ashley cole is not ethnically british, he is ethnically african. This is the crux of the bnp’s argument; are not anglo celtic britons allowed to call themselves exclusively ethnic to the british isles. After all, most other regions of the world have peoples who are entitled to denote themselves as ethnic to a region or country. I mean, really, how many of robin hoods merry men were black or pakistani?
He is half English (WHITE), which means he has every right, as long as you defend the right of such people to elect to identify with the minority part of themselves, to choose to be recognised as the ENGLISH (WHITE) side of himself. In short, he is as much ethnically British as he is ‘ethnically African’.
“are not anglo celtic britons allowed to call themselves exclusively ethnic to the british isles”
I don’t agree with this concept of indigenous, at least in the way you define it. But, if it were to be done (which I don’t believe it should), only if the concept of indigenous is defined rigourously, i.e. as long as they get a genetic heritage test proving that 85% plus of their genetic heritage comes from those ethnicities that are considered ‘indigenous’ i.e. Saxons, Normans, Celtics and Paleolithics.
Of course, if that was the case, I think you’d find that many ‘white’ people that believe that are ‘indigenous’ for no solid, good reason might be suprised. It is probably for this reason that Griffin has REFUSED to define ‘indigenous’.
“After all, most other regions of the world have peoples who are entitled to denote themselves as ethnic to a region or country”
Most of the countries that do that sort of thing are ones that are, at the time they do it, ethnically homogenous. Even if those countries did adopt your attitudes at a time of a wave of immigration, it wouldn’t make such a thing right.
And this is all besides the point that you’ve not defined ‘ethnicity’. How are we supposed to understand what you mean, and then argue against the point we come to understand, when you use such ambiguous terms?
ok, as a starting point, how about if ones forefathers ( and mothers for the pc ) lived in the british isles at the time of henry viii, and apologies to decendents of the hugenots. and if that is too far back, lets say as a starting point, those who had family in britain at the time of ww2. now that would have to exclude those from the subcontinent and africa. People have a fairly good idea of what costitutes a swede or dane; you dont have to be einstein to work out what constitutes ethnically british!
The term ‘indigenous’ doesn’t need defining by Nick Griffin: it’s a simple term used consistently all the time including by governments and the UN. And it therefore should go without saying that Britain’s living indigenous peoples are the Scots, Welsh, English and to the degree they ‘live as a people’ the Cornish, etc. It’s also remarkably simple to accurately describe Ashley Cole: half-English and half-White or mixed-race.
[Pig's arse is almost certainly hostile to the BNP whose supporters are almost uniformly reasonable and positive. A good resource on that kind of thing is American Renaissance's Hate crimes hoax page. American focused in the main, but the same bizarre behaviours occur here.]
Mysterious stranger: at my blog I have posted a definition of ‘ethnicity’ and similar terms drawn up by the respected academic Walker Connor – one of the key theorists of nationalism and ethnic relations:
fellist
this is my point, why can other peoples be proscribed as ” indigenous ” , except it seems the peoples of the british isles. I am not an indigenous australian, they are also proscribed as such, although there are many white australians with maybe 1/8 aboriginal blood who now call themselves indigenous. A cynic might attribute this to the financial benefits that flow from being proscribed as indigenous in australia. Infact anyone can put their snout in the multicultural treasure trove in oz, except if you are of english, scots, welsh or irish blood. Talk about bloody hypocricy! Go BNP stand up for the identity of the real british
decendents of ancient britons, ie celts, manx etc… anglo saxon frank jute dane norman, and maybe the remnants of the romans and not forgetting the hugenots, who qualify by now.
non-british include albanian, azerbijahni, andorran, algerian……zambian, zimbabwean (although white rhodesians qualify)
get the picture, pretty simple really
so danes are now british,romans are now british,anglo saxon germans are now british,what about bretons ,arent they the real british where as most people living on this island havent really got 100% british bllod running through their veins.would you not include the irish as non british?
so by your logic then , the recent wave of migrants will be considered british in about 1500 years or so. But by then there will be no british left, except in the history books.
slow genocide sam,
“so by your logic then , the recent wave of migrants will be considered british in about 1500 years or so. But by then there will be no british left, except in the history books.”
No, what he is saying is the British Isles have endured thousands of years of immigration, in successive waves in fact. People like you don’t mind that because the majority of those immigrants were ‘white’. They intergrated into the population, people just accepted it and got on.
