Heh, but I do say ‘gendered’ language. And sexually ‘oriented’.
Yes, because "gender" is a noun and "to gender" a verb. To change them into adjectives (like transgender), you use the past participle of the verb (gendered).
Heh, but I do say ‘gendered’ language. And sexually ‘oriented’.
Okay, but there are black brits for whom the U.K. has been their homeland for generations now and who are culturally British. I've seen them before; they've come through my drive through. It's always notable because here in the states you don't expect someone who looks african-american to speak with a British accent.
‘Native’ British blacks are rare.
Black residents comprise about 3% of the population, so I guess "rare" is reasonable. It's much higher in major cosmopolitan cities of course (I think it's about 13% in London).
I'm not sure the word "native" really means much in the UK though. Black folks have been here since at least the 12th century (very likely before). In the 17th century the number increased dramatically (partly, sadly, due to the slave trade). The 17th century, incidentally, is earlier than the formation of the United States. Unless you're using the word "native" in the same sense that you do when using the term "Native American", then those people and their descendants are as native to Britain as anybody but a Native American is to the USA.
If you were using the term in that "Native American" context, I don't think even I meet your definition of native British. It's a heck of a mongrel nation with waves of immigration over thousands of years.
The correct term for these folks, incidentally, is "Black British". Sometimes folks in the US refer too them as "African Americans" which, of course, they're not.
The correct term for these folks, incidentally, is "Black British". Sometimes folks in the US refer too them as "African Americans" which, of course, they're not.
Blacks have been living in England, since at least the time of Shakespeare. But, if their descendants completely identify with ethnic English, then they probably intermarried and their descendants ceased to be black.
Oppositely, if they are still black today, then they are almost certainly intentionally preserving an ethnic identity that is distinct from English ethnicity.
Either way, a person who is both black and ethnically English (or Scot, Irish, or Welsh) is extremely rare.
Blacks have been living in England, since at least the time of Shakespeare. But, if their descendants completely identify with ethnic English, then they probably intermarried and their descendants ceased to be black.
Oppositely, if they are still black today, then they are almost certainly intentionally preserving an ethnic identity that is distinct from English ethnicity.
Either way, a person who is both black and ethnically English (or Scot, Irish, or Welsh) is extremely rare.
Blacks have been living in England, since at least the time of Shakespeare. But, if their descendants completely identify with ethnic English, then they probably intermarried and their descendants ceased to be black.
Oppositely, if they are still black today, then they are almost certainly intentionally preserving an ethnic identity that is distinct from English ethnicity.
Either way, a person who is both black and ethnically English (or Scot, Irish, or Welsh) is extremely rare.
Why the focus on 'ethnic English (or Scot, or Welsh, or Irish)', except as a means to move the goalposts?
Phil Lynott is spinning in his grave.