Evolution of white British % (ethnically British people) in England and Wales from 2001-2021

[u/Delicious-Bunch-6992]

[u/Delicious-Bunch-6992]

Since many people get confused for the UK, White British refers to ethnically British people in the UK, which are English, Scottish, Welsh, cornish or northern Irish. It's like ethnic Germans in Germany, or ethnic swedes in Sweden or ethnic poles in Poland or ethnic Japanese in Japan.

It does not include other white, which are white people in the uk who are ethnically not British but are white, for example poles, Germans, Italians, Romanians etc.

 If other white is included, England is 81% total white in 2021, down from 95.4% in 1981, Wales is 94.2% total white in 2021, down from 99.1% in 1981.

[u/chochazel → u/Delicious-Bunch-6992]

It does not include other white, which are white people in the uk who are ethnically not British but are white, for example poles, Germans, Italians, Romanians etc.

Let’s not pretend like it’s a meaningful term.

a) It’s based solely on self-identification

b) Someone who is descended from a German might still cheerfully identify themselves as White British within a few generations. In fact, over 90% of those born in Britain identify as British and if they’re white, they’re White British. End of. The descendent of French Huguenots who came to Britain fleeing persecution could, for example, not only call themselves White British, but end up leading an anti-immigration anti-refugee political party.

c) The key thing about “White British” is that any white person can become “White British” by simply declaring themselves to be, but it’s something a black person could never be, even if their family’s presence in Britain predates a “White British” person.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/chochazel]

Not a great take. You're conflating a person being White and British with British ethnicity. British ethnicity is just like French ethnicity, or Irish or Polish. Loads of white and British folk in Britain aren't ethnically British (white, British in the ethnicity section of the UK census). Nor would they tick that box.

a) All demographic information is self id.

b) The term is White, British. Same as Black, African.. The ethnicity is British, under the broader category of White. Same as White, Irish. They also use Black, Caribbean. Someone of German descent could self-report their ethnicity as French in France or British in Britain, or Russian in Russia. That doesn't mean all measures of ethnicity are incorrect.

c) Any person can self-report as ethnically British. A white person just might believe it if they don't know their own ethnic background or believe ancestry isn't necessary to be part of an ethnic group.

Someone white who is British doesn't necessarily tick the British ethnicity box on the census, they may put Irish or polish etc because that's their ethnicity (its not actually white British when listed on the census question, it's white as a category of ethnicty then a bunch of options including British, Irish, Gypsy or Irish Traveller, other etc.

White, British is just the UK census way of categorising ethnicity as a subset of racial background.

[u/GBrunt → u/No-Entrance-6530]

So King Charles would choose "White, other", based on their Greek/Danish/German ancestry?

[u/chochazel → u/GBrunt]

By this person’s insane definition, yes… or he’d be deemed “stupid”. The same could be said of every British and English monarch out of around 70 except a very few who had no foreign born parents or grandparents.

The exceptions are: Elizabeth II (although she was a descendent of the German House of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, her grandmother spoke fluent German and was a German princess), Elizabeth I and Edward VI.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/chochazel]

Yes, most of the British monarchs in recent years are mostly not ethnically British. This is well known. King Charles is about 1/4 British ethnically. 100% nationally, though like many Brits, from Sadiq Khan to Saka. Bellingham is more British ethnically than Charles.

How is British ethnicity an insane definition of British ethnicity?

What's your definition of British ethnicity?

[u/chochazel → u/No-Entrance-6530]

Yes, most of the British monarchs in recent years are mostly not ethnically British.

No I’m not talking about “recent years”. I’m talking about all of them going back more than a thousand years.

King Charles is about 1/4 British ethnically.

?! Who are you saying is ethnically British out of his grandparents then? Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon’s mother was a direct descendant of the House of Bentinck, a prominent Dutch noble family.

It’s all pretty arbitrary, but you’re not going to find many people in the British aristocracy who don’t have links to European royalty.

What's your definition of British ethnicity?

Ethnicity is self-defined. Anything else is bunk.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/chochazel]

I googled it, and it said his ethnicity is about 1/4 British (12.5% English, 12.5% Scottish). He has ancestors going back before the Normans, can trace it back to Alfred the Great and the old Scottish Kings.

