Is supporting ‘Anyone But England’ really inciting racial hatred?


by Sunny
19th June, 2010 at 3:49 pm    

This is ludicrous? And political correctness gone mad.

Entertainment retailer HMV will no longer stock anti-English World Cup merchandise in its Scottish stores amid fears it could incite racial hatred.

The chain reportedly made the decision following complaints to police from the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) and members of the public. A banner featuring the slogan ABE – Anyone But England – was removed from HMV in Kirkcaldy after a police visit.

What the hell? I used to be in the ‘Anyone But England’ camp years ago (firmly supporting England this time) but the idea that these t-shirts incite racial hatred is bollocks.

You know why? Because it assumes that Englishness is a racial identity. It’s certainly not. And I have half a mind to complain to the ‘Campaign for an English Parliament’ that they are inciting racial hatred by implying I cannot be English simply because I’m not white.

Update A CEP person responds by calling me a ‘British Nationalist’. Erm, what does that mean? I’m in the BNP now? The blog post says:

There was even the obligatory attempt to portray either the CEP or myself (or both) as ethnic nationalists who believe that English means white – that’s not the CEP’s opinion and nor is it mine.

Ok, so being English does not mean being white according to them. But then Stuart goes on to say:

First of all, let’s just deal with the misconception that English is not a race

WTF? English is a nationality, not a race. White Caucasian is a race. Anglo-Saxon is an ethnicity. If an identity such as being English can be multi-racial, how in the world can it be a race? These people really are confused.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Race politics






132 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Marjory Smith

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Is supporting 'Anyone But England' really inciting racial hatred? http://bit.ly/cuvkKg


  2. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: Is supporting 'Anyone But England' really inciting racial hatred? http://bit.ly/cuvkKg


  3. Tim Anselm

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: Is supporting 'Anyone But England' really inciting racial hatred? http://bit.ly/cuvkKg


  4. sunny hundal

    @DrEvanHarris Not only absurd, I think it falsely implies that being English is a race: http://bit.ly/cuvkKg


  5. Campaign for an English Parliament » Blog Archive » Some background on HMV and Anyone but England

    [...] type but plenty are congratulating us on tackling Debenhams and HMV.  There was even the obligatory attempt to portray either the CEP or myself (or both) as ethnic nationalists who believe that English means [...]


  6. What are the best books to read on social media? — Social Money Networking – Earn money fast

    [...] Pickled Politics » Is supporting ‘Anyone But England’ really inciting racial hatre… [...]


  7. Toque

    Entertaining knockabout with @sunny_hundal who accuses the CEP of ludicrous racism http://bit.ly/9tygJS >> Wrong, wrong, wrong!


  8. Hotspur

    RT @toques: Entertaining knockabout with @sunny_hundal who accuses the CEP of ludicrous racism http://bit.ly/9tygJS >> Wrong, wrong, wrong!


  9. Extra money? — Social Money Networking – Earn money fast

    [...] Pickled Politics » Is supporting ‘Anyone But England’ really inciting racial hatre… [...]




  1. Obnoxio The Clown — on 19th June, 2010 at 3:54 pm  

    I can only assume there is something I’m missing between “Because it assumes that Englishness is a racial identity” and “I have half a mind to complain to the ‘Campaign for an English Parliament’”…?

    I agree it’s not inciting racial hatred (because English is not a race), but you could make a case for it inciting bigotry, instead.

  2. Dave — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:01 pm  

    I am all for humour, and I am sure that these tee shirts were meant in no other way, also I do not expect the rest of the United Kingdom to support England I think it is arrogant of anyone to expect this.
    I agree that ABE does not incite racial hatred but there are racist elements and this is only going to add to their narrow mindedness.

  3. FlyingRodent — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:04 pm  

    Sweet Jesus, not this again. Surely the England team are terrible enough to make this kind of search for self-pitying boohoo to blub about unnecessary?

    Okay, once again. There’s about three different things going on with the Celtic fringe and the England team – a) Good-natured banter about football, b) Twats being twats about football and c) Nasty morons using football as an excuse to be nasty and moronic.

    Almost all England baiting is a), although there’s a substantial element of b), due to Britain’s burgeoning twat population. Thankfully, c) is relatively rare but unfortunately it does exist.

    It’s just a game – survey after survey finds huge numbers of Scots, for instance, want England to do well, but a lot of football fans just quite enjoy our entirely excellent sporting rivalry. Hence, Anyone But England T-shirts. It’s a bit of a laugh, and there’s no need to get all humpty about it.

  4. Wyrdtimes — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:07 pm  

    According to this lefty on the New Statesman Englishness is an Ethnic “brand”. http://tinyurl.com/2drgl6v

    I think the objection is more about the T-shirts inciting the hatred of the English – in all our multi-ethnic glory. If only the Scots hated English taxes with the same gusto.

    Good publicity for the CEP anyway. Playing nice gets you nowhere but ignored.

    Why were you as an Englishman in the ABE camp?

  5. M — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:09 pm  

    Englishness isn’t a race, fair enough, but unlike America we are still a country with a majority of ‘indigenous’ white people – be they Anglo Saxons / Celts / whatever – and you have to be sensitive to their wishes. (I’m a white person of Hungarian descent btw).

    I suspect CEP said ‘race’ for want of a better word. It’s just a slight semantic blunder. Their message is still just: English people, however you define them, could feel intimidated by the ABE campaign. I studied in Edinburgh for four years and I can honestly say I’d be concerned if I found myself in a pub with dozens of drunk Scots screaming about how much they hate England.

    Edinburgh folk are very affable and I never once had any problems with them, despite having a strong RP English accent. I’d like to keep it that way, and the ABE campaign won’t help.

  6. Sunny — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:13 pm  

    but you could make a case for it inciting bigotry, instead.

    bollocks you could. Typical humourless libertarian twats.

    Their message is still just: English people, however you define them, could feel intimidated by the ABE campaign

    Feel intimidated? Jesus. What are you? A wilted flower?

  7. Sunny — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:14 pm  

    Why were you as an Englishman in the ABE camp?

    I didn’t consider myself English then.

    According to this lefty on the New Statesman Englishness is an Ethnic “brand”. http://tinyurl.com/2drgl6v

    Obviously, I disagree

  8. M — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:19 pm  

    Do you honestly think no English person has ever been assaulted by a Scot because of their nationality? A simple review of some local Scottish newspapers will show you otherwise.

    I don’t like this suggestion that because I’m English I can’t be the victim of racism. Of course I can, just as can Pakistanis, Poles, Afghans, Americans etc. No double standards please!

  9. Don — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:19 pm  

    No different to any anti-local rival merchandise. Tiresome but hardly offensive.

    I suspect that the ABE sentiment is less about bigotry towards the English and more about the absolute certainty that if England do win (!) the Scots will be hearing about it for the next thirty years.

    Also, HMV in England are no doubt in super-patriot mode, like every other corporation trying to squeeze some cash out of this event, and their north of the border promotion might not go down too well with English customers once it was widely known. Hypocrisy, basically.

    Over the years I have spent a lot of time in Scotland and have never once experienced any anti-English sentiments, although once or twice when I was younger I did notice that friends with southern English accents seemed less welcome than I was, with my northern accent.

  10. dave — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:21 pm  

    “English is not a race” — Obnoxio

    I think you’ll find that ‘English’ is just as meaningful a use of the word ‘race’ as, say, ‘black’. Race is a nonsense concept that has no validity in this day and age. Racism is the belief that there is such a difference that can be drawn between people.

    For me the problem with ABE is the same problem with any other off-colour humour: it’s fine with your mates, but when you overhear someone, you don’t know if they’re joking or not. ‘ABE ;) ’ would be a much better slogan than just ‘ABE’.

  11. FlyingRodent — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:22 pm  

    Ho ho, if these T-shirts are racism, then crappy, ahistorical Mel Gibson films are literally genocide.

  12. Dari? — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:22 pm  

    yeah, why when muslims just love to call their opposers racists? Islam is not a racial identity either.

    and “Anyone but England” is not racism for sure but it’s nazism.

  13. Don — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:24 pm  

    and “Anyone but England” is not racism for sure but it’s nazism

    ??????????

  14. Sunny — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:24 pm  

    It’s like… you might as well have a picture of Hitler on your chest and be done with it!

  15. Dari? — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:24 pm  

    Nazism that “sunnies” always fail to notice. “english” is not “muslim”, right?

  16. FlyingRodent — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:25 pm  

    Plus, you know who else wanted Germany to beat England? Eh? EH?

  17. Rujul — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:27 pm  

    I agree that this is stretching PC nonsense.

    These T Shirts were aimed at the Scots and this ‘banter’ has been going on for as long as both countries have.

    But I can understand why some people feel intimated by it, given that sometimes the ‘banter’ gives way to violence:

    “Anti-English bigotry has fuelled the spiralling number of racist incidents which have “disgraced” the north-east.

    Despite a fall in the number of incidents across Scotland between 2007-08 and 2008-09, official figures showed that the number of physical and verbal attacks recorded by Grampian Police soared from 390 to 649…
    North-east MSP Richard Baker, Labour’s justice spokesman, said the figures were “shocking” and that action needed to be taken to tackle attitudes in the region.

    “This is a disgrace,” he added.

    “Lets be realistic about it – the racist incidents against white British people will have been against English people.

    “In the past there has perhaps been incidents where people have made light-hearted comments about English people, but quite often this is obviously going beyond that.

    “We have a huge number of people from other parts of the UK who live and work in the north-east and they are vital to our way of life and economy, particularly in the oil and gas industry.

    “The vast majority of people in the north-east are in no way racist – but there is obviously a minority who think it’s acceptable to behave in this way.”

    Grampian Police community relations officer, Sergeant John Ledingham, said: “These figures show that racism is not necessarily about colour, but can also be about nationality.”

    http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1786002?UserKey=#ixzz0r65UceFw

    But I strongly disagree with your last conclusion Sunny, being English is an ethnicity, not a nationality. There are no English passports or citizenship paper. Find out what the word English means, Sunny and where these people came from.

    You are not English, Sunny, no more then you nor or I can ever be Maori, no matter where we live or how long for.

    Are you not proud of your own ethnicity? Your own ancestry and culture? I think you must be because of this site. I know I am. I am not English, but I am now British.

  18. Dari? — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:27 pm  

    what’s the problem, Don?

    “?????” – you don’t seem well lol

  19. M — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:36 pm  

    Rujul – great source, thanks for finding that. I disagree that Sunny can’t be English, though. It’s not just about passports and Home Office technicalities… If he identifies with English culture then of course he should feel English. Just as should the non-white players in our football team.

  20. Don — on 19th June, 2010 at 4:53 pm  

    Dari,

    Perfectly well, thanks. Just stunned by your stupidity.

  21. Sarah AB — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:01 pm  

    I find the ABE business somewhat offensive.

