Is Concern Over Britain’s Demographic Changes Racist?
Separating legitimate anxieties from prejudice in a changing nation
By Jide Ehizele
If you consume most of your political media online, it’s almost impossible to avoid the recent heated discourse around Britain’s projected demographic changes - white Britons set to be a minority by 2063. Reactions have been deeply polarised—some label any concern as “racist,” while others defend it as a “legitimate fear.”
My central question in this debate is whether it is possible to discuss demographic change without descending into essentialism, denial, or hysteria. Or, put differently: What does it mean to ‘care’ about demographic transformation in a morally plural society?
Let’s begin by considering what it means to be a ‘majority.’ A majority is more than just a numerical fact; it carries norm-setting power—cultural, linguistic, and moral—which are vital to building a cohesive society. The challenge, particularly for progressives, is that this framework is often seen as inherently oppressive—a manifestation of harmful power dynamics. Yet this only holds if one assumes that foreigners and their descendants cannot genuinely integrate and thrive alongside the native population—an irony, given that many on the hard right share this exclusionary view.
The deeper issue for many is that British identity has historically been equated with whiteness. The current demographic projections disrupt a long-standing norm, triggering anxiety: a fear of the unknown, a sense of loss of coherence and familiarity. While some of this fear is fuelled by conspiratorial prejudicial narratives—such as the Great Replacement theory—not all of it can be reduced to that. Many simply feel unanchored in a rapidly changing world.
Let’s distinguish between different kinds of reactions to demographic change:
Essentialist fear: “White culture is inherently superior and must be preserved.”
Yes, that is racist. It assumes that whiteness contains fixed traits that produce certain moral or civilisational outcomes. This essentialist framework fails to reflect the story of humanity. Take White British culture: today it is largely progressive, far removed from the more tradition-bound society of the past. If culture were fixed or inherent, such transformations wouldn’t be possible. The very existence of change exposes the flaw in essentialist thinking.
Cultural nostalgia: “I miss a world that felt coherent.”
This is not necessarily racist. It may reflect a deeper sense of cultural dislocation or loss of meaning. In the face of rapid demographic and cultural shifts, it’s natural for people to yearn for a past that offered them stability and clarity, even if that past was not perfect. Such nostalgia, if unexamined, can become dangerous, but it often begins as a very human response to a disorienting present.
Civic concern: “Can we preserve social cohesion in an age of fragmentation?”
This is a valid and necessary question for all of us. Pluralism and secularism bring profound challenges, especially when worldviews rest on very different metaphysical foundations. How we negotiate a shared civic life amidst deep differences is one of the defining tasks of our age.
In short, noticing change is not, in itself, racist. But the values we attach to that change—and the way we respond to it—can either reinforce prejudice or foster understanding and cohesion. That’s where the deeper moral logic emerges.
The demographic story of Britain is still being written. Whether its next chapter is one of deepening division or renewed solidarity depends not just on statistics, but on the stories we tell about them. To care about change is not inherently racist, but what matters is how we care. Do we react with fear and exclusion, or with a deeper moral imagination that makes space for others without erasing ourselves? This requires honest, difficult, vulnerable conversations—ones we may not always like the answers to.
In a plural and pluralising society, the challenge is not to preserve the past in amber, but to build a future where coherence does not require sameness. That kind of civic vision asks something of all of us, especially those who feel disoriented. But perhaps in facing the discomfort of change, we might recover something essential: a shared commitment to the common good.
The Equiano Project is kept going by donations, large and small. Whatever the amount, we would greatly appreciate your contribution.
#ICYMI
Entering a country does not grant you the right to demand changes that cater to your preferences.
If you choose to come, it must be with the intention of belonging. Pluralist societies that prioritize their own interests over the greater whole will ultimately implode.
When immigration is executed correctly, it fortifies a nation. Look at the United States before the globalist agenda took hold—it functioned effectively.
What we witness across the Western world today is not genuine immigration; it is fragmentation, exploitation, and in many instances, cultural colonization, as evidenced in the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
We’ve allowed a monumental deception to permeate our discourse: that immigrants should be welcomed without any conditions—no requirements for language proficiency, civic understanding, or allegiance.
This isn’t immigration; it’s an occupation by invitation, and it’s utterly reckless.
Take the UK as a stark example:
Once a beacon of the rule of law, the UK has devolved into a landscape of parallel societies. In cities such as Leicester, Birmingham, Luton, and even London, there are enclaves that adhere to different customs and informal legal systems, all of which challenge British law.
Law enforcement often turns a blind eye, school boards succumb to radical ideologies, and British citizens frequently feel like second-class residents, silenced by the fear of being labeled bigots. Practices such as multiple wives living separately while claiming benefits as single parents undermine the law, sending a clear message to citizens: your laws are malleable, but ours are not.
In the U.S.:
Regions like Dearborn, Minneapolis, Texas, and California are witnessing a similar decline:
- Schools and city councils operate in foreign languages.
- Sharia-inspired policies are taking root.
- The American flag is either disrespected or outright replaced.
- Many newcomers seek to recreate their homeland instead of integrating into American society, and this cannot be permitted in any country.
What has happened to the principles of learning the language, respecting the Constitution, and pledging loyalty to the flag? This monumental deception has erased those values. Immigrants must come to contribute, not merely consume. They must honor the flag and integrate into a unified society, not foster division.
If you cannot commit to this standard, do not come.
This isn’t about race, religion, or nationalism. It’s about safeguarding the identity of nations and ensuring that all individuals are treated equally under one law.
I’m tired of the ‘racist’ term.
If you can’t contend with arguments on their merits without resorting to labeling and name calling, then don’t take part in the discussion.
When someone does this it’s a clear sign that you should end the conversation.
You can’t reason with ideologues.