English/British Identity Is Not Ethnically Defined, and Right-Wing Ethnonationalist Rhetoric Is Dangerous and Historically Baseless
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jason-osamede-okundaye. "Of course you can be English if you’re not white. So why can’t the right leave the question alone? | Jason Okundaye | The Guardian." September 26, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that being English or British has never been about race or ancestry—it's always been a mixed, evolving identity shaped by centuries of migration and assimilation. He's frustrated that a small but persistent group on the political right keeps raising doubts about whether non-white people can 'really' be English, even though this view is rejected by the vast majority of Britons, including many conservatives themselves.
Conclusion
National identity (English/British) is not and never has been defined by ethnicity or ancestry, and the persistent right-wing discourse questioning whether non-white people can be 'truly' English is insidious, historically unfounded, and should be abandoned.
Premises
- Historical evidence shows England has always been an ethnically mixed population, shaped by Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jewish and Irish communities, and more recently Caribbean, African, and South Asian arrivals
- Even prominent conservative figures like Rishi Sunak and Jacob Rees-Mogg explicitly reject ethnic definitions of Englishness, showing this is not a mainstream right-wing position
- Polling data (IPPR) shows only 3% of people believe being a good British citizen requires white skin, and at least 74% of English people believe Englishness is not defined by ethnicity
- Attempts to construct ancestry-based tests for national identity quickly become absurd or unworkable, as shown by Rupert Lowe's inability to classify King Charles as a 'white Briton'
- The endurance and continuous evolution of English identity through migration, assimilation, and settlement demonstrates that participation and attachment—not bloodlines—are what sustain national identity
- Ethnonationalist rhetoric, even when marginal, risks normalizing a 'common sense' assumption of a pure English ethnicity, which is harmful to ethnic minorities
- This is not a new phenomenon—similar ethnic-purity anxieties existed as far back as 1701 (Defoe's poem defending William III), showing the debate is historically recurrent yet consistently unfounded
Assumptions
- Historical mixing of populations is sufficient to establish that identity is not ethnically based (as opposed to identity being redefined by each dominant group over time)
- Public opinion polling accurately reflects genuine attitudes and not just socially desirable responses
- The rejection of ethnonationalism by prominent conservative figures reflects genuine belief rather than strategic political positioning to maintain a multi-ethnic coalition
- Civic/participatory conceptions of national identity are inherently more legitimate or 'correct' than ethnic ones
- The persistence of a discourse, even at low prevalence, has significant real-world harms regardless of its lack of majority support