Nick Griffin's bad science

Watching Nick Griffin's performance on Question Time last night, I was struck by more than his objectionable views and evasive answers. He also seems to have a distinctly sketchy grasp of science, which he misrepresents to support his idea that Britain belongs to its "indigenous people".

He described white English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people as "Britain's aborigines", suggesting these groups are descended from an ancestral population that arrived 17,000 years ago. Scientists, he said, would happily confirm this. 

His comments seem, so far as I can tell, to be based on the hypothesis advanced by Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University, in his book The Origins of the British. This uses genetic data to suggest that about 75 per cent of British ancestry can be traced back to very ancient times, before the Anglo-Saxons, Romans and Celts -- the argument is summarised nicely in this Prospect piece.

I decided to take Mr Griffin at his word, and rang Professor Oppenheimer to see what he made of his comments. He also thought the BNP leader was relying on his work -- and he was less than impressed.

Professor Oppenheimer said:

"I assumed he was misinterpreting me. After the programme I went back  to look at what I’d written. I wrote quite a bit about issues of racism. I feared some people like Griffin would probably hijack this — I assumed that fascists would cherry-pick different bits from  my book to support their views."

One aspect of Mr Griffin's claims is very easily debunked. The date he quotes is flat-out wrong. Scientists agree Britain was unpopulated 17,000 years ago. Continuous habitation was established only about 15,000 years ago, according to Professor Oppenheimer, and other researchers think it was more recent still. Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, director of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain (AHOB) project and author of Homo Britannicus, puts it at 11,500 years ago.

Professor Oppenheimer said:

"The date of 17,000 years ago is certainly wrong. There’s disagreement on the date from which Britain has been continuously inhabited — I would say 15,000 years ago, Chris Stringer would say 11,500 years. But it isn’t 17,000."

He said his work suggests that 75 per cent of ancestors had arrived by about 6,200 years ago, and that plenty of migration continued after that, contributing to the British gene pool.

"About three quarters of the ancestors had arrived before the neolithic. Most of the rest arrived during the neolithic. There’s about 5 per cent from Anglo-Saxons, about 6 per cent from Vikings."

Professor Oppenheimer's also added a significant caveat to his research, which Mr Griffin has conveniently overlooked. It was designed to test the ancestry of populations before the industrial revolution.

"It was based on a sample that was very carefully selected to include small market towns, of less than 5,000 people, which appeared in the Domesday Book. The goal was to get stable populations, not much affected by the population expansions of the 19th century and 20th century."

Many British people today, including Professor Oppenheimer himself, can trace at least some of their ancestry to people who would not have been picked up by his research. “Obviously there has been inward migration and internal movement during the last two centuries. There are people like my great grandfather, who was German Jewish,” he said.

Furthermore, Britain has never had an indigenous population, in the sense of people who evolved here. Every member of Homo sapiens who has ever lived in Britain has been either an immigrant, or the descendent of immigrants. The very first ones, the genetic evidence suggests, came here from an ancestral home in northern Spain or the Basque country.

Professor Oppenheimer said:

"He’s missed the point of the genetics in terms of his perspective that he can determine who is indigenous British. All British people are immigrants. As Bonnie Greer pointed out, the original Britons were Neanderthals. They were exterminated, then the Ice Age left a clean sheet. The modern population is essentially of north Iberian origin. So what’s British?"

Could his research be used, I asked, to identify a true "indigenous Briton", as Mr Griffin's comments implied?

"Of course you can’t. The purpose of looking at mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome in this way is not to identify the race of a person. They are just markers representing a tiny fraction of our genome. They do not tell you what someone’s like. And pale European skin colour is largely the result of just one mutation, which protects them from getting rickets as infants. He’s using this information to bolster his political views, but genetics can’t do that."

Professor Stringer was also dismissive of Mr Griffin's account of the British past. Ancient Britons, he said:

“are partly our ancestors, but that’s not the entire picture. It’s only as it warmed up after the last Ice Age that you start to get people who really are ancestral to Britons — before that they all died out. But of course, people kept on coming. You have gene flow from Celts, Picts, Romans, Saxons and so on, even gene flow from the Middle East with the advent of agriculture.

“The idea that there’s any such thing as a pure white British race is just not scientifically verifiable. All of us are hybrids in some sense. My Y chromosome seems to come from Ireland, my mitochondrial DNA seems to be European.

“It would be interesting to see if he’s had his DNA done. He says he wants only indigenous Britons, but who are we? The reality is messy.”

Comments

[Owen Lake]

It would certainly be interesting for Nick Griffin to have his DNA analysed (perhaps he already has but doesn't want us to know the results). He strikes me as having a rather 'swarthy' complexion!

[Ken Jim]

17000 years, 6000 years, it's not the point. The point Mr. Nick Griffin MEP makes is that white people settled and established a civilization in the british isles. The focus was never on 'genetics', his focus is on culture and first nation settlers, the people who started the civilization, and the people who died defending it from attack. I'm proud of my white heritage, culture and civilization, I know I'm not allowed to be, but you can jam it, because I'll remain proud, and I support Mr. Nick Griffin MEP and his courageous stand.

[Ken Jim]

Ken Jim, That's because your a moron sir. Nobody has more of a right to exist in this country because of their skin, simple.

[Jay Joseph]

As ever, Nick Griffin and the BNP distort facts to back up their assertions, last nights QT and the ongoing debates have only highlighted, to the educated at least, the BNP's shortcomings.

Incidentally, I, too am very proud of my white heritage, I'm also proud of my black heritage but I'm even more proud of my nation, for having the tolerance that allowed my parents to set up a life together and produce me.

[Dan]

Courageous stand? Against what exactly? Griffin merely gives people with small lives and small minds an opportunity to feel like part of something. It's quite sad.

[Dave Johnson]

I wonder what the Scots, Irish and Welsh will have to say when you tell them they might as well burn their flags and forget devolution, and while we are at it, what are the Americans going to say, because following the "Scholars" view they don't belong there! Unless I'm mistaken there is no such thing as an Englishman ergo no Americans

[Metrodeco]

We're a small tea shop in Brighton - so you might think we'd have no interest in the rise of the odious BNP. Not so. Read about our recent experience of Nick Griffin and what we thought of his appearance on Question Time: http://www.metrodeco.wordpress.com

[Ash]

i would like to make a comment regarding mr griffins reference to the quran:where he stated that it tells muslims to kill non-muslims.
As a non muslim academic who teaches islamic studies in universities i can confirm that this statement only applies when other people attack you and try to kill you if a non muslim is peaceful towards you then you are not allowed to harm a hair on their head.

