The Fundamental Interest of the English People

… An ethnic group is defined here as a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood. Examples of such symbolic elements are: kinship patterns, physical contiguity (as in localism or sectionalism), religious affiliation, language or dialect forms, tribal affiliation, nationality, phenotypical features, or any combination of these. A necessary accompaniment is some consciousness of kind among members of the group. (Schermerhorn, 1978: 12)


This has an unassailable internal logic but is perhaps a little arcane in its terminology for the layman. Harrison and Smith therefore, taking Schermerhorn as their starting point expand upon his concept of ‘symbolic elements’ to produce their own definitive template. This is quite widely cited in the literature in addition in appearing in what is probably the standard textbook for postgraduate study in the field. It provides a comprehensive but succinct enumeration of the characteristics that a population must exhibit to be considered as an ethnie. The French term ethnie by the way, derives from the original Greek ethnos which has no equivalent noun in English, and is rendered accordingly as ‘ethnic group’ or ‘ethnic community’ or even more simply ‘a people’.

According to Harrison and Smith ethnies habitually exhibit, albeit in varying degrees, six main features:

1. a common proper name, to identify and express the 'essence' of the community;

2. a myth of common ancestry, a myth rather than a fact, a myth that includes the idea of common origin in time and place...what Horowitz termed a ‘super-family’; [Note that in this context the term 'myth' takes on a broader meaning than the traditional one of a tale that may or may not be true]

3. shared historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past, including heroes, events, and their commemoration;

4. one or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified but normally include religion, customs, or language;

5. a link with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation by the ethnie, but a symbolic attachment to the ancestral land, as with diaspora peoples;

6. a sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnie's population.


After highlighting the crucial importance of shared myth, memory and an orientation to the past in the definition of an ethnie they conclude that:

“The destiny of the community is bound up with its ethno-history [and] with its own understanding of a unique, shared past”


Does anyone have a practical or philosophical objection to this template? If so now would be a good time to state it.

Yes as there may be some,indeed many who believe implicitly that they fit into that definition in all ways, feel part of it and love being part of it but can be suddenly excluded on kinship (DNA) grounds. Overall it is too narrow and raises many questions as to who belongs. I think mutual  acceptance is a much better measure as I quote, probably misquote but the general gist is right, a bloke I saw on some programme a while back who stated he was something like Greek by descent, Cypriot by heritage but English by the grace of God.

Who has said that they don't want ethnic English people to exist?

I am English, if you don't like it feel free to get lost.

For somebody so anti-English I highly doubt that.

Anyone who came out with "English isn't an ethnicity" seems to rule it out.  It's OK, there are men who identify as women, so believe what you like.  I won't believe it.

Sure, if you're making things up as you go along then you can make anything however you like.  I'd rather stick to the facts, which I have already highlighted.