    I don’t see why you can’t be English because your ethnicity is Asian or whatever. It’s interesting that people don’t tend to suggest that you can’t be Scottish just because you aren’t (ethnically)Scottish (unless you’re English, obviously.

    Wasn’t the match boring last night? I may not be keen on ABE but it’s hard to be enthusiastic about the team at the moment.

  22. Rujul — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:09 pm  

    M:

    You’re welcome for the source.

    But as much as I strongly disagree with this PC interference with the T shirts, I also strongly disagree with the PC concept that anyone can be anything they want to be if they just say they are or be offended if someone is blunt enough to tell them they are not.

    Tell me, if Sunny’s parents went to New Zealand and he was born there, would he be a Maori?

    Trying to be something you are not, in my humble opinion, is denying and disrespecting who you really are and will only lead to sadness and confusion.

  23. Chris E — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:11 pm  

    It’s interesting that people don’t tend to suggest that you can’t be Scottish just because you aren’t (ethnically)Scottish

    One of the things that the SNP can be applauded on is the way in which they shaped their struggle for autonomy as a national, rather than racial issue. It’s hard to think of a national leader eulogising a (non-white) member of an ethnic minority as “The most
    patriotic of Englishmen”.

    This isn’t to say that Scotland doesn’t have racism problems all of it’s own, but it’s somewhat orthogonal to the national question.

  24. Rujul — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:11 pm  

    @ M

    You’re welcome for the source.

    But as much as I strongly disagree with this PC interference with the T shirts, I also strongly disagree with the PC concept that anyone can be anything they want to be if they just say they are or be offended if someone is blunt enough to tell them they are not.

    Tell me, if Sunny’s parents went to New Zealand and he was born there, would he be a Maori?

    Trying to be something you are not, in my humble opinion, is denying and disrespecting who you really are and will only lead to sadness and confusion.

  25. Chris E — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:13 pm  

    It’s interesting that people don’t tend to suggest that you can’t be Scottish just because you aren’t (ethnically)Scottish

    One of the things that the SNP can be applauded on is the way in which they shaped their struggle for autonomy as a national, rather than racial issue. It’s hard to think of a national leader eulogising a (non-white) member of an ethnic minority as “The most
    patriotic of Englishmen”.

    This isn’t to say that Scotland doesn’t have racism problems all of it’s own.

  26. Don — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:23 pm  

    Tell me, if Sunny’s parents went to New Zealand and he was born there, would he be a Maori?

    No, he’d be a New Zealander, or Kiwi.

    My grandparents came to England from Scotland, so I guess I am not anglo-saxon. Am I not English? As it happens I tend to think of myself as British, but no-one has the right to tell me I’m not English if I choose to be.

    Boris Johnson, English or not?

  27. Teehee — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:36 pm  

    I expect the little boy who was punched in the face by a Scottish twat during the last world cup, simply for wearing an England shirt, would think so. As would the disable guy dragged out of his car and beaten up – same reason – because the Scots are renowned world wide for hating the English.

    Yes, it is. I am sick and tired of thuggish Scots bragging how they hate me and my ENGLISH children, simply because we were born in England.

    Yes, English is a race. A Scottish court made it official when condemning a Scot for beating up an English girl, just because she was English.

    The Scots need to grow up. We’ve long since been fed up with them. And seriously so.

  28. Englishlass — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:39 pm  

    I am English and proud to be so. The Scots are Irish, but are allowed to say they are Scottish. Ask the Irish if you don’t believe me. The Scots don’t exist as a race and never have.

  29. FlyingRodent — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:48 pm  

    Boo, hoo hoo.

  30. Bartholomew — on 19th June, 2010 at 5:51 pm  

    I remember this from 2006:

    Prosecutors are investigating a BBC Newsnight programme in which Scottish youths smashed up a car decorated with England flags, police said.

    Vandals were filmed attacking a vehicle bedecked with St George flags which a TV crew had left parked in the east end of Glasgow during the World Cup.

    …SNP MP Peter Wishart welcomed the report to the procurator fiscal. He said: “I trust there will be a thorough and robust investigation and all the circumstances surrounding this ridiculous prank will be examined.

    “I still believe this was a stupid stunt by the BBC and that the anger it generated was justified.”

  31. Toque — on 19th June, 2010 at 6:04 pm  

    The CEP is right and Sunny is wrong.

    Racism as it is defined by law covers nationality as well as ethnicity or skin colour. Under the Race Relations Act 1976 it is unlawful to victimise or harass someone because of their race or nationality and English is recognised for this purpose.

    I’m sure Sunny knows all this only too well, it’s just that being anti-English isn’t as bad as being anti-Pakistani in his eyes.

  32. Sunny — on 19th June, 2010 at 6:10 pm  

    Hey, coming from a country where being anti-Pakistani is a national support, I wouldn’t try that line of attack.

    These days of course, I prefer to attack governments than people as such.

    The Anyone But England is not inciting hatred because it’s not denigrating English people nor is it inciting violence against them. Anyone who thinks so needs their heads checked.

    It’s political correctness gaaaawn mad.

  33. damon — on 19th June, 2010 at 6:44 pm  

    Where is being anti-Pakistani a national sport? In England in 2010? Hardly. Of course there were always going to be difficulties for the people of Britain to get used to living with immigrants from places like Pakistan. Just like Pakistan would have trouble with dealing with mass migration from Haiti.

    There is (or has been) genuine hostility to English ”incomers” in parts of Scotland.
    I wouldn’t dismiss it too lightly.

  34. Rumbold — on 19th June, 2010 at 6:46 pm  

    Since the Scots can’t play football, this is the one joy they can get from the sport. Let them have their moment.

  35. Sunny — on 19th June, 2010 at 6:56 pm  

    Just like Pakistan would have trouble with dealing with mass migration from Haiti.

    They do have mass immigration from Afghanistan (the two are not the same) as had India from tons of countries. In fact the UK is pretty low on the list of countries getting ‘mass immigration’.

    Try living in India and then you’ll understand people can live in diverse societies without killing each other all the time. In fact they manage it relatively well despite the lack of rule of law.

  36. All We Need Is Time — on 19th June, 2010 at 6:58 pm  

    .Racism as it is defined by law covers nationality as well as ethnicity or skin colour. Under the Race Relations Act 1976 it is unlawful to victimise or harass someone because of their race or nationality and English is recognised for this purpose.

    No; that’s an example of ignorant and dishonest politicians trying to socially engineer, score moral points and spit in the face of the English language.

    English has never, isn’t, and will never be a race. Sunny is absolutely correct.

  37. M — on 19th June, 2010 at 7:11 pm  

    @Sunny – Indians manage to “live in diverse societies without killing each other all the time”? Hardly. India has more Islamist bombings than almost any other country, and on the day I visited Mumbai eight years ago 1,000 people were killed in the Gujarati riots. Not the most encouraging news to hear right after your plane lands!

    India is a terrible example of a peaceful, multicultural society. So would be Indonesia, which is perhaps Asia’s most diverse country. The simple fact is multiculturism is fraught with challenges – it’s not just us English who find it tricky.

  38. All We Need Is Time — on 19th June, 2010 at 7:11 pm  

    Yes, it is. I am sick and tired of thuggish Scots bragging how they hate me and my ENGLISH children, simply because we were born in England.

    Scottish twat

    The Scots need to grow up. We’ve long since been fed up with them

    And today’s theme of the week is…..Cognitive Dissonance

    Has there been a cancelled EDL march somewhere?

  39. Sunny — on 19th June, 2010 at 7:15 pm  

    ndia has more Islamist bombings than almost any other country,

    That doesn’t contradict my point because I wasn’t talking about terrorists coming in from Pakistan, or radicals in India itself trying to foment violence.

    There’s over a billion people there for pete’s sake. There’s bound to be some nutters – Muslim, Hindu and Sikh ones.

  40. Toque — on 19th June, 2010 at 7:20 pm  

    Hey, coming from a country where being anti-Pakistani is a national support, I wouldn’t try that line of attack.

    Sorry, who comes from a country where being anti-Pakistani is a national sport?

    The Anyone But England is not inciting hatred because it’s not denigrating English people nor is it inciting violence against them. Anyone who thinks so needs their heads checked.

    I’m not siding with the CEP on this one because I don’t care whether HMV sell Anyone But England shirts, and I agree with you that it is political correctness gone mad.

    However, you’re still wrong about racism, technically it applies to national identities as well as ‘race’. ‘Englishness’ isn’t a racial identity, but I don’t believe that the CEP claim that it is, that’s just something you made up. Anti-English racism is a serious problem in Scotland, I know that from personal experience. 10% of Edinburgh’s population is English, so the English are a similar sized minority to the Pakistani population of Birmingham, who would probably feel intimidated if HMV stores in Birmingham started selling Anyone But Pakistan t-shirts during the Cricket World Cup. I’d support the right of HMV stores to sell Anyone But Pakistan t-shirts, but I’d be shocked if they did and I’d regard anyone who wore one as a complete cunt. Ditto Anyone But England shirts.

  41. All We Need Is Time — on 19th June, 2010 at 7:44 pm  

    “English” isn’t a race, ergo, being anti-English is not racism, ispo facto.

    Race is a genetically imposed determination and identification; place of birth is not genetically imposed. Racism is a magnitude of bigotries (determining or claiming superiority) towards those with a certain race.

    I’m sorry, but this is the only acceptable definition of racism. Anti-English sentiments are/would be xenophobia, and not racism. I’m sorry to hear about the anti-English hate you’ve received in Scotland, but it isn’t racism.

  42. Toque — on 19th June, 2010 at 8:09 pm  

    You and I might not regard it as racism (I don’t) but the law does. And so the CEP is correct and Sunny is wrong.

    Pakistanis are not a race, but if I go outside and kick a Pakistani to death whilst shouting “fucking Paki”, it will be regarded as a racially motivated attack. It would be the same if an Indian did the same, despite the fact that the racial differences between the Indian and Pakistani might be non-existent.

  43. Ray — on 19th June, 2010 at 8:28 pm  

    Over the last 25 years living in Scotland as an English expat, I have gained an insight into what it must be like for members of “different” minorities. In a mixed marriage too, with Scottish inlaws greatly outnumbering my own family members.

    In the long term, the sale and banning from sale of the ABE T-shirt will not signifcantly raise the small number of attacks on “Guffies” nor will it lower the level of ignorance among the large number of Scottish families who intentionally or inadvertently pass down to various degrees this odd, one-way hatred of “they English” from parent to child. The ABE logo is interpreted by some up here as Anybody But the English. It is related to and probably co-exists with sectarian bigotry too, which is endemic in certain parts of Scotland and which England has largely outgrown.

    Think of ABX T-shirts appearing in English shops and being banned from sale during the cricket world cup. It will just serve to reinforce prejudice in the most fertile ground against whatever “different” group comes after the letters AB, especially if country X is larger, doing well in the cup and almost every other form of competition. And of course, banning its sale makes the matter worse.

