The Braverman Problem

I rarely use the word 'English' as an identifier. Of course, I speak English, but that's not the point. I would say I'm British, or maybe Geordie, a Northerner, or a trans woman, long before the phrase "𝘐'𝘮 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩" comes up. Why? Well, I find the whole 'English' thing very ambiguous. It could mean anything, and its validity as an ethno-identity is confounded by its own origins. If you're Welsh, Scots or Irish, you can probably find national identity less problematic. Very likely because it's defined in opposition to the national dominance of 'The English'. Yup. Sometimes identity works via what you're not instead of what you are.

But if someone were to force me to qualify how 'English' I am, I might respond, "𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴." But my great-grandparents? Maybe not. Even less so my great-great-grandparents. I simply don't know where they originated (though there are hints it might have been Northern Ireland).

How far back do I have to check my ancestry to be 'English'? Is two generations enough? Most sensible people, all of whom will likely be white, would say that's more than enough.

But suppose one of my grandparents wasn't 'English'. Maybe they were Swedish, or German, or Lebanese or Pakistani? Am I still English? Who makes the rules?

There is a crucial point to this little gedankenexperiment. In the 1930s this very consideration was undertaken by German politicians. It led to something very horrific indeed.

It's a very 𝗕𝗔𝗗 idea to forget the past.