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.

Claig - On the swine flu thing - I've said this before, the predictions were correct and so was the advice.

The problem is that we don't teach people how to understand risk, so that when someone says "we think there is a 10% change 100,000 people will die, a 30% chance 10,000 people will die and an 80% chance a 100 people will die" this gets reported as 'boffins say 100,000 people will die'.

We were lucky.

WilfShelf, the reason I debate is to change my mind if my thinking is wrong.

Mailk sums up his argument with
'The genetics of population differences is a biological reality. The interpretation of such differences is, however, deeply shaped by politics.'

I agree with that. It's about politics. It is shaped by wrong thinking that is politically correct and has a political objective. It's not about science.

The 14th Century has its attractions. There were no Marxists then, I believe.

Claig - this is your one truly amazing ability - to take almost any document and find something in it that you can convince yourself supports your argument.

I only quote Malik. He is an left wing authority.

and

Oh yeah. The Dark Ages. They were greeeeeeeeaaaatttt... No evil Bolshies. Everyone knew their place.

I think he has even written for the Guardian.

Malik is pretty controversial in left wing circles, for what it's worth...

claig, Norman Tebbit has written for the Grauniad.

but I am sure what he wrote made sense. Then they probably never invited him back.

This is the first line of the Channel 4 scientific article you linked to

Professor of Biological Anthropology Jonathan Marks asks, ?Should we focus on social equality instead of gene pools?'

sounds political to me, where's the science in that? I have read the entire article and I disagree with lots of it, because it is again obviously political. But there is no point me dissecting it, because it doesn't fit your worldview and you won't believe me.

OK. Whatever, I'm bored now. Do you think the Prof of Biological Anthropology gets his papers published in international journals reviewed by his peers because they agree with his politics? Or because he has some scientific credibility?

Do you understand what peer review is?

What kind of evidence would you prefer? Shall I post up some links to scientific journals? Or will you have yet another reason for discounting those?

You are (or at least your views are) the reason there is so much hatred and racism in the world: you are unable to think beyond what you want to be true, and unable to supply alternative evidence for those truths you hope are out there. When you do the latter, I'll engage with this debate further.

Off to bed.

Go on - dissect it.

'Do you think the Prof of Biological Anthropology gets his papers published in international journals reviewed by his peers because they agree with his politics? Or because he has some scientific credibility?'

Good question.

WilfShelf, sorry to disappoint you, but I am not racist and I hate no one. I'm also not thick.

You are bored, there's no point in engaging with someone so obviously thick as me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But I agreed with Malik, don't you?

TCNY, you know I'm right

Longfingernails - look at this in the Daily Mail. It's a compelling piece of op-ed journalism.

Knowing this (as I confess I didn't but the reporter who pitched the story to Panorama clearly did) I wouldn't want to live in a country where this sort of story wasn't told. Where it was repressed because it was uncomfortable.

I do consider myself patriotic but a big part of that patriotism is a pride in our free press. Covering up this sort of behaviour because we felt it was our turn in 2018 ought to be beneath our country, and thankfully, was.

'By 'Race' I mean the idea that the fact that there are large, distinct, groups of people who are more similar to each other than to the other groups in terms of skin colour or other physical characteristics '

If you insist there are separate races, then you're going to have to come up with some foolproof way of distinguishing us all from each other. The more markers you choose, the more methods of trying to categorise, the more arbitrary and skewed by the methodology your results will be. You will have to take into account the nature and behaviour of genes themselves. Whatever method you choose must stand up to various tests. Ultimately, you have to ask yourself "What's it to you?"

The deeper you probe, the more differences you will find between discrete populations -- any two neighboring villages or towns will show some genetic differentiation from each other and thus could theoretically be defined as a race. For instance, there is a strong east/west divide even in Britain itself, with people of Iberian origin in the west and people of Anglian and Saxon (again distinct areas for each of these) in the east, with the Iberian people mingled in.

