Andy McNab has told the BNP, “give me my books back”.
The ultimatum comes after Nick Griffin announced that signed copies of Brute Force and Seven Troop would be auctioned to raise money for Help for Heroes.
McNab – ex-SAS hardman, Gulf War veteran and best-selling author – told Nothing British,
“When someone called me to say that the BNP was using one of my books in a publicity stunt, I was sick to the stomach.
“I served with men of all colours and from many nationalities. They were all equal to me. That’s what the army teaches you.
“Nick Griffin thinks differently. He thinks the British Army should be for whites-only. He thinks heroes like Johnson Beharry, our only living VC, should be sent back to Grenada.
“He doesn’t understand that what makes the British Army great, and what makes this country great.
“It’s the way we draw together people from all around the world and give them ideals worth believing in: tolerance, fairness, decency, looking out for the little guy.
“It’s the British way of doing things
“That’s why I’ve asked for my books back. Because I don’t want anything to help the BNP promote their poisonous politics of segregation and hatred.”
Andy McNab joined the infantry in 1976 as a boy soldier. In 1984 he was badged as a member of 22 SAS Regiment. He served in B Squadron 22 SAS for ten years and worked on both covert and overt special operations worldwide, including anti-terrorist and anti-drug operations in the Middle and Far East, South and Central America and Northern Ireland.
In the Gulf War, McNab commanded the famous Bravo Two Zero patrol, an eight man patrol tasked with destroying underground communication links between Baghdad and north-west Iraq and with finding and destroying mobile Scud missile launchers. McNab was held for six weeks and was relentlessly and savagely tortured. By the time he was released he was suffering from nerve damage to both hands, a dislocated shoulder, kidney and liver damage and had contracted hepatitis. After six months of medical treatment he was back on active service.
Awarded both the Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) and Military Medal (MM) during his military career, McNab was the British Army’s most highly decorated serving soldier when he finally left the SAS in February 1993.
Andy McNab has written about his experiences in the SAS in two bestselling books, Bravo Two Zero (1993) and Immediate Action (1995). Bravo Two Zero is the highest selling war book of all time and has sold over 1.7 million copies in the UK.
McNab is the author of seven fast action thrillers, highly acclaimed for their authenticity and all Sunday Times bestsellers.
Tags: Andy McNab, BNP, Help for Heroes
Jovan writes,
How did entirely white British units in WW2 operate without turbo-charging their genepool to make them “great”?
You mean the army that ran away at Dunkirk and had to wait 4 years for help from America andvarious ‘colonists’ before venturing back to mainland Europe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It was actually you who started talking about football, Sam.
Now you’re mentioning all sorts, club deck, a local fb, a baton chucker, racist songs! One wonders if you’re still drunk from last night?
You might want to try another strategy, you’re coming across as extremely thick!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
mmm your coming across as extremly rascist ,but who really cares?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
see in your code of honour your kind actually wear the rascist tag with pride,so whos coming across as thick again?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How am I coming across as racist?
And to answer your question, YOU are still coming across as thick!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gary you are wasting your time with deluded fools like sam. Another one that just likes to throw about buzz words which mean nothing to try and win.
Nothing British about the Tories.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
aye ok gaz of course in your deluded little world your kind are always right,no go beat up some poor asian wean,or a gay person get rhe lads to accept as one of their own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
kenny your just a waste of time altogether
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
gary and kenny must have gone to a cross burning ceremony!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
does yer maw use persil to keep yer white hoods dazzlingly clean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘Nothing British’ has been a real eye opener to me, as a newcomer to this strange fantasy world of Tory MPs and supporters: this is a Tory sponsored site denigrating people for raising funds for injured British troops, because they happen to hold political views which do not align with the Cameroon PC dogma. And there was I hoping that things could only get better with the ejection of NuLab next year!
Kenny is absolutley right: there appears to be nothing British about today’s Tories
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
bnp,people?thats still up for debate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sami
OI MUTANT,WHY DON,T YOU TAKE AN OVERDOSE YOU WAST OF HUMAN SKIN
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Urban_Underclass wrote:
You mean the army that ran away at Dunkirk and had to wait 4 years for help from America and various ‘colonists’ before venturing back to mainland Europe?