[Wayne]

Regardless of the DNA argument, does the author agree that there is no such thing as an 'indigenous' British people? I've lived and worked in 5 countries, and I can guarantee that if you told a Sicilian that he was not 'indigenous', you'd better be prepared to back those words up with either very fast legs or fists. Now bearing in mind that Sicily is probably the most invaded place on the planet (the Moors, Aragonese, Romans, Carthaginians and Normans to name a few 'visitors'), could it not be argued that our 'indigenous' population is more 'indigenous' than theirs considering we have had fewer invaders and always of European stock? If so, why does no-one dare to tell native Sicilians that? Could it be that the white British 'indigenous' population here has been brow-beaten into submission by the left to the point that quite a few million of us are considering voting for an extremist party?

One thing was clear from Question Time last night, and that was that the so-called intellectual elite can barely acknowledge that we exist, never mind our legitimate concerns about immigration, etc.

[Trinity]

I suppose if we were all to 'go back to where we cam from', we'd all be resident citizens of Africa, seeing as it's scientifically evident that is where the entire Human race as a whole came from! That would render 'Britain' quite a sizeable Island for... whoever would be the rightful owners!

[Mari]

What is at the bottom of all this nit picking? Do you want the white race to die out completely - is that the ultimate aim - creating coffee coloured people by the score? 17000 years, 10000 years, the fact is that England is a caucasian land, just as India is an Asian land - lets get back to where we belong....

[Anthony David Jones MA]

Whether "we" arrived in these islands 17,000 years ago, 11,000 years or 6,500 years ago is irrelevant. The fact is that "we" arrived in a barren undeveloped land and tilled and cultivated that land.

The newcomers, like Proffessor Oppenheimer's German Jewish ancestors, came to a developed nation for their own benefit. Like the post 1948 immigants and the asylum seekers. They are, were, mostly the class of middlemen and shopkeepers who leech off the developed nation that is, was, Britain.

Finally, the crude depiction of Nick Griffin's missing eye shows me that the Times is a sad former shadow of its former self

[Alf]

It's always puzzling to hear someone say they're proud of their race as though it were some sort of achievement.

I might understand it if someone said they enjoy their race...

But even that seems a bit odd.

[francis]

We know the evolutionary history of the BNP, formed from rump of the NF which in turn was formed from the ashes of Mosley's BUF. The central core of these beliefs stem from misinterpretation of the philosophical ideals written by Friedrich Nietzsche, (Undoubtable his views are likely to have been infulenced by his realationship with Wagner, however it has been argued his writting were subverted for their own polictical aim by his anti semictic brother in law and sister.) what can said is Mr Giffin and his fellow BNP supporters follow of a set philosophical ideals that have been tested by the history of human endeavour and in that testing the ideals have been found to philosophically as well as in reality unsustainable.

[Jenni Wren]

Dave, what do flags have to do with it? Nationality is a political issue, deciding who is or is not "indigenous" is a scientific issue that has no implicit meaning in and of itself. Nor can it decide where a person "belongs." The only people who think in such a way are people like Griffin, who confuses nationality, heritage, race and genetics and, I believe, doesn't understand the true meaning of any of them.

Also, as a Welsh citizen myself, I can tell you that "indigenous" has nothing to do with devolution there. Wales has seen way too much immigration from the industrial revolution to kid itself that the present population is anything like indigenous. It's a political and economic issue- when you start bringing flags and morality into it, that's when the rot sets in.

And why are you so contemptuous of "scholars" (although technically speaking this guy's a scientist)? Fair enough if you don't want to accept what scientific testing and evidence tells you, but don't for a moment go thinking this makes you smarter than the people who are just trying to deliver the truth.

[George]

What a complete non-story. Griffin makes no mention of Oppenheimer. You make the connection to enable you to follow the tangent that 'proves' your own thinking. Pitiful. And who exactly do you think this will convince? - ever wondered why the Times attracts comments like "That's because your a moron sir. Nobody has more of a right to exist in this country because of their skin, simple."

[sciencebod]

While holding no brief for Griffin and his politics, methinks that Professor Oppenheimer doth protest too much. He is the one, after all, who has been telling us for some years not to think of ourselves as Anglo-Saxons or Celts, pointing out that each of those contributes typically no more than 10% of the gene pool - with the qualification noted above about sample selection. Some 50 to 70 percent of our genes derive from the first known people - Homo sapiens that is- to have resettled the British Isles after the ice receded some 15,000 years ago. (If Griffin said 17,000 he was probably thinking it was 15,000 BC - no need to make a song and dance about that). What's wrong with the concept that we Brits were originally Basques long before written history - that we are not the mongrel race of the outdated textbooks (we have Oppenheimer to thank for that discovery)? What's wrong with regarding ourselves as aboriginal Brits - "Britannians" - with some additional genes for hybrid vigour comprising in most cases, no more than 30% of the total? I believe Griffin got it essentially correct, and that the good Professor is nitpicking over minor details.

[Frederick Roots]

I was aghast when Griffin started rambling about the genetics of the British. He was utterly out of his depth. Most of the people he wants to recruit are not interested really in 'colour', it is probably much more a matter of the preservation of our cultural values that worries most people about immigration and demographics. However, given that Griffin's mission is to drag the old racists of the National Front with him, he involves himself in presenting different messages to different audiences. This is why he was so embarrassed when confronted by old quotes and videos he has made to the core of the BNP.

Griffin comes over as a deceptive individual and I don't know what he actually believes and what he has said for tactical reasons.

None of this undermines the genuine concerns about the way some of our cities have been transformed over recent decades. It is truly startling in some northern cities and must be stopped - not because of people's colour, but because the change in cultural values is a threat to the stability of our country.

[Keith]

The 'threat' if there is one to the British way of life is not based on immigration of race but on immigration of religion. There is a minority of a recently imported religion currently campaigning for the entire British statute book of laws to be replaced with their Sharia laws in which people are stoned to death for offences and if they change their religion they will be killed. That minority is some of the youth of Britain who will be the elders of tomorrow.

[adam]

Griffin is substantially correct, and this article and the Professor's nit picking are just more left-liberal propaganda. This country has been infested by left-liberal cybermen. The "upgrade" chambers in brainwashing house are running overtime. There is little hope left. That is why Griffin is in danger of appealing to many people.

[Bryan Abbott]

Funny,
Living in the states.. watching the media... I though most Brits were Muslim. Except the ones the Muslims let Act on the BBC. Why all the fuss about being indegenius? You're a dying race.

[Adam West]

It agree that 'Indigenous British' is a telling, useful term.

It is only in the past 200 years, and mainly post WWII, that we have had the technology to move large numbers of people and combine and contrast people of these different cultures so drastically, and it is that sharp contrast which worries people.