    In short – Scotland is a great place to live, but there is a small, ugly and lurking problem, the Scots know there is a problem and they are working on it. The T-shirt doesn’t help.

    So I hope you can see the ABE shirt issue is a little more complicated than it looks from comfy Englandshire. As a proportion of the population, there are more people who need their heads checked in this respect up here.

  44. M — on 19th June, 2010 at 8:44 pm  

    Anyway, who cares whether it’s ‘racism’ or ‘xenophobia’? That’s just semantics. The point is it’s abusive and shouldn’t be tolerated.

    You can understand why some English people feel under threat from foreigners if you read this comment thread. We’re being told we don’t exist as a cohesive national entity… and by first-generation immigrants to boot (NB I am also a 1st gen immigrant, but a white one, so I don’t have the ‘prestige’ of being ‘other’).

    Arguing you can’t be racist against an Englishman will do nothing but bolster support for the BNP. Surely respect for your adopted country & its indigenous people will serve you better?

  45. All We Need Is Time — on 19th June, 2010 at 9:01 pm  

    You and I might not regard it as racism (I don’t) but the law does. And so the CEP is correct and Sunny is wrong.

    Again, the law is wrong, and is an example of ignorant and dishonest politicians. These are the same politicians that have tried to class a carrot as a fruit:

    COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption, for the purposes of this Directive; tomatoes, the edible parts of rhubarb stalks, carrots, sweet potatoes,cucumbers, pumpkins, melons and water-melons are determined to be fruit.

    I won’t accept the ignorance of others on the definition of race; like I said, there’s only one acceptable definition of racism, and both of us know what it is.

    Pakistanis are not a race, but if I go outside and kick a Pakistani to death whilst shouting “fucking Paki”, it will be regarded as a racially motivated attack.

    That’s assuming that the victim was a Pakistani; in many cases, the victim on the receiving end of such an abusive term often isn’t Pakistani or of Pakistani origin at all. That’s the fundamental difference which discounts that example.

    It would be the same if an Indian did the same, despite the fact that the racial differences between the Indian and Pakistani might be non-existent.

    If there’s no racial differences, yet such an assault is made, it would be most likely to be xenophobia. Then again, perhaps I’m mistaken in trying to assign some consistent rationale in bigotry and hate. I could well be running such a risk.

  46. Rujul — on 19th June, 2010 at 9:15 pm  

    @ Don

    You have already answered my question and your own.

    Not even the New Zealand born are Maori, unless of course they actually are Maori. It is so obvious I cant believe it needs saying.

    The point is that you can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn’t make it so and you shouldn’t be offended when people point out that fact; they have just as much right to point out the reality as you do to believe in the fantasy.

    You could call yourself Maasai, pygmy or whatever if you so fancied, or you could call yourself the Emperor of the universe, none of it would be rooted in fact though.

    The English are ethnicity, not a nationality and I really don’t understand why people clamber about trying to claim they are something they are not.

    Are you not proud of who you really are? Be proud of who you are. It makes people much happier.

  47. wonkotsane — on 19th June, 2010 at 10:25 pm  

    Sunny, point me to anything that I have ever written or anything that’s ever been published by the CEP that makes any link between skin colour and Englishness or withdraw the accusation that either I or the CEP are ethnic nationalists, there’s a good chap.

  48. damon — on 19th June, 2010 at 10:32 pm  

    Ray @42

    It is related to and probably co-exists with sectarian bigotry too, which is endemic in certain parts of Scotland….

    Yes, that shouldn’t be overlooked. I watched an England game in Bairds Bar in Glasgow years ago, and the anti-English vitriol spat out towards the TV was more than just a bit of harmless fun.
    http://www.bairdsbar.com/

  49. FlyingRodent — on 19th June, 2010 at 11:15 pm  

    I have to refer you guys to what I was saying earlier – for most Scots and other “Celts”, it’s all a bit of enjoyable and entertaining rivalry. For a small minority, it’s an excuse to act like a aggessive wankers. If they weren’t being aggressive wankers about this, they’d be doing it about something else.

    You have aggressive wankers in England too, I take it?

  50. Toque — on 19th June, 2010 at 11:35 pm  

    “All We Need Is Time” – you’re tying yourself up in knots.

    Your definition of racism is an irrelevance, it’s what the law says that matters.

  51. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:04 am  

    Sunny, being English is an ethnicity, not a nationality. There are no English passports or citizenship paper.

    I’m unsure what definitions of ‘ethnicity’ and ‘nationality’ you’re using, or more likely you’re just confused; as those tending to make your arguments would say the ‘unified ethnicity’ of England is what necessitates its nationhood.

    Regardless.

    Given the context its an amusingly idiotic argument. Whilst its true the constituent countries of the UK have no sovereign status (and hence no passports or ‘citizenship papers’) they are nontheless seperate countries that ‘opted’* to form a union.

    Noone but lunatic etho-nationalists, be they light skinned or dark skinned in appearance, now asserts that ‘englishness’ now comprises of anglo-saxon bloodlines and morris dancing.

    Given the article is about sport ill point out that england competes as a seperate country in various events with ethnic minority sportmen and women competing as englishmen/women without the wider english population having any objection.

    *note use of inverted commas to all concerned, i don’t want a tangential argument about the formation of the union

    Tell me, if Sunny’s parents went to New Zealand and he was born there, would he be a Maori?

    If he defined himself as Maori and was identified as Maori in whatever context or situation you care to name (for the sake of argument and to be consistent, say as a Maori sportsman); why wouldn’t he be Maori?

    Because you say so?

  52. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:19 am  

    nb yes, obviously, there can be ‘anti-english’ bigotry or violence; but given the fact that previous world cups hasn’t seen widespread violence from the scots i think its all overblown.

    I don’t support the CEP, as far as i can tell they want an english equivalent to devolution in scotland, not the actual break up of the union. So all we’ll end up with is another layer of politicians and another opportunity for the three main parties to fill their coffers with more politicians.

    Having local politics, midlevel regional politics and UK wide westminster politics – with politicans at every level – for England is an appalling idea.

    Using ABE as something to campaign against is frankly pathetic.

  53. douglas clark — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:31 am  

    OK Rumbold, I bit @ 33.

    What makes you lot think you can play the game either? This might be the only World Cup section decided purely on something else. Assuming the last two games both result in nil – nil draws, who goes through?

    On an alphabetical basis it would be England, but the USA would be gutted. they would say they were America.

    ______________________________________

    If there had been ABE T Shirts, available in 1966, I’d have certainly worn one. Now, I’m, a bit more circumspect.

    I am reminded of this true story:

    My chums father – a Scottish Second World War Veteran, sadly dead now, watched an England -v- Germany match in a bar around Glasgow. He nearly got attacked – and he was an old, very nice, guy, for being the only chap in the pub supporting England. It is not all as amusing as Flying Rodent tries to make it out.

    There is a genuine hatred of English success. I think it is referred to in brighter circles than I inhabit, as the ‘Caledonian Chip’.

    Do I have it? Yes I do.

    C’mon Slovenia.

    I think I was there, once upon a time.

    So damon is right about that.

    _____________________________

    My, very small, bet on Argentina is looking good, no? And the EDL’s bet on Scotland isn’t looking very tricky either.

  54. Sunny — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:59 am  

    The English are ethnicity, not a nationality and I really don’t understand why people clamber about trying to claim they are something they are not.

    Anglo-Saxon is an ethnicity, just as Slavic as an ethnicity and being South Asian is an ethnicity.

    Being Indian, English, Scottish, Welsh, American are not racial identities, they are national identities that are multi-racial. There are white Indians, as there are Jews of Iraqi origin who are Indian.

    There are Scottish Asians as there are Welsh Asians. Neither Scottish nor being Welsh are ethnic/racial identities.

    I can’t put it any more simpler than that.

    Are you not proud of who you really are? Be proud of who you are. It makes people much happier.

    I’m proud of being a British citizen and being English of Indian origin :)

  55. douglas clark — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:00 am  

    Anyway, it makes my prediction that Amy Williams will be Sportsview Personality of the Year, or whatever they call it.

    She is my heroine.

    I thought some idiotic footballer could do her down, but not now. Unless Andrew (Mr Personality) Murray actually wins Wimbledon, then I think she has a free run.

    ‘Go, go Amy Williams!’ as we would have chanted if we had been there.

    So there’d a bet for all of you, has an Olymic Medalist fallen behind a failing World Cup Team?

    Only winning in SA will get votes, and that’s not about to happen, so for the golden girl – err, well not exactly, more frizzy (but I don’t see it!) – to win and win good!

    This has been brought to you by:

    ‘Some Scots can see bottle in Englishwomen, when they see it. Right in front of their faces, on the TV screen.’

    Sponsored, perhaps, by Barr’s Irn-Bru:

    ‘Y’make your women out of girders’

  56. David — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:01 am  

    Sunny writes: “I have half a mind to complain to the ‘Campaign for an English Parliament’ that they are inciting racial hatred by implying I cannot be English simply because I’m not white”.

    It is you who are potentially being racist, Sunny, because you are assuming that the ‘English’ whom the CEP are defending from a possible instance of racial hatred as defined in, err, ‘English law’ are only the ‘white English’. But that’s entirely your assumption, and it is only you who are making any distinction between white and non-white English persons.

    And is that the Campaign for an English Parliament (a real political campaign that has existed for over ten years) or the ‘Campaign for an English Parliament’: something you feel you have to put in inverted commas because you regard it as invalid, because ‘English’ itself, for you, can have only a racial meaning not that of a self-defining national community that is inclusive of whites and non-whites. Those inverted commas, for me, are a fitting metaphor for your inverted racism: accusing an organisation that seeks political representation for the English of every race of being racist only because you yourself make an arbitrary assumption that that organisation’s concept of the English is racial: and that’s because it’s your concept of the English that is racial.

    Why did you once belong to the ‘anyone but England’ camp and now support England? Is that just a politically expedient statement on your part, Sunny, to support the assertion of your own ‘right’ to be English, whether or not you truly identify as such – and given your racial concept of ‘English’, your English identification has to be questionable at a subjective level.

    At an objective, civic level, I’d defend to the death your right to consider yourself, and be considered by others, as English. But do you really think of yourself as such; or is your Englishness really just a subset of Britishness – just as your post is tagged ‘British identity’. Why not have an ‘English identity’ category?

    Let me ask you a ‘football test’, as opposed to the Norman Tebbit ‘cricket test’, question: would you be happier supporting a ‘British’ football team, if one existed, more than the English football team we have now? If the answer is yes, is that because ‘British’ is supposedly a more racially inclusive term while ‘English’ is more mono-racial? But if that’s your view – and I’d ask you seriously to answer the question – then that’s purely your racial association to ‘English’, not the CEP’s.

  57. Toque — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:18 am  

    Anglo-Saxon is an ethnicity, just as Slavic as an ethnicity and being South Asian is an ethnicity.