>Far be it from me to defend the “greatness” of the British army, I’m not even ethnically British. However it is a fact that army helped defeat the Nazis and for you to belittle it in order to put a multi-ethnic army on a pedestal says more about you then anything else. My point still stands. McNab illogically implies that multi-ethnic or multi-racial manpower creates a superior military force and is what makes the British army “great”. Surely if race means nothing then a multi-racial army should have exactly the same efficiency as a uni-racial army. And if a multitude of races are what makes the British army “great” today then this logically implies that the British army was not “great” in the past when there were no ethnic minorities, prior to Imperialism (even though they achieved impressive victories). Yet today, when they are being demoralised and achieving little to nothing in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite technological superiority….now they are “great”?
This is what I meant when I referred to McNab’s half-baked logic. He is so desperate to distance himself from the BNP that he feels a need to justify the ideology of multi-culturalism in the process and to ascribe to it benefits which are nothing but illogical concoctions. And the end result is that I find myself wondering, if this imbecilic logic is the best defence of multi-culturalism that he can come up with, is multi-culturalism really that great? Because if it was, one wouldn’t need to scrape the barrel in such a ludicrous way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tree said:
And Jovan, diversity makes Britain great AT THE MOMENT because of the fact that we are generally so accepting of everybody who comes here, as they give us the opportunity to understand other cultures, and this therefore aids us to ensure harmony in our nation – nothing wrong with that, surely?
>Firstly you are generalising by saying that “we” are so accepting. This nation never had a vote on whether they wanted mass immigration, and in a democracy, that surely is the only way of empirically confirming whether “we” are accepting. What you are referring to is, to a large extent, government policy never put to the nation. For instance the laxness of government policy could be referred to as welcoming in the 1990s. Whether the British people were is another matter. Due to economic prosperity they were to a large extent indifferent because they thought that it came at no cost and they were ideologically primed to consider mass immigration as essential to their living standards. On the point about understanding other cultures I agree with you. That is one benefit that I can personally witness to. However when one takes into account the long-term consequences of mass-immigration and multi-culturalism I can honestly say that the price is not worth paying (in my opinion). If I want to see other cultures I can and do visit other countries. There is no need to bring the entire world to Britain, with all that implies, in order to experience other cultures. Secondly you use circular reasoning, implying that because diversity leads to greater understanding that this will then lead to greater harmony. But one doesn’t need greater harmony between ethnic groups in the first place if one hasn’t created a multi-cultural society in the first place. In other words you are saying that the primary benefit of diversity is that it solves problems which would be non-existant without diversity.
>Also, the reason that Asians are so under represented in the army is because 1) the vast majority of them are actually pacifists, and 2) because the British Army isn’t really fighting for much as it is! The Iraq and Afghan Wars are completely unnecessary, and if you took those away, then there would be nothing to fight for. Therefore, it’s understandable to see why there is a lack of participation in the Army by youths of any kind, not just those of Asian decent.
I didn’t use Asians in my example, I specifically referred to Muslims. And Muslims can in no way be regarded as pacifists (thats not a cricial statement, I’m not an absolute pacifist). Therefore their under-representation is due to another cause. If the government is so committed to diversity, if everyone is equally loyal to Britain, if diversity is what makes the British army “great”, then surely mountains must be moved to increase the numbers of muslims in the army to maximise its greatness?
>Also, we didn’t invite ethnic minorities over until AFTER the war. That’s why we managed without them during it. In modern times though, a lot of our leading businessman are actually immigrants, and they are contributing a lot more to our economy than a lot of “fully British” people can say.
I know that the British army managed without ethnic minorities until after the war, that is precisely my point! Those minorities cannot therefore be a reason for the army’s greatness as McNab implies. On the issue of hardworking minorities, I would never contest your point (hard workers exist in all groups), though I don’t know what its relevance is to this discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jovan,
Multi-culturalism is a fact of life, at least live with it, maybe try to accept it, you might even see some benefits from it. How on earth is an entirely white army going to be better than a mixed-race army? The most powerful army in the world has long had a very strict policy of racial integration and they seem to be doing alright with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Urban_Underclass wrote:
Multi-culturalism is a fact of life, at least live with it, maybe try to accept it, you might even see some benefits from it.
