In your opinion, how do you define someone who is or isn’t British??

Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: How would you, in your opinion, define somebody who is or isn’t British?
    Anyone and everyone who holds British Citizenship (including people who moved here as adults and naturalised)
    53
    41.73%
    A person born and bred in the UK - ancestry is irrelevant
    38
    29.92%
    A person born and bred in the UK – and primarily has British heritage/primarily of British origin
    27
    21.26%
    Anyone in the world who is primarily of British origin, e.g. the British diaspora (the UK, Anglo Americans, Anglo Austrialians, Anglo Canadians etc)
    9
    7.09%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You know it when you see it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Someone governed under the crown.
    EDIT: depending on the context. Sometimes it's people from the UK of primarily UK heritage, sometimes it will refer to the aforementioned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Yes it does. Being born in a different country but retaining the same genetics of your parents' ethnic group does not change your ethnicity. Also considering the growth of ethnic enclaves such as Irish, Polish, Indian areas of London mean these children would be brought up in their parents' culture, and even if they weren't in these areas their parents would bring them up with their own sense of community and common values.

    Birth certificates do not come into it - passport ownership might; for example those not of a Saudi ethnic background born in Saudi Arabia are not entitled to Saudi passports or citizenship.

    For example, say the son of a white Frenchman and woman, the father being in the air force, is born in Uganda and they live there,could be before or after the child reaches adulthood, and go back to France. Would the child or his parents call him/her with any sincerity Ugandan? Definitely no. Would the authorities? Possibly in terms of citizenship but not ethnicity and probably not nationality unless he/she accepted a Ugandan passport.
    We're not talking about ethnicity, we're talking about national identity...

    Note I never said being born in the country is required. However if you are born in a country you have automatic citizenship; you're gonna have to prove it if Saudi Arabia is a massive exception.

    If the child has Ugandan citizenship then yes of course he is Ugandan. If the parents choose not to have him/her become a citizen and choose another nationality then of course no-one would say they are Ugandan.

    It's really simple until you confuse ethnicity with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    We're not talking about ethnicity, we're talking about national identity...

    Note I never said being born in the country is required. However if you are born in a country you have automatic citizenship; you're gonna have to prove it if Saudi Arabia is a massive exception.

    If the child has Ugandan citizenship then yes of course he is Ugandan. If the parents choose not to have him/her become a citizen and choose another nationality then of course no-one would say they are Ugandan.

    It's really simple until you confuse ethnicity with it.
    Ethnicity is a factor in national identity, just more subjectively.

    Well you don't automatically get British citizenship if you were born in the UK according to gov.uk. You are also not automatically an Irish citizen if you were born on the island of Ireland.

    If the parents choose not to have him/her become a citizen and choose another nationality then of course no-one would say they are Ugandan.
    You've completely missed the point. Nobody would call a caucasian French person Ugandan sincerely unless they were speaking in legal terms of citizenship, not nationality/ethnicity.

    It's seriously not simple.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    No not anyone can be British. You would have to 1) not identify as another nationality 2) have British citizenship 3) be part of the British community/share British values.

    Ancestry does not come into this whatsoever. Those children would be considered Chinese since they would have a Chinese birth certificate and be raised in the Chinese culture hence adhering to the Chinese community and values.



    If you dont consider yourself British then why would you expect anyone else to? Just because you mostly speak English obviously by itself does not make you British. If you consider your identity to be Asian then whadyou know you will be perceived as Asian.
    Are you daft?

    Your just stating what I just said.

    Muppet
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Ethnicity is a factor in national identity, just more subjectively.

    Well you don't automatically get British citizenship if you were born in the UK according to gov.uk. You are also not automatically an Irish citizen if you were born on the island of Ireland.

    You've completely missed the point. Nobody would call a caucasian French person Ugandan sincerely unless they were speaking in legal terms of citizenship, not nationality/ethnicity.

    It's seriously not simple.
    Ok it's not automatic I take that back, but citizenship is required for national identity.

    They would be Ugandan, just white Ugandan, but only if they do not consider themselves French instead.


    (Original post by Desi_Scotsman)
    Are you daft?

    Your just stating what I just said.

    Muppet
    You're the daft muppet that doesn't know what identity you are and expect someone else to tell you lmao
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Yes it does. Being born in a different country but retaining the same genetics of your parents' ethnic group does not change your ethnicity.
    Ethnicity is not necessarily genetic. Plenty of genetically indistinguishable peoples are nevertheless divided into differing ethnic groups, e.g. the Balkans. African-Americans, by contrast, are very genetically diverse (as they originated from all over Africa), but form only one ethnic group.

