>You seem to be shifting definitions by moving from native Brits to "indigenous" Brits.
Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere.
>And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere.
I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born in the US, yet they are not native there.
>The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain.
No it wouldn't, Celtics displaced Neolithic Iberians before them. Not that it matters, the only extant indigenous group to London are English people, which descend in part from Celtic Britons.
>And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous.
They're a mix, and definitely indigenous.
>The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.
But English people are. English people are "are an ethnic group and nation native to England." [0]
And what group do English people fall under? The "native Brits" DHH mentions. White Brits being "the White population identifying as English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, or British." [1]
Native Brits, more specifically English people, are the only native people indigenous to London.
QED.
>Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way)
I never equated nationality with skin color, only ethnic groups. Russians share the same skin color as White Brits, yet are not White Brits, and are not native to London.
>White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.
This is what happens when you get political commentary from Bluesky and Mastodon. You had no clue that White British were an ethnicity grouping, nor did you understand the fact that English people are natives.
>That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.
Only of you don't understand the meaning of words, which is clearly the case here.
>I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.
I don't get it. You clearly hold Anglophobic views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are a Marxist Anglophobe. Be honest about it.
Native quite literally means associated with birth. It does also mean something that's lived somewhere since prehistoric times.
If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.
If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native. Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.
But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.
>Native quite literally means associated with birth.
Yes, and the only current ethnic group birthed in England are the English. British Asians derive their ancestry from Asia, the ethnic group is not native to, nor born from England. They're non-indigenous to the UK/Europe. You inadvertantly proved my point.
QED.
>If we use the first definition, then white brits and everyone else born in the UK are native.
Not at all, the non-native ethnic groups are not native to the UK. Notice how only English people are listed as native to England.
>If we use the second definition then neolithic farmers with an Anatolian material culture are native.
As are their descendants which are the English.
>Since they were replaced there are no natives in that sense in the UK.
Their descendants, the native ethnic group known as English people, are native to the UK.
>But there is no interpretation where white brits are native and second generation immigrants aren't.
Wrong, this is the only interpretation: "The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England, who speak the English language, a West Germanic language, and share a common ancestry, history, and culture."
The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles. And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK).
You're just wrong on the basic facts now. But that's no surprise, you're a nazi.
>The English are not descended from the neolithic peoples that lived on the British isles.
Yes they are, sourced above.
>And second generation immigrants are also "birthed" in England (and the rest of the UK).
Immigrant ethnic groups are not birthed in England, which is why they're not considered English nor "native." Their ancestry is foreign. Foreign ethnic groups are non-indigenous to England.
>You're just wrong on the basic facts now.
"Your facts are wrong!" the Marxist chortled just moments after unironically claiming men can be pregnant. All of the basic facts agree with DHH and my comments.
I provided sources, you have not. The facts are: only the English are native to London.
Not surprised that I'm not going to get a response, that happens when people lose after being called out on their delusional claims.
Would you look at this, "non-indigenous minorities" [0]. Lists all the nonnative groups to England, ethnic groups that were not "birthed" in England, nor Europe.
Here's your own "source" (wikipedia) on neolithic people on the British isles.
"Recent genetic studies have suggested that Britain's Neolithic population was largely replaced by a population from North Continental Europe characterised by the Bell Beaker culture around 2400 BC, associated with the Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe."
And you can't use the fact that wikipedia uses the term "non-indigenous" for a group to prove a point about "non-native", when what your arguing is that they mean the same. That's a circular argument, the premise is only true if the conclusion is true.
There's also a category error here, whether a group belongs to non-indigenous minorities says nothing about indigenous majority, which is what you're claiming the English are. They would not be present in "non-indigenous minority" because they are not a minority.
Again, you're the only one bringing up "indigenous" as a relevant concept. Something that neither DHH nor anyone else but you in this discussion is arguing about.
>Here's your own "source" (wikipedia) on neolithic people on the British isles.
Yes, the source that literally proves my point.
>"Recent genetic studies have suggested that Britain's Neolithic population was largely replaced by a population from North Continental Europe characterised by the Bell Beaker culture around 2400 BC, associated with the Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe."
And if you continue reading, the English are the descendants of that population, the mix Neolithic and Northern European peoples, even though most of the Neolithic were replaced, the English descended from both.
Thanks for proving my point?
>And you can't use the fact that wikipedia uses the term "non-indigenous" for a group to prove a point about "non-native", when what your arguing is that they mean the same. That's a circular argument, the premise is only true if the conclusion is true.
Those groups are non-indigenous to Europe, which means they are de facto not native to London. There are indigenous groups in Europe and the UK that are similarly not native to London. These two words mean different things.
>There's also a category error here, whether a group belongs to non-indigenous minorities says nothing about indigenous majority, which is what you're claiming the English are. They would not be present in "non-indigenous minority" because they are not a minority.
The only category error here is you trying to claim non-indigenous foreign groups are "native" when by definition, and all sources I've provided, show they are not.
>Again, you're the only one bringing up "indigenous" as a relevant concept. Something that neither DHH nor anyone else but you in this discussion is arguing about.
The only native group to London are the English. The English are White Brits. DHH claimed "native Brits," and "native Brits" are those who are indigenous to the area, the English.
Definitions for words you clearly don't understand are not "shifting" anywhere.
>And conveniently not responding to the point that native means you're born somewhere.
I've responded multiple times, you're refusing to acknowledge it because it destroys your narrative. Native does not mean "you're born somewhere." Many cows are born in the US, yet they are not native there.
>The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain.
No it wouldn't, Celtics displaced Neolithic Iberians before them. Not that it matters, the only extant indigenous group to London are English people, which descend in part from Celtic Britons.
>And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous.
They're a mix, and definitely indigenous.
>The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.
But English people are. English people are "are an ethnic group and nation native to England." [0]
And what group do English people fall under? The "native Brits" DHH mentions. White Brits being "the White population identifying as English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, or British." [1]
Native Brits, more specifically English people, are the only native people indigenous to London.
QED.
>Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way)
I never equated nationality with skin color, only ethnic groups. Russians share the same skin color as White Brits, yet are not White Brits, and are not native to London.
>White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.
This is what happens when you get political commentary from Bluesky and Mastodon. You had no clue that White British were an ethnicity grouping, nor did you understand the fact that English people are natives.
>That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.
Only of you don't understand the meaning of words, which is clearly the case here.
>I don't get it. You clearly hold ethnonationalist views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are an ethnonationalist. Be honest about it.
I don't get it. You clearly hold Anglophobic views and aren't afraid to express them, so I wonder why you're afraid of admitting that you are a Marxist Anglophobe. Be honest about it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British