU directive on waste.

    When was TW first saying this? Can anyone find his first article when he pointed out the obvious? I have a feeling it is about a decade ago but that can’t be right.

  47. So Much for Subtlety

    Tomsmith – “The evil oppressor is never allowed to be named as an interest group, even when its interests are being systematically sh*t upon. This is only for oppressed minorities in Guardian land.”

    I don’t know. The Nazis had a name. It is one of Alinsky’s tactics isn’t it? Name and shame. I propose that to placate the politically correct sandal-wearing tendency here at TW’s, we refer to the indigenous White population of Britain as Legacy Undocumented Migrants. Perhaps as Stone Age Queue Jumpers? Neolithic Boat people?

    I mean there has to be some acceptable term as the concept exists and a term is needed.

  48. So Much for Subtlety

    bloke (not) in spain – “What Norman should be asking himself is, given their subsequent culture, whether the English would have fought the Nazi’s? On current showing, they’d probably been queuing on the beaches meekly awaiting their orders.”

    The Nazis did occupy part of the Queen’s domain. They occupied the Channel Islands. Not England but close enough. And very quietly, the inhabitants did seem to be very, what is the right term?, orderly. Not a lot of Channel Island Jews to begin with but a lot fewer after the war.

  49. “If you don’t like that term, and we obviously need one, what is the politically correct Guardian-approved term you would have us use?”

    ‘People’.

  50. So Much for Subtlety

    NiV – “‘People’.”

    So everyone else is allowed a national existence except the British? Or is that just the English?

    Still, the way the slave trade is taught would be improved – some people sold some other people who were then taken across the Atlantic and sold again the second lot of people, to a third lot of people. And so there is no need for Blair to have said sorry.

  51. @ SMFS
    There was not much change in the DNA mix after the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions (the Vikings ruled most of England for some years) because the anglo-Saxon and Celtic DNA was quite similar. The Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from the area described as Celts by the Romans.

  52. SMFS,

    They’re ‘people’. We’re ‘people’. We’re all ‘people’.

    Nationality and skin colour are no more significant than blood group, middle initial, or favourite ice cream flavour. It’s only one dividing line among many. You do, of course, have a ‘right’ to them. But if we’re going to start drawing lines around people we don’t like, what’s to stop the rest of us drawing lines around you? It’s best not to start.

    People come and go, and cultures change. British culture in the 1970s is different to British culture in the 1930s is different to British culture in the 1890s. People from the country moved to the cities, then people from the city moved to the countryside. They’re all still just ‘people’.

  53. John Gummer – in the Left’s eyes, probably the original ‘toxic brand’. Then he changes his name to Lord Debden and goes all green, and suddenly he’s an Oracle to that very same Left; he can do no wrong.

    Very, very weird.

  54. So Much for Subtlety

    john77 – “There was not much change in the DNA mix after the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions (the Vikings ruled most of England for some years) because the anglo-Saxon and Celtic DNA was quite similar. The Anglo-Saxons and Vikings came from the area described as Celts by the Romans.”

    DNA testing can usually locate your ancestral village within a few hundred miles in Europe. In Britain, people have tested villagers and found they have pretty much the same DNA as people who were there in the Stone Age. Or at least they did until recently. It is not just that they are quite similar, it is that few of them came.

    NiV – “They’re ‘people’. We’re ‘people’. We’re all ‘people’.”

    So you would support changing, say, Israel’s law of return so that any person can immigrate to Israel as long as at least one of their grandparents was a person – even if they are Palestinian?

    “Nationality and skin colour are no more significant than blood group, middle initial, or favourite ice cream flavour.”

    That is not true. DNA varies and it varies along racial lines in quite significant ways.

    “But if we’re going to start drawing lines around people we don’t like, what’s to stop the rest of us drawing lines around you? It’s best not to start.”

    People do draw lines around me. With the support of the Left usually. Islamists want to kill me. Communists wanted to kill me. All I ask is that there ought to be at least one country where I am moderately safe.

    However this is not what you’re asking for. What you are insisting is that everyone else ought to be entitled to draw lines and defend themselves along those racial, religious and cultural lines, but White males should not.

    “People come and go, and cultures change. British culture in the 1970s is different to British culture in the 1930s is different to British culture in the 1890s. People from the country moved to the cities, then people from the city moved to the countryside. They’re all still just ‘people’.”

