BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them


by Sunny
12th February, 2010 at 9:41 am    

I’m speaking at an event later this month (23rd Feb) on how the media needs to ‘expose the BNP‘.

The political and media consensus appears to be that the way to tackle the BNP is to meet it half way, by talking up tough anti-immigration measures and airing this racist party’s lies. This conventional wisdom must urgently be challenged.

says James Macintyre of the New Statesman, and he’s right.

And to reinforce that point, here is Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP:

Dealing with the press on a daily basis it is hard not to develop a healthy disrespect for the people who quite rightly can be blamed for the state this country is in today. However, certainly over the last year I am not the only one here at BNP Towers that has noticed a distinct thaw in the attitude towards us from some aspects of the media.

It has occurred to such an extent that the latest move by a small gaggle of z-list journalists to deliberately spike coverage concerning the BNP looks almost prehistoric. I used to worry about these things a few years ago, but now I welcome them safe in the knowledge that many within their own profession will find this sinister, clumsy or just plain comical.

Come and hear me (and others) listen. I’m going to be talking about strategies to tackle the media’s love of the BNP.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Events,Media,Race politics






100 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Kevin Arscott

    BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them via @pickledpolitics http://viigo.im/2p3J


  2. thabet

    RT @uponnothing: BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them via @pickledpolitics http://viigo.im/2p3J


  3. UniteAgainstFascism

    RT @pickledpolitics: BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them http://bit.ly/d7ZfMW


  4. .

    RT @uaf: RT @pickledpolitics: BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them http://bit.ly/d7ZfMW


  5. Elyssa Durant

    RT @ajit8uk: RT @uaf: RT @pickledpolitics: BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them http://bit.ly/d7ZfMW


  6. Nicholas Stewart

    RT @thabet1979: RT @uponnothing: BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them via @pickledpolitics http://viigo.im/2p3J


  7. George Allwell

    RT @pickledpolitics Pickled Politics » BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them http://bit.ly/bNFGJq


  8. Daniel Pitt

    BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them http://bit.ly/d7ZfMW #hopenothate #stopthebnp #fuckfascism


  9. Daniel Pitt

    BNP deputy leader says media now much softer towards them http://bit.ly/d7ZfMW #hopenothate #stopthebnp #fuckfascism


  10. Daniel Pitt

    BNP deputy leader claims media now much softer towards them http://bit.ly/d7ZfMW #hopenothate #stopthebnp #fuckfascism


  11. Good article on immigration and the media « Left Outside

    [...] the media glare would expose its nasty underbelly? The party’s deputy leader, Simon Darby, doesn’t seem to think so: “Dealing with the press on a daily basis it is hard not to develop a healthy disrespect for [...]


  12. How the media helps the BNP and other Extremists « Mohammed Abbasi

    [...] the media glare would expose its nasty underbelly? The party’s deputy leader, Simon Darby, doesn’t seem to think so: “Dealing with the press on a daily basis it is hard not to develop a healthy disrespect for [...]


  13. How the media help the BNP — Expose the BNP

    [...] the media glare would expose its nasty underbelly? The party’s deputy leader, Simon Darby, doesn’t seem to think so: “Dealing with the press on a daily basis it is hard not to develop a healthy disrespect for [...]




  1. Lee John Barners — on 12th February, 2010 at 10:17 am  

    A must for all insomniacs.

    You will be guaranteed to sleep for a week !

    Hear assholes emit hot air !

    Hear idiots talk nonsense !

    Come along and be amazed at the state of our educational system !

  2. Boyo — on 12th February, 2010 at 10:24 am  

    The BNP have increasingly occupied the space multiculturalists have prepared for them – in an age when all cultures (and points of view) are “relative”, the unapologetic racism of the BNP must appear much of a muchness to hacks required to view the clerical fascism, misogyny and homophobia of other groups with equanimity.

  3. rob mcnaughton — on 12th February, 2010 at 10:32 am  

    When Griffin said there was an agenda to let in everyone under labour on QT, he was scoffed at.
    Who was right??????

    Not that the media ever admits he was right, but on that point he was right and Straw was shown to be less than honest. Nothing on it in the media, ever. A no go zone. We must denigrate, it is our duty, we cannot admit there are some facts which may have validity in the BNP rhetoric.

    If the media gave them fair coverage when they are proven to be correct, not often perhaps but on thos one there is no doubt, and asked why labour had lied about a secret policy to bring in potentially millions of unskilled workers from everywhere outside the EU, potential labour voters no doubt, then it would be interesting.

    The view you mention above, to meet half way needs to be challenged is simply more of the same and treating people who see the real world and do not live in safety in east Cheam or wherever as you and McIntyre do like fools.

    I lived in Brixton, Sudbourne Road near Acre Lane, as I naively felt that I wanted to be trendy and near the tube. And I moved out due to being mugged regularly. 3 times in 3 weeks and my carbroken into was enough. If you were out after 11pm it was a no go zone for me.
    could it have happened anywhere, yes. But it happened to me only in Brixton, fact. Walking at midnight made me a target I guess. More than i would have been in “better suburbs”.

    Is it sterotyping, absolutely? Did i report it, no, what was the point. That even my KFC was nicked as well as my last pound when I was knocked down and out and knifed was a (slightly) funny aside looking back.
    People know they cannot go out at night now when they used to be able to do so. And they know why they are frightened and who frightens them. All the facts and figures in the world from police will not hide those realities.

    The fact the media does not discuss things in a grey way and everything is “black and white” is a significant part of the problem,and talks down to the voters as they are capable of making their own minds up on the ongoing disaster that has been caused by labour.

  4. Boyo — on 12th February, 2010 at 10:39 am  

    Heh. Well i grew up in a white working class suburb in North London and had to fight my way through my teen years cos of the pissed-up thuggery that prevailed. I’ve been mugged by black youths too, but it was far gentler and at least they had a reason rather than violence for the sake of it. Fact.

  5. David Jones — on 12th February, 2010 at 12:39 pm  

    I think it’s more a question of the way the BNP are exposing the media and the establishment parties – responsible people who take an interest in current affairs and are registered to vote (forget the rest, they don’t count because they have given up their voting power) cannot fail to notice the double standards operating in the media. “Equal opportunities” for all except for the BNP, “free speech” except for the BNP, (quasi) objective reporting of parties’ policies except for the BNP policies (see NUJ rules on this for proof) etc. Add the violence and intolerance of UAF and other commie outfits who intimidate BNP members and supporters whilst shouting for tolerance for sexual perverts (queers and lesbians) and assorted aliens, blacks, freaks etc, and Joe public (and, for you sensitive PC addicts, Josephine public) will begin to see who is in the wrong! Well done, keep at it, keep digging.

  6. Sunny — on 12th February, 2010 at 1:30 pm  

    oh look, the BNP trolls are out in force again

  7. coochy — on 12th February, 2010 at 1:48 pm  

    the BNP just came last in four local elections in one day.

  8. George Allwell — on 12th February, 2010 at 3:03 pm  

    Sunny, that is not a BNP troll, that is the BNP Chief Legal Officer. Lee John Barnes, the guy who makes claims that the English and Irish invented farming, and the damn foreign birds fly over here and take up spots claimed by traditional native British birds. You think I’m joking.

    Hope the talk goes well, and in all seriousness…

    “the BNP just came last in four local elections in one day.”

    A trend that is common throughout any election success they have had, they may get voted in but as soon as the public (and the press) see how ridiculously ineffective they are – no policies or principles – they vote other parties back in.

  9. terry fitz — on 12th February, 2010 at 3:44 pm  

    Sunny boy,

    As you are deleting comments, because you are a PC cowward, I will certainly be at the meeting to confron t you on your hatred of Jews and whites. Will I get in. I will because I will be bringing enough troops to make sure.

  10. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2010 at 3:58 pm  

    terry fitz @ 9,

    What a complete utter tit you are.

  11. Gareth — on 12th February, 2010 at 4:04 pm  

    “I will because I will be bringing enough troops to make sure”

    Which service are you in?

  12. MiriamBinder — on 12th February, 2010 at 4:05 pm  

    There will always be a BNP, just like every village has its idiot and every family a black sheep … There has to be somewhere for the eejits to go ;)

    I am just waiting to see the results of the vote on Feb 14th by the registered members of the BNP on their newly drafted constitution. As is Rajinder Singh (see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926180.ece) I read the above and couldn’t help but split my sides … Ye gawds and to think that this man is the best the pig farmer could come up with for a character reference :D

  13. David Jones — on 12th February, 2010 at 4:45 pm  

    Georg Allwell: you say the BNP has “no policies or principles” – not true. There are plenty, but the PC types who infest web sites like this (Sunny: “BNP trolls”) are too immature and insecure to debate them and show the rest of us how bad – if indeed they are – the BNP policies are. How about their policy for securing the UK as the continuing homeland for indigenous Brits? Perhaps you think the native blacks should run African coutries, and not the whites, and would you like to see indigenous Britons share the same fate as the indigenous populations of Australia, New Zealand, America, Canada etc? we should be told.

  14. George Allwell — on 12th February, 2010 at 5:04 pm  

    Policies or principles when they are elected. The council meetings they refuse to attend on a regular basis (in Halifax and Hull et al…), the lack of commitment to the areas they claim to support.

    We have to remember one policy they are fully committed to, the removal of democracy when they get elected (just like Hitler in 1933).