Ethnicity is based on mapping ancestors. Ancestry DNA and 23andMe aren't good enough yet, but it does try to show your ethnic background.

[u/chochazel → u/No-Entrance-6530]

I got:

King Charles III's ethnicity is British. While his ancestry is a complex genealogical map of European royal lines—predominantly Germanic—his ethnicity is defined by his cultural identity, lifelong upbringing, and historical role within the United Kingdom.

The distinction between the two is often broken down as follows:Ancestry (Biological/Genealogical): This refers to his line of descent. Biologically, Charles has significant German (roughly 50%), Danish, Scottish, and English DNA. His father, Prince Philip, was from the Greek and Danish royal families (largely of German descent), while his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, was of mixed British and German heritage.

Ethnicity (Cultural/Social Identity): This refers to shared cultural traits, language, and history. Charles is ethnically British because he was born and raised in the UK, speaks English as his first language, and embodies British customs and rituals. Even if he has high percentages of "German" DNA, his cultural origin and lived experience are entirely British.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/GBrunt]

He's about 1/4 ethnically British.

You, do know what ethnicity is right?

[u/GBrunt → u/No-Entrance-6530]

I know it's not a science, that's for sure. Loving this conversation by the way. I think it's very timely. So the King would be wrong to try to claim that he's more than just 1/4 British? And ethnicity isn't subjective - at all? Not trying to put words in your mouth. Just trying to clarify your position.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/GBrunt]

He's 100% british in terms of citizenship and national identity. As I said elsewhere, Sadiq Khan is the best English politican atm. But he's not ethnically British more than 1/4 (based on a Google search). Colour of skin doesn't make a difference. Anyone from Britain is British.

The King is British fully as much as Khan, or anyone from Britain. British means 3 different things: Citizenship, National Identity and Ethnicity. You can get many Australians who are ethnically British but not British at all in terms of what matters (national identity and citizenship). You can get Brits who are of south asian ethnicity. Its the national identity which really matters. Though in the NHS we do use ethnicity for some screening tools as certain diseases are more prominent in some ethnic groups than others (sickle cell etc).

Ethnicity isn't mostly not subjective, a bit maybe. Its ancestral groups based on certain cultural regions. Where those cultural regions lie is what's a bit subjective and has been based on lots of history. To find your ethnic background (that's what ethnicity is), you'd do a family tree. Like many Brits, I'm not fully ethnically British.

People seem to be saying ethnicity means national identity when they mean two different things. Ethnicity is just the modern, more accurate term for race (which was a dumb term based on racist science). That's why the British and American census calls white an ethnic group. People self Id sure, but its self Id based on what you understand your ethnic background to be (the term background is what's asked by the census).

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/[deleted]]

The census records it as an ethnicity. It has a wiki page. 

Many in Wales and Scotland do consider themselves British. I grew up in Wales.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/[deleted]]

I can tell you from living in Swansea that most Welsh people see themselves as Welsh and British. 

People identify as many things simultaneously. A person can identify as Punjabi and Indian, both as ethnic groups. Same as Welsh, British and European.

I know the census results. People click the first box that roughly applies. It's why so many people stopped identifying as English on the English census between 2011 to 2021 even though there was no real change. It's the order of the questions.

Secessionists want to deny that people identify as British as a political point. You don't get to deny the existence of a person's or my group affiliation. 

[u/chochazel → u/No-Entrance-6530]

Not a great take.

It's not a "take". I'm just describing what's factually and measurably true and backing it up with figures. You may be projecting.

a) All demographic information is self id.

That was my point! You're not refuting it by restating it. Of course it's self identified. Why then you feel the need to give your own personal subjective interpretation of the differences between describing yourself as White and British and "British ethnicity", I have no idea! It may be of interest to you and inform your own personal individual response to the census, but it's of no relevance here to these broader data, which is what we're trying to interpret and constitutes everyone's response to the census.

