Tuesday, 23 October 2018
Politics

Identifying Britons

Everyone has to have their fair share of criticism.  Mr. Nick Griffin seems to have a one-track mind when it comes to his defense of native Britons, so I’m sure he gets quite a bit of criticism.  His latest race policy is somewhat comical. 

Now, I agree to some extent on what he believes.  America is such a melting pot that people seem to have no qualms about calling themselves American, even if they are first-generation immigrants.  Now, the only true Americans are the Native Americans.  Though I’m not sure how they like to be categorised as such.  You see, they existed before the country was called “America”.  But they probably would rather be called “Native American” than “Indian”, a term applied to them because Columbus thought he had landed in India.  There were many tribes in America and each would have preferred to call themselves by their tribe. The aborigines in Australia arre not called “Native Australians”.  Anyhow, it has become acceptable for people to call themselves American because the native population is such a minority with all the immigration.  Yet, it would be inappropriate for the Whites, who took over, to have sole claim to the term “American”.

The situation is different in Britain. The natives still outnumber the immmigrants, though it’s questionable for how long.  I can see why Mr. Griffin feels so strongly about this issue – he may not have much time before the natives will be the minority.  However, he takes it to extremes.  What does he want to replace “Black Britons” with?  African?  West Indies?  How does he feel about bi-racial children?  If they are half-Black, half-Briton, can’t they be called “Black Britons”?  Similarly with “Asian Britons”?  I like his argument that we are denying these people their own ethnic identity.  Is he serious or is it that he doesn’t want to offend people by saying they have no right to call Britain their homeland?  Can he want to kick people out who have been here several generations now, even if they are not native Britons?  How many truly native Britons are there?  I don’t mean just the Whites. I mean real native Britons, not glomerates of the European nation.  Britain was invaded by the Romans, Vikings, Saxons, Normans, etc.  Their race has been mixed throughout their history.  It is still mixing with other European groups.  At what historical period can we now classify the native “Briton”?  Queen Victoria was the “Grandmother of Europe”, so the Britons cannot be completely distinguished from other Europeans.  You can’t deny Britons the right to claim other ethnic backgrounds, such as German, French, Polish, etc.  So, if you change “Black Briton” and “Asian Briton” will you also have to change “Native Briton”?

I agree with his argument that an Englishman in China cannot be called Chinese. China is rather homogenous.  So are many other nations.  The exceptions seem to be America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and now some other European nations.  These countries are inundated with immigrants who like to take on the identity of their new home.  Perhaps, there is some elevation in status in being called a national of these countries. Perhaps, it is because they allow so many more freedoms and benefits. Unlike the newer countries of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Britain and other European nations had, at one time, a national character.  That character is being threatened as other foreigners stake their claims.  These same foreigners would never even consider identifying themselves with their country if they lived elsewhere.  For example, a Jamaican taking a job in Iraq would probably never call himself Iraqi.  An Indian living in Israel would not say he is Israeli.  I had an Indian friend who was born and raised in Kenya.  She never said she was Kenyan.  She always referred to herself as an Indian from Kenya.  From that standpoint, I can see where Mr. Griffin is coming from.

But in his fight for a return of the British national character, Mr. Griffin is chiseling away at some minor points that seem trivial.  It makes him appear a little foolish at times.  I suppose he has to start somewhere.

Post Comment