BNP: How can people claim Bonnie Greer was so wrong, when this is Griffin's take?

Question

"The indigenous people of these islands – the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh – it's the people who have been here overwhelmingly for the last 17,000 years. We are the aborigines here."
- Nick Griffin on Question time.

There were no aborigines here 17 millenniums ago. Nor were there any English, Scots, Irish or Welsh. Seventeen thousand years ago, these islands were inhabited by Cro-Magnon man living in caves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…

Additional Details

SHEEPY:
Can you actually define what it was/is that is being changed that you dont want to be changed??

PAUL:
A typical BNP swerve there - responding to my question, not with an answer, but with an entirely separate question. I'll assume you accept my point then.

To answer your questions:
1. There doesn't appear to be stats on non-whites 100 years ago. What do non-whites have to do with my question?

Even if the population of the UK was almost entirely white European (if you start and end at handpicked dates), that doesn't prove that there was ever an 'aboriginal briton'.

JOHN D:
But's its not just the left wing press. The Times, Mail, Express, Standard and Telegraph have all had a go too.

Why does Baroness Warsi's heritage lend any credence to the anti immigration argument? To me, the notion that a Tory shadow minister has an issue with immigration is about as surprising as a statement that the pope is a catholic.

LORD E:
I never mentioned 'white' in my question. It's you and Paul who brought that up. Wonder why? I'm just questioning Nick G's dodgy logic. Successfully it would seem.

GUV: You make a fair point. Even using your/the UN's definition of indigenous, I wonder how many white UK inhabitants would qualify under that guideline?

ELDER:
Greer was not wrong about Romans being multicultural and occupying Britain, though was she?

I didn't misinterpret Griffin - I have used his exact words, and treated them with the disdain they deserve.

You might want to pick someone to defend, who is deserving of it.

JOHN (2):
But I didn't 'play the race card'. You brought up her race, not me.
I'm a Youth Worker - I don't know what industry you thought I was in??

PAUL: Getting there. Another go, and you might address the non-existent 'aboriginies'

RIKSTIR:
I've never seen someone go to so much effort to not answer the question asked.

JOHN:
No, it isn't playing the race card. I don't mention race at all in that statement. I generalise about Tories being immigration obsessed.
Yes, I do work with Asylum Seekers and Refugees - not wholly but for a fair amount of my time. I suppose having direct actual experience and knowledge gives me a different angle.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Griffin's argument against immigration is stuck in "catch 22" land and he knows it.

If he states immigrants must go because the British are the true citizens of this country, then he must account for those of different creed born in this country needs to stay.

If he makes the mistake of saying the immigrants must go because white British citizens need support, then it shows his policies are geared on race, this leaves the BNP open to be attacked for being a racist party and it becomes unfair to those whose ancestors where here in Britain even before some white people moved to britain and had children here.

He cannot use the argument of indigenous britain because it falls flat when history shows movements of civilizations from country to country and it also falls flat that the UK has been invaded time and time again to allow a mix and diversity of immigrants. He would need to pick a correct time or date on where indigenous would be correct, but then again it leaves him slipping back to "white" Britain again.

His only strong point is to decrease or stop the flow of immigration to this country, but at what cost? One of the points of immigration is to allow those to do the jobs no other British citizen wants to do, although I am sure some immigrants take advantage of the welfare system, you cannot possibly believe that other British citizen's do not do the same.

If the party even refuses entry of those persecuted by other countries then the BNP will automatically align themselves with tyranny and other countries "especially the US" will look down on us, even when the US bailed the UK out of WWII.

I am all for immigration being controlled, but not this way. Thanks, but NO thanks.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

It is very obvious, that Nick and the BNP are trying to use skewed history as a form of white supremacy. If you wanted pure indigenous Britons only, you'd have a hell of a time proving who was, and who wasn't.
Lets face it, the BNP don't want pure indigenous Britons. They just want white folk.

Answer 2

I couldn't careless about all this who what where my family have given blood sweat and toil for this Island and to make it what was not to be destroyed and its make up completely changed within a few years.
I certainly can mass unskilled immigration that nobody asked for or wanted Slum areas in most of our cities that have become no go areas An alien culture demanding their own laws.Oh i could go on for hours but what would be the point.

Answer 3

So how many non-whites were here 100 years ago? Go on Mr Historyman, give us a percentage please.

As you (and Ms Greer) well know, prior to 1940 the population of the UK was almost entirely white European, and always had been.

Mass immigration has ruined this country, it needs to be reversed.

Edit:
OK. I'll answer your question, the first people of this country were Europeans. The vast majority of the population have always been Europeans. Whether the first people came here 17,000 years ago, 12,000 years ago or 5,000 years ago is immaterial. They were and remained almost 100% white Europeans until mass third world immigration was forced on us from the 1940s onwards.

Whether or not anybody lived here during the ice age, since then, other than people who are now extinct, it's been almost totally white Europeans, right up to the 1940s.

Better?