    English is an ethnic identity. I’m ethnically English and so is my wife. However, English is a national identity too; I’m English by nationality, my wife – although ethnically English – is Canadian by national identity.

    Whatever you are Sunny is a matter for you. You may feel that your national identity is British rather than English, but I think you’d feel a lot more English and less British if you went to live in Scotland.

    My best mate in Scotland when I lived there was an Englishman of Sri Lankan extraction. He liked living in Scotland because he got abuse for being English rather then being Asian.

    “I have half a mind to complain to the ‘Campaign for an English Parliament’ that they are inciting racial hatred by implying I cannot be English simply because I’m not white”.

    You certainly have half a mind if you think the CEP is saying that you cannot be English. Nothing could be further from the truth – the CEP are civic nationalists.

  58. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:21 am  

    @ Kulvinder

    I am not confused at all. I know who I am.

    And by that I mean who I really am, where my ancestry lies. Not what I may fictitiously purport it to be.

    Sunny or anyone else who is not a Maori could claim to be a Maori all day long but the truth would be that they are not Maori and never will be. It is not ‘if I say so’ it is reality!

    The Maori are a distinct ethnic group!

    This is PC insanity at it worst!!

    You can claim to be whatever you want, just don’t think you are justified in being offended when people interrupt your flight of fantasy and tell you that you are wrong.

    You could have a mono-lingual Chinaman who claims to have such an affinity with the English language he defines himself as an English speaker.

    He still wouldn’t be though.

    @ Sunny

    I couldn’t have put it any simpler myself.

    And my question to you is the same as before and very simple: If you parents had moved to New Zealand would you have been a Maori? Or if they had moved instead to Australia would you have been an Aborigine?

    Being English is not a national identity, there is no English citizenship. The English are a people. As the very name itself describes.

    To say you are an Englishman is nonsense. You are a British Indian living in England. Be proud of that.

    I have no superiority complex or supremacist intent when I say I think that is better anyway, I say it only because I am proud of my heritage and I think that being part of both is wonderful.

    But just lifted from Wikipedia Sunny, without any PC mishmash, here are who the English people are, and there are simiar ones for the Welsh and Scottish peoples too:

    “The English (from Old English: Englisc) are people from, or descended from residents of, England.

    The English identity as a people is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Anglecynn

    Historically, the English population are descended from several genetically similar peoples—the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland), and the later Norse and Danish Vikings and Normans…

    The conventional view of English origins is that the English are primarily descended from the Anglo-Saxons, Germanic tribes that migrated to Great Britain following the end of the Roman occupation of Britain, with assimilation of later migrants such as the Vikings and Normans.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

  59. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:23 am  

    @ Kulvinder

    I am not confused at all. I know who I am.

    And by that I mean who I really am, where my ancestry lies. Not what I may fictitiously purport it to be.

    Sunny or anyone else who is not a Maori could claim to be a Maori all day long but the truth would be that they are not Maori and never will be. It is not ‘if I say so’ it is reality!

    The Maori are a distinct ethnic group!

    This is PC insanity at it worst!!

    You can claim to be whatever you want, just don’t think you are justified in being offended when people interrupt your flight of fantasy and tell you that you are wrong.

    You could have a mono-lingual Chinaman who claims to have such an affinity with the English language he defines himself as an English speaker.

    He still wouldn’t be though.

    @ Sunny

    I couldn’t have put it any simpler myself.

    And my question to you is the same as before and very simple: If you parents had moved to New Zealand would you have been a Maori? Or if they had moved instead to Australia would you have been an Aborigine?

    Being English is not a national identity, there is no English citizenship. The English are a people. As the very name itself describes.

    To say you are an Englishman is nonsense. You are a British Indian living in England. Be proud of that.

    I have no superiority complex or supremacist intent when I say I think that is better anyway, I say it only because I am proud of my heritage and I think that being part of both is wonderful.

    But just lifted from Wikipedia Sunny, without any PC mishmash, here are who the English people are:

    “The English (from Old English: Englisc) are people from, or descended from residents of, England.

    The English identity as a people is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Anglecynn

    Historically, the English population are descended from several genetically similar peoples—the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland), and the later Norse and Danish Vikings and Normans…

    The conventional view of English origins is that the English are primarily descended from the Anglo-Saxons, Germanic tribes that migrated to Great Britain following the end of the Roman occupation of Britain, with assimilation of later migrants such as the Vikings and Normans.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

  60. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:25 am  

    - @ Kulvinder:

    I am not confused at all. I know who I am.

    And by that I mean who I really am, where my ancestry lies. Not what I may fictitiously purport it to be.

    Sunny or anyone else who is not a Maori could claim to be a Maori all day long but the truth would be that they are not Maori and never will be. It is not ‘if I say so’ it is reality!

    The Maori are a distinct ethnic group!

    This is PC insanity at it worst!!

    You can claim to be whatever you want, just don’t think you are justified in being offended when people interrupt your flight of fantasy and tell you that you are wrong.

    You could have a mono-lingual Chinaman who claims to have such an affinity with the English language he defines himself as an English speaker.

    He still wouldn’t be though.

  61. Sunny — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:31 am  

    It is you who are potentially being racist, Sunny, because you are assuming that the ‘English’ whom the CEP are defending from a possible instance of racial hatred as defined in, err, ‘English law’ are only the ‘white English’

    This is turning into a parody.

    English is an ethnic identity. I’m ethnically English and so is my wife.

    If it is an ethnic identity, then by definition other people cannot just adopt it. Because it is inherent to your genes.

    Which is why I’m saying this is a ludicrously racist attempt to make being English into a whites only label.

    Bollocks to that.

    You may feel that your national identity is British rather than English

    But if you think its an ethnic identity, then are you assuming that anyone can just adopt that ethnic origin?

    In which case you really are confused.

  62. douglas clark — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:32 am  

    Sunny @ 53,

    Sorry for getting more serious – whilst I shall certainly be voting for Amy Williams, just because she is the bravest women I have ever seen – I really can’t be done with the idea that:

    Neither Scottish nor being Welsh are ethnic/racial identities.

    Yes, they are. I would argue that they are both, and that Asians that have encountered them have had less difficulties in being accepted than they have in the counter dominant English society.

    ________________________________________

    You really ought to learn a bit about the differences in what you sometimes assume is a polyglot, white, UK culture.

    The last election should have told you a lot. The Labour Party increased it’s vote in Scotland, not because it had done anything good over it’s presidency, but because of fear of the Tories.

    Quite the opposite perspective.

    If you really want to know how seperate nations think, you should read Joan McAlpine http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/,

    Slugger O’Tool http://sluggerotoole.com/

    And for the best Welsh blog I have taken the consensus:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/betsanpowys/

    I think you are talking from some sort of, let me guess, Westminster Bubble. And, no, it is not perfect, if that is to be your comeback.

    You have some major misunderstandings about just how ‘ethnic’ and ‘racial’ this country has always been. I put these comments in inverted commas, because you did not.

  63. Donnacha DeLong — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:36 am  

    Hmmm, gotta disagree with you here Sunny – imagine if Ireland had gotten through and there were “Anyone but Ireland” t-shirts being sported by Rangers fans. Racism? According to the courts, very likely -last year they ruled an anti-Irish song sung by Rangers fans to be racist – http://sport.stv.tv/football/103590-court-rules-famine-song-is-racist/ . This doesn’t make the Irish a “race”, but the Irish are now defined as a “racial group”

    The law basically needs to be reworded, race is not a useful or meaningful concept. Instead, the law should simply move towards a concept of a simple identity-based motivation in crimes against individuals (ie. recognising that people have been attacked simply because of what they are – whatever that is). The Sophie Lancaster Foundation is campaigning for that kind of change – http://www.sophielancasterfoundation.com/ (Sophie Lancaster was kicked to death in 2007 because she was a Goth).

  64. David — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:55 am  

    Sunny (comment No. 57) writes: “This is turning into a parody.”

    Is that your answer to my challenge to you to say whether you identify primarily as British or English; and, if the former, whether you view ‘English’ as inherently a white-racial term, and therefore yourself as not included in a defence of the English from racial hatred as defined in law?

    Mockery is no substitute for argument. “This is a ludicrously racist attempt to make being English into a whites only label”: so how do you define it, since that’s not how the CEP does?

  65. douglas clark — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:56 am  

    Sunny,

    You say:

    White Caucasian is a race. Anglo-Saxon is an ethnicity.

    Are you assuming that everyone in this country that is white is Anglo-Saxon?

    It is you that is confused….

    And, anyway, I totally reject the whole idea, as I think you would yourself, that race or ethnicity determines who you are. It is all smoke and mirrors Sunny.

    The difference might be down to the poets you read, no more, no less…..

  66. Shamit — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:58 am  

    Wow – I am just surprised at the massive response on this thread.

    We are still rubbish in the World Cup – and that is sad for a country that has the best football league in the world.

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

  67. Toque — on 20th June, 2010 at 2:03 am  

    If it is an ethnic identity, then by definition other people cannot just adopt it. Because it is inherent to your genes.

    That depends on how you define ethnicity Sunny. But if you take it to be a purely racial thing then you would be correct that it cannot be assumed.

    Which is why I’m saying this is a ludicrously racist attempt to make being English into a whites only label.

    You’re not making any sense I’m afraid. Engage brain mate. I regard you as English. You may not be ethnically English but you are an Englishman – England is more (in case you hadn’t noticed) than just the ethnically English. There are ethnically English people living all over the globe who are not English by nationality, they might regard themselves as Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders. And there are people who are not ethnically English who live in England and regard themselves as English by national identity. What I’m trying to show you here is the fact that ethnic identity and national identity are two different (albeit often strongly related) things.

    But if you think its an ethnic identity, then are you assuming that anyone can just adopt that ethnic origin?

    I have a degree in genetics. I don’t believe in the concept of race, and I believe that ethnicity is more memetic than genetic. I seriously doubt that people ever adopt an ethnicty (who would want to, really?) but I do think they become assimilated into it over generations.

    In which case you really are confused.

    I don’t think so, I think you’re guilty of a knee-jerk reaction to what the CEP have done and are now trying to falsely and unfairly make them out to be racist.

  68. David — on 20th June, 2010 at 2:05 am  

    Sunny (comment No. 57) writes: “But if you think its an ethnic identity, then are you assuming that anyone can just adopt that ethnic origin?

    In which case you really are confused.”

    It’s you who are confused, Sunny: English is both (a subjective term for) an ethnic identity and a (subjective) national identity. Toque would argue it’s also an objective nationality, and I (speaking subjectively) would agree with him. But ‘English’ isn’t a nationality as defined in law; only ‘British’ is (as in we are officially British nationals, not English, Scottish, etc. nationals).

