What Does It Mean to Belong?

I've written about this before, but the antics of the far-right have brought the issue to the fore - oh, what a shock!

Ask a far-right nationalist who counts as English, and you’ll rarely get a straight answer. They may mutter something about “descent” or “tradition,” but when pressed, they flounder. Because their measure isn’t legal, cultural, or historical. It’s not about contribution, language, or civic duty. It’s about appearance. They take the rich, complicated fabric of nationality - birth, culture, ethnicity, and lived belonging - and reduce it to a skin‑tone test.

Take me. I was born in Rotterdam, to a Dutch father. Yet I grew up in England. I was educated here, I live here, I think in English, speak with an English accent, and share its humour, idioms, and habits. No one would question my Englishness - until, perhaps, they see my surname. Then, to some, I become slightly suspect. Not quite full-blooded.

But if I were Black and in the same position - or even if I had deeper roots in Britain than most of my critics - the scrutiny wouldn’t wait for a surname. It would be instant and visual. The goalposts would shift. The rules would change. The test, always, is whether you look the part.

And when descent is invoked, the figure is never clear. Two generations? Three? Four? Enough to let the gatekeeper in, not enough to let you in. It’s arbitrary and self-serving. It also collapses under historical scrutiny. The English are not a purebred tribe. Our ancestry is a dog’s breakfast of Celt, Roman, Saxon, Norse, Norman, Flemish, Huguenot, Irish - and more besides. You’d have better luck finding a unicorn than someone of unmixed Anglo-Saxon blood.

Here’s a revealing contrast: Across the world, there are millions of white Australians and New Zealanders descended from British settlers. Some of them still feel British. They share language, customs, even monarchs. Many consider themselves part of a broader Anglosphere family - and the far right here is happy to indulge that fantasy, welcoming them as honorary Britons.

But many others - especially in New Zealand - reject the British label. They see themselves as proudly Kiwi, shaped by Māori influence, geography, and a national identity entirely separate from Britain.

And yet - for the far right - those white Australians and New Zealanders are still “one of us.” Their sense of belonging is validated not by their citizenship or cultural allegiance, but by their skin.

Meanwhile, someone born in London, raised in Leeds, immersed in English culture, paying taxes, speaking the language, supporting the team, teaching in the school, working in the NHS - but who is Black — is still deemed “not really English.”

That’s not a principle. That’s a prejudice in a flag costume.

Let’s extend the logic again. What makes a British company? Is it where it’s founded? Where it’s owned? Where it manufactures? Where it pays taxes? It’s never one thing. We understand complexity in the business world. We look at contribution, presence, commitment. If we can accept nuance for a baked-beans brand, surely we can apply it to actual human beings.

And while we're at it - let’s talk about British fish. The far right gets misty-eyed about mackerel and militant over haddock, as if gurnard should carry a passport. But fish don’t observe national borders. They migrate freely, without regard for Union flags or blue passports. Still, these same patriots will passionately defend the Englishness of a cod - while doubting the Englishness of a Black British citizen who’s lived here all their life. It's almost poetic in its absurdity: a fish in the Channel counts more than a neighbour in the queue.

I wonder if Farage supporters could catch fish in French waters and claim they were British fish that had entered French waters illegally.

So what does define belonging? Let’s look at the dimensions the far right ignores:

• Civic belonging – Paying tax, voting, obeying laws, participating in public life.
• Emotional belonging – Feeling love for a place, knowing its rhythms, caring about its future.
• Communal belonging – Being accepted and known by your neighbours, your town, your society.
• Historical belonging – Having ancestors who built, rebuilt, defended, or served the country – or having chosen to add your own chapter.
• Linguistic belonging – Speaking the language, using the idioms, living in the cultural references.
• Contributory belonging – Working, caring, building, improving - being part of the solution.

I tick every box on that list. Many others do too - including those the far right would reject at first glance.

So here’s the truth they can’t say out loud: it’s not about whether you belong. It’s about whether they like how you look. It’s not a question of ancestry. It’s a question of acceptability, judged by prejudice, not principle.

• Nationality isn’t skin-deep.
• Belonging isn’t inherited.

And Englishness, if it means anything at all, must be rooted in lived identity - not ancestral delusion.

The far right will keep redrawing the lines to suit themselves.

The rest of us know where we stand.

We’re here. We belong.

And no one gets to tell us otherwise.