England’s massacre of the immigrants

#1
Horrible as it may seem, the extermination of immigrants was once official policy in England, with horrendous results. It is not just in Bosnia or Rwanda that “ethnic cleansing” happens.

True, it was over 1,000 years ago in November 1002, on St Brice’s day, that orders were given for the immigrant community to be massacred. Yet the accounts of what happened then are as fresh as reports of atrocities in places such as Darfur today.

It was Ethelred II who was the perpetrator. He has become something of a figure of fun because of being nicknamed “the Unready”. In reality he was capable of utter ruthlessness, notably towards Danish settlers living peacefully in England. We can read in his own words from one of his royal charters what he did and why. “It will be well known that a decree was sent out by me with the counsel of my leading men and magnates to the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting like weeds among the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just extermination,” he says. He explains that he had had intelligence that the Danes were planning to kill him and his counsellors and take over the kingdom.

Banx

Ethelred’s justification comes in a charter of restitution granted to St Frideswide’s church at Oxford, scene of one of the most pitiful episodes of all, with men, women and children being burned alive.

Treacherous plot

When news of the king’s orders reached Oxford, the local Danes, peaceful descendants of Viking raiders, had broken into the church seeking sanctuary from the English mob. Many of them would have been second or third-generation immigrants, born and bred in England, which would have made Ethelred’s decree all the more shocking. Again, we know from the king’s own words what happened.

He describes how: “The Danes at Oxford, striving to escape death, entered this sanctuary of Christ, having broken by force the doors and bolts, and resolved to make a refuge and defence for themselves. But when all the town strove to drive them out and could not, they set fire to the planks and burnt this church with its ornaments and books.”

Nor was it just at Oxford that the Danes were murdered. Henry of Huntingdon, writing just within living memory of the massacre, says Ethelred’s edict was a “treacherous plot” and that the Danes who died had been living “peacefully” in England. “Concerning this crime, in my childhood I heard very old men say that the king had sent letters to every city according to which the English either maimed all the unsuspecting Danes on the same day and hour with their swords or destroyed them by fire.”

Another chronicler notes that the English “spared neither age nor sex destroying those women of their own nation who had consented to intermix with the Danes and the children who had sprung from that foul adultery. Some women had their breasts cut off; others were buried alive in the ground while the children were dashed to pieces against posts and stones.”

Danegeld

Why did Ethelred do it? Maybe it was panic. Longstanding Danish settlers may have been peaceable but during his reign there was a fresh wave of Viking raiders from Denmark who slaughtered, burned and plundered their way across the land. Only months before the 1002 massacre, Ethelred had been forced to buy them off, raising the sum, then astronomical, of £24,000 from tax. It was only 15 years later, under the Danish King Canute, with his policy of reconciliation, that English society started to become more truly integrated.

Since then, with the exception of the expulsion of the Jews in the 12th century, England over the years has shown itself to be a remarkably tolerant country. Sir Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi, says that in Britain the “default option” is tolerance.

The rate of immigration today has produced new tensions, greater perhaps than for centuries. All the same, we should not forget what can happen and what did happen here.
subscription service so in full

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e896f82e-871c-11dc-a3ff-0000779fd2ac.html
 
#2
Interesting history lesson.

armchair_jihad said:
Horrible as it may seem, the extermination of immigrants was once official policy in England, with horrendous results. It is not just in Bosnia or Rwanda that “ethnic cleansing” happens.
Not sure that something that happened 40 generations ago merits the use of the present tense. :roll:

armchair_jihad said:
Why did Ethelred do it? Maybe it was panic. Longstanding Danish settlers may have been peaceable but during his reign there was a fresh wave of Viking raiders from Denmark who slaughtered, burned and plundered their way across the land. Only months before the 1002 massacre, Ethelred had been forced to buy them off, raising the sum, then astronomical, of £24,000 from tax. It was only 15 years later, under the Danish King Canute, with his policy of reconciliation, that English society started to become more truly integrated.
My bold and reduction in the number of quote levels because I'm not very good at managing them.

So Danish settlers/invaders began to integrate with the English population only when there was a Danish king?
Is that how we get full peaceful integration of our current settle population?
 
#3
The Danes were invaders and colonists, to compare them to what is currently happening today is.... Oh bugger! :oops:
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#4
Didnt the Virgin Queen order all Moors out as well? It seems Enoch had Blue Blood!
 
#5
Can I be the first to appologise?? - there must be some group somewhere that still holds a grudge about this
 
#6
Don't forget King John, who borrowed money from the Jews and then decided being Jewish and lending money were both illegal...or indeed his brother whose reign saw the Clifford's Tower massacre in York.


By the way unrede in anglo-Saxon means "without counsel" or unwilling to take advice. Ethelred was a bit of a hothead and rash to boot therefore, rather than unprepared.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#8
I blame the Germans for all this apologising stuff, but then something from the nips would have been nice up until our ex POWs and internees started to die. That is one system I would hold a grudge against!
 
#10
drain_sniffer said:
Can I be the first to appologise?? - there must be some group somewhere that still holds a grudge about this
I do think that you should apologise. Not until the Italians apologise for the Roman invasion, The Danes for the Viking invasion and the French for the Norman invasion.

Why is it always our politicos that apologise for alleged crimes/genocides/sleights that happened hundreds/thousands of years ago?
 
#11
Is there a historical re-enactment society we can join?
 
#12
The Danes were almost racially identical, co religionists and spoke a very similar dialect and had been in England for a few generations - doesn't take much for the beast to get loose.....
 
#13
apart from bacon

"what have the Danish ever done for us?"
 
#14
"Ye Sune" had this to say about it:

"Crispiey Danish Baccon!"

"A tyme of shame has fallen over England, with innocent Daynes in a church are burn-ed. Prithy tis ungodly to have dune such a thing. Twas just 15 years since they did come to here in the Longships with great wailing and have here lived in peace - once the killing had ceas-ed since then. Can we have forgotten the Viking plague so swiftly? Twas a stain we shud have wash-ed bevor today! Burn a Dane today and please GOD!

See an etching of young Ethelswigg's baps on page 3."
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Oh here we go again!

OK, I'm sorry; no really, I'm really, really sorry, SOOOOOOO sorry for the actions of my ancestors, can I go now?
 
#17
so, i dont get it, should we be doing the same thing to polish people? because Im pretty friendly with quite a lot of them. There are a few groups of british people I wouldnt mind exterminating. Here, chavvy chavvy chavvy....
 
#18
The_Cad said:
Is there a historical re-enactment society we can join?
Can I be "Dayve ye festerring Swine Herdere of Adderbury" please? Oh, and with remembrance coming up, do we get medals?
 
#19
ex-gunner said:
Were the "English Mob" wearing white football shirts, and what were the Scottish Mob doing at this time ?
The usual i.e. we were stealing the fecking sheep on the Borders and kicking in the back doors of the women there. I think I got that the right way round :?

Oh fcuk it .... OK. I am sorry!
 
#20
angular said:
Interesting history lesson.

armchair_jihad said:
Horrible as it may seem, the extermination of immigrants was once official policy in England, with horrendous results. It is not just in Bosnia or Rwanda that “ethnic cleansing” happens.
Not sure that something that happened 40 generations ago merits the use of the present tense. :roll:

armchair_jihad said:
Why did Ethelred do it? Maybe it was panic. Longstanding Danish settlers may have been peaceable but during his reign there was a fresh wave of Viking raiders from Denmark who slaughtered, burned and plundered their way across the land. Only months before the 1002 massacre, Ethelred had been forced to buy them off, raising the sum, then astronomical, of £24,000 from tax. It was only 15 years later, under the Danish King Canute, with his policy of reconciliation, that English society started to become more truly integrated.
My bold and reduction in the number of quote levels because I'm not very good at managing them.

So Danish settlers/invaders began to integrate with the English population only when there was a Danish king?

Is that how we get full peaceful integration of our current settle population?

I posted a straight lift from the Financial Times, the ONLY UK paper that fact checks every item under legal advice, as being the Financial Newspaper for record, they could be sued into oblivion by some Mega Bank/Corporate if they employed the standards of Journalism all other UK Media outlets use.

If you think they are wrong….email them requesting a correction or sue them
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top