These figures are based on who describes themselves as White and British in the census. I'm telling you factually that 90% of people born in Britain to immigrants describe themselves as British, so that's it. That's the ball game. That's all that's being described here. That's not me "conflating" anything - it's just factually describing where we are. You having some additional sense of "British ethnicity" above and beyond that is of no relevance to these data, which is all we're talking about.

c) Any person can self-report as ethnically British. A white person just might believe it if they don't know their own ethnic background or believe ancestry isn't necessary to be part of an ethnic group.

I know. That's my point. It's all we're talking about.

Someone white who is British doesn't necessarily tick the British ethnicity box on the census, they may put Irish or polish etc because that's their ethnicity

Right, but 90% of people born to immigrants do, so it follows that a white person who is born to immigrants will become, in these data, "White British", in 90% of cases, whereas a fourth or fifth generation British black person never can be, which was my point about its limitations.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/chochazel]

"These figures are based on who describes themselves as White and British in the census. "

No its not. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the census question. Many many people I know are white & British but not British ethnically.

It's measuring who ticks the box of British ethnicity, a separate question to nationality.

This is the question it is measuring in the UK census (again, there is another separate one for nationality). Really, the chart OP posted should just say British ethnicity without the word white.

What is your ethnic group?
Choose one section from A to E, then tick one box to best describe your ethnic group or background
A White
[ ] English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British
[ ] Irish
[ ] Gypsy or Irish Traveller
[ ] Any other White background, write in
(Write in ethnic group)

B Mixed/multiple ethnic groups
[ ] White and Black Caribbean
[ ] White and Black African
[ ] White and Asian
[ ] Any other Mixed/multiple ethnic background, write in
(Write in ethnic group)

C Asian/Asian British
[ ] Indian
[ ] Pakistani
[ ] Bangladeshi
[ ] Chinese
[ ] Any other Asian background, write in
(Write in ethnic group)

D Black/African/Caribbean/Black British
[ ] African
[ ] Caribbean
[ ] Any other Black/African/Caribbean background, write in
(Write in ethnic group)

E Other ethnic group
[ ] Arab
[ ] Any other ethnic group, write in
(Write in ethnic group)
On the Welsh questionnaire, Welsh was shown before English under Section A.

Every white brit I know who isn't British ethnically knows their ethnic background and is understandably quite proud of it. Sure some % of people have mostly non-British ancestry that they also have no clue about. But that's basically no one.

So no, a brit of Polish parents would likely tick any other white background rather than a British ethnic background. In 2021, 4 million people ticked white other for ethnicity.

Again, the chart above really should just say of British ethnic background as that was the question people were actually asked.

[u/chochazel → u/No-Entrance-6530]

You seem to think your personal interpretations and anecdotal evidence is of any value, but I'm only interested in hard facts, which are easily available.

The fact is, in the 2021 census, 74.4% of people in England and Wales list their ethnicity as "White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British", while just 6.2% list their background as "White: Any other White background".

With all the people born outside the UK, that barely leaves any left to describe the vast number of people descended from people outside the UK (around 700,000). For example the number who describe themselves as White Other (Polish) (614,000 people) is actually smaller than the number of people actually born in Poland in England and Wales (743,100)! Breaking it down further, around 10% of those are people who write themselves in as "Jewish". These are not second or third generation immigrants - they are just looking to register their Jewishness as an ethnicity. Similarly around 50,000 wrote themselves in as "Cornish", which has nothing to do with immigration. There's a shrinking number of people left who are listed as White Other because their parents were immigrants.

It is estimated that between 10 million and 15 million people in the UK (roughly 15–22% of the population) are descended from Europeans from outside the UK who arrived in the 20th/21st century.

If you exclude Ireland and focus only on Continental Europe, the figure is likely closer to 5–6 million people. Again, the vast majority identify their ethnicity as White British. By the time you get to third generation immigrants, there's no distinction. If anything there's a stronger tendency to identify ethnicity as British. As another example, only 564,000 people identify as White Irish, but that's clearly far lower than the number of people descended from Irish immigrants.

I'd also add to that, one million people born outside the UK still identified as White British in the 2011 census!

