When Bukayo Saka told the world he was proud of his Nigerian roots, that Nigerian culture was “the most defining part” of who he is, and that he carries his Yoruba heritage with him every day, the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Warm BBC features. Nigerian fans celebrating. Social media calling him an inspiration.
Good. He should be proud of his roots.
But here is a question that nobody in mainstream media wants to sit with for more than five seconds: if an English player with deep English roots said exactly the same thing about being English by blood and culture, would he get the same reaction?
You already know the answer. And that tells you everything about the English ethnicity double standard that has quietly become one of the most dishonest dynamics in British public life.
In this article I am going to show you why English ethnicity is not only real but legally recognised, why the “eth-nat” slur is being used to gaslight one specific group of people, and why even some so-called right-wing commentators are part of the problem.
What the Law Actually Says About English Ethnicity
Let’s start with something solid. Not opinion. Not politics. The actual law.
The Equality Act 2010, section 9, defines race as including “colour, nationality (including citizenship) and ethnic or national origins.” The Equality and Human Rights Commission uses this to protect people from discrimination based on “the country where you or your family came from” and “your ethnic or national origins.”
The UK Government’s own ethnicity data standards – the ones used in the census and by every public body – list “White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British” as a standard ethnic category. It sits right there alongside “Black British: Caribbean,” “Asian British: Pakistani,” and every other group.
So when someone says “there is no such thing as English ethnicity,” they are not making a factual claim. They are making a political one. The legal and statistical framework of this country already treats English as an ethnic origin in exactly the same way it treats Nigerian, Jamaican, Polish or any other ancestry.
That is not a fringe position. That is what the law says.
The Saka Test: A Simple Way to Expose the Double Standard
I have been writing about English identity for years, and I have never found a cleaner way to expose the English ethnicity double standard than what I now call the Saka Test.
It works like this.
Ask anyone who calls you an “eth-nat” or tells you English ethnicity does not exist: “Is Bukayo Saka an ethno-nationalist for saying he is proud of his Nigerian blood and that Nigerian culture defines him?”
They will say no. Of course not. That is just heritage pride.
Then ask: “Why is it different when an English person says the same thing?”
There is no honest answer to that question that does not ultimately boil down to: “We have decided your group is not allowed to do what every other group does.” That is not anti-racism. That is a hierarchy of acceptable identities with the English majority at the bottom.
The Saka case is useful precisely because it removes all the noise. He is not a far-right activist. He plays for England. He is one of the country’s most admired footballers. And he openly, proudly, publicly identifies with his Nigerian ethnic roots. Nobody calls him dangerous for it. Nobody writes think-pieces about whether Nigeria should be “for Nigerians.” It is just accepted as normal human identity.
The double standard is not subtle. It is right in front of us.
How “Eth-Nat” Went From Academic Term to Smear Word
“Ethno-nationalism” used to mean something specific in political science. It described movements that defined the nation exclusively by blood and formally excluded those outside the ethnic group from full citizenship. You could debate it seriously. It had a concrete meaning tied to specific historical movements.
That meaning has been deliberately stretched.
Today, in reports from organisations like Hope Not Hate and in commentary from politicians and journalists across the mainstream, “ethno-nationalism” or “eth-nat” is used to describe any of the following: noticing that England has a historic majority population, talking about immigration in terms of the effects on existing communities, using the phrase “our people” in relation to the English, or saying that England should be governed in the interests of the English.
Under this stretched definition:
- Scots saying Scotland belongs to the Scots is normal democratic nationalism
- Nigerians saying Nigeria is for Nigerians is self-determination
- English people saying England is for the English is dangerous extremism
Not because the logic is different. Because the target is different.
Once you understand that “eth-nat” has become a censor’s stamp rather than an analytical term, you stop being intimidated by it. It does not describe something you are doing. It describes the fact that you are doing it as an English person.
MPs, Media and the Denial of English Identity
Over the past decade a consistent pattern has emerged in parliament and media. Politicians and commentators do not generally say outright “the English do not exist as a people.” That would be too easy to refute. Instead they use a set of moves that achieve the same result.
They talk about “British values” while avoiding any specific reference to English culture or the English people. They treat Englishness as a threat when it becomes explicit, while treating Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism as perfectly legitimate. They use words like “divisive,” “exclusionary” and “far right” the moment English identity politics gets organised enough to be noticed.
With the launch of new parties like Restore England and growing movements around English sovereignty, this pattern is intensifying. People who have been calmly making the case for English national identity for years are suddenly finding themselves labelled extremists not just by the left, but by centrist commentators and even some on the political right.
