I don’t get this. Since it’s just a news piece and not an editorial, I guess there’s no official Lib Con line on whether the BNP’s actions make sense here, but since it’s the BNP I’ll safely assume that they’re meant to be doing something silly.

But are they, really? I mean, what they’re trying to do is say “we are the people who care about British history for no other reason than that it contains British people”. That Owain Glyndwr was a Catholic, or that he fought against the English, makes sod all difference in the modern day.

Look, the likes of the BNP have taken on the view, which used to be commonplace and is still somewhat extant amongst conservatives, that there is something unique and valuable about ‘our’ national history and culture (and likewise, there’s something unique and valuable about French culture, Indian culture, Cantonese culture, etc.). Precisely what is special about it is not really the matter being considered; that Glyndwr would have disapproved of the BNP doesn’t matter – his actions still form part of the historical tapestry. The BNP believe that this national culture, of which Owain Glyndwr is part, whether he’d have liked it or not, is under threat from ‘too much’ immigration (of people who simply don’t know who Glyndwr was) or ‘too liberal’ education that considers minor 15th century warlords to be a tad parochial these days.

The BNP’s narrative is that British history is being forgotten, as part of a process that they believe diminishes ‘native’ British culture. That was what Enoch Powell was on about when he said he ‘loved India, but didn’t want to see it in Birmingham’ or words to that effect – nationalists like the idea of strong national cultures which are greatly diverse from each other. Other cultures may be admired, but our culture is ours. This kind of belief is what nationalism is – the belief that we have our ways and we should stick to them and other people should stick to theirs. Now, I happen to think that this is a fairly silly set of beliefs, but the BNP are actually being pretty consistent, even in celebrating the historical role of someone who, as everyone is pointing out, may well have disapproved of ‘Britain’ as a political construct.

The constant assumption that our enemy, the BNP, is acting out of rank stupidity is actually pretty dangerous. Yes, Nick Griffin seems pretty laughable, but he’s not stupid.

I certainly hope that Owain Glyndwr’s modern-day champions can make it clear to people that the BNP are not the best avenue for the preservation of British history. In my opinion, there’s a very real risk that we allow the BNP to appropriate even more of that history for their own ends, and mocking them for it isn’t going to help.

his actions still form part of the historical tapestry.
But if you justify it on that basis then everything that happened is part of our national tapestry. So if a foreign man walks into the uk he is part of national tapestry and therefore part of our shared history, and therefore the bnp should support anyone who comes to this country staying here even if they have been here for 3 minutes. .

Will this lose them votes in england?

I mentioned this on PP: the NF trained alongside Welsh Nationalists in the 70′s & 80′s, and they were divided over Irish nationalism.

There is a precident for nationalists allying with each other: look at Germany, Italy and Japan during WWII.

It’s entirely consistant for anti-immigrant English people to ally themselves with anti-immigrant Welsh, or Irish, or Scots for that matter.

But if you justify it on that basis then everything that happened is part of our national tapestry. So if a foreign man walks into the uk he is part of national tapestry and therefore part of our shared history, and therefore the bnp should support anyone who comes to this country staying here even if they have been here for 3 minutes

Not really. A nationalist would not believe that someone who merely visited the country would have any impact on the ‘essential character’ of the country itself. There’s certainly some wiggle room here which individual nationalists might use to claim that some foreigners can be adopted as part of ‘our’ traditions whilst some will remain forever foreign. The relative ‘greatness’ of the individual concerned is probably relevant – a particularly great and influential foreigner might be an important historical figure for several cultures (religious figures in particular, I guess, viz. various saints, Jesus, and so forth). Of course, Owain Glyndwr was Welsh anyway, which means he either qualifies as a good Welsh nationalist (and thus to be approved of) or as British and thus gaining a free pass.

Perhaps the BNP are trying to tap into a Welsh ‘ethnic nationalism’, after all Plaid dominate the civic wing of Welsh nationalism. However, there is a resurgent right-wing that has emerged in Wales, the Euro election results are evidence of that. With the Tories topping the poll and UKIP grabbing a seat, there is deffinately a strand of right-wing populism in Wales.

It would be the job of Plaid and other progressives to continue to make the civic nationalist case and hack into the progressive populism which has dominated much of Welsh political culture for several decades.

Look, the likes of the BNP have taken on the view, which used to be commonplace and is still somewhat extant amongst conservatives, that there is something unique and valuable about ‘our’ national history and culture

One doesn’t have to be racist to think there is something valuable about their culture.

Shatterface:

“I mentioned this on PP: the NF trained alongside Welsh Nationalists in the 70’s & 80’s, and they were divided over Irish nationalism.”

Yes you did. I replied to you there, but you haven’t yet blessed me with a response. So I’ll ask here instead; do you have any evidence for your assertion, or is it just a smear? I was involved with Plaid and some other ‘nationalist’ groups in the early 80s and we would never have allied ourselves with the racist asshats of the NF.

There is a world of difference between civic nationalism such as Plaid or SNP and the ‘racial nationalism’ which the NF, BNP and EDL stand for.

Shatterface redux:

“It’s entirely consistant for anti-immigrant English people to ally themselves with anti-immigrant Welsh, or Irish, or Scots for that matter.”

Plaid is ‘anti-immigrant’? The SNP? That’ll be news to the Assembly Members and MSPs who sit for those parties and are from ethnic communities. The only AM from the Asian communities of Wales is Mohammed Asghar, the Plaid AM for SE Wales.

Luke:

“With the Tories topping the poll and UKIP grabbing a seat, there is deffinately a strand of right-wing populism in Wales.”

Certainly there is (although I don’t think Welsh identity has much to do with it), but the reason why the right had such a success in the European elections is because traditional Labour voters sat at home and didn’t bother voting. The true challenge for Plaid is to get those people off their arses and out to vote for them next time.