'What about eye colour and hair colour?' Well, that means my sister and I are members of different races then. 'Do you look more like your sister than you look like Winnie Mandela?' Actually, neither of us look exactly like Winnie Mandela but the fact remains we look very different from each other -- completely different in fact, even down to skin tone. I got the very light, sunburn-prone, freckled skin and she got the olive skin that tanned after ten minutes in the sun in the genetic lottery. Nobody ever believed we were sisters. My maternal grandmother shared the same eye colour as Winnie Mandela though, as far as I can see from photos and from my recollection of her appearance, and my mother's hair was probably just as dark as hers before she went grey, though hers is straight. I look a lot like my other granny. My sister looks like the granny with the dark brown/black hair and the dark brown eyes and the dark skin. ('Dark' being in the eye of the beholder, and a relative term.)

Let me bring up your constant references to 'the Chinese', as your remarks seem to indicate 'they all look the same' and [therefore] share the same genetic heritage. There are no less than 56 distinct ethnicities recognised by the PRC government, and many groups claiming separate ethnicity that are not recognised.

'No one, except a Marxist, would ever broadcast the "International Socialism" poem on Remembrance Sunday' -- So no socialists ever died for their country? Tories to a man, the dead soldiers, sailors and airmen?

"Patrotism is an inbuilt feeling which is a protection mechanism to protect the genes in a larger grouping, most often, historically, a grouping of shared genes but to a lesser extent than the family. that is where the drive for patriotism comes from, and that is why it is shared by teh majority of people, with some exceptions (quite often Marxists).
That is what I am claiming."

Your claim that patriotism is inbuilt is completely absurd. And your ignorance of the history of the British armed forces and their makeup over the centuries, and the methods of recruitment (press gangs for instance) is very sad. You cannot assume anyone joins an army for any of the bizarre reasons you cite. Mercenaries and soldiers of fortune (the Irish being particularly prominent in foreign armies over the centuries) have historically constituted a large part of many armies. It is estimated that approximately 40% of British forces in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period were Irish.

As for 'Chinese' or 'Welsh' genes -- about 16 million men and an unknown number of women have Genghis Khan as an ancestor, including millions who are not 'Chinese'.

I didn't invent the concept of race. It is a subject about which numerous books have been written, and which scientists study.

'If you insist there are separate races, then you're going to have to come up with some foolproof way of distinguishing us all from each other.'

Do you think thatthe Native American Indians are of the same race as the Irish settlers in America?

I'm not a scientist, I've got no foolproof way, there are others who have written about why the differences between these peoples are racial differences.

Ultimately, you have to ask yourself "What's it to you?"

To me it is just a matter of understanding our world. What is it to you to deny the obvious truth that there are differences between races? Malik says
'The genetics of population differences is a biological reality'
Do you disagree with that?

'any two neighboring villages or towns will show some genetic differentiation from each other and thus could theoretically be defined as a race.'
of course there are genetic differences between all of us, we are all unique, and each of our fingerprints is unique. Each one of us is different. But that doesn't mean that you and your sister are of a differnt race, just because you have different genes. Each person on earth isn't a race unique to themselves. Iberian and Angl-Saxin are part of the same race.

The US Census asks questions about race. Why would it ask this if race did not exist?

'What about eye colour and hair colour?' Well, that means my sister and I are members of different races then. No it doesn't mean that. People with green eyes do not constitute a race, otherwise the US Census would simply ask "what colour eyes do you have?"

Of course, the Chinese don't all look the same, and China is made up of different ethnic groups (with different genes). I used Chinese people as an example because they look different to a Caucasian person and that is due to genetics.

'What about eye colour and hair colour?' Well, that means my sister and I are members of different races then. Since, you have spent so much time reading my posts and they mean so much to you, you will know that I said that the majority of people are patriotic, bith left and right, and said that Tony Benn was a patriotic WWII pilot.

'Your claim that patriotism is inbuilt is completely absurd.'
I think it is an inbuilt instinct to protect your group. It is an extension of the inbuilt instinct to protect your family. In the past, it was the same instinct to protect your tribe, and now the larger groupong is your country. I think it is an instinct to protect genes and is inbuilt, just as a lioness has an inbuilt instinct to protect her cubs. That is why most people are patriotic.