    Birth certificates do not come into it - passport ownership might; for example those not of a Saudi ethnic background born in Saudi Arabia are not entitled to Saudi passports or citizenship.
    Yes, some countries have ethnically prescriptive or preferential citizenship laws. But many don't. Ethnicity is a changing and intersubjective phenomenon, which changes depending on the circumstances. For example, prior to WW2, the majority of the population of Austria considered themselves to be German. Now very few do.

    For example, say the son of a white Frenchman and woman, the father being in the air force, is born in Uganda and they live there,could be before or after the child reaches adulthood, and go back to France. Would the child or his parents call him/her with any sincerity Ugandan? Definitely no. Would the authorities? Possibly in terms of citizenship but not ethnicity and probably not nationality unless he/she accepted a Ugandan passport.
    If the child had grown up in Uganda and either never left or only left when reaching adulthood, I'd say there's a very good chance they'd see Uganda as their home and themselves as Ugandan. For instance, Marco Rubio's parents were both Cubans, born in Cuba. Rubio, nevertheless, is almost universally regarded as an American, not a Cuban.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    They would be Ugandan, just white Ugandan, but only if they do not consider themselves French instead.
    Exactly. Or take, for a real-world example, the former Vice-President (and briefly Acting President) of Zambia, Guy Scott. Scott is white, and was born to a Scottish father and an English mother. Nevertheless, Scott is not British/English/Scottish, he is Zambian.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    British are only who are descendants of originall Anglo-Saxons and Celts. The rest are only pseudo-Brits. Just like Africans never accepted Boers are theirs but imported. So, yes blacks, muslims, Pakistanis and other can hardly be seen as Brits regardless whether they are born there or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Exactly. Or take, for a real-world example, the former Vice-President (and briefly Acting President) of Zambia, Guy Scott. Scott is white, and was born to a Scottish father and an English mother. Nevertheless, Scott is not British/English/Scottish, he is Zambian.
    No, he is also British but member of the diaspora. Just like there are Jews in other countries but have no affiliation with Israel.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I guess anyone born and bred in the UK, including those who migrated here
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Ok it's not automatic I take that back, but citizenship is required for national identity.

    They would be Ugandan, just white Ugandan, but only if they do not consider themselves French instead.




    You're the daft muppet that doesn't know what identity you are and expect someone else to tell you lmao

    Jokes on you muppet.

    Saying what my belief is and my identity are two different things.

    Do everyone a favour and keep your trash talk to yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    No not anyone can be British. You would have to 1) not identify as another nationality 2) have British citizenship 3) be part of the British community/share British values.

    Ancestry does not come into this whatsoever. Those children would be considered Chinese since they would have a Chinese birth certificate and be raised in the Chinese culture hence adhering to the Chinese community and values.

    Except my children would not be considered Chinese. Not by the Chinese anyway, not by anyone. Ancestry has always mattered a lot, it's only because it's been socially engineered out of people to quell resistance to mass immigration/ethnic replacement. And "British values" don't exist, anyone can define "British values" however they like, and "belonging to the British community" just means anyone who happens to live in Britain - multicultural places tend to have a very poor sense of community, because people don't really feel connected by anything nor do they trust eachother.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    britishness is about being born and raised in the UK
    if you immigrate here, that doesn't make you british, that makes you british-*insert other nationality here*
    for instance, apu from the simpsons isn't american - he is an indian american, but an indian american isn't "an american"
    this isn't about race, this is about your national origin - if you are *from* the UK, then no matter who your parents were, you're british.
    if you move here and "naturalise", it would have to be incredibly early on in your life for you to actually have purely british culture within you and not another one. if you have two cultures, you aren't "british" but a british hybrid. britishness as a pure identity is just that - pure. if you're from another country, then naturally you're impurely british.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not really. British identity is ultimately, not particularly popular. People prefer their constituent country identities. Most people in England, Scotland and Wales say they are English, Scottish and Welsh respectively. Northern Irish Catholics mostly say they Irish, and those who don't generally say they are Northern Irish. The only part of Britain where most people regard themselves as British is the Northern Irish Protestant community.