You would have to admit that whatever indigenous British is genetically, it is very different to Native American, Inuit, Maori, Bangladeshi, Turkish, Polish, Japanese, Indian, Chinese, Pakistani, Kenyan etc.

[Gordon YOUNG]

On the basis of the author's argument then there are in effect no indigenous peoples. So all the hair pulling and chest beating regarding the rights of 'native Americans' and the aboriginal people of Austraia is misplaced?

[Lin]

'Evolve' - develop over successive generations by evolution.

I'm wondering whether there is a country other than Africa where people evolved in the strictly biological sense.

All people moved out of Africa and settled around the world at different times as climate and access allowed. That is exactly what happened in Britain after the last ice age. The argument seems to be that because we had invasions and minor immigration we have no claim to our ancestry and culture.

I quote from the Commission for Racial Equality (still existing) website:

"The indigenous population of Britain, English, Scottish and Welsh, is classified in the Census in England and Wales as White British."

Of course that was then. Now it's not pc to admit the existance of an indigenous population.

To try to deny the fact that a unique British character and culture has evolved over thousands of years in order to promote a multi-racial/cultural society is clutching at straws.

We exist and are getting pretty fed up with those who deny it for their own political ends. This constant denial will increase the BNP vote. Your choice.

[Adam]

Indigenous British. White. Caucasian. Christian. Whatever you call it, the make-up of the UK at 1900 was, very, very different to what it is today.

People might argue 'well thats what Britishness was, but not any more, now it has changed.'

I like to think of the villages we have in the UK, perhaps in the Cotswolds, Cornwall or Yorkshire where life has only slowly changed over the past centuries. Christmas carolers go from door to door, large families enjoy roast turkey, with all the trimmings, Yorkshire puddings, pigs in blankets, presents are exchanged wrapped in coloured paper, cards are given with cheerful greetings, there are village fetes and parades, bonfires and fireworks on November 5th, the shopkeeper delivers the daily paper, the milkman the milk in his float, an English breakfast of bacon, eggs, toast with butter, black pudding tomatoes and mushrooms, and all enjoy a pint at the pub after a long day at work.

And then a second-generation Pakistani visits from one of our cities and says 'sorry... thats what Britishness was, but not any more, now it has changed.'

They'd be right.

[AMG]

Talk about clutching at straws. Griffin was talking nonsense because he said 17000 years instead of 12000 years, get a grip! Even if the UK was discovered 500 years ago it would make no difference. Every sane person knows what is meant by an indigenous Brit and what western democratic values are. He didn't say each person had to be genetically pure British white, he said colour is irrelevant. He also said that people who aren't indigenous are welcome to stay if they accepted the UK must remain a fundamentally western democratic country.

[Tim]

Does that mean Australia, the Americas, and even Europe, have no Aboriginals?

[Andrew Turvey]

So according to Nick Griffin the indigenous population came here 17,000 years ago? Does that mean that after deporting the East Europeans, the Commonwealth immigrants, the Jews and the Irish, they'll turn on the Normans, the Picts, the Vikings and the Ango-Saxons?

As an Anglo-Saxon descendent, should I be packing my bags?

Makes you think! "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out...."

[Stepan Pasicznyk]

A little correction for Bonny Greer who should have known better being a historian re the BNP Question time episode.

“Gravettian” tool culture is known as the very last evidence of European Neanderthal presence and that was 22 000 years ago so Bonny was mistaken when she said that 17000 years ago Neanderthals still inhabited England. In general it was about 30,000 years ago Neantherdal generally disappeared so to say “Neantherdals were still walking around Briatin 17000 years ago” is either a display of genuine ignorance on a subject she should know more about, or misinformation for political point scoring which is does not do any justice to an honest discussion relating to the discrediting of “race based politics”.
Also the furthest southern extent of thart Ice age in Britain was the Thames Valley, so not all of Britain was covered as was again mistakenly quoted.

Modern Humans reached Britain around 30,000 years ago, but were driven out by the ice age. They reappeared about 16,000 years ago coming from the land mass that connected England at that time to Demark. Please please, by all means argue, but use a thing called truth to keep your credibility.

[Ryan]

Bryan Abbott: You are quite funny chap ..Not

[Derek Smith]

A small point but relevant: in 1938 my father was badly beaten by Mosley's blackshirts when he went to the aid of a couple of, presumed Jewish, lads they were attacking. He assumed these lads were killed. The attack was not reported in the press. The police lacked interest in my father's report to them, suggesting to my father that he should keep out of such things.

There was little doubt in his mind that the establishment, including the media, were in no small way supporters of Mosley.

Despite Mosley being friends with Hitler and a rabid fascist, his wife being even closer and even madder a supporter of Hitler and fascism, they were released from internment in 1942 by some MP who, no doubt, thought the war had ended.

The pre-war attacks went on day after day in London with little official response. It was only the threat of war that turned the establishment against Mosley.

When I was a teenager my father overheard a racist comment by a friend of mine and so took me to see a meeting of the Union Movement, the post war reincarnation of the British Union of Fascists. I saw Mosley son and father together with their bully protectors in, I think, Brick Lane. It was one of the most terrifying exeriences in my life. I saw fascism, and the Mosleys, for what they were.

In 1976 I policed a massive National Front riot in New Cross and Lewisham. If I'd had any doubts about fascism having any legitimacy that would have settled it.

In the ensuing 30+ years I seen the attitudes of this country change. It has become so much more tolerant.

Don't let us get too carried away by Griffin being voted into a position which nobody feels is important. He is one pathetic little man in an area that has a legitimate excuse for protest.

If you start telling everyone how racist the country is, it will become so. So let us be honest and admit that we are one of the most open of countries.

I once spoke with a group of economic migrants from the Balkans found in the back of a lorry at Gatwick. They had spent days in their self-inflicted prison, going though at least four, probably six, other EU countries.

When I asked them why they didn't get out earlier their 'leader' pointed out that we had brought them to the nick to await immigration (not the fastest of responders), made them tea, my shift had shared their sadwiches with them (and the super's chocky biscuits that even I, an inspector, wasn't thought worthy of in normal duty) and had engaged them in conversation.

The chap said that in many of the other EU countries I had mentioned they would have been beaten, in none would they have been fed or watered. As for chatting!

I suppose the super's biscuits would have been a definitie no-no.

This country is, by and large, very open and generous in comprison to many others. There are pockets of rampant racism but, I believe, Griffin's electorate voted for him because everyone else had failed them and not through bigotry.

[Bill]

This kind of warping of science in the name of spurious racial theories by thugs is a) wantonly stupid, disregarding the scientific and archaeological evidence; and b) just how Nazism started. Nick Griffin is therefore either stupid, or a Nazi, or both. How is he going to check your indigeneity - phrenology? What a bunch of fruitloops.

