That is not all he said, and the context of the UK and the US is different - for a start there is no clear divide between native and not. Are the Germanic English native, or Normans, etc? Does anyone say that white Americans are not proper Americans. Does DHH hate American cities because native Americans are a minority?
More importantly he said a lot more. He objects to London (that has always been a cosmopolitan city, especially in its centre) having too many people who are not ethnically "white British" and quotes numbers that excludes everyone who is not pure English, Welsh or Scottish - he excludes even the Irish, and, of course, people of mixed race.
The claim that London has greatly changed in nonsense. I grew up there and it feels exactly the same as it did in the 1980s. He talks about "A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now." i.e. he seems more brown faces than he likes. The interesting thing is that none of my childhood friends from London have a problem with this.
He supports and quotes various bigots (such as Tommy Robinson and Rupert Lowe) and takes what they say as fact. These are people who believe in white replacement theory, and are anti-immigrant to the extent of wanting ethnic cleansing.
Well black people can be citizens, they can be born in the UK. In additon, which "Native Brits" are indigenous to the UK, and do we need to look at how much French/Roman blood etc.?
White Europeans are of course not native to US or Australia.
Look, either you loosen your understanding of native to be the region you are born, or you tighten it to mean precisely indigenous.
None of the populations of North America, Australia or the British Isles are indigenous by any neutral definition of the term. Populations have migrated and settled these regions over thousands of years.
You are a native of a nation if you are born within its borders. It is that simple.
Can you clarify why? I believe native anything is a flawed concept since a human, let alone an entire ethnicity, does not grow from the soil. Populations have moved, migrated and settled throughout our entire history.
It shouldn't even be a term, it sounds fake politically correct, as does "First Nations". It's "indigenous". They were here, someone else came ashore and the Comanche got horses and Winchesters.
Not like the Comanche and the Apache were besties, nor the Iroquois and Mohican. What about the Inuit? They are like Siberian expats, but still indigenous, but somehow not on the list? Just musing here.
Because DHH openly calls for murder of "immigrants" (read: non white people, even if they've been there for decades and been more productive members of society than DHH has ever been.), and it's not even a dogwhistle anymore.
>When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
(in addition, the concept of Native <any european country> is nonsensical. Europe is at the confluence of migrations and has been for millenia. Attributing "whiteness" as a distinctive attribute of europeans is at best ignorant, and at worst another racist rally point. Go tell the greeks they're white, see how they like it.)
Americans have a problem understanding this because race and racism is so embedded in their culture. I just been reading and hearing about American *historians" who claim "Anglo-Saxon" is a racist term (in the context of discussing medieval history) because they anachronistically see it through the modern American lens of "whiteness" that is a result of American history and politics.
