There is a great book titled "The Story of English" that will surely bring great pride to anyone who is a native speaker or primary user of the English language.

http://www.amazon.com/Story-English-Third-Revised/dp/0142002313/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9361106-6122835?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181013283&sr=8-1

 In this book  published by PBS prior to it's virtual take-over by anti-conservatives) it is revealed how English is the well-deserved heir to French and other languages as the closest thing to a rightful Global Language not because of any socio-economic hegemonic considerations, but simply because it is an almost-miraculously flexible, stable and maleable format for written and verbal communications.

Likewise, this book gives a great overview of English history which also reveals the dynamics of how nations have formed and how populations have blended into each other naturally over the course of history.

No, we see this even with slow-maturing species. In any case, are you arguing that 3,000 generations is of no importance? Significant evolutionary change has been observed over as little as 10 generations. This issue was recently addressed by two American anthropologists:

"Even if 40 or 50 thousand years were too short a time for the evolutionary development of a truly new and highly complex mental adaptation, which is by no means certain, it is certainly long enough for some groups to lose such an adaptation, for some groups to develop a highly exaggerated version of an adaptation, or for changes in the triggers or timing of that adaptation to evolve. That is what we see in domesticated dogs, for example, who have entirely lost certain key behavioral adaptations of wolves such as paternal investment. Other wolf behaviors have been exaggerated or distorted. A border collie's herding is recognizably derived from wolf behaviors, as is a terrier's aggressiveness, but this hardly means that collies, wolves, and terriers are all the same. Paternal investment may be particularly fragile and easily lost in mammals, because parental investment via internal gestation and lactation is engineered into females but not males. "

Harpending, H. and G. Cochran. 2002. "In our genes", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(1):10-12.

"the differences between individuals are a hundred times bigger and more important, than the differences caused by "ethnical identifiable genes."

This is an inference from Lewontin's finding, i.e., genetic variability within human populations exceeds genetic variability between human populations. So we're all one big happy species, right?

Well, not necessarily. If we compare many anatomically distinct species, we get the same finding, especially if they are relatively young (like our own). If we look at populations below the species level, we find even fuzzier genetic data. Different dog breeds cannot be distinguished by most genetic markers.

So what gives? Genes vary considerably in their adaptive value, with most being of little or no value, i.e. "junk genes." When two populations diverge under the influence of divergent selection pressures, these pressures are acting on a very small subset of the entire genome. So sampling of the entire genome will not reliably tell the two apart. Yes, once you get reproductive isolation, the two populations will start to drift apart over the entire genome, as random mutations gradually produce different patterns of change among genes of low adaptive value. But that takes a long time, and humans are a young species.

"all the non-African peoples of the world are descended from one group which migrated from African only 85,000 years ago, and that one of the most striking things about homo sapiens is how closely related we all are genetically. In other words, all this genetic race stuff is bollocks. Hope this is now clear and we can all get on to discussing something more productive."

Genetically speaking, a lot can happen in 85,000 years. That's over 3,000 generations. Many mammalian and bird species have arisen since the last ice age -- only 10,000 years ago. If you're looking for arguments to support a pre-defined ideological position, you're probably better off looking elsewhere.

My interest in immigration primarily deals with Islamization.  I think it is a grave error on the part of those who are concerned about it to conflate it with immigration in general, because it broadens the issue and therefore makes progress difficult and slow. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that even large numbers of non-European people, living in a Western European nation, will not over a few generations acquire the lifestyle and manners, and eventually the values, of the host nation.  The change to the host nation will be much smaller than the change to the immigrants, and the more diverse the immigrant population is, the smaller the change will be, as there will be no one immigrant group that can predominate.  By dint of its status as a sacralized political faction, Islam prevents this process from occurring, and represents a much more serious threat than non-specific "cultural" differences.

This is my "American Jewish" perspective:  I don't really care if the culture changes, as long as certain core values stay the same.  They happen to be embodied in the Constitution.  Large groups of immigrants from any country will generally improve relations and trade ties between the United States and the source country.  It will over time also give that nation, through familial ties, a sentimental attachment to the United States, which reinforces our sagging hegemony.  I like having people of varying backgrounds as a part of my community, particularly their restaurants.
 

@ Doney

Obviously, on this subject you continue to carry your anti-racist "badge of honor" with (British) honour.  Indeed, we are all genetically closely related, and a baby does not know much more than its "Mummy" and (hopefully, but less likely today than yesterday) its "Daddy".   

But, perhaps what you are overlooking is that culturally we can be very different, which can and will have dramatic impact on the individual's wellbeing and freedom over time.  That baby's genetic makeup may be unimportant, but the cultural 'signals' that it increasingly will be receiving from its environment can be very different under different circumstances.   It should be self-evident that the same forces that are behind an 'open borders' mentality are also mightily influencing the education system and thus (with a short lag) the media environment.  Hence, the particular cultural environment that has created the distinctive features of 'British culture' can easily over time disappear.   If you have a low opinion of those features, you may not mind.  But you would be wrong. And if you have a high opinion of those features (like 'siegetower' does) you will surely (and wisely) mind. 

Your presumed examples intended to refute British "tolerance and openness" cannot be taken seriously.  As if conflict is not a universal phenomenon!  The relevant question is not whether there has been much conflict in British history, but rather how have these conflicts shaped that particular culture, and how has it been able to deal with them.  To be able to evaluate that you must be willing to make honest empirical observations around the world to see how other cultures have dealt with similar conflicts in their societies.  And there is the rub.....Naive western multi-culturalists appear to be blind to the realities of other cultures around the world.  That blindness is rooted in ideology.  There is no other explanation for their willingness to destroy their own (hard-won) cultures. 

In short, it does not matter how a baby 'looks', but it matters very much what it will be taught by its cultural 'environment'.   And a culture of 'relativism' (i.e. of 'all cultures are equal') surely is not going to preserve that baby's individual freedom.  If you doubt this, then take an honest (and informed) look around the world.

P.S.  British history is not likely going to come to "an abrupt end" (although we should not discount nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and Iran).  Like all civilisations before, it will take at least a couple of generations to a 'slow end'.

Elaib Harvey: "The evidence he cites for his thesis largely comes from the new science of 'genetic archaeology' which has discovered through paternal DNA that a significant majority of those who live in the UK today are descended directly from the Ice Age hunters who first came here it seems from the Iberian peninsula. The figures are 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 79% of the Cornish, 70% of the Scots and 68% of the remainder of England (over 2/3rds). (figures from 'The Origins of the British' by Stephen Oppenheimer). So despite invasions of Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norse and whoever the ethnic makeup of the UK has hardly been altered. One of the side effects of this research is to massively undermine ideas of Celtic difference. It suggests that there is precious little such thing, if anything any difference predates and Celtic retreat from Anglo Saxons by 5,000 years."

Agreed. I used to argue with those that claimed the British Isles were inhabited by "immigrants," by pointing to the continuity of Celtic groups such as the Scots, Welsh and Irish and of the Anglo-Saxons, who were Germanic. Indeed, the Danes inhabited the same peninsula from which the Angles, Saxons and Jutes departed for England. Furthermore, the Normans were Danish and Norwegian vikings provided a territory on Frankish soil. Moreover, if the Normans were "mixed" with the indigenous population of Normandy, then this would have occurred mainly with Franks, not Gallo-Romans. Though this theory of Germanic continuity for England has been challenged, it does not alter the thrust of my argument. Firstly, according to racial anthropology, the Celts were a diverse group and the term "Celt" may in fact be misleading. The basic anthropological types associated with England, Scotland and Wales existed their before and after Germanic invasions and settlement: lanky blonds in England, stocky brunettes in Wales and fair red-heads in Scotland. Secondly, the Germanic tribes that expanded into present-day Germany encountered Celts just as their Anglo-Saxon compatriots did, so the presence of Celtic DNA indicators does not distance the English from the Dutch, Flemings or Germans in a significant way given the fact that Celtic tribes inhabited these regions prior to Germanic expansion.

The Lonely Planet series of travel books attempted to describe Berlin as a historic multicultural city of immigrants given the fact that thousands of Huegenots sought refuge their during their persecution in France. However, multiculturalists cannot ignore that "immigration" aside, Europe has never experienced the massive influx of non-European groups that it is facing at present. Given that Celtic and Germanic tribes belonged to various Northern European or "Nordish" sub-races, one cannot compare vikings and Jamaicans. Period. Europe was never historically multi-racial.

I disagree Peter with you on a few points. I don't believe the article seeks to establish that the British ethnicity is superior because of the sake of its' ethnicity.

I think what the article articulates is that people with an in-built love of their ethnicity, and a bond between their genetic makeup and the land/climate/soil/plants of their native country that has shaped them for millenia, are in danger of being washed away from their land and history.

We see that through the importation of tens of thousands of people from cultures who very strongly affirm the strengths of their race and confidence in the vitality of their culture.

At the same time British cultures, through Multiculturalism, are being denigrated, downgraded, hidden, told they aren't important - we need to satisfy the needs of newcomers.

And that spells 'goodbye' to the culture of Britain as a whole that developed tolerance and openness. It developed that way on its' own, not constantly exchanging cultural makeup and ideas with others who are not tolerant or forgiving, or know the love and peace of Jesus.

_____

Defend Christendom. Defend Jewry. Oppose socialism in Europe.

"If when we think of Britain as a place which has been "for a long time, been both stable as well as liberal and tolerant, comparatively speaking", then this is in part because that nation was comprised of a people who were, by and large, homogenous."

Hmm, So non-homogenous people like the USA start with a handicap, isn't it?
Personally I think its all crap.

1) I don’t know what exactly is understood under “long-time”. But the history of Britain is full of internal wars, bloodshed and misery. Not more then anywhere else, of course, but never the less.

2) But even if for the sake of the argument, we accept Britain as being longtime a bit more “stable, liberal and tolerant” as somewhere else, there still is no evidence what so ever that this is because of “homogeneousness”.

3) The ethnical (DNA-driven) homogeneousness of a people is absolutely irrelevant, because the differences between individuals are a hundred times bigger and more important, then the differences caused by “ethnical identifiable genes.” The inter-British differences in morality, intelligence, believes, social class or physical fitness make the word “homogenous” sound either ridiculous or at the best meaningless.

4) If there would be a “legal and spiritual association” like Sir Arthur Bryant (A Nazi sympathizer by the way) pretends, then this has certainly nothing to do with the long homogenous history of Britain, because the difference in legal and spiritual habits between today and no more the hundred years ago are tremendous. This proves that societies adapt and change in a high tempo, leaving ethnical considerations behind as meaningless.