I can never shut up, I just can't...
Oh, I can't stop myself.
Nick Griffin - onwards from Bonnie Greer's comments on the definition of 'indigenous' - seems to really be getting some things (ha) very very, er, confused.
He says that if we said "what do you mean by 'indigenous'?" in New Zealand/US/Australia, it would be a huge insult.
Well, yes. Those are countries that were invaded/conquered/COLONISED by white people in a period of history that's a lot more recent than, say, when the Anglo-Saxon turned up in England in middle of the first millennium BCE. That's why. Because racist governments and practises were set up immediately by said white people - er, actually, in all three cases, ENGLISH PEOPLE - during times of recorded history, and we can still see the effect of said colonisation and racism in those indigenous societies and said indigenous people are still suffering the effects of it. It's called 'context', Nick. So when you insist on saying 'indigenous' in the UK, it's a bit of a null term. Also - hang on, does this mean that the Normans should have been kicked out after the Norman Invasion (your surname is of Norman descent, if I'm not mistaken...)? Which bit is indigenous, the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Viking settlers...? Not the Romans, surely? England is now and has always been a massive smash of European cultures. The Celts came up from Europe, the Romans came up from Europe, the Saxons came up from Europe, the Danes/Vikings came, er, down from Europe and the Normans came across from Europe and it's all melded together to the tea-and-biscuit loving, countryside-hiking culture that you love so much - see what multiculturalism can do? Your 'England' is and has always been one giant mishmash, to its benefit. There IS no 'indigenous English people' in the sense that there is in Australia/NZ/US. CONTEXT, mate. It pretty much always matters.
Also, you don't get to compare yourselves to those indigenous people. Your history is different - in those three cases the English were the aggressors, the oppressors and the colonisers; your history is, for at least the last thousand years, pretty cosy for the most part, quite cushy and secure - England has remained un-invaded since 1066 (and that was a GOOD thing, considering the culture it brought - I do love the Anglo Saxons, but they were going nowhere fast), and the 'indigenous' English people (I'm using this term as I think Mr Griffin would use it) do not have any past that screams pain and misery, like that of the aborigines, the slaves in the US or the Native Americans. You had no Trail of Tears or Lost Generation. You, as a white, Anglo male who was born in and is living in a democracy - you don't get to compare yourself to people who have undergone centuries of oppression, victimisation and in some cases, genocide (another term you don't seem to understand). Attempting to compare yourself and your, er, fellow 'indigenous' people to the groups mentioned above is actually kind of offensive and seriously baffling. It's specious to the point of obscenity.
Moving onto another issue - you might find gay people kissing in public "really creepy", but you know what? The more you see it, the less creepy it'll be, until one day it'll be so normal that you won't bat an eye. I, for one, see gay people kissing in public and feel happy; happy that they legally can(goodbye, Victoriana!), that they feel secure enough to be able to and that they are brave enough to do so and everyone who hates be damned. YAY to them, and keep it comin'.
And who the fuck teaches homosexuality to school children - I didn't realise homosexuality could be 'taught', I thought one is born a homosexual or a heterosexual (or bisexual) and that's that. I didn't realise they taught 'heterosexuality' to school children - primary school children, let alone are proposing to 'teach' them homosexuality; these children, I think, don't get taught about sex at all. THEY'RE IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, you tit. What on earth do they think will happen, they'll have lessons in assfucking after recess? This is the same as the neocon thing in the US, some sudden fear that their five year old will come home from kindergarten with two anatomically correct Ken dolls in the pile-driver position shouting "LOOK, DADDY, this is what I want to do!". Which is preposterous and just a little hysterical.
If Nick Griffin feels like he's suddenly a minority, then perhaps he needs to join the twenty first century, buck up, suck it up and progress with everyone else. And stop insisting you're misquoted when people have clips on YouTube of you saying what you profess not to have said. Clapping your hands over your ears and shouting "NONONONONO" is not a form of debate for people over the age of six.
I think the best use for Nick Griffin is to force him to be in a reality television show, where they make him go to gay clubs, the middle of Africa, attend a morning prayer session at a mosque and generally rub his face in, you know, THE WORLD. It'll be funny. Just Nick, no one else. I'd pay money to see him trapped in a gay fetish club.