[Helen]

"Do you want the white race to die out completely - is that the ultimate aim - creating coffee coloured people by the score?"
@Mari - Why not? What's wrong with being "coffee-coloured"?

The fact is, we are lucky to be here. We didn't choose before birth to be born here, and we have no "right" to live this priviledged life - no more than a baby has the "right" to starve to death in Africa, or children in Asia have the "right" to work in factories. Stop being selfish, and share your luck.

[rhory fraser]

Multiculturalists fall over themselves to support the rights of ethnic minorities to take pride in their culture - which is often a codeword for race.

So why can't ethnic Britons do the same thing? Yes of course most indigenous Britons came to what became the British Isles from elsewhere. That is true of almost every race everywhere; to deny our separate identity is to deny that of any ethnic people.

The uncomfortable fact for the multiculturalists remains that once we had become an island race, we developed separately for thousands of years. The mass coloured immigration of the past 50 years or so is unprecedented in its scale, its speed and its heterogeneity.

So what is wrong with a politician saying 'I want to preserve the culture and identity of the ethnic British'. Claiming that we do not exist, based on specious, wilful cheeseparing is not good enough.

We do exist and our future as a distinct grouping is under threat, every bit as much as the Amazonian Indian or the Native American

[sciencebod]

I realize that Prof Oppenheimer was possibly caught unprepared by that phone call from the Times, and that he wanted to distance himself from any use of his theories in serving ultra-right wing agendas. But he risks throwing his baby out with the bathwater by pushing the line that "we're all immigrants". The Basques who arrived 15,000 years ago were not immigrants - they were pioneers and settlers who did not displace any earlier aboriginal population. The Neanderthals had become extinct and/or driven out by the Ice Age.

Telling your average Brit - one who has no reasons for thinking that he/she and forebears are of recent arrival - that he's just an immigrant is politically-loaded in the opposite direction. It implies that they have little or no greater claim to a particular patch of territory than relative newcomers. Nonsense! We aboriginal Brits ("Britannians") have patiently developed this green and pleasant land not just for centuries but millennia. A reasonable sustainable level of immigration is welcome, provided newcomers realise that Britain is a land with an ancient culture and traditions, and the locals do not take kindly to being told that's it's they who have to assimilate into alien cultures. Britannia rules, OK, at least in this neck of the woods.!

[James]

"Furthermore, Britain has never had an indigenous population, in the sense of people who evolved here."

Complete rubbish, you wouldn't dare say that about anybody in a brown skinned country, and we're evolving constantly, evolution doesn't happen by just waking up tommorow morning with wings on your back...

Funny how pedants keep trying to debunk the notion of an "English person", and yet EVERYONE knows what you mean by it, everyone. Who do you think you're kidding?

[Tom Smith]

Google Paviland Mr Henderson. Remains of a young man found in a cave on the Gower coast, 25,000 years BC give or take. Almost certainly one of those humans who inhabited N Europe as hunter- gathers before being forced south to the Ice Age refuges; from whence their decendants eventually returned.
Are you being pedantic, or just slippery, hunter gathers may not be classed as permanent settlers, but they were human and they were here.
Perhaps we should dimiss as non- indigenous all such peoples?

[CzechGuy]

Leftist propaganda, as usually. Your nation was created after a series of bloody wars 1100 years ago. Since then, there has been only one large movement of people from Normandy. And it was again preceded by a war.

After the quarrels settled, the nation could again unite. Since then, British people have mixed predominantly with each other, and hence they can be detected as a more or less separate genetic unit in autosomal studies, similarly like other European nations.

The last large ethnic movements in Europe ended 1500 years ago. If your crazy government wants to bring back that thrilling era, then O.K. You won't be bored. Flames over cities, dead bodies in the streets, decadence and downfall - that's just what you want, don't you?

[Gareth]

If Britain is harsh on immigrants, what does that make countries such as Australia?

What about Japan? Where less than 1% of the population is non-Japanese and it is almost impossible to gain citizenship? Would Griffin be seen as a politically correct lunatic in Japan?

Surely alongside criticising people like Griffin, we should also be having a go at the Aussies, Japanese and others whose views are far worse.

[sciencebod]

So if I read you correctly, Helen, if I live in a council house, and you live in a mansion, then I'm entitled to set up camp in your back garden and claim handouts each day. In other words, you are morally obliged "to share your luck" with others less fortunate than yourself.

Oh purleese. What you suggest is an extreme form of communism that not even Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin ever advocated.

[James J]

And how did they get to Spain? If you debar humans arriving from elsewhere then Australian Aboriginal were not indigenous as they arrived via human migration routes. Not to mention North Africans and as for Japanese...
This constant denying the English an entitlement to a homeland is making things worse.

[PB]

The BNP's stance on the colour of skin, not on culture. British culture, like pretty much all cultures, evolves and largely through interaction with other cultures.

Britain wouldn't be any more significant than Belgium if it weren't for the Empire. That was a one-way street for far too long; it created conflicts around the World, was legitimised thievery and perpetuated global slavery.

None of those are things to be proud of, Ken Jim - even if they are historical.

I'm proud of what Britain is today and I'm proud of being British, even if I'm racially from elsewhere. The BNP can't take that from me. But I'm not about to try and re-write history, unlike holocaust deniers.

[Charles]

I see the BNP fan-base are mass-posting their 'nit-picking' story. Nick Griffin is a complete ignoramus who likes to talk with authority on everything and anything. That is the problem, and the only way to deal with such a fool is point out the facts, e.g. there are no indigenous Brits (since we did not evolve here). If you really mean those who built the place and not the fictional indigenous, well, which tribe will that be? The Celts built stuff, tilled the land, etc after killing whoever was here before. The Romans did the same, after smashing up pretty much everything the Celts built. What about the Normans? They also smashed stuff up, built stuff, tilled, etc. These BNP posters will nit-pick when it suits them. They really are revolting people.

[Rob David]

Bonnie Greer's history isn't that much better. She said Neanderthals were the only people living on the European continent 17,000 and NOT Europeans. Despite Modern Man replacing Neanderthals in Europe 30,000 years ago.

[Coxy]

"Neantherdals were still walking around Briatin 17000 years ago"

They still are... they are now called Britsh Nazi Party members. Did I say nazi? Oh well! Is there really any difference?

