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

[longfingernails]

Why does this far-left propoganda group continually try to do Britain down?

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history. Why do they always use their sneering, supercilious, Guardianista attitude - this constant insinuation that Britain should always be taking the blame and apologising. Coincidentally, it seems to stem from the same sort of sneering middle-classery that is prevalent on MN...

The most recent, shameful episode is the Beeb trying their best to spoil the England 2018 bid. Now I have no time at all for football - I can't stand it - but I fully recognise how important it is for our economy, and also for our national psyche.

The sooner the BBC withers and dies the better. Sadly, it has gotten away with a miniscule 16% cut in the TV tax over 6 years. They will continue their ramblings for the foreseeable future.

Why to which bit?

Limiting my comment to the 2018 World Cup issue. John Sargent on Question Time just gave a very good answer.

The BBC had to transmit the allegation of corruption before the vote otherwise it would have looked like sour grapes if we had not been awarded the 2018 World Cup and then the BBC put the programe out after.

I generally am not BBC supporter but they did the right thing.

you don't need a degree in maths to work out that if you keep doubling, your ancestors very quickly become a very large group of people. I don't know who all my great grandparents are and there were only 8 of them, and that only takes me back to the end of the 19th century: going back further than that I have no idea who my ancestors were.

How could I possibly have a "gene" identity?

claig - the whole POINT (if there can be said to be such a thing) of culture and society is to allow us to transcend instinctive behaviour. Even if something is 'natural' - that wouldn't make it good.

Our brains evolved to allow us to function in small groups corresponding to 4-5 family groups living together - so we feel comfortable in groups about that size. Everything beyond that we have had to develop strategies to cope with.

'I feel enormous pride in English, and British things. But I reserve the [cosmopolitan] right to say these need critique. And that there is no 'must' about feeling this.'

Of course we all like different things. Not all of us like maypole dancing, but that is different from patriotism. We don't have to support the royal family, we can still be patriotic without that. I also believe that migrants can feel the same pride. Norman Tebbitt comes from Dutch roots and he is patriotic for Britain.

The why was to TCNY.

Don't you think that Japanese people share more genes in common than with English people? Don't you think that Swedish people share more genes in common than with Italian people?

We are all a mix of different genes, but most countries still have more similarities between their gene pool than with other countries. There are genetic differences between people.

Evidence, please, for that last claim, claig...?

How many Japanese people have ginger hair?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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'.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...?

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'?

'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.