    People do not come and go – or didn’t until the modern period. British culture is fundamentally similar to that of the 1970s and the 1890s. It has changed but not by much and that only looks great to you because you are close to it.

    We also have a living experiment in population replacement – Detroit. The institutions stayed the same. The laws stayed the same. Everything stayed the same except the population. People moved from the South. People who insist on voting on racial lines. Disaster followed. People are not fungible.

  55. “Since the father of Milibanana and Milibacon presumably supported the Nazi side until Hitler attacked the USSR, does that mean we should remove their citizenship?”

    Ralph Miliband and his father came to England as Jews fleeing the Nazi invasion of Belgium in May 1940, so that’s a particularly stupid presumption.

  56. We seem to have as usual wandered into that strange cognitively dissonant territory where there is no such thing as race, until a member of the white race kills a member of the black race.

  57. So Much for Subtlety

    PaulB – “Ralph Miliband and his father came to England as Jews fleeing the Nazi invasion of Belgium in May 1940, so that’s a particularly stupid presumption.”

    It depends how orthodox Miliband was in 1940. Eric Hobsbawm certainly toed the party line and supported a French and British defeat – until June 22 1941.

  58. @Ironman

    It’s not about dictating to people which team they support, it’s about looking at which team they support and drawing conclusions. You are turning into a past master at drawing the wrong conclusions and posturingly grandstanding about not being a racist. We get it. You’re not a racist. Now please stop being so dull.

    @everyone else

    I’m not saying that the ‘cricket test’ is perfect, just that I never quite got why it was absurd to say to people, “OK, you say you’re English, you were born here, you’ll die here, why don’t you join the party with the rest of us.”

    @whoever talked about Yorkshire

    You’re missing the point. Nationality and associated belongs and beliefs are more important than professional Yorkshiremanism.

    @SMFS

    Trafalgar was a battle won by England for the English. People born here are English, as far as I can see, and those descendants of immigrants who know and love their country’s glorious history are less likely to make trouble here than those who believe it is only for the ‘white British’.

    Why do you think leftie educationalists have spent so long decrying the whole business? Divide and rule ring any bells?

  59. bloke (not) in spain

    @PaulB
    “Ralph Miliband and his father came to England as Jews fleeing the Nazi invasion of Belgium in May 1940, so that’s a particularly stupid presumption.”
    It’s not a stupid presumption.
    It’s a question I asked an Eastern European & committed & activist Jew who came to the UK before the war. Most of his family died in the camps. He supported the Stalinist line, Russo-German pact included, right up until Barbarossa. Knowing what was occurring in Germany.
    He said, in retrospect it was a mistake he regretted.
    Didn’t stop him dying a committed communist & supporter of the Soviet regime until it fell over. He died mourning it.

  60. “Nationality and skin colour are no more significant than blood group, middle initial, or favourite ice cream flavour.”

    Where do you live, and why?

  61. “DNA testing can usually locate your ancestral village within a few hundred miles in Europe.”

    I’m sure there are people who claim that. It’s not true, though, as not even in those days were any villages so isolated genetically. What I suspect they’re doing is looking at a few individual markers, and looking at their geographic distribution. For any individual marker there will likely be some distinctive pattern, so you could say you got that gene from an ancestor living in that area. But if you pick different marker genes, you’ll get a completely different pattern, and different ancestral areas.

    Every ancestor had two parents, so 30 generations back there are 1073741824 branches to the tree. What are the odds that every single one of them is pure? It only takes one foreigner to move into the village to connect everyone else to them in a double handful of generations. Then everyone has both entire villages in their family tree. If even one person moves to a neighbouring village each generation, all mankind is related. That’s how we remain a single species.

    Everyone is a member of the same family. We’re all people.

    “So you would support changing, say, Israel’s law of return so that any person can immigrate to Israel as long as at least one of their grandparents was a person – even if they are Palestinian?”

    When Israel was first proposed, the plan was to leave the Arabs in place – just to allow free immigration of Jews. Had the Nationalist Arabs allowed that, a lot more Jews would have survived. When Israel was first set up, the Israelis said the Arabs were welcome to stay. The Arabs instead moved out so that the five invading armies could more easily slaughter the Jews. Even after that, up until 2002, Arabs could immigrate if they swore loyalty to Israel, did their national service, etc.

