Griffin says that nonwhites are not British

BBC News reports:

[A] BNP manual says that “BNP activists and writers should never refer to ‘black Britons’ or ‘Asian Britons’ etc, for the simple reason that such persons do not exist”.

“These people are ‘black residents’ of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese.

“Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as ‘racial foreigners’, a non-pejorative term… The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult.”

The manual describes the BNP’s “ultimate aim” as the “lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners of the UK”.

Commenting on the leaflet’s content, Mr Griffin told The Report on Radio 4 that although “in civic terms they are British, British also has a meaning as an ethnic description”.

“We don’t subscribe to the politically correct fiction that just because they happen to be born in Britain, a Pakistani is a Briton. They’re not; they remain of Pakistani stock.

“You can’t say that especially large numbers of people can come from the rest of the world and assume an English identity without denying the English their own identity, and I would say that’s wrong,” he added.

“In a very subtle way, it’s a sort of bloodless genocide.”

And here is a reaction to Griffin’s statement, as reported at the Guardian:

The archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has attacked British National party chairman, Nick Griffin, for claiming that a “bloodless genocide” is taking place in the UK.

Griffin, who is chairman of the far right organisation, was defending a BNP leaflet that said black and Asian Britons “do not exist”, adding that the use of the terms denied “the English their own identity”.

But Sentamu, who was born in Uganda, said it was not up to the BNP to define Englishness.

“You don’t have to be a member of the BNP to be clearly English, and it is quite a mistake to suggest that everybody who wants to affirm Englishness affirms that narrow thinking. This ‘bloodless genocide’? I think that is just language which is beyond belief.”

Jeremy G., who sent the items, writes:

Initially I cringed when I read this statement by Griffin about “bloodless genocide.” But upon a moment’s reflection I realized it is a good approach that puts the left on the defensive and highlights their actions as a terrible crime against Britain. The statement by Sentamu is amazing. Does a black African from Uganda get to decide what Britishness is?

Also, look at the BNP website. The site is well done and they post that they have already raised 300,000 pounds towards their campaign funds. That’s promising, considering that VDARE is in the middle of a fund raising drive and has only been able to raise $30,000.

LA writes:

I wonder what right the left has to attack Griffin’s statement that “British,” in addition to being a civic description, also has a meaning as an ethnic description? Isn’t the left constantly attacking the very idea of Britishness, of the British flag, as racist, because, they say, Britain is a historically white country, and to be an all-white country is racist?

So if the left, in seeking to delegitimize and demonize Britain, can say that British mean white, the BNP, in seeking to defend and preserve Britain, can also say that British means white.

- end of initial entry -

Chris B. writes from Britain:

I think John Sentamu has been surprisingly open minded in his appraisal of the BNP’s outlook on nationhood. He doesn’t dismiss it with bluster and canards, he describes it’s weakness implicitly with:

“it is quite a mistake to suggest that everybody who wants to affirm Englishness affirms that narrow thinking.”

From which we can conclude the Sentamu does believe in Britain. As it happens Sentamu, along with Michael Nazir Ali, have proverbially played for the home team judging from their stance on Islam. The trouble is that these decent enough men, of whom there are many in Britain particularly the Armed Forces, are eternal foreigners who should eventually be removed according to the BNP outlook. I don’t think that’s justice.

Bill in Maryland writes:

The thread on BNP did not mention that the BNP internal document, “BNP Language & Concepts Discipline Manual,” is available online as a pdf. Strongly recommended as a quick guide to how they think and see themselves.

Kidist Paulos Asrat, a native of Ethiopia and a long-time Canadian citizen, writes:

At the risk of putting my own Canadian nationality in a precarious position (not that I have to worry), I have to agree completely with Griffin’s and the BNP’s polite but firm declaration.

I think it actually goes beyond questioning the true membership of non-Western Canadians in the national fabric by Canadians themselves. Time and time again, I have consistently found that non-white Canadians themselves demonstrate that they feel they don’t belong here, and have to make some major social and cultural changes to feel comfortable (“at home”) in Canada.

In relation to England, I read recently that even the much-admired Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, while trying to salvage the Anglican Church in England, has as one of his missions to help minorities. This seems to me that even he, at the end of the day, feels obliged to direct his associations and loyalties to people who look more like him, perpetuating their distinctiveness that the BNP is trying to avoid.

Here is a quote from the Time article, although I could be wrong about the interpretation:

Bishop Michael is hoping to work with a number of church leaders from areas where the church is under pressure, particularly in minority situations…

I think the idea (of course the reality now) of completely different people merging with local populations is an intriguing one. I think it has happened historically on individual bases—and even then it literally appears to be one or two throughout history.