Answer 4

Well Griffin is a politician not a leading member of the British museum.


Yes Griffins take is wrong.

Source(s):

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/050…

Answer 5

The more the Left Wing press try to belittle him the more popular he will become. It appears to me that if a Minister / Baroness with a Pakistani heritage can admit we have a problem with immigration, anyone with half a brain would sit up and take notice. Demonising the BNP / Griffin is getting us nowhere.

Edit,

On question time she said to Straw that she campaigned in Dewsbury and asked people about immigration and was told it was a problem. Why are you playing the race card on the Tories. You are in total denial if you think the press constantly having a go at the BNP and Griffin is getting us anywhere, but as you work in the Industry it might suit your remit.

Edit 2,

I quote "To me, the notion that a Tory shadow minister has an issue with immigration is about as surprising as a statement that the pope is a catholic" Is that not playing the race card? You previously stated that you worked with Asylum seekers, is that not true?

Answer 6

if people take griffin seriously its a poor reflection on the country's intelligence. voting bnp will make no difference n the next general election, through a week of media hype what we forget is that they are a fringe party supported by white trash with no real political foothold.

in response to paul r what difference does skin colour play you racist, even griffin did not attack skin coulour in his adress we are talking about immigration.
if you still seriously beleive this country is a real power then your thick as well. 'ruined this country' the secod world war spent fighting racists like yourself cost this country (1940 equivalent dollars) $288 billion, briton has not been a great power since the turn of the centuary long before immigration. and what about the miners strikes, british 'whites' almost brought this country to its knees.

it is improtant that voters do not become attracted to griffin on the basis of one of his policies, dont forget that this man is an antisemite who has connections with the kkk.

Answer 7

Exactly Paul R!

How many non whites were here 100 years ago?

MrHairyman your are just another political correct brainwashed lefty who is trying to deny us english,scots,welsh,irish our heritage!

by your theory Americans are all British and all Australians are all British or are they really just Americans and Australians?

British people have always been white! it's not racist it's the truth!

Answer 8

Although I think the argument is irrelevant according to Neanderthal evidence from Gibraltar in the University of Zurich. That European cro magnum and Neanderthal anatomic adaptations to cold weather lightened the skin and changed genetic characteristics and thus played a part in the evolution of white people.

But as I say its pretty irrelevant and can be argued back and forth depending who you listen to. The UN states an indigenous people as one with has inhabited a place for only 1000 years. So perhaps he should have used indigenous not aboriginal.

Bonnies argument that we are all immigrants because of the Ice age was just ridiculous, saying we should accept immigrants because of different waves immigration doesn't make sense bearing in mind how those different waves murdered each other anyway...Happy Days lol

Edit - As for the indigenous thing of 1000 years, I think I read in National geographic, it would be something like 85-89% but don't quote me on that because I can't find the article. I remember it being surprisingly high.

Answer 9

Simply because Greer is wrong with her Black Roman nonsense and you are a bit foolish and desperate to try and defend her in this manner. The inaccuracy of Greer's statements are not changed by your (mis)interpretation of Griffins comment's.

You might also like to do some background research on the use of metaphor in rhetoric.

Source(s):

former leftist who in the end couldn't stand their perversion of history

Answer 10

She was wrong . She said there was nobody in Britain during the ice age because of the ice . This is not true , the ice only reach down to a point between the wash in the east and the Bristol channal in the west , we know this because of geography , U shaped valleys to the north of that line V shaped vallies to the south . We also know that there were people here before the ice melted simply because it was the ice melting that covered the land bridge from Europe and trapped them here . Or is she surgesting that these stone age people managed to build ships and cross the English channal ?
She also claimed that the only people in Europe at the time were Neandathals . This again is untrue , it is widely agreed by REAL historians that Homo Sapians co exsisted with the Neandathals towards the end of the ice age .
She also said that the Roman Empire was multicultural . It was not , it was multi racial but everyone lived by Roman culture .
She also said that when Rome left Britain they left allot of people behind . There is an eliment of truth to this but she put a spin on it . Yes some Roman soldiers , citizens , undoubtable were left behind but what she didn't mention is that a genetic pool of less than 2% of the population will be genetically assimulated into the host population .

Bonny Geer is an African American psoodo historian with a chip on her shoulder . Her ideas about history are all half truths that have been spun to facilitate the marginalisation of white people .

It's as clear as the nose on her face .

Source(s):

Self educated about history through impartial research . No agenda , no spin . If you don't believe me do some research .

Answer 11

It is widely 'believed' that the original people that walked these islands were WHITE at the time of the Roman invasion and indeed even going back to the time of Stonehenge and before. Unless we get access to a time machine to actually go back and take some pics though and perhaps a few DNA swabs, it's going to be hard to prove - or disprove isn't it? We need some people on here with some 'expert' knowledge actually, and as this is the politics section, it's quite difficult to prove anything on Britain's race / colour / background. It's alright to make sweeping assumptions of who we think we came from. But we can argue this subject till we a blue in the face.