  15. tory — on 12th February, 2010 at 5:16 pm  

    “Come and hear me (and others) listen. I’m going to be talking about strategies to tackle the media’s love of the BNP.”

    Are you really going to talk for an hour on a straw man? I personally couldn’t hear the BBC staff cheering when BNP got 2 MEP’s!

  16. George Allwell — on 12th February, 2010 at 5:16 pm  

    Oh – and I refuse to call fascism a ‘principle’.

  17. MiriamBinder — on 12th February, 2010 at 5:18 pm  

    @ David Jones # 13 – Policies … I’ll grant you they have policies. That they are half baked at best and totally unsustainable being quite beside the point really.

    More interesting is this notion of ‘indigenous Britons’ … I am still waiting to get a clear definition of what an ‘indigenous Briton’ is; apart from being a nice undefined catchphrase that is ;)

  18. Shamit — on 12th February, 2010 at 5:20 pm  

    David Jones,

    “How about their policy for securing the UK as the continuing homeland for indigenous Brits? ”

    Indigenous brits – I would agree with that policy if the idiots in BNP would be willing to take the DNA test we have been asking for months to take.

    But they are too afraid as some contamination (good actually but bad in their eyes) might come through and they would all have to leave britain then.

    With regard to BNP policies – we did ask them and we published them both at eGov monitor and PP. And they were horse shit – they want to practice apartheid.

    Have no clue how public services are delivered – or economic realities of life. So you want to try that again.

    I am always up for a debate with anyone on BNP policies. However, please make sure they send someone who has got some grey matter. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

    You wanna abuse Sunny here – then be prepared to be abused too.

    And as far as Mr. Barnes goes – well we all know who the idiot is. And anytime anywhere – lets have a debate – a real one beyond the talking points That Griffin has to write out for you as none of you have any brains – isn’t that the reason you follow that demagogue.

    **************************
    Finally for the record, no regular here has anything against white people or any person of any colour or creed or religion – but we hate fucking extremists and idiots of all colour.

    And by the way I love this country and this is my country too so take your indigenous argument and shove it up your ass – unless you are willing to take the DNA test.

    Get that through your heads before you come around and get bitch slapped again.

  19. Dan Dare — on 12th February, 2010 at 5:32 pm  

    With Yazzer on the team how can this fail to be a ripping success.

  20. LeacroftRd — on 12th February, 2010 at 7:14 pm  

    “Finally for the record, no regular here has anything against white people or any person of any colour or creed or religion – but we hate fucking extremists and idiots of all colour.”

    Dalbir and platinum786 are regulars here, they always blame “Whitey”, the “jooos” or hindus (Plenty of examples in the archives)

    Hope the bnp get laughed out of town, its all they deserve

  21. Jai — on 12th February, 2010 at 7:18 pm  

    “How about their policy for securing the UK as the continuing homeland for indigenous Brits? ”

    The policy where there is no clarification about exactly how the BNP, having allegedly cancelled their “voluntary repatriation” plans, would reduce this country’s non-white population from 10% to 1%.

    And as Shamit correctly said, details of numerous other aspects of their policies have already been acquired and published online. The ramifications are now globally accessible and a matter for the public record.

  22. Dalbir — on 12th February, 2010 at 7:34 pm  

    @20

    What you don’t realise is my use of “whitey” is specifically referring to the white supremacists of the world. The type that want to try and dominate in one form or another. Those that manifest their arsehole ideology outwards, always to the detriment of nonwhites. These could be political leaders, media Moguls or street level cavemen. I don’t hold any animosity towards the average white person walking past me in the street.

    I’d like to ask Lee John, would you be okay with the indigenous of Australia/New Zealand and the US/Canada giving the same treatment to whites in their lands that you so desperately want to try and mete out here?

    What do you guys plan to do? Hide until globalisation (itself a white plan) disappears?

  23. asquith — on 12th February, 2010 at 9:49 pm  

    Did everyone see that Rajinder Singh interview in the Groan yesterday?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/11/bnp-nonwhites-members-sikh-join

  24. MiriamBinder — on 12th February, 2010 at 10:31 pm  

    Had me splitting my sides …

  25. A.C. — on 12th February, 2010 at 11:32 pm  

    Sunny,

    If you didn’t see it the last two nights you should DEFINITELY watch Silent Witness on iPlayer before you take part in this debate.

    Tonight’s episode on BBC1 depicted a man openly espousing BNP-style views.

    The treatment of this character in the drama was very ‘nuanced’ (to use your new buzz-word): he was an ambulance paramedic who worked hard to save a young Somali’s life, and had a major love scene, so not a bit part. His outburst about ‘who we let into the country’ was counterposed against a black activist lawyer trying to get money by suing the police for racism in a case where there had been none.

    The racist comments shocked his former love interest, but he was not vilified for making them and so viewers were invited to consider his point.

    Now on the one hand you could use this as an example of the media softening its approach to the BNP. I have certainly never heard views like that go unchallenged in the dialogue of a prime time drama.

    On the other hand you could watch the whole double episode, and look at the depiction of disgusting gang crime, gun crime, knife crime, rape, sexual assault and corruption of minors (youngers), all based on real life cases.

    Then you could be honest and admit that there are some things taking place in the UK today that are totally out of the control of either the BNP or the media, but which pre-dispose voters to give the BNP a hearing because mainstream parties are too scared of being branded racist to confront those problems.

    Either way, you can’t afford to miss Silent Witness:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007y6k8

  26. A.C. — on 12th February, 2010 at 11:41 pm  

    Dalbir,

    “What you don’t realise is my use of “whitey” is specifically referring to the white supremacists of the world…”

    Yeah mate, I’m sure there are plenty of people who use “nigger” and “paki” in a similarly careful and considered way.

  27. David Jones — on 13th February, 2010 at 10:48 am  

    Fact: a large majority – possibly as high as 90% – of white British people can trace their ancestry in these islands back 13000 years to the end of the last Ice Age. We may have come out of Africa 100,000 years ago, but we evolved and developed separately. We are the indigenous peoples of Britain, just as the Aborigines and the native Americans are of Australia and the US respectively. If you want to ignore fact because of ignorance and prejudice, fine. But that’s a no brainer. Most white British peole do not like multiracial Britain. They are too scared and brainwashed to say so, and yes, some confused ones, a minority, know no better. They are like turkeys voting for Christmas. What gives me the creeps (apart from seeing queers kissing in public) is the likes of Sunny, Jai, Dalbir and other assorted aliens, having the cheek to come to my country (yes, my country, I’m indigenous) as visitors and telling ME what to do. And using vulgar, obscene language. I hope the BNP send you packing as “undesirable aliens”. Will only take a few more years – they know where you live (I would start a clear out at all these Mickey Mouse “universities” (sorry, “unis”) that you lot infest. Now go and boil your heads.

  28. MiriamBinder — on 13th February, 2010 at 12:05 pm  

    Can you verify this ‘fact’ David Jones? I won’t expect a possibly 90% of course but even a 49% would be nice …

    I have friends who are enthusiastic family tree researchers and I can tell you with hand on heart that it is generally accepted that once you get beyond about 1800 everything is very much hit and miss ;)

  29. Dalbir — on 13th February, 2010 at 12:27 pm  

    @26

    Call me Browney. See if I’ll be crying like a baby about it. Actually, that is what is usually meant when the word ‘Asian’ is bandied about in the UK.

    Don’t even try and equate whitey with p*ki or n*gger. The fact you think they are on par says a lot.

  30. A.C. — on 13th February, 2010 at 12:37 pm  

    Dalbir, you don’t get to tell others how offensive they should find your racial slurs mate. That’s not how it works.

  31. Dalbir — on 13th February, 2010 at 1:18 pm  

    Okay, meanwhile we get told that we shouldn’t be so sensitive about the use of the word p*ki as it is harmless.

    Also you hanging on the use of the term ‘whitey’ ignores the other serious matter of the forces which emanate from that quarter that has serious negative consequences both globally and locally for nonwhites. Why not face these truths?

    Whilst whites can cleverly create terms like ‘Islamists’ to pinpoint problem sections of the Muslim community, I can’t similarly use the term ‘whitey’ to pinpoint problem sections of the white community?

    Don’t worry, I’ll try and think up another term to describe these people for future reference. Hopefully we can get onto the subject of dealing with them then.

  32. Dalbir — on 13th February, 2010 at 1:28 pm  

    What gives me the creeps (apart from seeing queers kissing in public) is the likes of Sunny, Jai, Dalbir and other assorted aliens, having the cheek to come to my country (yes, my country, I’m indigenous) as visitors and telling ME what to do. And using vulgar, obscene language.

    What gives me the creeps (apart from large poisonous spiders) is the likes of you who totally ignore your own white people’s actions in umpteen nonwhite countries that actually do what you are accusing me (and others) of. You want to harp on about your own ‘indigenous rights’ whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that these ‘indigenous rights’ have been conspicuously ridden roughshod over in lands that have been colonised by people from these very shores.

    You ain’t got a leg to stand on.

  33. Shatterface — on 13th February, 2010 at 2:43 pm  

    We should just Vaseline-up Barnes and Dalbir and watch them wrestle.

  34. Dalbir — on 13th February, 2010 at 3:20 pm  

    Shatterface

    Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself mate….

    lol

  35. MaidMarian — on 13th February, 2010 at 11:51 pm  

    Sunny – you are missing a trick here.