Now that we have ‘non-white’ immigrants coming to the UK, and since you’ve defined citizenships and nationality in terms of the colour of ones skin (LITERALLY), you believe that the British ‘ethnic’ group will be destroyed, which you can only believe if you equate skin colour/race to nationality. Yet I’m sure you’d have no problem with ‘white’ European immigrants, LIKE THE BNP, because they don’t believe that other ‘white’ immigrants coming to this country is a problem.
And that is really all this is to do with. It’s got nothing to do with ‘indigenous’. You’re just a racist that defines being British as having ‘white’ skin, and so wants any non-whites not to leave but has no problem with European ‘white’ immigrants since they don’t change the way most people, that you consider to be English, ‘look’.
“ok, as a starting point, how about if ones forefathers ( and mothers for the pc ) lived in the british isles at the time of henry viii, and apologies to decendents of the hugenots.”
Ashley Coles descendants may have lived in Britain at the time of Henry VIII for all you know.
“now that would have to exclude those from the subcontinent and africa.”
Except those whose families have been in this country since the beginning of the Slave Trade? Non-white people who, technically, may be able to trace their families back here for hundreds of years.
drivel, you are splitting hairs!
to make it easy for you i will sum up my position as this ;-
THERE IS A HUGE WAVE OF MIGRATION OCCURING FROM THE THIRD WORLD TO THE DEVELOPED WORLD. IN THE PROCESS THE LIVING STANDARDS OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD HAVE TO FALL IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE AN INCREASE IN POPULATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE IMMIGRANTS ARE UNEDUCARED, UNSKILLED AND CULTURALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HOST NATIONS.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE WORLDS POPULATION HAS INCREASED FROM 2 BILLION IN 1950 TO 6 BILLION NOW, AND IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE TO 11 BILLION BY 2050, WELL, WHERE HAS THAT POPULATION EXPLOSION COME FROM?
THE THIRD WORLD
SO HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE CAN THE DEVELOPED WORLD ACCOMODATE BEFORE WE TOO BECOME PART OF THE THIRD WORLD?
HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE FROM THE THIRD WORLD ARE you PREPARED TO ACCEPT, BEFORE YOU ALSO GET SICK AND TIRED OF THIS INEXORABLE WAVE OF MIGRATION.
GO TO BOMBAY, JAKARTA, LAGOS, CAIRO etc… IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR THE DEVELOPED WORLD!
get off your morale high horse , pull your head out of your arse and actually contemplate this scenario… then you can call me a racist
Mysterious stranger said: Ashley Coles descendants may have lived in Britain at the time of Henry VIII for all you know.
If one of his parents is English no doubt he had many ancestors in Tudor England. There is almost zero chance of his having black ancestors in Tudor England. The ancestors in his non-English line most likely to have been in Tudor England are English people whose descendants contributed to the gene pool of the black carribean centuries later. But I don’t get your point, anyway…
We are constantly reminded of humanity’s origins in Africa. If your claim about Cole’s ancestry was true and implied what you’d like to think, then it would also justify a return to Africa by all the peoples of the world outside it now — and black Africans would be racist if they objected to our entry. Can you really mean this? Or are you just trying to justify one particular and fashionable race-replacement, not race-replacement generally.
in the 19th century the africans violently objected to europeans settling in africa.
those opposed to the bnp would no doubt say that these people had every right to do so. funny how they deny british people the right to non violently oppose migration to britain.
again fellist , it is the double standard principle at play
if that is the case WTF it is a shame as i could’nt tell a mick from a prod, they should get on with being scottish/british and realise that their identity is under threat from an influx of mass migration that will not stop until a party has the balls to enact legislation
to stem the flow of third world migration
… and i bet that is where sam resides. On a nice, quiet island in the hebrides, far removed from the angry hustle of the urban jungle, with all its multicultural bullshit. Christ, you are a lucky bastard sam, no wonder you can afford to have your whisky fuelled views
BBC interview lets racist pair off the hook – and links to BNP website – The Guardian.
Well done Mr Greenslade,now thats democracy for you.I applaud you sir.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ashley cole is not ethnically british, he is ethnically african. This is the crux of the bnp’s argument; are not anglo celtic britons allowed to call themselves exclusively ethnic to the british isles. After all, most other regions of the world have peoples who are entitled to denote themselves as ethnic to a region or country. I mean, really, how many of robin hoods merry men were black or pakistani?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who cares what this idiot has to say. Its only a Guardian blog.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/tory-leader-begins-his-great-lisbon-treaty-retreat/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AussieAl
“ashley cole is not ethnically british, he is ethnically african.”
Wrong, Ashley Cole – Afro-Caribbean father/English mother
He is half English (WHITE), which means he has every right, as long as you defend the right of such people to elect to identify with the minority part of themselves, to choose to be recognised as the ENGLISH (WHITE) side of himself. In short, he is as much ethnically British as he is ‘ethnically African’.
