Konstantin Kisin's Racial Hypocrisy: An Existential Look at Identity and Englishness
Triggernometry for the easily triggered
Konstantin Kisin, the co-host of Triggernometry, has once again ventured into questionable territory, claiming in a recent debate that Rishi Sunak, the UK's former Prime Minister, cannot be considered English because he is a “brown Hindu.” Kisin’s logic implies that a person’s ethnicity and religion are definitive markers of nationality, an argument so steeped in hypocrisy and self-contradiction that it collapses under any level of scrutiny.
Kisin’s Hypocrisy: What Makes a White American?
Using Kisin’s line of reasoning, white Americans are not American. Why? They’re neither indigenous to North America nor did their ancestors have a long-standing cultural presence in the region before the colonial era. Are they simply "European" despite generations of their families being born and raised in the United States? What about white Australians, South Africans, or Israelis? By Kisin’s logic, these populations would not be truly Australian, South African, or Israeli—they would remain forever European interlopers in lands they now call home. Of course, with Israel we end up in even more controversial territory (no pun intended), as Kisin would have to deny Israel’s right to exist!
Kisin would likely respond by invoking culture or shared values. Yet culture isn’t static, it is a fluid concept not confined to skin colour. Our sense of identity isn’t some fossilized artifact; it evolves, shaped by history, migration, and interaction. The idea that Sunak’s skin colour or religious beliefs disqualify him from being English rests on the absurd notion that Englishness is a fixed state tied solely to ethnicity.
The Existential Dilemma of Identity
From an existentialist perspective, identity is far more complex and fluid than Kisin’s rigid definition allows. Sartre argued that "existence precedes essence," meaning that humans are not born with preordained identities; rather, we create ourselves through our actions and choices. Though I have disputed aspects of Sartre’s arguments in previous articles, it is useful to apply it here. Rishi Sunak’s life, achievements, and contributions to the UK cannot be reduced to his skin colour or religious background. To do so is to deny his subjectivity, his individual existence as an Englishman who embodies the values and traditions of his nation.
Identity is a construct, a set of signifiers and experiences that change over time. Englishness itself is no exception. The British Isles have seen countless waves of migration and cultural blending—Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans. The very notion of "pure English ethnicity" is an artificial construct, created for political and social purposes rather than rooted in any biological reality. To claim otherwise is to reveal an astonishing ignorance of history and human evolution.
The Myth of Ethnic Purity
There is no such thing as a "pure" ethnic group. Modern genetics and evolutionary biology demonstrate that humans are an interwoven species. The idea of a homogeneous English ethnicity is a fiction, crafted through imperialism and nationalism, often to exclude those deemed "other." Kisin’s notion of Englishness fails to acknowledge that ethnicity, like race, is a social construct—one that shifts depending on the needs of those in power.
If we entertain Kisin’s hypothetical about a white person born in Japan, his attempt to corner us into agreeing that such a person cannot be Japanese misses the point. Citizenship, culture, and identity are not simply matters of blood or birthright but of belonging and contribution to the community in question. Japanese society has its own complex relationship with ethnicity and nationality, but even within that, there are examples of people of non-Japanese ancestry who are accepted as Japanese through cultural integration and societal engagement. In the same way, Rishi Sunak, born and raised in England, having served its political institutions, cannot be defined as anything other than English. His brown skin does not change that fact.
The British vs. English Distinction: Kisin’s False Dichotomy
In defence of his position, Kisin has argued that he wasn’t claiming Rishi Sunak is unfit to be British—only that Sunak cannot be considered "English." This distinction between being British and being English is not only arbitrary but also reflects a misunderstanding of both national identity and cultural belonging. By attempting to draw a line between Britishness and Englishness, Kisin is creating a false dichotomy.
First, let’s break down what it means to be "British." The term encompasses a collective identity tied to the United Kingdom, which includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It also encompasses those former colonies, of which India was a part. For the colonised people of the British Empire, Britishness was a unifying label, an umbrella term for those who belonged to the Motherland - Great Britain.
Yet, Kisin’s argument seems to suggest that Britishness is somehow more inclusive and flexible than Englishness, which he apparently views as a racially exclusive identity reserved for those with a certain lineage.