    Of course, the BNP get an easier ride. Welcome to a 24 hour news cycle and a gargantuan oversupply of media. In the past the BNP with their 2% vote were prioritised accordingly. Now 2% is plenty to be taken seriously and get media coverage in self-reinforcing quantities. The more media the BNP (or any other party) gets becomes self reinforcing in that media coverage gets more media coverage.

    See the Greens for a similar example. Nowadays actual electoral support does not matter – just who has a media profile and a strident, many would say apocalyptic, message. The rest flows from there and the two are no longer the same.

    This, of course, is not to say that the BNP should not get media coverage – we live in a democracy with free speech, warts and all. What it is to say is that the oversupply of media can not be divorced from the increased profile they now have.

    We have two corpses propping each other up. The BNP need the hysterical media to give it oxygen – the media need the BNP to rant on to give them cover to sell and show.

    I know of no one who thinks that a 24 hour news cycle is good, by here we are.

  36. MaidMarian — on 14th February, 2010 at 12:02 am  

    Dalbir – ‘the likes of you who totally ignore your own white people’s actions in umpteen nonwhite countries.’

    Dalbir mate, what I am about to say may blow your mind, so make sure you are sitting down. I and most others out there really don’t care about your brand of identity politics. I do not consider anyone, ‘my,’ white people in the way that I guess you do not consider the modern slave traders or Sudan, ‘your,’ ethnic/identity travelling companions.

    I don’t care about the identity that you and the chip on your shoulder ascribe to me. Most other people don’t either.

    I am more than capable of distinguishing between the actions of individuals who are jerks and their identity. Don’t get me wrong you are more than free to make a priori moral condemnations of individuals you have never met on the basis of skin colour. Just don’t expect me to duck out of seeing before the fact moral condemnation for what it is. Several words spring to mind.

    Racist being one of them.

    Your, ‘I am dark, hear me roar,’ attitude sickens me. Not least because you genuinely think that only white people can display actions that could reasonably be called racist, don’t you?

    You see Dalbir – I think you are a knobhead who should pipe down, you are a knobhead because of the chip on your shoulder, not because of your skin colour – do you see the difference? I know several white people with chips on their shoulder. It is not a racial thing.

    You can believe whatever you want, I am not obligated to bend my knee before your every cultural taboo.

    Now if you will excuse me, I have some bacon on the grill. Crikey!

  37. douglas clark — on 14th February, 2010 at 1:49 am  

    Oh, bugger it, identity theft moves to Pickled Politics. That is not me at 35 but some sock puppet pretending to be me….

  38. David Jones — on 14th February, 2010 at 8:27 am  

    Dalbir – “..the likes of you who totally ignore your own white people’s actions in umpteen nonwhite countries that actually do what you are accusing me (and others) of” – quite. And that’s my point; you rightly condemn what white colonialists have done in the past, so let’s not have a double standard – you should condemn what’s happening to the indigenous Brits in their own land.

    Miriambinder – I’m not talking about family tree researchers but DNA profiling. eg the mitochondrial DNA passed down the female line shows all white women can trace their ancestry back to 7 women who lived in Europe between 45 and 15000 years ago (see Sykes “Seven Daughters of Eve”), and then there’s the haplotype analysis of our DNA which shows the alleles that are located closely together on the same chromosome and that tend to be inherited together, which confirm our unique origins in Europe. A different analysis is found outside Europe. That you alien people deny our claims to be indigenous will eventually turn out to be your undoing.

  39. Ravi Naik — on 14th February, 2010 at 11:32 am  

    That you alien people deny our claims to be indigenous

    Nobody denies your claims to be indigenous and do all things indigenous, in your local indigenous shops, and local indigenous pubs, and do the things that indigenous did back in the Ice Age.

    Can you explain to me why BNP supporters are a bunch of spineless whiners?

  40. douglas clark — on 14th February, 2010 at 12:30 pm  

    David Jones,

    And presumeably every woman on the planet can trace her way back to mitochondrial Eve then, yes?

  41. Dalbir — on 14th February, 2010 at 1:49 pm  

    quite. And that’s my point; you rightly condemn what white colonialists have done in the past, so let’s not have a double standard – you should condemn what’s happening to the indigenous Brits in their own land.

    You’re missing my point. That white colonialism isn’t something you can relegate to the past in the way you do. It is something going on full force as we speak in the countries mentioned. Are whites still not dominating most of those nations? Have the indigenous there been left to get on with it like you want whites here to be?

    If BNP types really believe in what they are espousing, they should be much more vocal and active in condemning the actions of whites in those nations. Forget the past by the way, I’m talking about the way in which they are dominating those places now……as we speak.

    Besides, if nonwhites ever took over the governing of this country, disempowered and killed native en masse, what is the worst you could say?

    “Those outsiders are really fucked up, they are behaving just like our own people do in foreign lands!”

    If BNP ever actively sought to right the wrongs done by Anglos and their minions aboard you might expect some sympathy, but they are only really interested in using the analogy to push their own case, happily accepting what is going on elsewhere, other than when it can produce a nice soundbite.

    This is double standards my friend.

    Maid@36

    Thanks for the excellent exempler of apologism.

    Enough for today.

  42. MiriamBinder — on 14th February, 2010 at 8:53 pm  

    @ David Jones # 38 – DNA profiling? Fine … my question remains … proof please?

  43. douglas clark — on 14th February, 2010 at 9:41 pm  

    MiriamBinder,

    Our origins are in Africa. And Bryan Sykes, contrarywise to racist idiots like David Jones, has had this to say:

    http://tinyurl.com/y9hg6yx

    Bryan Sykes is the opposite of a racist. It is not just that he doesn’t believe in the concept of race. He feels he has proved, scientifically and to his own satisfaction, that race – in Britain, in Europe, in the world – is a myth. There are only individuals. “We are not a race at all,” he says. “We’ve been mongrels for 10,000 years and it has done us a lot of good.”

    Sykes, 53, is not the first or only scientist to have used DNA to explore the migrations of our ancestors across the globe over tens of thousands of years. But he has gone further than any other in popularising, and now commercialising, the research. His new book, The Seven Daughters Of Eve – elaborating his theory that 95% of present-day Europeans can trace their ancestry back to just seven individual women – is distributed with a discount voucher attached. Buyers will get £50 off the £150 cost of a DNA test which will tell them which of the seven women they are descended from – which “clan”, as Sykes puts it, they belong to.

    When I first read about the work of researchers such as Sykes, seeking by studying mutations in a particular kind of human DNA to study how long people had lived in a particular place, I wondered whether it wasn’t the kind of science that might be misused. I imagined some Dr Strangelove of genetics, striving to prove, scientifically, that his “people” – Serbs? Croatians? Gypsies? – were there millennia before someone else’s “people”.

    When I meet him in the sunny courtyard of Oxford University’s institute of molecular medicine, where he is professor of human genetics, the question melts away. Neither of us has come across such a thing. Indeed, on the science level, the opposite seems to be happening. In Europe, the work of Sykes and his colleagues has shown that the concept of separate races collapsed when the DNA evidence was studied. Descendants of the founder mothers are jumbled together higgledy-piggledy, from Siberia to County Cork. Sykes places the home of one of the seven daughters in present-day Syria. Although Sykes maintains that the seven daughters really existed, between 45,000 and 10,000 years ago, in his book he fabricates names and life histories for them, as a way of cutting through the fog of races, populations and peoples. “It was partly as a reaction to the way population genetics has always been done, which is to ignore the effects of individuals, and to just classify the human race into a number of so-called ‘populations’,” he says. “There isn’t any genetic basis for the racial classifications that have existed.”

    It’s reassuring. Then, a few days after our meeting, I discover by chance that Sykes’s work is already being misused by racists: not in the Balkans but in Britain. In the wake of the Oldham riots, I browse through the British National Party website, where there is a page of audio and video clips. One of the audio files is a recording of a confrontation on air, in April, between a liberal presenter on a Dundee radio station and Phil Edwards, the BNP press officer.

    Countering the presenter’s assertion that “being British is a bastardisation”, Edwards says: “We are formed from closely related tribes of white European people. It is not colour, it is race, it is genetics. If you take for instance the work of Professor Sykes at Oxford University. He has sampled 6,000 blood samples of people whose maternal grandmothers were born in the UK, right? And he has found that 99% of those people have got the identical DNA to the DNA in the neolithic burial grounds at places all over the UK, people who lived here eight, 10,000 years ago. So don’t give me this offensive business about saying we’re a bastardised people.”

    Sykes can’t be held responsible for the deliberate distortion of his work. Yet it sharpens the question as to the motives of the people sending in DNA samples for analysis to Sykes’s company, Oxford Ancestors – now coming in at the rate of almost 100 a day, many from the US. What are they looking for?

    “The quite remarkable thing is that if people find themselves in the same clan as somebody else – and I’ve observed this – they do feel quite closely connected with them, more than they otherwise would,” says Sykes. “It is not going to be because they have the same DNA. I think it is partly because they feel connected back to the same woman, which they are.”