One poignantly unsuccessful story (not for lack of trying) is of a young Ethiopian prince, whose Emperor father committed suicide after the British retaliated militarily to his taking their men hostage, who was sent to England to grow up under royal protection. The boy was given a foster parent, a captain who had traveled in Ethiopia. The boy-prince eventually grew up to enter the military school at Sandhurst, but died of pleurisy at nineteen, although I think it was also due to homesickness. Now the interesting part of this story is that Ethiopians are now saying that he was kidnapped! And that his remains should be returned to Ethiopia for proper burial in his homeland. So, if Ethiopians, in the 21st century can react this way about just one of their ancestors (albeit royal), how can the BNP not be restrictive towards, and even suspicious of, all these millions of foreigners in their land?

This modern world is more fascinating than anyone could have ever imagined.

April 26

LA replies to Kidist:

You wrote:

“I have consistently found that non-white Canadians themselves demonstrate that they feel they don’t belong here, and have to make some major social and cultural changes to feel comfortable (“at home”) in Canada.”

Do you mean that they need to make changes in themselves, or changes in Canada?

Kidist replies:

For the most part, it is changes in Canada. For example, it is a small thing, but making sure that certain ingredients are available for their foods, which often entails traveling back regularly to their countries of origin to get their foods. This eventually turns into small stores which cater for these foods. I was shocked to find recently how many Ethiopian grocery stores have sprouted up in the downtown area of the city.

Also, building churches, writing books in their language of origin (although they live in an English-speaking country), music and entertainment in their own language. It’s a big enterprise.

I would say that all non-Western communities are essentially like the Muslims, without the jihad and the sharia. Given the chance, they will try to establish communities which resemble those they left behind as much as possible. This goes for children of immigrants also, who go for some kind of hybrid (heavy on the “ancestral” side), despite their fluency in English and the culture of their host country. Even the language of this second generation is a “dialect” of English and their native language. It is quite freaky to go on forums and discussion boards to find how prevalent this has become.

LA replies:

I just want to say that I admire Kidist for the stand she takes on this issue.

April 27

Oz Crusader writes:

This is my issue with the BNP. They primarily see themselves as a white, ethnic party. At the moment the choices mainstream individuals face are rabid, blind, totalitarian style “multiculturalists” on the one hand or rabid white nationalists (many times anti-Semitic) on the other.

Surely there is a happy medium here. This is to say that yes, Western culture is very much bound up in the “ethnicity” of white, Anglo Saxons—and a black or Asian cannot become “ethnically British.” However, a British “citizen” can be of any ethnicity as long as they subscribe to a certain set of values—i.e. the primacy of British culture, of Christianity etc—and adopt Britain as their homeland.

I am a Christian of Indian heritage who lives in the West. Each and every day I take up the fight to white liberals who hate their own culture, but I defend this because the traditionalist culture of the West and Christianity are far superior to every other system. Yet according to the BNP, I am not and never can be “British.” Meanwhile, a white, homosexual, multiculturalist, convert to Islam is apparently authentically British simply because of his skin colour.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, part of our identity is race based—it’s also cultural as well. In this way, we should adopt the mind set of Christianity—race does not matter, adherence to a set of principles and beliefs does.

LA replies:

You write:

“Yes, part of our identity is race based…”

Then you write:

“… race does not matter, adherence to a set of principles and beliefs does.”

If part of our identity is race-based, how can it be the case that race doesn’t matter?

It strikes me that you’re sounding a bit like John Zmirak, who says, on one hand (and it’s something he learned from me), that race is a valid part of our multi-leveled essence as human beings; but who then turns around and declares that anyone who says that race matters is a “racialist” and to be shunned.

It seems to me that if the middle way you speak of exists, it must be a way that acknowledges the historic white-majority character of the West while leaving open the possibility of participation in the West by individuals of non-European ancestry, who truly identify with the West.

Note: I have a longer reply in mind to Oz Crusader which I’ll try to post in the next couple of days.

Richard O. writes:

The BNP policy highlights the fact that in these times it’s the most outlandish and anomalous thing for a native Briton to take into account his unique identity as a person with a historic connection to the land of his birth. This point was reached once there were 100,000 Pakistanis, Jamaicans, or non-white or non-western European ethnic group members resident in the country. Thereafter, to give voice to the idea that there ever was at one point something like an Englishman, Scot, Welshman, Anglo-Irishman, or Channel Islander is to court banishment from polite society, and certainly from any major party. Enoch Powell call your office.

Nor can people voice, let alone act on, the idea that large numbers of foreigners, including those who are citizens or legal residents, do not assimilate but rather create enclaves of their former countries at best or to engage in criminal or subversive activity at worst.

It’s far healthier to have an ongoing debate about who’s an “In” and who’s an “Out” than it is

(a) to demand (under penalty of all manner of harassment by think-crime police) that the original occupants of the land become as political and social wraiths; and

(b) to insist that manifest pathology imported recently or distantly by non-Britons, no matter how deep, how vile, or how treacherous, either is commendable as authentic [country adjective] culture, doesn’t exist, or is itself a product of mean behavior on the part of cretinous, indigenous racists.