    The Palestinians were the ones making your argument, that they didn’t want a lot of Jews moving in, changing the culture. And I think the same of Haj Amin al-Husayni’s arguments as I do of yours.

    If I had my way, and people didn’t draw these lines around ‘us’ and ‘them’ all the time, restrictions on immigration into Israel wouldn’t be necessary. So yes, in a sense, that’s what I’m in favour of.

    “That is not true. DNA varies and it varies along racial lines in quite significant ways.”

    So do blood group, middle initial, and favourite ice cream flavour.

    Blood group is a genetic marker for a split that dates back to pre-human days. Chimpanzees have the same groups, which means if you pick this particular marker to trace your ancestry, you might be more closely related to some chimpanzees than you are to your next door neighbour! Middle initials and ice cream flavours also vary a lot, and differ according to culture which is also correlated with race. And people’s taste preferences are also partly genetically determined (e.g. the TAS2R38 gene).

    From a genetic point of view, skin colour is caused by a tiny handful of genes (ASIP, KITLG, MC1R, SLC24A5, SLC45A2, TYR, OCA, and a few others) out of about twenty thousand genes, each with their own family tree. They’re genetically not important – less than 0.1% of even the protein-coding sections – the only reason people make a fuss is because their effects happen to be very visible. They’re easy for the simple-minded to hang their labels on.

    “People do draw lines around me. With the support of the Left usually. Islamists want to kill me. Communists wanted to kill me. All I ask is that there ought to be at least one country where I am moderately safe.”

    I agree! And I think the best way to make people safe is to stop people drawing lines! The problem is that once you draw the lines in one way, a way that happens to give me an advantage, the precedent justifies somebody else drawing them in different ways that don’t. “First they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker, so I laughed as I passed them stood there, shivering in the rain…” and so on. I oppose all forms of discrimination on principle, even ones that don’t affect me, because I don’t want to find myself one day on the receiving end of some other form of it.

    It’s very hard to make that argument consistently if they can “tu quoque” us with all the racists we hang about with. So I have to argue with you as well, for consistency. And really, it’s just the same thinking as the Islamists and Communists use, just pointed in a different direction. People are all the same, and in this you probably have more in common with Islamists than you ought to be comfortable with.

    And besides that, I utterly reject any sort of classification that puts me in the same box as George Galloway. Ick!

    “However this is not what you’re asking for. What you are insisting is that everyone else ought to be entitled to draw lines and defend themselves along those racial, religious and cultural lines, but White males should not.”

    What I’m asking for is that all those other groups stop doing it, and it’s hard to make that argument with them while we’re doing it ourselves. If it’s a bad thing for them to do, it’s a bad thing for us to do as well.

    White males have a right to their own culture, and should be allowed to enjoy it without interference or persecution. The same as every other culture should. We make no distinction. The only possible justification for society to interfere with the freedom of any individual, including the freedom of movement, is to prevent harm being done to others without their informed consent.

    If they’re minding their own business and not harming me, I don’t care what skin colour, blood group, or ice cream preferences my neighbour has, or whether they bang their heads on the floor five times a day, refuse to eat bacon, support the wrong football team, or have a funny accent. It’s not relevant. I’ve got a lot more in common with them than I have the white males who march around telling me I can’t have smokers in my pub and closing down tuck shops near schools because the kids have got to eat five fruit and veg every day. They’re as bad as the Islamists, and they’re totally white and completely British!

    Identify the cultural or social behaviours that you actually object to, and object to those specifically. Don’t pick on some unrelated but very visible marker that happens to be vaguely correlated to it. It only makes the argument harder.

  62. “as far as I can see, and those descendants of immigrants who know and love their country’s glorious history are less likely to make trouble here than those who believe it is only for the ‘white British’.

    Why do you think leftie educationalists have spent so long decrying the whole business? Divide and rule ring any bells?”

    This is all fine if our culture is not under attack from the same lefty educationalists and their pupils. But it is and has been for a few generations now. And we are losing badly, mostly because we like to pretend that nothjing is different and the same rules still apply.

    This country is never going back to a place where a majority English culture was safe and secure enough that it could afford to be the hero of its own national story. We have reached the point, through loss and corruption of our governing institutions, as well as massive immigration from hostile cultures, that we are now desperately painting ourselves as the villain at every opportunity and falling over ourselves to appologise.