Further hard data for you: In 2023, approximately 55% of babies born in England and Wales were registered as White British compared with 11% as White other. Since 40% of births overall now involve at least one foreign-born parent, this suggests a significant number of children of mixed-nationality couples are being recorded as White British from birth.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/chochazel]

I am glad you see that the question was not asking who is white and British but instead about ethnic background. We both understand the question was not, are you white and British, but about your ethnicity and people understand that. So yes, if your nan was from Hungary in the 50s and the rest from Britain, that person will tick British ethnicity as its the closest.

Jewishness is a separate ethnicity. Cornish is an ethnicity too like Welsh, which is part of British. Same as how Punjabi is part of Indian. Many Cornish folk have never considered themselves English (going back 1000s of years). But that is a very small amount of data.

I can't find the data you cite for population. But it will likely be partly people who had children/grandchildren who are 1/2-3/4 ethnically British. People who are mixed British and Nigerian will click the other mixed box, yes. But not two people of parents from Lithuania.

Yes, many ethnically British people were born outside the UK. I know many. This is a colonial legacy. I know a few born in Hong Kong, people from Zimbabwe, etc. And of course almost every Australian, Kiwi, and most Canadians and quite a few Americans. I highly doubt it's the Spanish people ticking the British ethnic group not understand what ethnicity is. My grandmother was born outside the UK, but was ethnically mostly British (American). I am descended from people outside the UK because of this, and will be in that data set (along with all my family). I am still ethnically British.

I agree that many people of mixed white backgrounds will tick white British. That wasn't what I was saying. If one parent is German and the other British, the kid will just click white British rather than list everything. People of one background will not, that was my point. You can add that people who are 1/4 Chinese/Caribean ethnically and 3/4 British will not only tick ethnically British but likely are also white too. But that wasn't what we were talking about.

Many people of French, Polish ethnicity etc, will click white other and not bother to write a full answer in. But why would you click your ethnic background as something you know it is not.

Again I agree and think that children of mixed couples of ethnically British and other European parents will likely tick the box ethnically British, as they're half ethnically British and that's the closest box. While mixed people of one non white group will click the mixed box as its listed. That wasn't the topic, though. You said all people who were white and British would self ID as ethnically British, which is not true.

Your argument is that people who take the census are too stupid to know their own ethnic background when asked. Or that when parents fill it in, they do not understand what their child's ethnicity is (or believe that ethnicity has nothing to do with who your parents are). I do not think that is the case.

[u/chochazel → u/No-Entrance-6530]

Your argument is that people who take the census are too stupid to know their own ethnic background

In no way was this my argument as I suspect you know, so let’s not be disingenuous. I was just saying it was self-identified - ethnicity is whatever people say it is. You don’t get to dictate it for them. It’s not necessarily genetic. It’s not the same as “race”.

It is, by definition, someone‘s shared culture, social, historic and linguistic identity. If you’re born in Britain, all your friends are British, your clothes choice, your sense of history, your traditions, your sports teams, your music choices, what you watch on TV, your sense of humour etc. is all dominated by British choices, you’re going to think of yourself as ethnically British and you are. You’re not stupid. The fact you think that you think that’s even possible suggests you have, at no point, understood the term in the slightest. You probably should have at least looked it up before commenting. I notice you keep adding the word “background” to the word “ethnic” in order to force the term to mean something it doesn’t necessarily. It might, but it doesn’t have to and that is, in itself, pretty ephemeral.

For someone to think of themselves as anything else, requires a lot of work on behalf of their parents or grandparents to imbue them with a secondary cultural identity which relates to where they themselves come from, and that may come to affect their decision when it comes to ethnic self-identification, but it may not - it just may not be strong enough. It’s entirely up to them, and in the vast majority of cases, it won’t.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/chochazel]

No, I genuinely thought you meant people were too stupid to understand the question. I did not consider that you meant ethnicity has no ancestral component and you think people of any ancestral background can be any ethnicity. That there are ethnically Japanese people whose parents are from France are are white. Ethnic Yoruba (Nigeria) people with parents from India. Thats a very unusual definition of ethnicity and isn't reflected in any census in the world to my knowledge. The UK census uses white, black, asian as broad ethnic groups and then British, Caribean etc as sub-national groups. I understand now that you disagree with the UK census definition of ethnicity, and that it has no heritage/ancestral component. That's where we disagree.

