The OP was me. I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person" even though that is not the meaning of "native", which means you were born somewhere.
>I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person"
Nowhere in his post does he mention "White person." He specifically mentions "native Brits." The only indigenous Brits native to the Britain are White Brits.
He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.
The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.
Even then, none of this is related to skin tone. It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.
>He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.
White Brits are the only indigenous, native Brits to Britain.
>The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.
False. The English are the extant indigenous people to England, and descend from ancient populations: "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there." [0]
QED.
>Even then, none of this is related to skin tone.
Glad you finally agree and admit to this.
>It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.
English culture is the current indigenous, native culture to England.
That's funny, your own statements are in contradiction with your conclusions. You say the English are descendants of west germanic tribes from the continent, and "Romano-British" groups (do you think the Romans were an Indigenous people? of the British isles?), then you say this proves they are indigenous.
Please do the minimum effort and connect the quote you did to what you claim it states. This does not contradict anything in my previous post. QED? Nothing was demonstrated. Demonstrate, please.
It is funny, because I did not introduce the term indigenous to this discussion, you did (for some strange reason).
The term "indigenous" refers to a non-dominant, often colonized group of people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land [1]
The English are neither. The Celtic people, if anyone, has a claim to this status on the British isles. They were living on the land for hundrds of years before they were colonized by the Romans (and other groups later, including the English).
I think it's sweet that you're trying to muddy things up by claiming I "finally agree" about skin tone being unrelated to culture or the adjective native. That's been my argument the whole time. You are the one stating that "White British" is the same as "Native Brit".
>That's funny, your own statements are in contradiction with your conclusions.
Your failure to understand basic anthropology does not constitute a contradiction. There is not contradiction.
>You say the English are descendants of west germanic tribes from the continent, and "Romano-British" groups (do you think the Romans were an Indigenous people? of the British isles?)
It arose as a fusion of the imported Roman culture with that of the indigenous Britons, a people of Celtic language and custom. [0]
>then you say this proves they are indigenous.
"Indigenous Britons" QED.
>Please do the minimum effort and connect the quote you did to what you claim it states.
I just did and have, multiple times.
>This does not contradict anything in my previous post. QED? Nothing was demonstrated. Demonstrate, please.
It directly contradicts your erroneous claims. Everything has been demonstrated with facts and links. You have nothing.
>It is funny, because I did not introduce the term indigenous to this discussion, you did (for some strange reason).
I did, what's your point? You failed and making any claim to the contrary.
>The term "indigenous" refers to a non-dominant, often colonized group of people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land [1]
Hilarious because White Brits are no the dominant group of people in London, foreigners are. The English are the "people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land."
Oops, you just proved my point for me! QED!
>The English are neither.
The English are both, native and indigenous, as proven above.
>The Celtic people, if anyone, has a claim to this status on the British isles.
The English descended from the Britons, they're literally British.
>They were living on the land for hundrds of years before they were colonized by the Romans (and other groups later, including the English).
This is hilariously incorrect. As proven above, the English descended from the Celtic Britons. It's quoted directly above.
>I think it's sweet that you're trying to muddy things up by claiming I "finally agree" about skin tone being unrelated to culture or the adjective native.
Glad that you agree DHH isn't a White supremacist since it has nothing to do with skin color.
>You are the one stating that "White British" is the same as "Native Brit".
From your source that defines " indigenous people":
"peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions."
That is literally the definition of the English people, in England, which is part of Great Brittan.
Are you seriously claiming that White Brits are not the dominant ethnic group in the UK? Who's running the country? Out of the last twenty PMs, how many have been people of color? One?
You seem to love to write QED after a quote. That makes you look dumb. The English did not "fuse" with an indigenous people, they colonized or dominated an already colonized people, and in the process removed their "social, economic, cultural, and political institutions" [1].
This in turn does not fit in with the definition of Indigenous people. No scholar would ever claim that the English are indigenous to the British isles. That would be absurd. The same is true of the Romano-British. Whenever settlers "fuse" with an indigenous culture by importing their customs, the result is not an indigenous culture, it's a settler-colonial one.
Did you see the part underneath what you quoted in the UNESCO definition?
