When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

LadyBlaBlah, I agree with your penultimate post. That's why I previously used the example of an English child taken as an orphan to France, who would end up a French patriot. I think it is cultural but based on the natural genetically inbuilt instinct to be part of a group of shared genes.

Of course we will accuse others of corruption. The BBC programme did that before the vote was even cast. Putin blasted the media and the dirty tricks and said it was unacceptable pressure on FIFA. It's always those blooody forriners with their corrupt, conniving ways. There's never been any brown envelopes in Parliament in cash for questions.

To have spent more money than any other country, to have sent Prince William over. For Cameron to have spent 5 whole days of his important time over there, is a national humiliation. It is a disaster. How is it possible that all these bigwigs could spend so much money and end up empty-handed with just 2 votes? Couldn't they see this coming? What on earth did they do wrong? What does this say about their judgement? We sent the best the country to offer, Putin didn't even grace them with his presence. Cameron was there all day for 5 days. How could this happen?

Also, the fact that England didn't secure more than 2 votes despite having a very strong bid, might be some indication of the corruption and brown envelope culture of Fifa. Hence the need for a documentary on it.

The main problem with a genetic argument for patriotism (never the like been heard before?) is that if you took a person with 'perfect' anglo saxon english genes in utero, and as soon as they were born, they were put in a tribe in Uganda. Then that person would show no patriotism to England.

Patriotism is a cultural phenomenon designed to bring cohesion to groups. It may be that there is an instinct to be a part of a group. But that is all.

D'you know that I knew even before I checked that this thread was started by one of the Tory zealots who believe all they read in the Daily Mail.

Better the BBC than Fox News.

Do you mean genes as in individuals are different, hence your Osborne comment. Or do you mean that races are genetically pre-disposed to be better at different things to other races?

'And as for your 'politically correct' comment. Yawn. This is the retreat of the right wing when faced with actual evidence that they don't like. Damn those bloody scientists too, huh, and their insistence on facts?'

Gideon Osborne could practise for 100 years and he would still not be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt, whatver the politically correct sports psychologists tell you.

'You mean they look different? Or they live differently?'

Yes they look different, but that is not it. They are temperamentally different, they act different. You can't fail to realise that you are in a different place with different people.

'The Romans are not keen on the Milanese for reasons NOTHING to do with genetics. The fact that you're now talking about cities, not nations is a bit of clue that your logic is really faulty.'

Sorry but it is genetic. Roman taxi drivers will tell you that the Milanesi are "freddo" (cold), they say they are like the English. Abroad, people think that the English are cold and reserved. The Milanesi are Lombards, a Germanic tribe, just like the English Anglo-Saxons. The Romans are a mix of different genes and have a different temperament. You would be surprised by the hostility between the Northern Italian Germanic people and the Southern Italian Greco-Roman people. You would be surprised what a managing director from Venice called Naples. the Lega Nord, in the North of Italy, even want to separate from Southern Italy, because they say they are a different people and a different country.

You mean they look different? Or they live differently? And you think that being annexed might not lead to a difference in cultural outlook?

Look, there are about 5-6 sub-groups of the human genotype [google haplogroups]. They spread around the globe at slightly different times in ancient history. Which explains some of the variation.

But they are essentially about big regional genetic differences. Which means, actually, British people are virtually genetically identical to most other people in Europe.

And as for your 'politically correct' comment. Yawn. This is the retreat of the right wing when faced with actual evidence that they don't like. Damn those bloody scientists too, huh, and their insistence on facts? Why can't they just toe the line like the BBC?

'Well, much current sports psychology suggests it is almost always practice that makes perfect, not 'genes'.'

I'm not surprised, that is politically correct philosophy for you. It is how they would like it to be, but it is not reality.

Yes genes mix. Have you been abroad? Have you been to Italy? Have you gone to Rome and then gone to Bolzano (near the Austrian border), which was annexed by Italy after WWI? Can't you tell the difference between teh people in both locations? They are totally different, because they are genetically different.

Proof, again, please claig, which you didn't supply last time. Where, oh where, is the evidence that 'most British people have anglo-saxon genes'?