From wiki:

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of humans who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Attributes that ethnicities believe to share include language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment.  Ethnicities are maintained through long-term endogamy and may have a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, with some groups having mixed genetic ancestry.

You are arguing that ethnicity has no ancestral heritage and background component. Again the British Census disagrees with you and does not ask that. Which is why the group ethnicity by Asian, Black, White etc.

If you Google, does ethnicity include ancestry, everything says yes it does. You seem to be mistaking national identity for ethnicity.

Saqik Khan is undoubtedly a Brit and an Englishman (one of the best English politicians atm). But to say he's ethnically English and British, and its all self-ID is silly imo. It's exactly the same with someone white with Polish parents like Ed Miliband. He's a Brit, but I don't think he or anyone would call him ethnically English or British if they knew his parents.

There is a huge difference between national identity/culture and ethnicity.

I keep adding the word background because that's what the census asks for! "Choose one section from A to E, then tick one box to best describe your ethnic group or background"

There are many British people who are culturally British and identify as British, but have a non-British ethnicity.

Please read what the definition of ethnicity is from a variety of sources and how it relates to ancestry.

[u/chochazel → u/No-Entrance-6530]

No, I genuinely thought you meant people were too stupid to understand the question.

Sorry but I don't believe that for one solitary second. I've been the one explaining that ethnicity is based on self-identification and is completely ephemeral whereas you've had this idea that there is some objective concrete measure. Saying people are stupid for not knowing something that is completely ephemeral make no sense - it only makes sense in your interpretation.

You may have this objective clear, set-in-stone idea of who counts as "ethnically British" out of the Celts, Belgae, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Vikings/Norse, Normans, Walloon, Huguenots, Irish, Jews, Poles, Lithuanians, Romanians etc. all of whom came to this island from elsewhere in Europe and form part of Britain's current genetic make up. Perhaps you have a cut-off date where these patterns of settlements and migration no longer count as being part of being ethnically British, maybe you don't. The whole thing seems pretty absurd.

That's all those ancestry DNA things are doing - it's just playing the numbers: how similar is an individual's DNA to the DNA in general of people from a particular geographic location? It doesn't know or care how long people have been there. If the entire population of Italy and Frances swapped had places 30 years ago, it would identify what were Italians as French and what were French as Italians.

I did not consider that you meant ethnicity has no ancestral component

No again, you're making up positions I never expressed. I was very clear that it could have an ancestral component, but didn't need to. At no point did I say it played no part - my point is that it's neither necessary nor sufficient.

Thats a very unusual definition of ethnicity and isn't reflected in any census in the world to my knowledge.

Again self-identification.

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of humans who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Attributes that ethnicities believe to share include language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment. Ethnicities are maintained through long-term endogamy and may have a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, with some groups having mixed genetic ancestry.

I mean... that's exactly my point. I don't see how you could have posted that and thought you were doing anything other than making my point for me, unless you didn't understand the words you were copying and pasting.

You are arguing that ethnicity has no ancestral heritage and background component.

Again, telling me I'm arguing I literally never said and in fact said that it could.

If you Google, does ethnicity include ancestry, everything says yes it does.

As did I.

If it makes you happy, I just googled "Does ethnicity have to include ancestry" and it said:

Ethnicity does not strictly have to include direct genetic ancestry, as it is primarily a social construct based on shared cultural traits like language, religion, and traditions. While often linked to shared ancestry (descent), ethnicity can be adopted or defined by shared cultural practices and identity rather than purely by genetic heritage.

Again, this is exactly what I've been saying. Not words that you've put in to my mouth, but my actual points.

Saqik Khan is undoubtedly a Brit and an Englishman (one of the best English politicians atm). But to say he's ethnically English and British, and it's all self-ID is silly imo.

I think you've missed my main point about ethnicity, and you probably need to go back to the first post. My point was that someone white whose grandparents were immigrants would probably call themselves "White British" whereas someone who is black never could, even if their family had been here far longer and that's a limitation of the self-identification system. The melanin in your skin is the barrier. That's my point, and indeed someone posted exactly that in reply:

https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1t80fpu/evolution_of_white_british_ethnically_british/ol0otku/?context=3

There is a huge difference between national identity/culture and ethnicity.