[Anna]

The question is, do we treat this recently so popular 'indigenous' as a matter of genes, or as a matter of geographical, historical, cultural and lingual identity of a group of people. I come from Poland, we are currently enjoying the longest period of peace in our history; all these wars, armies passing through our land, ethnic migrations we experienced, plus the fact that Poland was removed from the map of Europe for 200 years not so long ago and the Polish language was forbidden - didn't change our national identity. We are definitely indigenous to Poland, even if during all our history we were mixing our genes with the Germans, Russians, Ukrainians, Swedish, Turkish and so on and so on. I don't see why being British, English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish couldn't be established on the same basis. It's not the genes or skin colour which decide, it's the people themselves, how they were brought up, how they feel and what choice they make.

And anyway, our world is in constant motion, it spins faster then ever, and 'mixing' seems to be just another stage of natural evolution. Sooner or later it won't really matter where we were born, and how we liked our eggs. And nothing can or should be done about. It's just how the things are.

[James Bradley]

I would have thought this article basically vindicates Nick Griffin. In a nut shell, we are not a nation of opportunistic, selfish refugees that have recently arrived from the world's poorest areas, -which is what this country is becoming. We are the highly skilled and intelligent race that started the industrial revolution. We have defended this land for hundreds of years from powerful invaders and millions of lives have been lost in the process. It's only now we are being over run; thanks to our treachereous leaders.

[Jeff]

Sorry, BNP using science? That's like a toddler teaching astrophysics. That's what makes them different from other parties, other people even - they will use pseudo-science, personal anecdotes, experiences (made up or otherwise), rumours and stereotypes to push forward their agenda of a white supremacist, white Britain.

I will say something about races though, something that will shake every BNP and race purist to the core - people of different races will ALWAYS get together and have children. If anything, the BNP should know this - whites have been doing it for centuries, when colonisation and imperialism was common. It's still happening now, the only thing they don't like is that instead of having white males and non white females, it is the other way round.

[James]

What the BNP seem to totally miss is that whether or not there is a native British population, it is a dynamic and constantly evolving one.

Those red buses and phone boxes aren't as old as the hills. And who's to say that vindaloo isn't as British as a pint of Hob Goblin.

The Gurkas do more for Britain than any of those fascists yet, certain people still think to be English is to be white.

British people are in a strong position to be proud of a developed culture. Not that Griffin probably cares too much for it but can Aboriginals really be compared to a culture that once ruled the world and produced Shakespeare?

[Jayant Patel]

James Bradley
Your assertion that 'we are not a nation of opportunistic, selfish refugees'. Can you then explain what drove you to go around the world and grab other peoples' lands, properties and enslave them? Was that some charitable act? I am proud of this new emerging Britain which has many many people of descent values unlike yours.

[Imogen G]

My family, though for the past two generations on my fathers side have lived in New Zealand, and my siblings and myself were all born in Australia (now living in the UK) are all of 'British' ancestry. But so what? Why can I, or anyone else, claim credit for what my ancestors have done? Why does being descended from Britain give one some sort of claim to 'Britishness'? I didn't do the work my parents did, they didn't do the work their parents did, and so on. So how can you say, Ken Jim, that 'the people who started the civilisation' has any bearing upon you? You did NOT start the civilisation. As for 'defending it from attack', as mentioned on QT, so did hundreds of thousands of non-white people. What about you?

[derekb]

Birds of a feather,and will fight for preservation of culture.

[Tara]

I find it rather incredible that in this whole debate about the BNP, "indigenous" (white) British (English? Scottish? Welsh?) people and the immigration influx (some would claim it to be an "invasion"), so little reference has been made to a, if not THE, major contributing factor to Britain's multicultural make-up: COLONIALISM.

Several commentors have rightly pointed out that Britain in 1900 was very different to Britain today. If you observe the trend of immigrants coming to the UK from the developing world over the last century, you will find that a lot of them were from ex-colonies (the Indian subcontinent is the obvious example), and this is no coincidence.

When the Celts, Vikings, Normans invaded the Britain all those millenia ago, they presumably hunted killed and pillaged and left little capacity for retaliation. 20th century immigration, while certainly not "retaliation" in the ill-willed sense, has resulted directly from Britain's actions abroad in the not-so-distant past.

If we are going to dredge up history then I don't see why this should be conveniently "hidden in the (historical) closet".

[Justin Y]

I am a Chinese student that has come to the UK to study Law. My fees are 4 times that of a local student. If you read the education section, you will find that many universities can't even sustain themselves without foreign student 'investment'. From a pragmatic standpoint, if you start discriminating against people based on their race, you will have no more doctors in your NHS (they are recruited from the Baltics), no more plumbers, builders, manual labour (the butt of a lot of political comedy, but how many 'indigenous britons' would actually take these jobs instead of collecting their job seeker's allowance?)

Your country was built upon exploiting other countries in the first place. The Indians, the Chinese, the Aboriginese Australians, the South Africans. It will fall just as quickly if you revert to such discriminative ideas.

[eric skelton]

Bill : I'm on your side! But 'he is either stupid or Nazi or both' is a bit behind the game!

[Lee Hossain]

Why is Nick not being put behind bars under incitement/terror laws? If a Muslim in UK made the remarks he is making, he would soon find himself taking a rendition flight to Guantanamo.

[James Scott Sheldon]

"That's what makes them different from other parties, other people even - they will use pseudo-science, personal anecdotes, experiences (made up or otherwise), rumours and stereotypes to push forward their agenda..." JEFF

Ever heard of Tiny Blair - (and his boss: Ali Campbell?) Exactly where have you been living?

[sciencebod]

It's not a case of "claiming credit", Imogen. It's more a case of learning about our long history of social/cultural/technological evolution, and identifying with it as "our" unique story - even if not approving of every development. As others have said, we all have a right to a cultural identity. Indigenous ("aboriginal") Brits have allowed recent immigrants to call themselves "British" , despite some of the latter maintaining the dress, customs, mindset of their parents- so rightly resent attempts to deny us our own distinct cultural identity, and, more importantly, titular ownership of this small patch of NW Europe.

It's ours! London may be a cosmopolitan city - almost international - but there's more to Britain than London or the metropolitan ethnic ghettoes (like 75% of the population for example!). There is seething resentment right now - and opportunist politicians keen to exploit it. But the resentment is hardly surprising. Politicians of all parties have tried playing "Mr. Nice" to newcomers for decades, regardless of their numbers or merit. There is a now a whirlwind out there, waiting to be reaped...

[Paolo]

ENGLISH. Inebriation. Fight (outside greek takeaways). Misogyny. Racism. Cheap tea with milk. Fried potatoes in cheap, six month old oil. Cheap pies (although less popular now as there are simpler, imported things to cook). Cheap fish in batter. A history of exporting their own misery through violence. I thought the more immigrants to dilute traditional englishness could only be a good thing?

[Arronax Keria]

Since it appears that most BNP supporters don't have much of an education and are generally simpletons from some backwater council estate I will make it simple for them.
White British people make up 91% of the population (That's over 54million)
Pakistani and other middle-eastern people make up 2%, around 900k.

