A non-white born in Britain = a dog born in a stable Myth

The Myth

The quote in full is, “Just because a dog is brought up in a stable doesn’t make him a horse” and was said by Mark Collett. There are different versions like, “If a dog is born a born it doesn’t make him a horse”, etc. Obviously profound wisdom for the BNP, as they see fit to give it as their ultimate argument as to why non-whites cannot be British.

The Truth

For normal human beings though the answer is obvious. The fact that the dog is born a dog makes it a dog. Is a fish that is born in a fishpond any less of a fish than one born in a river? The location has nothing to do with it unless only horses can be born in stables!
The original quote is attributed to the Duke of Wellington who said, “Being born in a stable does not make one a horse”, in relation to references to his Irish ancestry and the fact he was born in Dublin (of which apparently he wasn’t proud).

In that statement he is of course quite correct: the location of your birth does not determine what you are. He’d rejected being Irish and thought of himself as British. Now by that measure the country of someone’s birth does not determine their current nationality if they have adopted a new one.
The BNP version of it is actually the reverse and says where your ancestors were born determines what you are and which nationality you have, which is rubbish because what you are determines what you are and nationality can be adopted!
So in trying to use Wellington’s quote, Collett managed to completely bugger it up and get the meaning the wrong way round. Collett also uses two different types of animals, another fallacy when applied to the single human species in existence.
The idiotic BNP logic behind this is that race and nationality are somehow interlinked, something that is total nonsense. Nations are a totally artificial construct as are cultures, so if someone is born in Britain and adopts British culture they are British. Genetics and nationality function on two different and utterly different levels. There is no such thing as the ‘British race’, only British nationality which is a matter of law and identity not genes. If I were to give a reply to this ridiculous piece of BNP philosophy, it would be the below paragraph. I suggest it as a standard counter-argument.
A dog born in a stable is indeed not a horse. But stables are not the natural habitat of horses or dogs, horses have not always been born in stables and many still aren’t born in stables. Therefore both a dog or a horse born in a stable are the native-born inhabitants of the artificial construction called a stable. Just in the same way as white and non-white Britons are the native-born inhabitants of the artificial construct called Britain.
If you wanted something shorter you could try the following.
A dog born in a stable is the native-born inhabitant of the stable
Or
Is a horse not born in a stable still a horse? It is, so the stable is irrelevant
Or
If a dog and a horse are both born in a zoo, which one has more right to live there?
Or
Is a fish that is born in a fishpond any less of a fish than one born in a river?
Other suggested replies (not mine) are:
“If a dog is born in a stable Mark Collett is a cockroach”
“It’s like a brown horse being born in a stable – doesn’t make it any less of a horse than a white one that was there first”
“Dogs can’t breed with horses” (although humans can breed with other humans)
“If Nick Griffin was born in a kennel, it wouldn’t make him a dog…but he’s still a son of a bitch”
© One Million United, 2009