It is my belief though that Bonnie Greer was wrong about the Romans in 'Britain' being dark skinned, because logically they would have trained and equiped men from Germania and possibly French (whatever they were called then) Gauls I think, as these were the closest countries of Roman occupation next to Britain. Equally, it is remotely possible that the Romans did have 'some' dark skinned soldiers in their ranks, but they would have been serving in the southern regions of the Roman Empire.

Battles that took place between the Romans and Scots in particular mention that many of the Roman legionnaires were actually from Germania. Read it somewhere but can't find any links.

Answer 12

Nick Griffin has a tendency to use figures much like a drunk uses a lampost more support than for illumination. The whole race issue and the use of indigenous and aboriginal may actually go over the heads of many of the people he wants to impress.

The earliest reliable indication that people had settled in Britian is about 10,000 years ago traditional accounts of the ancestral roots of the British have taught that they are descended from diverse populations: the Scots, Welsh and Irish from the Celts, and the English from the Anglo-Saxons, who invaded from northern Europe and drove the Celts to Great Britain's western and northern fringes; each are also thought to have a small portion of Viking heritage. However, geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer suggests that DNA analysis attests that three quarters of Britons share a common ancestry with the hunter-gatherers who settled in Atlantic Europe during the Paleolithic era, "after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands". Despite the separation of the British Isles from continental Europe as a consequence of the last ice age, the genetic record indicates the British broadly share a common ancestry with the Basque people who live in the Basque Country by the Pyrenees. Oppenheimer continues that the majority of the people of the British Isles share genetic commonalities with the Basques, ranging from highs of 90% in Wales to lows of 66% in East Anglia. The difference between western Britain and the East of England is thought to have its origins to two divergent prehistoric routes of immigration — one up the Atlantic coast, the other from continental Europe. Major immigrant settlement of the British Isles occurred during the Neolithic period, interpreted by Bryan Sykes—professor of human genetics at the University of Oxford—as the arrival of the Celts from the Iberian Peninsula, and the origin of Britain's and Ireland's Celtic tribes. Oppenheimer found that "by far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales". The National Museum Wales state that "it is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject" but "early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology.

Answer 13

Bonnie Greer is a black American playwright, she had no place on the panel discussing English Politics.

Answer 14

Bonnie Greer was basing her answer on solid hard facts, 17,000 year old facts.
Nick Griffin on the other hand was basing his answer on peoples living memory and on people's emotions, so who do you think they are more likely to listen to.

You see facts and figures mean very little to ordinary people at the end of the day they are more likely to listen to and believe people who say what they already believe themselves.

Consequently If you cannot say what ordinary people want to hear then they will probably just dismiss it out of hand.

Answer 15

"Great Minds Think Alike" maybe.

Answer 16

The original inhabitants of our nation were Neanderthals. Neanderthals were genetically a different race to us modern day humans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndwzAw8fc… As humans, we evolved from Neanderthals. But this evolutionary process took place in Africa, and our race of humans, in all colours are descended from them, not from the Neanderthals that lived in the UK.

Nick Griffin would do well to read the books Bonnie Greer says she brought to Question Time!

Source(s):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapien…

Answer 17

Why does it boil down to colour of skin? I just fail to see the importance. Maybe it's 'cause I'm young & naive eh?

Griffins take is nonsensical and I think he knew it from the start.

Answer 18

While most people are for multiculturalism in the UK, just think that Africa and Asia will always hang on to their culture, an African or Asian descendant will always be able to go back to their fore fathers country of origin and see the traditions and culture thriving in the mother country, alas' that wont be able to happen in this country in the not to distant future re: the indigenous people.
I am surprised that our people are behaving like little children, crying and whimpering and not doing a damn thing about it.

Answer 19

I am not a BNP supporter but I would like to answer this as well.

To be quite honest I could not care less who was here 17,000 years or 17 millennia (plural for millennium old boy) ago. What concerns me is the here and now - and to be quite honest whether I hail from Africa, the North Pole, the South Pole, Africa, London Zoo or Tooting is of no importance and is just shifting focus from very important issues!

Who gives a damn - people in this country (and this includes people who have settled here) want to know what is going to be done to cap mass immigration. They want to know that their way of life, culture and country will remain - and that would be the same for ANY country and nation around the world!!

Answer 20

I think the point is that who ever! owned the house before, this is our house now, and if you wish to come and stay, then you abide by our rules or leave....Why is that so hard to understand? This is our country! this is the safe place we have made for our children for generations. Why should we put up with an army of violent hate fuelled ****-wit Islamists that are intent on dragging our civilised country back to the caves??? Making our children's future a violent bomb happy Hell....The same Hell that follows those mindless hate fuelled fools where ever they go. Show me Islam without violence death and oppression?? where can this "peaceful" religion boast an example of this Islamic paradise?....and why do British people just sit like dead men and await the Hell that they know full well is coming?