by throwawaypath | 2025-12-29 23:34:01+00:00
>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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publicat...