Are non-white Brits British? If they have a British passport and identify as British, of course.
But why is there a problem asking someone where they're originally from or what their background is?
The only issue is that you perceive (or you believe others perceive) that being identified as "British" is better.
Who cares? If you're British, have the passport and are entitled to live there, then (unless you are being actively persecuted or discriminated against) who cares what other people think?
I'm not British and don't live there so I'm sure the reality of living in the country adds a stigma to being "foreign" that I will never experience. But if nothing else, it's really sad that such a multi cultural country has people actively avoiding telling people what their background is.
If being British means you need to be ashamed of your background or ancestry then is being identified as "British" a positive thing?
I think a big part of the issue is that white immigrants (or more accurately, their kids) are not asked that question. If you're Polish or French or Swedish, people won't generally ask where you're really really from, especially if you have a name that could just be British.
Black, South and East Asian and Arab Brits don't have that luxury. They always get marked out, always get asked 'where are you really from'.
Some black brits nave been here though for 3 generations or more. They literally are just British and that's it.
By itself, it doesn't sound that bad (and is almost actually never meant maliciously imo). It's just a moment when those of colour are reminded that they're not 'really' British. On top of the racism they often still experience, both explicit and implicit, it has an impact.
I think the better way to ask the question (which I agree is fundamentally an interesting one) is what are your family origins?
Back on topic, Zouma is a twat.
The English language is a wonderful thing. The same words can be asked in different ways and they imply very different intentions.
If you know someone, at least for a short while, asking "where did your parents grow up", "where does your surname originate from", or some other
specific question that is being asked as a genuine enquiry about the person as an
individual, will be taken as interest in the individual.
However, if you ask the question in a more generic way, "where are you from", "where do you originally come from", and the only information that you are basing your knowledge of a difference in ancestry on is the colour of someone's skin, you instantly reduce the person to less than an individual and more as a clone of a culture or race. If you know someone more than that, these vaguer questions are in the grey area.
If you ask the question as a follow up because the first answer was England, British or a British town or region, you've discounted that first answer as unbelievable, wiping out the individuals personal history, and reducing them to the history of
your perception of race or culture.
Obviously, tonality makes a massive difference too, "intelligent" racists are much more likely to pose their racism as a question, so rather than othering the individual, the racist asks a question that causes the individual to
other themselves. It gives deniability to the racist by making the racism vague enough that a semi interested observer wouldn't perceive the intent behind the question.
People of colour get asked these questions from a very young age, both genuinely and malicious, and so by the time you're talking to them, they're probably hyper sensitive to questions in this area, and have spent years deciphering the intent behind vague questions.
If you are genuinely interested in them that you want to understand the influences that made them the unique person they are, take the time to formulate a question that respects them as an individual, rather than blurting out a vague, generic question that others and stereotypes them.