    So, of course, anyone can be both ethnically ‘non-English’ and nationally ‘English’, at a subjective, self-defining level, which is, incidentally, that used for the Census for England and Wales: both ‘ethnic group’ and ‘national identity’ are defined as subjective terms.

    My question to you, Sunny, is what do you define yourself as subjectively in relation to ethnicity and national identity: ‘Asian’ and ‘British’, respectively? You know, you can be ‘Asian’ racially (whatever that might mean) and still be English, both ethnically and nationally, as self-defining terms. ‘Ethnicity’ is not the same as genes: it’s to do with culture and family background (and family background meaning nurture as much as nature).

    So come on, can you be both Asian and English, ethnically, Sunny; and, if not, why not?

  69. douglas clark — on 20th June, 2010 at 2:11 am  

    Oh, Shamit, agueably. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t At the moment it is a financial boom town.

    What usually happens after that?

    You and I will go on supporting whatever is left. That is what true fans do….

  70. douglas clark — on 20th June, 2010 at 2:21 am  

    David @ 64,

    Can anyone called David be anything other than Welsh! How dare they assume to talk for the English.

    My question for you David is this. How do you know you are English? I’d assume you don’t, unless you are one of these wanky families that follows their family tree back to 1066 and all that. So, you were Norman invaders were you, for the defenders probably didn’t have ancestors on account of them being dead.

    It is all shite David, and getting worked up about it is riduculous.

  71. David — on 20th June, 2010 at 2:48 am  

    Douglas (66) writes: “Can anyone called David be anything other than Welsh! How dare they assume to talk for the English.

    My question for you David is this. How do you know you are English?”

    Fair enough that someone should turn my question to Sunny round on myself! Actually, I am called David because my mother is Welsh. So I don’t define myself as English in a racial sense – with ‘racial’ being defined in relation to ‘kin’ or genetic descent. However, I would define myself as ‘ethnically English’ in the sense that ethnicity relates to culture as well as (more than) ‘race’, however defined.

    National / ethnic identity – or identity as (subjectively) defined in relation to designations of nationality – can be seen as an expression of the interplay / interdependence of a number of different layers of identity and being: kin, tribe, culture, ‘race’, nation, citizenship. Personally, I would situate my Englishness as more closely approximate to tribe and culture, and I’d like it also to be recognised as a national and a civic identity. As far as I can see, Sunny is trying to box Englishness into purely the level of kin / tribe / race – the better to deny a civic and political English identity, which is what the CEP stands up for.

    But you’re right: it’s all ‘shite’, i.e. subjective. But a ‘subjective’ identity as English has just as much right to be protected in law as an ‘Asian’, Pakistani or Muslim identity. Unless Sunny wants to argue that, because ‘English’ is not an objective term (‘unlike’ Muslim or Asian?), therefore there can be no such thing as anti-English racism. Which is perhaps one of the subtlest forms of racism: denying that an ethnic identity – in this case, Englishness – even exists.

  72. Sarah — on 20th June, 2010 at 8:47 am  

    It seems the ‘Liberals’ are back on their usual trick of any culture’s great so long as it’s not English who are to be portrayed as uniquely racist and unreasonable for supporting their country and culture and standing up for themselves. It seems to be the latest trick of the denigration of the English by such people to make out by objecting to anti-English behaviour the English are, surprise, surprise ‘being racist’. We can’t we just shut up and accept any crap thrown at us. Loving your country and objecting to bigotry against you is only acceptable for others.

    This article is an attempt to use semantics to batter people for standing up for themselves while of course conveniently ignoring the original prejudice against them. I seriously doubt if you substitued Irish, French, Catalonian or any other group that was historically white but now has a more multi-racial flavour for English the author would be quite so quick to spend an article trying to dismiss their actual complaints with definitions of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ and then to claim they were racists who thought group X was white only for making them. That is usually a privilege reserved for the English.

    If you think the complaints of anti-Englishness are over the top, fine. But spare me attempts to ‘define’ them out of existence unless you’re going to apply your ‘definition’ to any and all instances. In which case I doubt there’d be much ‘racism’ at all. And spare me the attempts to ‘define’, the people who make them as themselves racist by accusing them of attitudes they explicitly deny having by manipulating statements and the context they’re made within.

  73. Sarah AB — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:07 am  

    A couple of further thoughts. I’m not sure labels based on race/ethnicity stand up to much scrutiny but they are convenient and we kind of know what they mean.

    I instinctively felt that, yes, it would be odd to think of yourself as Maori if your parents came from the UK or wherever. I think there are two reasons why I see ‘Maori’ as a slightly different category from ‘English’. One is because I am assuming (sorry if I’m wrong) that the Maoris lived more or less in isolation for generations whereas England has seen waves of different immigrants, mostly white until recently of course. The other is because Maori is used as a way of defining one subset of New Zealanders whose differences from the rest of the population concern culture, language and ethnicity rather than geography. But England is a country with defined borders.

    Rujul and others – Is there any other country represented by a sporting teams, like England, which you couldn’t join? (I mean join culturally, tribally as well as just politically, legally.) You mentioned Maasai and pygmies as well as Maoris – but these are all rather different categories, and are not represented by sporting teams. Obviously some countries are more difficult to become citizens of than others – but if you qualify to play football for France, Spain, Switzerland – do you think you are French, Spanish, Swiss even if you happen to be black or Asian – or not?

  74. boyo — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:17 am  

    HOOO HOOO HOOO…. isn’t this a question of being hoisted on your own petard? I agree English is not a racial identity, but the “racist” jibe is completely consistent with the orthodoxy, ie Islam is a race.

    And people are regularly subject to violence and abuse in Scotland for being or “sounding” English…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5512401.ece

    I’d love to hear your definition of race, I really would.

    The trouble is there is no one size fits all – Muslims, Jews, West Indians and English people have all been attacked (and as you’ll know, non-Muslims have been attacked by Muslims, West Indians have fought Muslims etc). The commonality is not who they are but who does the attacking – morons.

    Morons hate difference and use it as an excuse to project their own failings. It has always been thus with bullies. It is about power, not colour.

    Your problem is the term “racism” is mutually exclusive – it denotes “race”. I understand why you apply racism to attacks on Muslim people – because traditionally non-whites have been attacked and you claim Islam is the excuse, but you have developed a logical fallacy whereby criticism of Islam is defined as racism.

    The English are in the minority in Scotland and frequently suffer abuse. By a power-based definition this could equal racism (although it is not about race but national identity), however to be a Scot and criticise the way the English treat the Scottish (too bloody well IMHO) although wrong would not be racist. And therein lays your dilemma.

  75. Rumbold — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:34 am  

    Douglas:

    Oh, I want the English football team to lose too. But at least they get there.

  76. halima — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:49 am  

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/paul-kingsnorth-1/2009/05/07/response-to-a-jigsaw-state-breaking-up-britain

    You might want to check this link to Paul Kingsnorth’s article on ‘Englishness as a cultural identity’ a response to Mark Perryman’s call in Breaking up Britain for a progressive English identity.

    I’ve also included the link to Mark Perryman’s book

    http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/books/archive/breakingupbritain.html

  77. Dari? — on 20th June, 2010 at 10:18 am  

    |||Dari,

    Perfectly well, thanks. Just stunned by your stupidity.|||

    how rude … but now you understand how shocked people are everytime muslims (nutty bloggers as well) call people racists just because they don’t admire islam

  78. Dari? — on 20th June, 2010 at 10:38 am  

    |||The Anyone But England is not inciting hatred because it’s not denigrating English people nor is it inciting violence against them. Anyone who thinks so needs their heads checked.

    It’s political correctness gaaaawn mad.|||

    only now?

    haha, Toque is perfectly right)))

    Sunny, seriously, what about “Anyone but India or Pakistan”?

    let’s imagine that I am about to start such kind of event – and I don’t think that such titles incites anything negative. I don’t want to degrade people – I just want to give the event that very title
    so other people shouldn’t misapprehend this.

    by the way, do you check your head regularly, Sunny? if not, why?

  79. boyo — on 20th June, 2010 at 11:02 am  

    I think Rajul makes an interesting point @ 58 and @ 61 there appears a sensible solution.

    Quibbling over what is, or is not, a race is at the end of the day, well, racist.

    Sunny is essentially “racist” because he has traditionally framed his arguments within this context (and because this has been the language of left-orthodoxy, regardless of its inherent contradictions).

    A simple solution would be to move away from race altogether – which is actually a dreadful hangover from the Holocaust – and understand human behaviour as it really is: all about power, as Nietzsche (himself dreadfully misrepresented) could have told us all along.

  80. boyo — on 20th June, 2010 at 11:05 am  

    Hey, and maybe then we could even start talking about class again and take notice of what’s really going on beneath our noses – the massive retrenchment of power on behalf of the propertied classes about to be unleashed by G. Osbourne.

  81. Jai — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:28 pm  

    A simple solution would be to move away from race altogether – which is actually a dreadful hangover from the Holocaust

    It goes back considerably further than that; it’s a direct hangover from various pseudo-scientific racial theories which arose in Europe during the 19th century, including concepts which were fabricated and exploited by those involved in the escalating colonial aggression during the Victorian era in order to justify their actions.

    More locally, Jews were also targetted by these spurious racial ideas, in this case heavily originating in the actions of the following individual who was born in the mid 19th century and obviously eventually resulting in the Holocaust : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain

  82. Jai — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:31 pm  

    A simple solution would be to move away from race altogether – which is actually a dreadful hangover from the Holocaust

    It goes back considerably further than that; it’s a direct hangover from various pseudo-scientific racial theories which arose in Europe during the 19th century, including concepts which were fabricated and exploited by those involved in the escalating colonial aggression during the Victorian era in order to justify their actions.

    More locally, Jews were also targetted by these spurious racial ideas, in this case heavily originating in the actions of the following individual who was born in the mid-19th century and obviously eventually resulting in the Holocaust : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain

  83. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:44 pm  

    Sarah AB,

    It wouldn’t be just be odd to ‘define’ yourself as Maori if your parents came from the UK, it would totally wrong and based upon nothing in reality!!

    What a crazy phase we are going through on this planet. Really!! Some people have been convinced all they have to do is make a wish to be something and they are!! And if anyone points out the reality they are bad people out to offend!! It all smacks of Marxist dialectics to me, designed to undermine the truth of identities.

    Sarah you really do fail to grasp that to be a Maori you must be of that ethnicity, that is why the word exists, if you start claiming you can ‘self-define’ as a Maori then that is to say that the Maori never existed as a distinct group in the first place and that it is superfluous to even use the word.

    The analogy you use about sporting teams is just plain odd. Sport is purely an abstract recreational activity and it has no relation to ethnicity.

    But please don’t make things up and say that I have claimed some people couldn’t join an England team or anywhere else. I didn’t say that but joining a sports team means nothing in actuality. After all, most of Liverpool’s players are not even from the UK let alone Liverpool.

    People can ‘self-define’ all they want, the old truths still apply: You are who you are.