That said, it’s clear that foreigners do assimilate with a vengeance. Bobby Jindal comes to mind here, not to mention a Nisei roommate of mine in college and Sino-Vietnamese friends of mine who have embraced America with a vengeance. My doctor here is an impressive Chinese fellow originally from Beijing. Millions of others did so as well. And in England, one of the most compelling advocates of traditional British values I’ve ever encountered in my reading is a Nigerian woman who implored the British to uphold their own traditions.

All of these latter U.S. citizens and legal residents, were they to be living in Britain instead of the U.S., would have no difficulty with the BNP standards. Also, on what basis could they object? They should not be able to object to native populations favoring their own ways and laws any more than I should were I to go live in China, for example. There isn’t a person in the world who wouldn’t think me quite deluded were I to insist that the Chinese adapt to my demands for bilingual government forms, that they ignore, say, my illegal entry and residence, that they apologize for preferring to treat their own culture as the exclusive reference point, and that they grant me citizenship.

Only in the West do we turn the issue of racial, ethnic and cultural identity into a sword against the native population and a veil behind which all manner of minority pathology must be hidden.

Westerners should expand on the concept of evidentiary presumptions. We should establish the presumption that foreigners have no intention to assimilate or discharge the duties of citizenship, and are present in the host country only to work, go to school, or claim welfare benefits. This presumption could be rebutted by, say, proof of apostasy from Islam, 15 years of employment, fluent English, no receipt of welfare benefits in the last 10 years, no drug use in 20 years, or proof that one’s car has a working muffler. Assisted Deportation at all times an option during the existence of the unrebutted presumption. We could get creative here.

At present the dominant presumption is that native Western countries are comic opera polities that enslave poor people to heartless corporations and—notwithstanding Western vileness, decadence, and fealty to Beelzebub—are without any right to deny full citizenship benefits to any foreigner able to set one foot on their soil.

Joel P. writes:

Oz Crusader wrote:

This is to say that yes, Western culture is very much bound up in the “ethnicity” of white, Anglo Saxons—and a black or Asian cannot become “ethnically British.” However, a British “citizen” can be of any ethnicity as long as they subscribe to a certain set of values—i.e. the primacy of British culture, of Christianity etc—and adopt Britain as their homeland

But this is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess in the first place—that it is not concrete identities that makes a nation, but rather the united belief in certain universal principles, such as “freedom” or liberal tolerance. In the American context, what you’re saying here is right in line with that of the mainstream conservatives, who say that as long as one is willing to believe in the Constitution and American freedom, then that person or people group should be allowed to become American citizens, regardless of their racial, religious or cultural backgrounds. But far from protecting the nations of the West, this line of reasoning actually leads to their destruction.

I remember reading a good post about this from Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative sometime ago in which he laid out the many problems with what he called “civic nationalism,” and how it—if taken to its logical conclusion—ultimately leads to borderless globalism:

Richardson wrote:

But can a civic nationalism do the job? Can it maintain the existing nations of the West? The answer seems to be clearly no.

One problem is that a civic nationalism blurs the boundaries of what is or isn’t part of a nation. For instance, if it is a belief in liberal political values which makes me an Australian, then why can’t people everywhere who believe in the same values also be considered a part of my nation?

And if it is a belief in liberal political values that defines a nation, then why shouldn’t nations be merged together if there is an economic or diplomatic advantage in doing so? Why not abandon the traditional nations of Europe in order to build a European Union? Why not abandon Australia to build a Pacific Union?

There’s one further problem with a civic nationalism. The older type of nationalism was rejected on the grounds that it discriminated against people. But so too does civic nationalism: it discriminates between citizens and non-citizens. Therefore, it will increasingly be seen by the more rigorously intellectual types as being immoral and illegitimate.

[End of quote.]

The bottom line is this: There is a fundamental difference between nationhood and universal Christian and political values to which all men can subscribe.

April 28

Mark P. writes:

Joel P wrote:

“But this is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess in the first place—that it is not concrete identities that makes a nation, but rather the united belief in certain universal principles, such as “freedom” or liberal tolerance.”

This also begs an important question: how do we even know that such proclaimers of universal principles are even sincere anymore? This liberal mindset exists everywhere on display. Anyone can ape a few liberal sentences here and there about “freedom” and “tolerance” and, poof, that suddenly makes them Westerners? Even Iran’s “Johnnie” is an expert at using universal language in an attempt to manipulate Westerners.

No more.

I don’t think any accommodation should be given to people who host incompatible political ideologies no matter how sincere their defense of the West may be. The end result will be to make it harder to remove their hostile and unassimilable compatriots.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 25, 2009 02:11 PM | Send