But even for a faulty ethnonationalist concept of nationality, the data point makes no sense. I'm white and born in Finland. By your logic, if I move to the UK and become a naturalized citizen, then I would be a native. Which is obviously not true. So the one third figure is both racist and incrdibly stupid.
Native means you're born somewhere. Equating nationality by skin color is ethnonationalism. So I guess congrats, you're a nazi.
There's no "thinking" White Brits are the only Brits native to Britain, they are. It's not ethnonationalist, it is an indisputable fact.
>the data point makes no sense
If you bothered to read his blog post, not just Bluesky/Mastodon comments, the data point makes a lot of sense.
>I'm white and born in Finland. By your logic, if I move to the UK and become a naturalized citizen, then I would be a native.
Here is where you're wrong. You would not be native, you would still be a foreigner. Finns are not White Brits. Russians, Austrians, etc. may all be White, but they are not White Brits, and are therefore not native Brits, even if they move and gain citizenship.
>So the one third figure is both racist and incrdibly stupid.
Neither racist nor stupid, just wrongthink.
>Native means you're born somewhere.
White Brits are the only indigenous Brits.
>Equating nationality by skin color is ethnonationalism.
Glad that's not what I nor DHH did.
>So I guess congrats, you're a nazi.
So I guess congrats, you're a genocidal Maoist-Leninist-Marxist.
The indigenous claim is also funny, because that would refer specifically to Celtic peoples in Britain. And the modern white British population is not predominantly Celtic, and definitely not indigenous. The Anglo-Saxons, e.g., are not indigenous to Britain.
Which leads to the most hilarious point of your post, where you first equate nationality with skin color (in a particularly misguided way) "White Brits are the only indigenous Brits", and then immediately deny that you are equating nationality with skin color.
That's a decent self-contradiction speedrun.
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.
For me the term has specific far-right connotations; specifically the persecution, or desire to persecute, non-nationals or non-indigenous (or whatever term you'd like to use for the most ancient and rooted culture of a nation).
Your definition is apparently different: what is it?
Btw, the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English; they were ultimately assimilated into the tribes they conquered. Many (most?) English can trace their genes back to the earliest settlers.
The persecution and vilification of other groups is a natural consequence of being an ethnonationalist. DHH also does this, of course, as he paints a false narrative in his blog text that brown people are dangerous.
Identifying with your tribe is a completely different idea. Your tribe (or nation) is not defined by ethnicity, but by culture.
If you believe a cultural identity should be tied to the political state, that's called civic nationalism. Most countries were founded on some form of nationalism during the 1800s, so you're onto something there. These were ideas that grew out of the German idealist philosophy, and it's no coincidence that nationalism in Germany eventually developed into the ethnonationalist Völkisch movement, which was the precursor to the Nazi party.
---
The English culture _is_ the Anglo-Saxon cultrue, so the Anglo-Saxons couldn't have replaced them yes, but only because no such group as the English existed before the Anglo-Saxons arrived.
"the Anglo Saxons did not replace the native English" is a ridiculous statement on multiple levels. You've outdone you previous self-contradiction speedrun, now the contradiction is in the same sentence.
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.
