british identity on the wane in England

As is usual when the subject of the English and their ethnicity come up in venues such as this one, there is a great deal of confusion, misinformation and obfuscation bandied about, which typically has the objective of denying the native English their ethnic identity.

The following 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’.


... 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’;

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 in detail 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 the authors conclude that:

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


If there is a practical or philosophical objection to this template and its application to the English, as opposed to one based on ideological grounds and straightforward anti-English animus and racism, now's the time to state it.

im not arrogant enough to tell people in another country who can or cant be part of their nationality. 

 thats for the English to decide , not you or i. 

 in scotland though , I wholly reject your idea of Scottishness , if it is similar to your idea of englishness. you still dont understand do you , that countries are melting pots , and always have been , rather than a single race that is secluded from the outside world.

All I am saying is that English is an ethnicity and an ethnicity has certain parameters of acceptance whether we like those parameters of not. That is true in both law and in a more abstract acceptance of an ethnic group. My son could marry and English woman and move to Kurdistan would any child he had be Kurdish and be accepted as Kurdish by most other Kurds? At a guess I would say not. Why would it be different anywhere else?

simply going by what you have told me in the past, that your national identity is British . 

Yes national identity. Do not confuse that with ethnicity.

so when I said sandy isnt Scottish ( as in national identity) he is a brit , why correct me? I think it's you who is clearly confused. 

To avoid your obvious confusion as regards what is ethnicity and what is nationality.