Subj : alt.gossip.royalty,alt.pagan To : All From : Rachel L. Akers Date : Sat Oct 28 2000 11:43 pm Greetings, Thought this was an "interesting" POV. More so as I'm currently doing several different subjects dealing with 'racism'. From my POV one of the problems is that some people view 'racism' as _only_ bigotry involving skin colour only (they've no name for ye olde "ethnocentrism") while others combine any form of anti-ethnic, anti-spritual, anti-"not us" mentality with the word. This is a good example of this especially the last bit... Rai -------- Original Message begins -------- From: "phil" Subject: Re: Englishness vs Britishness Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty,alt.pagan Found this on my favourite web-newspaper and though I'd share it with the group. Although I'm sure it will start a flame war of bonfire proportions all this Charles,Camilla,Diana who did what to whom first is getting a bit repetitious,so it's time to stir the pot. > Report pits 'Englishness' vs. 'Britishness' > By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press > LONDON (October 11, 2000 4:11 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) > - "Britishness" and "Englishness" are racially coded words that > carry a whites-only connotation, an independent commission said > Wednesday in a report that called for a rethinking of the > nation's self-image. > The report stirred up a flurry of controversy and denunciation: > One legislator denounced it as "garbage," and a leading > newspaper said it twisted history just as Stalin and Hitler did. > The report was commissioned in 1998 by the Runnymede Trust, an > independent organization devoted to promoting racial justice. It > was a follow-up to a 1969 report on racial issues authored by a > founder of the trust. > The new report's authors, led by Professor Bhikhu Parekh, took > issue with a view of Britain which regards its history as > unbroken, its people united and its identity synonymous with > England. > "Britishness, as much as Englishness, has systematic, largely > unspoken, racial connotations," the report said. "Whiteness > nowhere features as an explicit condition of being British, but > it is widely understood that Englishness, and therefore by > extension Britishness, is racially coded. 'There ain't no black > in the Union Jack,' it has been said." > Home Secretary Jack Straw, though accepting many of the > commission's recommendations, made a point of saying he was > "proud to be English and proud to be British." > Straw, speaking at the formal release of the report, took issue > with its vision of Britain as a mixture of communities - Scots, > Welsh, Irish, English and more recent immigrants from India, > Pakistan, China, Africa and the West Indies. > "I do not accept the arguments of those on the nationalist right > or the liberal left that Britain as a cohesive whole is dead," > Straw said. Britishness has become inclusive, he said, "with > people happily defining themselves as black British or Chinese > British." > Gerald Howarth, a lawmaker from the main opposition Conservative > Party, called the report "politically correct garbage." > "The overwhelming majority of the population are homogenous, > white Anglo-Saxons. We haven't been invaded for 1,000 years," > Howarth said, rounding off the time since the Norman invasion in > 1066. > Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Greater London Assembly and an > author of the report, dismissed criticism as "knee-jerk > reactions of little Englanders." > "St. George (England's patron saint) was a Palestinian and > Richard the Lionheart didn't get round to learning English," > said Phillips, who is black. > Britain's population of 56 million is 93 percent white, though > the report counted 2 million Irish separately. It estimated that > the country had 350,000 Africans, 800,000 Afro-Caribbean people, > 230,000 Bangladeshis, 170,000 Chinese, 950,000 Indians, and > 570,000 Pakistanis. > Race has been an explosive issue here. In 1968, Conservative > Cabinet minister Enoch Powell envisioned "rivers of blood" if > immigration wasn't stopped. More recently, senior officers of > the Metropolitan Police, under pressure for a botched > investigation of the murder of a black youth, have admitted to > racism within the force. > Concerns about British and English identity have also been > sparked by Prime Minister Tony Blair's rapid moves to create > regional governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. > Parekh said there was no intention of denigrating British > history. > "There is a very important role for a common national culture > and a common civic nationality. But we are requesting that this > common culture ... be discussed and renegotiated," he said. > Even before it was released, the report drew a scathing response > from the tabloid Daily Mail. "Such were the means by which > Stalin and Hitler twisted the past to suit their own political > purposes," the paper said in an editorial. > The editorial page included pictures of "the best of British" - > Oliver Cromwell, King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, King > Charles I, the Duke of Wellington, King James I, William > Wilberforce and Queen Victoria. All were white. > _____________ This is an extremely interesting issue - and one that deserves a more considered reaction than the usual banalities triggered by such 'reports'. Firstly, as a white Anglo-Saxon (who, incidentally, is far more 'British' than many members of the Saxe-Coburg dynasty that has been foisted upon us) I share the growing disquiet about the erosion of national identity. I liken it to this simile; If one of the posters here were to take pity upon a man who's house had been destroyed by flood or fire and invite him to live with them, they would be extremely perturbed if the guest were then to start issuing dictacts - you might, reasonably, begin to wonder exactly WHOSE house it was! So it is with Immigration. It is impossible to see the suffering of the Third World and not appreciate why people would wish to escape the endemic misery and poverty that hold sway there. It is galling, however, when second generation immigrants feel sufficiently ensconced to set about fundamentally altering their host nation. For, make no mistake, fundamental change IS the objective of many groups - particularly the Muslim community, who are enjoined by their religion to 'convert' believers of any faith but their own. Does this matter? Well, looking at the moral sewer in which we currently live, one might be tempted to answer "No" - after all, Islam offers a social morality that Christianity appears to have dispensed with. However, we must remember that the hedonistic, apologetic 'Christianity', so beloved of the current crop of Church of England Bishops, is NOT the authentic version. Real Christianity, real Faith, the real Gospel, is the SOLE reason for the prosperity and security that make this nation so attractive to those who have seen their land blighted by demonic pagan forces - we all living upon a legacy of Righteousness bequeathed to us by our forebears, who would be appalled to see the immorality that the nation has so enthusiastically embraced. Surely, then, it is absurd to allow immigrants to Britain the freedom to invoke the very Devils that destroyed their own nations?. (it's rather like a man who burned down his own house being given boxes of matches by the host who took him in!) The Judaeo/Christian tradition is one that has brought great Blessing upon those who have embraced it! - the 'gods' of Hinduism, Bhuddism, Taoism, Shinto'ism (et.al.) seem to have brought their adherents nothing but Famine, Flood, Ruin and Misery!. Yet the proclamation of these self evident truths is to certain to bring howls of rage from the Politically Correct lobby who are motivated by unbridled hatred for the Gospel. I have no distaste for the colour of any mans skin. It matters nothing to me if my neighbour is White, Black, Yellow or Brown. What DOES matter to me is whether he is a Christian. P. -------- Original Message ends -------- --- Msged/2 4.00 * Origin: Elfwhere - The POINTy eared POINT (3:640/531.2379) .