>I know it is a fact, I do live with it, I try to make the best of it, but I don’t accept it. I don’t accept it anymore than you would accept living in poverty or being robbed. You would seek justice and stability no matter what. The war in Afghanistan is a fact but I will never just accept it. At every turn I will fight to expose it for the monstrous lunacy that it is. And one day it will end. Just as people lived without multi-culturalism in the past, they can live without it in the future,
How on earth is an entirely white army going to be better than a mixed-race army? The most powerful army in the world has long had a very strict policy of racial integration and they seem to be doing alright with it.
>You are attacking a straw man. I never said that a white army would be better than a mixed race army. In fact it was McNab that implied the reverse. It was his statement that I was criticising.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jovan, I fully take into account what you are saying. With the matter of immigration on mass, what exactly are these consequences and issues that you keep mentioning? I’d just like to hear your perspective, as everybody keeps on saying that it’s a problem, and no-one logically explains to me why it’s such a problem. As someone studying languages and cultures, and having seen bad events in cases where the integration of immigrants into society hasn’t happened (Paris riots of a few years ago, for example), then I am a firm believer that integration can be a fixer for things like this, because acceptance comes from a greater and deeper understanding of the unknown. If there is a case of Xenophobia in Britain, which it’s clear to me that there is, then the way to dispel this irrational fear of foreigners is to meet and converse with them, ask them about their culture, understand more about their way of life. This would be a much more peaceful solution than just getting rid of people, because the fear of these people would still be existent. Plus, even if there wasn’t a “problem” with immigration, then there’d be another issue in the UK whereby the majority would pick on another minority (probably students – you guys seem to hate us enough) and scapegoat them for something that probably isn’t completely their fault.
With regards to “Muslims”, the reason that I was using Asians rather than Muslims was because Asians are as big an umbrella term as Muslims. Islam is the world’s most practised religion, but I don’t see the billions of people who follow it beginning some sort of world war against all of those who aren’t. These terrorists that keep causing all of these problems are just people fighting for a cause. Che Guevara was a person fighting for a cause, Martin Luther King was a person fighting for a cause, Mohandes Gandhi was a person fighting for a cause – none of these people were Muslims. All they were were people fighting for political ideals, those ideals being equality and freedom. Terrorists base themselves upon political ideals – in a lot of cases it’s for equality between nations, due to the fact that in parts of the Middle East, poverty and dictatorship is still rife. Therefore, in order to send a message to people that it’s wrong, they make an example of it by blowing up something that they believe is a symbol of inequality between nations (the World Trade Center being a symbol of Capitalism, and London’s public transport being a symbol of the imbalance of technology). Therefore, it’s based purely on politics. It’s just that some people don’t actually know what they’ve been fighting for due to confidentiality, and they therefore used religion as an easy excuse, when really religion isn’t the reason at all. Not all terrorists are Muslims (see some of my earlier posts on that issue), and not all Muslims are terrorists. The army is open to them, but clearly a lot of them don’t see a reason to fight (after all, nor do we), so therefore they’ve backed themselves out and decided to help with the economy instead, which is a better option, in my view.
McNab clearly didn’t use the best cases for his arguments, I grant you that. However, the reason that I put in that we invited people over to the UK is simply because a lot of people just think that these people are incredibly lazy, when the truth is they’re not. The vast majority of people in the UK who are on benefits tick the “White – British” box when asked about their ethnicity. I even know someone (another White Brit) who went to my school that said that all she was going to do with her life was have kids early just so she could sponge money off the Government by means of child benefits. Cases such as this, I believe, are much more of a problem than people from different ethnic groups. The reason that I put this point out was merely as another subject of discussion to talk about. After all, if we can’t talk about this freely, then what’s the point in talking about it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tree, you bring up a number of points which are worth responding to indepth. I will try and get back to you by the end of the day..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ha ha peggy is that the best you can come up with,you sad pathetic RASCIST
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ill stop giving peggy grief ,coz ha ll take his pent up anger on his poor wife.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
peggy,i dont need to take an overdose ,once your party get into power(pmsl)you ll have me shipped off to one of the new extermination camps,built by slave labour by the new govt.Tell me peggy ,whos gonny stick up for you when they come for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Akhman,
we don’t have to be Christians. You think you’re safe mocking us, eh?