“are not anglo celtic britons allowed to call themselves exclusively ethnic to the british isles”
I don’t agree with this concept of indigenous, at least in the way you define it. But, if it were to be done (which I don’t believe it should), only if the concept of indigenous is defined rigourously, i.e. as long as they get a genetic heritage test proving that 85% plus of their genetic heritage comes from those ethnicities that are considered ‘indigenous’ i.e. Saxons, Normans, Celtics and Paleolithics.
Of course, if that was the case, I think you’d find that many ‘white’ people that believe that are ‘indigenous’ for no solid, good reason might be suprised. It is probably for this reason that Griffin has REFUSED to define ‘indigenous’.
“After all, most other regions of the world have peoples who are entitled to denote themselves as ethnic to a region or country”
Most of the countries that do that sort of thing are ones that are, at the time they do it, ethnically homogenous. Even if those countries did adopt your attitudes at a time of a wave of immigration, it wouldn’t make such a thing right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And this is all besides the point that you’ve not defined ‘ethnicity’. How are we supposed to understand what you mean, and then argue against the point we come to understand, when you use such ambiguous terms?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ok, as a starting point, how about if ones forefathers ( and mothers for the pc ) lived in the british isles at the time of henry viii, and apologies to decendents of the hugenots. and if that is too far back, lets say as a starting point, those who had family in britain at the time of ww2. now that would have to exclude those from the subcontinent and africa. People have a fairly good idea of what costitutes a swede or dane; you dont have to be einstein to work out what constitutes ethnically british!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
we dont make jokes about black men in our family as we have a black man in our family tree …… he’s been hanging there for years
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The term ‘indigenous’ doesn’t need defining by Nick Griffin: it’s a simple term used consistently all the time including by governments and the UN. And it therefore should go without saying that Britain’s living indigenous peoples are the Scots, Welsh, English and to the degree they ‘live as a people’ the Cornish, etc. It’s also remarkably simple to accurately describe Ashley Cole: half-English and half-White or mixed-race.
[Pig's arse is almost certainly hostile to the BNP whose supporters are almost uniformly reasonable and positive. A good resource on that kind of thing is American Renaissance's Hate crimes hoax page. American focused in the main, but the same bizarre behaviours occur here.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mysterious stranger: at my blog I have posted a definition of ‘ethnicity’ and similar terms drawn up by the respected academic Walker Connor – one of the key theorists of nationalism and ethnic relations:
http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/06/glossary.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fellist
this is my point, why can other peoples be proscribed as ” indigenous ” , except it seems the peoples of the british isles. I am not an indigenous australian, they are also proscribed as such, although there are many white australians with maybe 1/8 aboriginal blood who now call themselves indigenous. A cynic might attribute this to the financial benefits that flow from being proscribed as indigenous in australia. Infact anyone can put their snout in the multicultural treasure trove in oz, except if you are of english, scots, welsh or irish blood. Talk about bloody hypocricy! Go BNP stand up for the identity of the real british
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
go bnp….and dont come back
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
aussietwat,who are these people that are”the real british”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
decendents of ancient britons, ie celts, manx etc… anglo saxon frank jute dane norman, and maybe the remnants of the romans and not forgetting the hugenots, who qualify by now.
non-british include albanian, azerbijahni, andorran, algerian……zambian, zimbabwean (although white rhodesians qualify)
get the picture, pretty simple really
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so danes are now british,romans are now british,anglo saxon germans are now british,what about bretons ,arent they the real british where as most people living on this island havent really got 100% british bllod running through their veins.would you not include the irish as non british?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so by your logic then , the recent wave of migrants will be considered british in about 1500 years or so. But by then there will be no british left, except in the history books.
slow genocide sam,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1,500 years from now.,we ll all be american or chinese,so who gives a flying****
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AussieAl
“so by your logic then , the recent wave of migrants will be considered british in about 1500 years or so. But by then there will be no british left, except in the history books.”
No, what he is saying is the British Isles have endured thousands of years of immigration, in successive waves in fact. People like you don’t mind that because the majority of those immigrants were ‘white’. They intergrated into the population, people just accepted it and got on.
Now that we have ‘non-white’ immigrants coming to the UK, and since you’ve defined citizenships and nationality in terms of the colour of ones skin (LITERALLY), you believe that the British ‘ethnic’ group will be destroyed, which you can only believe if you equate skin colour/race to nationality. Yet I’m sure you’d have no problem with ‘white’ European immigrants, LIKE THE BNP, because they don’t believe that other ‘white’ immigrants coming to this country is a problem.