    Sykes’s book portrays a Europe without races. Indeed, at the end, he reveals a bigger picture; each of the seven daughters can trace her ancestry back still farther, to 100,000 years ago, to a single maternal ancestor from Africa. Surely that should allow the racists no foothold? And yet, somehow, it does. The danger is that in setting up the vision of a Europe founded by seven women, whose genes 95% of us carry, Sykes is unintentionally promoting a them-and-us image. You have the Euro-DNA, or you don’t. You carry the genetic badge of a vaguely defined and, as it happens, largely white-skinned continent, or you don’t.

    The particular kind of DNA Sykes works with is a powerful scientific tool. It has proved that Polynesia was colonised from east Asia, not South America. It has proved that all modern human beings are descended from a single, relatively recent ancestor in Africa, that we’re not descendants of the Neanderthals and that the influx of migrants from the Near East, bringing agriculture to Europe in Neolithic times, was smaller than used to be thought. It may yet show – this is Sykes’s current project – the extent of Anglo-Saxon spread into present-day Britain, and help explain why we now speak English and not some Welsh-Cornish amalgam. But it has its limits, limits that the media – encouraged by Sykes – have been inclined to ignore.

    Sykes studies a tiny percentage of human DNA known as mitochondrial DNA, or mDNA, which unlike most of our genes does not get jumbled up between mother and father from generation to generation. MDNA is passed on unchanged from mother to child, time after time, over thousands – in fact, millions – of years. This extraordinary property means that we do, indeed, carry within us a piece of information passed on directly from a maternal ancestor who lived in the world while the Ice Age was at its height.

    By comparing mutations in mDNA, which occur spontaneously every 10 millennia or so, it is possible to draw conclusions about the movements of large groups of people over time. It is also possible to identify “clusters” of present-day people with similar sets of mutations, which can be traced back to putative single maternal ancestors in the distant past. That is how Sykes has come up with his seven daughters. He has given them imaginary names and worked out where and when they were likely to have lived.

    There is Ursula, from 45,000 years ago, in present-day Greece; Xenia (25,000, the Caucasus); Helena (20,000, the north-east Pyrenean foothills); Tara (17,000, Tuscany); Velda (17,000, the Basque region); Katrine (15,000, northern Italy) and Jasmine (10,000, the Euphrates valley).

    And yet how relevant is mDNA to human identity? The truth is, hardly at all. If Oxford Ancestors reports that you belong to the “Helena clan”, it means that you probably share with 47% of modern Europeans a single maternal ancestor living 20,000 years ago.

    In his book, Sykes recounts the story of the Iceman, the 5,000-year-old corpse found frozen in the Alps in 1991, and how his lab was able to use mDNA analysis to dispel suspicions that the body was actually a South American mummy placed in the mountains as a hoax. In response to journalists’ queries, he then went further, providing the media with an Irish management consultant from Dorset, Marie Moseley, who had “exactly the same DNA as the Iceman”. In fact, she didn’t – she had the same mDNA as the Iceman, along with millions of other people around the world.

    So does the science back up the seven daughters theory? Sykes freely concedes that his biographies of the daughters are fantasy. But the latest research may even undermine the central theme of the book. The resonant figure of seven women as the founding mothers of 95% of present-day Europeans stems from research published in a 1996 paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics. A follow-up paper on the same topic, published last year, comes up with the rather less magical figure of 11, representing only 76% of present-day Europeans.

    Sykes was one of 37 scientists involved in the research which produced that paper. The leading scientist was Martin Richards, then working alongside him at Oxford, now of Huddersfield University. He is reluctant to comment on Sykes’s theory, saying that he hasn’t seen the book. But what about the seven daughters? “To say that Europeans had seven maternal ancestors is not very meaningful,” he says. “It just depends how far you want to go back in time. The problem with Bryan’s seven is that we now know that very few of them would actually have been living in Europe – most of them probably lived in the Middle East.

    “What I think is really interesting is which of our ancestors actually migrated into Europe, and when, and how we can use that information to help archaeologists reconstruct the past. We have done quite a lot of work on that now, and we know that there were considerably more than just seven women involved.”

    There is some comment around the bottom.

  44. George Allwell — on 14th February, 2010 at 9:56 pm  

    Who cares anymore?

    The BNP have become all multi-cultural on us, they are opening up membership, they are accepting the truth.

    Diversity is best.

  45. douglas clark — on 14th February, 2010 at 10:03 pm  

    The reason we are a single species is that we can all have children together. We have not spit into our intellectualisms at a genetic level. A man from Siberia and a woman from a tribe in South America would have viable offspring. And so it goes.

    Semites and anti-semites would have viable kids if they just stopped fighting each other, and got down to it.

    Sex beats religion beats hate.

    What, obviously, ahem, fucks it up, is constraining social norms….

    Do you really think our basic instinct is going to (och! another ahem), bend to that? Constraining social norms, that has been overturned at every step of the way.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co

  46. douglas clark — on 14th February, 2010 at 10:13 pm  

    Eh!

    That post finished with this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co

  47. MiriamBinder — on 14th February, 2010 at 11:25 pm  

    Thank you Douglas Clark … I was fascinated by this repeat performance regarding DNA as espoused by David Jones … especially in view of some very interesting programmes regarding the DNA of some very prominent members of the ’100% English’ brigade in 2006 (A documentary by David Batty) …
    “Take eight people. All of them born in England. All of them white. All of them convinced they are 100% English. Convince them to provide a sample of their DNA. Then submit it to a series of state of the art DNA tests; and some of them will be in for a shock when they discover just how English they really are. “I was born in England. I was born English, my parents were English, my grandparents were English and their parents were English and it goes back and back, so I am English through and through,” says comedian Danny Blue. A prime-minister’s daughter, a peer of the realm, a tabloid journalist, a lawyer, a country lady, a trainee soldier, a stand-up comic and a woman who works in the fishing industry: all of them are convinced they come from solid Anglo-Saxon stock. With the help of cutting edge DNA analysis, 100% English reveals the secrets of their hidden origins which cover most of the globe. Lord Tebbit, Garry Bushell and Carol Thatcher are among the eight participants who have agreed to place their genetic make-up under the microscope. Art-critic and expert in British culture Andrew Graham-Dixon presents this enlightening exploration of what it means to be English. So confident are some of the participants of their genetic origins, they explain in great detail to Andrew what they believe makes someone truly English. For one country lady, you must be ‘flaxen-haired’ while Grimsby resident Nicola Hale says you must be able to trace your family back at least 1,000 years and pub comedian Danny Blue decrees that to claim to be truly English you can’t have black skin. Uncovering the truth of their ancestry culminates in some surprising results as DNA testing reveals some of them to have Turkish, Ukrainian, African and even Chinese origins. Genealogical traces unearth potential links for some of the participants to notorious historical figures such as Genghis Khan and ethnic groups such as the Romany gypsies. With issues of ethnic and national identity foremost in Government policy and public thinking, 100% English challenges the core beliefs of those who believe they are archetypal Englishmen and women with fascinating results”

  48. douglas clark — on 14th February, 2010 at 11:46 pm  

    MiriamBinder,

    Quite right.

    What David Jones has to say is shite, and we have shown that.

    Anyway, he just wants us to see each other as different.

    And there is no change in that.

  49. David Jones — on 15th February, 2010 at 11:17 am  

    Dalbir – you say “It is something going on full force as we speak in the countries mentioned. Are whites still not dominating most of those nations? Have the indigenous there been left to get on with it like you want whites here to be?” Unfortunately you ignore a key difference here – when whites went to a Third world country and found primitive cultures, they improved the lot of the natives eg better medicare, better education, Western improvements in agriculture etc (although we never get any thanks). In my university, I taught many black students from Africa, non of them would ever have got near a UK university had it not been for the white man coaxing them from out of the trees. Then, as the white man leaves, chaos returns (Zimbabwe etc)

  50. David Jones — on 15th February, 2010 at 11:29 am  

    Miriambinder – James Meek who wrote that piece about Sykes is an unscientific, wet liberal prat who writes for the Guardian. Him and his type are in denial. If Sykes does not believe in the concept of race then he is either too afraid to acknowledge it because of the PC crowd who will hound him out of his job OR his definition of race is not precise. Perhaps he means species not race. eg all hom saps belong to the same species (although looking at negroes I sometimes wonder if that is the case), but evolution means that populations which live in relative isolation diverge, they vary due to spontaneous DNA changes over many generations. If environments vary, why should they not vary? It happens with birds, tortoises (on islands), newts etc so why not in humans – it does, of course, and this variation produces sub species or races. How else do you explain that all of the finalists in the 100m Olympics are of black African origin? All the best runners are from the Kalungin tribe of Kenya? The best mathematicians are Chinese? Certainly not because of prejudice (or what you idiots call “racism”!)

  51. douglas clark — on 15th February, 2010 at 11:56 am  

    David Jones,

    Whatever you have to say about James Meek, he merely quotes Bryan Sykes when the latter says:

    “We are not a race at all,” he says. “We’ve been mongrels for 10,000 years and it has done us a lot of good.”

    or indeed Martin Richards:

    “To say that Europeans had seven maternal ancestors is not very meaningful,” he says. “It just depends how far you want to go back in time. The problem with Bryan’s seven is that we now know that very few of them would actually have been living in Europe – most of them probably lived in the Middle East.

    “What I think is really interesting is which of our ancestors actually migrated into Europe, and when, and how we can use that information to help archaeologists reconstruct the past. We have done quite a lot of work on that now, and we know that there were considerably more than just seven women involved.”

    You taught at a University? Bloody hell.