”Wir wollen nicht christen sein/ Weil er war ein judenschwein/ Und seine mutter sie war ein hohne/ Heisste Marie geborne Kohn.”
A wartime German marching song, sung by the Waffen SS probably. You probably know what it means, as Yiddish is derived from German.
”We will not be christian/ Because he was a jewish swine/ And his mother was a hen/ Called Mary born Cohen.”
You mock Christianity. Perhaps you would show respect to Pagans?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Suddenly ”Urban Underclass” sounds like an ”educated” richgirl.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tree said:
Jovan, I fully take into account what you are saying. With the matter of immigration on mass, what exactly are these consequences and issues that you keep mentioning? I’d just like to hear your perspective, as everybody keeps on saying that it’s a problem, and no-one logically explains to me why it’s such a problem. As someone studying languages and cultures, and having seen bad events in cases where the integration of immigrants into society hasn’t happened (Paris riots of a few years ago, for example), then I am a firm believer that integration can be a fixer for things like this, because acceptance comes from a greater and deeper understanding of the unknown.
>>The most basic problem with mass immigration is that economic immigrants arrived without any plan whatsoever for what would happen to them long-term. As they arrived they were told that they were entering a multi-cultural zone and no onus was put on them to integrate, aside from learning English (but a common language does not imply a common people- witness the Balkans). Now, when social cohesion has become more of a problem, these descendants of immigrants are being told that they need to integrate. This is completely unreasonable because when they entered the country they were never told that this would be a requirement and that they would have to forsake their identity. Likewise the British people are not asked whether they want to absorb all these foreign cultures and ethnic groups, they are merely told that this is the best possible solution. Furthermore we are dealing with human beings, who have a basic desire for a strong identity and self-preservation. Telling them “to integrate” is one thing, but you cannot compel them to do it through government policy. Therefore, to summarize my first point, there was never any plan with dealing with large numbers of foreigners who entered the country for monetary reasons. They did not enter the country to become “British” or Christian, they entered the country to better their economic standing. The long-term consequences were so ill thought out that the plan for a multi-cultural society has suddenly morphed into talk of “integration”. But again there is no plan for how people are going to be “integrated”. No one even dares mention that many, if not most, immigrants do not want to be “integrated” (everyone seems parrot the idea that the nebulous notion of integration is desired by everyone). They are perfectly happy with their own ethnic identity and religious traditions.
This brings me to a very key point. Prior to WW2 this country was homogenous in a cultural and racial sense. There was a clear identity and no competing ethnic groups (with the exception of N. Ireland which is an example of why it is not a good idea to pack separate groups in the same geographical location). There was no issue of identity whatsoever. Since the creation of the multi-cultural society we are forever talking about identity, about equality, about what it means to be British, about discrimination, about community cohesion, about tolerance. So much social, political and economic capital and energy is spent trying to resolve issues which have arisen as a result of the multi-cultural society. Endless academic posts, political positions, think tanks, quangos etc have been created whose purpose is to dissect the multi-cultural society and to counter its many imperfections. Endless books, TV programmes and studies have been commissioned. This is a profound waste of time. A confident civilization or culture moves forward with a purpose and a vision. This multi-cultural society is constantly chasing its own tail, trying to work out what it stands for, what binds it together.
A crucial point is that in order to try and mesh all the different cultures, religions and heritages together it is necessary to water down the true culture of this nation and instead pretend that the lowest common denominator represents “Britishness”. We can observe that the values most often touted as British are “democracy”, “decency”, “fairness”, “opportunity”, “equality” and “tolerance”. But these values are not uniquely or mainly British, they are commonplace principles of supposedly democratic societies. True British culture is the culture imbedded in these islands during the past 1000+ years, based on Christianity and a shared sense of history and traditions. The problem is that Christianity cannot be part of the modern definition of Britishness because it would exclude all non-Christians. And British history is taught less and less in schools because it holds less interest to those that are not descended from those historical figures. Therefore multi-culturalism undermines, marginalises and displaces the history and religion of native Britons in order to accommodate other peoples, religions and cultures. I don’t know of a single people that would willingly see this happen to them, yet alone vote for it. This cannot be regarded as desirable.
