The Blood of the English

Courtesy of flickr user 'wolf359'

At the end of last month, a headline appeared in various newspapers boldly proclaiming that genetics had ‘proven’ that ‘the English’ are ‘largely German’. The various permutations of headline conveying this new ‘science’ were, if nothing else, tremendously revealing about the projected opinions of the audiences of those newspapers.

Guy Walters of the Mail, for example, elected to title his interpretation of these ‘facts’ with the heading:

‘As it is revealed half of Britons have German blood… Time to embrace your inner Jerry!’

The Telegraph opted for a more restrained title:

‘Half of Britons have German blood’

The Sun, however, did not hold back, with a brazenly moronic ‘quiz’ to ascertain ‘how German you are’.

This story is by no means the first of its kind. Various stories have emerged of late that have ‘proven’ that ‘Britons’ (here read ‘English’) are <insert almost any other nationality here>. The key science and ideas have been expounded by the likes of Professor Bryan Sykes (whose book Blood of the Isles I will eventually get round to reading) and Stephen Oppenheimer, who argued that Britons were descendents of Iberians. Or ‘Spaniards’ and ‘Portuguese’ as we now know them.

Whilst the aforementioned authors have at least used scientific evidence to attempt to vindicate their ideology, the majorities of these stories as reported in the press blithely simplify some extremely complex disciplines, they are prone to being nonsensical not only in their phraseology but also deliberately misleading in their intentions.

The study itself is probably the first I’ve looked into that to all intents and purposes appears to be crafted for the benefit of the tabloid media. The website of UCL, who it seems the newspapers credit for the study, hardly mentions the study. Bizarrely, it only links to the tabloid newspapers that reported the findings in a haphazard fashion.

The story also credits Der Spiegel with a more detailed study of the matter; specifically, for stating that

“… there is no use in denying it. It is now clear that the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves.”

The title of said article , ‘Britain Is More Germanic than It Thinks’, would appear to assert this point still further.

However, this is entirely ideologically incoherent and anachronistic. Germany is a recent invention, for a start, not truly existing until the late 1800s. Even after this point, ravaged by wars and political ideologies, it took many forms and sped through several very different, fractured and unstable identites. Furthermore, genetics do not make nationhood. It is wilfully misleading and nonsensical to claim that Britain is more ‘Germanic’ because of a genetic ancestry that dates back into prehistory.

What perplexes me still further is the matter of ‘national blood. If the new nation of  Germany does has its own ‘blood’, why does England not? If anything, surely the ‘tribal diversity’ of the English blood makes it quite unique in and of itself.

Also, I am yet to discover the scientific source of the Spiegel’s claims. A previous UCL study, titled ‘A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles’ – possibly the one alluded to in the Spiegel article – appears to suggest that myriad sources, including Iberian, Danish, Irish and German genetic backgrounds were ‘feeders’ to Britain. This was detected by analysing ‘haplogroups’ – a key aspect of the science of DNA – in order to ascertain how results of blood tests may infer areas of particularly high or low migration of peoples across time. Thus, the nonsense of a ‘national blood’ is merely a much-reduced analysis of the science of haplogroups; variations of a genetic blueprint that spreads across Europe and further afield, uniting many diverse peoples and populations.

It could be argued that such studies -scientific or not – were in some way damaging for English nationality and nationhood. Some infer that they are further evidence of Englishness ‘dying on the operating table’, as JuliusWhacket would have suggested. I would move to disagree. Englishness is precisely nothing to do with scientific data. England and its uniqueness have never been grounded in biological ethnic origin and never has been.

Englishness is the shared culture, values and historical experience of a group of people who were, with consideration of fair amounts of inward and outward migration, in possession of a coherent national identity that developed in a linear fashion across centuries. This identity was shaped and strengthened by events happened upon them, fittingly enough, by external circumstances, individuals and nations.

Would England be England without Christianity, a religion with its origins in ancient Palestine? Of course not. Does the dominance of a religion of foreign origin preclude two millennia of distinctly English Christianity, with its own architecture, hymns, inclusion into law and governance and contribution to our language? Not in the slightest.

What would the foundations of our culture be if not for William Shakespeare’s knowledge of European stories? Does that diminish his astonishing literary achievement, his genius or his contribution to a unique and demonstrable Englishness? Not in the slightest.

What else captured the English imagination like the exploration of strange new lands and their people? What else strengthened the English – and British – sense of self than the wars against France? Did these cultural exchanges lead to a less definable Englishness? Perhaps you should read Rudyard Kipling or T.S. Eliot for answers to that question.

I digress. But the facts remain. Until someone can substantively prove, using scientific evidence accumulated from nations across the world, that people’s blood is in some way affected by the physical soil of their homeland, I should encourage people to allow poets and poets alone to make comparable claims.

Let us disassociate notions of who we are as a people – our values, laws, history and the events that shaped our nation’s history – from biological happenstance of prehistoric times. Let us also be wary of populist efforts to undermine our sense of ourselves through the flimsy conclusions of calculated, deceitful media hacks, who are liberal with facts.

We are English not because of genetics, but because of our character.

Advertisements

About Byrnsweord

I am an Englishman. Constantly striving for the truth and to conserve what is good about England. You can find my on flickr at http://www.flickr.com/people/byrnsweord/ my blog over at byrnsweord.wordpress.com/ and my Twitter account at twitter.com/byrnsweord Byrnsweord is min nama.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Blood of the English

  1. Gildas theMonk says:

    Top blogging

  2. Pingback: The Blood of the English (via The Flaming Sword) « English Warrior

  3. I haven’t, hitherto, thought of you as a civic nationalist.
    Out of interest, what is your grounding in early mediaeval, and ancient, history?

    • Byrnsweord says:

      In the context of this article, I was discussing the absurdity of translating recent – and clearly constructed – nation states onto ethnicity or tribal identity. This does not therefore imply that I believe that Englishness translates across all cultural boundaries.

      As far as my grounding in ancient history goes, I should like to consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable.

  4. You absolutely, fully, completely missed the point. It has nothing at all to do with Germany as a modern nation-state. It has to do with ancient Germania, the primary land (not nation-state) of Germanic/Teutonic peoples, as an ethnicity, as opposed to Celts/Gauls.

    • Byrnsweord says:

      My good man; I would disagree that I ‘missed the point’. I simply made some points about the wilful inaccuracy of the journalism; of distorting the research – partly by using modern, and more than a little xenophobic, titles such as ‘Krauts’ and ‘Jerry’. This wilfully misleads the reader in two ways; firstly, it appears to insinuate that modern Britons have modern German ancestry in a very recent sense; secondly, it brazenly stated that this made Britain more ‘Germanic’, an inaccuracy once again as it implies the trappings of the modern nation state.

      The research itself may well have stated that there were ancient links between England and the continent; as I stated, previous research has demonstrated this. In addition to this, all our national ‘origin stories’ suggest that this is the case. My qualm was with the lazy, irresponsible and almost racist journalism that appeared to suggest that genetics were the central facet of nationhood. I, as I’m sure you do yourself, could not disagree more with this notion.

      Furthermore, there is a distinction to be made between the Roman concept of ‘Germania’ and the modern notion of the ‘Germanic’.

      I am indebted to you, my good man, for your considered response. Many thanks for reading.

  5. Tzimple says:

    I am moved to defend the late lamented Julius Whacket. His concern was always with ethnicity in its technical sense, as explicated by such authorities as Anthony D Smith. Julius would have said that without ethnicity you have no nation, that ethnicity comes first and is in any case its own end. Scientifically speaking, blood plays no part in forming a person’s or people’s nature; but myths of common descent are central to ethnic identity. My guess is that Julius would have found the news about German descent broadly helpful to the English myth of descent, but said that it counted for little in the face of wholesale destruction of English ethnicity.

  6. David says:

    Sykes has been essentially debunked, I must inform you. He argued that the people currently living in Britain are largely descended from paleolithic settlers from Iberia, as you said, but new evidence shows that the genetic group he thought was generally isolated to the British Isles and Iberia is common across Europe. It’s all garbage anyway in my opinion, especially when someone sets out with an agenda and then looks for evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s