  84. Jai — on 20th June, 2010 at 12:52 pm  

    A simple solution would be to move away from race altogether – which is actually a dreadful hangover from the Holocaust

    It goes back considerably further than that; it’s a direct hangover from various pseudo-scientific racial theories which arose in Europe during the 19th century, including concepts which were fabricated and exploited by those involved in the escalating colonial aggression during the Victorian era in order to justify their actions.

    However, more locally, Jews were also targetted by these spurious racial ideas, in this case heavily originating in the writings of Houston Stewart Chamberlain (who was born in England the mid-19th century) and obviously playing a role in the eventual Holocaust when his ideas were embraced by the Nazis. Check his Wikipedia profile for more details.

  85. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:07 pm  

    And one more point Sarah: England has not seen ‘waves of immigration’ at all, that is another ahistorical piece of tat bandied around these days. We never heard of such nonsense when I first came here because it wasn’t true then either.

    Before 1948 and the waves from my peoples and many others, there was very little immigration in the UK.

    The much touted Huguenot migration into the UK was only around 50,000 strong, of which 10,000 went on to Ireland and an estimated 30,000 later went onto the New World pilgrimage.

    Hardly ‘waves’ Sarah. Who were you thinking of?

  86. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:10 pm  

    And one more point Sarah: It is not really true to say England has seen ‘waves of immigration’ throughout its history, that is another ahistorical piece of tat bandied around these days. We never heard of such nonsense when I first came here because it wasn’t true then either.

    Before 1948 and the waves from my peoples and many others, there was very little immigration in the UK.

    The much touted Huguenot migration into the UK was only around 50,000 strong, of which 10,000 went on to Ireland and an estimated 30,000 later went onto the New World pilgrimage.

    Hardly ‘waves’ Sarah. Who were you thinking of?

  87. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:23 pm  

    You can claim to be whatever you want, just don’t think you are justified in being offended when people interrupt your flight of fantasy and tell you that you are wrong.

    Well quite. Obviously it isn’t worth pointing out the only ones ‘interrupting my flight of fantasy’ are the lunatics, of whatever skintone, who believe in ancestral bloodlines.

    if you start claiming you can ‘self-define’ as a Maori then that is to say that the Maori never existed as a distinct group in the first place and that it is superfluous to even use the word.

    Erm no. Going by Wittgenstein words are usage. The connotations of ‘Maori’ has obviously changed and evolved over time; from the past before European colonisation to the present – that process isn’t unique and has occurred in every society that has any contact with other groupings of individuals.

    Maoris ‘exist’ and the word maori simply evolves to describe whomever they happen to be at any moment in time. Individuals like Keisha Castle-Hughes or Winston Peters have parents whose ‘ancestry’ come from two distinctly different places; however they still self-identify as Maori, and i assume you wouldn’t object to them doing so. Particularly as noone else seems to have a problem with it.

    For the sake of argument someone like them could go on to have a child with say an American immigrant, but still raise their child within or alongside Maori culture. That child could then grow up self identifying as Maori despite not passing whatever ‘bloodline test’ you’d advocate.

    No free society exists for any great length of time by defining itself exclusively on hereditary terms.

  88. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:40 pm  

    if you start claiming you can ‘self-define’ as a Maori then that is to say that the Maori never existed as a distinct group in the first place and that it is superfluous to even use the word.

    Erm no. Going by Wittgenstein words are usage. The connotations of ‘Maori’ has obviously changed and evolved over time; from the past before European colonisation to the present – that process isn’t unique and has occurred in every society that has any contact with other groupings of individuals.

    Maoris ‘exist’ and the word maori simply evolves to describe whomever they happen to be at any moment in time. Individuals like Keisha Castle-Hughes or Winston Peters have parents whose ‘ancestry’ come from two distinctly different places; however they still self-identify as Maori, and i assume you wouldn’t object to them doing so. Particularly as noone else seems to have a problem with it.

    For the sake of argument someone like them could go on to have a child with say an American immigrant, but still raise their child within or alongside Maori culture. That child could then grow up self identifying as Maori despite not passing whatever ‘bloodline test’ you’d advocate.

    No free society exists for any great length of time by defining itself exclusively on hereditary terms.

  89. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:43 pm  

    Sunny can you unspam me please (1.23 post)

  90. Jamie McCaffery — on 20th June, 2010 at 1:56 pm  

    I would also like to point out the CEP are not racist, I am a Civic English Nationalist, my mother is from England, last name traceable back to when surnames were introduced for tax reasons in the 14th century. Also comes from an old Saxon word. Obviously my last name is from Ireland. My father was born in Scotland to Irish parents. I was born in England , I am English and no one will tell me otherwise, be them ethnic nationalists or british.
    Historically this country, even by the wiki definition, is full of many assimilated tribes and people from different countries that has become one nationality, genetics will not prove England is a race to much mixing over 2000 years to define a genetic make up. History is fact not fiction. No one can claim to be Anglo Saxon origin, as that was made up of many different peoples.
    The CEP is a political pressure group that is looking to help all the English people, no matter where you think your ancestors are from.
    As for the race, England is a nation race made up of many sub cultures and races from many parts of the world. All in all be proud of your roots and heritage , but remember we all share the same culture, many of us heritage, and should all be proud to call your self English, just like the multi race based Scots and Welsh do.

  91. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 2:33 pm  

    The much touted Huguenot migration into the UK was only around 50,000 strong

    Try working that ‘only’ in terms of percentage of the English population at the time, let alone London’s. Pre-union count the migration of irish and scots to england as well as the normans post 1066.

  92. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 2:38 pm  

    @ Kulvinder

    No one seems to be able to give a straight answer to my simple question and the reason for that seems obvious.

    What I am getting is lots of semantic contortions instead of everyday straight talking.

    The Maoris, like all groups, have changed somewhat but that change has taken place over millennia and the seed of the Maori people is the same.

    Referring back to my question, what the Maoris are not is anyone and everyone who chooses to say that they are Maori irregardless of ethnicity. That is just folly. So if Sunny’s parents moved to New Zealand it would be silly and entirely wrong for him to believe he was a Maori in actuality. It simply wouldn’t be true.

    So we are back to this ‘self-identify’ thing. It means nothing. You are either are or you are not. You may feel an affinity, but that is not the same as being.

    No, I don’t have a ‘problem’ with Castle-Hughes or Peters, why should I? It doesn’t mean anything. They may as well ‘self-identify’ themselves as Klingons or Lemurs if it makes them happy. It doesn’t make it so.

  93. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:05 pm  

    @ Kulvinder

    In response to your comment on the Huguenot, I am afriad it yet more contortions. If you whole point rests on such information why don’t you tell us what you know?

    But in any case the fact is that only around 10,000 remained in Britain out of 50,000 in a British population of millions, this was after around 10,000 moved directly to Ireland and around another 30,000 went onto the US pilgrimage.

    And so my point remains that this was hardly the ‘waves’ that Sarah claims.

    This immigration in Britain after 1948 is unique and unprecedented and it is just more PC folly to pretend otherwise.

  94. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:07 pm  

    No one seems to be able to give a straight answer to my simple question and the reason for that seems obvious.

    Actually we have, you’re either to dim to understand or hope that by continually feigning exasperation at us for not answering and/or understanding you; you’ll somehow obnubilate the lack of a coherent argument.

    But to reiterate; within the context of Maoris, i’ve given an example of people who self-identify and are identified by other people as Maoris despite having parents who came from very different backgrounds.

    Their bloodline isn’t ‘pure’, the ‘bloodline’ of any children they have potentially less so. That doesn’t prevent that child growing up and identifying themselves as Maori. QED what it ‘means’ to be Maori isn’t dependant wholly on hereditary definitions but is also about the interaction between individual and group.

    They may as well ‘self-identify’ themselves as Klingons or Lemurs if it makes them happy. It doesn’t make it so.

    Except other Maoris do recognise them as Maori. So regardless of the fact that they self-identify as such and the acceptance of their sense of self by other Maoris; because you say it isn’t so everyone must be wrong?

    Goodluck with the racism, im not sure how you juxtapose that with ‘pc marxist dialectics’; but telling people what or who they are,despite evidence to the contrary, shows some pretty strong indications of latent authoritarianism.

  95. soru — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:14 pm  

    Sarah you really do fail to grasp that to be a Maori you must be of that ethnicity, that is why the word exists, if you start claiming you can ‘self-define’ as a Maori then that is to say that the Maori never existed as a distinct group in the first place and that it is superfluous to even use the word.

    As it happens, that turns out not to be the case:

    P?keh? M?ori is a term used to describe early European settlers in New Zealand (known as P?keh? in the M?ori language) who lived among the M?ori. Some were kept by the M?ori as slaves, while others settled in M?ori communities by choice, many being runaway seamen or escaped convicts. Some lived the rest of their lives amongst M?ori but others, such as lapsed missionary Thomas Kendall, found it convenient to briefly “go native.” They were often welcomed, took wives and were treated as M?ori, particularly in the first two decades of the 19th century. The rarity value of Europeans in New Zealand and the importance of trade in Western goods – particularly muskets – made P?keh? M?ori highly prized. Some achieved a degree of prestige among the M?ori and fought in battle with their adopted tribe in the New Zealand land wars, sometimes against European soldiers. A few P?keh? M?ori such as John Rutherford and Barnet Burns even received the moko or facial tattoo.

  96. Sarah AB — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:27 pm  

    I am beginning to wonder whether Rajul is IAE! I meant by waves – just the usual things in the history books – Romans, Saxons, Normans. I realize they may not have had a huge impact on the population. I was looking at Kipling’s Puck of Pook’s Hill recently for work (must reread it properly, for fun!) and thought how interesting it was that so many of the main characters in the stories the children ‘see’ are conquerers and enemies (Roman, Danish) or outsiders (Jewish)yet they all made up the ‘Englishness’ which Dan and Una, the Edwardian children, have inherited.

    If you define English according to ethnicity it has a disproportionate effect (assuming people are bothered about whether they are seen as English or not) on non-white non-English people. Thus no one would bother lecturing me if I described myself as English even though I’m half Welsh. And no one would lecture my Welsh/Jewish/NZ cousins if they claimed to be English – because they look and sound English. But if someone who is visibly not-white – even if, unlike myself and my cousins, they have three English grandparents – self-identifies as English then it is immediately apparent that they are, by Rujul’s definition, mistaken.

  97. Sarah AB — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:28 pm  

    [reposting - excuse possible duplication]
    I am beginning to wonder whether Rajul is IAE! I meant by waves – just the usual things in the history books – Romans, Saxons, Normans. I realize they may not have had a huge impact on the population. I was looking at Kipling’s Puck of Pook’s Hill recently for work (must reread it properly, for fun!) and thought how interesting it was that so many of the main characters in the stories the children ‘see’ are conquerers and enemies (Roman, Danish) or outsiders (Jewish)yet they all made up the ‘Englishness’ which Dan and Una, the Edwardian children, have inherited.