    Things have changed and we need different tactics if we want to survive. The current fair play strategy is a fail.

  63. So Much for Subtlety

    NiV – “What I suspect they’re doing is looking at a few individual markers, and looking at their geographic distribution. For any individual marker there will likely be some distinctive pattern, so you could say you got that gene from an ancestor living in that area. But if you pick different marker genes, you’ll get a completely different pattern, and different ancestral areas.”

    And yet it seems not. The human species is genetically distinct. The more markers you look at, the more it is obvious. You are reversing the truth – what Lewontin did – he only looked at 17 and so concluded the human race was fundamentally similar. It isn’t.

    “Every ancestor had two parents, so 30 generations back there are 1073741824 branches to the tree. What are the odds that every single one of them is pure?”

    You don’t need every single one of them to be pure for every village to be reasonably genetically distinct.

    “That’s how we remain a single species.”

    Dingos and dogs have been separated by tens of thousands of years. Still interbreeding.

    “Everyone is a member of the same family. We’re all people.”

    If you go back far enough. But the major races are genetically distinct.

    “When Israel was first proposed, the plan was to leave the Arabs in place – just to allow free immigration of Jews.”

    So basically you are going to avoid the question by making a series of highly contentious statements that have nothing to do with the issue at hand but will, I suspect you hope, divert people’s attention elsewhere?

    “Had the Nationalist Arabs allowed that, a lot more Jews would have survived.”

    Really? How was that going to work then?

    “When Israel was first set up, the Israelis said the Arabs were welcome to stay. The Arabs instead moved out so that the five invading armies could more easily slaughter the Jews. Even after that, up until 2002, Arabs could immigrate if they swore loyalty to Israel, did their national service, etc.”

    I am amazed at how shameless you can be making these statements. When Israel was set up, it was always the plan of the Zionist community to remove the Palestinians. Which they did. Even before the British gave up the mandate – and hence the Arabs to invade – the Israelis-to-be were ethnically cleansing Israel. That is why there was a massacre at Deir Yassin – before the British left. The Arab Armies did not, and could not, force people out in territory they did not control. But the Haganah could and did.

    As for moving back, Israel has flatly refused to allow any Palestinians to return. Not even a token number. Rightly. It would not remain a Jewish state for long if it did. And of course, to cap your series of lies, Arabs cannot do military service unless they are Druze or Bedouin. Or at least they could not in the past.

    “The Palestinians were the ones making your argument, that they didn’t want a lot of Jews moving in, changing the culture. And I think the same of Haj Amin al-Husayni’s arguments as I do of yours.”

    And yet they were right. Still I notice you have not called on Israel to allow the Palestinians they removed to return and make Israel a lot less Jewish. Why is that?

    “If I had my way, and people didn’t draw these lines around ‘us’ and ‘them’ all the time, restrictions on immigration into Israel wouldn’t be necessary. So yes, in a sense, that’s what I’m in favour of.”

    So a Trot. But you won’t have your way. Your choice is to ask Israel to give up its borders while no one else does, or not. Which is it?

    “So do blood group, middle initial, and favourite ice cream flavour.”

    Not sure middle initial is significant. Blood type may be.

    “They’re genetically not important – less than 0.1% of even the protein-coding sections – the only reason people make a fuss is because their effects happen to be very visible. They’re easy for the simple-minded to hang their labels on.”

    They do happen to be very visible. And they also happen to mark genetic difference very well. So it is not all that simple minded to notice. Not that it matters because the question is not whether people are right or wrong to do so. People do. Blacks in America are protesting because a Black was shot for beating a policeman about the head. Not because of the rights and wrongs but because they think it is wrong for people of the wrong race to defend themselves. It matters to non-Whites.

    “I agree! And I think the best way to make people safe is to stop people drawing lines!”

    Go on. By all means, stop the Islamists. Stop everyone else. Let me know how that works out. Your argument is just what people said to the White of Zimbabwe. How is that working out for them?

    “And really, it’s just the same thinking as the Islamists and Communists use, just pointed in a different direction.”

    Except they hold to universal ideologies. I don’t want to make people non-Communists or non-Muslims all that much, although it would be nice. But they want to use force to change my mind.

    “If they’re minding their own business and not harming me, I don’t care what skin colour, blood group, or ice cream preferences my neighbour has”

    Nor do I. But of course they are not minding their own business and they are harming you.