Now this estimate is based on the entire census of the country unlike the BNP who just take a section of 1,000 people [usually from a town with a high middle-eastern population] and divide the race into a percentage.

So basically for them to overtake white people within the next 100 years they would have to have about 90 children each plus white people would have to not breed (I have taken into account age, immigration level and other factors)

There, now put down the daily mail and stop fearing change because sorry to break it to you but change happens and will always happen, if it didn't than we wouldn't have any technology and would still be taking orders from a king and pope.

[kris]

it seems like someone is trying to say 'british people are not white because there are immigrants now, too'... so it doesnt matter that last thousands of years British built a civilisation here. Just get all the poor people from around the world here and lets forget who british used to be.

[bobo]

Excuse me... I am Maori, a New Zealander living in the UK... I am considered by my people, my NZ government, and the UN to be "indigineous" to New Zealand, even though my people came there from an unknown place we call Hawai-iki, some 800 years ago... note, 800... now I will happlily slaughter anyone of any race who disputes my right to be called indiginous of New Zealand, even though by all your PC language and science I am apparantly not... so how is that so different from the English? Are you seriously saying that because they came to this island 8000 to 15000 years ago, and their last major influx was over 1000 years ago, they have no claim to the land? You must be joking! I have a real good mate who's a Zulu... the Zulus entered the Zululands just as recently as the Maori... are they no longer allowed to claim zululand? I've made real good friends with the English, and I can tell who they are, so can they... why can't they be allowed a land they can claim? As i claim Aotearoa New Zealand? Why do you have to take it way from them when they shared if with us?

[AJ]

One minor correction to a previous comment. It was during the British Empire that slavery was banned. it was called the Wilberforce Act. We were hated by he rest of the world because we tried to enforce it globally. Secondly, immigration is a problem and has excacerbated all the social ills that we now experience in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, etc, etc. Add to this a denigration of British values and the arrogance of those who come and impose their social values on us and it's no surpise that the BNP is on the march . Lastly, those who come here would do better to stay in their own countries and help them develop. We do need doctors and nurses etc, but we dont need them more than Africa or the Indian sub-continent do. So, please, help your country and humanity by staying there. In that way you will be doing yourselves a service and us, a favour.

[Paul D]

Thank you to Derek Smith for his thoughtful and heartwarming comments. Whatever may be the state of the British race, the British police still seems to throw up admirable role models.

[rick g]

The BNP are only saying what many white English people think, but dare not say, for fear of being prosecuted in their own country.
Free speech has been eliminated here !

[E Carpenter]

If any one of us were transported back a hundred years in our own neighborhoods, we would feel totally out of place. The way English was used, the accents, the beliefs, the way work life and home life were lived - all these things are dramatically different today.

Claiming that "white culture" or "traditional Englishness" is some kind of immutable thing that has been passed down intact to anyone shows a profound ignorance of recent history and a lack of understanding of the small and large ways cultures change.

If someone says "I want to re-gain the freedom from governmental spying my granddad enjoyed" - yes, that's a valid reference to the past which is grounded in facts. To say "I want to preserve white culture", though - no two people in the world define "white culture" in the same way. What, specifically, do you want to preserve?

[Indi]

So will all us Anglo Celtic Australians come back, then?

[Albert H. Cross]

Justin Y says as a Chinese he is charged 4 times the fees as a law student than English students. Strange that he finds that strange. I lived in China for 7 years and my airfare on internal flights in China was 3 times a Chinese fare. No complaints about that?

[GeoffM]

Interesting.

When you look at the analysis it proves that the bulk of the British people CAN be traced way back. Arguments about whether our ancestors were here 17000 years ago or 15000 years ago are irrelevant - they have been here thousands of years - period.

These attempts to de-legitimise the native British people is just pure racism. If such arguments were made against any other group the proponents would be attacked. If they do the same to the British they are applauded.

Racism is racism - even if the victims are native Britons. Especially so when it is carried out in Britain by non British immigrants.

The Professor confirms that migration from Anglo Saxons, Scandinavians etc was not significant, subsequent migrations even less so - and even they were by closely related peoples separated by a few miles of water.

The canard about Middle Eastern people coming here to bring agriculture has been disproved - do they not realise that the concept of agriculture could have travelled - not the people? Besides, there is ample evidence that the differences, and the antiquity, of ancient British agricultural practice developed separately from Middle eastern Agriculture.

As for the nonsense that no one British is aboriginal because we all ultimately came from somewhere else kills of the entire concept. The Australian Aboriginals didn't evolve there, nor the American Indians in the America's, nor the Eskimos etc etc.

This article, when the spin is removed, supports the argument for a native British population.

Thanks for giving us the ammunition.

[Kevin P]

Why are we so blind to the blindingly obvious on this issue? The perception of everybody alive is that there was a stable, balanced culture on the eve of the modern blast of new immigration in the jet age. This was around 1948. Whatever immigration occurred before was either slow enough for "integration" or, in any case, just the stuff in history books - not living memory.

The "indigenous" history and culture of any place is exactly what the oldest people alive say it is.

The attempts to use science to debunk Griffin's views are just as racist, and irrelevant, as his absurd "genotype" arguments.

[Andy]

I am not a BNP supporter, I think they are ridiculous Nazis as does everyone else. But they make some very good points about the reckless immigration

Nick Griffins point was that there was a distinct group of people inhabiting the UK around 1900, and this group shared one culture, one major religion, about 5 major languages, and a distinct way of life which had been subtly and gradually evolving for thousands of years.

Post war to present there has been a large *unnatural* change in the demographic of our country, which has been sped up 1000x by our use of fossil fuel ship and air transport.

These people have formed new communities, largely separate from the white communities, in dense ethnic areas (London, 58% White British, compared with Plymouth, 99% White British, with 90% white being the UK average). Can anyone say that the creation of these new communities has been, a complete success, everyone happy?

Any yes, Britain is currently dependant on immigrant workers to do a lot of its jobs, but is it a *good* idea to bring in immigrants to do low-wage jobs which people in this country don't want to do, and let the people who don't want to work sit back on the dole? Or does this simply increase segregation between the classes, with well paid middle class workers in the offices, low wage immigrants cleaning the loos and lazy jobless white working classes relaxing at home? Is that a good system?

[Taylor]

Anyone want to talk about the Third World Brain-Drain?

Basically, Pakistan losing its most intelligent workers to the UK is being very detrimental to its development. In fact, losing any workers is harmful.

So its callous of the UK to even accept immigrants from developing countries, and even more so to say 'we only want your doctors'.