  52. MiriamBinder — on 15th February, 2010 at 1:30 pm  

    @ David Jones # 50 – You made a claim @ # 27 and I quote “Fact: a large majority – possibly as high as 90% – of white British people can trace their ancestry in these islands back 13000 years to the end of the last Ice Age.”

    When you were asked to verify this claim you first return with (and again I quote):
    “I’m not talking about family tree researchers but DNA profiling. eg the mitochondrial DNA passed down the female line shows all white women can trace their ancestry back to 7 women who lived in Europe between 45 and 15000 years ago (see Sykes “Seven Daughters of Eve”), and then there’s the haplotype analysis of our DNA which shows the alleles that are located closely together on the same chromosome and that tend to be inherited together, which confirm our unique origins in Europe. A different analysis is found outside Europe. That you alien people deny our claims to be indigenous will eventually turn out to be your undoing.” (post # 38).

    Disregarding for the moment that in post # 38 you are actually referring to “unique origins in Europe” rather then Britain as such, as per your original post # 27, further ignoring the fact that your post # 50 is again not proof, whether scientific or analytical, but at best, and believe me I am doing my utmost to put the best possible slant on this, circumstantial evidence; you have still failed to either justify or provide any reasoned argument for your initial claim.

    Having taught at a university neither lends more weight to your argument nor does your potted history of exploitation lend it any further credence. If anything, I would have stated that the former weakens your argument … rather considerably at that; one of the first things a university education teaches is reasoned argument and your series of posts on this thread are anything but.

    The latter places your world view too effectively in the Supremacist school of thought to lend your proffered ‘pearls of wisdom’ even the merest smidgeon of non-bias.

  53. Dalbir — on 15th February, 2010 at 1:36 pm  

    Unfortunately you ignore a key difference here – when whites went to a Third world country and found primitive cultures, they improved the lot of the natives eg better medicare, better education, Western improvements in agriculture etc (although we never get any thanks). In my university, I taught many black students from Africa, non of them would ever have got near a UK university had it not been for the white man coaxing them from out of the trees. Then, as the white man leaves, chaos returns (Zimbabwe etc)

    Sure…white people went there to improve the lot of the natives, many of whom now have serious drug and alcohol issues as well as other social ills that never existed in their communities prior to white arrival i.e. Native American Indians, Aboriginals of Australia.

    Also aren’t you aware of how uncivilised Brits reverted back to caveman status when the cosmopolitan (yes multicultural) Romans left here? Ironically I think it was called the dark ages. So that primitive/civilised narrative you are using is VERY relative to races/people at particular times in history.

    Also don’t discount the fact that frequently it is the introduction of stupid white ideas/technology that causes ‘natives’ to go at each other’s throats after the devil has left. Usually this is flogging weapons to a preferred side or drawing ill conceived boundaries that never existed before.

    Those people were better off in their ‘trees’ and your lot only went there for their own good not on some altruistic mission in any case. If you think American Indians or Aboriginal people are better off since white man turned up on their land and dispossessed them you must be an idiot of the highest order?

  54. MiriamBinder — on 15th February, 2010 at 1:59 pm  

    I will say this, if David Jones … and just in case anyone is wondering that is one heck of a humongous IF … is indeed the consequence of 13000 years of indigenous evolution Britannia had better stick her head between her knees and give her heenie the final salute because she has reached an evolutionary impasse.

  55. persephone — on 15th February, 2010 at 2:44 pm  

    David Jones sounds alot like Lee John Barnes

  56. MiriamBinder — on 15th February, 2010 at 2:55 pm  

    He certainly has a very similar style of (ahem) academic argument ;)

  57. Don — on 15th February, 2010 at 4:12 pm  

    I don’t generally agree with Dalbir, but the idea that the arrival of Europeans in a land was the start of good times doesn’t really bear examination. It generally meant extermination or servitude.

    In my university, I taught many black students from Africa, non of them would ever have got near a UK university had it not been for the white man coaxing them from out of the trees.

    That whole slavery thing was totally worth it, then. Since a few of their descendants got to be taught by a racist gobshite.

    But on the whole I find all this talk of DNA rather beside the point. Population movements are fascinating as a study, as is the diversification of our species over the millennia. But to give it weight in social or political issues is to concede that it matters. It doesn’t.

    If someone moves in next door the location of their alleles is about as important to me as their star-sign. Other factors matter far more; mainly, are they going to be good neighbours?

    In a sense, ancestry does matter, but at a purely personal level. One of my uncles spent his retirement doing a pretty good job of tracing the family tree. There is a certain frisson in stopping off at a small Scottish village knowing that my four times great grandad was the village headmaster and seeing the nice plaque the locals put up in his memory. But it has no relevance to daily reality.

    Let David Jones obsess about the DNA of the people he sees around him. I understand that this country leads the world in mixed race marriages and that David’s precious indigenous DNA is being dilluted even as I type.

    You can fret over that, celebrate it or shrug. There have always been those who worry about racial purity, and there have always been those who will choose the partner they want and damn your eyes if you don’t like it.

    Guess who’s having more fun.

  58. David Jones — on 16th February, 2010 at 10:23 am  

    Miriambinder – Yes, I know too well that “one of the first things a university education teaches is reasoned argument”, which puts the quality of much of the foul mouthed, irrational stuff from Sunny, Dabir etc on this thread in serious doubt. I have a PhD in molecular biology and genetics and I can assure you that Brits are not mongrels. To put it in terms even you might understand, if you breed two pedigree dogs, say two Labradors, together, you don’t get a mongrel. Britons and other white europeans are the original inhabitants of the European land mass, the aborigines, you cannot create mongrels from such an indigenous stock. Recently, negroes and Asians have interbred with a relatively few lemming like white Europeans, and their offspring are the real mongrels. We whites are not “pure” but what we are we have been since the start of the habitation of the UK, we have given a lot to the world because of our genius, and we would like to stay that way – if you don’t mind..so all you collective Third World riff raff please bugger off back to your respective Third World shit holes and leave us to carry on our day to day lives as we so wish. Oh, and Douglas Clarke, I still teach in a UK university and am appalled at the sheer stupidity of so many of the youg people now entering “uni” (!) and their zombie like acceptance of multiracialism and multiculturalism. They think all that Hitler did was “gas Jews” and that’s why WW2 was fought! Fortunately I am in a position to re educate them and many of my fellow lecturer colleages are now finding the resolve to come out as nationalists and correct so many young white people’s lemming like tendencies.

  59. MiriamBinder — on 16th February, 2010 at 11:18 am  

    @ David Jones # 58 – There you go again … A PhD in Molecular Biology and Genetics no less … Oh well, everything you say must be right then. Oops, sorry … nah, I remain firmly of the opinion that you have neither structured your arguments nor justified your claims in any meaningful way.

    Merely regurgitating is something even dumb oxen have down pat.

  60. Dalbir — on 16th February, 2010 at 12:55 pm  

    which puts the quality of much of the foul mouthed, irrational stuff from Sunny, Dabir etc on this thread in serious doubt

    And your ‘coaxing from the trees’ bit is the height of civility to your mind I guess? Need I remind you that according to your own preferred theories Europeans themselves are all descended from Middle Easterners.

    if you don’t mind..so all you collective Third World riff raff please bugger off back to your respective Third World shit holes and leave us to carry on our day to day lives as we so wish

    No – fuck off white man. When we see your lot clearing off from nonwhite lands you’ve snatched from others we might think about it. So until white people allow American Indians, Aboriginals, Afghanistanis etc. to go about living their daily lives as they so please in their own lands, you aren’t really in a position to talk such crap. Have just a little bit of integrity devil.

    For the rest of you white people who live in ladi dadi fantasy land, take a note of the type of people who infest your institutes. To this cunt’s credit, he at least has the courage to stick his neck out a bit. There are loads like him slithering around in your organisations. Some of you folk are probably friendly with undercover whiteists everyday but too slow to realise it. See my section on ‘Conspiring behaviour’ in the thread about the ‘Australian anti-immigration’ women for more details.

  61. Jai — on 16th February, 2010 at 1:20 pm  

    Douglas Clark,

    Re: your post #43 — Brilliant work. Well done.

    **************************

    when whites went to a Third world country….., they improved the lot of the natives eg better medicare, better education, Western improvements in agriculture etc

    Apart from the fact that Britain itself was a “Third World country” in comparison with the subcontinent when it began its trading and diplomatic activities in India (which, along with China, was jointly responsible for more than 50% of the world’s entire GDP at the time), let’s look at some actual figures:

    Contribution to global GDP:

    1600, the year of the founding of the East India Company:

    India: 22.5%. Britain: 1.8% (India was the second wealthiest region in the world, after China).

    1700:

    India: Increased to nearly 25%. Britain: 2.9% (India had overtaken China as the wealthiest region in the world).

