The phrase ‘mongrel nation’ is often bandied about in describing Britain, and/ or England, especially by the multiculturalists, who seem to delight in saying that there are no ‘races’ but the human race, and that we are all a mixture of many different peoples.
For example, today this comment was posted on a “conservative” forum in regard to an article about the discovery of Anglo-Saxon ruins in Scotland.
“England has to be about the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth.
The source of dozens of cultural conquests, reconquests, genocide, and subjugation over it’s documented 2500 year history. That might also be why it’s culture and society is one of the best in the world – if not the best.”
Obviously this ‘conservative’ is nevertheless a big fan of the idea that ‘bastardization’ as he calls it is a good thing, a desirable thing. He probably also says similar things about the U.S.: “our diversity is our strength”, in other words.
But is it factually true that England is ‘the most bastardized piece of land on the face of this earth’, or that it is a ‘mongrel island’ as the BBC/Guardian crowd like to say?
Biologist T.H. Huxley said:
“The invasion of the Saxons, the Goths, the Danes and the Normans changed the language of Britain, but added no new physical element. Therefore we should not talk any more of Celts and Saxons, for they are all one. I never lose an opportunity of rooting up the false idea that the Celts and Saxons are different races”. – from Racial Origins
Freeman, in Origin of the English Nation:
“Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation – a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman”.
British archeologist David Miles asserts that there is little change in the genetic makeup of British people for the last 12,000 years, based on recent genetic and archeological evidence.
“In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.
[…]”There’s been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it’s now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons’ genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age,” Miles said.
[…]Population estimates based on the size and density of settlements put Britain’s population at about 3.5 million by the time Romans invaded in A.D. 43.
Many historians now believe subsequent invaders from mainland Europe had little genetic impact on the British.
The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.
“The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model,” James writes in an article for the website BBC History.”
One of the worst things about the Internet is the way in which some of these careless statements (about ‘mongrel England, for example) and outright lies can spread so quickly. So many unfounded assertions are thrown around in the average Internet discussion that they become accepted ‘knowledge’ by a great many people who don’t bother to question what they read, let alone consult valid sources to verify anything. I’ve often said that we live in the Age of the Lie, and the Internet acts as a source of infection in communicating false ‘facts’ to people.
Maybe the forum comment I quoted at the beginning of this post was made in good faith by someone who actually believed what he wrote, or maybe he is someone who knowingly spreads false information in order to push the multicult point of view. Whether or not the latter is true, the result is the same. The comment will be quoted by others somewhere, or paraphrased, and the idea spreads. Anglophobics (and they are legion, on the Internet) will seize on it as a justification for mass immigration to Britain , because after all the English are all mongrels anyway — so why not flood the island with ever more exotic ‘diversity’?
And we here, in the States, see that line used frequently when our immigration crisis is under discussion: ‘this is a nation of immigrants. America was always multiracial and multicultural.’ And that is not even true of this country, despite the fact that there were European colonists who were not British or English. But Britain is even less deserving of having this ‘mongrel island’ label used to destroy the ethnic and cultural integrity of that country.