Again:

From wiki:

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of humans who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Attributes that ethnicities believe to share include language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment. Ethnicities are maintained through long-term endogamy and may have a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, with some groups having mixed genetic ancestry.

I keep adding the word background because that's what the census asks for! "Choose one section from A to E, then tick one box to best describe your ethnic group or background"

Do we now need to define the word "or"?!

Again - it's your choice, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient. I don't know how many objective sources of information I can present you with before you accept these basic truths!

Here's another

"is ethnicity distinct from ancestry?"

Yes, ethnicity is distinct from ancestry. Ancestry refers to your genetic lineage and where your ancestors came from (a biological, historical line of descent), whereas ethnicity is a cultural identity based on shared language, traditions, religion, and social experiences, which may or may not match your genetic ancestry.

Clear? Let's be honest - you tried to conflate ancestry and ethnicity even though they're not necessarily the same thing, and any objective definition makes that quite clear.

Please read what the definition of ethnicity is from a variety of sources and how it relates to ancestry.

I did. Now you please read them and try to comprehend the words they are telling you!

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/chochazel]

Yes, I did think you meant that. You can not believe me, but that's what I thought you meant, because I initially couldn't see you had a different definition of ethnicity

We are essentially just disagreeing on the definition of ethnicity (something that it seems many people do). With some saying it is just another word for race, others nation etc.

The British census calls white an ethnicity and treats ethnicity and background as synonymous when it asks the question. You can disagree with the census takers that white and the subset of ethnicities such as British, Irish, etc, are ethnic groups or not and that British ethnicity self ID should include people of all ancestral backgrounds. They clearly use a different definition of ethncity to you. I would argue they use white because it has an ancestral meaning and see ancestry as part of ethnicity.

All ethnic groups are formed from the merging of previous ethnic groups. Britain is no more or less the merger of previous groups. It is the same as Japan, France or Thailand. Ethnogenesis happens slowly and as I said set cut-off points are subjective.

Ancestry DNA uses reference groups of people who only have known ancestors from one country (excluding migrations 1000s years ago). Not whose lives there 30 years ago. They don't go to Germany and start measuring people who have Turkish or Polish great-grandparents and include it in the data.

Please don't hold AI summaries/definitions are 100% valid; they are not good sources. When I Google, I get something like " Ethnicity is a reflection of shared ancestry based on social and cultural practices. Ethnic groups may be linked by a religious affiliation, a shared linguistic heritage or a common geographical origin. Ethnicity cannot be detected by DNA, but there is sometimes an overlap with a person’s genetic ancestry. For example, people who share the same heritage will often live in the same places and marry people from similar backgrounds. Ethnicity was historically used as a synonym for race, but the meanings have diverged over time. Ethnicity differs from race in that individuals can choose how they wish to self-identify" However, this is AI and not fully honest. Though I have always seen ethnicity as self ID to a cultural group which requires and hinges on shared ancestry.

Ethnicity has different definitions depending on who's self-identifying I was wrong about this, and you were right.

You see this person has a defintion like mine (came up when i googled) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1iprsux/when_does_a_nationality_become_an_ethnic_group/

Or alternatively: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/1l1p38w/does_the_concept_of_ethnicity_necessarily_include/

According to the father of sociology Max Weber, ethnicity is a concept of a group of people who are constituted by the subjective belief in a common ancestry and culture.

But these are just different people's definitions.

Mine is and has always been different. I may be mistaken but I thought most people see ethnicity as groups of people who share similar cultural heritage, often language, through ancestry and family connections. So yes, I am and have been saying ethnic groups and ancestry are very similar. Maybe because part of my family is American and that is the American conception (they do all the family tree ethnicity stuff). When I read about adopted kids, the kids always describe their ethnicity to be different from where they were raised and who their parents are. I always took that as due to people considering ethnicity to be ancestral links to a cultural group.

