Never has a TV show been so underhand. All the conversations were based on the recipients not knowing the facts. DNA can only tell from the last 20,000 years, so any non North European DNA could have been from 1,000's of years ago. And yet the channel 4 reporter was happy to play on the ignorance of the member of the public being interviewed. None of the show was any point whatsoever because of this lack of facts being given. It was easily possible for someone to have 100% English ancestors going back 50 generations and still have other non North European DNA prior to that. So nothing that was said or decided or the embarrasment of the interviewee based on the superior nature of the reporter was based on total truth. Never have I been digusted so much by a show willing to hide the truth so as to show people up and emarrass them. Channel 4 should be ashamed!

What complete nonsense. The percentages of non-European blood give a good approximation of how recently the non-european ancestor entered the bloodline. If someone had nothing other than "English" (whatever that might mean) ancestors for twenty thousand years, any non-European genes from before that time would have gradually decreased in percentage terms over time.

The geneticist gave a specific time-frame for the likely period the Sub-Saharan ancestor entered Gary Bushell's bloodline; about five generations IIRC.

The programme was a superb debunking of racist myths. it wasn't totally revelatory - anyone who has followed this sort of thing and who isn't a regular reader of Stormfront or the BNP website will have seen, read or heard numerous genetic studies which show that from the blackest African to the whitest Scandinavian, we are all remarkably closely related. If it horrifies you to think that you might have black people as ancestors then I feel sorry for you.

Of course, no amount of evidence will convince a racist - by it's very nature racism is irrational.

And I expect if you did this study in any European or Asian country they'd be a similar mix.

Of course, Britain (and the British Empire of old) has had a recent history of defining itself in terms of values not purity of race. Better go to central/Eastern Europe and debunk the concept there. It may do more to stem the racism.

I agree with most of that decrypted, however there is still an undercurrent in the public discourse about "foreigners" swamping "english culture". There were enough examples of this from the participants in the show.

What is this "English Culture" anyway? Tracksuits and bling?

If Richard the Lionheart popped up in modern day Britain he'd wonder which funny language everybody was speaking. It seems to me that most little englanders are obsessed with some kind of mythological nineteen fifties england which, if it ever existed at all, lasted for a very short time indeed and was probably undermined more by white US culture than nasty dark people opening mosques in the High Street.

I'd say that view of a racist nation of 1950s throwbacks is itself a cliche.

Britain has, for the most part of 20 years, being a very tolerant nation.

So why have this type of programming? I'm sure there are a handful of people in the upper echelons of society who think themselves as pure English.

And we all know purity of race is a myth.

If we think back ten years ago, at a time when terrorism meant some splinter group from N. Ireland were planting bombs on bridges, there was not any great fear of "nasty dark people" or any issues with immigration.

So why this sudden countering of something rather small on the radar?

The reason is simple: because we had no Islamic terrorism nor a big illegal immigration problem.

You can certainly make a case that the media focusses on these issues today because there is a problem. But I don't think people have become more racist. Certainly we've begun to think more about British values and the ideas that cement us together.

Not sure what this programme proves other than ignorance about DNA heritage.

quote:

Originally posted by decrypted:
I'd say that view of a racist nation of 1950s throwbacks is itself a cliche.

I'm sorry, but there is a persistent strand of opinion that thinks in exactly the way I described. Not everyone, but neither are the numbers insignificant enough to be complacent about the issue.

quote:

Britain has, for the most part of 20 years, being a very tolerant nation.

Which is also a cliche. What actual evidence do you have of this? I certainly don't read the Mail or the Express and get the impression of a great wave of tolerance.

quote:

So why have this type of programming? I'm sure there are a handful of people in the upper echelons of society who think themselves as pure English.

And we all know purity of race is a myth.

Again, what evidence do you have for this assertion? I could point you to many people who proudly trumpet the superiority of the English as a "great race" - I frequently find myself involved in arguments with them.

quote:

If we think back ten years ago, at a time when terrorism meant some splinter group from N. Ireland were planting bombs on bridges, there was not any great fear of "nasty dark people" or any issues with immigration.

You are joking aren't you? I personally can't remember a time when immigration has not been an issue in this country.

Did you take any notice of the 1997 General election? I take it you didn't notice Hague and the right-wing press campaigning on the subject of asylum and immigration (the two things are often confused)

quote:

So why this sudden countering of something rather small on the radar?

The reason is simple: because we had no Islamic terrorism nor a big illegal immigration problem.

You're conflating a number of issues in a rather strange way there.

First of all the programme took no stance on illegal immigration or islamic terrorism. Waht are you suggesting - that racism DOES exist and that its a consequence of those things? If so the program was a necessary one. If you're climing that there is no problem with racism but simply with islamic terrorist and illegal immigrants then I completely disagree.

There are some people who have honest concerns about these things whether or not they are justified by the facts. However there are also people who use these issues as a cipher for race.

There have been more bombings and attempted bombings by members of the BNP than by Islamic terrorists. The former deputy leader of the party spent three years in prison for attempting to blow up a rival's headquarters, the BNP supporter David Copeland conducted a nail bombing campaign aginst blacks and gays and there have been other attempted bombings that have received less publicity, yet I haven't seen an anti-BNP campaign of similar proportions to the anti-Muslim one currently underway. No-one tells us that we must do everything we can to root out the cancer of racisnm and fascism in our midst, do they? No, instead we are told we must sympathise with the grievances of those who vote in large numbers for this odious group.

quote:

You can certainly make a case that the media focusses on these issues today because there is a problem.