Nick Griffin - onwards from Bonnie Greer's comments on the definition of 'indigenous' - seems to really be getting some things (ha) very very, er, confused.
He says that if we said "what do you mean by 'indigenous'?" in New Zealand/US/Australia, it would be a huge insult.
Well, yes. Those are countries that were invaded/conquered/COLONISED by white people in a period of history that's a lot more recent than, say, when the Anglo-Saxon turned up in England in middle of the first millennium BCE. That's why. Because racist governments and practises were set up immediately by said white people - er, actually, in all three cases, ENGLISH PEOPLE - during times of recorded history, and we can still see the effect of said colonisation and racism in those indigenous societies and said indigenous people are still suffering the effects of it. It's called 'context', Nick. So when you insist on saying 'indigenous' in the UK, it's a bit of a null term. Also - hang on, does this mean that the Normans should have been kicked out after the Norman Invasion (your surname is of Norman descent, if I'm not mistaken...)? Which bit is indigenous, the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Viking settlers...? Not the Romans, surely? England is now and has always been a massive smash of European cultures. The Celts came up from Europe, the Romans came up from Europe, the Saxons came up from Europe, the Danes/Vikings came, er, down from Europe and the Normans came across from Europe and it's all melded together to the tea-and-biscuit loving, countryside-hiking culture that you love so much - see what multiculturalism can do? Your 'England' is and has always been one giant mishmash, to its benefit. There IS no 'indigenous English people' in the sense that there is in Australia/NZ/US. CONTEXT, mate. It pretty much always matters.
Also, you don't get to compare yourselves to those indigenous people. Your history is different - in those three cases the English were the aggressors, the oppressors and the colonisers; your history is, for at least the last thousand years, pretty cosy for the most part, quite cushy and secure - England has remained un-invaded since 1066 (and that was a GOOD thing, considering the culture it brought - I do love the Anglo Saxons, but they were going nowhere fast), and the 'indigenous' English people (I'm using this term as I think Mr Griffin would use it) do not have any past that screams pain and misery, like that of the aborigines, the slaves in the US or the Native Americans. You had no Trail of Tears or Lost Generation. You, as a white, Anglo male who was born in and is living in a democracy - you don't get to compare yourself to people who have undergone centuries of oppression, victimisation and in some cases, genocide (another term you don't seem to understand). Attempting to compare yourself and your, er, fellow 'indigenous' people to the groups mentioned above is actually kind of offensive and seriously baffling. It's specious to the point of obscenity.
Moving onto another issue - you might find gay people kissing in public "really creepy", but you know what? The more you see it, the less creepy it'll be, until one day it'll be so normal that you won't bat an eye. I, for one, see gay people kissing in public and feel happy; happy that they legally can(goodbye, Victoriana!), that they feel secure enough to be able to and that they are brave enough to do so and everyone who hates be damned. YAY to them, and keep it comin'.
And who the fuck teaches homosexuality to school children - I didn't realise homosexuality could be 'taught', I thought one is born a homosexual or a heterosexual (or bisexual) and that's that. I didn't realise they taught 'heterosexuality' to school children - primary school children, let alone are proposing to 'teach' them homosexuality; these children, I think, don't get taught about sex at all. THEY'RE IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, you tit. What on earth do they think will happen, they'll have lessons in assfucking after recess? This is the same as the neocon thing in the US, some sudden fear that their five year old will come home from kindergarten with two anatomically correct Ken dolls in the pile-driver position shouting "LOOK, DADDY, this is what I want to do!". Which is preposterous and just a little hysterical.
If Nick Griffin feels like he's suddenly a minority, then perhaps he needs to join the twenty first century, buck up, suck it up and progress with everyone else. And stop insisting you're misquoted when people have clips on YouTube of you saying what you profess not to have said. Clapping your hands over your ears and shouting "NONONONONO" is not a form of debate for people over the age of six.
I think the best use for Nick Griffin is to force him to be in a reality television show, where they make him go to gay clubs, the middle of Africa, attend a morning prayer session at a mosque and generally rub his face in, you know, THE WORLD. It'll be funny. Just Nick, no one else. I'd pay money to see him trapped in a gay fetish club.