An Oxford academic has criticised the leader of the British National Party (BNP) for misinterpreting his work on the origins of the British people.
Speaking on Question Time on BBC One last week, Nick Griffin claimed that Britain had an “indigenous” population – the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh – who had been living in the country for the past 17,000 years.
Dr Stephen Oppenheimer, author of ‘The Origins of the British’, has claimed that Griffin has misrepresented scientific research in order to further his own agenda.
He said that the figure of 17,000 years was “obviously wrong” and in his view it would be more accurate to say that Britain has been continuously inhabited for up to 15,000 years. “17,000 years ago Britain was under ice – there was nobody here.”
Oppenheimer was also critical of Griffin’s use of the term “indigenous”. “He talks about ‘indigenous’ because he can’t talk about black or white.” He said that it was difficult to identify what ‘indigenous’ means in the context of the British population. “He’s missed the point of the genetics in terms of his perspective that he can determine who is indigenous British. All British people are immigrants.”
“As Bonnie Greer pointed out [on Question Time], the original Britons were Neanderthals. They were exterminated, then the Ice Age left a clean sheet. The modern population is essentially of north Iberian origin. So what’s British?”
Griffin, said Oppenheimer, had tried to frame the debate on his own terms. “You have to set a date line [before which the population can be called indigenous]. He’s drawn one to suit his own racial agenda. It is not a date chosen out of thin air. He’s making an artificial line.”
Asked whether he was concerned when doing research that people like Griffin would misinterpret or misrepresent it, Oppenheimer said, “It is a mistake to avoid asking a question in case someone misuses the answer. If you predicate your actions on the basis of what the BNP might say or do, you would be influenced by the BNP.”
Alice Brunton, a second-year linguist agreed. “We can’t go around censoring research due to possibly misplaced fear of future reactions by some crackpot racists!”
Hanns Koening, a PPEist, was of the same opinion. “I think scientifically sound research should always be published. Possible ambiguities should be made clear in the paper. If the academic thinks there’s a danger of the paper being misconstrued by journalists or populists, he can already write a response to that into the paper.”
The BBC’s decision to grant Griffin a platform on their flagship current affairs show was a controversial decision. During the filming of the programme, at least 500 people protested outside BBC Television Centre in London. There were also demonstrations outside the BBC’s studios in Oxford.
Oppenheimer criticised the BBC for not being totally honest about the reasons for selecting Griffin for the panel. “I don’t think the BBC had a valid reason for putting him on Question Time,” he said. “I think the BBC’s justification was disingenuous,” he continued, adding that he believed their decision to invite Griffin was based on potential viewing figures.
The programme was watched by an average of 7.9 million viewers. Mark Byford, deputy director general of the BBC, said, “This very large audience clearly demonstrates the public’s interest in seeing elected politicians being scrutinised by the public themselves.”