    “I’ve got a lot more in common with them than I have the white males who march around telling me I can’t have smokers in my pub and closing down tuck shops near schools because the kids have got to eat five fruit and veg every day.”

    No you don’t. Actually. That is just the Little Britain fallacy.

    “They’re as bad as the Islamists, and they’re totally white and completely British!”

    No they are not. No one beheads someone over lunch meat.

  64. “Ralph Miliband and his father came to England as Jews fleeing the Nazi invasion of Belgium in May 1940, so that’s a particularly stupid presumption.” On the contrary, the default assumption about any communist is that he supported the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939. That he ran away from the Nazis in ’40 sheds no light on his views in ’39.

  65. @ SMFS
    “DNA testing can usually locate your ancestral village within a few hundred miles in Europe. In Britain, people have tested villagers and found they have pretty much the same DNA as people who were there in the Stone Age. Or at least they did until recently. It is not just that they are quite similar, it is that few of them came.”
    Oh yeah! Pull the other one. The English are mongrels: pre-Roman Celts, Romans, with an admixture of legionaries from all over the Empire (which is the Welsh have more dark hair than the Scots), Anglo-Saxons, Danes (the Scots have Norwegian blood but in England it’s mostly Danes), a mercenary mixture following William the Bastard, quite a few French while the Plantagents rules most of France, Basques who preferred Richard and the Black Prince to the French, religious refugees from the Counter-reformation, Flemish weavers, Huguenots, emigres after the French Revolution, Hanoverians while the Electors of Hanover ruled England, Poles who came over to fight Hitler, on top of Welsh, Cornishmen, Scots, Irish and half-a-dozen Jewish influxes the earlier of which left mixed-race descendants behind when the king (or Lord Prote and the C19 and early C20 ones included Jews who were racially Slavs whose ancestors had converted to Judaism, Romanies, people coming/returning from the Colonies (some of whom were mixed-race), musicians, White Russians, and some more who do not immediately spring to mind (apart from American heiresses marrying a British title who are numerically insignificant).
    I come from at least five racial groups (even when you count North Welsh and South Welsh as one). My ancestral village? Which one?
    “Within a few hundred miles” Anywhere in Europe is within a few hundred miles of Zurich. So you can tell from our DNA whether we have white skin and round eyes. A really fatuous claim to pretend that there is support for another stupid claim.

  66. >> Since the father of Milibanana and Milibacon presumably supported the Nazi side until Hitler attacked the USSR, does that mean we should remove their citizenship?

    >> “Ralph Miliband and his father came to England as Jews fleeing the Nazi invasion of Belgium in May 1940, so that’s a particularly stupid presumption.” On the contrary, the default assumption about any communist is that he supported the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939. That he ran away from the Nazis in ’40 sheds no light on his views in ’39.

    I have no direct information on what Ralph Miliband thought in 1939, when he was 15, though it seems far-fetched to imagine that he was sympathetic to the regime which was murdering his relatives in Poland.

    What I am sure of is that it was thoroughly opposed to the Nazis who invaded Belgium in May 1940, a year or so before Hitler attacked the USSR.

    So I repeat, your presumption is stupid.

  67. Just as a general point, the “nation of immigrants” discourse is purely inherited from the USA (which really is one), like the rest of the race discourse, and indeed neo-progressivism in general. Applied to Europeans (or most other peoples of the world) it simply is not true.

    As another general point, the whole “race does not exist” argument is really very silly, and based on a fairly obvious fallacy derived from the question of what makes a thing a thing that puzzled Plato. There are sofas, chairs and stools in the world; but how do we precisely define a sofa, chair or stool? They are all furniture to sit on. How wide does a chair have to be before it becomes a sofa? Plato couldn’t figure this one out and ended up guessing (rather wrongly, if amusingly) that another plane of pure forms exists which contains the essences of chairs and sofas and stools. Sadly even if it does, it still really hasn’t answered the question.

    The answer is of course that there is no precise definition that will certainly identify sofas chairs and stools in a certain way that everyone can agree on. The boundaries between the concepts are blurry and ragged. Humans learn what sofas and chairs are by observation, and mentally form a stereotype. We have a good idea of where the centre of a concept is- in “racial” terms, a stereotypical white or black person, but just have to accept that many cases will arise where the individual’s race is debatable and subjective. Is Obama black, or Arabic, in ethnic terms? Etc.