    If you define English according to ethnicity it has a disproportionate effect (assuming people are bothered about whether they are seen as English or not) on non-white non-English people. Thus no one would bother lecturing me if I described myself as English even though I’m half Welsh. And no one would lecture my Welsh/Jewish/NZ cousins if they claimed to be English – because they look and sound English. But if someone who is visibly not-white – even if, unlike myself and my cousins, they have three English grandparents – self-identifies as English then it is immediately apparent that they are, by Rujul’s definition, mistaken.

  98. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:31 pm  

    @ Kulvinder

    You already resorted to aggression and unpleasantness rather then answer a straight question and now you are doing it again and of course telling me I am ‘racist’ because I disagree with your stance. How rude. How silly. Grow up. What do you know of real ‘racism’ today anyway?

    And I notice you have added in the ‘we’ factor as if you have a consensus and I am alone which is not the case, but even if it were, in a minority of one the truth is still the truth.

    Something you kids would do well to learn today.

    I am so glad I am old and will not have to live much longer through this age of folly and denial of self-evident truths. An age of lunacy. I can only imagine where this is leading.

    My question to Sunny was very simple and remains unanswered by anyone, especially you, Kulvinder, you rude arrogant little child:

    If you parents had moved to New Zealand would you have been a Maori? Or if they had moved instead to Australia would you have been an Aborigine?

    @ Soru

    You will notice the pre-fix in front of the term Maori to differentiate these people from actual Maoris.

    And before you posted what you thought was proof of your skewed version of reality you really should have checked what that prefix actually means:

    “P?keh? is a M?ori term for New Zealanders who are not of M?ori blood lines…

    The word P?keh? is also sometimes used to refer to any person of predominantly European ancestry, including those that are not New Zealanders. It is also used in a wider scope to refer to any non-M?ori.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81keh%C4%81

    So yes, I am sorry, but counter wise, what I said still is very much the case.

  99. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:35 pm  

    In response to your comment on the Huguenot, I am afriad it yet more contortions. If you whole point rests on such information why don’t you tell us what you know?

    Generally the burden of proof is on the person who makes the statement. I could have just retorted that no, in actual fact, 50 million Huguenots migrated and that there was this overriding contortion and bending of the truth on your behalf, but i thought better of it.

    But in any case the fact is that only around 10,000 remained in Britain out of 50,000 in a British population of millions, this was after around 10,000 moved directly to Ireland and around another 30,000 went onto the US pilgrimage.

    Ah yes those ‘facts’ again; far be it for me to actually provide links but 40 – 50,000 came to England with half residing in London; even takingthe population of the UK as a whole at being approximately 5 million the Hugenots represented the best part of 1% of the total.

    In today’s terms thats approximately 610,000 people in comparison the UK population, the English population at the time was obviously smaller and hence the relative percentage greater.

    The population of London at the time was approximately 200,000 (prelude to this book,so a substantial increase at the time.

    Pre-union, taking into account the normans as well as the irish, scots and eastern european jews in the late 19th century who settled in england there were demonstrable ‘waves’ of immigrants. They didn’t come in steady trickles but in discernible waves.

    What word would you use, batches?

  100. Ravi Naik — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:43 pm  

    If you parents had moved to New Zealand would you have been a Maori? Or if they had moved instead to Australia would you have been an Aborigine?

    The Maori and the Australian Aborigine are distinct ethnic minorities in NZ and Australia respectively, which means it is very unlikely that you would assimilate and integrate into those communities if you immigrate to those countries. You would however, integrate and assimilate to the mainstream majority culture in Australia, NZ and yes, England.

  101. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 3:50 pm  

    I am so glad I am old and will not have to live much longer through this age of folly and denial of self-evident truths. An age of lunacy. I can only imagine where this is leading.

    Oh finally we agree, i too am glad you’re too old to see any of this for much longer. Do us both a favour an hurry up with the the lack of breathing.

    If you parents had moved to New Zealand would you have been a Maori? Or if they had moved instead to Australia would you have been an Aborigine?

    If my parents had moved to New Zealand and i had grown up in a Maori community and i began to identify with the Maoris and they with me; i could self-identify as a Maori. If i moved to an an Aborigine community the same could happen.

    How many more times do you need to be told?

  102. soru — on 20th June, 2010 at 4:04 pm  

    So yes, I am sorry, but counter wise, what I said still is very much the case.

    No, the term means something very like ‘white maori’, directly analogous to terms ‘black british’ or ‘english muslim’ that you seem to think don’t exist.

    Most, though not all, tribal cultures have the kind of adoption ritual you see in the film Avatar. In the modern English tribe, the facial tattoos are strictly optional.

    Avatar also had sci-fi race-changing technology, which might conceivably be coming soon. Say some Brazilian got gene therapy to rewrite all race-related genetic markers. But they didn’t bother learning english, hated queuing, didn’t get sarcasm, never bought their round in a pub and could hit a 40 yard pass.

    Would they count as typically English to you?

  103. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 4:06 pm  

    The Maori and the Australian Aborigine are distinct ethnic minorities in NZ and Australia respectively, which means it is very unlikely that you would assimilate and integrate into those communities if you immigrate to those countries. You would however, integrate and assimilate to the mainstream majority culture in Australia, NZ and yes, England.

    This just seems to be saying it may be more difficult for some individuals to live in particular societies; which is perfectly true. But that doesn’t mean that its somehow impossible – or a universally applicable truism.

    The very fact that relationships from across cultures develop is a testament to that.

    Lets turn the entire argument on its head; could a maori ever come to england and be english? or is his ‘maoriness’ far to alien for everyone concerned? And if he is too alien, too provincial too tribal, what of the highland scots, who were viewed as equally wild and untamed?

    The entire argument reaches a certain level of absurdity when i point out new zealanders from multi cultural backgrounds who identify as maoris despite being ‘unpure in blood’, yet they’re simply dismissed by the likes of rujul.

  104. Sarah AB — on 20th June, 2010 at 4:09 pm  

    [reposting]
    I am beginning to wonder whether Rajul is IAE! I meant by waves – just the usual things in the history books – Romans, Saxons, Normans. I realize they may not have had a huge impact on the population. I was looking at Kipling’s Puck of Pook’s Hill recently for work (must reread it properly, for fun!) and thought how interesting it was that so many of the main characters in the stories the children ‘see’ are conquerers and enemies (Roman, Danish) or outsiders (Jewish)yet they all made up the ‘Englishness’ which Dan and Una, the Edwardian children, have inherited.

    If you define English according to ethnicity it has a disproportionate effect (assuming people are bothered about whether they are seen as English or not) on non-white non-English people. Thus no one would bother lecturing me if I described myself as English even though I’m half Welsh. And no one would lecture my Welsh/Jewish/NZ cousins if they claimed to be English – because they look and sound English. But if someone who is visibly not-white – even if, unlike myself and my cousins, they have three English grandparents – self-identifies as English then it is immediately apparent that they are, by Rujul’s definition, mistaken.

  105. ujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 6:00 pm  

    @ Sarah AB

    I don’t understand what “iae” is but if it is another insult then please stop. Kulvinder is already doing that and there is just no need for it at all. This an adult debate please behave like an adult and understand that people must not agree with you.

    And I don’t because the facts don’t fit in with what you are saying. It is that simple Sarah.

    See what I have written for Kulvinder on the subject we were discussing for details.

    But this is something I have discovered whilst checking facts earlier, and even though I knew the peoples of these isles had a long ancestry here even I was shock by this:

    “…recent genetic analysis appears to indicate that around 80% of British DNA comes from an indigenous population who settled Britain around 12,000 years ago, with subsequent invaders contributing very little to the genepool…”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

    And the English comprise 83.3% of the population of the UK as a whole!!

  106. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 6:05 pm  

    @ Sarah AB

    I don’t understand what IAE is young lady but if it is another insult then please stop.
    Kulvinder is already doing that and there is just no need for it at all. This an adult debate please behave like an adult and understand that people must not agree with you.

    And I don’t because the facts don’t fit in with what you are saying. It is that simple Sarah.

    See what I have written for Kulvinder on the subject we were discussing for details.

    But this is something I have discovered whilst checking facts earlier, and even though I knew the peoples of these isles had a long ancestry here even I was shock by this:

    “…recent genetic analysis appears to indicate that around 80% of British DNA comes from an indigenous population who settled Britain around 12,000 years ago, with subsequent invaders contributing very little to the genepool…”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

    And the English comprise 83.3% of the population of the UK as a whole!!

  107. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 6:05 pm  

    @ Kulivinder

    Must everyone have to agree with you or face spiteful tantrums and such theatre contempt and such juvenile insults? Really dear, take a deep breath.

    You do know that this is a debate where people will not agree with you and if you cannot be handling that and with decorum you really shouldn’t be here I think.

    Anyway, it is more then just a lesson in manners you need I am afraid. I made my statement and you contradicted it so the burden was on and you but reading what you wrote after perhaps you should have left it alone.

    The 50,000 Huguenots did not come in one go but over decades, according to the CRE publication ‘Roots of the future’ between 1680 and 1720.

    If they taught you history in these schools here today you would know that the Great Plague of 1665-1666 claimed 100,000 lives in London alone, a fifth of the population then at least 14 years before the arrival of the Huguenots and nowhere near the ridiculous 200,000 you now claim.

    And the population of Britain around 1.5 million more then the figure you produced, sitting at about 6.5 million in 1680.

    http://histories.cambridge.org/extract?id=chol9780521820363_CHOL9780521820363A004

    That is 0.76% of the British population spread out over 40 years, of which only 0.15% remained.

    Hardly a ‘wave’ and hardly the nation of immigrants claimed now.

    So we are back to this ‘self-identify’ thing. It means nothing. You are either are or you are not. You may feel an affinity, but that is not the same as being.

    As Soru points out, the Maori have a word to describe people that live among them but are not them: Pakeha. Defined as a Maori term for New Zealanders who are not of Maori blood lines

    These are realities Kulvinder, dear, but please don’t burst a blood vessel!!

  108. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 6:07 pm  

    @ Soru

    Come on now. Please young person. At what point will you allow old reality to intervene over new political mishmash?!

    The definition of the term is above is clear:

    “Pakeha is a Maori term for New Zealanders who are not of Maori blood lines…

    The word Pakeha is also sometimes used to refer to any person of predominantly European ancestry, including those that are not New Zealanders. It is also used in a wider scope to refer to any non-Maori.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81keh%C4%81

    Do you see now? It was not a term for “white Maori” at all but a descriptive term for people that lived among Maori but are not Maori.