"According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the system has instead developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
- Historical continuity with pre-colonial and or pre-settler societies
- Strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources
- Distinct social, economic and political system
- Distinct language, culture and beliefs
- Form non-dominant groups of society
- Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities"
Does that sound like the English to you? Hardly. There is no continuity with pre-settler society. The Anglo-Saxon settlers replaced pre-existing culture.
And, again, skin tone does not relate to culture. Which is why the fact that DHH tries to claim it does makes him an ethnonationalist, a fringe far-right position.
It is funny to see you fail to argue like an adult. All the "QED"s and "erroneous claim" make you sound like a tiny Ben Shapiro in my mind. I wonder why you would subject yourself to this kind of humiliating self-own. You are constantly misinterpreting terms, simply saying "No" or "False" without ever citing anything but wikipedia. It's obvious you have no understanding of either anthropology nor of where to find information or how to interpret it. Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that racists are idiots.
>Are you seriously claiming that White Brits are not the dominant ethnic group in the UK?
No one made this claim. White Brits (The English) are the native inhabitants of London, and are no longer the majority there. The definition you provided literally describes the exact scenario of the English in London.
>Who's running the country? Out of the last twenty PMs, how many have been people of color? One?
The current Mayor of London is a person of color (non-native ethnicity). Once again, you're doing all the work for me, proving my point.
>You seem to love to write QED after a quote.
Because I have shown and proven my points.
>That makes you look dumb.
Don't interpret your inability to understand something as "dumb."
> The English did not "fuse" with an indigenous people, they colonized or dominated an already colonized people, and in the process removed their "social, economic, cultural, and political institutions"
You are categorically false. Your source links to the Anglo-Saxons, not the English. "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there."
QED.
Your poorly constructing a straw man, possibly unknowingly, because you're out of your league here.
>This in turn does not fit in with the definition of Indigenous people.
Yes it does, not that the definition of indigenous people is something that you can claim. There is no singularly approved definition: "There is no singularly authoritative definition
of indigenous peoples under international law and policy, and the Indig-
enous Declaration does not set out any definition." [1]
>No scholar would ever claim that the English are indigenous to the British isles.
No scholar would ever claim that the English are not indigenous to the British isles. That would be absurd.
>The same is true of the Romano-British. Whenever settlers "fuse" with an indigenous culture by importing their customs, the result is not an indigenous culture, it's a settler-colonial one.
Of course it is, especially considering English culture was created in, developed, and is indigenous to... England. It's literally in the name. English culture wasn't created outside of England, it was created in England.
>Did you see the part underneath what you quoted in the UNESCO definition?
The part that literally proves my point, yes? Also, UNESCO definition isn't authoritative as shown above. Even then, English people/culture in London is indigenous considering the definition.
>Does that sound like the English to you?
That is exactly what the English in London are. Every point can be applied to the English in London.
>And, again, skin tone does not relate to culture.
No one made this claim.
>Which is why the fact that DHH tries to claim it does makes him an ethnonationalist
DHH did not make that claim either. You have poor reading comprehension if that's what you took away.
>a fringe far-right position.
There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. This is not a fringe far-right position. Countries like Turkey, Japan, Palestine, South Korea, Israel, China, etc. all share this position.
>It is funny to see you fail to argue like an adult.
It's funny to see me eviscerate you. You're flailing around like a child that can't swim. You thrown insults out, share sources that prove opposite of what you're proposing, and don't understand basic anthropology.
>All the "QED"s and "erroneous claim" make you sound like a tiny Ben Shapiro in my mind.
All the nothing you've provided makes you sound like Trump in my mind.
> I wonder why you would subject yourself to this kind of humiliating self-own.
"I'm getting destroyed by this guy. Quick! Let me pretend like he's humiliating himself and not me!"
>You are constantly misinterpreting terms, simply saying "No" or "False" without ever citing anything but wikipedia.
"He has sources that correctly backup his statements. The sources in Wikipedia are right there, but I'm going to ignore them."
>It's obvious you have no understanding of either anthropology nor of where to find information or how to interpret it.
"I know you are but what am I?" Are you a toddler LOL?
>Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that racists are idiots.
Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that (anti-White) racists are idiots.