    Britain is, essentially, a multinational state, with distinct cultural minorities. For example, the Scots and Welsh languages both have more speakers than any immigrant language.
    I can agree with that, I myself identify more as English, I see British identity to be more "London identity" than anything, it is the identity of the elite - whether that identity is "Brittania rules the waves" or "tolerance and multiculturalism", it is the identity that suits those in power. The fact that "Little Englander" used to mean someone opposed to British imperialism and now means someone opposed to globalism is not a coincidence. But English has been used interchangeably with British for a long time. Whether you like it or not, England, Scotland and Wales have largely been homogeneous cultures/countries up until very recently.

    Trying to recast the massive immigration from wildly different cultures/ethnic groups Britain has seen since the end of WW2 (or even just in the last 20 years) as some kind of continuing tradition is fundamentally dishonest. It usually involves going so far back that it's asinine, to before England even really existed; or waxing about the Huguenots and Irish, the numbers of whom were comparatively small and they were from similar ethnic groups and cultures anyway.

    Talking about how "Britain was always multicultural because errr...the vikings!" doesn't resonate with anyone on an emotional level. People always knew what English/Britsh was, it never needed to be examined or held up to a microscope and deconstructed until it became profitable to import foriegners en masse and demoralising the native population via this kind of gaslighting is a good way to get them to accept this imposition.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sharpshooter)
    Hi all, I’m just curious about how you, in your opinion, would consider somebody who is or isn’t British?

    As we all know, we are living in a more and more globalised world, with increasing mobility and transport meaning more movement between people, more immigration within the world meaning what defines a person’s nationality is becoming more complex now. A lot of people however are opposed to this globalisation, fearing loss of British cultural identity and would take the more traditional view that in order to be British is not only to born and bred in the UK, but to be primarily of British origin/have British ancestry as well. Whether we like it or not history and heritage are an important part of a persons identity.

    For example take me I’m born and raised in England to Irish parents and I personally would find it quite difficult to call myself British/english given I have no British ancestry (mum is from NI however). However FWIW I actually moved to NI at 14, moving during school, still have an English accent today, and known to everyone as the “English guy” so by that token, given I don’t have an Irish accent, never played Gaelic games (Irelands no.1 sport), never learned Irish, never went to catholic schools, I don’t feel Irish and I wouldn't be accepted as properly Irish by the locals either. So I’ve come to conclusion I don’t have a proper nationality in actual fact, but not having British heritage I feel prohibits me from calling myself a true Brit.

    However, I do want to make it clear that if a Black or an Asian person considers themselves British/English, I will too, I’ll consider people what they consider themselves to be, I just personally wouldn't feel comfortable being in that situation calling myself British (hence why I don't).

    So who in your opinion, do consider a British person to be? (I've decided to poll this )
    if they'd have your/my back? (support you/us in a time of crisis)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You can be British if you are a British citizen but I'd say that in order to be an Englishman, Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman you need to have a long ancestry in that nation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rustyldner)
    Mass immigration? Humans have always been moving and it is the UK that voted to join the EU in 1975 and sets the current points system immigration policy for Non-EU migrants. And how exactly is it forced social engineering. British citizens vote for their government, it's a democracy just because the majority of UK citizens do not believe in the same things as you do does not make it forced.
    No one ever wanted mass immigration. It has never been a popular thing. That's why anti-immigration platforms are usually called "populist" (because god forbid, the government should try and do what the people want) No one wanted to go to Iraq either, yet we went to Iraq. Democracy is incredibly flawed. As for social engineering, are you familiar with the Neather report? New Labour straight up said amongst themselves that they were trying to engineer a "truly multicultural society", but didn't want to alienate people so lied about the economic benefits and the scale.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-adviser.html

    Ordinary people (especially the working class) do not really want immigration and never really did, but the cultural elite is so against them people feel like they can't talk openly about it because it makes them literally Hitler, and stupid, and just hates people because they have a different skin colour, or something.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who legally holds a British passport could be considered technically British, but I would say that there should be a degree of assimilation into British society as well, so that you share the same common understanding of culture and etiquette that people in this country usually do, and feel completely at home here rather than as though you're in a "foreign" land.

    I think people who have British passports but arrived here only very recently or at a very late stage in life, or who only intend to live here temporarily, or who intentionally associate primarily with people of their own ethnic or ancestral geographic background and therefore fit in considerably less seamlessly than the average British person here might be considered only "technically" British.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People who were born here
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 17, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources
Study resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.