I didn't give reasons why people join the British Army. It is well known in war that mercenaries often switch sides since they are fighting for money and not for love of their country. You keep mentioning your Irish ancestors who fought for the British army. Were these Irish ancestors not also patriotic for Ireland? Did fighting in the British army, mean that they were not patriotic Irishmen. Did they support Ireland in international football matches, or did they support England?

Yes, millions have genes from the Genghis Khan. But Europeans have less genes in common with Genghis Khan than people in Mongolia.

'The US Census asks questions about race. Why would it ask this if race did not exist?'
Now there's reasoning! Same goes for the idea of Chinese people 'looking different', and presumably Native Americans 'looking different' from Irish emigrants to the US. Irish immigrants probably have as much genetic difference from Native Americans as they do from Finnish immigrants who probably look a good deal more similar to them.

Who my ancestors supported in international football matches has exactly what to do with anything where race is concerned? What has their political sympathies got to do with anything? The political vision of soldiers who fought under the Union Jack are probably as many and as varied as the soldiers themselves. If you claim that patriotism involves defence of one's own, born out of some inbuilt 'patriotism' then the motivations of those who express their patriotism by joining the forces are significant, hence my mention of mercenaries and of foreign-born servicemen.

Joining the British armed forces does not imply any kind of patriotism, for my ancestors of for anyone else. Dad and his brother and their cousin, and my granduncle, all disliked Fascism and preferred the ideals of international socialism. Nothing specifically related to the patrie there, more of the International in fact. I suspect the same goes for Tony Benn.

There are genetic differences among individuals that are worth studying for medical reasons, as some variations contribute to the development of certain diseases and conditions, as well as providing immunity to some diseases or conditions.

DNA research is now supplemented by research at a molecular level and is providing much more detailed information than scientists had to hand decades ago when facial and stature characteristics, and skin, hair and eye colour were all they had to go on, all of which you seem to insist is the last word in classification methods. Knowledge of evolutionary history has developed exponentially as genetic science has been applied to the study of our human ancestors.

One fact about genetic variation in the human species as it exists today that has been yielded by use of DNA studies is that the human genome comprises about 3 x 10[to the power of 9] base pairs of DNA, and the extent of human genetic variation is such that no two humans, save identical twins, ever have been or will be genetically identical. Between any two humans, the amount of genetic variation (biochemical individuality) is about 0.1 percent. The vast majority of genetic information we have is held in common with every other human on earth. It defines us as a species and distinguishes us from other species much, much more than it differentiates us from each other.

There are no sharp lines of demarcation between human 'groups' or 'races' -- 85% of all human variation presents within populations, not between groups. In taxonomy, the amount of genetic variation between traditional classifications ('races') falls below the level that that particular scientific branch uses to designate 'subspecies', (which is what taxonomists call 'race'). Therefore, the biological construct of race has been seriously challenged, and will continue to be challenged, Malik notwithstanding (obv I disagree with Malik)..

You yourself might be a descendant of Genghis Khan, Claig. Assuming you're a woman, it's not possible to find out by reference to your DNA, but if you have a father or brother available for testing, you could find a link to him in your own family.

yeah you're right. I see that I am wrong. There are no races, and hence there is no racism. Let's hope the US Census understands that too.

'Who my ancestors supported in international football matches has exactly what to do with anything where race is concerned?'
Nothing to do with race. I wondered whether your ancestors were patriotic for Ireland.

'Joining the British armed forces does not imply any kind of patriotism, for my ancestors of for anyone else'

So there is no race and there is also no patriotism? Nobody joins to defend their country? Are they all mercenaries who join for the money, which is less than many civilians earn. Were the kamikaze patriotic? Did they sacrifice their lives for their country through love of their people and country or just because they hated America?

Yes, I am a woman, so I may well have genes from Genghis Khan and many others. We are all a mix of different genes, including of different races. But my guess is that I have less genes from Genghis Khan than from Europe.

Do you believe anyone is patriotic? If so, why do you think that is? Do you think it is education? Do you think people in England are taught to be patriotic in schools? I think it is a natural impulse in the majority of people. In America, there is more teaching of it in schools, with the flag flying etc., because America is a more diverse population. Where do you think that patriotism stems from (if you believe it exists)? Where does football tribalism come from? Is it taught to people, or is it a natural phenomenon of group belonging?

Surely this thread is a wind-up? Hilarious OP! Or does Rupert Murdoch have nothing else to do today except go trolling on MN?!

wind-up indeed Speedy - can you really beleive someone typing "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" without shorting their coffee out through their nose?

Just because racism exists doesn't mean races do, Claig. It's possible that racists are wrong... The US census added boxes to tick indicating 'mixed race' for the first time in the 2000 census. The record of the US in the history of the understanding of race as a concept is hardly stellar, having given the world the 'one drop' rule of racial determination when it came to designation as black, used in the cause of discrimination. (Interestingly, Queen Charlotte is held to be 'black', by the application of this notion, by many in the black community in the US.)

My ancestors were an international bunch, who ended up in Ireland, though they started out in a variety of different places, and many had ancestors who started out in Ireland, though some came from other parts. For them, Catholicism was an important element of their lives, their concept of themselves and their concept of belonging to a group; Catholicism being a highly centralised, worldwide church, it's possible they had a different view of what 'belonging' and identity meant, and what they felt they belonged to, than a lifelong member of the C of E might, as that is a local or national church by definition. They were loyal to the RAF and the regiment, loved south eastern Ireland, northern India, Argentina, Paris, Bavaria, the west country and the Maritime Provinces of Canada, where they were either born or lived or served. There's esprit de corps, love of a locality and admiration for a culture, and religious affiliation all mixed up among them, none of which can really be classified as patriotism, and some of which can be ascribed to the operation of the Holy Spirit.

The development of modern patriotism may be traced to the development and spread of compulsory universal education, and in particular the teaching of 'national' history to children in classrooms. The teaching of history in elementary schools, the angle chosen, the starting point, the themes covered, all reveal much about the preoccupations of those wishing to mould young minds.

History for most elementary school children even in mainstream elementary schools consists of the inculcation of a national sense of identity and of belonging to a group wider than the individual family, wider than the village or the county or the religion, through a focus on the tradition of the majority or the dominant group of any given state. The Kulturkampf that Germany and France went through in the latter half of the 19th Century as it applied to schools and education policy was a struggle against an international sense of identity as represented by organised religion, and for a sense of 'national' identity, a struggle for the right to imprint upon young minds the sense of identity that various competing authorities wished to imprint.

In Steiner Waldorf schools history instruction begins with 'archetypical and mythical narrative' including study of the lost continent of Atlantis, and progresses through a focus on the local or geographical environment to study of the 'post-atlantean epochs' in the evolution of the earth. Clearly there are strong philosophical overtones there.

'British' history used to conveniently ignore moat of the history of Ireland, Scotland and Wales; maybe it still does. History as taught in Irish schools (as far as I remember anyhow) was a catalogue of the struggle for Irish independence from Britain with the really interesting bits about the Iron Age and pre-Christian Ireland glanced at in cursory fashion. The aim of the curriculum was to underline Ireland's religious and national identity.

US history classes are a bit like the Disney Pocahontas film.

The kamikaze pilots worshipped their emperor. The people of Japan were expected to do whatever the emperor asked of them, not for the sake of the Japanese people, but because the Emperor of Japan was a god who demanded that sacrifice. The Japanese had a different concept of self from that held by other combatants in WWII, and a different concept of duty and patriotism. They may or may not have hated America on top of all of that. I suspect they did. No doubt their upbringing and education emphasised the divine nature of the emperor and the history of Japan as taught in the inter-War years was probably completely different from the curriculum that is followed now in Japanese schools.

I would be willing to bet that nowhere in the world is there any serious or in-depth examination of the lives of women and the conditions under which they lived. History is written by the winners. The history curriculum is the method by which children are taught national loyalty. That loyalty may well be deeply felt but it is nevertheless an artificial construct.

'The kamikaze pilots worshipped their emperor.'

You see, I don't believe that. That's what we are told, just as we are told laughable so-called facts about the North Koreans and how they worship the Great Leader and eat grass on our TV news broadcasts, by journalists with a straight face.

The kamikaze pilots were volunteers and extremely brave men who sacrificed their lives, not for their Emperor, but for their country and their people. Japanese society is very homogeneous and quite formal and structured. There is a very high community spirit among Japanese people, which is part of their cohesive culture. There is a high social pressure and shame factor which leads people to be part of a community. Their community spirit is greater than ours, due to their culture. Their fat cats who bankrupt companies sometimes cry on TV and commit suicide, due to shame and how they lose face to the community. Our fat cats are not like that, they have little shame and honour.

Brave Japanese kamikaze pilots offered up their lives for the sake of their communities, for their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and neighbours. They were patriotic. They were on a different planet to the poem published in the Marxist magazine, which would have called them "nuts". German pilots also flew suicide missions near the end of the war, when petrol was short and they knew they didn't have enough petrol to return. They were patriots. Our brave pilots who flew across Germany, with a very high risk of not returning, were also patriotic and sacrificed themselves for others.

Your ancestors were an international bunch, and that is possibly why they felt less patriotic than others.

The Tories are going to reform the teaching of history in schools, precisely to focus more on British history and the thread of that history. There was a survey done where 40% of children thought Churchill was the dog in the TV advert, and didn't know about Winston Churchill.

I am patriotic, but it is not because of what I was taught at school, which was really only Tudors and Stuarts. I understand patriotism because it is an emotion, because it is love of country, and it is a natural emotion.

I am not Irish, but I love Irish music and I love the romantic love for Ireland that the music expresses. The songs of working abroad and wishing to return to the green hills and the towns like Carrickfergus. They are patriotic songs that express love for Ireland.

I am not Scottish, but a shiver goes down my spine when I hear the stirring lyrics and tune of 'Flower of Scotland', and I fully understand the pride of the thousands of Scots who sing it at Hampden Park. I fully understand why the Scots want independence. I would too if I were a Scot.

I love traditional music and I love old music hall tunes. The other day, I heard a great song, that I had never heard before, on the radio. It was called "Blaydon Races". I thought it was Irish, because even the accent had a softened edge that I had heard in Irish songs. I looked it up on youtube, and it is from Newcastle. Newcastle United football fans sing it. I watched some of the football fans videos, and couldn't fail to see how proud the Newcastle fans are of their region, their accent, their history, their tunes. They weren't taught that at school. It is a natural human emotion to be proud of who you are and where you come from. That is where football tribalism stems from and where patriotism stems from.

It is the same the world over.

Exactly, Kew! Most entertaining!

As this convo has turned to the imaginary concept of race, it might interest you all to know that the concept was thought up over a number of centuries by various blokes without any basis in genetics because that didn't exist as a science back then. Obviously since then the peoples of the world have only gone and mixed up their 'racial' groupings even more than when the 'races' were originally defined - how bloody dare they? Blimmin' messed up all that lovely work, ain't they? How inconsiderate. Tsk. Anyway now we have the benefit of geneticists' studies to tell us unequivocally that it's all utter nonsense.

Oh - and I learned that from a documentary on... BBC Radio 4!!! Guffaw!!

WRT the divine nature of the Emperor:

"It is permissible to say that the idea that the Japanese are descendants of the gods is a false conception; but it is absolutely impermissible to call chimerical the idea that the emperor is a descendant of the gods."
-- Emperor Hirohito, December 1945.

"The ties between Us and Our people have always stood upon mutual trust and affection. They do not depend upon mere legends and myths. They are not predicated on the false conception that the Emperor is divine, and that the Japanese people are superior to other races and fated to rule the world. "
-- January 1, 1946, Rescript of Divinity requested by General MacArthur as the basis for the construction of a new, democratic Japan. The Emperor himself has consistently argued that repudiation of divinity was not the point of the Rescript of Divinity. He persisted in believing that the emperor of Japan was a descendant of the gods as late as the 1970s..

Throughout the 1930s it was taught that Hirohito was a manifest god (not God by western, Christian definition, but rather in the shinto context). The divine status of the emperor became a general assumption during this period and during WW2, partly as an assumption of the actual status of the emperor and partly to reinforce the idea of the god-given purpose of the Japanese war aims, and the Japanese conception of themselves as appointed to carry out a god-given mission. The shock of the Japanese people upon hearing of the surrender of Japan cannot be overstated. A small group of Japanese pilots actually refused to believe it was the emperor whom they had heard addressing the country to announce the surrender, and bombed the imperial palace, believing the emperor had been replaced by an impostor.

'Kamikaze' means 'divine wind', a reference to a 13th century typhoon that had saved Japan from invasion by the forces of Kublai Khan, apparently by divine intervention, hence the name for the typhoon. The same hope and assumption of divine help (and approval) reposed in the kamikaze pilots. Only people who saw themselves as the instruments of a higher purpose could have mustered the psychological strength to go through with training for and executing of kamikaze attacks. (Maybe a process and a mindset similar to the training of suicide bombers of today in the middle east and the 9/11 bombers -- would you call them 'patriotic'?).

It was and is considered blasphemous to utter the true name of the emperor (whose title means 'heavenly sovereign'). Emperors are renamed after death so that an acceptable name will be available in order to refer to them without using their true earthly name. Emperor Hirohito's qualities of kami (god-ly) nature together with his direct descent from Ameratsu, the highest of the kami (gods), made him so superior that the Japanese thought it entirely logical that people should obey the Emperor and worship him.

Claig, I honestly had no idea that such misguided notions of what constitutes patriotism or whence it arises, if indeed it exists, could be held. Nor am I surprised to learn that all you know of your own history is the Tudor and Stuart period. I think I may safely assume that you have never studied the history of any other part of the world.

What you describe as patriotism is a load of sentimental codswallop, a collection of vague, sloppy, mushy feelings depending entirely on circumstance and taste, and possibly number of pints consumed (thinking of many a heartfelt late-night Kilburn rendition of 'Danny Boy' here...)

What you describe as 'bravery' among the Axis fighters is fanaticism inspired by their sense of mission and encouraged by the delusions of their leaders. The culture of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan allowed the enslavement and murder of millions, the invasion of vast territories, horrendous medical experiments and unspeakable cruelty towards the civilian populations under their savage rule. They perpetrated this evil because they believed they were somehow 'special', superior races imbued with a mission to rule the world and wipe out the people they saw as subhumans, not out of 'patriotism'. I suggest you read just about any book on the rise of the Nazis, or the Holocaust, or maybe a biography of Heinrich Himmler.

What you describe as feelings of honour and shame among Japanese fat cats is evidence only of unintegrated or poorly integrated personalities unable to cope with public failure and unwilling to face the blow to their egos that the consequences of their actions would entail ultimately therefore, of cowardice. If the fat cats had even a tither of shame or honour they would not, corruptly or otherwise, have let their companies or enterprises fail and if they had they would face the music, and accept the consequences whether criminal or civil, and the harsh judgement of their peers. Actually, the same public crying and disgusting self-indulgence has been seen often in the west, notably in the televised 'confessions' of fallen American televangelists weeping about 'sinning' what they have in common is a sense of identity that depends heavily on a superiority complex and the inability to accept they are maybe human, just as the fanatical Kamikaze pilots and death camp officers considered themselves to be instruments of a divine purpose.

It is really rather shocking to see you lump together Nazis and Japanese and British servicemen under the heading
patriots'. I doubt very much if British servicemen who spent time in POW camps would approve.

Blaydon Races is an old English folk song that I first heard on a BBC children's songs programme on Radio 4 (I think) that we used to listen to in class in Ireland -- I learned a lot of lovely songs both traditional and more 1930s to 1950s from that programme ('Quinoro's Pearl', for instance). Ironic?