Everything that I have described thus far leads to an identity crisis in both the native and immigrant populations. Human nature being what it is, people prefer to live amongst their own people (witness Muslim, black, Indian, Chinese neighbourhoods or “white flight”). Therefore we have ended up with communalism in which ethnic groups live in compact areas with less interaction with outsiders than would be necessary to “integrate”. In some cases groups do not merely live separately, but are openly antagonistic towards each other (eg Muslims vs British in areas of Bradford or Manchester). Inter-group violence has been at a fairly low level until now, but were the non-native population to continue to increase till it reached 25% then it is not difficult to imagine the resentment, distrust and fear which would build up between different groups. This could also lead to an ethnic split in politics whereby different ethnic groups align themselves with different parties. This has happened in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Serbia, Bosnia, Lebanon etc. In other words, when there is no dominant ethnic group and unified culture, tribalism enters into politics. I don’t think it is necessary for me to expand on why this is a disaster for social cohesion, the political system and every citizen. Humans crave stability and certainty. The multi-cultural society does not deliver this- it delivers the opposite.
Tree said:
If there is a case of Xenophobia in Britain, which it’s clear to me that there is, then the way to dispel this irrational fear of foreigners is to meet and converse with them, ask them about their culture, understand more about their way of life.
>>First of all, I don’t have a fear of foreigners and I have no problems meeting or conversing with them. I also believe that I have a very firm understanding of the various cultures and religions of the world. Yet I still don’t want a multi-cultural society for my country (I come from a small Eastern European country). It is not because I hate foreigners, it is because I want my country to be populated by my countrymen and not by foreigners. It is because I want one small area of this beautiful earth to be reserved for my culture and my people. This is perfectly natural, and is in fact the idea behind a nation state. So I believe your solution does not stand up to scrutiny. I have no fear, I have no hatred, my desire is extremely rational, and I do not want a multi-cultural society. Therefore getting different people to interact will not necessarily lead to the embracement of the multi-cultural society unless people are willing to give up their identity.
Sorry I can’t answer all your points but I picked out the main ones..
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Right, OK. What you have put forward is a very good set of arguments. I will try and give my views, as what you’ve said is very insightful.
I think that when the British government invited people into the country during the post-War era, they believed that this would merely be a temporary solution, and therefore they decided not to stop it, as they thought that 1) the economic downturn wouldn’t take amazingly long to fix, and that 2) like with some Eastern Europeans, people from the colonies would come to our country, take what they need, and then leave. However, because the period of economic downturn lasted longer than expected, the government panicked and started creating new towns (like Slough, Bracknell and Milton Keynes) in order to try and house these people, so that they could set a life up here. However, due to a lack of basic infrastructure at first, people became poorer and a lot more disillusioned with life in said towns, which has been passed down to a new generation, which is why they aren’t the UK’s nicest places.
Integration is a mere ideal, I understand this, and in order to integrate a society, people must not have it forced upon them. Instead, they need to slowly absorb it of their own accord. Knowing how the British people are, this is obviously much easier said than done, but I just feel that when it comes round to it, there is a severe lack of understanding of other peoples’ cultures in the UK. This is not to say that everybody should completely embrace each others’ culture and have what can only be described as a British “superculture”, but all I would look for is that people merely understand how the other people in Britain live, because as a born and bred Briton, I despair at the ignorance that is shown by some people in the country. This is epitomised by the fact that generally if a British tourist goes on holiday, they will not make any sort of effort to even speak the language of the host country (unless, of course, their native language is English), as well as more public displays of almost casual racism (Jade Goody on Celebrity Big Brother, for example).