    1820, a period of escalating aggressive British colonialism in India:

    India: 16%. Britain: 5.2%

    1870, the height of the British Raj in India:

    India: 12.2%. Britain: 9.1%

    1913:

    India: 7.6%. Britain: 8.3%

    1950:

    India: 4.2%. Britain: 6.5%

    ***************************

    Other documented facts regarding colonial rule in India:

    - Destruction of numerous political institutions, industries, trade networks, arts, and the impoverishment of previously-affluent Indian provinces.
    - Extent of railway facilities and electricity production in colonial-governed regions: Not even close to that of the United States at the time, despite the fact that the latter had a similarly large landmass and a much smaller population.
    - Deliberate, systematic deployment of destructive “divide & rule” policies, ultimately resulting in Partition.
    - Deliberate, systematic deployment of explicitly racist and Christian fundamentalist policies from the end of the 18th century onwards, coupled with concerted historical revisionism, re-editing of British historical records, and social re-engineering targeting British attitudes towards the subcontinent, its history and its inhabitants, overturning the more enlightened attitudes of most of the Victorians’ 17th & 18th century forebears and resulting in a) catastrophic consequences for Indians and settled British people alike, b) the bloodshed of 1857, the biggest and most destructive military conflict against any colonial power anywhere in the world during the entire 19th century, and c) an ongoing legacy of racism against South Asians still prevalent in Britain in 2010.
    - During the 190 years of colonial rule, starting from the Battle of Plassey in 1757 to Independence in 1947, number of famine-related deaths in British-governed Indian territories, as a result of colonial mismanagement and/or indifference: Approximately 30 million.
    – Includes approx. 10 million alone during 1769/the early 1770s in Bengal due to the results of Robert Clive’s actions and the policies of the East India Company, killing 1/3 of Bengal’s entire population – a region which had previously been one of the most prosperous in the world.
    – Number of major famines in India post-Independence in 1947: None.

  62. Shamit — on 16th February, 2010 at 1:33 pm  

    jai – hehe

    But haven’t you arituclated this many many many times before to these idiots – they just don’t get it. Well you know what mate that’s what happens when people got blinkers on and they only see their Great Leader – Griffin.

    btw, did you get my email. Hope all’s well. drop me a line when you can

  63. Jai — on 16th February, 2010 at 1:46 pm  

    Shamit,

    It’s certainly interesting to see the observable ongoing legacy of spurious Victorian racial theories coupled with the aforementioned religious fundamentalism. We’re in the 21st century, and yet the impact of all the misbegotten social re-engineering involved still remains.

    Incidentally, I see that there’s still no clarification about exactly how the BNP would reduce Britain’s non-white population from 10% to 1%, considering that they’ve allegedly abandoned their “voluntary repatriation” plans.

  64. Muslim — on 16th February, 2010 at 1:49 pm  

    Jai

    Apart from the fact that Britain itself was a “Third World country” in comparison with the subcontinent when it began its trading and diplomatic activities in India (which, along with China, was jointly responsible for more than 50% of the world’s entire GDP at the time), let’s look at some actual figures:

    Thank you for this post. It not only refutes those nostalgic for British rule in India it also refutes the extremist Hinduvata lobby who claim Muslim rule (which preceded British rule) impoverished India. When it fact it did the reverse as your figures show (giving with China India more than 50% of the worlds GDP)

    An incidentally Bengal was perhaps the richest part of India though now Bangladesh is amongst the poorest parts precisely because it was under British colonialism the longest.

  65. Dalbir — on 16th February, 2010 at 2:19 pm  

    @64

    Now we are getting the Muslim version of the white “we done your country a big favour” theory.

  66. Muslim — on 16th February, 2010 at 2:23 pm  

    Dalbir

    @64

    Now we are getting the Muslim version of the white “we done your country a big favour” theory.

    Is Jai a Muslim? It doesnt sound like a Muslim name.
    Those are the statistical facts .Im not sure how you can refute the fact that after Muslim rule India was one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Also Muslims are Indians so it isnt a case of “your country”. Britishers arent.

  67. Dalbir — on 16th February, 2010 at 2:36 pm  

    And you think the hordes under Nadir Shah and Abdali Shah did the Indian economy big favours?

    Some of us have heard of the caravans of looted items including slaves they tried to take back with them through Panjab.

    You ever notice how certain types like to justify their ‘own people’ lording it over others?

    How do you know that India wasn’t even better off prior to Muslim invasions?

  68. Jai — on 16th February, 2010 at 2:44 pm  

    it also refutes the extremist Hinduvata lobby who claim Muslim rule (which preceded British rule) impoverished India.

    Anybody who claims that is either lying or grossly misinformed.

    Im not sure how you can refute the fact that after Muslim rule India was one of the wealthiest nations on earth.

    India was already one of the wealthiest parts of the world before the rise of Muslim rule there, and had been famous as such since at least the Roman era — as one of the “top two”, it basically alternated with China since at least the 1st century — but its wealth definitely continued during the “Great Mughal” period. In fact, the latter was the basic reason that European (including British) traders originally arrived in the subcontinent in the first place.

    There was obviously subsequently some political disintegration during the course of the 18th century, but during the 1750s India was still responsible for about a quarter of the world’s entire textile production.

  69. Jai — on 16th February, 2010 at 2:48 pm  

    And you think the hordes under Nadir Shah and Abdali Shah did the Indian economy big favours?

    Agreed — they were definitely involved in their share of looting and pillaging. However, let’s bear in mind that neither of them were actually involved in ruling India. Nadir Shah in particular didn’t differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims when he ordered the slaughter of 30,000 of Delhi’s civilian inhabitants.

  70. Jai — on 16th February, 2010 at 2:55 pm  

    ….after inflicting a disastrous military defeat on the Mughal armies, subsequently invading Delhi, and, of course, ultimately carrying off the Peacock Throne to Persia.

  71. Dalbir — on 16th February, 2010 at 3:00 pm  

    The point was that Muslim intervention, in what is now known as India, in all its forms, was no ‘champagne popping’ event for the people of the subcontinent.

    Economically the region seemed to be doing just fine and this, as you alluded to earlier, was probably a key component behind the various invasions.

  72. Jai — on 16th February, 2010 at 4:36 pm  

    Dalbir,

    Well, the events which involved military attacks (as opposed to the spread of Sufism or trade) were obviously not positive developments. Such things never are, for those on the receiving end — and remember that these conflicts weren’t necessarily confined to affecting the lives of non-Muslims.

    As for whether ‘champagne popping’ is appropriate, in some cases yes, in others no, but as north Indians we know that there were plenty of positive influences in terms of arts, literature, language, philosophy, music, architecture, weaponry, international trade etc. (Some parts of south India were subject to similar cultural influences due to the Deccan Sultanates followed by the royal states of Hyderabad, Mysore etc, albeit to a lesser extent than the north). Whether someone agrees with that will obviously depend on their particular viewpoint and preferences, but let’s not forget that the Sikh Gurus themselves didn’t have a problem with a great deal of this (whilst simultaneously rejecting the influences which they did object to), and Maharajah Ranjit Singh’s own court and royal culture was a heavily hybridised affair, whilst still maintaining the essential Sikh principles of religious pluralism, tolerance and non-discrimination.

  73. Jai — on 16th February, 2010 at 4:38 pm  

    Something else to remember is the following: Colonial “divide and rule” policies were in full swing by the time that the Sikh territories were invaded and annexed during the mid-19th century, and this continued right up to Independence. The colonial authorities of the 19th century in particular had a vested interest in deliberately discrediting India’s various Muslim rulers and the associated elite, as they were replacing the latter as the subcontinent’s paramount power and they had to justify their own rule and the associated actions. For a long time, this was also strongly driven by fundamentalist Christian evangelism which arose from the end of the 18th century onwards. There are mountains of authenticated British historical records confirming all of this, including the fact that a very large proportion of their own British predecessors had had a very different attitude towards Indians in general, including Muslims.

    Although (for example) the Mughals started off as being non-Indians (and Babur’s early ambivalence towards India and its inhabitants is well-documented in his own memoirs, although his attitudes obviously changed as the years went by), they stopped being ethnically or culturally “foreigners” fairly early during the Mughal era, not least because of the influence of generations of intermarriage with Hindu Rajput royalty, coupled with generations of settled lives in India during a period when there was a huge amount of cultural and religious development & hybridisation occurring. Much later, a large proportion of Europeans living in India were heading in the same direction, which is why the East India Company began systematically implementing extremely destructive religious and racial policies, motivated by a combination of the rise of Evangelist fundamentalism, the fact that British agendas in India had simultaneously begun changing from predominantly trading operations to explicitly imperialist activities — and the fact that they’d just lost a massive chunk of territory in the form of America due to the rise of a settled “local” community there, so they didn’t want the same thing happening in the cases of Europeans living in India, many of whom were already heavily culturally assimilated & integrated. The historical origins of most of the modern-day racist attitudes in Britain towards South Asians lie directly in this period and the subsequent events – including the BNP and their ideological sympathisers, whether they are aware of it or not.

    You’ve previously made some excellent points about the divisive legacy of many of the colonial policies involved, both in terms of how various South Asian groups may view themselves and (most of all) their perspectives towards other groups from that part of the world. While this doesn’t mean that we should have a rose-tinted viewpoint of any historical period (including the era of Muslim rule in India), or that we should defend or sympathise with the Al-Muhajiroun types or their ideological historical predecessors, I think it’s important to make sure that we don’t continue to fall into the trap of those “divide & rule” policies or their modern-day counterparts in terms of attitudes towards South Asian Muslims in general, either in the present day or historically.

  74. Muslim — on 16th February, 2010 at 6:30 pm  

    And you think the hordes under Nadir Shah and Abdali Shah did the Indian economy big favours?

    Some of us have heard of the caravans of looted items including slaves they tried to take back with them through Panjab.