    A thought experiment: I put you in a room full of coloured balls, thousands of them. All of them are different colours. In many cases the colours are so similar that if you look at two balls separately they will seem the same colour. Only by holding them side by side do you see a slight difference in hue. I ask you to put all the balls you consider “red” in a basket. Having done that, we put another person in a different, identical room, and ask them to do the same thing. Then we compare the contents of the two baskets. The two baskets will contain much agreement; many of the balls will be in both baskets. But others will not. There will be balls in basket A that are not in basket B, and vice versa.

    From this, we can reasonably say that there is no precise objective definition of “red”. It would however be a rather grand error to conclude from this that the concept “red” is false, or erroneous, and say, “there is no such thing as red”.

    This does not itself mean that “race” is important. You may not care whether a person is white or black, just as you may not care whether a ball is red or green. But the categories still exist in a meaningful sense, even if they are not of concern to you.

  68. As to Ralph Miliband, I think he’s a bit of a red herring. Red herring, lol, did you see what I did there?

    Ed Miliband seems to be a mix of neo-progressivism and old Labour, neither of which is particularly Marxist. The proggies are post-marxist and old Labour were predominantly Christian Socialist, but neither has much similarity to the mao-suited dictatorship of the proletariat crap beloved of old Commies like Ralph.

    For the record, I personally prefer the Old Labour to the neo-progressivism of New Labour, given the choice. If socialism we must have, I’d rather it be under an Attlee or Wilson than a Blair.

  69. NiV,

    You appear to be having difficulty telling the difference between describing something and wanting to keep it separate. What started this branch of the conversation was Ironman’s bizarre assertion that even using the phrase “indigenous white” is racist. SMFS is right: it is a thing that exists, so we need a term to describe it. If you oppose treating indigenous white English people as separate to third-generation West-Indian African English people, great. So do I. But you still need terms to describe what it is you oppose.

    As for the genetics, you are mistaken. Professor Sykes (my aunt’s childhood sweetheart, funnily enough) seems to be one of the world’s leading geneticists and knows what he’s talking about. His was a revelatory finding that rewrote the history books: we now know that Britain’s various invaders down the centuries did very little interbreeding: they invaded and subjugated and formed a ruling class and did not mix. The modern indigenous British are around 90% Ancient Briton. Turns out the “Britain has always been a nation of immigrants” stuff was wrong. That’s a scientific fact. Some people find it politically inconvenient, although I don’t see why, as I never understood what the fuck the Norman invasion had to do with Windrush anyway. Surely we should debate immigration law based on the people who want to immigrate now and what they’re like, not on the fact that some completely different people invaded a thousand years ago.

    As it happens, I’m only half one of those indigenous British who are still 90% Ancient Briton, the other half being utter mongrel wandering Jew. I mention this as, sadly, people tend to think that bringing up a scientific fact makes you some sort of racist. I obviously support the immigration of my recent ancestors. I also support the immigration of lots of the people arriving today, though not all of them. I don’t support this bizarre refusal to use language to describe people. My great-grandfather was a Jewish Australian professional card sharp working in the Outback. What a dull world we would live in if I could only describe him as “a person”.

    How am I supposed to say who my recent ancestors were

  70. Squander-

    One relevant thing being that the Jews as a people have made a great deal of effort to not be “mongrels”, which is why they were around 2000 years after losing their lands to take them back again, unlike most of the rest of the cast of the Bible who have disappeared into the mists of time.

  71. Oops. There appears to be a wandering mongrel of a sentence fragment trying to escape my comment. Typical fucking migrant. I blame having to get up at 5 on Mondays.

  72. Well again, back with imprecise boundaries, there is a lot of leakage in and out of a “people”. But there has been a very clear consistent strategy of maintaining a “people identity”, which seems to me to have been a pretty powerful survival strategy. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it, so I’m not being critical. Just observing.

  73. I think people that can’t stand discussing the very obvious differences between races and cultures are the ones with the problem.

  74. re Ralph Miliband, he was obviously against the Nazis from the point of view that he didn’t much fancy being gassed for being Jewish.

    Whether he was quite as against them on the basis that no-one could breathe without State permission, and lots of other people were jailed and executed by them, is less clear.

    Given his later political life, I think we can say he’d have been in favour of Nazis who didn’t pick on Jews.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *