Main Edition
US
FR
August 14, 2024 - 10:00am
England’s riots have sparked new debates about national identity and what it means to be “British” or “English” in our modern multiracial, multicultural society. If national identity has played a part, it was English ideas of Britishness as much as of Englishness itself. A central claim which many of the rioters chanted, and which has often been articulated by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, was “I want my country back”. But this slogan depends on constructing a national “us” that can be distinguished from “others”.
Professor Matt Goodwin gave his insight on the BBC’s Moral Maze. He conceded that Ash Sarkar, contributing editor of the Left-wing Novara Media who is of Bengali heritage, could have British and English nationality but insisted she could not be “ethnically English”.
In the wake of Goodwin’s claim, I invited X users to define ethnic Englishness. For some, whiteness was the defining issue. Others emphasised 1000 years of unbroken genetic heritage. Some linked ethnicity to birth and language while others emphasised culture, history and heritage. The unscientific sample illustrates something important: in these debates the concept of “ethnicity” is called to serve too many purposes, bundling together race, genetics, heritage, culture, history, values and identity in a confused mess. This mess was a feature of the 2021 census, which made ‘English’ a “white” ethnicity, causing the current Foreign Secretary David Lammy to complain that he could not be “Black English” while the Welsh census allowed for “Black Welsh”.
But what does a racially defined Englishness represent? The genetic footprint of England’s ancestors has lingered and there may be a cohort with a millennium’s heritage of “Celtic” and northern European genes. But even in the South and East, the Anglo-Saxon genes were well under half the population (10% to 40%) even before the internal and external migrations of the 20th and 21st centuries. Of the Normans, however, with their massive cultural and linguistic influence on England, there is barely a genetic trace.
Fascinating though it may be, genetics and the study of DNA tell us nothing about what England’s people might be like today, what values they share and what histories they tell. What purpose does asserting such an identity serve other than to exclude those like Lammy and Sarkar who are not white?
In any case, England’s people have moved on from regarding whiteness as a sole marker of identity. Only 10% believe you must be white to be English, a figure that fell dramatically in the last decade. Even among those who emphasise their English over British identity, it is only one in five. Yet surveys don’t offer an unqualified pass to Englishness: in a 2018 BBC survey, 80% said that to be English it is important to be born here. While two-thirds of ethnic minorities say that Englishness is open to them, only a third identify strongly as English. National identities may not be genetically defined but they do reflect shared histories, shared stories, and shared values that only gradually expand to accommodate a changing population.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI regard Englishness as being attached in some sense to English customs, tradition and history. And in some sense continuous with (although not the same as) them.
The business of English = born or grew up here is at least partly a function of being born here makes you quite likely to have that attachment.
There are plenty of people who grew up here who seem to have no such attachment. That, to me, is the troubling aspect of immigration (and the resulting generation born here to immigrants and to the children of immigrants). Without that shared sense of attachment, what you have is two sets of people both calling themselves English (because they grew up here) but who are no longer one group, one “we”.
And then we no longer have a demos or a nation and will not be able to make sacrifices for each other or our collective future, because people are far more likely to make sacrifices “for their own” even if “their own” is the relatively weak tie to strangers from the same nation, than to total strangers. And that way lies a very sad future.
I’ve never really defined myself as English in dialogue with other English/British people. However, it’s the first word I reach for when I’m speaking German and introducing myself to someone, saying where I’m from (“Ich bin (gebürtige) Engländerin” as opposed to “Ich bin (gebürtige) Britin“). I don’t really know why that is. Maybe because people here just tend to say “England” when they really mean “Britain” or “the UK”, so I adjust to suit them.
I guess these days, if you were going to try and work out some labels or ethnic subcategories of Englishness then I guess I’m in the “bog standard Anglo-Saxon English” drawer. It’s not a source of pride or a way to distinguish myself from others (even though I think it’s cool that I know where my 14-times great grandfather is buried in Derbyshire) – it’s just a fact.
My genetic roots are English, Irish, Scottish, French, German and perhaps a bit of Ashkenazi Jewish but despite having a paternal grandfather who was born in Dublin and a mother whose paternal line was French I have never thought of myself as anything but English. I, like you, when abroad would describe myself as English – perhaps because it was not England that founded an Empire but the combined peoples of England, Scotland and Ireland known as Britain; so to me claiming to be British introduces an element of jingoistic oneupmanship I don’t wish to emphasise.
I went out with a Czech girl and spent time there during the period of communism and certainly appreciated their cultural nationalism something the English do not celebrate in the same way.
What is destructive in England is the growth of “communities” represented by unelected elders that are consulted by the government. It is all to easy to ask who is speaking for my “community”? It certainly is not any of the recent governments.
Derbyshire is the genuine article, Anglo-Saxon with the ghost of the Norman yoke. If you want a flavour of an untouched England visit Tideswell or even the still feudal village of Tissington.
To me belonging is key. Feeling of belonging in a place and with a group or society.
Community, the small battalions, neighbours.
Tricky one nowadays as there are a multitude of groups who could fit in with the above criteria but would not class themselves as English or British.
Am I English? I always say so but historically I have Irish ancestors on both sides of the family, from 150 to 200 years ago however. But I feel English, even though i lived abroad for a number of years. England is home. It always will be.
So, maybe, where feels like “home” is an important criteria and could explain quite a bit about the difficulties with integration?
At a practical level i am not that exercised by who comes to live here as long as they obey the laws and are not a drain on the common purse. (which to me means nothing free until the person has contributed meaningfully).
Living in Bulgaria, I notice most people, regardless of where they stand politically, have a strong sense of their identity. It’s likely to be because after 500 years of Ottoman occupation, they have refocused with a vengeance on their own history, cultural traditions (traditional folk music and dancing are still very popular), celebrating their heroes of the revolution (Christo Botev and Vasil Levsky esp.) and ancient, pre Ottoman kings. Despite years of communism, the Orthodox church is still going strong on shaping attitudes and even if people don’t attend mass, they will still baptise their children or invite a priest to bless a newly built house.
The Bulgarian flag is everywhere and nobody sees it as oppressive,so maybe it is that former empires have the dilemma of whether or not to celebrate their history when parts of it involved the subjugation of other nations.
As a fan of traditional music I used to go to a lot of festivals in South East England (Sweeps in Rochester, Faversham Hop festival, Broadstairs Folk Week, etc..) and there is nothing threatening or shameful in those celebrations, yet these are so despised by the educated middle classes: just ask anybody what they think of English traditional music or Morris dancers.
Then there are the great museums and National Trust Properties which were simply terrific educational spaces and a great day out. Now we can’t enjoy them without being made to hate ourselves, yet these were never oppressive. Regardless of history, they have become a nation’s heritage and we should not reject that.
The UK, particularly England and Scotland have produced more than their fair share of important scientists. We should celebrate them, if only schools were to allow them to be studied.
Here in Bulgaria, I’ve noticed also how most people know about classic English language literature (Shakespeare, Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie are still brought up in casual conversations).
As a half French/half Spanish person who spent over 3 decades in England, it’s occurred to me that perhaps we should ask foreigners what they see as defining characteristics of Englishness, or Britishness.
Yes, I find that to be the case with countries of the former eastern bloc. The protection and celebration of their national/ethnic identity was a kind of bulwark against the oppression and the attempts by the Soviets to wipe them out. A kind of survival technique and a giver of hope in dark times.
I love all the traditions that are still kept alive today by the younger generation – the music, the costumes, the food, the festivals. Clearly their middle classes haven’t become quite so sniffy and squeamish about it all yet.
In the provinces, it’s pretty egalitarian (we have friends from all walks of life and they share similar cultural attitudes), although I suspect Sofia is completely different.
In most countries, the very premise of this question would be absurd. Italians know who is Italian, Poles can tell who is Polish, likewise the Chinese, Portuguese etc. A key point is that your identity is largely decided by others. You might think of yourself as whatever you like, but that won’t stop people looking for more objective cues: your name is a good place to start. Is it an English name? Then chances are you’re English. I have a Russian name (but a British passport). Guess which of the two offers a more accurate clue to my identity? Doesn’t bother me in the slightest if I or my children (born here) will never “become English”. That’s the flip side of being an immigrant: it’s not a free lunch. You can’t come somewhere just for the opportunities then moan when you aren’t made to feel at home in someone else’s house.
Good comment Vadim. Out of interest, do you agree with my view (below) that your grandchildren, if they were born in England, would be fully English regardless of their surname?
My mother’s maiden name was of obviously French origin but it would have been absurd to regard her as anything but English. But if Kemi Badenoch were to become PM would you not regard her as being an English rather than Nigerian Prime Minister?
It is an interesting question. For the record, I am not saying that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants (assuming 1st gen have gained citizenship) should have any fewer rights etc than someone whose ancestors were in the Domesday Book. I certainly do not regard her as Nigerian. But do I regard her as dual Nigerian and English? Probably. It shouldn’t bar her from being PM, nor do I think she automatically means she has split loyalties. I like Kemi and think she would be a good PM. It is a complicated subject.
I think an arbitrary but workable definition of being English (or any nationality) is being from the second generation of a family to be born there, and onwards.
When your parents were born in the country then you are a full national.
First generation immigrants are obviously “from” somewhere else. Their kids are usually still entitled to dual nationality here and elsewhere – so they are English on paper (as their parents are) but may feel allegiance to another country. But their grand-kids are generally not dual-nationals and so should be deemed fully English regardless of colour, creed or race.
My paternal granddad was from Ireland but my dad was born in England and I have never considered myself anything other than English. But I have a number of friends who have Irish parents and who consider themselves Irish or dual.
I think that most people would agree with this definition (even if they have never considered the issue) which is why the Southport case is so sensitive.
If the murderer was a Rwandan immigrant, then that would be a straightforward question of “why are we importing psychos?”.
If he was third generation, no one would have said that – he would have obviously been a black Englishman (or possibly a Welshman) and the questions asked would have been about why he was allowed out on the streets if he was psychotic.
But as he is second generation, it still feels to me that if we hadn’t given his parents asylum, we would have been spared the horrendous crime of a non-English person(by the definition above) killing 3 English girls.
It might be unfair but it seems natural to me.
Worryingly, the evidence is that second generation immigrants in certain “communities” are less attached to Britishness than their parents who, presumably, remember why they felt the need to leave their homeland.
There are also a lot more second and third generation immigrants than there were in the first wave, giving critical mass to the monocultural communities that are, ironically, the defining feature of multiculturalism.
That is true. I remember when I was a younger man that a number of 2nd gen people (that is whose parents were Irish immigrants) were supportive of the IRA. Whereas their parents took a dimmer view of them and 3rd gen (like myself) were instinctively pro-British.
“…..so they are English on paper……” Not possible I’m afraid. There is no piece of paper (such as a passport) that says you are English rather than British. And that’s why we have these debates that go all over the place and end up back where we started.
Good point.
Who am I?
These questions are always unanswerable, hence they are loved by progressive lefties who like to point out that any response you give is based in prejudice. Any question based around “Who are you really?” is not answerable in anything other than falsifiable terms. Your passport for instance is a socially accepted token for who you are, but they can be forged, or incorrect.
Ash Sakar has claimed on several occasions that she is not English. Yet a favourite question of hers is to challenge others to say she isn’t. If they say she isn’t, because of her skin colour she gets to call the person racist. If they say she is, it is a set up for a follow up question which allows her to imply the person racist as she did with Goodwin.
Ironically, if you listen to Sakar, her nasty, divisive views, her loathing of Britain, and her accentless voice, her fondness for setting rhetorical traps, if you didn’t actually know she was of Bengali stock, you’d assume you were listening to a standard issue self hating white middle class progressive.
She is the quintessential English socialist with morals from Moscow and her cooking from Paris. Who would sooner be found with her hand in the poor box than standing to the national anthem.
What could be more English than that?
It’s people who believe in multiculturalism but sealion you with “what is British culture?”.
Correct. As Orwell put it – “They sneer at everything from horse racing to suet pudding.”