It is this that annoys me – we complain about how football fans from other countries shout racist chants at some of our players, like Ashley Cole and Shaun Wright-Phillips, because they’re black, and yet when it comes round to it, we’re just as bad. There’s a huge issue with double standards, I find – we oppress minorities in the UK (to an extent), and then when the minorities try and hit back, we hate it and start blaming them for all of our problems, which, in my view, isn’t right. We get people here who don’t really see education as an important thing growing, and then when it comes round to getting a job, someone from another country, someone a great deal more qualified, rightfully gets the job, the Briton complains, and all of a sudden everybody’s wanting “their” jobs back. A lot of the people who are openly racist are very ignorant to the other people’s cultures, and base a lot of their judgements on stereotypes (something that, as someone nearly 2m in height, I get a lot of myself), and it annoys me immensely that people don’t give a crap about how I feel about hearing the same jokes every day, about answering the same bloody questions about my height every day – it pisses me off, which is why I’m glad I’m now living in Germany, where being tall is normal for a bloke. I don’t enjoy being ostracised for being different, and so, to an extent, I can sympathise with minorities in the sense that they too are being ostracised for something that is not really their fault.
I also grant you the fact that in places like Serbia and Bosnia, a lack of ethnic majority has led to tensions and tribalism increasing to breaking point and spilling over into armed conflict. However, the UK is still 92% White (Source: CIA World Factbook), so therefore, any real issues of a lack of ethnic majority are a very long way off. It would probably take my lifetime and more for that to actually become a problem (bearing in mind that I’m 20 years old as it is). Obviously, for the sake of sustainability in the distant future, then yes, we do need to see this as a potential outcome, but in the mean time, I would say that there’s not a great deal to worry about. But yes, I can completely see what you’re saying in all of this, because you’ve constructed some very good points here.
Another final thing that I will say though, and, if this sounds a little brash, then please tell me, but growing up in a smaller country, one tends to be very protective of their own territory, as there are not many other people who you share a common identity with. Therefore, you really enjoy and protect the idea of having a land just for all of the people who share that common identity, and this idea is engrained in your way of thinking, which is a natural thing for people of smaller countries to have. From my perspective, I’ve been born and raised in a bigger country, and so I feel that we already have our land, that we’ve established for ourselves. However, as an Island nation, we are very insular, and only care about our own personal well-being with a jumped-up view that we are essentially God’s gift to the human race, which is something that I don’t agree with. Of course, I am proud to be a citizen of Britain, but only to the extent that I have a homeland that I’ve grown up with for a long time, and without that, I wouldn’t really be much. The image of Britain wouldn’t be so marred for me if it wasn’t for the likes of people who were so self-righteous that they can’t accept any fault, who blame others for their own mistakes, who openly criticise others, but can’t take criticism themselves, who don’t embrace other people and instead veil their fear behind irrational racism – this is what I don’t like about parts of the British public, and this is why I don’t support the BNP – it purely represents everything that I think is wrong with the UK, and I like to think that I would be justified in such views as a means of choosing not to vote for them, not now, and probably not ever.
Thank you for your perspective though, Jovan. I can understand the importance of nation through your eyes, and can also see the flaws of full-scale integration – it’s about time that someone actually just told me all of this instead of just pointing fingers of blame at minorities for unknown reasons. I appreciate the time and thought that you’ve put behind it. I hope that my points make sense to you as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting, I`ll quote it on my site later.
Nadine
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nice post
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Сохранили мне кучу времени! спс.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
gazza gazza whit can i say apart from the comment WALTER MUST STAY
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have never read his fantasy books & now never will!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
you can read?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Вы не похожи на эксперта
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sam you know I can read because I can read your comments!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well a lot must be said for those marxist bolshevik teachers then
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“well a lot must be said for those marxist bolshevik teachers then”
Well not really, I read “Trainspotting”!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] – an ex-Gulf War veteran and best-selling author – first got involved with Nothing British when he heard how the BNP were attempting to auction off books he had written [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
chinese dress, along with qipao, were introduced to China during the Qing Dynasty (17th century-20th century). The Manchus in 1636 ordered that all Han Chinese should adopt the changshan style of dress-or face harsh punishment. However, after the 1644 fall of the Ming Dynasty, the Manchu chinese dress stopped this order, and only required the court and government officials to wear Manchu clothes. Commoners were absolutely still allowed to wear the hanfu. However, over time, even the commoners freely adopted the changshan and qipao as their own dress. Thus, the traditional chinese dress style of clothing was gradually replaced. Over time, the Manchu style gained popularity.
chinese dress was formal dress for Chinese men before Western-style suits became common in China.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mcnabs bookes are all in his tiny mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1