And that is really all this is to do with. It’s got nothing to do with ‘indigenous’. You’re just a racist that defines being British as having ‘white’ skin, and so wants any non-whites not to leave but has no problem with European ‘white’ immigrants since they don’t change the way most people, that you consider to be English, ‘look’.
“slow genocide sam,”
Racist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“ok, as a starting point, how about if ones forefathers ( and mothers for the pc ) lived in the british isles at the time of henry viii, and apologies to decendents of the hugenots.”
Ashley Coles descendants may have lived in Britain at the time of Henry VIII for all you know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“now that would have to exclude those from the subcontinent and africa.”
Except those whose families have been in this country since the beginning of the Slave Trade? Non-white people who, technically, may be able to trace their families back here for hundreds of years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
drivel, you are splitting hairs!
to make it easy for you i will sum up my position as this ;-
THERE IS A HUGE WAVE OF MIGRATION OCCURING FROM THE THIRD WORLD TO THE DEVELOPED WORLD. IN THE PROCESS THE LIVING STANDARDS OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD HAVE TO FALL IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE AN INCREASE IN POPULATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE IMMIGRANTS ARE UNEDUCARED, UNSKILLED AND CULTURALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HOST NATIONS.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE WORLDS POPULATION HAS INCREASED FROM 2 BILLION IN 1950 TO 6 BILLION NOW, AND IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE TO 11 BILLION BY 2050, WELL, WHERE HAS THAT POPULATION EXPLOSION COME FROM?
THE THIRD WORLD
SO HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE CAN THE DEVELOPED WORLD ACCOMODATE BEFORE WE TOO BECOME PART OF THE THIRD WORLD?
HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE FROM THE THIRD WORLD ARE you PREPARED TO ACCEPT, BEFORE YOU ALSO GET SICK AND TIRED OF THIS INEXORABLE WAVE OF MIGRATION.
GO TO BOMBAY, JAKARTA, LAGOS, CAIRO etc… IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR THE DEVELOPED WORLD!
get off your morale high horse , pull your head out of your arse and actually contemplate this scenario… then you can call me a racist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
tut tut aussietwats getting ANGRY you can tell when he writes WITH THE CAPS LOCK ON
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
multiculturalism means you don’t have to go overseas to fight your enemy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Warmonger
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fishmonger, ironmonger, mongerel … take more drugs, drink more beer, vote liebour
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
pigs arse ..what you do is up to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
he sounds nearly as mad as you scotch sam
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mysterious stranger said: Ashley Coles descendants may have lived in Britain at the time of Henry VIII for all you know.
If one of his parents is English no doubt he had many ancestors in Tudor England. There is almost zero chance of his having black ancestors in Tudor England. The ancestors in his non-English line most likely to have been in Tudor England are English people whose descendants contributed to the gene pool of the black carribean centuries later. But I don’t get your point, anyway…
We are constantly reminded of humanity’s origins in Africa. If your claim about Cole’s ancestry was true and implied what you’d like to think, then it would also justify a return to Africa by all the peoples of the world outside it now — and black Africans would be racist if they objected to our entry. Can you really mean this? Or are you just trying to justify one particular and fashionable race-replacement, not race-replacement generally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
in the 19th century the africans violently objected to europeans settling in africa.
those opposed to the bnp would no doubt say that these people had every right to do so. funny how they deny british people the right to non violently oppose migration to britain.
again fellist , it is the double standard principle at play
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
aussietwat ..wha,s like us
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so the bnp havent got double standards then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
repeat in english sam, i cannot decipher you accent
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
no
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you still havnt explained scotlands dark dirty shame to me sam, you are not a nation of kilt lifters are you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
from a nation of sheep shaggers like austrailia thats a great post mate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I assume it is something to do with the religous divide in Scotland?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if that is the case WTF it is a shame as i could’nt tell a mick from a prod, they should get on with being scottish/british and realise that their identity is under threat from an influx of mass migration that will not stop until a party has the balls to enact legislation
to stem the flow of third world migration
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes I think they need to recognise what is happening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One Scotland Many Cultures
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
highland, lowland and island?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
aussie chum,Scotland is not an island,unless you mean the British Isles,then i do apologise
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think he means that Scotland has islands off its coast?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sorry,my mistake
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
… and i bet that is where sam resides. On a nice, quiet island in the hebrides, far removed from the angry hustle of the urban jungle, with all its multicultural bullshit. Christ, you are a lucky bastard sam, no wonder you can afford to have your whisky fuelled views
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i wish sport
Like or Dislike:
0 
0