This is where Kisin’s logic falters. If Sunak can be British, why not English? The two terms, while distinct, overlap significantly. Englishness, much like Britishness, is a fluid concept that has always been shaped by migration, intermingling cultures, and historical shifts. If someone is born and raised in England, contributes to its society, and embodies its values, why shouldn’t they be considered English? Kisin seems to want to preserve Englishness as a racial category, while Britishness can be extended to those outside that category—a stance that is not only contradictory but inherently exclusionary.
Moreover, Kisin’s defence ignores the reality that national and cultural identities are often intertwined and cannot be neatly separated. What does it mean to be British without the component parts? Englishness, in particular, cannot be disentangled from the broader British identity without falling into the trap of an outdated and reductive racial essentialism.
The Problem with Defining "Englishness"
Kisin’s assertion also raises a deeper question: Who defines what it means to be English? If Englishness is not determined by legal citizenship, culture, or birthplace, but by race, as Kisin implies, then we are dangerously close to an ethno-nationalist definition of identity. Englishness has never been a fixed, homogenous concept. From the Norman invasion to the waves of migration from the Commonwealth, England’s identity has been shaped by external influences for centuries. To deny Sunak his Englishness based on the colour of his skin or his religious background is not only wrong, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Englishness has always been—a constantly evolving identity shaped by those who live within it.
In fact, Kisin’s attempt to argue that Sunak can be British but not English reveals the real motivation behind his claim. He is not drawing a thoughtful, nuanced distinction between two identities. Rather, he is displaying a view of Englishness as a proxy for racial purity, while Britishness is allowed to be more inclusive. This thinking is rooted in an outdated, colonial mentality where British identity can stretch to encompass subjects of the Empire, but Englishness remains the preserve of a white, Christian majority. It’s the same mentality that perpetuates the idea of a "pure" English identity that never truly existed.
National Identity as More Than Skin Deep
At the core of Kisin’s argument is the mistaken belief that national identity is something tied to bloodlines and appearance. By this logic, Sunak’s skin colour and religion disqualify him from being English, even if he fulfills every other requirement. This reasoning flies in the face of the reality of modern identity. National identity, much like personal identity, is far more complex than the colour of one’s skin or the religion one practices.
British or English? A False Choice
Ultimately, Kisin’s argument falls apart because it tries to make a distinction where none exists. Sunak is British and English—these identities are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be defined by outdated notions of race. By drawing a line between Britishness and Englishness, Kisin is not making a legitimate point about identity; he is erecting a wall designed to exclude those who don’t fit his narrow vision of what it means to be English.
Kisin’s defence is nothing more than an attempt to save face after making a statement that reveals a strain of identity politics he claims to oppose. In reality, his comments reflect an ethno-nationalist view that has no place in a modern, multicultural society. The sooner we move away from such divisive rhetoric, the sooner we can embrace a more inclusive, forward-thinking understanding of what it means to be English, British, and, ultimately, human.
Triggered by “Triggernometry”
The supreme irony here is that Kisin hosts a show called Triggernometry, a title meant to mock people who are supposedly too easily offended by controversial opinions. Yet here we see Kisin, clearly triggered by the idea that someone of Indian heritage could be English. It turns out that Triggernometry is simply a vehicle for the grievances of men like Kisin, who claim to stand for free speech and freedom of expression but get over-emotional at any challenge to their rigid, conservative worldview.
It is not Sunak’s identity that should be questioned here, but Kisin’s. His inability to accept that modern Englishness can transcend the narrow definitions of the past betrays a fear of the future, where people like him can no longer dictate the boundaries of identity based on skin colour or religion. The very existence of Triggernometry is a reactionary response to the progress of inclusivity, and ironically, it is the hosts who are the most easily “triggered” when the world doesn’t conform to their idealized version of reality.
The Futility of Gatekeeping Nationality
Kisin’s argument about English identity crumbles under the weight of its own inconsistencies. His reductive definition of Englishness doesn’t account for the complex, multicultural reality of the modern world, nor does it recognize that nationality and identity are not fixed by race. If Rishi Sunak is not English, then neither is Boris Johnson, who was born in New York City. If a "brown Hindu" cannot be English, what is a white American? Ethnic gatekeeping is a dead end, and the sooner people like Kisin realize that, the better.