That tells you something. When a political idea gets close enough to mainstream respectability to be threatening, the label-makers work overtime.
Why Some “Right-Wing” Influencers Are Part of the Problem
This is the part that frustrates me most, and it needs to be said plainly.
There is a substantial group of online commentators who brand themselves as anti-woke, pro-free speech, and defenders of British culture. They will spend all day criticising the BBC, attacking Labour, and talking about the importance of national identity. But the moment someone talks specifically about the English as a people with ethnic roots and legitimate group interests, they suddenly develop a deep concern about “eth-nats.”
Why?
Because their platforms, book deals, media appearances and Patreon income depend on staying within a certain window of acceptable opinion. Criticising woke culture is fine. Defending “British values” in the abstract is fine. But explicitly defending English ethnic identity crosses a line their audience managers, publishers and broadcast bookers will not tolerate.
So they perform a kind of controlled opposition. They capture the energy of English cultural frustration and redirect it into safer civic nationalism that never quite challenges the framework that produces the double standard in the first place.
If you are one of those commentators and you are reading this: ask yourself honestly whether you are speaking truth or protecting your income. Because the people in your audience who are proud of being English by blood are not extremists. They are doing exactly what Bukayo Saka does. And you know it.
English Ethnicity, Restore England and What Comes Next
The political ground is shifting. New parties and movements are forming specifically around English sovereignty and identity. The conversation about what England is, who the English are, and what rights they have as a historic people is no longer confined to the fringes.
That is why the smear machine is ramping up. “Eth-nat.” “Far right.” “Racist.” The labels get louder as the argument gets closer to the mainstream.
But here is what I have learned from years of watching this: the smear only works if you accept the framing that English identity is inherently different from every other identity. Once you stop accepting that framing, the label loses its power.
English ethnicity is real. It is in the law. It is in the census. It is in every HR training manual that talks about protecting people from discrimination based on national and ethnic origins. It is what Saka is expressing when he talks about his Nigerian roots, applied to the people whose ancestors built this country.
You do not need to apologise for that. You do not need to dress it up or soften it. You just need to keep saying it clearly, keep pointing to the double standard, and keep asking the simple question: why is every ethnicity allowed pride in its roots except ours?
Conclusion: Stop Accepting the Double Standard
The English ethnicity double standard is not a minor inconsistency. It is a sustained, deliberate effort to deny one group the same basic right to identity that every other group is encouraged to exercise. It is enforced by politicians who talk about “British values” while airbrushing the English out, by NGOs who stretch academic terms into political weapons, and by media-friendly commentators who protect their careers by going along with it.
The good news is it is becoming harder to maintain. Every time someone like Saka proudly claims his ethnic roots and is celebrated for it, the question of why English people cannot do the same becomes more visible, more obvious and harder to dodge.
Keep asking that question. Keep sharing the Saka Test. Keep pointing to the Equality Act. And keep building communities – online and off – where English identity is treated with the same basic respect as every other identity on earth.
If this article spoke to you, share it, bookmark it, and join the conversation over at r/EnglandThenAndNow. The more people who see the double standard clearly, the harder it becomes to sustain.
FAQs
Q: Is English ethnicity legally recognised in the UK?
Yes. The Equality Act 2010 defines race as including “ethnic or national origins.” The UK Government’s own ethnicity data standards list “White: English” as a standard ethnic category used in the census and by public bodies. English is as legally valid an ethnic origin as any other.
Q: Why do people say “there is no English ethnicity”?
It is a political position, not a factual one. People who say this typically want to promote a purely civic idea of Britishness in which the historic English majority has no distinct ethnic identity. It is not supported by the law, government data standards or ordinary logic, all of which treat English as a valid ethnic and national origin.
Q: What is the “eth-nat” slur and why is it used against English nationalists?
“Ethno-nationalism” originally described movements that defined nationhood exclusively by blood and excluded others from citizenship. The term has been stretched by NGOs and commentators to mean any English person who talks about their ethnic identity or group interests. It is used to shut down debate rather than describe anything specific.
Q: Is Bukayo Saka an ethno-nationalist for being proud of his Nigerian roots?
No, and nobody says he is. That is precisely the point. The same pride in ethnic heritage that is celebrated in Saka is treated as suspect when expressed by English people. The English ethnicity double standard is exposed most clearly by this exact comparison.
Q: What is Restore England and why are they being called far right?
Restore England is a new political party focused on English sovereignty and identity. Like any party or movement that explicitly addresses English ethnic and national identity, it is being labelled “far right” and “eth-nat” by opponents (And from people pretending to be on the same side) who apply those labels to any organised expression of English identity, regardless of its actual policies or tone.