I’ve also heard Sakar claim “Working class isn’t an identity” She has a smart arsed “nuanced” answer for everything – in her world, a six year old boy can identify as a girl, but a 50 year old man who bought his council house can’t identify as working class.
Ash Sarkar is surely best known for describing herself as ‘literally a communist’. Which does mark her out from the otherwise accurate description of her as, apartt from her ethnicity, “a standard issue self hating white middle class progressive”, who would not now call themselves ‘communists’.. It is possible that she doesn’t know anything about communist forms of government and organising society as existed until 1989/91 in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist states.
We could do a lot worse than “the Tebbit test”.
When the England cricket team (which incidentally features players from many former Commonwealth nations plus the other nations in the British Isles, including Ireland) are playing a test match against India, Pakistan, the West Indies etc. – which cricket team are you supporting?
Whatever the ethnicity of your forebears, if you’re supporting England then you’re English.
Denham asked the wrong question. Ethnicity is and can only be about genes. Britishness is about a cultural background that is both shared and valued. Newer arrivals are free to adopt this cultural background, without giving up the culture of their ancestors.
I suspect religion is a big factor in whether or not this happens. There were a lot of Winstons in the Windrush generation and Mandela was named Nelson for a reason. Haven’t noticed any Muslim Nelsons though.
We’ve read that ‘Mohamed’ is the most common baby name in the UK now….
Yes religion has much to do with ‘who you are’. We may try to dismiss it and claim we are enlightened but a huge majority of the world doesn’t.
Lots of Muslims IN Nelson though, ironically enough.
Your country is being systematically disassembled by people who are hostile to your culture, your traditions, your history, and pretty much your existence. Fixating on “whiteness” may attract debate but it misses the point. This is not about skin color; it is about the importation of people with no connection to Western civilization and even less interest in assimilating into it.
At least in the US, the original influx of illegals – mostly Mexicans – was driven by economics. They did not come here insisting that this state or that become an extension of Mexico itself. As it turns out, some of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration are American citizens of Hispanic descent. Does that make them racist or xenophobic? Of course, not. It makes them people who understand that laws and borders matter.
There is a native English ethnic group even if common people cannot define it. Bring out those who study ethnic groups and they will outline the features and values of this ethnic group.
A small belligerent off-shore trading nation like England is always going to be genetically and ethnically mixed.
It was our culture that was attractive, especially the fruits of Protestant Christianity. While England did not go as far as “No King, No Bishop” (those that did went across the Atlantic) there was and is a determination not to be pushed around by external churches or empires, whether the Catholic Church or the EU.
The adage *Everything is allowed except that which is forbidden” is a guiding principle, but recently there seem to be many quasi-church organisations requiring us to ask for permission and trying to enforce their creeds. I think a lot of the underlying anger is due to the power these organisations have gathered.
This is what it is all about:
https://www.prageru.com/video/what-is-critical-immigration-theory
A US perspective but all the same applies here.
If only there were still a Kingdom of Kent. What a place to call home.
Though for Christians their country is not of this world.
A problem is when people move to a new country but keep the old values and culture of their old previous country rather than embracing the culture of their new country.
In other words they act like they are still living in their previous country, just in a different physical space.
You can not convince those that have belief in their religion to give it up as irrational. It is who they are. Liberalism/secularism for all? Not happening. History will never end it’s beginning again this second. This text as you read it is history.
Reading the comments it’s pretty clear that there are as many definitions of Englishness as there are commenters. So I’m going to stick my neck a long way out and say that I think Englishness is basically racial.
You can be English if, and only if, you are white, speak English as your first language and derive your ancestry largely from British subjects born in England at any time before the Second World War.
Why the Second World War? Because down to 1939 the population of England was almost exclusively white and almost exclusively British. Ok, so there were Irish, Scots and Welsh in the mix too, but we have to have a cut-off point somewhere.
Why white? Because that’s what we English have always been, just as members of, say, the Zulu nation have always been black and the idea of a white Zulu is as absurd as should be the idea of a black Englishman.
Does all that make me a racialist? Of course it does. Do I care? No, because I’m well content in my knowledge of who my fellow-countrymen are, of who “we” are (even if most of my fellow countrymen would strongly disagree with me!)
I have lived in NZ my whole life. But I have grown up on English heritage and culture. I love England – the landscape. I love the people. My ethnicity is 98% from the UK – mainly English/Welsh (and English via Ireland). But when I lived in England on a working visa, the locals clearly regarded me as a colonial. I realised England was not, very sadly, my home. Perhaps even more sadly, neither is NZ.
Shame on those locals. So far as I’m concerned, a white person of largely English descent IS English.
If (big if) we need mass immigration to our grossly overpopulated homeland, we should draw on – and only on – the British diaspora; well over 100, 000, 000 white people of largely British descent in Australasia, North America and Southern Africa. OK, British rather than English but you can’t be too fussy!
In the 1970s-1980s black people in England (or rather, their spokesmen and lobbyists) used the term ‘Black British’ and not ‘Black English’. They seemed happy to stick with that description, and it was used by politicians of various types, and journalists, as well.
There hasn’t been a move to replace this with ‘Black English’ so the term that came to be used in the late C20th probably remains the safest and most accurate to use.
Well, the modern use of British and English is interesting.
If anything, Celtic nationalism and subsequent nationalism has highlighted that British and Britishness is convenient to highlight a multicultural identity. Yet Scottish nationalist would claim that their ethnic minorities and SNP voters/activists/leaders are proud Scots.
Then take Ash Sarkar in her little spat with Matthew Goodwin. She has English nationality but obviously scorns the label while wishing to highlight her perception of white nationalism. But Goodwin and the new nationalists do seek a little revolution within English borders to halt the current model of mass immigration.
This article is nonsense. Britain is not at ease with enforced multiculturalism at all. All it will do is end up balkanising the country. While when there were far fewer migrants being white wasn’t particularly thought of as a marker of being English it is now as our tribes tire of living in a resulting low trust ethnic society and naturally separate.
The English and British flags are composed of crosses, and Muslim immigrants must find these Christian symbols foreign, or even oppressive. How can they properly identify with these long-lived markers of nationhood?
May I humbly offer the precise answer which humanity saw brought to light in the American revolution: a nation is a people bound together by values we choose to share. Here we have Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum (the latter two embodying concept, implicitly and explicitly in that order).
So wouldn’t most British be happy if everyone there valued (haphazard guesses follow): the rule of law, liberty, tradition, ingenuity, British history, and maybe a nice pastoral landscape? You tell me what your British values are (which is not any one person’s opinion, it’s literally what has been embodied and enacted there over time), and then won’t 90% of people be satisfied if everyone subscribes to those shared values?
That’s why you can be an American for 10 minutes after earning citizenship and then you’re welcome on the team – you’ve publicly stood and declared acceptance of these values.
PS it also helps to have a shared language and defined borders…
I think a broader perspective here might have been useful. Ethnicity, in the sense of identity based on shared culture and notions of common heritage (heritage meaning literally ‘our ancestors did x’), is more-or-less a cultural universal. It’s probably evolutionary, given the selection incentives we have to identify those who share more of our genetic material.
Ethnicities aren’t eternal, they can come into being and fade away over hundreds of years, but they aren’t optional. All human societies for all time have featured ethnicity as a cultural phenomena. And always will. Even in the Americas where non-native ethnicities are generally younger and fuzzier, you still get text-book examples, such as the Amish, most Mormons or African Americans (much more of a ethnic group than a racial one, when you consider how important shared specific ancestral experiences and cultural traits are in AA identity).
If migration were to stop tomorrow and assimilation were to take it’s course, eventually the narrative of English identity might come to incorporate current migrant groups, in the say way we do Norse, Jutes or Normans. An English child might think nothing of saying ‘I’m 100% English, which means I’m probably a bit Sikh/Punjabi, if you go back far enough’. But that’s prefaced on the (generally accurate) sense of shared, if not-necessarily-known, ancestry.
The political relevance of ethnicity is subject to valid debate and varies wildly by country. But the fact of its existence and core preface is not.