BNP claims DNA evidence validates their racist policies

volatile

Scholar and a Gentleman
volatile
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
6,729
Nick Griffin, racist and newly-minted MEP, was on Radio Five this morning claiming that the science of genetics legitimised his party's racist policies. Two thirds of people in Britain with British parents, he claims, can trace their "genetic ancestry" back to ice-age settlers in the geographical area of the UK

I hadn't heard this line before, but a quick Google search suggests that it's a line he's been peddling for a while (a summary is available at http://www.britishpride.org/?p=172).

Now, there are a number of glaring issues with this line of argument, scientifically, ethically and politically, but I just wanted to see what the JREF made of the basic claims...
 
Don't know, but from other things I've heard and read around the subject my first reaction is, it's nonsense, isn't it?

Rolfe.
 
I'm fairly certain I can trace my genetic heritage back to Britain, Spain, northern Germany and possibly even Russia.

In other words, so friggin' what? I bet two thirds of Brits could also trace their genetic lineage back to a range of other European ice age groups. They're a melting pot of family lines, meaning I'd be blown away if we didn't find such common ancestry.

Let's pretend that it's true, and two thirds of Brits are all clones with zero genetics imported from elsewhere. What difference should it make at all?

Sorry - we have a similar political party here in Australia. They bug me just as much.

Idiots.

Athon
 
If he traces his "genetic ancestry" back far enough he'll find that his ancestors came from Africa.

With any luck he'll get himself deported.
 
Well yes, most people probably do have at least one line of descent that traces back to Britain for a long way - but we have so many lines of descent that most of us could probably trace back to certain other areas too.

Besides that, even if most people here were bred wholly from british stock, how does that make racism and wanting to chuck other people out any better?
 
Mojo said:
If he traces his "genetic ancestry" back far enough he'll find that his ancestors came from Africa.

With any luck he'll get himself deported.
Click to expand...

That would be lovely, wouldn't it?
 
Rolfe said:
Don't know, but from other things I've heard and read around the subject my first reaction is, it's nonsense, isn't it?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought... but obviously he doesn't cite the "research" he's talking about, so we can't check if even the basic fact is true.

Anyone know how credible the basic premise is?
 
As I was researching my Lee ancestral line back into the middle ages,
I was excited to find that I am apparently a direct descendant of
Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor. As I dug deeper, I found at
least three separate lines of descent from him to me, and I saw more
and more genealogical sites on the Web that claimed similar descent.
This started me thinking about how likely it is that I, or anyone for
that matter, might be descended from a particular person that far
back. As a mathematician (though not by any means a probabilist), I
figured I ought to be able to come up with at least a rough estimate
of the probability. My conclusion, which was surprising (to me at
least), is that there is virtually no chance that anyone of European
ancestry is not directly descended from Charlemagne.
Click to expand...
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-07/0932322952

Also:

Mark Humphrys, a computer scientist in Dublin, has made a point of comparing various schemes to predict the recent common ancestors of all living people. His webpages on the ‘common ancestor’ question provide a fascinating survey of genealogical, genetic and statistical approaches.
In 1999 Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University, wrote a mathematical formula to predict how far back we would have to go to find someone who was the ancestor of every person alive today. While his model was rather abstract (he assumed that ANY two people could have a child, not just a man and a woman), his conclusion was surprisingly short: we would only need to go back to about 1200 AD.
More recently (2002 and 2003), a sophisticated model by MIT computer scientist Douglas Rohde has taken into account such factors as geographic isolation and non-random mate choice. Rohde’s model resulted in a more conservative but still surprisingly short estimate, that the most recent common ancestor of all living people lived as recently as 300 AD. A more sophisticated iteration of Rohde’s computer model is currently (2004) under construction and testing. These studies offer a thought-provoking counterpoint to the research into common male-line and female-line genetic inheritance (the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ and ‘DNA Adam’ phenomena) which predicts vastly greater time to common ancestors if one follows only the exclusively male or exclusive female lines of descent.
Click to expand...
http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/9
 
Last edited:
The science aside, how the heck would this legitimize racism?

And if it justifies discrimination against non-white people in Britain, would it also justify discrimination against white people in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ... ?
 
Dr Adequate said:
The science aside, how the heck would this legitimize racism?

And if it justifies discrimination against non-white people in Britain, would it also justify discrimination against white people in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ... ?
Click to expand...

The BNP couldn't afford to do that, if they got in power. The British education system would fall apart. :)

Athon
 
Dr Adequate said:
The science aside, how the heck would this legitimize racism?

And if it justifies discrimination against non-white people in Britain, would it also justify discrimination against white people in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ... ?
Click to expand...

It's their silly idea, not mine.

I presume the political angle he wishes to exploit from this claim is that it legitimises the 'voluntary' repatriation policy, and provides a supposedly empirical basis on which such a policy might be enacted. Anyone whose ancestors didn't live in Britain before agriculture was practised (the 'good' two-thirds of the population, by Griffin's nauseating ideology) can bugger off "home".

It's chilling.
 
Anyone know if the BNP have ever officially advocated banning emigration, as that seems to be the only logical counterpoint to their immigration policy?
 
It's just a shame we can't put Griffin on the ban list with Fred Phelps and the others. Let him leave for the EU and don't let him back in.
 
Well, yes. I expect that could be said about most places that have been continuously populated since the ice age (and before). Especially for a sufficiently loose definition of 'lineage'.

So, as already noted, the proper answer is: So &%#*@ what? Based on such an approach, does Mr. Griffin suggest that white Americans abandon North America in favor of Native Americans?

Hans
 
Another of Nick Griffin's peeves is a black actor playing the role of Friar Tuck in the latest BBC Robin Hood series. Apparently this damages the historical credibility of the show, since (to quote Helen Phillips, Professor of English at Cardiff University in The Times) "...Sub-saharan Africans wouldn't have been converted by that point, they would have had other religions. North Africans would have mostly been Muslims..."

And there I was thinking the stories of Robin Hood were more myths and legends than factual historical accounts.
 
martu said:
How does he define British parents?
Click to expand...

I'm not completely sure, but from what he says it seems to be an exclusive rather than inclusive definition. I.e. any number of characteristics can rule a particular person out of being classed as "British" as far as Mr. Griffin and his supporters are concerned.
 
I think that James Watson's racist remarks coupled have helped accelerate racism in some places. Watson was(and probably still is) a great scientist, but not everything he says is scientific. When Watson was making racist remarks, he wasn't speaking as the man who helped discover the double helix shape of DNA. He was speaking as an Archie Bunker like buffoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom