Friday, September 23, 2011

Palestine fed up with waiting for common EU position

On the elusive quest for Palestinian statehood, 'fed up' is apparently the present feeling of Mahmoud Abbas and his delegation. While His Grace thinks that may be something of an understatement, this quotation is worth reporting and disseminating far and wide:

"The Europeans have been taken aback by our decision but we are going ahead because we see they cannot agree with each other... We can't give up our rights while we wait for the Europeans to be united... (EU foreign relations chief) Ashton can't unite by force the 27 when they don't see eye to eye. She can't invent a foreign policy where there isn't one."

As it is with economic policy, so is it with foreign policy. The artificial and forced unification of nations which are disparate and diverse is doomed to failure. We have seen it in the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia... we can't even hold the United Kingdom together. The evidence is overwhelming that states established by treaties are fragile entities. Artificially created states invariably tend to revert back to their ethnic groupings, often with horrific wars of independence in the struggles for nation-state recognition.

Palestinian leaders declare: "...we see they cannot agree with each other."

Why are Europe's leaders so blinded to this fact?


Blogger bluedog said...

His Grace observes, ' Artificially created states invariably tend to revert back to their ethnic groupings, often with horrific wars of independence in the struggles for nation-state recognition.'

Is this a justification for Ius sanguinis in priority to Ius soli? If so, what of ethnic minorities within larger nations?

A recent article on the EU by the estimable Janet Daley in the DT raised the possibility that the Muslims could become the Jews of Europe in the 21st century. This is not such a fanciful proposition, given the recent civil unrest. An unscrupulous demagogue could easily inflame the unemployed indigenous youth of Europe, its happened before. Certainly Geert Wilders is creating the pre-conditions for the re-homogenisation of Holland.

Somewhat ironic in the view of this communicant. Looking at TV footage of GW, from certain camera angles you only have to dye the hair black, not blond, and hey presto, he's Javanese! Not that it really matters.

23 September 2011 at 12:28  
Blogger Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

23 September 2011 at 12:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

We can't give up our rights while we wait for the Europeans to be united.

They may be pissed off but I'm pissed off that the West has pumped billions into this non-Country, while they drove their Mercedes' through the Ramalah tunnels and Arafat skimmed off millions. They are not even at peace between themselves let alone Israel.

Long Live Israel.

23 September 2011 at 13:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Why are Europe's leaders so blinded to this fact?

Isn't Europe the continent that has evolved beyond war? Isn't Europe the continent that will lead the world to a new post-modern secular paradise of peace, prosperity, hedonism, and castrated religion? To fulfill the historic role that has been assigned to it by Progress, Europe must be united. It is an Article of Faith.


23 September 2011 at 13:22  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

Palestinians themselves have trouble agreeing with one another, as the "Fratricidal Conflicts" between Fatah and Hamas have shown.

His Grace is right about the unification of peoples that have nothing in common save the supposed interests of their leaders, but the same applies to the Palestinians. They appear to be the rump of a nation which has fled elsewhere. Palestinians have little in common except the fact that they have all been maintained in artificial settlements for reasons of Arab political expediency.

23 September 2011 at 13:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Artificially created states invariably tend to revert back to their ethnic groupings

The recent history of England shows that even a nation state that has evolved naturally over centuries does not absorb alien ethnicities and religions, such groups instead forming their own communities. If England has to suffer horrific war it will be one of self-preservation.

23 September 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"Artificially created states invariably tend to revert back to their ethnic groupings"

I'm afraid that this statement just doesn't bear historical examination -the United States England, Germany, France and Italy for example are all created states where there is a mix of different ethnic groupings. And if you actaully look at the DNA of the Welsh and Scottish you will find that the differences from that of the English.

It might also be said that there is a tendency for adjacent states with common interests to get together in federations/pacts to further such interests - there are a growing number of such associations throughout the world. Some of us might also believe that most of the problems in this world can be attributed to the pursuit of overt nationalism.

23 September 2011 at 15:24  
Blogger Shacklefree said...


23 September 2011 at 17:05  
Blogger Oswin said...

Tory boys :

I didn't quite get your 'DNA' sentence, but the significant DNA difference is more an East-West division, than owt else.

23 September 2011 at 17:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ tory boys never grow up (15:24)—England survived and prospered for over a thousand years because her people were overwhelmingly of the same stock; genetic studies show that ‘Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people’. The ‘mix of different ethnic groupings’ in the England of today is of a wholly different order. Throw in different religions as well and the effect can only be detrimental.

Some of us might also believe that most of the problems in this world can be attributed to the pursuit of overt nationalism.

There’s no need for tub-thumping nationalism when a plain, quiet pride in one’s country will ensure the survival of the people’s best chance of remaining free—the nation state.

23 September 2011 at 18:25  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Rottenboroough @ 18:25 -- Thank you for that useful link to the NYT -- it seems we can't repeat the findings of Sykes and Oppenheimer often enough, but at least we have the opportunity courtesy of Dr. Cranmer!

I'm also glad to see that these researchers have already responded to the view repeated, earlier this year, by that German at London (the view that we're all German).

23 September 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ non mouse—I’ve posted this excerpt from Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe before but it bears repetition:

Genetic studies of the population of the British Isles show that it has been remarkably stable for millennia. Aside from the invasions of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes that started in the fourth century AD—and which brought, at the very most, 250,000 new settlers to Britain over a period of several centuries—British ‘stock’ has changed very little. Only about 10,000 people arrived with the Norman Conquest. Tens of thousands more Huguenots came after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. But, all told, three-quarters of the ancestors of contemporary Britons and Irish were already present in the British Isles 7,500 years ago. DNA from people who arrived after that makes up only 12 per cent of the Irish gene pool. Describing the countries of Britain as nations of immigrants is absurd, unless you are describing processes that began not just before modernity but before civilization.

23 September 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

Oh yes, absolutely, Mr. R. I haven't time to go back and check my notes right now, but I'm fairly sure Sykes points out that the non-Celtic DNAs in England come in at around 2% each -- except in the north and northeast, where he describes up to a 10%germanic "overlay." He reckons this probably is mostly Viking: which would make sense in view of Alfred's treaty with Guthrum.

However, the link you gave offers a good review of the overall scholarship, and it mentions one theory which suggests that some germanic types also remained after the Romans left.
Our Oswin knows all about how that worked up around Hadrian's Wall....

23 September 2011 at 19:55  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...


I should have added "not very much" after English.


Your contention that the British stock hasn't changed very much over several centuries cannot be demonstrated by DNA studies - as the DNA from several hundred years ago is just not available. I suspect that if you look several hundred years ago our tribes were more distinct than they are today - you can see that in place name evidence, local traditions etc. - but since then we have all been mixing ethnic origins to form the glorious ragbag that we are today.

You are also not correct that there has not been some introduction of other etnic strains in recent years - you forget that we have a long tradition of offering a home to refugees and that we were also not averse to a little mixing with the natives when we had colonies. Current DNA studies show that a surprisingly high proportion of us have some coloured/Slav DNA.

I'm afraid to talk of Ethnic British really is quite ridiculous. Anyway the DNA of people in Norfolk is more similar to that of people in Friesia than that of People in North Wales to those in South Wales. So Wales should split into two and East Anglia should be given to Holland??

Caldwell is an American Political Commentator who is quoting selectively from the DNA evidence to try and support his political point. Better to trust someone such as David Miles: The Tribes of Britain who has looked at the DNA evidence without having an axe to grind


Non celtic DNAs most definitelydo not come in at around 2% each in England - nearly all of us have a pretty large slug of Anglo Saxon - it is only in the far flung bits of Wales that the Celtic stuff predominates. All I can say if what you say is true then the 2% who gave us the basis for much of the English Language were clearly geniuses and we should all be looking for Danish/Friesan mates for our offspring.

A recent study showed that the DNA in Newcastle was little different from that in the rest of England - which I understtod upset some Geordies who like to think of themselves as being of Viking stock - and forgot that many of their ancestors came to that area from the rest of the UK for the mining and shipbuilding - and to mix up the local DNA I daresay.

23 September 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger English Viking said...


War is afoot, of that there is no doubt, I just hope it comes soon enough for us to win it, which it looks to me like it won't.


You have proved yourself a tit on many an occasion, but you excel yourself this evening.

What on Earth do you know about Vikings?

Careful now, you'd better be good, or you're going to look even more stupid than you already do.

Jævelig drittsekk.

23 September 2011 at 20:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS, RE: Palestinians.

And the horse they rode in on.

23 September 2011 at 20:49  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ tory boys never grow up (20:24)
● I marvel as you nonchalantly dismiss the science of genetics.
● DNA has been recovered from bones 50,000 years old.
● A ‘glorious ragbag’ to you but The downside of diversity to Robert Putnam.

@ English Viking (20:43)—If the Armed Forces become majority Muslim we can wave goodbye to England.

23 September 2011 at 21:07  
Blogger English Viking said...


When the muslim pop of the UK reaches 35 per cent, it's over.

I'd give it 15 years.

23 September 2011 at 21:27  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"● DNA has been recovered from bones 50,000 years old."

But not in sufficient quantities or of quality to form a view about the genetic mix of the population several hundred years ago! Please show me the academic source that makes such an assessment. I do not dismiss the science of genetics (quite the opposite) just your unsupported myths.

23 September 2011 at 22:32  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ tory boys never grow up (22:32)—This article discusses the extraction of DNA from fossil bones.

23 September 2011 at 22:42  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...


I have never denied that it can be extracted - just that it hasn't been used to make conclusions about the ethnic origin of entire populations hundreds of years ago. Happy for you to try and demonstrate otherwise.

23 September 2011 at 23:16  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The position of the EU is simple, bail out!

24 September 2011 at 01:48  
Blogger non mouse said...

tbngu -- it hasn't been used to make conclusions about the ethnic origin of entire populations hundreds of years ago. At the risk of a crushing slapdown from you, I will risk averring that "it(...) has been used to draw inferences "about the (...) origin of entire populations" [ from thousands "of years ago."

I fail to understand why you deny the existence of the research when you have not bothered to check the basis of the claims. Indeed, the sources have been cited on this very blog, from time to time: I am among those who have provided them. Mr. R's link simply refers to them, yet again.

You also seem unaware of the large body of scholarship about the history of culture within our islands. The evidence underlying the studies extends across disciplines from, for example, archaeology, to manuscript and literary studies; it even includes art history, classics, religion and theology, ...and, yes: genetics. Scholars on these subjects tend to develop lifelong careers while pursuing their search for the truth of the matter, and their work is by no means mutually exclusive.


24 September 2011 at 19:13  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2011 at 20:29  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2011 at 21:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd... make that [draw inferences] as opposed to "make conclusions."

Again, one major genetics study is from Oxford -> Bryan Sykes. Blood of the Isles. London: Bantam, 2006.
Sykes suggests, of the germanic contribution to insular DNA, "It is a real presence, but it is by no means completely overwhelming." (286).

From the Danelaw, the genetic "overlay" ranges from 10% in the east, to 5% in the north(283). There's a high Viking count in northern Scotland: they based themselves up in the Orkneys too (186-218).

While Sykes recognizes the advance of the Anglo-Saxons, and the battles at Mons Badonicus, Chester, and Elmet, he also suggests some peaceful co-existence, citing the treatment proscribed towards Britons in the Law Codes, and the probable low ratio of invaders to natives (260). Sykes believes that genetic analysis “hints at a partially male-driven settlement with some elimination or displacement of the indigenous males. But the slaughter, if slaughter there was, was not total and still there are far more people with Celtic ancestry in England, even in the far east, than can claim to be of Saxon or Danish descent” (286).

I have not double-checked my earlier remark about "2%," which I think referred chiefly to remaining Roman genetic material. However, Sykes comments that they left few traces of themselves: “[T]rue Roman genes are very rare in the Isles,” (287).


24 September 2011 at 21:59  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd..(with apologies for the editing, above)

Oh - and I agree that the genetic issue raises a key question as to how English came to predominate in what became England. Even if a few A/Ss remained entrenched after Roman times, any literacy they might have inherited from the Romans would have been, like that of the Welsh -in Latin.

The 5th-6th century migrant/invaders had a "prototype" runic literacy, so they didn't record their side of the story, but it's arguable that they recognized that literacy was power. The Welsh had it- and exhibited a disinclination to share with their rivals and enemies in 'England.' That could have been one reason for accepting Christianity and education into Canterbury and Monkwearmouth-Jarrow, etc. And yes, you're probably right again. Their documents hint that they had more than a modicum of genius at work-both in Latin, and in the application of literacy to English.

Why did the 'English' Celts accept English? There are several theories. One possible contributing factor could be that the Romans might have demolished indigenous language as they had with the euros (e.g. frogules): who ultimately spoke mucked-up Latin. Perhaps there are some new suggestions as to why the Celts chose English instead of Latin... Doubtless complex insular politics and administration were at work: but the fact is that Caedmon, the cowherd with the Celtic name, produced our earliest extant English poem (preserved by Bede).

So- sorry to go on, all. However, the discussion has a whisp of relevance to "struggles for nationhood"-and our understanding of what those struggles entail.

And so as ever: thank God for Alfred!

24 September 2011 at 22:05  
Blogger English Viking said...


Very good Sir, very good,

24 September 2011 at 22:42  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Non Mouse

I never denied the existence of the research - just the false conclusions that were being drawn from that research by commentators here.

I think that you should go and look at the research a little bit closer - even those who prepared it are considerably more circumspect about drawing conclusions than you and others are. There are still considerable differences between historic DNA found in dead bodies and that in the current population - and you also get unexplained differences between Y DNA and mitochrondial DNA. If you look at the New York Times article that was linked to - you will see that other geneticists have different views. Theories are being put forward - but that that is not the same as firm conclusions being reached I'm afraid.

In addition, you might also wish to note that Oppenheimer's theory that most people came from the Basque Country (his theory is that we are Basques rather than Celts and closely related to the Belgic Gauls btw - and he downplays the links between etnicity and culture) is now being challenged by others to say that the "core" DNA he identified is now derived from the Balkans and ultimately the Middle East.

But the points that you ignore is that the DNA and ethnic origins of most of the UK are pretty similar - the Scots and Welsh and Irish are not that differnt genetically, that most people in the UK are not ethnically pure and have derived their DNA from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds (those overlays mount up and most of us have them), and that we have a long history of absorbing parts of our culture from outside - the English language being the outstanding feature - even more astounding if you think that we are not as Anglo Saxon as was previously thought to be the case.

I shoudl also add that I don't think Sykes and Oppenheimer would be very happy with the political inferences that you are trying to draw from their work.

24 September 2011 at 22:55  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Just to demonstrate how genetic science really is at an early stage and it is too early to reach firm conclusions perhaps this post taken from the comments on one of Opeenheimer's articles in Prospect shows the possible danger:

"Partridge says:
July 26, 2011 at 9:34 am
Turns out that Oppenheimer was wrong. He, not unlike Sykes, based his conclusions on the idea that a certain type of yDNA, namely R1b, which constitutes 65% of yDNA in England (not Britiain as a whole where it is even higher), is not found in the source populations of the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, I.e. ‘North-Western Germans’, West Frisians, Scandinavians. It turns out that this assumption is flawed, as we now know, that R1b makes up 70% of yDNA in West-Frisia (northern Netherlands) it also accounts for 45% of yDNA in north-western Germany. What separates most English R1b yDNA from that found in Wales and the highlands of Scotland, as well as Ireland, is that about 60% of it is of the type R1b-U106 – the dominant type in Germanic-speaking areas mentioned above, but hardly present at all in the so-called culturally Celtic nations of the Isles. Together with the yDNA types I1a and R1a which Oppenheimer concedes to have arrived in Britain via Germanic migration, we arrive at a paternal line of ancestry in England that is 60-75% Germanic. It would be quite easy to accuse Oppenheimer of trying to promote an agenda, in the process abusing his position as a ‘trustworthy’ scholar, but let’s just suppose he made a mistake."

24 September 2011 at 23:08  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

English Viking

The other thing that is pretty clear is that small amounts of Viking DNA (especially Y DNA) can be found all over Europe -so you at least should welcome the idea of a United Europe as a means of uniting your family or are you worried about the maintenance payments!

24 September 2011 at 23:15  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

25 September 2011 at 01:17  
Blogger English Viking said...

Eller drep, vis du vil.

25 September 2011 at 01:18  
Blogger English Viking said...


Here is one for you. It pwns,

Those Gregorians knew what was what, eh?

25 September 2011 at 01:22  
Blogger non mouse said...

tbngu-- You're very tiresome, constantly telling me that I think what I don't think and don't think what I do think and haven't read what I have read, and can't possibly understand it as well as whoever or whatever you are just because you say so.

You might take some of your own medicine and read everything more carefully.

That's all she wrote ... if I want further information, I'll read it from Sykes (and possibly the germans).

25 September 2011 at 05:05  
Blogger len said...

As we have seen the in the USSR and China the only way to 'unite'lot of different states into a 'Union'is by force.and once 'joined they have to be kept together by force and intimidation.
Can a European Union be united by reason and argument or does the E U have the seeds of its own destruction sown into it?.Its already starting to look very shaky.
The 'Palestinians' are pushing for a solution to their 'problem'but they are going to' trigger' far more World shaking events than they or anyone else realises.

25 September 2011 at 09:00  
Blogger Director said...

By coincidence, I wrote a very, very similar blog to this on UKIP FRiends of Israel on Friday. see:

25 September 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ tory boys never grow up (22:55 and 23:08 on 24 September)—we have a long history of absorbing parts of our culture from outside—the English language being the outstanding feature

Importing words does not begin to compare with importing people, and when those people arrive in greater numbers than this country has ever experienced and from unassimilable cultures like Islam, to suggest that such large-scale racial and religious change is in the same class as the limited White immigration of history is not credible.

As far as I can tell, the comment you quote does not question the stability or homogeneity of Britain’s population.

25 September 2011 at 13:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

HG deleted me.

25 September 2011 at 15:30  
Blogger Oswin said...

Tory boy: I think the point is: the time-scale of the Northern European gene line(s). We are who we thought we were, but from a considerably earlier date.

26 September 2011 at 18:58  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...


The point is the geneticists are not certain as to what is the dominant timeline and they are even less certain as when it became dominant in the UK - and they are still at the theorising stage. You can pick and chose the scientific theory to suit you political viewpoint as many do - but please do not pretend that there is yet a single supportable theory. You also have to take into account the findings of other sciences such as linguistics and archaelogy

The facts that are indisputable are that the differences between the current DNA of parts of the UK are not as distinctive as some would like us to believe, and that most of us derive quite a lot of our DNA from other sources than the standard core (whatever that may be - even Sykes said we were 20% Saxon plus other smaller bits)as well as drawing our cultural references from a wide variety of sources other than the dominant ethnic group.

Given this I don't think that Cranmer's assertion that artifically created states invariably revert back to their ethnic groupings is correct. This is not the same as saying that it isn't possible - but there are a lot of artificially created states in Europe that have not reverted back to their ethnic grouping - if you want another example look at France where the Oil and the Oc seem to have found a way to co-exist. Strangely enough you do not find many scientists wanting to put forward Cranmer's theory.

26 September 2011 at 19:55  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older