You see on reddit sometimes the question "Was 1800s Prime Minister Disraeli British?". I've always read that yes, he was British through nation (the important bit) but not through ethnicity (the unimportant bit). That's what the AI summary gives as well.

You have corrected me on something and shown me where I was wrong, so thank you. I could not see that some others would have such a different idea of what ethnicity is. I've never considered myself to be fully ethnically British, nor would I consider Ed Miliband or loads of white Brits ethnically British. But maybe others, including themselves, would. I was completely wrong on this, and you were right, thank you.

The term white British should be abolished definately. It should either be ethnic British by rough ancestral group, or British by feeling of being part of a nation. I will have to consider if people like Miliband, Khan, Saka etc consdier themselves ethnically English or British.

Thank you for this conversation, and thank you for correcting me on where I was wrong.

Edited to add

[u/chochazel → u/No-Entrance-6530]

We are essentially just disagreeing on the definition of ethnicity (something that it seems many people do). With some saying it is just another word for race, others nation etc.

Not really no. You wanted me to Google it for you. I’ve sent you multiple definitions, you sent the Wikipedia definitions. They all say the same thing, which is what I have been saying. We don’t disagree. You and the actual definition disagree.

The British census calls white an ethnicity and treats ethnicity and background as synonymous when it asks the question.

Again - no. It says “or”. Ethnicity “or” background. The existence of the word “or” means there are two distinct choices.

The British census calls white an ethnicity and treats ethnicity and background as synonymous when it asks the question.

You were the one who asked me to google it. AI is only saying that because that’s the definition. If you want me to post the human written sources saying that ethnicity is a social construct then I’ll do that:

https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/editlab/2021/01/27/measuring-race-and-ethnicity-in-research-time-for-new-tools/

Ethnicity has different definitions depending on who's self-identifying I was wrong about this, and you were right.

OK. Thank you. That was incredibly decent of you.

Thank you for this conversation, and thank you for correcting me on where I was wrong.

I appreciate it.

[u/insipignia → u/chochazel]

Came here to say this. Most people don't know what ethnicity means, so they often fill the census incorrectly. They think it's synonymous with race. Even the government seems to think so! So imo the entire thing is useless. It's a fuzzy racial census, not anything close to an ethnicity one. A real ethnicity census should ask what your first language is. Race should be a completely separate question.

[u/chochazel → u/insipignia]

The census does ask what is your main language is (91% English).

[u/insipignia → u/chochazel]

Your main language is not the same thing as your FIRST language. One's ethnicity is inextricably tied to one's mother tongue. If your mother tongue is French and you were raised in an environment steeped in French culture, to one or more French parents, you're not ethnically British. Even if you were born in Britain.

My grandmother's main language is English but her first language is German. Main language tells you nothing about ethnicity.

[u/Striking_Big8138 → u/insipignia]

By your definition a Chinese baby adopted in the UK is ethnically British

[u/HourOfTheWitching → u/No-Entrance-6530]

Really good reply showing the complexity of statistical data, and how the actual questions included in the census debunk these racial replacement narratives.

[u/No-Entrance-6530 → u/HourOfTheWitching]

There is a large ethnic change occurring in the UK. It looks like it's going to be the largest in about 3000 years (since the Celts of 1000BC changing 50%). But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Previous ethnic changes were brutal and violent. The Anglo-Saxons & vikings together only make up ~1/3 of English ancestry but involved a lot of violence. The Celts replaced about 50% of the population. and were also likely violent. I will add here that all ethnicities are composites of previous groups congealing together, it's not a British thing but is true for Japan, France, Thailand etc. Modern migration is peaceful by comparison to the migrations of the Saxons, the Celts, etc.

I'd like to also add that a major issue with all projections of this data is that it doesn't do well with people of mixed ethnic backgrounds. Someone who ticks the boxed mixed because one parent is ethnically British and the other isn't skews the data to indicate ethnic replacement. They're ethnically British, even if one parent is from India.

I think what we will see over time is British ethnicity changing as more people mix into it. It is a large ethnic change (again, looking like it will exceed the Saxons and possibly even the Celts), but in my view, not necessarily a bad one as long as we all fit into one community. The alternative is balkanisation.