Does it fall on the UK to offer opportunities to people living in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and other parts 1 Billion, how are we supposed to help everyone?

[Jim Ashton]

P.B
"Britain wouldn't be any more significant than Belgium if it weren't for the Empire... it created conflicts around the World... and perpetuated global slavery"

Do you even realise that the slave trade was effectively ended because the British Empire outlawed it, against the wishes of most European nations and the USA?

The Empire wasn't all good, but it wasn't all bad! Just look at a history of Sarawak and Borneo and tell me that the native people (yes - native people exist) weren't better off once their historical oppressors had been thrown off by the British!

Google "Tibet 1903" and read about how the British were considered by local people as far preferable to the harsh Chinese masters of years gone by!

The race for Empire was won by the British. This was no mean feat. When compared with empires such as the Belgian, who introduced the idea of chopping off hands and pulled out of their colonies after burning everything, you would have been glad to live under British rule!

[Jonny B]

This is a pathetic piece. I suggest you grow up before you write articles for an adults' paper such as the Times.
You and everyone else knows what Nick Griffen meant was that Britain has an historic identity that is white, Africa has an historic identity that is perceived as black ( Nelson Mandella is widely held as a hero for promoting and introducing majority rule based on the colour of a mans skin)However a mans skin colour is not the major issue. It is one of culture, lanquage and tradition. The British people do not want loud speakers on mosques bellowing out in Arabic. Nor do we want to celebrate divisive cultural differences. One country. One Lanquage and one culture is what we have had and it is what we want to keep. As in all things in life, some cultural influences are welcome but multiculturism can only lead to social intolerance and upheaval such as the disgusting attacks, in Luton, against our returning soldiers of all colours.

[K]

"

So if I read you correctly, Helen, if I live in a council house, and you live in a mansion, then I'm entitled to set up camp in your back garden and claim handouts each day. In other words, you are morally obliged "to share your luck" with others less fortunate than yourself.

Oh purleese. What you suggest is an extreme form of communism that not even Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin ever advocated."

But Jesus did. And Mr Griffin's quite keen on the whole White, British, Christian thing.

[Iain Moore]

As the author is nitpicking in an attempt to discredit Griffin he should at least ensure his own facts are correct.

No we are not a nation if immigrants. To fulfil the term immigrant means you have to move from one officially recognised state to another. When there is no state you aren't an immigrant, but part of a migration, in this we are no different to any other country, in fact as the last place before the Atlantic we probably had less migration than other places on the continent. Thus the stock that created England were not immigrants, and as a country is not just a geographical concept, but a combination of cultural, ethnic, and political then these peoples would be correctly called indigenous to that country.

The endeavour to call us all immigrants is a pretty shabby attempt to deny us our heritage, and deny us the right to refuse further immigration, for their argument goes that if we are immigrants what right do we have to refuse further immigration.

[Ralph Pickering]

One thing that we can take from history is that whenever there is a period of economic or political turmoil, the ignorant will turn their misplaced nationalism into fascism and bigotry. But the other thing that can be taken from history is that these episodes of bigotry and xenophobia are short lived. Nick Griffin et al may be having their 15 minutes of fame right now, but they'll be gone before we know it.

Nick who?

[Kevin Odlozil]

Here in the U.S. our Native Americans arrived at approximately the same time as did ancient Britons, yet we refer to them as indigenous. And, there are very few without some genetic European ancestry anymore. We seem to afford brown people the indigen luxury.

Undoubtedly Mr. Griffin's comments are little more than divisive, scientifically ignorant diatribe serving to further his political agenda. Isn't that what politics is all about? Historically, peoples who have mixed, survived and evolved. Claims of indigeny and/or racial superiority are screams of the dying.

You in the UK should be grateful that you have far less religous fanaticism to contend with. How does one combat that with science? The next wave of scare will not be from Nazi-like racism; it will be (is) from god. And yes the small g was intended.

[Rudi]

Mari, why are you so scared of 'coffee coloured people'? I'm white but I would say that mixed race people tend to be the most attractive - it makes sense because the more you widen the gene pool the better. If we could close our island to all immigrants we'd be horrribly inbred within a few hundred years. I suspect some of us already are.

[Rudi]

Tara, while there are immigrants from India, Pakistan etc, most immigrants to the UK come from closer to home, namely Europe. I myself am a half-English immigrant from Europe. The idea that Britain is overrun with black or brown people is complete codswallop - look at the census statistics.

[mohsin]

Is the average member of the BNP so thick that he doesn't even know the history of Britain. Why the need to go back 12000, 15000 or 17000 years to see who was what, do these idiots know that their forfathers when the invaded half the world and were probably more racist than the BNP right now. Britain ruled India and many parts of Africa for 100's of years, people from those nation have a right to be here, 1900 Britishness was lost with your love for currys and chinese and kebabs.

[steve]

I know that the English are above other races. We are superior because we have Morris dancing...

[Iain Moore]

"Britain ruled India and many parts of Africa for 100's of years, people from those nation have a right to be here"

Any past obligation went when they claimed independence!

[Tara]

Rudi - census data certainly shows us that the scaremongering ("..overrun with black or brown people") propagated by the pro-indigenous lobby is certainly over the top.

However I will confess to sympathising with members of the English middle-class public who do feel 'irrationally' threatened by immigrant inflow, even as they may not admit or consciously realise it. Even as a non-English, non-white person myself (having resided in the UK in a professional capacity over the last few years).

Finally, to Jonny B ("It is one of culture, lanquage and tradition. The British people do not want loud speakers on mosques bellowing out in Arabic. Nor do we want to celebrate divisive cultural differences. One country. One Lanquage and one culture is what we have had and it is what we want to keep. As in all things in life, some cultural influences are welcome but multiculturism can only lead to social intolerance and upheaval such as the disgusting attacks, in Luton, against our returning soldiers of all colours") -

Maybe Britain should have thought about this a couple of centuries ago when it devised the British Empire and imposed its rule upon primitive, backward cultures and civilisations. No one is disputing that the British Empire has done much good for the developing world, but as with most things there are shades of grey aplenty in the colonial past.

And I hope that most people actually realise that tea, the quintessential British beverage, is not "indigenous" in the Nick Griffin sense of the word....

[d.gaze]

thought this was a political debate so surprised to see all reporters have science bias . i get many calls a month asking me to take part in surveys - i can be scottish, irish , welsh or white european . I AM ENGLISH . i do not support the bnp in any way shape or form but when my country is deemed not to even exist( a policy supported by a scottish led par;iament ) i get a bit peeved . The bnp are not winning votes , the main 3 parties are losing them.

[Bob]

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi would be pleased with the way things are going. Its practically ideal.