    You ever notice how certain types like to justify their ‘own people’ lording it over others?

    Not at all. The history of Muslim rule of India is just that -history. And I never said it was perfect or without faults. It is only because of its misuse by extreme anti-Muslim forces in India -(such as affected the genocide of the Muslims of Gujurat) to stir up extreme hatred that its even an issue now. Anyone can select single examples to prove a point.

    How do you know that India wasn’t even better off prior to Muslim invasions?

    Clearly India must have been wealthy to attract Muslim empires to it. But the point is that, as Jai showed, it was STILL extremely wealthy after Muslim rule

  75. Muslim — on 16th February, 2010 at 6:46 pm  

    Dalbir

    The point was that Muslim intervention, in what is now known as India, in all its forms, was no ‘champagne popping’ event for the people of the subcontinent.

    The millions of lower caste people rescued from the caste system may disagree with you

    “When the Muhammadan armies poured into Bengal it is hard to believe that they were not welcomed by the hewers of wood and drawers of water, and that many a despairing Chandal and Kaibartta joyfully embraced a religion that proclaimed the equality of all men, and which was the religion of the race keeping in subjection their former oppressors. Hinduism had prohibited the outcast from residing in the same village as the twice-born Brahman, had forced him to perform the most menial and repulsive occupations, and had virtually treated him as an animal undeserving of any pity; but Islam announced that the poor, as well as the rich, the slave and his master, the peasant and the prince, were of equal value in the eyes of God. Above all, the Brahman held out no hopes of a future world to the most virtuous helot, while the Mulla not only proffered assurances of felicity in this world, but of an indefeasible inheritance in the next.[27]

    James Wise, Notes on the Races, Castes and Traders of Eastern Bengal, 2 vols. (London: Harrison & Sons, 1883),

  76. Dalbir — on 16th February, 2010 at 7:53 pm  

    Anyone can select single examples to prove a point.

    Whatever, any Muslim can ‘reconstuct’ Islamic history in India to push their own agenda, just like Whiteists justify their own bullshit. Islam generally sucked for Sikhs. No highlighting Sufism (which prospered under Sikhs) and the few Mogul rulers who weren’t despots can cover that up.

    I’d rather trust my own people’s ‘on the ground’ account than the whitewashed one you provide.

  77. kev — on 19th February, 2010 at 3:07 pm  

    I’d rather trust my own people’s ‘on the ground’ account than the whitewashed one you provide
    exactly what we whiteys say!!!

  78. Dalbir — on 19th February, 2010 at 3:31 pm  

    @77

    Yes but you lot are proved incessant porky pie merchants par excellence. So your own people’s ‘on the ground’ reports were highly likely to contain whoppers galore….as per predilection of the whiteist mind….see impending WMD threat for a more recent example.

    If we believe your people’s historical shite, every fucker they encountered were a hostile threat…………especially if they had something worth taking.

  79. Jai — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:48 pm  

    Islam generally sucked for Sikhs.

    In that case, “Christianity” sucked even more for Sikhs, considering that the two Anglo-Sikh wars and the subsequent annexations occurred during a period when the British (including the East India Company) were heavily influenced by an explicitly fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity, and the members of the EIC itself believed they literally had a God-given right to subjugate and exploit India and its inhabitants, by any means necessary. It’s been 150 years and Sikhs have never regained their independence or power.

    Assuming that people are going to use generalised terms like “Islam” and “Christianity” in these discussions, of course. I think it would be inappropriate to do so, because these religions aren’t monolithic, static, homogenous blocks and neither are their respective followers.

    No highlighting Sufism (which prospered under Sikhs)

    Sufism did indeed flourish under the Sikhs, not least because of the considerable historical links (and, to some extent, theological overlap) between Indian Sufism and Sikhism; and Maharajah Ranjit Singh himself employed Muslims at the highest levels of his administration, including the military. Going much further back, Sufism was already prospering in Delhi, Punjab and Sindh in particular during the Delhi Sultanate (and in some of the regions concerned, during the period immediately preceding it), although the major Sufi figures involved obviously had a different attitude towards non-Muslims compared to some of the rulers concerned, especially the founders of those dynasties.

    Later on, Sufism continued to flourish because most of the major Mughal emperors and their immediate families were affiliated with various Sufi orders.

  80. Jai — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:49 pm  

    and the few Mogul rulers who weren’t despots can cover that up.

    The majority of the Mughal emperors were not hostile towards Sikhs. A minority, however, obviously had a very different attitude, and they had a disproportionately destructive impact in comparison with their actual numbers during the reign of the Mughal dynasty.

    It is also worth bearing in mind that Guru Gobind Singh would not have provided military support to Bahadur Shah I during the war of succession after Aurangzeb’s death if he intrinsically opposed Mughal rule in India. This was obviously not the case – and it’s connected to two basic aspects of Sikh history and theology, namely Guru Nanak’s eventual blessing of Babur on the condition that he and his successors ruled justly, and Sikhism’s fundamental principle that the content of a person’s character and their actions are what matters, not their religious affiliation (or ethnicity etc).

    This is even more ironic considering that, during the war of 1857, the Sikhs of the time took the diametrically opposite position to Guru Gobind Singh and allied themselves with the EIC against the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah ‘Zafar’ II, who was actually the most liberal, tolerant, inclusive and pluralistic member of his line since Akbar, and had been actively involved in promoting a heavily Sufi-influenced spirit of religious inclusiveness in his remaining territories; he had even actively opposed the attitudes of the more ultraconservative and bigoted members of the Muslim clergy in Delhi.

    The irony continues to mount when you bear in mind that a massive region of Sikh territory had recently been invaded and annexed by the EIC after two wars of aggression, coupled with the overthrow of Maharajah Duleep Singh; but the wreckage of the Sikh population at this time was a very far cry from the period of Maharajah Ranjit Singh’s reign, or the nobility of the Sikhs during the 18th century, and most of all compared to the glory of the Khalsa under Guru Gobind Singh. Some historians have stated outright that colonial rule in India would have been terminated if the Sikhs had joined the war against the EIC. Instead, it continued for another 90 years.

    It’s a classic example of “out of the frying pan and into the fire” and, especially, taking the principle of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” to catastrophically destructive extremes. But the concept of using Asians to subjugate and even kill other Asians by exploiting and inflaming existing fissures (whether religious, political or territorial) was nothing new to the colonial authorities; it had been going on since 1757. Remember also that the soldiers pulling the triggers in Jallianwalla Bagh, Amritsar in 1919 weren’t European (although their commander obviously was).

    It doesn’t mean we should whitewash any aspects of pre-colonial Indian history, and we definitely shouldn’t ally ourselves with the Anjem Choudary-types and their historical counterparts in some kind of misbegotten spirit of “brown solidarity, no matter how nasty our ‘allies’ are”. But simultaneously we can’t fall into the trap of calculated efforts by certain racist third-parties to separate groups, play them off against each other, demonise their targets en masse, and pick them off one by one. It’s this cynical principle of “divide and rule” which we all have to be aware of, not least because the BNP and the EDL are playing exactly the same 250-year-old game with all of us and have found their modern-day sycophants in the form of people like Rajinder Singh and Amit Singh. Time to break the cycle.

  81. Dalbir — on 23rd February, 2010 at 6:25 pm  

    Jai

    This is even more ironic considering that, during the war of 1857, the Sikhs of the time took the diametrically opposite position to Guru Gobind Singh and allied themselves with the EIC against the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah ‘Zafar’ II,

    The situation is complicated as you know. But, there was no way Sikhs were going to support the restoration of the Mughal empire, after their experiences post Jahangir. If later Moguls pursued a peaceful policy it was more likely to be due to their military impotence than anything else. You need to read the account of Rattan Singh Bhangu (which has been partially translated from Gurmukhi), written in the period immediately prior to the attack on Sikh sovereignty by the Brits. He explicitly refers to the misinformation being supplied from Mogul sources, to whiteists, about the Sikh kingdom. They [Moguls] were essentially hoping that whites would bring Lahore back under Mogul jurisdiction again, being incapable of it themselves. They were too dumb to realise that Brits were busy eying up the place for themselves (weren’t we all! lol). Don’t be naive, those later Moguls just weren’t in a position to inflict damage on Singhs by that time. An inability to attack doesn’t equate goodwill. Asides this, the heavy support received by the wasp armies from supplicant poorbias/Bengalis sepoys in attacking Sikhs, who were the ones now making noise about fighting the wasp ‘feringhees’ wouldn’t have been lost on the many Sikh veterans of Anglo-Sikh wars. It could have gone anyway Jai. Sikhs could’ve supported any side and still not have been in the wrong. I doubt many Sikhs had an idea of what was going to follow the mutiny.

    Anyway, there is another important factor you need to consider before you make quotes like above. Bahadur Shah was actually involved in, if not the actual instigator of Guru Gobind Singh’s assassination. Documentation of an award given to the family of the slain assassin from his darbar is still extant. Pretty damning. So there is another lesson we can learn post-experience. Besides, we can see what eventual conclusion Guru Gobind Singh drew on Bahadur Shah’s justice after months of liaison with the Banda Singh story.