    Perhaps one of these self-defined people could explain it better to you:

    “Historian Judith Binney calls herself a P?keh? and says, “I think it is the most simple and practical term. It is a name given to us by M?ori. It has no pejorative associations like people think it does—it’s a descriptive term. I think it’s nice to have a name the people who live here gave you, because that’s what I am”

    http://www.unblockanysite.net/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2VuLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcvd2lraS9QJUM0JTgxa2VoJUM0JTgx

    @ Sarah AB

    I don’t understand what IAE is young lady but if it is another insult then please stop.
    Kulvinder is already doing that and there is just no need for it at all. This an adult debate please behave like an adult and understand that people must not agree with you.

    And I don’t because the facts don’t fit in with what you are saying. It is that simple Sarah.

    See what I have written for Kulvinder on the subject we were discussing for details.

    But this is something I have discovered whilst checking facts earlier, and even though I knew the peoples of these isles had a long ancestry here even I was shock by this:

    “…recent genetic analysis appears to indicate that around 80% of British DNA comes from an indigenous population who settled Britain around 12,000 years ago, with subsequent invaders contributing very little to the genepool…”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

    And the English comprise 83.3% of the population of the UK as a whole!!

  109. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 6:09 pm  

    @ Soru

    Come on now. Please young person. At what point will you allow old reality to intervene over new political mishmash?!

    The definition of the term is above is clear:

    “Pakeha is a Maori term for New Zealanders who are not of Maori blood lines…

    The word P?keh? is also sometimes used to refer to any person of predominantly European ancestry, including those that are not New Zealanders. It is also used in a wider scope to refer to any non-Maori.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81keh%C4%81

    Do you see now? It was not a term for “white Maori” at all but a descriptive term for people that lived among Maori but are not Maori.

    Perhaps one of these self-defined people could explain it better to you:

    “Historian Judith Binney calls herself a P?keh? and says, “I think it is the most simple and practical term. It is a name given to us by M?ori. It has no pejorative associations like people think it does—it’s a descriptive term. I think it’s nice to have a name the people who live here gave you, because that’s what I am”

  110. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 6:11 pm  

    @ Sarah AB

    I don’t understand what “iea” is young lady but if it is another insult then please stop.

    Kulvinder is already doing that and there is just no need for it at all. This an adult debate please behave like an adult and understand that people must not agree with you.

    And I don’t because the facts don’t fit in with what you are saying. It is that simple Sarah.

    See what I have written for Kulvinder on the subject we were discussing for details.

  111. Sarah AB — on 20th June, 2010 at 6:32 pm  

    IAE is a BNP supporter who posted here a while back – his exhaustive and exhausting knowledge of immigration patterns resembled yours.

  112. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 8:05 pm  

    The 50,000 Huguenots did not come in one go but over decades, according to the CRE publication ‘Roots of the future’ between 1680 and 1720.

    Hurrah for ignorance \o/

    This, again, is besides the point.

    But to be clear the first major instance of the Huguenots crossing the channel was in 1681 (with the start of the the dragonnades); the next occured roughly in time with the glorious revolution (which also attracted huguenots that had fled to other parts of europe), and finally a third smaller wave around the time of the treaty of ryswick.

    The numbers showed discernible peaks during those three periods before falling comparatively off outside those times. Whilst its true the migration of the Huguenots occured roughly between the 1680s and 1720s, it was not, nor has anyone including the CRE claimed that a steady migration took place. As with any migration there was a tail event of people arriving post 1700, but the key major periods of migration were initiated by three key events; the dragonnades, the revolution and peace.

    Why on earth would you think that people fleeing persecution would sit around and steadily migrate?

    There were three waves.

    If they taught you history in these schools here today you would know that the Great Plague of 1665-1666 claimed 100,000 lives in London alone, a fifth of the population then at least 14 years before the arrival of the Huguenots and nowhere near the ridiculous 200,000 you now claim.

    I didn’t claim it; i cited it.

    That is 0.76% of the British population spread out over 40 years, of which only 0.15% remained.

    The fraction of a percent of the total british population is irrelevant; if you think a migration of of 0.76% of the total is significantly less than 1% go ahead.

    Again the percentage that remained was greater than 0.15%

    As Soru points out, the Maori have a word to describe people that live among them but are not them: Pakeha. Defined as a Maori term for New Zealanders who are not of Maori blood lines

    Hurrah again for wiki citations, i was tempted to reedit the page and reference it back to you and soru, but it’d be a waste wouldn’t it?

    The history behind pakeha is interesting enough to conduct the 2 mins of googling it took to find the origin of the term.

    It wasn’t a term of abuse rather just stated people were essentially ‘white-maori’ – but maori nonetheless; obviously with the subsequent history of persecution it, possibly depending on source, became a term for abuse.

    Thanks for that though i wouldn’t have thought of googling it and completely undermining the bollocks you came out with.

    White people becoming maoris, who knew

    This is fun, anything else?

  113. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 8:41 pm  

    @ Kulivender

    I am afraid, dear, the angry tantrum you have thrown because people don’t agree with you has drowned out your apology and acknowledgment that the facts support everything I have said so far.

    I don’t blame you dear, not really, the petulant anger and rudeness in dealing with other people in a debate is how you have been brought up and the way you have been pampered in these new times. It’s all become about ‘you’ these days and your ‘feelings’ and how no one is every a loser or wrong and this is the price for all of that: Rudeness and ignorance.

    This countries education system has rapidly declined over the years with it politicisation and so I suppose it is not your fault either that very basic concepts should fly over you.

    It’s a shame really. I pity your generation here now. I really do.

    Anyway, so far all of your figures have been wrong; your claim that ‘waves’ of immigrants came to these shores has remained unproven and your claims about the term “Pakeha” is wrong as well.

    It was explained to you that the reason they prefix the word Maori with another is to distinguish between Maoris and these others. And the word itself doesn’t mean “white Maori” (no matter how much you want it to or ‘self-define’ it to) just as didn’t when Soru said it did:

    “Pakeha is a Maori term for New Zealanders who are not of Maori blood lines…

    The word pakeha is also sometimes used to refer to any person of predominantly European ancestry, including those that are not New Zealanders. It is also used in a wider scope to refer to any non-Maori.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81keh%C4%81

    Never mind dear, at least you have had the benefit of a wiser elder teach you a few things about the world you live in and a little about what is real and what is not.

    No need for anymore tantrums now. It’s done. Rest now.

  114. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 8:43 pm  

    Don’t be silly Sarah. Stick to the debate if you can.

    Leave out this nonsense if you can’t.

    What about the points raised, dear. What about them?

  115. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:03 pm  

    Anyway, so far all of your figures have been wrong; your claim that ‘waves’ of immigrants came to these shores has remained unproven and your claims about the term “Pakeha” is wrong as well.

    No problem, this book; pages 24/5/6.

    I’m not claiming anything with regards to Pakeha; im citing a website that is produced by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in New Zealand.

    Any more wiki links?

  116. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:06 pm  

    Don’t be silly Sarah. Stick to the debate if you can.

    Leave out this nonsense if you can’t.

    What about the points raised, dear. What about them?

    This is brilliant; you’ve given up any pretense to sustaining an argument.

  117. Sarah AB — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:12 pm  

    “This countries education system has rapidly declined.”

    Yup

  118. Rujul — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:17 pm  

    @ kulvinder

    I am sorry dear but again a simple concept is beyond you, it would seem.

    Nowhere does your site claim that the term means “White Maori” that is your own entire claim.

    The real meaning has been posted several times dear, I know you don’t like it but I am not your mummy or daddy or one of your teachers tripping over to validate your ‘feelings’ or that you are always right.

    So yes, some more links for you to try and push you into reality a little perhaps:

    “The word today still mostly applies narrowly to just New Zealanders of European (primarily British and Irish) descent, and this is the interpretation used in official New Zealand documents and forms. However, The Concise M?ori Dictionary (K?retu, 1990) defines the word as “foreign, foreigner (usually applied to white person)”, while the English–M?ori, M?ori–English Dictionary (Biggs, 1990) defines P?keh? as “white (person)”. Sometimes it is applied more widely to include all non-M?ori.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81keh%C4%81

    The rest of your claims have been dealt with and dismissed dear, so what else is there besides your angry tantrums? To be honest you are boring me now with your silliness and refusal to acknowledge facts. I think your parents have done an appalling job with you, I really do. Shame on them.

    So angry and so ignorant with both feeding off each other. I would have said ‘you will learn’ some years ago, but these days I am really not so sure.

    Oh well.

  119. Kulvinder — on 20th June, 2010 at 9:28 pm  

    Nowhere does your site claim that the term means “White Maori” that is your own entire claim.

    Nah; its your wicked wiki ‘source’

    while the English–Maori, Maori–English Dictionary (Biggs, 1990) defines pakeha as “white (person)”

  120. soru — on 21st June, 2010 at 12:02 am  

    @Rujul: You don’t seem to be able to hold clear in your mind the distinction between the term _Pakeha_ and the phrase_Pakeha Maori_.

    Does it ever worry you that your argument doesn’t make any sense?

  121. Rujul — on 21st June, 2010 at 12:22 am  

    @ Kulvinder

    You live in a world of make-believe and self-indulgent fantasy, dear.

    The term means exactly that: “White person” i.e. not Maori which is why it is used by Maoris to describe people other then themselves.

    And of course, naturally, you ignore the other two tracts that confirm exactly that:

    “The Concise Maori Dictionary (Karetu, 1990) defines the word as “foreign, foreigner (usually applied to white person)”

    “The word today still mostly applies narrowly to just New Zealanders of European (primarily British and Irish) descent, and this is the interpretation used in official New Zealand documents and forms”

    You are just deluding yourself, dear, and will stay in that state of angry ignorance until you embrace reality and accept that even you, the spoiled angry rude pampered Kulvinder can indeed be wrong. And are very much so this time around.

    @ Soru

    I think you should address that poser to yourself.

    You brought it up and then found a can of worms.

    The term “Pakeha” couldn’t be any clearer: It means foreigner, White Person, Non-Maori.

    And that is the reason that they have prefixed it to the word Maori to describe those who live among them, but are not of them.

    If you really cannot see that is the reality here then I cannot help you. You need to help yourself.

  122. Shuggy — on 21st June, 2010 at 12:53 am  

    I suspect that the ABE sentiment is less about bigotry towards the English and more about the absolute certainty that if England do win (!) the Scots will be hearing about it for the next thirty years.

    Yup – or 44 years, even. And see all of FR’s comments above for some sense on this issue. One of the reasons for misunderstanding on this sort of thing is that the English take this so much seriously than the Scots for the following reason: while it is generally indicative of over-optimism, to say the least – to think England could one day win the World Cup isn’t actually insane. But anyone who thinks Scotland could obviously is. Or a child. No, even children have no excuse after this.

  123. Kulvinder — on 21st June, 2010 at 1:34 am  

    You are just deluding yourself, dear, and will stay in that state of angry ignorance until you embrace reality and accept that even you, the spoiled angry rude pampered Kulvinder can indeed be wrong. And are very much so this time around.

    Well obviously.

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.