[Gregg Adams]

Separated at Birth:
Nick Griffin & John Prescott

[Phil]

Get a grip. People speak of Britishness and talk like LIN of

"Christmas carolers go from door to door, large families enjoy roast turkey, with all the trimmings, Yorkshire puddings, pigs in blankets,"

Err.... for the 17,000 years of Nick Griffin's BNP history why not choose other bits of Britishness. eg rickets, malnutrition the stench of medieval London & Jack the Ripper.

Himmler attempted to manufacture a Nazi history of Germany that included a bonkers past of Teutonic Knights.

Actually my (white) family came from a background that didn't include the Britishness of the Cotwolds but did include the Britishness of the work-house. However, that is history and we don't live in the past.

We have an opportunity to make a decent future for all of the people who live in Britain now. The people from 17,000 years ago and those from the 1900's are all dead.

[Ken]

Never have people worked harder to disenfranchise themselves than the British. Can anyone imagine any other non-white group of people anywhere in the world seriously arguing for their own destruction? It boggles the mind. And the kicker is, you think it makes you "moral." Honestly, maybe you deserve to be destroyed. If you don't value your culture, why should anyone else?

Ken
http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com

[Justin Y]

ALbert H.:

'Justin Y says as a Chinese he is charged 4 times the fees as a law student than English students. Strange that he finds that strange. I lived in China for 7 years and my airfare on internal flights in China was 3 times a Chinese fare. No complaints about that?

Posted by: Albert H. Cross | 28 Oct 2009 04:57:00'

I don't find that strange. I would not be here if I thought that way. But you miss the point on two counts. Firstly, the chinese aviation industry does not depend on foreign investment; The UK tertiary education system does. Secondly, this is not a case of comparative morality. I don't think it's right that you were charged more than I would be, but that does not invalidate my argument.

[Steve]

I am White and English I enjoy living in a cosmopolitian society. However, what the elites are doing is moving us into this New World Order and mass immigration is Labour policy.
One Labour MP told me that people from Eastern Europe were allowed in on mass simply because they were white. The implication there is that Britian was becoming to dark.
Someone mentioned the census to back up their point. This is just specious nonsense I and many other people refused to fill it in, and I won't be filling in the next one either.
As for the so-called Out of Africa hypothesis it is probably wrong if the history of science is anything to go by.
One final point, people from the Indian sub continent are like us whites, Caucasians.
One reason for the popularity of the odious BNP is that people are using them to protest against the political eliete who are morally corrupt and bankrupt.
We need a genuine way to protest through the ballot box and a new political movement NOTA is up and running and can be found on Facebook by typing in the name Terry Marsh.

[Neil]

being proud of being white is like being proud of having a left hand. it's bloody pointless. if you want to be proud of something, be proud of something positive you've done.

the undeniable fact is that we are much more alike than different.

racists/nationalists and flag waving fools have the emotional and mental development of a small child. a really bizarre thing to be proud of!

[Philip R Hosking]

To start with I have no truck with fascist or the intolerant of any sort whether they be racial supremacists a la BNP, Jacobin centralists as found in France or Stalinist socialists who deport en mass whole 'suspected' ethnic minorities.

Which brings me on to my main point. The term 'indigenous' seems to be causing a lot of problems here. Let me ask readers if they have a problem with the native American peoples being described as 'indigenous', remembering that they did not evolve in the Americas but arrived there via the north from Siberia? I don't and I don't expect many other people would object to that usage. So the question then has to be who can and who cannot be described as indigenous?

Within Europe the Council of Europe has developed the term 'national minority' to cover minority peoples, i.e Bretons, Welsh, Basques, Chechens, Cornish, Ossetians etc.

National minority status does not depend on race or DNA but more on self-perceived ethnicity, language, shared history, folklore etc.

Is the use of such a category as 'national minority' which has been designed to protect vulnerable 'indigenous' minority groups, racist?

The Scottish, Ulster Scots, Welsh and Irish are, to all intents and purposes, already recognised by the UK government and CoE as national minorities. Is this racist as it now affords these groups and their languages and cultures protection.

[iain rae]

As a pink faced Anglo Saxon (with a dash of Viking),whats so great about that anyway.

[Glen]

I'm a Canadian with British ancestry. Canada has her own problems with the rights of those who came first, of course, but I wanted to weigh in on this.

First of all, I'm very proud of my heritage. That's made it all the more shocking to see political parties with openly racist views getting so much credit.

Second point: I prefer the term "breed" to "race". Skin colour doesn't stop us from interbreeding. Humanity is like Caninity; we're like dogs. Size and fur colour are just extremely minor variations.

Third: we live in The World now, not a country, city, county, or shire. Isolationism is a tried-and-failed strategy.

Fourth: well, just go back to my first point.

[Rhona Lorimer]

Indeed, Philip R Hosking, if you take it that far, the only landmass with indigenous peoples is, surely, Africa, as it is accepted that is where human life began.

[Patricia]

Yes Glen, but would you also say that there is absolutely no difference between a great Dane and a Chihuahua?

[harry]

I am a white english male,and proud to be so.However i feel disadvantaged in my own country.i am so sick of constanlty being under attack becuase of the colour of my white skin.i feel like i should be ashamed of what my ancestors achieved.

[David]

ive never seen so much comment. so this is obviously a live issue. my concern is not colour but numbers. we dont need any more immigrants. the people who want cheap immigrants to live at subsistance wages are the fat cat bosses who rule this country. it is true that the indigenous working class people of this country have been ignored vilified and mocked by the Islingtonist Labour Party and before them every government since 1968 when Enoch Powell made his 'Rivers of Blood' speech. That speech ironically has seized up any intelligent debate on immigration /as opposed to race / since then. I recommend that you read it. It is not a nazi rant. it is a well thought out warning to this country which everyone chose to ignore. noboby wants millions of disease ridden terrorist minded incomers and that includes eg Jamacians from the 50's. at least they are chistians. oh you say whats wrong with islam??????? female circumcicion, a gross and terribbile mutilation 'honour' killings, women forced to eat in a separate room after the men have finished, underage marriage and rape. the total denial of women's rights. these Mulas live in the 14th Century, And the Tories well we dont know know what they think. Gordon and Cameron are the same. Too scared to say anything that might lose them a few votes. they have no 'convictions' or even ideas. gm

[Charles]

This is a poor article. The fact is that for about 1,000 years the British population was pretty stable. And the people who did arrive in this country were quite similar in ethnic and religious makeup to those already here. The new immigration is of a different type - much bigger in scale and bringing in people of a very different ethnic and religious mix. If it carries on at current rates this inevitably means the end of any recognisable British culture. The British people have never been asked about this. Why should we have our culture and our piece of land in this world taken from under us?