You could also make a case that the media exaggerates the extent of these problems and contributes to a climate of hysteria. It's a matter of opinion I suppose.

quote:

But I don't think people have become more racist.

I do. At least some people anyway. It certainly seems to me that the tone of some of the anti-muslim/immigrant stuff we hear nowadays allows some racists to be more confident about expressing their prejudices.

quote:

Certainly we've begun to think more about British values and the ideas that cement us together.

In which case this programme did us a valuable service by hopefully making it more difficult to conduct that process encumbered by unhelpful myths and prejudices.

quote:

Not sure what this programme proves other than ignorance about DNA heritage.

If that was all it did, it would be enough. As I said if a public debate about the nature of our identity is necessary, the less it is obstructed by unhelpful myths, prejudices and ignorance the better,

quote:

I'm sorry, but there is a persistent strand of opinion that thinks in exactly the way I described. Not everyone, but neither are the numbers insignificant enough to be complacent about the issue.

Define "complacent" - you'll never reduce the number to zero.
And it may wel be a persistant strand: but amongst a very small group of people.

quote:

What actual evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have to show we were more racist from the 80s onwards than, say, the early part of the 20th century?
We've had numerous race and sex laws on equality. There is far less television and cinema influences on creating racism. IIRC the HO crime stats for 1995-2000 show a fall in racist attacks.

quote:

Did you take any notice of the 1997 General election? I take it you didn't notice Hague and the right-wing press campaigning on the subject of asylum and immigration (the two things are often confused)

Except it wasn't an issue. In 1997 illegal immigration was at a minimum along with false claimants for asylum. In 1997 it wasn't raised by either the Tories or the New Labour usurpers to the centre ground.
Nor was Hague prominent in any campaigns. You seem to have confused elections.

quote:

There have been more bombings and attempted bombings by members of the BNP than by Islamic terrorists.
The former deputy leader of the party spent three years in prison for attempting to blow up a rival's headquarters, the BNP supporter David Copeland conducted a nail bombing campaign aginst blacks and gays

AFAIK Copeland killed three and was an isolated case. Muslim extremists have killed hundreds of British people home and abroad. There have been numerous plots foiled. Thousands being monitored.
(Both the BNP and Muslim extremists are best off dead IMO - but it's a distortion to suggest they are an equal physical threat.)

quote:

It certainly seems to me that the tone of some of the anti-muslim/immigrant stuff we hear nowadays allows some racists to be more confident about expressing their prejudices.

I think more people have questioned the repressive nature of Islam. But that's not the same as being racist. And we're seeing extreme protests from Muslims too. It's about conflicting values.

quote:

In which case this programme did us a valuable service by hopefully making it more difficult to conduct that process encumbered by unhelpful myths and prejudices.

I don't think it did. The myth of racial superiority is a rapidly dwindling pastime for the snobs. Race is not the issue for most people. It's belief (political and religious) systems.

quote:

As I said if a public debate about the nature of our identity is necessary, the less it is obstructed by unhelpful myths, prejudices and ignorance the better

The nature of British identity is one that depends less on purity of race and more on the common laws and reforms this Island has put into place over centuries of parliamentary democracy. This is informed by a Christian basis along with secular (in recent decades). The fact that Lord Snooty of Snootington has Sub-Saharan blood going back thousands of years is hardly a basis for any relevant debate.

Also, in the spirit of equality they should have profiled a diverse ethnic range (although this would require a small series or a change of title). Racism isn't just a white man's sin. It exists in every group. It's no good making the nth iteration about white racism if you simply allow other groups to feel superior and leave their preconceptions unquestioned.

In a slight twist, in another completely different type of programme, it was claimed that the Human Gene pool is considerably smaller than it would be expected to be on a planet this size.

This was because of SuperVolcano activity on the planet that would clear vast areas of human population, possibly and probably eradicating all life for thousands of years.

You only have to look at the diversity of animals on the planet. And then realise, that apart from varying shades of colour, the humans are all the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Angelus the Vampire:
You only have to look at the diversity of animals on the planet. And then realise, that apart from varying shades of colour, the humans are all the same.

Could it be because we brand any departure from the accepted model of what human should look like as an anomaly and promptly set about correcting it with our advanced medicine techniques?
Also, humans whose appearance departs from norm have a great difficulty propagating their genes.

interesting that not 1 of the subjects could explains what it means to b english.

quote:

Originally posted by GrandSlam:
ok so no one is 100% geneticly english(probaly is the case whereever you are in the world) but heaven forbid someone should be allowed to see themselves as english, and have pride in the country

I don't think the programme could be used to prevent people from being proud of their nationality. It simply challenged those who considered that their "Englishness" was contingent on their assumption of their ethnicity.

quote:

Originally posted by GrandSlam:
I think what english is, is being challanged nearly every day, or at least we are told, to be english is to accpet something

and they don't come more challenged than you spam

the difference is, i know it