The Romans are not keen on the Milanese for reasons NOTHING to do with genetics. The fact that you're now talking about cities, not nations is a bit of clue that your logic is really faulty. The British and French, Liverpudlians and Mancs, northerners and southerners, Canadian and Americans, French Canadians vs everyone else, Serbs vs Croats, Scots Vs English, Cornish, South Londoners, Muslims vs Hindus, Protestant vs Catholic...

...do all these 'differences' and fractions and boundaries, some of which are 'national' some of which are not, not tell you something about how arbitrary the divisions all are...?

Haven't you heard of that theory? It was around well before blunkett. And still going strong in some quarters it seems.

stickylittlefingers, I agree with that. But teh majority if English people still have Anglo-Saxon genes, together with other genes.
The majority of Southern Italians do not have Anglo-Saxon genes.

Well, much current sports psychology suggests it is almost always practice that makes perfect, not 'genes'.

But even if one did accept that particular individuals had genetic talents, how would that explain nationality? Just because someone has a genetic predisposition to one set of characteristics does not imply that there is a genetic predisposition to share that with others of the same predisposition.

By that logic, you would claim that - for example - all Beethovens and Bolts should only hang out with others like them. But actually genetic advantage (if you want to take an evolutionary spin on it) would be gained by mixing with those with genetic difference, not similarity.

that sounds like something that David Blunkett thought up. He thought you could spot future criminals at nursery school by the way they behaved and wanted to create a database of them.

claig, think about it. Go back 20 generations (approx 400 years, say), you have a million direct ancestors. You only need one grand parent to come from somewhere other than England and you have a quarter of a million ancestors (from that particular pool) not being so likely to come from England.

There were about four million people living in England in 1600. Chances are that "your" million are not wholly made up of people from England.

And you can tell a criminal by looking at someone's face. It's in the genes.

How do you explain Beethoven's genius? How do you explain that Usain Bolt is the fastest man on earth? I think they have special genes. I think different nationalities have different characteristics. The Romans are not too keen on the Milanese and vice versa, because they have different characteristics.

I don't think people are all the same, but I think that has nothing to do with their genes. I certainly don't think there are NO genetic differences, but I don't think they are material to national differences, to character, to personality, to preferences, to types of living, to beliefs, or to ANYTHING that shapes how we build communities.

I think you will find that our genetic make up is much more similar than it is different. And the bits that actually affect human behaviour are miniscule.

The cosmopolitan world view starts, I think, from the notion that people are, fundamentally, all the same, in biology, in capacity, in potential, in worth, regardless of their minor biological differences. Instead we need to value people (and societies, and nationalisms) in terms of other values: freedom, democracy, independence of thought, kindness, commitment. These are not driven by one's biology, but by a recognition that different people have to live together - as someone else said - so we have to make arrangements about how to do it.

The nation-state was only one such arrangement, and a very recent and specific one it was too. It might be the best we've got right now, but it doesn't mean a slavish attachment to some particular values invented at the same time the nation was 'invented' has to carry on for ever.

This isn't 'self-hatred'. In fact it is more 'other-love'.

I don't think the word patriotism would come up in anyone's contract.

So you think that all people are the same? That there are no genetic differences? That different nationalities do not on the whole in the majority have different genes?

And you are confusing race/ethnicity, with 'national'. Leaving aside that race/ethnicity are really problematic anyway, 'Scottish' does not map onto 'all those with ginger hair', nor the other way round. Hence my point about Vikings. Just as many ginger haired scots may find they have Norwegian 'blood' as 'Scottish'. And just as many 'Scots' may find they are more 'French' actually. Whatever that is.

And even if you did accept your argument, the notion that it would somehow be causal in terms of what people would believe, is also rubbish. Sorry.

I think the Japanese share more similarities with each other than they share with Welsh people. There are more tall Dutch people than there are tall Portuguese. There are genetic differences.

I mean the bit about 'most countries having more similarities between their gene pool than other countries'.

I'd like to see the evidence for this. But I don't think you'll find it.

The closest you might get is to identify that almost everyone in Europe is distantly related to almost everyone else in Europe, and pretty much to most people in Africe, and quite a lot to people in the Americas and a fair bit to people in the Middle and Far East.

'Countries' - in this sense - are fictional nonsense, however 'real' your explanation feels.