    Look you got me all wrong, I’m saying say ‘eff you’ to all sides here. By this I mean the whiteists jerks and Islamo fascists (and any other manipulative scheming group cosying up to Sikhs). Go back to independent proSikh views instead of jumping into bed with other Tom, Dicks and Harrys. We aren’t harming anyone. We don’t want to dominate the globe. Other quoms have enough capable people looking after their own interests. Sure we should give support to the less fortunate where we can, like this:

    http://unitedsikhs.org/haitiearthquake/videos/haiti_relief.html

    But we NEED to NOT get stuck neck deep (yet again) in other people’s political/theological battles and stick to our own for a change. Don’t be pawns/sycophants for ANYONE. That IS the way we need to break the cycle.

    PS – I’m sure you’ve heard of the beheading in Pakistan.

  82. Muslim — on 23rd February, 2010 at 8:15 pm  

    Dalbir

    Whatever, any Muslim can ‘reconstuct’ Islamic history in India to push their own agenda, just like Whiteists justify their own bullshit.

    They certainly can. But Sikhs can also do the same with their history? So who do we trust?

  83. Stalin — on 23rd February, 2010 at 9:58 pm  

    Yes, come and hear windbags spout forth and tell you how to vote, to think, to feel.

    COME, listen to the righteousness of one who KNOWS he is in the right-always.

    NEVER, make your own informed choice based on your own perception.

    LET, a random internet clown do your thinking for you.

    Wait a minute, in second thought…

    No.

    Go read the British National Party website and make your own mind up. Do not listen to these anti-democracy liars and crooks with monetary/political interests in seeing the usual cabal of usual parties in.

  84. Dalbir — on 23rd February, 2010 at 10:16 pm  

    So who do we trust?

    I think a high level of scepticism all round is in order myself. You can tell who has the agenda of trying spread their shite all around. Vote for us and you will be saved they say, worship as we do and you will be saved they say. Take your vibe and shove it up your arse I say.

    Stalin, who are you talking about? Come on spit it out. Are you suggesting we go and visit the BNP site so that we may be enlightened?

  85. Jai — on 24th February, 2010 at 11:45 am  

    Go read the British National Party website and make your own mind up.

    We don’t need to do that, because we’ve got access to dozens of policy-related answers directly from the BNP’s senior leadership, in writing.

    Do not listen to these anti-democracy liars

    “Anti-democracy”, eh. If the BNP are so different, then presumably they would have no reservations in supplying full details to the public about precisely how they plan to reduce Britain’s non-white population from 10% to 1%, since they’ve allegedly abandoned their “voluntary repatriation” plans. The silence is deafening.

  86. Jai — on 24th February, 2010 at 1:20 pm  

    Dalbir,

    PS – I’m sure you’ve heard of the beheading in Pakistan.

    Yes I’m aware of the recent murder of at least one Sikh (possibly three) by the Taliban in Pakistan. Indian news channels such as NDTV have been covering it heavily.

    But, there was no way Sikhs were going to support the restoration of the Mughal empire, after their experiences post Jahangir.

    Jahangir was obviously erratic and inexplicably hostile towards Guru Arjan in particular, but it was during Aurangzeb’s reign that the problems really escalated. During the intervening period, Shahjahan had obviously had no problem with Mian Mir being the spiritual instructor of his appointed heir Prince Dara Shukoh, despite the fact that Mian Mir was so close to the Sikhs.

    You need to read the account of Rattan Singh Bhangu (which has been partially translated from Gurmukhi), written in the period immediately prior to the attack on Sikh sovereignty by the Brits. He explicitly refers to the misinformation being supplied from Mogul sources, to whiteists, about the Sikh kingdom. They [Moguls] were essentially hoping that whites would bring Lahore back under Mogul jurisdiction again, being incapable of it themselves.

    That’s an interesting assertion, considering that the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah ‘Zafar’, was one of the most non-political of his entire dynasty and actually had zero interest in ‘restoring the Mughal Empire’ beyond the boundaries of Delhi (by this time, the limits of his actual jurisdiction). The notion was essentially unilaterally imposed on him by the mutineers who turned up on his doorstep in 1857 and declared him to be their figurehead. In fact, Zafar was half-hearted about his support for the mutineers throughout those events, and was certainly not the despotic, bloodthirsty warlord that the EIC and their supporters claimed him to be during their propaganda efforts. To a great extent, Zafar’s lack of military and political acumen was why he lacked the ability to effectively defeat the EIC – something various British sources also recorded after his eventual capture and imprisonment.

    In fact, there is a huge amount of British historical material confirming that the EIC was actively involved in deliberately feeding misinformation about Zafar and the Mughal administration of the time in order to justify their own actions, both during the period leading up to the conflict of 1857 and during the violence afterwards. You recently made a very good point yourself about certain people with a certain mindset lying in order to justify aggression against alleged “threats”, especially if the latter have something they want.

    The EIC had systematically been diminishing Zafar’s authority for decades, and had actually been plotting his overthrow and the extinction of the Mughal line for a long time. On top of all that, technically the EIC were still the Mughal administration’s vassals (and had been for about a century) and there had been no formal bilateral discussions to alter this relationship, so from a legal standpoint the EIC were actually guilty of treason.

    Asides this, the heavy support received by the wasp armies from supplicant poorbias/Bengalis sepoys in attacking Sikhs, who were the ones now making noise about fighting the wasp ‘feringhees’ wouldn’t have been lost on the many Sikh veterans of Anglo-Sikh wars.

    Yes, which is why the correct course of action would actually have been for both counterparties to put aside their differences and unite against the third-party which was actively & insidiously involved in shafting both of them. The fact that various Indian populations didn’t do this (including those that really had the power to make an impact) was exactly how the subcontinent ended up being subjugated and exploited for 250 years, regardless of whether the targets actively opposed it or did their best to stay “neutral and independent”. In the end, the latter made no difference.

    Bahadur Shah was actually involved in, if not the actual instigator of Guru Gobind Singh’s assassination. Documentation of an award given to the family of the slain assassin from his darbar is still extant.

    Allegedly. Other accounts of those events – including one of the Sikh versions of the story – state that Wazir Khan of Sirhind was becoming threatened by Guru Gobind Singh’s amicable relationship with the new Emperor Bahadur Shah (especially after the Guru provided military assistance and was subsequently formally & publicly applauded by the emperor), and therefore sent assassins due to fears about Mughal punishment for his involvement in the murder of two of the Guru’s sons.

    Besides, we can see what eventual conclusion Guru Gobind Singh drew on Bahadur Shah’s justice after months of liaison with the Banda Singh story.

    By all accounts Guru Gobind Singh was indeed disappointed that, in his view, insufficient actions were taken by Bahadur Shah to deal with Wazir Khan. However, one thing he certainly did not do was tell Banda Singh Bahadur to destroy Sirhind or inflict any harm on its civilian inhabitants; Banda Singh Bahadur himself was aware that his actions completely violated the Guru’s ethical & humanitarian message, and regarded his own eventual fate as divine punishment.

  87. Jai — on 24th February, 2010 at 1:28 pm  

    (continued)

    Dalbir,

    Look you got me all wrong, I’m saying say ‘eff you’ to all sides here. By this I mean the whiteists jerks and Islamo fascists

    Fine, I have exactly the same attitude towards these two groups. However, the mass of ordinary innocent Muslims is a very different matter, especially those who are Asians. You and I both know that, in the majority of cases, the latter have absolutely nothing to do with the “Islamofascists”.

    Other quoms have enough capable people looking after their own interests…..But we NEED to NOT get stuck neck deep (yet again) in other people’s political/theological battles and stick to our own for a change.

    That’s the equivalent of non-Jews in 1930s Germany standing back and doing nothing to intervene; in fact, unfortunately that’s exactly what happened in huge numbers of cases. That kind of self-centred cowardice isn’t what the Khalsa is about. I’m sure you’re also aware of Guru Tegh Bahadur, his message, and the reasons he sacrificed his life – which he would also have done if the circumstances had been reversed and it was actually innocent Muslims suffering from religious persecution (or indeed ordinary people from any other religious background).

    I doubt many Sikhs had an idea of what was going to follow the mutiny.

    But we DO know exactly what’s going on in 2010, including what will follow if the BNP and similar far-Right groups are successful. That’s the difference. And it’s also why we have to unite with the majority of non-extremist Muslims and everyone else that the BNP are targeting –- because keeping us divided is exactly what they want, EIC-style.

    Let me draw a historical analogy to make things really clear: The group plotting our destruction is already camped on the other side of the river, they really are hostile to all of us even though they’re lying that this isn’t the case, they’ve already infiltrated the Sikh population and have acquired Trojan Horses such as Rajinder “Singh”, they’re deliberately lying about the “threat” posed by the mass of ordinary Muslims, and they’re deliberately trying to keep all Asians divided so that they can pick us off one by one (especially as they know that Sikhs are one of the strongest groups capable of taking them on).

    Think this through, because here in 2010, exactly the same group with exactly the same mindset is playing exactly the same game with exactly the same targets. They’re gunning for all of us.

    The BNP isn’t just opposed to Muslims. They’re opposed to non-white people full-stop – which includes Sikhs. Which means that — regardless of their public claims to the contrary — they’ve already declared war on the Khalsa. We’re not “neutral” even if we wanted to be.

    Anyway, remember that this isn’t a private conversation. This website is actively read by senior members of the BNP, and I’m sure you don’t want the BNP to be taking notes and exploiting anything we say for their own nefarious purposes. We’ve both made our respective points, so I think we should now draw a line under this discussion and leave it at that.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.